# Here's How Arabs INTEROGATE People....



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1Cgf_h4yEY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1Cgf_h4yEY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]


----------



## MalibuMan (May 1, 2009)

I couldn't agree more.   Lets face it American are getting soft. Just look at our jail system. Shit a lot of inmates live better than some regular Americans. Air conditioning, cable TV, and 3 meals a day, I mean come on. Make the punishment harsh. People would be less likely to commit crimes in the first place.


----------



## Xenophon (May 1, 2009)

Life is a bowl of cherries in Allahland.


----------



## Iriemon (May 1, 2009)

Let's be more like them!

That'll show that world how superior American values are.


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Life is a bowl of cherries in Allahland.



They rub sand up your nose, in your mouth and eyes, then shoot at you, they drive a TRUCK over your legs breaking them, then wipe your listless, broken body, and the DUMB ASS liberals in this country are worried that we sprinkle a little water in their face? What an absolute joke.


----------



## sealybobo (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....
> 
> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1Cgf_h4yEY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1Cgf_h4yEY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



Clearly you are no better than they are.

And clearly you don't know the damage torture does. 

Its wrong.  We are a nation of laws. 

But please continue defending the indefensable.  Its winning you all kinds of elections.

I thank God America said no to the right wing way of leading this nation.


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

Librals are unimpressed You are talking to people who vote to suck babies brains out and then refuse them medical care should they somehow survive the first atrocity.. They *DO NOT* Waterboard Terrorists. Goddamn son how can you be so ignorant??


----------



## sealybobo (May 1, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Librals are unimpressed You are talking to people who vote to suck babies brains out and then refuse them medical care should they somehow survive the first atrocity.. They *DO NOT* Waterboard Terrorists. Goddamn son how can you be so ignorant??



And you care so much about an American fetus but will wipe your ass with an arab baby, who's only crime is to not be born here in America.  

Here is what one of your conservative talk show hosts said.  From Michael Reagan's own mouth:

Reagans macabre obsession with violent murder was no more evident than in an August 2006 radio segment when he encouraged Arab babies in the Middle East be blown up by shoving "a grenade up their butts," while also stating that "therell be peace when everybody in the Middle East is dead."

And do you care Wiwwow if those fetus' are liberal?  Or do you just care about conservative life?  Michael Reagan only seems to care about conservative life.

Radio talk show host Michael Reagans weak, perfunctory and disingenuous "apology" to Mark Dice for encouraging the activist be murdered for sending 9/11 truth material to U.S. troops only further necessitates the case for legal action to be taken in order to end the spiraling cycle of Neo-Con intimidation and smear.

Lets be honest Wiwwow,  you don't care about any life other than your own.


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....
> ...



Clearly you entirely miss the point.

Clearly you miss the point because it clearly points out your liberal hypocrisy.

Clearly you're incapable of responding without spinning and redirecting.

You're a partisan hack and a troll.


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Librals are unimpressed You are talking to people who vote to suck babies brains out and then refuse them medical care should they somehow survive the first atrocity.. They *DO NOT* Waterboard Terrorists. Goddamn son how can you be so ignorant??
> ...



*you will never be anything but a pig bobo  *


----------



## GHook93 (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Let's be more like them!
> 
> That'll show that world how superior American values are.



Always the liberal response! Let's not be like them! No shit, but that doesn't mean we need to tie our hands behind our backs either


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....
> 
> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1Cgf_h4yEY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1Cgf_h4yEY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



Good job.  As a result of Democrat Church and Pike Committees, and the Democrat Torricelli Amendment, and Democrat cuts in intell funding, the hands of our intell community are tied.

The upshot is that most of our intell comes from foreign intelligence. 

"Another concern that arises from the call for a truth commission is the impact a commission investigation could have on the liaison services that have helped the United States in its counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. Countries that hosted CIA detention facilities or were involved in the rendition or interrogation of terrorist suspects may find themselves exposed publicly or even held up for some sort of sanction by the U.S. Congress. Such activities could have a real impact on the amount of cooperation and information the CIA receives from these intelligence services. "
(Stratfor.com)


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Let's be more like them!
> 
> That'll show that world how superior American values are.



That's not even funny as a joke.

But instead of spouting more inane jokes, explain why liberals are so worried about America pouring a little water in somebody's face, but not this. Why is that? Does their HATE and CONTEMPT for America really run that deep? Why do want to live here?


----------



## sealybobo (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure my reply was right on the money.  Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean the point wasn't made.  

What point were you trying to make that I missed?  You're suggesting that there are evil people in the world and so us liberals don't get it that we have to sink to their level if we are ever to defeat them.  Isn't that about right?  You want us to be able to torture because our enemies will torture us.  Right?

I get it.  I just disagree.  The Brits were tortured by the Germans in WW2, yet Churchill didn't torture German prisoners.

We are better than that.  You, Bush and Wiwwow might not be better than that, but thats why we voted your party/kind out of office.

I was in Atlanta during 9-11.  What a fucking joke.  The idea that we would let red necks lead this nation is amazing to me.  They are not the brightest people in our country.  You should have heard them.  Let's nuke me, turn Afganistan into a parking lot.  

All your ideas are mob mentality type ideas.  You are not only stupid but immoral.  I care more about Iraqi innocent civilians than I do your kind. 

Just like you probably think we'd be better off without arabs, I think we'd be better off without ppl like you.


----------



## Iriemon (May 1, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be more like them!
> ...



That is the response to always the conservative argument that "they're bad guys, so we can be bad guys too!"

Somehow we've managed to muddle thru so far without adopting the tactics of the IJA, Gestapo, and Khmer Rouge.


----------



## xsited1 (May 1, 2009)

CRAP!  Obama has a lot of Arab in him!  He's like an Arab-American (or Kenyan or Indonesian or whatever)!!!!

50% white (mother was 100%)
44% arab (father was 88%)
6% black (father was 12%)


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be more like them!
> ...




we should be so lucky if all the rest of the world ONLY did waterboarding..


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Either Orwell, or Churchill said this:
"We sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf. "


----------



## Jon (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I care more about Iraqi innocent civilians than I do your kind.



That's no surprise. You don't care about people with differing opinions from your own. Why don't you state the obvious, jackass?


----------



## Newby (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Let's be more like them!
> 
> That'll show that world how superior American values are.



Their reputation doesn't really seem to be hurting too much does it?  They don't give a damn about what anyone else has to say about them, and they have a whole host of people defending them, go figure.

Why your argument fails is because there is no moral equivalence between their behavior and ours.  That's what the left argument always attempts to do, draw a moral equivalence, but there just isn't one there.


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


See... I KNEW you missed the point. That's why I'll never be able to understand either why or how you liberals think the way you do.

No, the POINT is, you liberals are all acting enraged at America because we poured a little water in a terrorists face. You just can't seem to find enough things to trash talk America for. But yet the very same terrorists use EXTREME torture on ANYONE, and not a single PEEP of outrage from you liberals. You're hypocrites number one, number two, all this fake outrage is nothing more than MARCHING ORDERS for you moon bats from the likes of pelosi to act all mad because of your irrational HATE for George Bush. There are NO LENGTHS for which you won't go to see him hang.

I know EXACTLY what you people are up to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what you people are doing.


----------



## Newby (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



It doesn't have anything to do with rationalizing being the 'bad guy', it has to do with saving lives.  If they weren't intent on murdering innocent people to begin with, then we wouldn't have this problem to address to begin with would we?  Again, there is no moral equivalence.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Librals are unimpressed You are talking to people who vote to suck babies brains out and then refuse them medical care should they somehow survive the first atrocity.. They *DO NOT* Waterboard Terrorists. Goddamn son how can you be so ignorant??
> ...



See Sealy, this is where people like you lose the argument.  Anyone who supports right to life, and is against abortion, supports the life of all of the unborn, regardless who they may be.  It is a known fact that abortion has helped reduce crime as many abortions involve those of little means to support a child in the first place.  So logically, you would think conservative self-centered pricks, as right to lifers are known to be, would want as many of those welfare babies killed off as possible.

But alas, that is not the case, and you trying to paint right to lifers and conservatives as you do, fails ever so miserably.


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...











Get a Fucking clue BObo




> Detainees thought likely to have important information were physically weakened through sleep deprivation and a bread and water diet.
> 
> George Cunningham was Labour MP for Islington South in 1972
> Mr Cunningham expressed his concerns to the PM
> ...






BBC NEWS | UK | Heath quizzed over IRA treatment


----------



## sealybobo (May 1, 2009)

jsanders said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I care more about Iraqi innocent civilians than I do your kind.
> ...



I don't care about different opinions.  I care about evil.  If we were in viet nam and you were raping and murdering civilians, I would tell on you, and you would put a bullet in the back of my head for being a "rat".

That is the mentality of you red neck bible thumping patriots.  You get mad at the squeeler and not the murderous rapist.  As long as he's on your side, you're cool with whatever he does.  Sick!!!


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...






You sir, are using logic,, now this is not allowed when addressing librals..


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Well, as usual, you've denigrated your responses right down to pure bull shit.

Not surprising. You were completely incapable of defending against my point.

You're dismissed.


----------



## sealybobo (May 1, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...




What?  You seem to agree and disagree with me all in one post.  I'm lost.  

Yes, they defend all the unborn, but fuck the living.

And I totally have had that argument with Willow.  I hope she sees that you wrote "It is a known fact that abortion has helped reduce crime as many abortions involve those of little means to support a child in the first place."

I have been saying that for years!!! 

But no.  They don't want the welfare babies aborted.  Yes, I have tried to make that case that abortion leads to less welfare.  They don't buy it.  I know it is common sense, but they want proof and there is no study that PROVES that.


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...






The person who admitted to war crimes in Vietnam was John Fucking Kerry.. and I bet you voted for him didn'tya?


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

This thread IS NOT about abortion. You want to debate abortion, please use a different thread.

Please don't hijack this thread for that. There are plenty of other threads where you can go to hash out abortion.

This thread is about the hypocrisy of the left over torture.


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME! 

WHAT A PATHETIC, PIECE OF SHIT, LOSER!!!


----------



## Iriemon (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> 
> WHAT A PATHETIC, PIECE OF SHIT, LOSER!!!



Neg repping someone just because you disagree with their argument is lame, I agree.  Though I get that frequently from folks like DiveCon and Willow.


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> ...



The only people I've neg repped in recent history are the ones that neg repped me first, and those people were invariably the liberals.

I think it's an admission that you've LOST an argument when you resort to neg repping someone.

But you didn't have to bobo, I knew you'd lost the debate anyway....


----------



## sealybobo (May 1, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jsanders said:
> ...



He admitted war crimes were committed.  He didn't say he did them himself.


----------



## k2skier (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....
> 
> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1Cgf_h4yEY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1Cgf_h4yEY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



Lowering our standards to the same level as the scumbag terrorists will only prove we have no morals or ethics either.


----------



## sealybobo (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> 
> WHAT A PATHETIC, PIECE OF SHIT, LOSER!!!



I negative repped this comment:

"Well, as usual, you've denigrated your responses right down to pure bull shit.

Not surprising. You were completely incapable of defending against my point.

You're dismissed."

So clearly there is nothing else to say to you, so I neg repped you.  Why else are the neg reps here if not for this purpose?

And I have never complained publicly about being negative repped, PUSSY!!!


----------



## sealybobo (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be more like them!
> ...



I don't think Iriemon is really joking so much as demonstrating the hypocrisy of believing we have the righteous authority to waterboard people because the enemy will torture us worse or murder us.  And it isn't only liberals who are against waterboarding people, just ask Catzmeow, Crimson White, and many many others who fall more to the right on the political spectrum.

Secondly, abortion and torture are unrelated when viewed from the perspective of those who believe in a woman's right to choose: torture involves people, abortions involve unborn fetuses which are not yet people.  So don't think that pro-choice people have given up the moral high ground because we think it should be legal for women to get abortions.  The word is _legal_, not encouraged.  We don't WANT women to get abortions, we just think they should have the choice.

How can _you_ value life and still think its good to torture people?  How can you _value human rights_ and think its good to torture people?

This is why I am concerned about waterboarding _suspected_ terrorists or anyone for that matter:

1.  Habeus corpus.  They haven't been convicted and so therefore are considered innocent until proven guilty.  To torture them for information goes against the American principle of upholding human rights: habeus corpus.

2.  American principle of upholding human rights.  To torture people at all, to dehumanize them, is against the American principle of upholding human rights.

3.  For the US to fear terrorist attacks so much to resort to the very practices it abhors in the extremist groups that it has fought in the past i.e. Hitler, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, etc. is hypocritical.

4.  For the US to fear terrorist attacks so much as to compromise its own principles is a de facto victory for the terrorists who wish to manipulate the US through fear.

5.  Its against the law signed by Ronald Reagan himself.

7.  Its against the Geneva Convention, a member of which the US is.

8.  The North Vietnamese, Russia, and other totalitarian regimes used to torture people to force them to sign false confessions, and it worked - just ask John McCain who broke under torture.  Therefore, information obtained through torture is not credible.

9.  In the US Armed Services we are trained, when taking POWs (aka _enemy combatants_), not to kill, mistreat, or torture them, not because we're so nice and kind caring soldiers, but because to torture them: 
  a. Provides the enemy with a will to fight because they feel justified in fighting against those who torture or kill POWs, they would rather die than be taken prisoner, and they would be angry at the US for torturing POWs, and,
  b.  information gained through torture is not credible.

10.  Where do we draw the line between torture and "enhanced interrogation practices"?

11.  Where do we draw the line between suspects and convicts if we can torture suspects for information, especially without a lawyer present to represent the suspect and supervise the interrogation?

