Approved at the highest level
-
digital man wrote:
I, for one, applaud the politicians courage (in this context) in the face of liberal cowards like you who would rather roll over and let the fanatics win because it is easier on your conscience than having to face reality and fight them.
Any sane person would. People like Oily are nothing more than propagandists. It isn't that he would rather let the terrorists win than fight them, it is that he views the "right" in our own political system as being the greater threat. Bush, Cheney, etc, represent to him a validation of all of his long standing anti-conservative prejudices. IMO, it is clear that the Bush administration has not handled the situation as well as it could have been. And they deserve criticism. But just as clearly, dealing with a threat as elusive as that which is coming out of the middle east is going to require reevaluating the finer legal details which our current processes are based upon. We need leadership that has the courage to 'push the envelope' in that regard. The problem is that anything a conservative president might do which in any way can be construed to be a denial of some ridiculous definition of civil rights, is going to be twisted into a Nazi like quest to destroy western civilization by the vile little Oilys of our society. The really scary part is that if a left leaning democrat were doing the precise same thing, you wouldn't hear a pip out of him. Thanks for helping to shout him down.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
People like Oily are nothing more than propagandists
A propagandist? Hmmm, perhaps. Perhaps I am a propagandist for what makes America great. It's respect for the rule of law, it's desire to do the right thing and it's respect of human rights.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't that he would rather let the terrorists win than fight them
You're right. That is a false dichotomy. I know we need to fight. I also know that we will never lose against terrorists as long as we don't surrender to our own base impulses.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it is that he views the "right"...
Still think you can read minds? :rolleyes:
-
digital man wrote:
That is patent nonsense.
Of course it isn't. After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized. Our laws - the War Crimes act of 1996, for example - and our treaty obligations are clear.
digital man wrote:
The West is under constant threat (and attack) from people who would not and do not hesitate to kill and maim as many innocents as they can in the furtherance of their cause.
It's not the first time. And we've always been able to treat our prisoners humanely.
digital man wrote:
I would (naively) hope that the 'tea and biscuits' approach would win the day I know damn well it won't.
You know it won't? I doubt it. It's always worked before, it will continue to work now.
digital man wrote:
applaud the politicians courage
Courage? Resorted to torture and ignoring the rule of lawis criminal and cowardly.
digital man wrote:
in the face of liberal cowards like you who would rather roll over and let the fanatics win because it is easier on your conscience than having to face reality and fight them.
Do you really believe what you are saying?! We can only win if we torture? That it is cowardly to resist becoming just like our enemies? What a bizarre bipolar world you have created for yourself - 'We must torture or surrender'. :wtf:
oilFactotum wrote:
After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized
Different world, old chap. These ar enot the same times, not the same enemies and not the same consequences.
oilFactotum wrote:
It's not the first time. And we've always been able to treat our prisoners humanely.
Oh but it is the first time we have had to face an enemy of this type. It's been a long time since we could either use gunboat diplomacy or win by sheer weight of numbers or technological superiority. And I'm pretty sure that we have not always been humane to every prisoner when the need arises.
oilFactotum wrote:
You know it won't? I doubt it. It's always worked before, it will continue to work now.
Evidence?
oilFactotum wrote:
Courage? Resorted to torture and ignoring the rule of lawis criminal and cowardly.
Where have they flouted the law? They make the law!
oilFactotum wrote:
We can only win if we torture
Please point out where that is what I said: you are taking what I've said and twisting it to suit your own arguments. Pity.
oilFactotum wrote:
That it is cowardly to resist becoming just like our enemies?
We're not becoming like our enemies; we're dealing with them to save our own lives. I'm pretty sure that, when push comes to shove, I'll kill them before I let them kill me. You'd be lying to yourself if you said otherwise. And if part of the answer is to resort to torture to save lives then torture away. Rather them than us.
-
That is so sad if you really believe that.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We have also never been under a sustained, orgainzed terrorist threat of this magnitude before.
