Approved at the highest level
-
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
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Our executive branch is full of bona-fide war criminals.
That is patent nonsense. 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. In that sort of atmosphere I positively insist that my government use all means necessary to attempt to negate that threat. Whilst I would (naively) hope that the 'tea and biscuits' approach would win the day I know damn well it won't. So if we have to torture these scum bags to stop or hinder further atrocities then do it. Don't hesitate; use any methods that will save even 1 innocent life. 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.
Why is it always they win/we win with conservatives. War is a no-win game, no matter how you play it. Yeah, one side may come out "on top". But how many people had to die, on both sides, to get there? Why is it that anybody who disagrees with Bush is a coward, and a traiter (no, YOU didn't say this, but plenty of Conservatives do)? A Democracy CANNOT function if its people aren't allowed to disagree with their leaders. This doesn't make you a coward. Cowardly is asking "How High?" every time said leaders say "Jump". You can bash liberals all you want, but at the end of the day, 70% of this country believes that the government has handled this whole thing wrong.
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
-
: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
I don't like the current government, but I'm certainly not one of the damn democrats.
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.