12.  My father was waterboarded as part of his training during the Vietnam war.  He's told me it was one of the worst experiences of his life.  You feel as though you are going to drown.  And that was just training.  He knew he could quit.  Those that the US was waterboarding have little hope of release, can't quit whever they want, and don't really know if they will be killed or not.  _And_ they might not even be guilty.

I am *not* defending terrorism or terrorists.  If these people plotted or committed acts of terrorism or tortured people, they should spend the rest of their lives locked away or tracked down and killed if they won't surrender.  Fuck'em.  

But I do and did defend the US.  I served four years in the Marine Corps.  I swore, and potentially risked my life, to defend the Constitution against *all* enemies foreign _and domestic_.  If US citizens torture people, using "enhanced interrogation practices" which is just a euphemism for torture, then they are enemies to the Consitution of the US.  They are enemies to the American way of life and the principles upon which this country was founded.  This nation does NOT compromise its principles out of fear!

It has nothing to do with hatred or contempt of the US, but rather, a love of the principles upon which this nation was founded, the very foundation upon which our way of life rests.  It doesn't matter if torture saves lives.  Did those men who died fighting for and protecting the US die for nothing?  Did they die fighting Hitler or Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden only so that the very country and freedom and human rights for which they fought would be compromised by fear of terrorism?  And the evil against which they fought should become practiced in the very nation for which they died?  Or did they die to ensure that torture was used on people; to ensure that everyone was innocent until proven guilty; to ensure that the US wouldn't compromise its principles out of fear?

To waterboard people makes us no better than Hitler, or the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein.

That's why I, as a liberal American and a former Marine, think that waterboarding is torture and therfore impractical, immoral, unethical, and un-American (to use a term coined by the Right).


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 1, 2009)

k2skier said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....
> ...



Are you saying IF we are "Lowering our standards to the same level as the... terrorists "?  

Here is a NYTimes article that makes pretty clear how far the government went to insure against serious injury:

NYTimes outline of torture techniques
Interrogation Techniques - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Let's keep track of the apples as opposed to the oranges.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


----------



## Valerie (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be more like them!
> ...





> Speaking in Iowa on Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who 40 years ago today was shot down, captured, and tortured by the North Vietnamese, took issue with Giuliani and Mukasey. McCain denounced waterboarding as clear-cut torture:
> 
> "Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak," said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here.
> 
> ...



Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Xenophon (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Clearly you are no better than they are.
> 
> And clearly you don't know the damage torture does.
> 
> ...


It's pretty clear you can't tell the difference between what is torture and what isn't.

What will you say when thousands die due to the treating of terrorism as a police matter mentality the left is returning to happens?

Knowing you, you will answer my post with some drviel about spreading fear, as the reality of what I write is too horrible for you to face.


----------



## Gunny (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Let's be more like them!
> 
> That'll show that world how superior American values are.



Give it rest.  The world doesn't think we're superior, because we aren't.  But here's some simple strategy for you:

When waging war, use your enemy's weaknesses against them.  The people yucking it up the most over this pantywaist shit about waterboarding are the terrorists themselves.  You lefties won't hold THEM accountable for what they do -- we can't even detain them without the wailing and gnashing of teeth -- but you want to hold our military to a standard Christ would envy.  Yet when YOUR morals or lack thereof are questioned suddenly we're "the extremist religious right" -- whoever-the-fuck THAT is.

"So, in the Libyan fable it is told That once an eagle, stricken with a dart, Said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft, "With our own feathers, not by others' hand Are we now smitten."
Aeschylus


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 1, 2009)

Valerie said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



"Eric Holder (Barack Obama's choice for Attorney General), on the question of whether unlawful combatants captured in the war on terror are entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. From an interview on CNN, January 2002:

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."
attorney general eric holder&#039;s opinion about terrorists&#039; status and Geneva Convention :: WRAL.com


----------



## Xenophon (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I get it.  I just disagree.  The Brits were tortured by the Germans in WW2, yet Churchill didn't torture German prisoners.


No you don't actually, Britian's Special Operations Executive (SOE for short) routinely torured, interogated and executed captured Germans as needed, all with Winston's ok.


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> ...



How many times have I neg repped you ire??? don't lie now explain frequently whydonchya?


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



he sure as hell did,, he said he participated,,


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

k2skier said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....
> ...



that's because you don't you don't have to prove it,, neither does the obamalama.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 1, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be more like them!
> ...



"When waging war, use your enemy's weaknesses against them."

Exactly. The techniques were designed to allow the jihadies to give it up, as they believe that once they have held out long enough, Allah accepts them giving info.

"Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship."
washingtonpost.com


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I get it.  I just disagree.  The Brits were tortured by the Germans in WW2, yet Churchill didn't torture German prisoners.
> ...





not only that but I posted a link for him showing what they did to the IRA,, do you think he bothered to read it? who knows?


----------



## 007 (May 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> ...



I called it like it was, you lost, so you neg repped me.

Now you can spin it however you want, but the fact remains you lost and that pissed you off, so all you could do was talk shit and start negging. 

Sweet, I win, you lose. Anybody can see it. And I don't give damn about the rep. You cut your own throat moron. I negged you back DOUBLE what you negged me. NICE MOVE IDIOT...


----------



## Iriemon (May 1, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> 
> WHAT A PATHETIC, PIECE OF SHIT, LOSER!!!



DiveCon says you're a pussy.  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1191582-post100.html


----------



## garyd (May 1, 2009)

Okay Sorry we have not nor will we stoop top their level.  We stop well short of gross physical abuse they don't.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> ...


except i dont neg rep you JUST because i disagree with you
i do it when you prove you are too fucking ignorant for words


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> ...


no, i said YOU were a pussy


----------



## AllieBaba (May 1, 2009)

I find it perplexing that we are so quick to condemn Israel and the US for questionable..not even over-the-top....activities, but nobody ever gets all worked up over the way the Arab world treats prisoners, women and abductees.


----------



## Iriemon (May 1, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Willow's right, he has not negged me recently if at all.  I retract as to Willow and apologize.


----------



## WillowTree (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...






Thank You!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 1, 2009)

Ah yes. The chorus of the Conservatives that love torture. What a bunch of Jesus loving Christians. Would Christ have prefered to waterboard, or just go directly to slamming their faces into walls? 

You people are amazing in your lack of morality and common sense. But that is all right. 60 Dem Senators now, 70+ after 2010. Just keep thinking and talking like whacked out bozos.


----------



## JohnStOnge (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Let's be more like them!



That is not the point. The point is that, apparently, a large proportion of people in this country need a reality check with respect to what "torture" is.


----------



## JohnStOnge (May 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes. The chorus of the Conservatives that love torture. What a bunch of Jesus loving Christians. Would Christ have prefered to waterboard, or just go directly to slamming their faces into walls?
> 
> You people are amazing in your lack of morality and common sense. But that is all right. 60 Dem Senators now, 70+ after 2010. Just keep thinking and talking like whacked out bozos.



Case in point.


----------



## Immanuel (May 1, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I find it perplexing that we are so quick to condemn Israel and the US for questionable..not even over-the-top....activities, but nobody ever gets all worked up over the way the Arab world treats prisoners, women and abductees.



I'd have to disagree with you.  It is not that we don't care or get worked up over the way they behave, they just don't care, won't listen and most of them don't speak our language anyway, so why bother?

As for the point of discussion, I think I have already made my point of view known on this subject.  I am a conservative AND I oppose torturing the enemy for several reasons.

I respect the views of those that disagree with me, but I simply am of the belief that we lose when we stoop to their level.  When we give up our principles, we lose.

I don't want to see another 9/11 in my lifetime, but I sure as hell do not want to live like those bastards in the Middle East!

Immie


----------



## sarahgop (May 1, 2009)

that was brutal


----------



## AllieBaba (May 1, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I find it perplexing that we are so quick to condemn Israel and the US for questionable..not even over-the-top....activities, but nobody ever gets all worked up over the way the Arab world treats prisoners, women and abductees.
> ...



I'm referring to the world community. 

You hear a lot more about the barbarity of Americans because of flipping Gitma than we ever hear about the disgusting behavior of the animals who torture, decapitate and kill children INTENTIONALLY.

Sorry, I don't think they compare.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 1, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm referring to the world community.
> 
> You hear a lot more about the barbarity of Americans because of flipping Gitma than we ever hear about the disgusting behavior of the animals who torture, decapitate and kill children INTENTIONALLY.
> 
> Sorry, I don't think they compare.



The reasons why you think the US gets the shit-end of the stick on this issue are:

1. You're an American.

2. The US touts itself as a beacon of morality.

3.  We are world leader and are expected to be an example for the civilized world to emulate.

4. The extremist terrorists aren't expected to behave civilly or reasonably.


----------



## Immanuel (May 1, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm referring to the world community.
> 
> You hear a lot more about the barbarity of Americans because of flipping Gitma than we ever hear about the disgusting behavior of the animals who torture, decapitate and kill children INTENTIONALLY.
> 
> Sorry, I don't think they compare.



No, there, I completely agree with you.  They do not compare.  However, I don't believe you can justify one wrong, simply by pointing out that someone else is even more wrong.  

I tried it with a cop that pulled me over for speeding once.  I was doing 72 in a 55 mph zone and even at that speed others regularly passed me like I was standing still, a point which I did my damnedest to clue him in on.  In fact, I pulled over so quickly when his lights went on (he had been coming from the other direction and flipped a U-turn) because I was certain he was going to pull over the guy that had just flown past me.  Guess what?  I still got the ticket.  The cop had the nerve to tell me that it was for that reason that he was out there.  He told me he patrolled that highway all the time.  Funny thing is that I had never noticed him before and have not since and it was seven years ago.

Immie


----------



## WillowTree (May 2, 2009)

A VIDEOTAPE showing a member of the United Arab Emirates royal family torturing a man is jeopardising a multi-billion-dollar nuclear power deal between the US and the Gulf kingdom.

The 45-minute tape shows a man the Government of Abu Dhabi has acknowledged is Sheik Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan - one of 22 royal brothers of the UAE President and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince - mercilessly and repeatedly beating a man with a cattle prod and a nailed board, burning his genitals and driving his Mercedes over him several times. He is assisted in the torture by a uniformed policeman.

The fallout from the film - smuggled out of the UAE by a former business associate of the sheik - has reached all the way to the Oval Office, where the civilian nuclear deal, awaiting the signature of US President Barack Obama, remains unsigned. A senior US official has said the administration is holding off certifying the treaty as a direct result of the film.

The deal was sealed on January 15 during George W.Bush's last week as US president, but needs to be recertified by the new administration. Under its terms, the US agrees to provide technology and equipment to help the UAE to develop civilian nuclear power plants. In return, the UAE pledges to abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and not to reprocess its spent nuclear fuel. 








Torture by royal threatens to derail UAE nuke deal | The Australian








*will be interesting to see if the obamalama puts his money where his mouth is.*


----------



## garyd (May 2, 2009)

And I don't don't think watebaording is torture. I think a failure to end a war as quickly as possible by any means necessary is immoral simply because war by it's very nature is immoral. And proloinguing it over imagined quibbles such as waterboarding enemy spies and saboteurs  is the ultimate immorality.


----------



## Missourian (May 2, 2009)

[youtube]5YGWjxzMka4[/youtube]​


----------



## tigerbob (May 2, 2009)

What's more important, retaining the UAE as an 'ally' in a troublesome part of the world, or embarrassing them on this particular point of principle?

Remember, if you take a stand on a point of principle, you should stick to it, irrespective of who it is that you take that stand against.  The UAE today, who tomorrow?  Russia?  China?

Or do you try to find a "middle path"?


----------



## Sinatra (May 2, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I'm referring to the world community.
> ...




NO - his point is they don't compare.

AND THEY DON'T.


----------



## Amanda (May 2, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> What's more important, retaining the UAE as an 'ally' in a troublesome part of the world, or embarrassing them on this particular point of principle?
> 
> Remember, if you take a stand on a point of principle, you should stick to it, irrespective of who it is that you take that stand against.  The UAE today, who tomorrow?  Russia?  China?
> 
> Or do you try to find a "middle path"?



This will be an interesting thread to watch. 

So many here have called waterboarding torture, but from the sound of that video it beats waterboarding by a long way. I wonder how those that condemn the US for waterboarding will react to this story. A "middle path" sounds like it involves compromising a principle, but I've heard some pretty hard line voices on this subject. I can't wait to see the response.


----------



## WillowTree (May 2, 2009)

I can tell you how they will react to it. They will ignore it.


----------



## Sinatra (May 2, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I can tell you how they will react to it. They will ignore it.




Agreed.


----------



## Burp (May 2, 2009)

They are just trying to figure out how to spin it so to blame Bush. 

The agreement was made in the last week of Bush's presidency.  They'll say it's his agreement, the torture happened on his watch, and even though the tape is just coming out now, it will still be Bush's fault.


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2009)

is it shocking to anyone that arabic/mulsim countries are brutal?


----------



## WillowTree (May 2, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> is it shocking to anyone that arabic/mulsim countries are brutal?






I think so DiveCon,, that's why the waterboarding happened.. course no one dies when they are waterboarded.. they just fear death! it's not as if we asked them to set themsevles on fire and jump 110 stories!


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 2, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> is it shocking to anyone that arabic/mulsim countries are brutal?



gotta remember Dive...to some......ONLY,the US does this kind of thing....we do,but boy it sure seems like the other brand is a lot more sadistic,but i guess thats ok to the same people.....US do it ...BAD....other guys....we understand.....they are just primitives....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 2, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > is it shocking to anyone that arabic/mulsim countries are brutal?
> ...



So, you are a total fucking idiot. Now that you have established that, what do you think should be done.

Me. Do not sign the agreement.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 2, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I thank God America said no to the right wing way of leading this nation.



yea so now we gotta do the same thing to the left wing in the coming elections....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 2, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!
> 
> WHAT A PATHETIC, PIECE OF SHIT, LOSER!!!