That's true - this is probably the largest terrorist threat that we've encountered - a few thousand guys led by another guy hiding in a cave. So, what you are saying is technically true. What you are suggesting is utterly false. We have indeed faced such evil before, this is not unique.
Stan Shannon wrote:
new threats require new counter measures
While it is true that a conventional war of the type we fought against the Nazis would not be appropriate to this war, tossing out the rule of law and descending into war crimes are not the appropriate 'new counter measures'.
oilFactotum wrote:
While it is true that a conventional war of the type we fought against the Nazis would not be appropriate to this war, tossing out the rule of law and descending into war crimes are not the appropriate 'new counter measures'.
So we can't fight 'em the old fashioned way and we can't fight 'em in any new way unless the law says its ok. So our ability to defend ourselves is restricted by the law, while the bads guys ability to attack us isn't. That we either have a choice between total war, or not doing anything other than what the law says is ok. Thats fucking insane.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
People like Oily are nothing more than propagandists
A propagandist? Hmmm, perhaps. Perhaps I am a propagandist for what makes America great. It's respect for the rule of law, it's desire to do the right thing and it's respect of human rights.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't that he would rather let the terrorists win than fight them
You're right. That is a false dichotomy. I know we need to fight. I also know that we will never lose against terrorists as long as we don't surrender to our own base impulses.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it is that he views the "right"...
Still think you can read minds? :rolleyes:
oilFactotum wrote:
I also know that we will never lose against terrorists as long as we don't surrender to our own base impulses.
And that is where you are so completely wrong. Anyone who imposes rules upon their own behavior which an enemy is free to willfully ignore will most certainly lose. Defeat is inevitable.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
I think that is a question that you need to answer.
oilFactotum wrote:
think that is a question that you need to answer.
OK. Yes, execution is worse. Therefore, by executing people for waterboarding, we were more evil than they were.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
oilFactotum wrote:
While it is true that a conventional war of the type we fought against the Nazis would not be appropriate to this war, tossing out the rule of law and descending into war crimes are not the appropriate 'new counter measures'.
So we can't fight 'em the old fashioned way and we can't fight 'em in any new way unless the law says its ok. So our ability to defend ourselves is restricted by the law, while the bads guys ability to attack us isn't. That we either have a choice between total war, or not doing anything other than what the law says is ok. Thats fucking insane.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
So we can't fight 'em the old fashioned way and we can't fight 'em in any new way unless the law says its ok.
What do you mean "we?" You're on record as hiding out in the Navy so you wouldn't have to fight. When did you develop courage?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So we can't fight 'em the old fashioned way and we can't fight 'em in any new way unless the law says its ok.
What do you mean "we?" You're on record as hiding out in the Navy so you wouldn't have to fight. When did you develop courage?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You're on record as hiding out in the Navy so you wouldn't have to fight.
I did indeed. Thats called honesty. Maybe you should try it some time. However, I did serve. In fact, I am a Vietnam veteran, I received combat pay, have my little vietnam campaign and service ribbons, in addition to serving some 10 years in the field artillery in the National Guard and Army Reserves. So, coward or not, I ultimately played my part. If nothing else, it earns me the right to an opinion.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
You're on record as hiding out in the Navy so you wouldn't have to fight.
I did indeed. Thats called honesty. Maybe you should try it some time. However, I did serve. In fact, I am a Vietnam veteran, I received combat pay, have my little vietnam campaign and service ribbons, in addition to serving some 10 years in the field artillery in the National Guard and Army Reserves. So, coward or not, I ultimately played my part. If nothing else, it earns me the right to an opinion.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, I am a Vietnam veteran, I received combat pay, have my little vietnam campaign and service ribbons
Stanley, you make John Kerry look like a John Wayne type hero.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, coward or not, I ultimately played my part. If nothing else, it earns me the right to an opinion.
Could be, but imho, Your part was a walk-on and it doesn't give you the right to talk about "we" fighting.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
oilFactotum wrote:
After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized
Different world, old chap. These ar enot the same times, not the same enemies and not the same consequences.
oilFactotum wrote:
It's not the first time. And we've always been able to treat our prisoners humanely.
Oh but it is the first time we have had to face an enemy of this type. It's been a long time since we could either use gunboat diplomacy or win by sheer weight of numbers or technological superiority. And I'm pretty sure that we have not always been humane to every prisoner when the need arises.
oilFactotum wrote:
You know it won't? I doubt it. It's always worked before, it will continue to work now.
Evidence?
oilFactotum wrote:
Courage? Resorted to torture and ignoring the rule of lawis criminal and cowardly.
Where have they flouted the law? They make the law!
oilFactotum wrote:
We can only win if we torture
Please point out where that is what I said: you are taking what I've said and twisting it to suit your own arguments. Pity.
oilFactotum wrote:
That it is cowardly to resist becoming just like our enemies?
We're not becoming like our enemies; we're dealing with them to save our own lives. I'm pretty sure that, when push comes to shove, I'll kill them before I let them kill me. You'd be lying to yourself if you said otherwise. And if part of the answer is to resort to torture to save lives then torture away. Rather them than us.
digital man wrote:
Different world...
digital man wrote:
Oh but it is the first time...
Oh please. "9/11 Changed Everything". "Never Before Have We Faced Such Evil". " our enemies are uniquely, extra-special super-duper evil." It just won't fly.
digital man wrote:
Evidence?
Here's a start[^] The evidence is all over the place, just a google away. What I would like to see (and never have) from the torture apologists is the evidence that torture is more effective.
digital man wrote:
Where have they flouted the law?
Are you serious?! The illegal wiretapping from just a few years ago and torture to name just two.
digital man wrote:
They make the law!
In what version of the constitution does the executive branch make law?
digital man wrote:
Please point out where that is what I said: you are taking what I've said and twisting it to suit your own arguments. Pity.
Get real. It was a question, not a statement. How else would you have me interpret this statement of yours:
digital man wrote:
in the face of liberal cowards like you who would rather roll over and let the fanatics win because it is easier on your conscience than having to face reality and fight them.
I oppose torture therefore I "would rather roll over and let the fanatics win". That very clearly says to me that to win we must torture.
digital man wrote:
if part of the answer is to resort to torture
That's the thing, isn't it? It has never been part of the answer.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I also know that we will never lose against terrorists as long as we don't surrender to our own base impulses.
And that is where you are so completely wrong. Anyone who imposes rules upon their own behavior which an enemy is free to willfully ignore will most certainly lose. Defeat is inevitable.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
And that is where you are so completely wrong.
On that point we will simply have to disagree.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
What is different in this war is that a regime of torture was created at the highest levels of the US government as a key component in this 'War on Terror'. Torture has never been US policy before.
I am afraid that's incorrect. As I already alluded to, the CIA and Special Forces used torture routinely to get information from civilians in Vietnam and Laos. It's possible the no-one told Johnson or Nixon, but I doubt it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
That may or may not be true. I can niether support not disporve this claim. If it's true, what conclusion are you drawing from this fact?
-
That may or may not be true. I can niether support not disporve this claim. If it's true, what conclusion are you drawing from this fact?
-
google operation phoenix and draw your own conclusions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Yes, I've heard about it. So what about it? Hmm, interesting. For someone who has, on several occassions, complained about how I 'didn't know what you were thinking' or was 'putting words in your mouth' I find it more than a little curious that you refuse to say what you mean when asked directly to do so, so as to avoid any misunderstanding. In the future I'll try not to take you seriously.
modified on Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:55 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, I am a Vietnam veteran, I received combat pay, have my little vietnam campaign and service ribbons
Stanley, you make John Kerry look like a John Wayne type hero.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, coward or not, I ultimately played my part. If nothing else, it earns me the right to an opinion.
Could be, but imho, Your part was a walk-on and it doesn't give you the right to talk about "we" fighting.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Your part was a walk-on and it doesn't give you the right to talk about "we" fighting.