NO BOBO.....say it aint true....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 2, 2009)

garyd said:


> And I don't don't think watebaording is torture. I think a failure to end a war as quickly as possible by any means necessary is immoral simply because war by it's very nature is immoral. And proloinguing it over imagined quibbles such as waterboarding enemy spies and saboteurs  is the ultimate immorality.



What you think, and what reality is, are too differant things.
US executed Japanese for waterboarding « melange

Sen. McCain was right and the National Review Online is wrong. Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times&#8217; truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain&#8217;s statement and found it to be true. Here&#8217;s the money quote from Politifact:
&#8220;McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as &#8216;water cure,&#8217; &#8216;water torture&#8217; and &#8216;waterboarding,&#8217; according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.&#8221; Politifact went on to report, &#8220;A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.&#8221;


----------



## DavidS (May 2, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Let's be more like them!
> 
> That'll show that world how superior American values are.



Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (May 2, 2009)

Water boarding beats 9/11, hands down. Is that what some of you think?  Anyone care to debate the details? I bet some you wussies would. In the cold comfort of your nice warm insular homes, you would debate the devil himself if you never had to face him. Come on now, that is what this is all about, isn't it? Most of you never have to deal with the Devil. And the Devil IS in the details. Water boarding is such a weak issue. Think about it. Ever crashed a plane into a building? NO ? Ever been waterboarded? No? Perhaps if the  9/11 guys had just water boarded instead of ignored,  we might ALL be alive and better off? Perspective is important. Not this one sided blame game.


----------



## DavidS (May 2, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Water boarding beats 9/11, hands down. Is that what some of you think?  Anyone care to debate the details? I bet some you wussies would. In the cold comfort of your nice warm insular homes, you would debate the devil himself if you never had to face him. Come on now, that is what this is all about, isn't it? Most of you never have to deal with the Devil. And the Devil IS in the details. Water boarding is such a weak issue. Think about it. Ever crashed a plane into a building? NO ? Ever been waterboarded? No? Perhaps if the  9/11 guys had just water boarded instead of ignored,  we might ALL be alive and better off? Perspective is important. Not this one sided blame game.



Dear sir:

Waterboarding is torture.

Torture is illegal. 

No one is above the law.


----------



## Iriemon (May 2, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Water boarding beats 9/11, hands down. Is that what some of you think?  Anyone care to debate the details? I bet some you wussies would. In the cold comfort of your nice warm insular homes, you would debate the devil himself if you never had to face him. Come on now, that is what this is all about, isn't it? Most of you never have to deal with the Devil. And the Devil IS in the details. Water boarding is such a weak issue. Think about it. Ever crashed a plane into a building? NO ? Ever been waterboarded? No? Perhaps if the  9/11 guys had just water boarded instead of ignored,  we might ALL be alive and better off? Perspective is important. Not this one sided blame game.



Well I never thought of that.  OK.  You convinced me.


----------



## Yurt (May 2, 2009)

DavidS said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Water boarding beats 9/11, hands down. Is that what some of you think?  Anyone care to debate the details? I bet some you wussies would. In the cold comfort of your nice warm insular homes, you would debate the devil himself if you never had to face him. Come on now, that is what this is all about, isn't it? Most of you never have to deal with the Devil. And the Devil IS in the details. Water boarding is such a weak issue. Think about it. Ever crashed a plane into a building? NO ? Ever been waterboarded? No? Perhaps if the  9/11 guys had just water boarded instead of ignored,  we might ALL be alive and better off? Perspective is important. Not this one sided blame game.
> ...



please cite the law that says waterboarding is torture


----------



## CrimsonWhite (May 2, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Yep. Your welcome. Yet I am still against the use of torture techniques and your quotes means jack shit here, because Churchill also said "We don't torture."


----------



## Kalam (May 2, 2009)

You're one dumb motherfucker, Pole Rider. The acts of torture carried out in this case were _extralegal._



> _Abu Dhabi said on Wednesday it would *investigate allegations that a senior member of the ruling family tortured an Afghan citizen.*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Bullshit? Most likely, but the difference is that the abuses at Gitmo were carried out by our own government.


----------



## B94 (May 2, 2009)

> A VIDEOTAPE showing a member of the United Arab Emirates royal family torturing a man is jeopardising a multi-billion-dollar nuclear power deal between the US and the Gulf kingdom.
> 
> The 45-minute tape shows a man the Government of Abu Dhabi has acknowledged is Sheik Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan - one of 22 royal brothers of the UAE President and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince - mercilessly and repeatedly beating a man with a cattle prod and a nailed board, burning his genitals and driving his Mercedes over him several times. He is assisted in the torture by a uniformed policeman.




Come on thats not torture just a little enhanced interrogation.


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2009)

B94 said:


> > A VIDEOTAPE showing a member of the United Arab Emirates royal family torturing a man is jeopardising a multi-billion-dollar nuclear power deal between the US and the Gulf kingdom.
> >
> > The 45-minute tape shows a man the Government of Abu Dhabi has acknowledged is Sheik Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan - one of 22 royal brothers of the UAE President and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince - mercilessly and repeatedly beating a man with a cattle prod and a nailed board, burning his genitals and driving his Mercedes over him several times. He is assisted in the torture by a uniformed policeman.
> 
> ...


as if the two were even in the same neighborhood

thats just fucking pathetic


----------



## B94 (May 2, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....



I think you are correct. Our enhanced interrogation methods are better than those animals enhanced interrogation methods.


----------



## DavidS (May 2, 2009)

Yurt said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> ...



The President of the United States on Wednesday said that waterboarding is torture. And torture is illegal. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMiEJofOu-Q[/ame]


----------



## B94 (May 2, 2009)

DiveCon, 
You are a moron.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (May 2, 2009)

*Threads merged.*


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

B94 said:


> DiveCon,
> You are a moron.


no, that would be you


----------



## CrimsonWhite (May 3, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



Just because the President said it, doesn't it so. His statements have no legal bearing. Also, he is only partially correct.


----------



## Ame®icano (May 3, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I'm pretty sure my reply was right on the money.  Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean the point wasn't made.
> 
> What point were you trying to make that I missed?  You're suggesting that there are evil people in the world and so us liberals don't get it that we have to sink to their level if we are ever to defeat them.  Isn't that about right?  You want us to be able to torture because our enemies will torture us.  Right?
> 
> ...



I highlighted part that is not truth.

Follow the LINK to see why. Or simply search for it yourself.


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

Ame®icano;1193259 said:
			
		

> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure my reply was right on the money.  Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean the point wasn't made.
> ...


OUCH, thats gonna hurt a lot of libs


----------



## Article 15 (May 3, 2009)

Ok ... the UAE and other Arab nations tortures people.  The methods they use are primitive and brutal.  We already know this.  I am vehemently against these methods and what they do to people.   I don't have the right to vote in their elections (if they even have them) nor do I have a voice in their government or a way to change their policy because I am not a citizen there.  

I am, however, a citizen of the United States of America.  I have the right to vote here therefor our policies matter a helluva lot more to than any other country's policies.  My vote and expressed opinion work to effect policy here and I am going to be considerably more vocal about my disagreement with our own country's torture policy than I am any others.  There is no hypocrisy there.  That's just how it is.

I hope this clears some things up for you guys.


----------



## garyd (May 3, 2009)

Again Bobo you clown they were executed for a lot of other stuff, not just waterboarding. Get your head out of your ass and knock of the disengenuous bullshit. And let's not forget they waterboarded POW's the ass hats here were spies and saboteurs which Geneva doesn't cover. Your buddy Eric Holder agrees.


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Ok ... the UAE and other Arab nations tortures people. The methods they use are primitive and brutal. We already know this. I am vehemently against these methods and what they do to people. I don't have the right to vote in their elections (if they even have them) nor do I have a voice in their government or a way to change their policy because I am not a citizen there.
> 
> I am, however, a citizen of the United States of America. I have the right to vote here therefor our policies matter a helluva lot more to than any other country's policies. My vote and expressed opinion work to effect policy here and I am going to be considerably more vocal about my disagreement with our own country's torture policy than I am any others. There is no hypocrisy there. That's just how it is.
> 
> I hope this clears some things up for you guys.


art, what you see in this video is CLEARLY torture
what we did isnt
hell, you likely had a rougher time in basic than what those guys got


----------



## CrimsonWhite (May 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok ... the UAE and other Arab nations tortures people. The methods they use are primitive and brutal. We already know this. I am vehemently against these methods and what they do to people. I don't have the right to vote in their elections (if they even have them) nor do I have a voice in their government or a way to change their policy because I am not a citizen there.
> ...



Except that it is. A federal court in Texas set the precedent of torture being illegal. With waterboarding used as evidence the case clearly defines waterboarding as torture. In the US, legally, waterboarding is torture.


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

CrimsonWhite said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


i think if you look into that case, there was more to it than just that


----------



## Article 15 (May 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok ... the UAE and other Arab nations tortures people. The methods they use are primitive and brutal. We already know this. I am vehemently against these methods and what they do to people. I don't have the right to vote in their elections (if they even have them) nor do I have a voice in their government or a way to change their policy because I am not a citizen there.
> ...



Yep what they are doing in that video is torture.  What they are doing in videos I have seen of waterboarding is also torture. 

BMT was a cakewalk.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (May 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I have looked into it. I have a copy of the case file in my brief case along with the Appelate decision upholding the conviction. There is always alot more to cases. That doesn't change the fact that the case clearly defines waterboarding as torture.


----------



## B94 (May 3, 2009)

CrimsonWhite said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CrimsonWhite said:
> ...



DiveCon you just don't get it do you. You really are a MORON.


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

B94 said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


i get it a whole lot more than you could you fucking moron


----------



## garyd (May 3, 2009)

did that case or did it not involve an American citizen, B94. (and all this time I thought B75 was the highest possible number.)


----------



## WillowTree (May 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...






Do you think the obamalama will or will not sign?


----------



## WillowTree (May 3, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Ok ... the UAE and other Arab nations tortures people.  The methods they use are primitive and brutal.  We already know this.  I am vehemently against these methods and what they do to people.   I don't have the right to vote in their elections (if they even have them) nor do I have a voice in their government or a way to change their policy because I am not a citizen there.
> 
> I am, however, a citizen of the United States of America.  I have the right to vote here therefor our policies matter a helluva lot more to than any other country's policies.  My vote and expressed opinion work to effect policy here and I am going to be considerably more vocal about my disagreement with our own country's torture policy than I am any others.  There is no hypocrisy there.  That's just how it is.
> 
> I hope this clears some things up for you guys.









You didn't go far enough.. Do you support retroactive retribution to those who see it differently?


----------



## WillowTree (May 3, 2009)

Kalam said:


> You're one dumb motherfucker, Pole Rider. The acts of torture carried out in this case were _extralegal._
> 
> 
> 
> ...






what abuses at Gitmo?


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



He will.  He will say that since it happened so long ago, and since he has the UAE's word that this person will be prosecuted, blah blah blah.

He doesn't want to alienate his new friends (foreign governments) and doesn't want to come off too strong condemning other governments and countries. 

He'll leave all that for his own country and previous administration.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....




Pathetic. 

If your position is that at least our torture is not as bad, as what is done by dictators and terrorists, you've completely lost your moral bearings.   

No one has ever condoned torture by arab dictators.  Lefty groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch devote entire campaigns to oppossing torture in third world countries.  Can you name a rightwing group that is actively working to oppose torture in muslim dictatorships?  No, you can't.    You only bring it up to defend your hero Bush, and to distract from his misdeeds.   

Torture anywhere is offensive to any sane human being.  But torture, done in our name, with our tax dollars, is especially offensive to a sane and moral american citizen.  


When you can get over your knee jerk reaction for defending bush, and if you ever really get concerned about torture in arab countries, I can hook you up with some links for Amnesty International, a group I belong to. 

Thanks for you alleged concern about torture.


----------



## garyd (May 3, 2009)

We didn't torture anyone to my mind. If you aren't willing to splash a little water in the face of a known saboteur to find out and possibly prevent other attempts at sabotage on a grand scale you are an idiot with no moral sense at all.

You don't want to get your liliy white hands dirty fine, just stay the hell out of the way of the people who are trying to make it so you can and don't have to die in the process.


----------



## Zoom-boing (May 3, 2009)

[To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?


----------



## driveby (May 3, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Let's be more like them!
> 
> That'll show that world how superior American values are.



American values:

Don't crash passenger planes into civilian buildings located in the middle of crowded cities, check.

American values are just fine .........


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



same thing that they have been doing all along....Bushes people got careless and got caught....and it will be the same dam thing that will be going on with youre exalted leader in charge....what goes on behind the closed doors....anything they want....


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> [To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?



We all know who would and who wouldn't. 

To some, some extreme interrogation is well worth saving U.S. citizens lives. 

To others, it is better to let thousands of people die than to have them do something that isn't "acceptable." 

I have asked this to other people.  To those who disagree with torture, if a kidnapper buried your child - one hour of air left - would you do ANYTHING to the kidnapper to save your child? 

I got one honest answer before.  They said of course they would.  They wouldn't like it, but they would. 

How about the rest of you.  Kidnapper in a chair in front of you.  Your child will die in one hour.  How far will you go to get the info and save your child?


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > [To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?
> ...


i would do a hell of a lot more than just waterboard
anyone would


----------



## Immanuel (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > [To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?
> ...



I'm one of those who is opposed to the torture of detainees, but in this case, if a kidnapper took my child, buried him/her and left him/her with one hour of air, I'd cut his balls off and feed them to him in order to get the answer as to where my child is.

But in all sincerity, the hypothetical of your post is different than the very real issue of the detainees.  In the hypothetical, the kidnapper is in the act of committing a crime and lives are imminently at stake.  In the case of the detainees, they are not involved in an ongoing crime and lives are not imminently at stake here.  In fact, there is no proof that the detainees have any knowledge of impending strikes or that torturing the detainee will save one single life.  

Immie


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



We'll have to differ on that one.  The CIA said KSM had knowledge and wouldn't tell them until the enhanced interrogation.  This was the 9/11 attack in Los Angeles. 

Obama stated such also.


----------



## Immanuel (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



That is fine.  Even IF, and that is a big if, the CIA is being truthful, it does not justify torturing detainees simply because they might have information.

I realize that some people do not consider waterboarding to be torture.  I respect that opinion, but I disagree with them.

I realize that we could be a lot more violent.  We could even stoop to the levels of the terrorists and make detainees pray to be waterboarded instead of whatever else we could do to them, but that does not make it right.

If they get information from one detainee, would that justify torturing 1000 others who have no information? 10,000?  I do not deny that torture can be an effective way to get information.  But is it justified to torture innocent people on the hope of finding one person that is not so innocent?  

I don't want one more innocent American killed either.  But we need to face the fact that we are in a war and innocent lives are in danger.  Will torture save all of those lives?  No, probably not.  Some of them?  Maybe.  But, it is worth the soul of America?  Maybe it is.  Maybe we've already sold our soul and it doesn't matter.

Immie


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...




I can tell you don't watch Fox News!


----------



## Immanuel (May 3, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> I can tell you don't watch Fox News!



I used to, but, I got tired of being lied to.  Now, I can't watch any national news organizations, because you can't trust a one of them.  I must admit, it makes it hard to stick with the talking points bullshit at times.  Being a conservative, I sometimes sound like a lib, because I haven't kept up with FoxNew's lines lately.

I say what I believe (and believe me when I admit to not always being right) and sometimes find myself at odds with the conservative "lines" of the times.  Or maybe it is them that are out of step with me?

Immie


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > I can tell you don't watch Fox News!
> ...





well, you had some good points.  Real life isn't a hollywood movie or an episode of 24.   

And in my book, denying someone oxygen is torture.  I don't see anyway to deny that.


----------



## jillian (May 3, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> well, you had some good points.  Real life isn't a hollywood movie or an episode of 24.
> 
> And in my book, denying someone oxygen is torture.  I don't see anyway to deny that.



and i figure if we prosecuted the japanese for doing something, then it's a pretty good bet that WE shouldn't be doing it.

no matter WHAT right wing lunatic, xenophobic freakazoids say.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

jillian said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > well, you had some good points.  Real life isn't a hollywood movie or an episode of 24.
> ...





Jillian, Jillian, Jillian. 

WE _had doctors present_.  That makes denying someone oxygen, NOT torture.  


That's what some wingnuts told me anyway.


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...


the procedures were different also
but you leftwingnuts cant understand that


----------



## jillian (May 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




except you know that I'm not that... particularly when it comes to issues of safety and terrorism.

but if we're as low-life as the bad guys, then they win.


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...


that last line was directed at red more so than you


----------



## Zoom-boing (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > [To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?
> ...



Yes, it's pretty obvious who would and who wouldn't.  I asked the question because I see much empathy towards the terrorists and their rights, but I don't see much mention of the rights of the innocent Americans who die at the hands of these terrorists.  Reading through the many posts on this it comes across as if American lives are worth less than a terrorist's life.   



Immanuel said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



But what if we had a terrorist(s) and we knew with reasonable certainty that they did have info on an impending attack that would kill thousands of Americans.  Would you support harsh interrogation techniques in that case (thus saving these Americans) or would you say no and let those Americans die?  I know it's a hypothetical but  . . . 9/11 was just a hypothetical on 9/10.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I've never not once said our torture was "as bad" as saddam's torture, and I challenge you to find a post where I ever said that. 

Denying oxygen to prisoners of the U.S. government is torture, and that makes it illegal, and immoral.


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



You won't get a serious answer to this.  

Problem is, any "normal" person, who knew that with reasonable certainty, would absolutely do anything they could to save lives.


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...


where did i say anything about Saddam?


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Was the intent of our waterboarding to deny our prisoners oxygen, and to induce a feeling of drowning?

Yes or no?


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



I believe the intent was to gain information to prevent further terrorist attacks and save lives.


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


exactly


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Why is this so clear to us? 

Ohhhh..I know.  We don't let hatred for a particular political party/person interfere with common sense and a true desire to protect the citizens of our country.


----------



## Immanuel (May 3, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> But what if we had a terrorist(s) and we knew with reasonable certainty that they did have info on an impending attack that would kill thousands of Americans.  Would you support harsh interrogation techniques in that case (thus saving these Americans) or would you say no and let those Americans die?  I know it's a hypothetical but  . . . 9/11 was just a hypothetical on 9/10.



There are no hard and fast rules in life.  Abortion is wrong, but then when the life of the mother is at stake, do you tell her tough shit, this child is coming whether you live or not?

I'd have to be pretty damned certain that 1) the detainee knew something he wasn't telling and 2) that the information he knew was going to save lives.  Simply torturing, even waterboarding if it were not torture, a detainee because he might know something does not qualify in my books.  

Quite frankly, I don't believe that one can know those two things for certain.  

Also, my main concern is not for the terrorist or the detainees but for the soul of this nation.  It is my belief that We lose when we become them.  Of that last statement, I have no doubt.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



Excuse me?

I gave a serious and I believe a reasonable answer to that question.   And since the question was directed at me, and I had just given you are reasonable answer to your hypothetical earlier, I don't understand that statement.  

I realize I'm not a normal person, but geez!!  

Immie


----------



## B94 (May 3, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> [To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?




It should never be the governments policy to torture. Torture should be defined by the government and be illegal. Now in the above scenario - if the terrorist while being escorted happened to fall down and at the same time someone spilled some water I wouldn't see any reason to write down a report about this incident.


----------



## Iriemon (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > [To all] If the U.S. had a terrorist(s) in custody and they knew with reasonable certainty that this terrorist(s) had intel on an imminent attack on the U.S. and failure to get this intel would result in the death of thousands of innocent American lives, would you employ harsh interrogation techniques to gain this intel (thus saving thousands of innocent American lives)?
> ...



In that situation I'd probably torture him.  I'd destroy property, assault, rob, steal and maybe even kill.

But I'm not in favor of making that stuff legal.


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Nooooo....that absolutely wasn't directed at you.


----------



## Immanuel (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



The question or your reply?

It is okay either way.  I'm convinced in my beliefs on this issue.  Torture is wrong.  I am not embarrassed by that stance even though there are many people on this forum and others that I respect and usually agree with who differ with me on this issue.  Under no (well almost none) circumstances should we ever stoop to the level of torture to get information and "24" is one of my favorite tv shows.  If some of you want to believe that waterboarding is not torture, then fine... lie to yourselves, but we are a nation of laws (not to mention lawyers too) and regardless of what barbarians in another land do, we should never come close to stepping down to their levels.

Immie


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



My "normal" person statement.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





so your position is that there is no plausible alternative to protecting the country,  and getting reliable intelligence, other than to torture. 


That's laughable dude.  Do you ever tire of defending Bush?


----------



## Burp (May 3, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



It's called enhanced techniques.  That means the other techniques failed. 

And  yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it.  Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly.  Attach his testicles to battery cables.  Waterboard all day long.  

It has nothing to do with defending Bush.  I would feel this way regardless of who the President is/was. 

Do what it takes to save lives.


----------



## garyd (May 3, 2009)

Torture was defined in several memoranda and it didn't include waterboarding. Khalid shaik Mohammed was up to his neck in several terrorist plots against the US to not have done what they did would have doomed several Los Anglenos to certain death. That is clear based on the evdence. To have failed to do what they did would have gotten hundreds of people killed and you fools would then have been bitching because Bush didn't prevent that attack.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...




Okay, so your a sick, twisted, sadistic fuck. 

Got it.  

Only a sick sadist would even think about putting a dudes balls on a battery cable. 

Where do you come up with this stuff?   You have a very vivid, sadistic, and sick imagination. 

What exactly is your fascination with testicles? 


I bet you'd LOVE to torture someone, wouldn't you?


----------



## Immanuel (May 3, 2009)

Burp said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" is nothing more than a euphemism (and yes, I had to go to dictionary.com to find the spelling of that) for torture.



garyd said:


> Torture was defined in several memoranda and it didn't include waterboarding. Khalid shaik Mohammed was up to his neck in several terrorist plots against the US to not have done what they did would have doomed several Los Anglenos to certain death. That is clear based on the evdence. To have failed to do what they did would have gotten hundreds of people killed and you fools would then have been bitching because Bush didn't prevent that attack.



Funny, I never once blamed President Bush for the 9/11 attacks.

As for trusting that so called evidence, it is coming out of the mouths of those who did the torture.  That is not evidence.  That is an excuse.

Immie


----------



## garyd (May 3, 2009)

Apparently you are unfamiliar with French interrogation techniques as used by the Foreign legion and others in Algeria. That requires no imagination at all. In fact it was one of the techniques Saddam's boys liked to use on failed athletes according to a History channel documentary.

You my son have lead a very sheltered life.  No wonder you're such a clueless dipstick.


----------



## Immanuel (May 3, 2009)

garyd said:


> Apparently you are unfamiliar with French interrogation techniques as used by the Foreign legion and others in Algeria. That requires no imagination at all. In fact it was one of the techniques Saddam's boys liked to use on failed athletes according to a History channel documentary.
> 
> You my son have lead a very sheltered life.



I'll ignore your last ignorant sentence there as this is an intelligent discussion and you fell out of the intelligence pool there for a second.

So, it is your position, that simply because others have done it, then everyone should do it?  Just because someone has done it in the past, someone else should do it now?

By that ludicrous position, one could justify using a nuclear bomb simply because back in 1945 America used two Atom bombs on Japan.  Makes a hell of a lot of sense doesn't it?

Immie


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

garyd said:


> Apparently you are unfamiliar with French interrogation techniques as used by the Foreign legion and others in Algeria. That requires no imagination at all. In fact it was one of the techniques Saddam's boys liked to use on failed athletes according to a History channel documentary.
> 
> You my son have lead a very sheltered life.  No wonder you're such a clueless dipstick.




And you love reading about sadistic torture techniques involving mens balls and battery cables.....why exactly? 

It sounds like you would LOVE to hook a prisoner's balls to a battery cable and torture him, do I have that right?


----------



## Red Dawn (May 3, 2009)

I think this truly deserved a stand alone post, to highlight the depravity, and sadism of some two-time voting Bush apologists



Burp said:


> And  yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it.
> 
> *Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly.
> 
> ...


----------



## rr1 (May 3, 2009)

TORTURE existed in the world before we came into this world. I can most definitely say in all truth that it will remain here in this world long after all of us are gone. 

You can blame it on Bush, you can blame it on Churchill, you can blame it on Obama, you can blame it on Clinton, Wilson, Kerry, you can blame it on whoever you want to blame it on but that will not change the fact that there is not one thing you can do about torture. It will survive and you will not. 

For those of you out there who want to drag Christ down to your level, I've got this to say; Christ did not run from it. He took it quietly. He took it personally. He took it without giving a politically correct adaptation of its morality or its immorality. He did not blame or condemn it he simply took it. Such was His purpose. And that He did you should all be forever grateful and evermore thankful to Him. I'd venture a guess that He did a little "pro bono" work there wouldn't you say? He didn't lay himself down to make a name for Himself or to pass some worldly legislation. He came for one thing and one thing only. TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST!!! That includes you and me and the rest of this world of unsightly trash. The body was given that the spirit might live. The spirit is truth. Not argue and pine and whimper and whine and point the finger and make excuses that my dog is better than your dog or my president is better than yours or my idea is better than yours. The world is so full of shit and it appears that the shit is getting deeper not shallower. He came for the people. What the hell is our excuse? We fight and wage wars and steal and lie and cheat and accuse others and fuck our neighbors wives and husbands and screw the other guy before he screws you first. You make a mockery out of His death and you think you're all in control. 

For those of you who make your living in the legal profession; you can't defend the laws on the books now. You are so busy picking and choosing your own destiny and deciding what cases you will or won't defend or prosecute and deciding what's popular or not popular or winnable or not winnable or whatever fucking excuse you want to come up with that you let those in need of your services hang while you are all fighting and arguing about what is politically correct or morally acceptable. Meanwhile, those out here in the cosmos who need you have nobody to defend or prosecute for them on their behalf. Now that you fucking theoricists, is the truth. Politically correct, morally reprehensible or whatever you want to label it. Hanging on the cross. THAT IS TORTURE!!!   REAL TORTURE!!! And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on. How fucking long do the people of this world have to wait? Who knows? 

Torture is a thriving entity in and of itself. Everyone has tortured another. None and I mean nobody is exempt from torture or being tortured. I think you would all do well to stick with the things you can make a difference with and quit pining and snitching about something you have not one fucking bit of control over. None. 

And for you legal minded professionals and legislative bureaucrats and other timeless argumentative scholarly college educated bought on credit collegiate professionals please be advised that the opinions given here are not necessarily those of the majority nor are they necessarily the opinions of the minority and are not necessarily the opinions of this website. How's that for being politically fucking correct!!! Gnarls Barkley sang the song of the angels when he sang "and I can die when I'm done.""


----------



## Zoom-boing (May 4, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



I can't speak for anyone else but I don't believe this at all.  I'm all for using the least harsh methods to gain intel and if they work, great.  But when the detainees are hardened terrorists who will not divulge information using these less harsh techniques then I am in favor of utilizing the harsher methods.  And if those methods gain us intel that saves innocent American lives than to me yes, harsh as they may be, it's what needs to be done; it's what is necessary.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> I think this truly deserved a stand alone post, to highlight the depravity, and sadism of some two-time voting Bush apologists
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At least he was honest about it.  Read between the lines and I think a lot of the pro-torture crowd think the same but they are too ashamed to admit their true position.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 4, 2009)

Here's how the US tortures people:







and...






I think that many of you who support torturing enemy combatants/terrorist suspects feel angry, and that's understandable.  I think you hate the people who attacked the US.  I think you fear another attack, one which may directly affect you.  I think this causes you to feel hatred, and therefore little remorse about how these people are treated.  I suspect it has less to do with saving Americans' lives so much as it has to do with that hatred you feel.  You want these fuckers to pay.  You want revenge.

But that doesn't make it right.  Hopefully, the people in position to do something to ensure that we never torture people again can remain more level-headed and therefore more true to the founding principles of this nation than you.  That's one of the reasons there is a system of checks in balances in the government: so that even if a majority of Americans want something that isn't right, it doesn't happen.


----------



## Newby (May 4, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Here's how the US tortures people:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Who is in the first picture, and where/when was it taken?

The second picture is from the Huffington Post, and if I'm not mistaken, those people were put on trail and convicted for their actions.  So, why are you attempting to attribute that as 'US torture' or do you have to lie to make a point?


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > I think this truly deserved a stand alone post, to highlight the depravity, and sadism of some two-time voting Bush apologists
> ...



Someone pointed out this weekend that the Pearlman guy who got beheaded in Iraq, was killed AFTER the Abu Grabe story got out.

So it was in retaliation for how we were humiliating our prisoners.  

Imagine how mad Americans would be.


----------



## del (May 4, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



it was pearl, not pearlman and he was beheaded in 2002, a year before the invasion.

damn, you're stupid.


----------



## Newby (May 4, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...




Yeah, why don't you show us the pictures of all the Arabs that were beheaded by Americans in retaliation for Daniel Pearl.  How disgusting that you rationalize and excuse their behavior and you can't even get the man's name right. Pathetic.


----------



## DiveCon (May 4, 2009)

del said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


at least he's consistent
LOL


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 4, 2009)

Newby said:


> Who is in the first picture, and where/when was it taken?
> 
> The second picture is from the Huffington Post, and if I'm not mistaken, those people were put on trail and convicted for their actions.  So, why are you attempting to attribute that as 'US torture' or do you have to lie to make a point?



Are you purposely misconstruing my post or was it unintentional?  I wrote that this is "_HOW_" the US tortures people, not this "_IS_" the US torturing people, though for the second photo I could've written that this "_WAS_" the US torturing people.

The first picture is a demontration at a protest demonstrating that waterboarding is, in fact, terrible.  The second one is from the Huffington Post.  I also included it to appeal to the humaneness in people.  These aren't just "the others" that are being tortured, they're human beings just like you and me, and they fight what they believe to be a righteous holy war against the evil US.  And from what I know of history, particularly history from the last 50 years, I can understand why they might think that way.  They don't hate us for our freedom, that's for sure.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



thats for dam sure.....BOBO 101.....get a close up look at the left field wall....


----------



## Newby (May 4, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Who is in the first picture, and where/when was it taken?
> ...



You were lying to make a point.  What's more disgusting is that you rationalize and excuse their behavior.  They're 'human beings' that didn't have a problem with killing over 3000 innocent people in the blink of an eye, but keep excusing them.  As far as I'm concerned, that makes you as bad as they are.


----------



## tigerbob (May 4, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Who is in the first picture, and where/when was it taken?
> ...



I misread it in the same way that Newby appeared to.

Though I would not have said that you were deliberately lying.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 4, 2009)

Newby said:


> You were lying to make a point.  What's more disgusting is that you rationalize and excuse their behavior.  They're 'human beings' that didn't have a problem with killing over 3000 innocent people in the blink of an eye, but keep excusing them.  As far as I'm concerned, that makes you as bad as they are.



No, I wasn't lying.  Try another personal attack, cause that one doesn't stick.

I did not and do not rationalize or excuse their behavior.  Try again.  From our perspective what they did was wrong, from their perspective it wasn't.  That's all I was saying.  I think we should, if after finding them guilty in a real trial and not a military tribunal court, lock them away for the rest of their lives or until we can hand custody of them back to their own countries where we are guaranteed they will spend the rest of their lives locked away.

They are human beings, no matter how much you want to deny that.  God created them.  Just like HE did you, right?  Its just that they were born in Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan, Eqypt, etc (and you were born in the US).  They were raised Muslim (like you were raised Christian), their countries were invaded, attacked or threatened by, or attacked by countries that were trained and funded by the US, Israel, and/or other western powers who are predominately populated by, and represent themselves as Christian or Jewish (like yours was by Islamic extremist terrorist groups, imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany or countries who represent themselves as Muslim), and so from their perspective what they do is fight to protect their families, their beliefs, their nations' sovereignty, and their freedom against imperialistic capitalism (just like you believe we fight for the same things accept instead of imperialistic capitalism, you perceive communism, totalitarianism, religious extremism [which is alive and well in Christian fundamentalism in the US], and fear).

I'm not as bad as they are because I haven't, am not, and will not plot to murder, or actually murder innocent people (of which they are only suspected of doing).  Nor do I condone torture.  I don't believe it is right to dehumanize people, which you are obviously very good at doing.  Even Jesus asked God's forgiveness for the people responsible for his torture and execution.

On the other hand, you might be as bad as they are if you believe it is okay or even warranted to use the same tactics against them which they use against us, because in all reality, that's really the only thing that demonstrates to me that what they did or are doing is wrong: their methods.


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Newby said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



What a fucking pussy you are that you think you are sooo tough because you have bombs and you can torture in Guantanimo Bay like a fucking pussy creep evil fuck but you will cry when one of ours gets beheaded.  Are you a man?  Fucking pussy!!!  Cry that what I said was unpatriotic, you fucking pussy conservative afraid of free speech/the truth.  You guys act tough but really you are little bitches.  You can dish but you can't take it.  

Yes, if you bombed my family, I would want to behead you on camera and send it to your home to scare your family and country.  So you stop fucking with us.  And it worked, because Bush paid these "terrorists" billions of dollars for a truce, and you don't even know it.  He did that in your name, on your behalf.  Do you disapprove?  Well we didn't approve of him torturing people in our name either.  Deal with it.  

Yea, maybe look at how you treat people before you wonder why people around the god damn world hate us.  Maybe we'll remember this before we put another stupid conservative in power.  You are maniacs, but at the same time you are little pussies who can't take it.  So funny.  


OMG, I think I meant Nick Berg.  

It was the most horrific thing I ever saw.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (May 11) -- A video posted Tuesday on an Islamic militant Web site showed the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq, and said the execution was carried out by an al-Qaida affiliated group to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit - similar to a prisoner's uniform - who identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor whose body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.

''My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan,'' the man said on the video. ''I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia.''

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting ''Allahu Akbar!'' - ''God is great.'' They then held the head out before the camera.


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Newby said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Just like when Bush and you were lying us into Iraq.  You said, "you're either with us or against us".

Thank you SOOOOOOO much for reminding me.  

This is why you can't blame Dems for signing onto the Iraq war.  

This is exactly how the GOP acted leading up the the Iraq invasion.

People forget, but we were conned and bullied into invading.

What's most embarrassing is that we let idiots like Bush and Newby lead this country.

OMG what were we thinking.

Newby, you are brainwashed with nationalism.  I love America too, and will defend her against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

But remember, we never cried about seceding from the union over what you and Bush were doing.  We never talked revolution.  We voted your asses out.  That's all.  The public has spoken, and your way sucked!!!!

But you guys are talking about seceding from the union.  So don't talk shit about being patriot.  You're just a brainwashed red neck.


----------



## Newby (May 4, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You were lying to make a point.  What's more disgusting is that you rationalize and excuse their behavior.  They're 'human beings' that didn't have a problem with killing over 3000 innocent people in the blink of an eye, but keep excusing them.  As far as I'm concerned, that makes you as bad as they are.
> ...



You lied about the pictures you posted, it's really quite simple.  The first picture wasn't any American torturing anyone.  The second picture was considered illegal, and the people that committed the crime were tried and found guilty.  Yet you are still insisting that it's a picture of the U.S. government torturing prisoners?  It's a lie whether you want to call it so or not.

Your entire second paragraph is pathetic, I feel sorry for you and how you view your own country. And whose perspective was right?  Ours or the terrorists?


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

driveby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be more like them!
> ...



That's your standard, eh?  check.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Of course it was.  After all, Jillian has 387 rep points.  You wouldn't offend her.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Newby said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



He said "Here's *how* the US tortures people," which can mean the photo represents the technique, not that it was an actual picture of the CIA water torturing victims.  

There was no lie at all.  And if there is any doubt, the top one was shot outside, in broad daylight, with a protest poster in the background and a young woman sitting on a wall casually watching.  

I mean, who would be so stupid as to look at that picture and actually think it was supposed to represent an actual torture scene?


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...



Holy Shit that's Joe the Plumber!!!


----------



## WillowTree (May 4, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...






looks like korimyer rat guy to me


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



2003:

Fourteen civilians died and another 30 were injured in Baghdad when a shopping area was hit during an air raid by US-led coalition forces, the Iraqi authorities say. 
The BBC's Andrew Gilligan, at the scene in the northern Shaab district of the city, says it appears that two missiles hit a busy parade of shops, several hundred metres from any military buildings. 

An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims. 

They shouted: "Down with Bush" and "Long live Saddam".


----------



## Newby (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...





So, that second picture was U.S. sanctioned torture, which was exactly what his comments implied?   I'm sick of the game playing you people do with words and pictures.  You can't make an argument unless you lie, imply, mislead, or take what people say or do out of context, which is what he did.  When he can have an adult conversation and not be ashamed of his own country and not give what he apparently sees as rational arguments for why terrorists kill innocent people across the globe, then he might be worth listening too.  But, I highly doubt it.


----------



## Immanuel (May 4, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I had heard that Sean Hannity had volunteered to have it done to him.  I thought that maybe it was Sean.  I had not heard whether or not he had gone through with it.

Immie


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Bush can not sanction torture.  Nixon tried to imply the same thing.  He was wrong then and Bush is wrong now.

Condi basically said that it isn't illegal if the president approves it.

WRONG!!!  

The President can break the law, as you right wingers know full well.


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



No, he did not go through with it, nor will he.

I think we should waterboard Rummy/Condi/Cheney to get the truth out of them.

Why not?  It isn't torture.  It's "enhanced interrogation", not torture. 

And since it is important to the safety of our nation that this not happen again.

If torturing Cheney would save one US Soldier from dying for nothing, would you do it?


----------



## Immanuel (May 4, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> No, he did not go through with it, nor will he.
> 
> I think we should waterboard Rummy/Condi/Cheney to get the truth out of them.
> 
> ...



Okay, I like Sec Rice so I might have a problem with that one, but Sec Rummy or VP Cheney?  Hmmm, maybe my opposition to torture could be modified a little bit... just a little.  

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


and you are a fucking moron
if you dont think i've offended her, you are also an asshole


----------



## DiveCon (May 4, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


bobo, you have no interest in the truth, you prove that with every partisan post you make


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I wouldn't be surprised she finds you offensive.  That's not saying much.


----------



## WillowTree (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...





What happened to  "ignored" you lose him?


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 4, 2009)

Here Newby, here's my original post.  Read the bolded words:



Coloradomtnman said:


> Here's *how* the US tortures people:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Newby said:


> You lied about the pictures you posted, it's really quite simple.  The first picture wasn't any American torturing anyone.  The second picture was considered illegal, and the people that committed the crime were tried and found guilty.  Yet you are still insisting that it's a picture of the U.S. government torturing prisoners?  It's a lie whether you want to call it so or not.



Once again I have to repeat myself in the _hopes_ that I somehow get through to you: 
I wrote "Here's *how* the US tortures people" not here IS the US torturing people.  I wasn't lying.  In fact, everyone else who read my post and then your post has agreed that I wasn't lying.  Has that gotten through to you?  I doubt it...

And the first picture is an American torturing someone, its just that the victim is a volunteer so it doesn't really count.  But it is HOW the US has tortured people.



Newby said:


> Your entire second paragraph is pathetic, I feel sorry for you and how you view your own country. And whose perspective was right?  Ours or the terrorists?



Why do you feel sorry for me?  Because I don't blindly believe that the US is a perfect country?  That the US government and its agents are all without any flaw or fault?  That the US has never done anything to piss off people of other cultures to the point that they would feel the need to attack the US?  That the US has never meddled in the affairs of sovereign nations for its own interests?  Why does that make you feel sorry for me?

Do you not read my posts?  I said that I thought* what the terrorists have done is wrong*.  Their actions are *wrong*.  Their methods, I said, are *wrong*.  Their perspective...well, that's different.  Who am I to judge that the way these extremists see things is wrong?  God?  Whose God, yours or theirs?

I don't feel sorry for you.  Perhaps if your eyes were openned and you realized that the US government has assassinated people, bombed innocent people and children, trained and armed the Taliban to fight the Russians, trained and armed Saddam's army in its war against Iran (in which many thousands, perhaps even a million people died), assisted in kicking the Palestinians out of their homeland (which had been theirs for over a thousand years), not too mention the atrocities the US has committed in its wars in Central America and Columbia, and you went through a period of intense depression upon realizing just how imperialistic (sometimes violently) the US has been in the last 150 years - perhaps then I would feel sorry for you.  But, right now, I just think you're blindly nationalistic to a fault, refusing to remove your head from the sand, and ignorant of history, particularly recent US history.



Newby said:


> So, that second picture was U.S. sanctioned torture, which was exactly what his comments implied?   I'm sick of the game playing you people do with words and pictures.  You can't make an argument unless you lie, imply, mislead, or take what people say or do out of context, which is what he did.



I didn't take anything out of context, Newby, _you did_.  You have misconstrued what I said as an outright and intentional falsehood when it was neither of those, as I and others on here have attempted to convey to you.  But, you refuse to believe anyone or anything you don't want to, and that's your perrogative.  And it makes you, in some ways, similar to the Islamic extremists who refuse to believe that what they are doing, when they murder people, is wrong.



Newby said:


> When he can have an adult conversation and not be ashamed of his own country and not give what he apparently sees as rational arguments for why terrorists kill innocent people across the globe, then he might be worth listening too.  But, I highly doubt it.



Like I said, already once before, *I don't condone, excuse, or justify the actions of those people who committed acts of terrorism, or terrorism in general*.  I even wrote that those convicted of committing or plotting to commit acts of terrorism should be locked away for the rest of their lives.  I'm not ashamed of my country, I'm just ashamed of some of the things its done.

But you don't want, as you even admitted above, to listen to that.  You'd rather believe that the US is guilt-free.  You'd rather believe that the terrorists hate our freedom and have never been provoked by the US into reacting violently as they do.  You'd rather believe that the people at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo aren't human beings.  Ever heard of compassion?  I think it talks about it in the ancient book of Jewish fairy tales that you literally believe as immutable truth.  In my opinion, you could really do with a big dose of compassion.  How do I know?  Cause the Bible tells me so.  But You'd rather believe that I am a liar and disreputable because I'm not unreasonably nationalistic.  Well, people believe what they want to and there's no changing that unless that person is ready to have a more open mind about the realities of the world around them.  And you, apparently, are not ready to have an open mind or to learn about things which may challenge your perception of the world.

Well, I don't feel sorry for a complacent, happy little ignoramus who judges and justifies dehumanizing people just so she can remain complacent and oblivious.  Even your God doesn't approve of that.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Didn't feel like ignoring it.


----------



## DiveCon (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


you never did ignore it
you kept responding


----------



## rayboyusmc (May 4, 2009)

So if some of the Arabs torture, then so can we.  Even when the people we torture turn out to be innocent and we set them free later.

What a bunch of moral losers.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



That is the best you can come back with?  I advocate doing whatever it takes to save American lives and you have nothing more than name calling? 

I listed three things:  fingernails, testicles and waterboarding. 

Yet, in your reply, you focused on, with two statements, testicles. 

Seems like you have the huevos fascination, not me. 

Since your outrage is so obvious, I assume then that you would rather let thousands of Americans die rather than do something, as a last resort, when no other options are available, that would possibly save them. 


Sick and twisted?  You win that contest. 

I suppose if you were faced with my kidnapping scenario, you'd let your child die rather than do whatever it takes to save him/her?

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



I'd probably kill you if it meant saying my child. 

You OK with legalizing that?


----------



## Sinatra (May 4, 2009)

Not a one of you would not fully support doing the kind of "enhanced" methods of gaining information on someone if it meant saving the lives of your loved ones.  

Those who persist in saying they would not are liars.

Each and every one.

And make no mistake, this entire debacle of a "debate" regarding these enhanced interrogation techniques has only emboldened those who very much wish to kill innocent Americans here at home.  The so-called morality of the convenient pacifist is mocked by those who will unfortunately, very likely find a way to attack us again...


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations.  Plus, those techniques were deemed legal. 

In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information. 

But, to play along - of course I don't want to legalize that.  But, if you ended up killing "me" to save your child, I would bey money (and probably win) that you wouldn't be prosecuted.  


I bet you wouldn't be prosecuted.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > I'd probably kill you if it meant saying my child.
> ...



That's the point.  If you make it an emotional/personal issue, I'd do lots of shit that we'd both agree shouldn't be legal.   

An appeal to the personal/emotional is no basis for deciding whether an act should be legal or not.


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



If a terrorist is sitting there saying "Soon you shall see," it seems like a no brainer to me. 

He knows something.  He isn't telling.  Do we do something that was deemed legal at the time and possibly save thousands of Americans?

Or do we sit there and cross our fingers and toes and hope he's lying?


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



This is repetitive at this point.  This scenario has been asked and discussed many times.  

My answer is that if I were the interrogator, and I really, truly had a strong reason to believe that the suspect in fact had crucial information that would lead to the death of many, and other interrogation methods didn't work, yeah I would personally put the screws to the guy. 

But I wouldn't support making it legal.


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



You support doing it, as a last resort, if it would lead to saving thousands of Americans, but you won't make it, under those same circumstances legal. 

That makes no sense at all.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



It does, for the same reason I'd rob and steal to save my kid but wouldn't support making that legal either.  

There are some thinks that you have rules against even though sometimes the rules are justified in being broken.  Torture is one of those things.  It's against the law because as a general rule we don't approve of it, we don't condone it, and as Americans we don't do it.  Torture is what our enemies do.  It's what the IJA, Gestapo and Khmer Rouge did.  

Torture is against our principles as a people as those principles are set out in our Constitution, in this case the 8th amendment.  It hurts our nation in the eyes of the world and in our effort against anti-American radicalism because it makes us seem no better (or not much better) than the bad guys.  Reagan's shining city on the hill doesn't torture.  Americans do not torure.  We are the good guys.  

And I don't buy that BS about water torture is really only "enhance stress interrogation" or whatever ephemism is dreamed up to avoid calling it what it is.  And the fact that the bad guys do it worse does not justify us doing it but maybe not quite as bad as them.

But even though it is against the law, it those rare situation where it is really necessary amd justified, it still has always happened and always will.


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Robbing and stealing has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  

If it is understood that there are extreme circumstances where torture is really justified and necessary, then make it legal - but only in those circumstances. 

Oh wait...that is what the Bush administration did.  

And it worked - it saved lives.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



I just brought them up of examples of things I'd do to save someone, even though I don't think it should be legal. 



> If it is understood that there are extreme circumstances where torture is really justified and necessary, then make it legal - but only in those circumstances.



Too many negatives, that I spelled out above.  



> Oh wait...that is what the Bush administration did.
> 
> And it worked - it saved lives.



So I have heard claimed.


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



The CIA claims it prevented another terrorist attack.  

You can't say you believe the CIA when it comes to the number of times KSM was waterboarded and then not believe them when it comes to preventing a terrorist attack.

Too many negatives?  If it was legal, under extreme circumstances, do you believe that there is anybody who would do it - following the letter of the law?


----------



## Immanuel (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations.  Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.
> 
> In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information.
> 
> ...



Deemed legal by those who committed the acts.  That is like saying that bank robbery is legal because D. B. Cooper said it was legal or murder is legal because Charles Manson said murder was legal.

Immie


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations.  Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.
> ...



I think it is a stretch to compare D.B. Cooper and Charles Manson to the Department of Justice.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



I didn't say I believed anyone one way or another.  There is conflicting information.  

I don't think there was a CIA memo that talked about preventing an attack?  Or was it a DOJ memo.  I think the latter.  But if as it appears the goal of those memos was to provide a justification for torture, I wouldn't be surprised that they would assert that it saved lives.  That after all is the *only* justification for it.  There's a lot of questions in my mind about it.   

I'm not sure about the number of times either, but I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why they would exagerrate the number of times the guys was waterboarded.  It seems that if anything they'd minimize the number of times. 



> Too many negatives?  If it was legal, under extreme circumstances, do you believe that there is anybody who would do it - following the letter of the law?



You mean if it was illegal?  I sure would, I expect a number of others would as well.  

Torture was illegal in WWII but there were lots of reports of it happening anyway.


----------



## ItsFairmont (May 4, 2009)

The original title of this thread is "Here's How Arabs Interogate People..."


Arabs?


Not all Muslims are Arab and not all Arab are Muslims and not all Muslims are extremists and not all extremists are Muslims.


Get your bigoted head out of your ass, please.


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of enhanced techniques of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, Soon, you will know.

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the Second Wave-- planned  to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.

CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles


----------



## ItsFairmont (May 4, 2009)

CNS is fake.


----------



## Immanuel (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



However, it is not a stretch to show that the idea that for the person who commits an act to declare that act legal is insufficient.  If what has been done is deemed to be legal then let the courts deem it to be legal, not those who have actually perpetrated the acts.

Immie


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



Well I suppose that expecting something more objective than CNSNews reporting that "a CIA spokesman" confirmed the DOJ report to resolve this point would be expecting too much.


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> CNS is fake.



I know.  Everyone lies.


----------



## txlonghorn (May 4, 2009)

I've posted this thought before and it seems to be needed again...

consider the implications ------


Some of you say that it's useless to interrogate anyone because it doesn't work ( which has already been proven that it does ) and makes us look like a mean and ugly nation...that we should be nice and kind and gentle in hopes that our new found moral standards will somehow keep those who have demonstrated hatred for us for decades to not kill us anymore. How am I doing so far?

We should back the leader of the free world who now has positioned us as an even larger target with no ability to fight back. No ability to thwart attacks. No sense of national pride. No moral obligation to it's own people. The only obligation we hold fast to as of now is to the world. US citizens be damned. Because we have been such a horrible nation for so long, we must now lay down our weapons and accept the beating we deserve and take it with dignity. And, from this, we shall rise up years later, a more understanding and less evil nation with only good will for all and from all. 

So, here's the logic I see here...( I use the term VERY lightly ) while we're at it, let's take all the guns from the police. No more tazers, no more night sticks, no more pepper spray, no more riot gear...and for GOD'S SAKE!!! NO MORE LOCK UP...Let's open all the jails that house the killers, rapists, robbers and psychos and let's just be nice to them and hope that they will be nice back and stop killing and raping and robbing and taking our children. Sounds like a wonderful utopia to me.


----------



## Burp (May 4, 2009)

From the DOJ memo:







http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf


----------



## Immanuel (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> From the DOJ memo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is an awful lot of, "you have informed us" in there, but not a whole hell of a lot of proof.

Immie


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> ItsFairmont said:
> 
> 
> > CNS is fake.
> ...



Well if you believe everything you read, here's an FBI guy who was there and says torture was completely unnecessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1

And here's one from the Daily Kos explaining how KSM torture did not prevent the supposed LA attack.  

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/23/723640/-The-torture-prevented-a-west-coast-9-11-lie

Same from media matters:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904220032

Issue resolved.


----------



## DiveCon (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > ItsFairmont said:
> ...


an oped and two partisan liar sites
LOL
FAIL


----------



## txlonghorn (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > ItsFairmont said:
> ...



Resolved?  Really?  How?   All you did was give a conflicting view.  And because it was done in writing, that is suppose to give it credence?  The sad fact is, we'll never know the resolution to this and MANY MANY other issues...because we'll only  be able to throw conflicting articles back and forth.  

The only way to resolve this is within yourself.  I can't change your thoughts any more than you can change mine.  I believe it does work.  Not always...the individual being interrogated is the factor that determines that.  

Frustrating isn't it?


----------



## garyd (May 5, 2009)

Given KOS it's bullshit. Given media matters ditto.

Given that your FBI guy speaks only to one individual and not all of them - All three of them - and given the continuing turf and funding battles between the FBI and the CIA I'm unconvinced of his verity.


----------



## jreeves (May 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Might not be better than JfK either?
U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals are seven controversial military training manuals which were declassified by the Pentagon in 1996. In 1997, two additional CIA manuals were declassified in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Baltimore Sun. The manuals in question have been referred to as "the Torture Manuals" by many US media sources.

The first manual, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," dated July 1963, is the source of much of the material in the second manual. KUBARK was a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency cryptonym for the CIA itself.[12] The cryptonym KUBARK appears in the title of a 1963 CIA document KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation which describes interrogation techniques, including, among other things, "coercive counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources". This is the oldest and most abusive manual, such as two references to the use of electric shock.
Both manuals deal exclusively with interrogation. [13][14] Both manuals have an entire chapter devoted to "coercive techniques." These manuals recommend arresting suspects early in the morning by surprise, blindfolding them, and stripping them naked. Suspects should be held incommunicado and should be deprived of any kind of normal routine in eating and sleeping. Interrogation rooms should be windowless, soundproof, dark and without toilets.
The manuals advise that torture techniques can backfire and that the threat of pain is often more effective than pain itself. The manuals describe coercive techniques to be used "to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist." These techniques include prolonged constraint, prolonged exertion, extremes of heat, cold, or moisture, deprivation of food or sleep, disrupting routines, solitary confinement, threats of pain, deprivation of sensory stimuli, hypnosis, and use of drugs or placebos.


----------



## Newby (May 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Here Newby, here's my original post.  Read the bolded words:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?     Every post you make is a book, wonder why that is?

The second picture that you posted is not *HOW* the US tortures people, you lied.  I don't need three paragraphs to explain that.  It's pretty cut and dried, actually. 

I understand you much better than you know, CMM.  I know that you *think* 'the' enemy is the conservative Christian and that that group is the beginning and ending of all evils in the world.  I know how you feel about your country, you don't need to spell it out.  I know how you excuse everyone else's behavior because they're just 'poor' people taken advantage of by the evil imperialist conservative Christian nation, the United States.  There is no evil in the world, it's just people lashing back at being kept down and abused by the imperialist U.S.  Well, wait, you do believe in evil, but only if it's the conservative Christian, every other group gets a pass from you.  And especially American conservative Christians, I'm sure they're much more evil than say European conservative Christians.  You're an open book, and you've been indoctrinated well. 

You are one of the most sanctimonious judgmental persons I've ever had the displeasure to come across.   You're too smart for God, you've got it all figured out in that smug little brain of yours and anyone that feels or believes differently than you do are just a bunch of 'complacent and oblivious ignoramuses'.   Yet you're too damn stupid to look in the mirror and recognize that what you described is yourself.


----------



## Iriemon (May 5, 2009)

txlonghorn said:


> Resolved?  Really?  How?   All you did was give a conflicting view.  And because it was done in writing, that is suppose to give it credence?  The sad fact is, we'll never know the resolution to this and MANY MANY other issues...because we'll only  be able to throw conflicting articles back and forth.
> 
> The only way to resolve this is within yourself.  I can't change your thoughts any more than you can change mine.  I believe it does work.  Not always...the individual being interrogated is the factor that determines that.
> 
> Frustrating isn't it?





DiveCon said:


> an oped and two partisan liar sites
> LOL
> FAIL





garyd said:


> Given KOS it's bullshit. Given media matters ditto.



Sure.  Same as CNSNews.  And thanks guys, for helping me proving my point against Burp.  I couldn't have said it better.  Using a bias source, or even three of them, to prove a fact is not very persuasive argument, is it? 

The points you expressed are exactly why Burp citing a CNSNews article supposedly "verifying" that torture prevented an attack is a FAIL, as Divecon put it. 



> Given that your FBI guy speaks only to one individual and not all of them - All three of them - and given the continuing turf and funding battles between the FBI and the CIA I'm unconvinced of his verity.



Same as I'm unconvinced about how useful the torture really was in supposedly preventing another attack.


----------



## Newby (May 5, 2009)

txlonghorn said:


> I've posted this thought before and it seems to be needed again...
> 
> consider the implications ------
> 
> ...


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 5, 2009)

Newby said:


> You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?     Every post you make is a book, wonder why that is?



The reason _some_ of my posts are so long is that I have an opinion which dullards like you need spelled out and repeated in order to understand it.  Not that that works anyway.



Newby said:


> The second picture that you posted is not *HOW* the US tortures people, you lied.  I don't need three paragraphs to explain that.  It's pretty cut and dried, actually.



Is that a US soldier in the photo?  Is that a terrorist suspect or insurgent in the photo?  Is the US soldier torturing the man of Middle Eastern descent in the photo? Yes?  So then it is how the US tortures people.



Newby said:


> I understand you much better than you know, CMM.


....oh, I can tell this is going to be brilliant!



Newby said:


> I know that you *think* 'the' enemy is the conservative Christian and that that group is the beginning and ending of all evils in the world.



Already, you're wrong, and I thought you knew me so well!  I do think greed and dogma are 'evils' which cause people harm.  I think religious extremism is an 'evil', so that includes Islam, Christian, etc. etc.



Newby said:


> I know how you feel about your country, you don't need to spell it out.  I know how you excuse everyone else's behavior because they're just 'poor' people taken advantage of by the evil imperialist conservative Christian nation, the United States.  There is no evil in the world, it's just people lashing back at being kept down and abused by the imperialist U.S.  Well, wait, you do believe in evil, but only if it's the conservative Christian, every other group gets a pass from you.  And especially American conservative Christians, I'm sure they're much more evil than say European conservative Christians.  You're an open book, and you've been indoctrinated well.



Yeah....



Newby said:


> You are one of the most sanctimonious judgmental persons I've ever had the displeasure to come across.



Uh huh.  Take a look in the mirror if you want to see sanctimonious and judgemental.  You are convinced you're beliefs are the only true ones and have judged the suspects at Gitmo as guilty.  And you're passing judgement on me right now.  Do you know the definition of the word: hypocrite.



Newby said:


> You're too smart for God,



I'll take that as a compliment.



Newby said:


> you've got it all figured out in that smug little brain of yours



No, I don't, that's why I'm an agnostic: so I can re-evaluate my opinions and perceptions upon new discoveries.



Newby said:


> and anyone that feels or believes differently than you do are just a bunch of 'complacent and oblivious ignoramuses'.



No, just you Newby.



Newby said:


> Yet you're too damn stupid to look in the mirror and recognize that what you described is yourself.



Yeah, good one.  I just looked in the mirror this morning and all I saw was a man who, not only looks good , but who feels lost and overwhelmed by the inhumanity of his own species.  And you're one of those people who weigh on my hope for humankind, who drag down my optimism, and darken even the sunniest of Spring days for me.


----------



## tigerbob (May 5, 2009)

Burp said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



A stretch yes, but it would to a degree depend on who you ask.


----------



## DiveCon (May 5, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> txlonghorn said:
> 
> 
> > Resolved?  Really?  How?   All you did was give a conflicting view.  And because it was done in writing, that is suppose to give it credence?  The sad fact is, we'll never know the resolution to this and MANY MANY other issues...because we'll only  be able to throw conflicting articles back and forth.
> ...


sorry, CNSnews is not a biased site like either KOS or mediamatters
yet another FAIL by you


----------



## Iriemon (May 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > txlonghorn said:
> ...



Sure.  Why would anyone think something initially called "Conservative News Service" -- which according to its own website was set up to report alternatively to the "liberal media bias" -- would be anything but neutral and objective?

_Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a* liberal bias* in many news outlets &#8211; bias by commission and bias by omission &#8211; that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."  In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III *founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source *that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission._

CNSNews.com

And why would anyone think that the formerly named "Conservative News Service" would have a bias because it is owned by the right wing Media Research Center:

_The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission, according to its website, is "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media",[1]and the MRC catalogs and reports on what it asserts to be widespread liberal media bias in the United States press._

Media Research Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, why would anyone suppose that the ex "Conservative News Service" would have a conservative bias?

I suppose to some there would be no reason to think they might have a bias at all.


----------



## Newby (May 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?     Every post you make is a book, wonder why that is?
> ...



You're still going to insist that Abu Ghraib photos are showing U.S. government sanctioned torture?  You're going to continue to completely ignore that the people who committed those crimes were prosecuted and convicted?  And you think you're intelligent?   

Okay. 


And I've seen how you 're-evaluate' your perceptions and opinions.  Who do you think you're fooling?    Who knows, maybe you do actually believe your own bullshit.  I'm guessing not many more are buying it tho.


----------



## sealybobo (May 5, 2009)

Newby said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Are you serious?  Just look at Scooter Libby you stupid prick.  Do you think he was the brains behind leaking Valerie Plames name?  Of course he was not.  Clearly it was Cheney.  But Scooter was convicted.  So are you suggesting that PROVES he is as high up as that story goes?  Then that would make you semi retarded, imo.    

And do you think that massive amount of torture/humiliation was occuring and the higer up's didn't know about it?   

MAYBE just MAYBE you could have suggested such a thing last year, but now we know PROOF that the Bush white house sanctioned/approved torture.

Before we heard rumors that Rumsfeld visited Abu Grabe and walked right by as guards were torturing/humiliating suspects, but now we sort of know that that story was probably true.  Because they fucking approved torturing/humiliating prisoners.  They just got embarrassed because it got out.  And so now its the liberals fault?  You are a fucking joke.  What are you, 17 years old?  

Newby, Coloradoman is making you look like a fucking idiot.


----------



## Gurdari (May 5, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....
> QUOTE]
> 
> Are you retarded? Or just racist?
> ...


----------



## Gurdari (May 5, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> I couldn't agree more.   Lets face it American are getting soft. Just look at our jail system. Shit a lot of inmates live better than some regular Americans. Air conditioning, cable TV, and 3 meals a day, I mean come on. Make the punishment harsh. People would be less likely to commit crimes in the first place.



Yeah, seems like harsh penalties work super well... unless one does an ounce of research


----------



## tigerbob (May 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...



And you don't need anyone's help.


----------



## Newby (May 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Newby, Coloradoman is making you look like a fucking idiot.




Coming from you, you clueless asshat, I'll take that as a compliment.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 5, 2009)

Newby said:


> You're still going to insist that Abu Ghraib photos are showing U.S. government sanctioned torture?  You're going to continue to completely ignore that the people who committed those crimes were prosecuted and convicted?  And you think you're intelligent?



I'm not ignoring that the people involved were prosecuted and convicted.  It doesn't matter.  The US still did it.  And if you really believe that they were just a "few bad apples" at the bottom of the chain of command who acted entirely on their own, you know little about the military.

And yes, I think I'm intelligent.  Not a genius by any means, but when compared with you I'm Professor Hawking.



Newby said:


> Okay.



Yep.



Newby said:


> And I've seen how you 're-evaluate' your perceptions and opinions.[?QUOTE]  Who do you think you're fooling?    Who knows, maybe you do actually believe your own bullshit.  I'm guessing not many more are buying it tho.



That isn't true because if you had seen how I re-evaluate my opinion and perception then you would be lying with the above statement and I wouldn't want to assume that you're a dishonest person, unlike how you assume I am.  Here let me link just a one of these incidences:

Scroll about halfway down the page:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/71977-for-those-who-do-believe-in-god-6.html

About halfway down this page is a reiteration of my changed mind:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/71977-for-those-who-do-believe-in-god-9.html

Here's another iteration from the same thread.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/71977-for-those-who-do-believe-in-god-13.html

There are others but I can't seem to find them and won't take the time.  You'll just have to trust me!



Newby said:


> Who do you think you're fooling?    Who knows, maybe you do actually believe your own bullshit.  I'm guessing not many more are buying it tho.



I'm not trying to fool anyone.  I do actually believe my own, as you say, "bullshit" though I would call it something else like experience, perception, logic, reasoning, etc.

And as I read the other posts on this thread it seems there are _at least_ a few who happen to also 'buy' my experience, perception, logic, reasoning, etc.

I think you just like to try to push my buttons, Newby, and you don't really mean the nasty things you say to me.  Is it that it's all just a game to you, and that you play just for fun?


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 5, 2009)

Newby said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Newby, Coloradoman is making you look like a fucking idiot.
> ...



You think Tigerbob is a clueless asshat?  What exactly is an asshat?  Pants?

I really think you just like to write these posts just to provoke people.


----------



## Newby (May 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You're still going to insist that Abu Ghraib photos are showing U.S. government sanctioned torture?  You're going to continue to completely ignore that the people who committed those crimes were prosecuted and convicted?  And you think you're intelligent?
> ...



Thanks for making my point for me. 



> I think you just like to try to push my buttons, Newby, and you don't really mean the nasty things you say to me.  Is it that it's all just a game to you, and that you play just for fun?




I have no interest in pushing anything associated with you, so don't flatter yourself.  I just like to call your rhetoric and propaganda for what it is.  You're the one who likes to play games.


----------



## Newby (May 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Where do you see Tigerbob's name anywhere here?  Perhaps you need glasses or your reading skills need sharpened?


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 5, 2009)

Newby said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Oops.  I scrolled down too fast.  You think _Sealybobo_'s an asshat.  Well, he agrees with my reasoning and so, in my opinion, he isn't clueless and instead, you are!

I still don't know what an asshat actually is.  Is it one of those inflatable donuts that people have to use to sit when they've broken their coccyx or have really bad hemorrhoids?  What's so bad about that?  I mean, I'd never want to be in a postition to use one of them, because I hear breaking your tail bone is agonizing and supposedly hemorrhoids are itchy and are associated with a burning sensation around one's anus.  Kinda like when you eat spicy food and then the next day suffer from burning diarhea.  Kinda like my suffering from the burning diarhea which you've spewed all over this forum.  You must've eaten a lot of really spicy rightwing propaganda.


----------



## Newby (May 5, 2009)

You really suck at insults.


----------



## sealybobo (May 5, 2009)

Newby said:


> You really suck at insults.



Nick Berg's beheading was payback for Abu Grabe.  You think they over reacted?


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 5, 2009)

Newby said:


> You really suck at insults.



Good comeback...


----------



## Newby (May 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You really suck at insults.
> ...



I thought so.


----------



## DiveCon (May 5, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


except its NOT called "Conservative News Service" you fucking MORON

it's *Cybercast News Service*


----------



## driveby (May 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You really suck at insults.
> ...


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 5, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....



Gosh Pale, you're still as chock full o' crap as you ever were. It doesn't matter what you, or any other right wing nut-case thinks...Your opinion is irrelevant. Torture is a crime, no matter who does it, regardless of the reason. What was shown in your little video clip is not interrogation...It is sadism disguised as interrogation, also known as torture, and likely produced nothing more than a false confession, if that. And as there is no context for the clip, we really don't know what it was.

The actions sanctioned by the Bush administration under the auspices of the Bybee and Yoo memos ARE torture as defined by US law, US treaty obligation, and international law. This POST lays it all out for you. 

Sorry if it doesn't satisfy your jingoistic, knee-jerk response to any attack on the late, unlamented Bush administration, but as I stated earlier, your opinion is irrelevant. It is settled case law...Water-boarding IS torture.


----------



## Iriemon (May 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



_The CNSNews.com (or Cybercast News Service) is an American news website owned by the Media Research Center. It was founded on June 16, 1998 under the name "*Conservative News Service*"; "Conservative" was changed to "Cybercast" in 2000 after the MRC was unable to trademark the name "Conservative News Service."_
Cybercast News Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for demostrating yet once again for all to see who the fucking moron is.


----------



## DiveCon (May 5, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


i knew that
but that is NOT their name NOW
is it?
you are the fucking MORON


----------



## Iriemon (May 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



LMFAO!!! "I knew that"  

And he neg reps me for proving him wrong!  

"_fucking moron pussy who disabbled his piss poor rep_"

Too funny.


----------



## DiveCon (May 5, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


WTF????
you didnt prove anything
i said that ISNT THEIR NAME
and IT ISNT
you are a fucking moronic asshole


and even if it was still their name, they would be far more reliable than either KOS or mediamatters


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 5, 2009)

Bullypulpit said:


> Torture is a crime, no matter who does it, regardless of the reason.



Just more of the same addle-minded Ad hoc crap from the same addle-minded promoters of terrorism...

Speeding is a crime too... yet we authorize certain elements of our culture to exceed the speed limit...  Which means, that EXCEEDING THE POSTED LEGAL LIMIT IS NOT ALWAYS A CRIME...

Which is precisely the same principle on this issue...

Torture is a CRIME, when TORTURE does not serve a moral imperative... just as the exception we provide to law enforcement, they are allowed to exceed the legal limit to serve a moral imperative...

I realize that this is well beyond your intellectual means... the purpose of this statement is simply to demonstrate your limitations and belittle and berate you for being such a FOOL...

Any questions Sis?


----------



## 007 (May 5, 2009)

Bullypulpit said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > ... and the whack job, liberal, moon bats are worried about the US water boarding combatants... what a laugh compared these ANIMALS....
> ...



Well BULL... nice to see you hear chiming in.... me-> 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 <-you... but really, you're as predictable as ever bull. You missed the point as well as all your liberal brethren. The whole point is, if you liberals want to get all pissed off about "TORTURE," then why don't you get all pissed off at the people that DO IT, FOR REAL?! Of course I ask knowing I won't get a straight answer, because I know you liberals. You're not happy unless you have something to BASH America about. And if you don't have a good reason to bash America, you bat shit crazy, zealots will FABRIC one. 

So thanks for your two cents bull, because that's all it was worth.... practically nothing.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 5, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Bullypulpit said:
> 
> 
> > Torture is a crime, no matter who does it, regardless of the reason.
> ...



And thanks once again for playing "Really Bad Analogies"! (game show music swells in background).

Speeding in pursuit of a criminal is in no way equivalent to torturing an individual to somehow obtain reliable intelligence. The police can apprehend the fleeing criminal and arrest the miscreant. They get what they were after. With torture and reliable intelligence, the reliability is ALWAYS suspect as the victim will tell his or her torturers whatever they think might stop the pain. John McCain, after all,  gave up the front line of the Green Bay Packers to his torturers. The only thing torture reliably provides is false confessions.

Now, as to promoting terrorism, it should be readily apparent, even to your morally challenged view that torture does nothing to secure America from further attack. In fact, all it does is provide all the justification terrorist organizations need to rally jihadists to their cause. 

As for America's "moral imperative", that imperative is the rule of law. The torture of detainees at GITMO, and other black sites, constituted a violation of the law and that moral imperative. Those who authored the justifications to give that torture a fig leaf of legal justification were complicit in that crime. The members of the Bush administration who authorized that torture were just as guilty as if they had stood there and poured water down the airways of those detainees. 

The only fools here are you and your fellow travelers whose fear of the thought of another attack on US soil leads you to the patently absurd notion that the only way to save America is to destroy the very principles upon which it was founded. You, and your fellow travelers, are a pack of sniveling cravens who find the idea of living in a free and open society too daunting to accept. So you hide behind a mask of false bravado and would willingly sacrifice this nation, all it stands for and the honor of all who have paid the ultimate price to defend it, on the bloody altar of your fears. 

You really are quite pathetic, and I should pity you. Your willful ignorance and stupidity, however, leave me with nothing so much as the same feeling I would have for a bit of offal that I would spurn with my shoe.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 5, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Bullypulpit said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Pale, you must first HAVE a point to be missed. See my response to "Publius Immodicus".


----------



## Red Dawn (May 5, 2009)

*US Army Counter Insurgency Manual, Chapter 7, Sections 7-42 to 7-44:*


Lose Moral Legitimacy, Lose the War 

During the Algerian war of independence between 1954 and 1962, French leaders decided to permit torture against suspected insurgents. Though they were aware that it was against the law and morality of war, they argued that-

-This was a new form of war and these rules did not apply. 
-The threat the enemy represented, communism, was a great evil that justified extraordinary means. 
-The application of torture against insurgents was measured and nongratuitous. 

This official condoning of torture on the part of French Army leadership had several negative consequences. 

It empowered the moral legitimacy of the opposition, undermined the French moral legitimacy, and caused internal fragmentation among serving officers that led to an unsuccessful coup attempt in 1962. In the end, failure to comply with moral and legal restrictions against torture severely undermined French efforts and contributed to their loss despite several significant military victories. Illegal and immoral activities made the counterinsurgents extremely vulnerable to enemy propaganda inside Algeria among the Muslim population, as well as in the United Nations and the French media. These actions also degraded the ethical climate throughout the French Army. France eventually recognized Algerian independence in July 1963. 

-- U.S. Army, published 2006


----------



## Iriemon (May 5, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



LMFAO!!


----------



## DiveCon (May 5, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


thanks for admitting you are a fucking moron


----------



## txlonghorn (May 5, 2009)

ok...you can stop calling each other names now...under the current administration, we can all rest assured that there will be no active aggression in capturing the bad guys, thus no interrogations, thus no torture.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 6, 2009)

Bullypulpit said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Bullypulpit said:
> ...


----------



## cunclusion (May 6, 2009)

After reading all the comments I have come up with a couple of conclusions:

A. If you feel that it is torture which alot of people feel it is then you should push your reps. to start some kind of investigation into the matter.

B. For those who think it was not, you really should experience it I promise you that is a feeling you would never want to experience in your life. But if after that you still feel that way then any issues you have with other countries in the world and human rights violations should be thrown out the window. The if they do it we can do it is really childish in that regard because if everything was like that this world would be alot worse. 

But my final thought is it really is torture, that feeling of drowning its hard to explain it. But I think it is torture plain and simple. I promise most people (there are some who would be into it) would feel that way after experiencing waterboarding.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 6, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> After reading all the comments I have come up with a couple of conclusions:
> 
> A. If you feel that it is torture which alot of people feel it is then you should push your reps. to start some kind of investigation into the matter.
> 
> ...



I've experienced it... both being to subjected to it and the implementation of it... and that it hurts, doesn't make it torture... that's it horrifying doesn't make it torture and that it's critical and necessary in the fight aganst secret organizations whose sole tactic is mass murder... is incontestable.

Let me ask you this... Human rights... any responsibility there or are they just freebies, like say government cheese?

Meaning, when you use the word torture... you use it without any real meaning... its just a word that can mean anything to anyone... One of your allies in this issue has described torture as being subjected to the writing of her opposition...  She also uses the same word to describe the breaking of bones; disembowelment... severing of digits, hands arms and feet... which she equates to US ceorcive interrogation, while admitting the US just isn't _that bad_.  But that admission doesn't persuade her to use a different word... just because it's different... from the stuff the other word represents.

So that gives me cause for pause when I see you use the phrase 'human rights'.... what does that mean to you?

What are these rights and where do they come from?  

As you understand "human rights"... are there any responsibilities which come with these rights; or do ya just have them without regard to your behavior?

What authority do these rights possess?  Whose responsible for defending them?  Do they need defending at all?

Get back to me on that when you respond to this...


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 7, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Bullypulpit said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


----------



## 007 (May 7, 2009)

Bullypulpit said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Bullypulpit said:
> ...



What was it I just said about what you'd say Bull? Oh yeah... 



> ...I won't get a straight answer, because I know you liberals.



You're as predictable as ever Bub.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 7, 2009)

Bullypulpit said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Bullypulpit said:
> ...


----------



## Iriemon (May 7, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Bullypulpit said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I suppose I could help you pull your head out of your ass. But we'd need a full haz-mat team on hand to clean up the resulting torrent of shit that would come gushing forth.It would be rather like the flood from a breached waste holding pond at a factory pig farm.
> ...



I didn't see any concession, even with the big red letters.


----------



## wihosa (May 7, 2009)

The first American to ban torture was General George Washington. Following are two of his quotes in regards to torture;

&#8220;Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause&#8230; for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.&#8221; - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

&#8216;Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,&#8217; he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.&#8221;

Those who think we should torture people for any reason are not patriots.


----------



## Newby (May 7, 2009)

wihosa said:


> The first American to ban torture was General George Washington. Following are two of his quotes in regards to torture;
> 
> Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country. - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
> 
> ...



Perhaps the British adversaries were capable of shame?


----------



## wihosa (May 7, 2009)

"Perhaps the British adversaries were capable of shame? "

Your point?


----------



## rayboyusmc (May 7, 2009)

> there will be no active aggression in capturing the bad guys, thus no interrogations, thus no torture.



Yep, dickwad, that's why he had the pirates shot.

The right talks a good game, but it's mostly talk.


----------



## Newby (May 7, 2009)

wihosa said:


> "Perhaps the British adversaries were capable of shame? "
> 
> Your point?




I think I made it.


----------



## DiveCon (May 7, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> > there will be no active aggression in capturing the bad guys, thus no interrogations, thus no torture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


except he didnt actually "order" them shot
he ALLOWED it as a last resort, and the commander on the ship made the final call


----------



## wihosa (May 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > > there will be no active aggression in capturing the bad guys, thus no interrogations, thus no torture.
> ...



A distinction without a difference


----------



## DiveCon (May 7, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...


there is a huge difference
but of course, your partisanship wont allow you to see it


----------



## wihosa (May 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You are the one wearing ideological blinders.


----------



## DiveCon (May 7, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


you're the one that cant see what should be seen easily


the responsibility for the shooting was with the commander that gave the order
not POTUS
because POTUS said "only as a last resort if YOU believe the mans life was in danger"
that means if it had turned out bad, the commander would have been the one taking the responsibility


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 8, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Bullypulpit said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


----------



## eots (May 8, 2009)

this kids got the right stuff for a career as a military interrogator and they kids don't learn job skills in school...pfft

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RJimTHd9Z4[/ame]


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO... Oh that is a snappy comeback.. and if there was no difference in that distinction you'd be in GREAT SHAPE.

Sadly, the difference is that an American would have ordered the Pirates to be destroyed... as a show of force, to offset any notions that hijacking US ships should be considered a 'decent business model'... proving that the liability of losing one's life, outwieghs ANY potential profit.

That's not what The Lord of the Idiots did... He ordered negotiations and a peaceful resolution, which would have only encoruaged more piracy.  The Seals were the ones who provided the bottom line resolution: Fuck with us and we'll destroy your ass TODAY!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 9, 2009)

Bullypulpit said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Bullypulpit said:
> ...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 9, 2009)

eots said:


> this kids got the right stuff for a career as a military interrogator and they kids don't learn job skills in school...pfft
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RJimTHd9Z4



ROFL... what ya have there is a punk...  and one who, if he IS alive today, is alive because the women he attacked was not related to the right people...

To wit: my wife drives a school bus; which is her way of making 'a difference'... its how we ended up adopting our new daughter... and while it's unlikely; IF one of her kids did that to my wife...  his last days breathing on this earth would be those he spent behind bars for that crime.  

And his last hours on this earth would be spent begging for deaf mercy to spare him from the incomperhensible, nightmarish, hellish pain that I would be visting on his ass, in ways that you couldn't imagine if you took the rest of the night to consider; and "torture" would not BEGIN to describe the pain that I would be bringing down that piece of shit.

And that is based PURELY on me getting to him before one of my sons... which is frankly unlikely... in which case he'd just be beaten to a pulp and likely eviscerated right on the exact spot where he exited whatever vehicle picked him up from the lock-up.

And while there are many who believe that US Interrogation techniques are of a similar nature... they are first: WRONG and second; they set aside the distinction of context... This video shows an innocent senior woman, doing her job... who is brutally beaten by an diot who for whatever psychological manifestation, be it drug induced, hormonal, mommy didn't change his shitty diapers... or what have you; he should be charged, tried and executed for that assault... 

In a perfect world, that Bus Driver would have drawn a side arm and shot the little prick, killing him, on the spot; and the fact that the people the US Military are interrogating are of the same insanity level as that asswipe... and don't get that kind of treatment, only reinforces the absurdity that their measured response is well below the threshold of what is reasonable, given they're directly involved in the slaughter of innocent people.. not unlike that bus driver...


----------



## Burp (May 9, 2009)

This is torture.


----------



## Iriemon (May 10, 2009)

Burp said:


> This is torture.



That looks like death to me.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



A peaceful resolution?  Except that 3 pirates died.  Thats not peaceful.


----------



## Burp (May 10, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > This is torture.
> ...



I'm sure you feel the families of all the victims didn't feel torture on 9/11.  Nor the people in the planes and the buildings. 

Seems to me that doing what was deemed legal at the time to prevent 9/11 from happening again (which it did), is a small trade when you consider the alternative.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Burp said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



The families of all the victims didn't feel torture on 9/11, because, well, they weren't tortured.  From the convention against torture "torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Of course, the things that were "deemed legal at the time" were because of the definition of torture in the bybee memo.  That definition was "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent to intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under Section 2340, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years."

Some things under that act that don't fall under torture:  Rape.  Needles under fingernails.  Electro-shocks.  Threatening ones family.  Druggings.  Just a few which are deemed "legal" under that absurd, asinine definition.  By the way, the language for the "organ failure, impairment of bodily function" part was taken from a statute involving, IIRC, medicare.  Clearly not applicable here.  

The things that were "determined to be legal" were prosecuted as torture...but only when others did those acts to Americans.  Because, of course, then its torture.


----------



## Burp (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Such a good try but...wrong. 

From Dictionary.com:

tor&#8901;ture
&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;t&#596;rt&#643;&#601;r/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur&#8901;ing.
noun
1. 	the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. 	a method of inflicting such pain.
3. 	Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. 	extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. 	a cause of severe pain or anguish.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Burp said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



Dictionary.com isn't a resource for anything approaching a legal definition.  Fail.  Badly.


----------



## Burp (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Who said I was using the the "legal" definition? 

It was my post.  I used the word to describe the feelings the families and witnesses must have felt. 

You chose to change my meaning to fit your agenda. 

Epic fail.


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

Burp said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



Gee, I'm sorry.  When you referenced what was "deemed legal" I thought we were talking about legal definitions not "whatever the fuck I want things to mean" definitions.  Carry on with your bullshit about deciding words mean whatever you want them to mean.


----------



## Vaccum John (Jun 21, 2009)

Before the coming of Islam, most Arabs followed a religion with a number of deities, including Hubal, Wadd, All&#257;t, Manat, and Uzza.


----------