What was your MOS?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
Your part was a walk-on and it doesn't give you the right to talk about "we" fighting.
What was your MOS?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Yes, I've heard about it. So what about it? Hmm, interesting. For someone who has, on several occassions, complained about how I 'didn't know what you were thinking' or was 'putting words in your mouth' I find it more than a little curious that you refuse to say what you mean when asked directly to do so, so as to avoid any misunderstanding. In the future I'll try not to take you seriously.
modified on Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:55 PM
Actually, I never posted anything of the sort about you, or anyone else in CP for that matter. You need to get a firmer grip on reality. What I did post recently was a real desire not to engage in a conversation with you that went on and on and on. For some reason, possibly a lack of a life, you seem to wish to continue every thread in which someone responds to you until every last jot and tittle of interest has been squeezed from it. In other words - go way, kid, you're boring me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
digital man wrote:
Different world...
digital man wrote:
Oh but it is the first time...
Oh please. "9/11 Changed Everything". "Never Before Have We Faced Such Evil". " our enemies are uniquely, extra-special super-duper evil." It just won't fly.
digital man wrote:
Evidence?
Here's a start[^] The evidence is all over the place, just a google away. What I would like to see (and never have) from the torture apologists is the evidence that torture is more effective.
digital man wrote:
Where have they flouted the law?
Are you serious?! The illegal wiretapping from just a few years ago and torture to name just two.
digital man wrote:
They make the law!
In what version of the constitution does the executive branch make law?
digital man wrote:
Please point out where that is what I said: you are taking what I've said and twisting it to suit your own arguments. Pity.
Get real. It was a question, not a statement. How else would you have me interpret this statement of yours:
digital man wrote:
in the face of liberal cowards like you who would rather roll over and let the fanatics win because it is easier on your conscience than having to face reality and fight them.
I oppose torture therefore I "would rather roll over and let the fanatics win". That very clearly says to me that to win we must torture.
digital man wrote:
if part of the answer is to resort to torture
That's the thing, isn't it? It has never been part of the answer.
Sorry for my tardiness in repsonding.
oilFactotum wrote:
Oh please. "9/11 Changed Everything". "Never Before Have We Faced Such Evil". " our enemies are uniquely, extra-special super-duper evil." It just won't fly.
Again, not what I said. In previous wars the enemy was usually country v country or civil block v civil block. There my be ancient examples but of what relevance would they be now? This is the first time that our culture has faced such an insidious global enemy that is not a single country but moves around and is well hidden amongst the general populace. You can't really send out a tank or a battleship: it is (for the most part) dealt with by stealth.
oilFactotum wrote:
The evidence is all over the place, just a google away. What I would like to see (and never have) from the torture apologists is the evidence that torture is more effective.
That's not evidence: it's journalistic interpretation.
oilFactotum wrote:
Are you serious?! The illegal wiretapping from just a few years ago and torture to name just two.
Were 'they' arrested, charged and jailed?
oilFactotum wrote:
In what version of the constitution does the executive branch make law?
Sorry: was being a bit parochial there: in the UK Tony B Liar or Gordon Bean and their chums pretty much dictate the law. I realise it is a little different in the colonies where you have yet to catch up with our new-fangled democracy thingy.
oilFactotum wrote:
Get real. It was a question, not a statement.
Oh I'm real but I don't distort what someone else has said. However, you are, of course, free to interpret anything in any way.
oilFactotum wrote:
I oppose torture therefore I "would rather roll over and let the fanatics win". That very clearly says to me that to win we must torture.
I wasn't talking about torture specifically here rather your prediliction for peaceful means to win a war. It just ain't gonna happen that way. You can't be nice to your enemy and hope that they'll recipricate.
oilFactotum wrote:
That's the thing, isn't it? It has never been part of the answer.
Really? Again, present some evidence that that is th
-
No we have an executive branch doing their job.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: That's funny! You must be one of the 30%.
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA