NEW Bi-Partisan report on torture

[revelarts]

..On torture sorry, can someone change the title please

just fyi in the middle of the month this Government report came out...


Bipartisan Report: U.S. Practiced Widespread Torture, Torture Has “No Justification” and Doesn’t Yield Significant Information, Nation’s Highest Officials Bear Responsibility
Posted on April 18, 2013 (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/bipartisan-report-u-s-practiced-widespread-torture-torture-has-no-jusification-and-doesnt-yield-significant-information-nations-highest-officials-bear-responsibility.html) by WashingtonsBlog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog)
We Can’t Just Look Forward … We Have to Admit What Went Wrong

Yesterday, a bi-partisan panel – co-chaired by the former undersecretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, former Republican congressman from Arkansas and NRA consultant (Asa Hutchinson) and former Democratic congressman and U.S. ambassador to Mexico (James Jones) – released a 577-page report on torture after 2 years of study.
Other luminaries on the panel include:
•Former FBI Director William Sessions
•3-star general Claudia J. Kennedy
•Retired Brigadier General David Irvine
•Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations, and U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Thomas Pickering

The panel concluded:
•“Torture occurred in many instances and across a wide range of theaters”
•There is “no firm or persuasive evidence” that the use of such techniques yielded “significant information of value”
•“The nation’s highest officials bear some responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of torture”
•“Publicly acknowledging this grave error, however belatedly, may mitigate some of those consequences and help undo some of the damage to our reputation at home and abroad”
The panel also found:
•The use of torture has “no justification” and “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive”
•“As long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United States could again engage in torture”
•The Obama administration’s keeping the details of rendition and torture from the public “cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security”, and it should stop blocking lawsuits by former detainees on the basis of claiming “state secrets”

At a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, co-chair Hutchinson said:
We found that U.S. personnel, in many instances, used interrogation techniques on detainees that constitute torture. American personnel conducted an even larger number of interrogations that involved cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Both categories of actions violate U.S. laws and international treaty obligations.

This conclusion is not based upon our own personal impressions, but rather is grounded in a thorough and detailed examination of what constitutes torture from a historical and legal context. We looked at court cases and determined that the treatment of detainees, in many instances, met the standards the courts have determined as constituting torture. But in addition, you look at the United States State Department, in its annual country reports on human rights (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/human_rights) practices, has characterized many of the techniques used against detainees in U.S. custody in the post-9/11 environment—the State Department has characterized the same treatment as torture, abuse or cruel treatment when those techniques were employed by foreign governments. The CIA recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques it employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions the United States has taken regarding human rights. The United States is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments.



There are those that defend the techniques of—like waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation, because there was the Office of Legal Counsel, which issued a decision approving of their use because they define them as not being torture. Those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the OLC itself. And even in its opinion, it relied not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture, but also on factual representations about how the techniques would be implemented, that later proved inaccurate. This is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policy makers relied upon it.


Based upon a thorough review of the available public record, we determined that, in application, torture was used against detainees in many instances and across a wide range of theaters.
***


And while our report is critical of the approval of interrogation techniques that ultimately led to U.S. personnel engaging in torture of detainees, the investigation was not an undertaking of partisan fault finding. Our conclusions about responsibility should be taken very simply as an effort to understand what happened at many levels of the U.S. policy making. There is no way of knowing how the government would have responded if a Democrat administration were in power at the time of the attacks. Indeed, our report is equally critical of the rendition-to-torture program, which began under President Clinton. And we question several actions of the current administration, as well. It should be noted that many of the corrective actions that—were first undertaken during the Bush administration, as well.



But the task force did conclude that the nation’s highest officials, after the 9/11 attack, approved actions for CIA and Defense personnel based upon legal guidance that has since been repudiated. The most important decision may have been to declare the Geneva Convention did not apply to al-Qaeda and Taliban captives in Afghanistan (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/afghanistan) or Guantánamo. The administration never specified what rules would apply instead. The task force believes that U.S. defense intelligence professionals and servicemembers in harm’s way need absolutely clear orders on the treatment of detainees, requiring at a minimum compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. This was not done. Civilian leaders and military (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/military) commanders have an affirmative responsibility to assure that their subordinates comply with the laws of war (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/war). President Obama has committed to observe the Geneva Conventions through an executive order, but a future president could change it by the stroke of a pen.
***
The task force believes it is important to recognize that—that is—that to say torture is ineffective does not require a demonstration that it never works. A person subjected to torture might well divulge useful information. Nor does the fact that it may sometimes yield legitimate information justify its use. What values do America stand for? That’s the ultimate question. But in addition to the very real legal and moral objections to its use, torture often produces false information, and it is difficult and time-consuming for interrogators and analysts to distinguish what may be true and usable from that which is false and misleading. Also, conventional, lawful interrogation methods have proven to be successful whenever the United States uses them throughout history—and I have seen this in law enforcement, as well. We’ve seen no evidence in the public record that the traditional means of interrogation would not have yielded the necessary intelligence following the attacks of 9/11.

Retired Brigadier General David Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer and Army instructor in prisoner interrogation said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjtpqaFSGO0&feature=player_detailpage#t=3116s):
Public record strongly suggests that there was no useful information gained from going to the dark side that saved the hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of lives that have been claimed. There are many instances in that public record to support the notion that we have been badly misled by false confessions that have been derived from brutal interrogations. And unfortunately, it is a fact that people—people will just say whatever they think needs to be said if the pain becomes more than they can bear. Other people are so immune to pain that they will die before they will reveal what an interrogator may wish to know.
I’ll just say, in conclusion, that in 2001 the United States had had a great deal of experience with tactical and strategic interrogations. We had been very successful over a long period of time in learning how to do this and do it very, very well. Unfortunately, when the policies were developed that led us to the dark side, many of those who were involved in formulating those policies had no experience with interrogation, had no experience with law enforcement, had no experience with the military, in how these matters are approached. One of the most successful FBI (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/fbi) interrogators prior to 2001 was a guy named Joe (http://www.democracynow.org/appearances/joe) Navarro. And Joe is noted for having said—and he was probably one of the handful of strategic interrogators qualified to interrogate and debrief a high-value al-Qaeda prisoner. But Joe said, “I only need three things. If you’ll give me three things, I will get whatever someone has to say, and I will do it without breaking the law. First of all, I need a quiet room. Second, I want to know what the rules are, because I don’t want to get in trouble. And third, I need enough time to become that person’s best and only friend. And if you give me those three conditions, I will get whatever that person has to say, and I will get it effectively and quickly and safely and within the terms of the law.” So, we can do it well when we want to. We need to do more, looking at our history, to remind us what worked and why it worked, and not resort to what may seem at the time to be expedient, clever or necessary.

Indeed, top American military and intelligence interrogation experts from both sides of the aisle have conclusively proven the following 10 facts about torture (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/9-torture-myths-debunked.html):

1. Torture is not a partisan issue
2. Waterboarding is torture
3. Torture decreases our national security
4. Torture can not break hardened terrorists
5. Torture is not necessary even in a “ticking time bomb” situation
6. The specific type of torture used by the U.S. was never aimed at producing actionable intelligence … but was instead aimed at producing false confessions
7. Torture did not help to get Bin Laden
8. Torture did not provide valuable details regarding 9/11
9. Many innocent people were tortured
10. America still allows torture




http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17781845-bush-era-torture-use-indisputable-guantanamo-must-close-task-force-finds?lite

[Dilloduck]

Odd choice of wording on #5. Torture is not necessary---- ?

[Missileman]

..On torture sorry, can someone change the title please

just fyi in the middle of the month this Government report came out...




http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17781845-bush-era-torture-use-indisputable-guantanamo-must-close-task-force-finds?lite

Treating them like civilized human beings has worked so well in the past. BTW, reading the musings of a bunch of hand-wringers is torture!

[Robert A Whit]

..On torture sorry, can someone change the title please

just fyi in the middle of the month this Government report came out...




http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17781845-bush-era-torture-use-indisputable-guantanamo-must-close-task-force-finds?lite


Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again, shame on me.

As secretive as the Obama admin is, as much as they claim to hate torture, what gives you a reasonable idea they allowed any pro torture (I still do not call water-boarding torture) data to be released. They refuse to even discuss drones in top secret settings.

I ask those who think water boards are wrong to consider this fact. We do the same thing to the navy seals.

I repeat, Seals have this done to them and long have. The Bush admin studied that and figured if it was good enough our own sailors, it sure was good enough for the enemy.

I prefer water boarding by far to the death and injury done in other countries by drones. We are not at war with Pakistan or Yemen. But Obama attacks them. If you were given the choice of being water boarded, or having legs blown off, choose one.

Funny how he would not attack Libya or Syria.

[revelarts]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again, shame on me.
As secretive as the Obama admin is, as much as they claim to hate torture, what gives you a reasonable idea they allowed any pro torture (I still do not call water-boarding torture) data to be released. They refuse to even discuss drones in top secret settings.
I ask those who think water boards are wrong to consider this fact. We do the same thing to the navy seals.
I repeat, Seals have this done to them and long have. The Bush admin studied that and figured if it was good enough our own sailors, it sure was good enough for the enemy.
I prefer water boarding by far to the death and injury done in other countries by drones. We are not at war with Pakistan or Yemen. But Obama attacks them. If you were given the choice of being water boarded, or having legs blown off, choose one.
Funny how he would not attack Libya or Syria.

I agree that drones strikes of terror suspects is worse than the torture of suspects. With Drones you end up killing and maiming NON suspects as well.

ANd It seems Obama is still using rendition as well.

As far as waterboarding goes consider this when it was done in the spanish inquisition it was called the water torture. Police have gone to jail for doing the same to prsisoneers. Regan signed treaties agaist it.

the seal have it done to them, yes. they have torture done to them as part of there training to help them resist... torture.

[Robert A Whit]

I agree that drones strikes of terror suspects is worse than the torture of suspects. With Drones you end up killing and maiming NON suspects as well.

ANd It seems Obama is still using rendition as well.

As far as waterboarding goes consider this when it was done in the spanish inquisition it was called the water torture. Police have gone to jail for doing the same to prsisoneers. Regan signed treaties agaist it.

the seal have it done to them, yes. they have torture done to them as part of there training to help them resist... torture.

It strikes me strange that the man who said no torture does not understand that each drone strike also leaves very wounded people and that is very much pain.

Water boarding has no pain. It is misery. Many things done to the enemy may be misery, but not torture.

I happen to agree with the many lawyers who promised President Bush it was not torture, so long as they did it a certain way. Even so, it only happened to 3 men.

[Missileman]

the seal have it done to them, yes. they have torture done to them as part of there training to help them resist... torture.

They are being trained to resist interrogation.

[aboutime]

They are being trained to resist interrogation.


Missileman. Rev doesn't want, or need to hear that. It is seemingly beyond his mental capacity to accept.

And this is but a tiny microcosm of our population, and how totally uninformed they are.

[fj1200]

just fyi in the middle of the month this Government report came out...

But it's OK, we can just use the power of government to declare someone subhuman.

[Dilloduck]

They are being trained to resist interrogation.

They are being trained to not give out any vital information during an interrogation while being subjected to a number of adverse conditions including waterboarding.

If Bush hadn't approved of severe forms of interrogation someone woulda bitched about that too. Politicians will always be just that--politicians.

[revelarts]

They are being trained to resist interrogation.

interrogation... with torture.
SERE trainers call it torture.

in·ter·ro·ga·tion
[in-ter-uh-gey-shuhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn] Show IPA

noun
1. the act of interrogating (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interrogate); questioning.
2. an instance of being interrogated (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interrogate): He seemed shaken after his interrogation.
3. a question; inquiry.
4. a written list of questions.
5. an interrogation point (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interrogation%20point); question mark.



police interrogate everyday, there's no water-boarding involved missile.

[revelarts]

...
I happen to agree with the many lawyers who promised President Bush it was not torture, so long as they did it a certain way. Even so, it only happened to 3 men.

the report says something else..


We found that U.S. personnel, in many instances, used interrogation techniques on detainees that constitute torture. American personnel conducted an even larger number of interrogations that involved cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.

...the State Department has characterized the same treatment as torture, abuse or cruel treatment when those techniques were employed by foreign governments. The CIA recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques it employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions the United States has taken regarding human rights....

...There are those that defend the techniques of—like waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation, because there was the Office of Legal Counsel, which issued a decision approving of their use because they define them as not being torture. Those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the OLC itself. And even in its opinion, it relied not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture, but also on factual representations about how the techniques would be implemented, that later proved inaccurate....

...Based upon a thorough review of the available public record, we determined that, in application, torture was used against detainees in many instances and across a wide range of theaters...

[red states rule]

Rev, with all due respect, it was torture for me to read your posts and have to endure your sympathy for terrorists

[revelarts]

Rev, with all due respect, it was torture for me to read your posts and have to endure your sympathy for terrorists

Red, If people had not gone to jail because of the kind of torture I'm talking about you might have point. until then , clearly, we are talking about 2 different things. One metaphorical torture, the other actual.

But it's more saddening to me that our country is so fearful and feels so desperately threatened by a handful of fanatics that some want to give up our reputation and principals forever to employee --and regularly advocate-- practices that we all understood to be barbaric and evil only a few years earlier.

[taft2012]

Did the study happen to delve into how the enemy is housing and feeding our prisoners they have in captivity?

[taft2012]

Missileman. Rev doesn't want, or need to hear that. It is seemingly beyond his mental capacity to accept.

And this is but a tiny microcosm of our population, and how totally uninformed they are.

Liberals and Pothead Conservatives....

Ron Paul blamed us for 9/11.

Blame America first, ignore all evidence to the contrary.

That's how liberals and Pothead conservatives roll.

[Dilloduck]

nah--liberals and potheads don't tell the truth.

[Drummond]

Rev, with all due respect, it was torture for me to read your posts and have to endure your sympathy for terrorists:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Revelarts, I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing the toss about this with you. I'll just state my piece in this post .. maybe one or two more afterwards.

Simply .. I couldn't care less whether terrorists suffer torture, or not. WHO CARES IF THEY DO ? THEY ARE TERRORISTS !!!!

You seem very concerned about their fate, what they could endure. Where in your musings, Revelarts, do you spare a thought FOR THEIR VICTIMS ??

... No. You don't. Do you ?

Trust a Leftie to have more time for fretting about the fate of TERRORISTS, THAN THEIR VICTIMS.

Threads like this have me spitting blood. If terrorists do suffer, then that's fine by me. Let the scum rot in hell.

I have one complaint against Gitmo. One only. But I absolutely do have grounds for complaint.

MY COMPLAINT IS THAT THERE AREN'T MORE OF THEM.

If I was Prime Minister of Great Britain, I'd be offering the Americans land, facilities, whatever they wanted, to run some Gitmo-style compounds on British soil. I'd be very happy to. Hell, I'd probably want to run a couple of British ones myself.

And I wouldn't care what they did to get their information. I'd just be happy that the facilities were in operation.

[Drummond]

Did the study happen to delve into how the enemy is housing and feeding our prisoners they have in captivity?:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[red states rule]

Red, If people had not gone to jail because of the kind of torture I'm talking about you might have point. until then , clearly, we are talking about 2 different things. One metaphorical torture, the other actual.

But it's more saddening to me that our country is so fearful and feels so desperately threatened by a handful of fanatics that some want to give up our reputation and principals forever to employee --and regularly advocate-- practices that we all understood to be barbaric and evil only a few years earlier.

Rev, it does not take many to kill alot of innocent people

How many "fanatics" did it take to murder 3,000 people of 9/11/11?

How many did it take to murder our sailors and officers on the USS Cole?

It does not take that many Rev

Yea I am fearful because it is one thing to have several bleeding hearts on a message board cry a river of tears over the rights of terrorists - but I hope the hell that is not happening with the folks whose job it is to stop the attacks

Oh, and just for you Rev


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4043/4215130030_73fff91f13_z.jpg?zz=1

[aboutime]

Note to all. Forgive rev. For he knows not...what he is doing.

Everyone should know, and understand. Talking to rev is a useless cause. Much like jafar the other False Prophet.

[red states rule]

Did the study happen to delve into how the enemy is housing and feeding our prisoners they have in captivity?

Perhaps it is time to have the same policy regarding prisoners as the terrorists do and not take any

[aboutime]

Perhaps it is time to have the same policy regarding prisoners as the terrorists do and not take any


red states rule. Remember? Obama jumped to using Deadly attacks by drones, and those attacks rarely, if ever, leave anyone left to gather up, and take as prisoner. So..no prisoners have been added to Gitmo, or other places.

And, I would like to ask tailfins....how many, and where are any Americans being held as prisoners of WAR, TODAY?

[red states rule]

Note to all. Forgive rev. For he knows not...what he is doing.

Everyone should know, and understand. Talking to rev is a useless cause. Much like jafar the other False Prophet.

Rev is a cool guy as he is consistent

He has been one of the few posters here speaking out on my abortion "doctor" thread

As I said, I am delighted Rev and his liberal pals who are supporting him on this thread, are NOT responsible for keeping us safe

[revelarts]

Revelarts, I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing the toss about this with you. I'll just state my piece in this post .. maybe one or two more afterwards.
Simply .. I couldn't care less whether terrorists suffer torture, or not. WHO CARES IF THEY DO ? THEY ARE TERRORISTS !!!!

they are terrorist suspects. and as a rule Americans are above torture. we claim to better than that.
no cruel and unusual punishment is part of our Constitution.

and as mention before in other thread terrorist , Heretics, murderer whatever the crime as the civilisied people in the conflict, we don't torture.
As the Christian people we don't Torture.
As idiots and emotional barbarians we make excuses for it and clsim it helps because it feeds a bit of vengeance, supposedly, but does ZERO for safety or justice.



You seem very concerned about their fate, what they could endure. Where in your musings, Revelarts, do you spare a thought FOR THEIR VICTIMS ??
... No. You don't. Do you ?

If you'd read a few of my post you'd know I never want any unborn, elderly, white, black, yellow, Hispanic, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan Jew, atheist, gay, strait Innocent harmed ever.
and or criminals only in the act or after due process and foreign enemies only if in the act or after a declaration of war by congress. rule of law and all that.




Trust a Leftie to have more time for fretting about the fate of TERRORISTS, THAN THEIR VICTIMS. Drummond your view of this issue is so narrow you don't even seem to know how to understand any other positions outside of your own cartoon world view of left and and right. Standing for the law, decency and the rights of all men to you translates into 'your left and you love the terrorist and hate the victims'? That some stupid BS Drummond. If your gonna toss it like that be ready to get it back my friend. It's ridiculous and thickheaded slur. I refuse to have it sent my way again without tossing back a few. You've accuse me of it to many times and it seems your not capable of understanding the facts of the position so i have little option than to believe you are INCAPABLE of it. Don't come my way with the BS line again, it's a lie and i won't be tagged with the slurs anymore just because you've got no basis in reality to make any cogent arguments. And must resort to emotional BS name calling.



Threads like this have me spitting blood. If terrorists do suffer, then that's fine by me. Let the scum rot in hell.
sorry the facts here make you spit blood.
It should sober you up. but no, you have chosen to believe a position DESPITE ALL ANY ANY FACTS TO THE CONTRARY.
that fact that they admit that it doesn't even work or will cause more harm does not phase you or is not even something that you'd consider might have some bit of truth in it.




I have one complaint against Gitmo. One only. But I absolutely do have grounds for complaint.
MY COMPLAINT IS THAT THERE AREN'T MORE OF THEM.
If I was Prime Minister of Great Britain, I'd be offering the Americans land, facilities, whatever they wanted, to run some Gitmo-style compounds on British soil. I'd be very happy to. Hell, I'd probably want to run a couple of British ones myself.
And I wouldn't care what they did to get their information. I'd just be happy that the facilities were in operation." I wouldn't even care if they got information"
'better methods be d@mned torture um all' RAARRR . laws of heaven and earth be D2mned.
that's a crazy mans position. Not someone who claims to be rational. whoose goal is the safety and peace of his country.
FACTS matter to the rational person.
it's seems it's more like a religion to you. It seems that you think
the enemy is so evil that you'd just want to see some witches... i mean Islamist terrorist burn.

[Missileman]

interrogation... with torture.
SERE trainers call it torture.

in·ter·ro·ga·tion
[in-ter-uh-gey-shuhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn] Show IPA

noun
1. the act of interrogating (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interrogate); questioning.
2. an instance of being interrogated (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interrogate): He seemed shaken after his interrogation.
3. a question; inquiry.
4. a written list of questions.
5. an interrogation point (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interrogation%20point); question mark.



police interrogate everyday, there's no water-boarding involved missile.

For every trainer you can quote that calls it torture, there are dozens who say it's not.

[revelarts]

For every trainer you can quote that calls it torture, there are dozens who say it's not.

quote them please

[red states rule]

BTW Rev, only THREE terrorists were water boarded and the info obtained SAVED lives and PREVENTED future attacks

I shed no tears for these bastards and I am pleased lives were saved because a little water was shoved down the nose of a worthless terrorist bastard

[revelarts]

BTW Rev, only THREE terrorists were water boarded and the info obtained SAVED lives and PREVENTED future attacks

I shed no tears for these bastards and I am pleased lives were saved because a little water was shoved down the nose of a worthless terrorist bastard

the report found otherwise,
and i've pointed some of those out you before but you refused to believe the U.S gov'ts on reports of deaths by torture.
and the series of officers that resigned there commissions becuase of torture.
and the conservative judges who threw gitmo terrorist cases out of becuase of torture.

[red states rule]

the report found otherwise,
and i've pointed some of those out you before but you refused to believe the U.S gov'ts on reports of deaths by torture.
and the series of officers that resigned there commissions becuase of torture.
and the conservative judges who threw gitmo terrorist cases out of becuase of torture.


Sorry Rev, but you seem to believe the government when they tell you what you want to hear - otherwise it is a grand conspiracy

If this crap were true, the liberal media would be all over it - blaming Bush, and claaing for trials

Here is the ABC link and it shut up BullyP and he fled his own pro terrorist thread

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/11/exclusive-only/


But I have to give you credit Rev, you are busting your ass to make the terrorists out the victim

[revelarts]

Sorry Rev, but you seem to believe the government when they tell you what you want to hear - otherwise it is a grand conspiracyred if you check what i post carefully you'll notice the lines drawn concerning gov't report and conspriacry. I never claim to support conspiracy in a vacuum,
always with other reports, facts or eyewitnesses.


If this crap were true, the liberal media would be all over it - blaming Bush, and claaing for trials
Here is the ABC link and it shut up BullyP and he fled his own pro terrorist thread
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/11/exclusive-only/
But I have to give you credit Rev, you are busting your ass to make the terrorists out the victim

Red IMO we've shot ourselves in the foot using torture.

When we let part of us become like the monsters chase, what's the point.
A podunk threat of a few hundred guys and we lose all our values? Christian and legal?
It's crazy.
And Red consider this, Abortion doctors have killed far more americans and all the terrorism world wide.

[Missileman]

quote them please

http://www.humanevents.com/2007/11/05/waterboarding-a-sereing-experience-for-tens-of-thousands-of-us-military-personnel/

http://www.humanevents.com/2008/02/20/waterboarding-the-ultimate-mind-game/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oliver-north-i-ve-been-waterboarded-i-used-waterboard-people

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/navy-commandos-expect-their-shrinks-to-be-waterboarded/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/04/duncan-hunter/duncan-hunter-says-we-have-waterboarded-our-own-mi/

http://mattmccool.blogspot.com/2009/05/navy-pilot-letter-to-barak-obama-on.html

And for dessert...go to military.com, search the term waterboarding and scroll down to the comments. You'll find the vast majority of the comments say it's NOT torture. A significant number of those are people who have actually been interrogated using the technique.

[aboutime]

http://www.humanevents.com/2007/11/05/waterboarding-a-sereing-experience-for-tens-of-thousands-of-us-military-personnel/

http://www.humanevents.com/2008/02/20/waterboarding-the-ultimate-mind-game/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oliver-north-i-ve-been-waterboarded-i-used-waterboard-people

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/navy-commandos-expect-their-shrinks-to-be-waterboarded/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/04/duncan-hunter/duncan-hunter-says-we-have-waterboarded-our-own-mi/

http://mattmccool.blogspot.com/2009/05/navy-pilot-letter-to-barak-obama-on.html

And for dessert...go to military.com, search the term waterboarding and scroll down to the comments. You'll find the vast majority of the comments say it's NOT torture. A significant number of those are people who have actually been interrogated using the technique.


Missileman. As you can see. There are some people among us who refuse to believe almost everything...anyone who disagree's with them...might say. They must refuse to believe or they must admit to being generally dumb, and out of touch with reality.
So. They deny, and pretend only they have the right answers. It's all part of the Grand Scheme God made called COMEDY.

[taft2012]

Abortion doctors have killed far more americans and all the terrorism world wide.

This isn't fekkin' math class. How much is spent against how much of a threat is immaterial.

The most legitimate function of government is to protect the lives and property of Americans from international and domestic threats.

Period.

That's what we're doing. We're doing what we're supposed to be doing.

I know you liberals would rather the money went to inner-city duck ponds or some other stupid shit, but sorry, you're shit outta luck.

[Kathianne]

This isn't fekkin' math class. How much is spent against how much of a threat is immaterial.

The most legitimate function of government is to protect the lives and property of Americans from international and domestic threats.

Period.

That's what we're doing. We're doing what we're supposed to be doing.

I know you liberals would rather the money went to inner-city duck ponds or some other stupid shit, but sorry, you're shit outta luck.

You know, I really don't agree with Rev's pov regarding terrorists or even torture. However, liberal he is not. Indeed he is 'conservative' in the mode of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. He's more Jefferson that Washington at that! He's basically an anti-Federalist in most situations.

If you don't know your history, I'm not going to help you out. Let's just say it starts with 'not getting involved in foreign...'

As I said, if you didn't get it, I don't necessarily agree with him, but his no liberal, no pot raising crazed pot head, etc.

[taft2012]

You know, I really don't agree with Rev's pov regarding terrorists or even torture. However, liberal he is not. Indeed he is 'conservative' in the mode of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. He's more Jefferson that Washington at that! He's basically an anti-Federalist in most situations.

If you don't know your history, I'm not going to help you out. Let's just say it starts with 'not getting involved in foreign...'

As I said, if you didn't get it, I don't necessarily agree with him, but his no liberal, no pot raising crazed pot head, etc.

Yeah, he is. He loves protecting criminals. I've pointed out numerous times, in numerous threads, how he is a liberal. Those are times to point out where his positions are not liberal, and certainly in a more compelling manner than "No he isn't."

And getting involved in foreign entanglements in 1800 wasn't especially easy. Especially in light of the fact that we barely had a navy and civilization was an ocean away. And it was never envisioned we'd become the world's premier military power.

Knowing history is only useful if one knows how to apply it practically.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, he is. He loves protecting criminals. I've pointed out numerous times, in numerous threads, how he is a liberal. Those are times to point out where his positions are not liberal, and certainly in a more compelling manner than "No he isn't."

And getting involved in foreign entanglements in 1800 wasn't especially easy. Especially in light of the fact that we barely had a navy and civilization was an ocean away. And it was never envisioned we'd become the world's premier military power.

Knowing history is only useful if one knows how to apply it practically.

You fail in discernment department. Indeed, you're world is simplified with your code, but it's not practical in the long haul, not logically or more importantly, legally.

[taft2012]

You fail in discernment department. Indeed, you're world is simplified with your code, but it's not practical in the long haul, not logically or more importantly, legally.

Interesting. How is my world view "illegal"?

[Kathianne]

Interesting. How is my world view "illegal"?

That those outside of your point of view are suspect. That seems to be all it takes in your world. It would be fine in online world of opinion, not so fine in real world of NYPD.

[Robert A Whit]

They are being trained to resist interrogation.

When I was in the Army, some of the men got shocked while strapped to an electric chair. Nobody gave a darn.

I still trust the lawyers that gave the decision that water boarding, properly done by our CIA, was plenty of misery, but not torture.

[logroller]

http://www.humanevents.com/2007/11/05/waterboarding-a-sereing-experience-for-tens-of-thousands-of-us-military-personnel/


http://www.humanevents.com/2008/02/20/waterboarding-the-ultimate-mind-game/


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oliver-north-i-ve-been-waterboarded-i-used-waterboard-people


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/navy-commandos-expect-their-shrinks-to-be-waterboarded/


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/04/duncan-hunter/duncan-hunter-says-we-have-waterboarded-our-own-mi/


http://mattmccool.blogspot.com/2009/05/navy-pilot-letter-to-barak-obama-on.html


And for dessert...go to military.com, search the term waterboarding and scroll down to the comments. You'll find the vast majority of the comments say it's NOT torture. A significant number of those are people who have actually been interrogated using the technique.
those are some great sources-- very descriptive of the process-- kudos to you for researching and presenting them. A sincere thanks to you for illuminating those who shared their experience.


There is one huge difference between SERE training and actual interrogation, one is voluntarily and freely entered into and the other is forced. Take something as commonplace as special forces candidates being routinely marched, deprived of rest, food, water... they can quit at any time. The same couldn't be said for the Bataan death march despite many, if not most of the same elements being present. When they break you at enhanced training, you can quit, go home, whatever--you're out. Fail at being water boarded at gitmo, even if you give them what they want=> back to the cell=> no lawyer, no trial, no hope, no possibility of freedom; just bide your time awaiting the next round of water up the nose and fear of death.


If you want to take the utilitarian position that in either two circumstances it's a means to an end, tougher soldiers and getting information, I must caution that such justification has virtually no limits; history proves that incremental encroachments will continue unless some reproach is shown. Maybe waterboarding in accordance with xyz methods is shy of tortuous, I can accept such to be true; but the actual practice of such, unlike the sear training, is occurring under covert conditions and thus immune to the procedural exposition that defines the just and righteous foundation by which We stand. Don't get me wrong, I'm amenable to the concept of a need to know basis but there are limits to what I'm willing to accept as procedural directive, and waterboarding an indefinitely detained unlawful combatant crosses the line-- there's just too many assumptions being made under the radar.

[logroller]

Yeah, he is. He loves protecting criminals. I've pointed out numerous times, in numerous threads, how he is a liberal. Those are times to point out where his positions are not liberal, and certainly in a more compelling manner than "No he isn't."

And getting involved in foreign entanglements in 1800 wasn't especially easy. Especially in light of the fact that we barely had a navy and civilization was an ocean away. And it was never envisioned we'd become the world's premier military power.

Knowing history is only useful if one knows how to apply it practically.
And what happens when the government is breaking the law-- is there not recompense? I understand you're immune under the guise of administrative immunity, but ultimately, is it not the public you answer to-- That same public who is not immune to the laws you administer? To deride the public opinion is to spit in the face of those you seek to protect. I have had my rights violated by an unlawful biometric search by law enforcement; I had provided a state-issued ID, there was no probable cause for a fingerprint scan; and since I'm not a criminal, nothing availed itself; but nonetheless, my rights were violated. You might say that, since no criminal charges resulted from such, I wasn't harmed, but my rights were violated. now maybe he was adrift in the comforts of "just doing the job" and although no procedural exemption of evidence resulted from the act, an officer still broke the law. But you're all too willing to accept 'no harm, no foul' under those circumstances yet, when its a guy claiming asphyxiation is torture you say he's protecting criminal activity. You need to recognize that We are a society of citizens and your personal bias may not be representative of the whole you are sworn to protect.

[red states rule]

And what happens when the government is breaking the law-- is there not recompense? I understand you're immune under the guise of administrative immunity, but ultimately, is it not the public you answer to-- That same public who is not immune to the laws you administer? To deride the public opinion is to spit in the face of those you seek to protect. I have had my rights violated by an unlawful biometric search by law enforcement; I had provided a state-issued ID, there was no probable cause for a fingerprint scan; and since I'm not a criminal, nothing availed itself; but nonetheless, my rights were violated. You might say that, since no criminal charges resulted from such, I wasn't harmed, but my rights were violated. now maybe he was adrift in the comforts of "just doing the job" and although no procedural exemption of evidence resulted from the act, an officer still broke the law. But you're all too willing to accept 'no harm, no foul' under those circumstances yet, when its a guy claiming asphyxiation is torture you say he's protecting criminal activity. You need to recognize that We are a society of citizens and your personal bias may not be representative of the whole you are sworn to protect.

LR as far as I am concerned there is only one "law" when you are at war

WIN!

I still find it amazing there are people like you running around who want to fight the terrorist's bombs and bullets with warrants and court cases. OBL said he would use our own laws against us - and you and others are willing to prove him correct

[red states rule]

Red, If people had not gone to jail because of the kind of torture I'm talking about you might have point. until then , clearly, we are talking about 2 different things. One metaphorical torture, the other actual.

But it's more saddening to me that our country is so fearful and feels so desperately threatened by a handful of fanatics that some want to give up our reputation and principals forever to employee --and regularly advocate-- practices that we all understood to be barbaric and evil only a few years earlier.

Yea, just a few fanatics - nothing to worry about. Many in Germany said the same thing about those guys in black uniforms running around beating people up, and pushing the Nazi party agenda


http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc272/full_images/europe911.jpg

[logroller]

LR as far as I am concerned there is only one "law" when you are at war

WIN!

I still find it amazing there are people like you running around who want to fight the terrorist's bombs and bullets with warrants and court cases. OBL said he would use our own laws against us - and you and others are willing to prove him correct
Right. "Alls fair in love and war". That's all well and good until you find yourself losing. And then all of sudden there's a great appeal to decency-- right vs wrong. Its funny how fair-weather morality can become. You, like many self-proclaimed conservatives and righteous fellows believe your ideals will prevail despite all evidence to the contrary. You are losing due to you inconsistency-- the profound separation from the fundamental belief in a government bound by codified law. Keep it up rsr; you'll find just flawed tactics are. You might get an "I told ya so" out of it, but you're still fucked. Myself, I'd take an 'I told ya so' over being oppressed. I guess that's why my ideas gain political traction and your's are mere entertainment-- Reality.

[red states rule]

Right. "Alls fair in love and war". That's all well and good until you find yourself losing. And then all of sudden there's a great appeal to decency-- right vs wrong. Its funny how fair-weather morality can become. You, like many self-proclaimed conservatives and righteous fellows believe your ideals will prevail despite all evidence to the contrary. You are losing due to you inconsistency-- the profound separation from the fundamental belief in a government bound by codified law. Keep it up rsr; you'll find just flawed tactics are. You might get an "I told ya so" out of it, but you're still fucked. Myself, I'd take an 'I told ya so' over being oppressed. I guess that's why my ideas gain political traction and your's are mere entertainment-- Reality.

So now we are losing?

If we are it is due to the naive and bleeding hearts like you LR that want to counter their bombs and bullets with lawyers and court filings
Know it all liberals like you think the US can pay people to like us. Like the hundred grand the taxpayers of MA gave the bombers and their family

Or simply by offering a group hug everything will be fine.

On the other hand, if the terrorists want to destroy the US they better hurry. Obama and his supports like you are beating them to it.

Your ideas gaining "traction"? Like Obamacare LR? Hell even your fellow Dems are trying to exempt themselves from that crackerjack plan and the cost has more than doubled

Traction - yea right

[red states rule]

BTW LR I find it telling your side is very silent on what is coming out about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi by those "few fanatics" Rev was talking about. You are lecturing us on "law" while your guy Obama has lied over and over again about the murder of four Americans and his gross incompetence in dealing with the attack

He went to a fundraiser the night after the attack and murders

No wonder the terrorists are getting bolder. With such "leadership" DC - and such support from people like you - no wonder they feel invincible

[taft2012]

That those outside of your point of view are suspect. That seems to be all it takes in your world. It would be fine in online world of opinion, not so fine in real world of NYPD.

I'm still not getting how that makes my world view "illegal."

Lots of people are outside my world view who I do not consider "suspect." Gabby. Jafar. They are what they claim to be.

Those I do consider to be suspect are those who claim to be of one ideology yet espouse principles and policies that would advance a diametrically opposite ideology. If that's not grounds for suspicion I don't know what is.

These discussions may be a bit too nuanced for you. Maybe you need to find a baking forum or something sweetie.

[taft2012]

Right. "Alls fair in love and war". That's all well and good until you find yourself losing. And then all of sudden there's a great appeal to decency-- right vs wrong. Its funny how fair-weather morality can become.

They're flying the black flag, not taking any prisoners, and killing our guys upon capture.

We sent our people to federal prison for making prisoners put underwear on their heads.

This isn't a question of us doing what they're doing.

This is a question of liberals and pothead conservatives trying to create the perception that we're doing what they're doing.

[taft2012]

And what happens when the government is breaking the law-- is there not recompense? I understand you're immune under the guise of administrative immunity, but ultimately, is it not the public you answer to-- That same public who is not immune to the laws you administer? To deride the public opinion is to spit in the face of those you seek to protect. I have had my rights violated by an unlawful biometric search by law enforcement; I had provided a state-issued ID, there was no probable cause for a fingerprint scan; and since I'm not a criminal, nothing availed itself; but nonetheless, my rights were violated. You might say that, since no criminal charges resulted from such, I wasn't harmed, but my rights were violated. now maybe he was adrift in the comforts of "just doing the job" and although no procedural exemption of evidence resulted from the act, an officer still broke the law. But you're all too willing to accept 'no harm, no foul' under those circumstances yet, when its a guy claiming asphyxiation is torture you say he's protecting criminal activity. You need to recognize that We are a society of citizens and your personal bias may not be representative of the whole you are sworn to protect.

Again, the pothead conservatives throw around the term "probable cause" as if you have inkling of what it means, or what standards the police need to stop and question a person. Then from your ignorant false premise you whine about your rights being violated and that the "government is breaking the law."

Really, go read some case law or something and come back with a clue.

[logroller]

BTW LR I find it telling your side is very silent on what is coming out about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi by those "few fanatics" Rev was talking about. You are lecturing us on "law" while your guy Obama has lied over and over again about the murder of four Americans and his gross incompetence in dealing with the attack

He went to a fundraiser the night after the attack and murders

No wonder the terrorists are getting bolder. With such "leadership" DC - and such support from people like you - no wonder they feel invincible
You keep saying Obama is my guy, but I didn't vote for him. I assume you didn't either; so "my guy" is as much mine as your's. all you have is obfuscated bullshit that only derides your point. Like I said, keep it up; you'll soon find your efforts are contraindicated.

So now we are losing?

If we are it is due to the naive and bleeding hearts like you LR that want to counter their bombs and bullets with lawyers and court filings
Know it all liberals like you think the US can pay people to like us. Like the hundred grand the taxpayers of MA gave the bombers and their family

Or simply by offering a group hug everything will be fine.

On the other hand, if the terrorists want to destroy the US they better hurry. Obama and his supports like you are beating them to it.

Your ideas gaining "traction"? Like Obamacare LR? Hell even your fellow Dems are trying to exempt themselves from that crackerjack plan and the cost has more than doubled

Traction - yea right
Well its war: My ideas are winning-- just because I have some liberal views does not mean I have them all, and the broad brush you attempt to paint me with only further relegates your opinions to the dustbin. and they are-- mostly because my ideas well thought out, but also because you're an asshole-- so suck it bitch.


They're flying the black flag, not taking any prisoners, and killing our guys upon capture.

We sent our people to federal prison for making prisoners put underwear on their heads.

This isn't a question of us doing what they're doing.

This is a question of liberals and pothead conservatives trying to create the perception that we're doing what they're doing.
Our guys are better, because we're better-- dont forget that. I don't base what our guys' acceptable behavior is on what the other guys do. Lots of guys fighting the war-- how its determined who has the high ground is question of tactics. Sorry piggy, just 'cause some fat sow eats all day doesn't mean everybody should. It just makes you a glutinous pig. SOO-EE!!!

[logroller]

Again, the pothead conservatives throw around the term "probable cause" as if you have inkling of what it means, or what standards the police need to stop and question a person. Then from your ignorant false premise you whine about your rights being violated and that the "government is breaking the law."

Really, go read some case law or something and come back with a clue.
I was walking down the street I live on and stopped under 'reasonable suspicion' since the guy I with fit the description if burglary that happened previously'. I provided a state-issued ID showing I lived in the neighborhood. There was no "probable cause" for a search to confirm my identity. Hell, they didn't even have reasonable suspicion; I know, because I asked if I was being detained, they said no. I dont need case law. i'd smoke your ass in court. I'm smarter than you, I'm quicker than you, I'm better than you-- and it scares you-- as well it should-- that's what a democracy is all about. Get used to it bitch-- you work for me.

[taft2012]

I dont need case law. i'd smoke your ass in court. I'm smarter than you, I'm quicker than you, I'm better than you-- and it scares you-- as well it should-- that's what a democracy is all about. Get used to it bitch-- you work for me.

Oh yeah, you're smoking something, that's for sure.

And for you kids at home, this paranoia that leads people to believe that the police are so interested in you as individual that they follow you around 24/7 looking for any chance to grill you, this all comes from substance abuse. :laugh2:

Oh yeah, and we're just dying to get into your house too. We just live for that stuff, and back in the locker room we goof on your poor color coordination between your carpet and furniture.

Since your rights were violated, why don't you just take your local police department to court and sue them? Since you're smarter and better and quicker and know so much, you won't even need a lawyer now, will you?

This would be a good time to put up or shut up.

[revelarts]

It strikes me strange that the man who said no torture does not understand that each drone strike also leaves very wounded people and that is very much pain.
Water boarding has no pain. It is misery. Many things done to the enemy may be misery, but not torture.
I happen to agree with the many lawyers who promised President Bush it was not torture, so long as they did it a certain way. Even so, it only happened to 3 men.


BTW Rev, only THREE terrorists were water boarded and the info obtained SAVED lives and PREVENTED future attacks
I shed no tears for these bastards and I am pleased lives were saved because a little water was shoved down the nose of a worthless terrorist bastard


More than 3
More than torture
---------------------------------
DEATH UNDER U.S. INTERROGATION

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-us-operatives-torture-detainees-to-death-in-afghanistan-and-iraq/
___________________ Tom Dispatch.com, March 5, 2006
Title: “Tracing the Trail of Torture: Embedding Torture as Policy from Guantanamo to Iraq”
Author: Dahr Jamail

Faculty Evaluator: Rabi Michael Robinson
Student Researchers: Michael B Januleski Jr. and Jessica Rodas

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released documents of forty-four autopsies held in Afghanistan and Iraq October 25, 2005. Twenty-one of those deaths were listed as homicides. The documents show that detainees died during and after interrogations by Navy SEALs, Military Intelligence, and Other Government Agency (OGA).

“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogation,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”
The Department of Defense released the autopsy reports in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace....

...One of forty-four U.S. military autopsy reports reads as follows:
“Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq.”
___________________

Below we have a report os detainee held in secret
by the CIA in a secret prison where "enhanced" techniques are admited.
28 tortured waterboarded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oFkI_llnNXM

___________________

German Guy picked up by mistake and taken to Afghanistan for months and tortured then dropped off in Albania. No apology no compensation no justice. He has a case but it's been refued becuase of "state secrets"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zlM8gvpNd_Q

___________________
reports of at least 34 Tortured to Death here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CDrEvwejiJo

___________________
Doctors who promote torture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WPaSUY39o_8

___________________
The interrogation and detention regime implemented by the U.S. resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in U.S. custody — at least. While some of those deaths were the result of ”rogue” interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods authorized at the highest levels of the Bush White House, including extreme stress positions, hypothermia, sleep deprivation and others. Aside from the fact that they cause immense pain, that’s one reason we’ve always considered those tactics to be “torture” when used by others (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/defining-torture-down) — because they inflict serious harm, and can even kill people. Those arguing against investigations and prosecutions — that we Look to the Future, not the Past — are thus literally advocating that numerous people get away with murder.
The record could not be clearer regarding the fact that we caused numerous detainee deaths, many of which have gone completely uninvestigated and thus unpunished. Instead, the media and political class have misleadingly caused the debate to consist of the myth that these tactics were limited and confined. As Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently put it (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/gen_barry_mccaffrey_ret_allege.html):


We should never, as a policy, maltreat people under our control, detainees. We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A.

Journalist and Human Rights Watch researcher John Sifton similarly documented (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-05/how-many-were-tortured-to-death/) that “approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death.”






...
has more on these autopsy reports (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/30/747973/-Torture-Autopsy-Reveals-Death-by-Enhanced-Interrogation). Sifton describes numerous other cases of detainees tortured to death in U.S. custody:


Jamal Naseer, a soldier in the Afghan Army, died after he and seven other soldiers were mistakenly arrested. Those arrested with Naseer later said that during interrogations U.S. personnel punched and kicked them, hung them upside down, and hit them with sticks or cables. Some said they were doused with cold water and forced to lie in the snow. Nasser collapsed about two weeks after the arrest, complaining of stomach pain, probably an internal hemorrhage.


In December 2003, a 44-year-old Iraqi man named Abu Malik Kenami died in a U.S. detention facility in Mosul, Iraq. As reported by Human Rights First, U.S. military personnel who examined Kenami when he first arrived at the facility determined that he had no preexisting medical conditions. Once in custody, as a disciplinary measure for talking, Kenami was forced to perform extreme amounts of exercise—a technique used across Afghanistan and Iraq. Then his hands were bound behind his back with plastic handcuffs, he was hooded, and forced to lie in an overcrowded cell. Kenami was found dead the morning after his arrest, still bound and hooded.


There may be other CIA homicides yet uncovered. One case of concern involves a detainee in the CIA’s detention program named Hassan Ghul, a Pakistani who was arrested in northern Iraq in January 2004. . . . I am starting to suspect that Ghul might be dead. After all, his name was redacted from the OLC memo, unlike that of other CIA detainees now at Guantánamo. Why would the CIA be afraid of mentioning Ghul? CIA doctors appear to have determined that Ghul was in poor health when he was captured, in fact, too unhealthy to be waterboarded. Unlike other former CIA detainees, human-rights groups have not confirmed that he was rendered to Pakistan or to a third country. Did the CIA perhaps torture Ghul to death? We do not know. He has now completely disappeared.


http://www.salon.com/2009/06/30/accountability_7/
____________________

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/05/how-many-were-tortured-to-death.html

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/09/putting-torturers-above-the-law/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link

http://www.aclu.org/human-rights-national-security/us-operatives-killed-detainees-during-interrogations-afghanistan-and-

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/
30/04-309-death-from-torture/#comment-169213

[Drummond]

Revelarts ... if only you'd devote as much as TEN PERCENT of such an effort into caring about terrorist VICTIMS' welfare, as you do into issues of TERRORIST welfare.

[aboutime]

Revelarts ... if only you'd devote as much as TEN PERCENT of such an effort into caring about terrorist VICTIMS' welfare, as you do into issues of TERRORIST welfare.


Sir Drummond. It has become perfectly obvious to me how Rev has become more of a jafar, wannabe. Same mentality, mindset, and methods of disguising hatred.
If anyone disagree's with that. Simple enough. Just prove me wrong.

[Drummond]

they are terrorist suspects. and as a rule Americans are above torture. we claim to better than that.
no cruel and unusual punishment is part of our Constitution.

and as mention before in other thread terrorist , Heretics, murderer whatever the crime as the civilisied people in the conflict, we don't torture.
As the Christian people we don't Torture.
As idiots and emotional barbarians we make excuses for it and clsim it helps because it feeds a bit of vengeance, supposedly, but does ZERO for safety or justice.

H'm. 'Suspects' .. eh ?

So tell me, Revelarts, under what circumstances are these 'suspects' first captured, anyway ? Are they just plucked off of the streets at random, OR, are they captured because there's very good reason to believe that they are terrorists ?

Comedy Scenario (in Afghanistan, say ..) ...

An individual is cornered in a bunker, after his chums have first been engaged in a shootout with some American soldiers.

This individual is standing in front of a large, poster-sized portrait of Osama bin Laden. Next to it, pinned on the wall, is a large photo of the same individual kissing that OBL portrait.

To one side are a pile of bombs, primed, ready for use, even with the word 'bomb' helpfully written on them in English.

The individual is wearing an ammunition belt, and has a Kalashnikov strapped to him. He is shouting something like, 'Death to American Infidels'. On a nearby table, in plain view, a computer is clearly logged in to an Al Qaeda Jihadist site, and evidently its user has been editing it, in 'real time'.

The reasonable, indeed inescapable, conclusion to be drawn is that the individual IS a terrorist, and not just a passing tourist who thought a Kalashnikov might be a novel souvenir to take back to Kansas. The soldiers believe their course of action is to capture the individual, send him off to Gitmo, and subject him to a few hours of Barry Manilow recordings .. in the belief that Gitmo can make him crack and spill the beans on Al Qaeda's next tupperware party.

A Leftie would doubtless view this as inhumane torture, and call in Jimmy Carter for a bit of high-powered pontification.

Still .. the Leftie 'take' on all this would be ... what ??

To a Leftie, the individual, having not been tried in a court, is an 'innocent individual, who must 'not be harmed', and indeed, may be subject to release if no charges are ever brought. Because, you see, REGARDLESS OF COMMONSENSE, REGARDLESS OF ALL THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS ASSOCIATED WITH, HE IS, AHEM, A 'HUMAN BEING' WHO DESERVES, FIRST AND FOREMOST, TO HAVE EVERYONE FIGHTING FOR HIS 'HUMAN RIGHTS'.

To anyone thinking rationally, this is a terrorist, therefore the scum of the Earth. A Leftie – CARTOONISHLY – cannot apply commonsense and say that the terrorist IS one, to be used for information gathering. No, the ‘individual’ must be PROTECTED. The individual must be CARED FOR. The individual has RIGHTS, which transcend the evidence of the circumstances of his capture.

And, of course, there's no possibility, in LeftieWorld, that any soldier's judgment can be worth a damn ...


If you'd read a few of my post you'd know I never want any unborn, elderly, white, black, yellow, Hispanic, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan Jew, atheist, gay, strait Innocent harmed ever.

And a good way of furthering this is to dedicate yourself to TERRORIST 'human rights' ... ?


... and or criminals only in the act or after due process and foreign enemies only if in the act or after a declaration of war by congress. rule of law and all that.

Belated qualification noted.

OK - - try this scenario out.

Your intelligence service becomes aware of a terrorist cell which, though it exists, and intends terrorism, hasn’t actually DONE anything. Now, are you saying that the authorities MUST NOT act, unless the cell commits its terrorist act ?

Isn’t that a recipe for disaster, inviting needless death and destruction .. when IT CAN BE PREVENTED BEFORE IT HAPPENS ??

Now tell me this. By your reckoning, are terrorists from abroad a ‘foreign enemy’, or NOT ? Because if they are .. according to you, they cannot be harmed, tackled, until such time as Congress declares war against them !!!!!

From all this lot, what you must be saying is that terrorists cannot be usefully dealt with until only AFTER they’ve bombed, killed, maimed. Because only THEN could you say that any criminal act has happened, or any proof come into existence that they’re foreign enemies. Cue CONGRESS for a ruling !

As for the rest of your post .. you continue not to acknowledge the worth of caring for victims more than perpetrators. Oh, and you’ve even twisted my quote, haven’t you ? I typed .. And I wouldn't care what they did to get their information. You amended it to … I wouldn't even care if they got information.

Revelarts, I’ll thank you not to twist my words. And for your information .. I’ll take no lessons, or instructions, as to how I choose to argue. How I choose to argue is MY choice – not YOURS.

And that, too, is a bog standard Leftie trick.

Final point. YES, the enemy IS evil. If you can’t interpret 9/11, for example, as an act of evil .. then what WOULD qualify, to you, for such a categorisation ? Perhaps the victims of 9/11 were victims, not of something evil, but instead of something GOOD, according to bizarre Leftie thinking beyond my comprehension ???

One would imagine so. It would help to explain, if not to defend, why those on the Left try so very hard to fight FOR THE RIGHTS OF TERRORIST SCUM.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. It has become perfectly obvious to me how Rev has become more of a jafar, wannabe. Same mentality, mindset, and methods of disguising hatred.
If anyone disagree's with that. Simple enough. Just prove me wrong.

I don't disagree. I don't begin to. I think you've nailed it ...

[fj1200]

A Leftie... ... the Leftie 'take'... Leftie... A Leftie – CARTOONISHLY – cannot apply commonsense and say that the terrorist IS one, to be used for information gathering. No, the ‘individual’ must be PROTECTED. The individual must be CARED FOR. The individual has RIGHTS, which transcend the evidence of the circumstances of his capture.... standard Leftie trick.... the Left...

Speaking of cartoonish, watching you run down the "leftie" rabbit hole is torture enough. So are you now saying that the individual does NOT have rights?

[revelarts]

IF you spent 10% of your time in concern for the VICTIMS rather than worrying about fantasy leftist plots to free real terrorist, 10% of your post would be worth reading.

Amazing how you fill a whole page with hypotheticals and made up fantasy stories to shore up you crazy cartoon political views of the world and others.

in your 1st fantasy story you questioned the term 'suspects' as if just a forgone conclusion that all those in custody by the US, or called terrorist are by the US/UK, are indeed 100% bonafide murder-bent-terrorist.
But here's a real life news story for you to consider... or not




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/15/38773/day-1-americas-prison-for-terrorists.html#.UYGFboKKQbI

America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/15/38773/day-1-americas-prison-for-terrorists.html#storylink=cpy

....Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.
"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.
This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners.

Prisoner mistreatment became a regular feature in cellblocks and interrogation rooms at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, the two main way stations in Afghanistan en route to Guantanamo.
While he was held at Afghanistan's Bagram Air Base, Akhtiar said, "When I had a dispute with the interrogator, when I asked, 'What is my crime?' the soldiers who took me back to my cell would throw me down the stairs."

The McClatchy reporting also documented how U.S. detention policies fueled support for extremist Islamist groups. For some detainees who went home far more militant than when they arrived, Guantanamo became a school for jihad, or Islamic holy war....



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/15/38773/day-1-americas-prison-for-terrorists.html#storylink=cpy



http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-31-bounties_x.htm

Guantanamo detainees say Arabs, Muslims sold for U.S. bountiesSAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — They fed them well. The Pakistani tribesmen slaughtered a sheep in honor of their guests, Arabs and Chinese Muslims famished from fleeing U.S. bombing in the Afghan mountains. But their hosts had ulterior motives: to sell them to the Americans, said the men who are now prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified during military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces. ...



Another prisoner said he was on his way to Germany in 2001 when he was captured and sold for "a briefcase full of money" then flown to Afghanistan before being sent to Guantanamo.
"It's obvious. They knew Americans were looking for Arabs, so they captured Arabs and sold them — just like someone catches a fish and sells it," he said. The detainee said he was seized by "mafia" operatives somewhere in Europe and sold to Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time — an Arab in a foreign country.
A detainee who said he was a Saudi businessman claimed, "The Pakistani police sold me for money to the Americans."
"This was part of a roundup of all foreigners and Arabs in that area," of Pakistan near the Afghan border, he said, telling the tribunal he went to Pakistan in November 2001 to help Afghan refugees. ....


"When we went to Pakistan the local people treated us like brothers and gave us good food and meat," said another detainee. But soon, he said, they were in prison in Pakistan where "we heard they sold us to the Pakistani authorities for $5,000 per person."
There have been reports of Arabs being sold to the Americans after the U.S.-led offensive in Afghanistan, but the testimonies offer the most detail from prisoners themselves.
In March 2002, the AP reported that Afghan intelligence offered rewards for the capture of al-Qaeda fighters — the day after a five-hour meeting with U.S. Special Forces. Intelligence officers refused to say if the two events were linked and if the United States was paying the offered reward of 150 million Afghanis, then equivalent to $4,000 a head.

That day, leaflets and loudspeaker announcements promised "the big prize" to those who turned in al-Qaeda fighters.

Said one leaflet: "You can receive millions of dollars. ... This is enough to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life — pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people."
Helicopters broadcast similar announcements over the Afghan mountains, enticing people to "Hand over the Arabs and feed your families for a lifetime," said Najeeb al-Nauimi, a former Qatar justice minister and leader of a group of Arab lawyers representing nearly 100 detainees.



You don't seem to process Info like this well, this it seems you ignore it, as you did the info my previous post,
then just call people names and yell torture the terrorist.
Cartoon politics is so easy. I can see why you enjoy it. and a hate to give it up.
It's like the movies, bad guys are easy to pick out, MUSLIMS, and the good guys always wear a US or British flags, they never makes mistake and never do any wrong... on purpose anyway.
yeah!:salute:

[red states rule]

You keep saying Obama is my guy, but I didn't vote for him. I assume you didn't either; so "my guy" is as much mine as your's. all you have is obfuscated bullshit that only derides your point. Like I said, keep it up; you'll soon find your efforts are contraindicated.

Well its war: My ideas are winning-- just because I have some liberal views does not mean I have them all, and the broad brush you attempt to paint me with only further relegates your opinions to the dustbin. and they are-- mostly because my ideas well thought out, but also because you're an asshole-- so suck it bitch.


Our guys are better, because we're better-- dont forget that. I don't base what our guys' acceptable behavior is on what the other guys do. Lots of guys fighting the war-- how its determined who has the high ground is question of tactics. Sorry piggy, just 'cause some fat sow eats all day doesn't mean everybody should. It just makes you a glutinous pig. SOO-EE!!!

So you say you did not vote for Obama?

OK, I will be giving the keynote address at Virgil Bozman III's testimonial dinner, and Gabby will donate $5,000 to the CA Tea Party.

Your liberal side is quickly emerging as your boy Obama continues to bumble and stumble. Like most liberals you are eager to anger and quickly lash out when confronted with facts.

However, Rev is nowhere near the condescending prick you have turned out to be. He is consistent while you are simply mad at the world for not confirming to wants of Obama

While Rev is out to protect the "rights" of terrorist you would give the terrorists a wet kiss on the lips. Tongue or not tongue - it would be up to them

It is fun to watch such an open minded liberal like you claim to be to want to give the benefit of the doubt to terrorists while attacking your fellow citizens simply because they have a different opinion on the role and size of government

And like Obama, you continue to think your ways is better no matter how dismal the results continue to be

[red states rule]

IF you spent 10% of your time in concern for the VICTIMS rather than worrying about fantasy leftist plots to free real terrorist, 10% of your post would be worth reading.

Amazing how you fill a whole page with hypotheticals and made up fantasy stories to shore up you crazy cartoon political views of the world and others.

in your 1st fantasy story you questioned the term 'suspects' as if just a forgone conclusion that all those in custody by the US, or called terrorist are by the US/UK, are indeed 100% bonafide murder-bent-terrorist.
But here's a real life news story for you to consider... or not




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/15/38773/day-1-americas-prison-for-terrorists.html#.UYGFboKKQbI


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-31-bounties_x.htm


You don't seem to process Info like this well, this it seems you ignore it, as you did the info my previous post,
then just call people names and yell torture the terrorist.
Cartoon politics is so easy. I can see why you enjoy it. and a hate to give it up.
It's like the movies, bad guys are easy to pick out, MUSLIMS, and the good guys always wear a US or British flags, they never makes mistake and never do any wrong... on purpose anyway.
yeah!:salute:

Yes Rev I also do not process info given by the TERRORISTS

I am beginning to think if I researched your family tree I would find you are related to Neville Chamberlain

[revelarts]

Yes Rev I also do not process info given by the TERRORISTS..


Or CIA agents or Afghan intel, or anyone that ruins your simple war on terror narrative.
So when the gov't says some one is a terrorist you believe it without questions Red?
No trials no evidence is necessary for those just handed over to Us by other by bounty hunters or otherwise?

'They be terrorist Arrgh i can smell it?' or
'Never trust an Injun.'

The Gov't has given us a story about Benghazi... is it all true?
It was blamed on an anti-Muslim film at one point, was that true?

look Red, question everyone's story, that makes sense, but don't let partisan politics determine the truth before you even look at the facts,
let the facts determine the truth.

that's my last effort at the brickwalls.

[aboutime]

Or CIA agents or Afghan intel, or anyone that ruins your simple war on terror narrative.
So when the gov't says some one is a terrorist you believe it without questions Red?
No trials no evidence is necessary for those just handed over Us by other by bounty or otherwise?

'They be terrorist Arrgh i can smell it?' or
'Never trust an Injun.'

The Gov't has given us a story about Benghazi... is it all true?
It was blamed on an anti-Muslim film at one point, was that true?

look question everyones story, that makes sense, but don't let partisan politics determine the truth before you even look at the facts,
let the facts determine the truth.

that's my last effort at the brickwalls.


Don't let partisan politics determine the truth?????

Did you really say that?

The president's mouthpiece, just today said....Behghazi was a long time ago. So Rev. Which form of the Truth are you talking about?

[revelarts]

Don't let partisan politics determine the truth?????

Did you really say that?

The president's mouthpiece, just today said....Behghazi was a long time ago. So Rev. Which form of the Truth are you talking about?

AT I'm trying to see your question from your POV and i still don't get it.
reality is reality.
there is no right or left truth,
there is just truth.
It's either the facts or not.
If a Charlie Manson say the sky is blue and the Weather Mans says it's grass green with black polka-dots.
then the weather man is lying and it's more likely that Mason is telling the truth.
it doesn't matter the assumed credibility of the "parties" involved.

the real facts of what did and didn't happened in Benghazi, is what I'm talking about.
what are you talking about?

[aboutime]

AT I'm trying to see your question from your POV and i still don't get it.
reality is reality.
there is no right or left truth,
there is just truth.
It's either the facts or not.
If a Charlie Manson say the sky is blue and the Weather Mans says it's grass green with black polka-dots.
then the weather man is lying and it's more likely that Mason is telling the truth.
it doesn't matter the assumed credibility of the "parties" involved.

the real facts of what did and didn't happened in Benghazi, is what I'm talking about.
what are you talking about?


Do you spend much time in the 4927 REV???? Did you EAT Robert, and assume his mentality too?

[logroller]

Oh yeah, you're smoking something, that's for sure.

And for you kids at home, this paranoia that leads people to believe that the police are so interested in you as individual that they follow you around 24/7 looking for any chance to grill you, this all comes from substance abuse. :laugh2:

Oh yeah, and we're just dying to get into your house too. We just live for that stuff, and back in the locker room we goof on your poor color coordination between your carpet and furniture.

Since your rights were violated, why don't you just take your local police department to court and sue them? Since you're smarter and better and quicker and know so much, you won't even need a lawyer now, will you?

This would be a good time to put up or shut up.
Tobacco cigarettes is all I smoke.
Btw- I didn't need a lawyer, as it was settled out of court to my satisfaction.
..when did I say they followed me 24/7? I didn't. Put up or shut up.
And for you kids following along at home, here's another example of how cops can lie.
Im curious, do they teach you how to lie or is being a liar a requisite?

[aboutime]

Tobacco cigarettes is all I smoke.
Btw- I didn't need a lawyer, as it was settled out of court to my satisfaction.
..when did I say they followed me 24/7? I didn't. Put up or shut up.
And for you kids following along at home, here's another example of how cops can lie.
Im curious, do they teach you how to lie or is being a liar a requisite?


logroller. Why won't you just level with all of us and admit...YOU HATE COPS, and anyone who is, or knows a cop????

[logroller]

logroller. Why won't you just level with all of us and admit...YOU HATE COPS, and anyone who is, or knows a cop????

Two of my three closest friends are cops. So no, I don't hate cops, or people who know them. To be frank, that's not even an argument, it's just hyperbolic allegation, but if you insist on trolling-- two can play at that-- so let us-- have you always hated freedom, or is this a new development?

[Drummond]

Speaking of cartoonish, watching you run down the "leftie" rabbit hole is torture enough. So are you now saying that the individual does NOT have rights?

Yes, you'd much rather I stop recognising Leftie methodology, eh, Fj ?

What I am saying is that no terrorist should enjoy 'rights' which said terrorist has no interest in granting its victims.

But, then .. no Leftie would dream of accepting such an argument. Lefties evidently care passionately about fighting tooth and nail for terrorist 'rights'.

This thread, if it proves anything, proves the truth of THIS !!!

[aboutime]

Two of my three closest friends are cops. So no, I don't hate cops, or people who know them. To be frank, that's not even an argument, it's just hyperbolic allegation, but if you insist on trolling-- two can play at that-- so let us-- have you always hated freedom, or is this a new development?


At no time during my membership here, have I tried to be like you.

[Drummond]

IF you spent 10% of your time in concern for the VICTIMS rather than worrying about fantasy leftist plots to free real terrorist, 10% of your post would be worth reading.

... you DON'T want Gitmo detainees released ??!?

Come on, Revelarts. If you want to confirm this, I'd welcome such confirmation. You are challenged to provide it.


Amazing how you fill a whole page with hypotheticals and made up fantasy stories to shore up you crazy cartoon political views of the world and others.

It's also amazing how you're trying to dodge the argument I've offered you. Or ... 'understandable' might be a better word ...

Besides, is it really fantasy ? My point was that when soldiers capture terrorists, the circumstances of their capture are such that it's totally obvious that they ARE terrorists. How typical, eh, that you'd much rather gloss over that highly obvious point.


in your 1st fantasy story you questioned the term 'suspects' as if just a forgone conclusion that all those in custody by the US, or called terrorist are by the US/UK, are indeed 100% bonafide murder-bent-terrorist.
... see what I mean ??


But here's a real life news story for you to consider... or not




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/15/38773/day-1-americas-prison-for-terrorists.html#.UYGFboKKQbI


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-31-bounties_x.htm


You don't seem to process Info like this well, this it seems you ignore it, as you did the info my previous post,
then just call people names and yell torture the terrorist.
Cartoon politics is so easy. I can see why you enjoy it. and a hate to give it up.
It's like the movies, bad guys are easy to pick out, MUSLIMS, and the good guys always wear a US or British flags, they never makes mistake and never do any wrong... on purpose anyway.
yeah!:salute:

The flipside of this is to consider that your own version of cartoon politics is to say that, if any mistakes ARE made, then the assumption must be, duty to infer it automatically ditto, that EVERY incarceration must be assumed to be equally unjust. So ... is it your case that they must ALL be released ?

You object to summary judgments ? Yet, the logical outcome of your argument is that these must be made .. IF they happen to coincide with YOUR preferences ....

Here's what your cartoon methodology amounts to. You object to actions taken which help ensure security for your nation. On the basis of 'mistakes are possible', you'd much rather tear down an entire lifesaving process than permit it to continue (... or, is there NO value in incarcerating any terrorists captured ?)

Now, what could be more typically Leftie ? Are there NO limits to your desire to weaken, or even end, processes whereby terrorists are made accountable to your authorities ?

In the field of battle .. NO soldier can be trusted to ever make up his mind about whether an enemy he's facing really IS an enemy, and act accordingly ?

Now, how helpful is THAT to your enemies ?

And how insulting is that to your armed forces ?

Tell you what. Why don't all troops withdraw immediately, and completely, from terrorist-infested areas, because if they don't, there's an inferred possibility that someone, somewhere, might make a mistake ??

Why not make sure that your troops stay within the territorial confines of the US, come-what-may, NEVER posing any future threat to any land, any group, meaning you harm ? If Afghanistan, say, is retaken by Taliban forces, if they once more invite terrorist groups in as their guests, and if, once more, those groups perpetrate another 9/11 .... well, from a Leftie point of view, why not just TAKE IT ALL, AND DO NOTHING, BECAUSE IF YOU DO, SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, SOMEONE MIGHT MISTAKENLY SUFFER ??

But then again ... wasn't it John Kerry who wanted to see to it that if the US ever wanted to go after terrorists in a foreign land, they'd need to go to the UN for permission to act ?????????

[Drummond]

At no time during my membership here, have I tried to be like you.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[logroller]

At no time during my membership here, have I tried to be like you.
:laugh2: Back to your old standby: the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.

[logroller]

Yes, you'd much rather I stop recognising Leftie methodology, eh, Fj ?

What I am saying is that no terrorist should enjoy 'rights' which said terrorist has no interest in granting its victims.

But, then .. no Leftie would dream of accepting such an argument. Lefties evidently care passionately about fighting tooth and nail for terrorist 'rights'.

This thread, if it proves anything, proves the truth of THIS !!!
Rights aren't granted by man, but by our Creator; civilized governments are formed to protect those rights. Hence why the us constitution codified the bill of rights as a prime directive that government shall respect; even stipulating that due process was necessary to revoke these individual rights. So if defense of those rights is, in your opinion lefty methodology and less favorable to what the bolded you submit above, then what you defend is offensive to the us constitution and the rights of man it serves to protect. i dont expect you to respect such, nor the terrorists, but i do expect the US government to. But even the nazis got a trial despite their clear lack of respect for human rights. It's what sets us apart from those we fight; terrorists despise liberty. As it's the guarantee of freedom that serves as the foundation of this country they oppose and seek to undermine, and if we cannot win the fight without violating our own foundational principles, then we've already lost what we're fighting for.

[logroller]

Besides, is it really fantasy ? My point was that when soldiers capture terrorists, the circumstances of their capture are such that it's totally obvious that they ARE terrorists. How typical, eh, that you'd much rather gloss over that highly obvious point.

Then it should be rather easy to convict them in accordance with due process and without simulated drowning.



In the field of battle .. NO soldier can be trusted to ever make up his mind about whether an enemy he's facing really IS an enemy, and act accordingly ?
In the field of battle? We're talking about detainees being tortured by trained interrogators, not some grunts in the heat of battle.

[red states rule]

Then it should be rather easy to convict them in accordance with due process and without simulated drowning.


In the field of battle? We're talking about detainees being tortured by trained interrogators, not some grunts in the heat of battle.

Spoken like a true liberal. With people like you running around searing America, why would anyone want to come here?

[red states rule]

So lets talk about the harsh life the terrorists live at Club GITMO





The U.S. Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay is no doubt an unpleasant place to find oneself.

Just recently guards used rubber bullets (http://www.businessinsider.com/rubber-bullet-shot-at-gitmo-inmate-2013-3) to disperse a crowd of inmates who were throwing rocks at the guard tower and one who was trying to climb the fence. There have been plenty of reports of prisoner abuse too since the terrorist detention center was established in 2002.

Nonetheless it is a U.S. government facility run with perhaps surprising attention to things like inmate nutrition and recreation.

Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/business-insider)'s own Robert Johnson will be there this week to provide exclusive coverage.

In the meantime, check out some excellent new photos of the inside from Reuters (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/reuters)' Bob Strong.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/intimate-photos-of-guantanamo-bay-prison-2013-3?op=1#ixzz2S8CiOhCf




One can see an almost spooky, surgical sterility in the emphasis on inmates' nutrition.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/513dd43feab8ea6d17000016-900/one-can-see-an-almost-spooky-surgical-sterility-in-the-emphasis-on-inmates-nutrition.jpg





As well their morale: Harry Potter movies seem to be a favorite of the prisoners.


http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/513dd44269beddf41d000000-900/as-well-their-morale-harry-potter-movies-seem-to-be-a-favorite-of-the-prisoners.jpg






As well as, oddly enough, muscle car magazines.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/513dd443ecad042765000000-900/as-well-as-oddly-enough-muscle-car-magazines.jpg





And Muslim reading material too.

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/513e84ac69beddd764000017-900/and-muslim-reading-material-too.jpg





Make no mistake, Gitmo is still a prison, with all the looks and qualities of a prison.


http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/513dd44669beddf01d000000-900/make-no-mistake-gitmo-is-still-a-prison-with-all-the-looks-and-qualities-of-a-prison.jpg

[taft2012]

Btw- I didn't need a lawyer, as it was settled out of court to my satisfaction.


Translation: I went down to the police station and screamed at them for 20 minutes like a delusional paranoid schizophrenic about my idiotic liberal distortions of Constitutional rights regarding search and seizure until they'd finally had enough and bum-rushed me out the front door into the street.

I've seen it happen a million times.

[taft2012]

Our guys are better, because we're better-- dont forget that. I don't base what our guys' acceptable behavior is on what the other guys do. Lots of guys fighting the war-- how its determined who has the high ground is question of tactics.

Manny Pacquiao fights a lot better than I do. However, compel him to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while I get to use a gun, suddenly the odds swing to my favor.

And that's basically what you liberals are trying to do with the wars in the Middle East, as you did in Vietnam, and try to do here at home in the efforts against criminals and terrorists. You want to set up rules that benefit the enemy and that hopefully lead to American failure.

You want more dead soldiers in the Middle East. You're basically telling our boys to put on gloves and not hit below the belt, while their opponents are holding guns.

You want more dead cops at home, and more criminals set free from the courts on shyster lawyer technicalities.


Sorry piggy, just 'cause some fat sow eats all day doesn't mean everybody should. It just makes you a glutinous pig. SOO-EE!!!

Calling a cop a "pig".... how original. Dude, does your grooviness know no limits? :laugh2:

[fj1200]

Yes, you'd much rather I stop recognising Leftie methodology, eh, Fj ?
...
This thread, if it proves anything, proves the truth of THIS !!!

But, then .. no Leftie would dream of accepting such an argument. Lefties evidently care passionately about fighting tooth and nail for terrorist 'rights'.

Of course I'd much rather that you would start to recognize it as this thread only proves that you are unable to recognize "lefties." Lord help us when an actual leftie shows up.


What I am saying is that no terrorist should enjoy 'rights' which said terrorist has no interest in granting its victims.

I already know what you're really saying, I spotted it ages ago; You are what you say you detest. You wish for the power of government to remove the natural rights of man for your benefit.

You remind me of the leftie that said this:


We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny. And only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.

[jimnyc]

Then it should be rather easy to convict them in accordance with due process and without simulated drowning.


In the field of battle? We're talking about detainees being tortured by trained interrogators, not some grunts in the heat of battle.

Not getting into the battle here - but wanted to point out to everyone that no water enters the lungs and waterboarding never puts the prisoner in danger of drowning. Like you said, it's simply a simulation, but a scary one!

[aboutime]

:laugh2: Back to your old standby: the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.



Thanks for reassuring us PEE WEE! 4928

[revelarts]

So lets talk about the harsh life the terrorists live at Club GITMO

that is a really nice prison, better than many in the US. On the water no less.
If your innocent of a crime how long would you like to stay at the invite of Bush/Obama RED?

I notice you didn't have any pictures of the dead tortured prisoners from gitmo?
Or no pics of the secret prisons of with the grave size cells?
No pics of the AbuGraud and the other Iraqi prisons.
No pics like the one below from Bagram AFB
"In Bagram, we were handcuffed, blindfolded, and had our feet chained for days," he recalls. "They didn't allow us to sleep at all for 13 days and nights."

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/torture_bagram.jpg


sarcasmAlert
"What are you lefties cryin bout? No reason to complain about this, as long as the guberment says they had to.
and say it's not really torture. As a matter of fact My dad use to hang me by my feet like that all the time. got uncomfortable after an hour but it was fun... and good for the back i understand. And some circus performers do it ever day. you call that torture?!
And hospital interns go for like.. almost 13 days without sleep as well. and truck drivers too..
what's the problem? who says this type of thing is torture?!? chortle chortle. Uncomfortable maybe a little yes but not torture. Why are you in love with terrorist, the gov't said they are terrorist I believe them. and i had a dream they caught that guy in the picture with a car full of bombs. why do you love him so much? you love Obama to i knows it, you want to kiss him, and make babies with Hillary, communist.
What marks on his back? I have cuts from shaving worse than that. LETS SEE THE TERRORIST TAKE AS MUCH CARE WE HAVE WITH THEM?!!
I wish i was their doing acts myself, that ... not torture, they did on him. I wonder what info we got to save americans, the constitution, bill of rights and our good christian way of life. That they and you hate so much? why don't you go lay flowers in the ocean over your friend BinLaden and Chavez and Marxs.... I'm outraged that you would have a problem with this don't you remember 911 ...Iranmightgetnukes!!! "

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-forgotten-guantanamo-prisoner-abuse-continues-at-bagram-prison-in-afghanistan-a-650242.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bagram-torture
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/bagram_air_base_afghanistan/index.html

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/01/30/terror-comes-at-night-in-afghanistan.html#ixzz2SA6UoXoO

[aboutime]

Prisoners of WAR are kept in prisons until the WAR ends. But since many insist, like Obama. There is no WAR on terror. The typical whiners will always claim those prisoners are not guilty of anything.

Tell that to the relatives, and friends of those killed by Terrorists (that do not exist according to you, and Obama) that they are innocent. Then...We can talk honestly about this topic.

The NON-WAR ON TERROR may never end. So those prisoners should NEVER be released.

[Drummond]

that is a really nice prison, better than many in the US. On the water no less.
If your innocent of a crime how long would you like to stay at the invite of Bush/Obama RED?

I notice you didn't have any pictures of the dead tortured prisoners from gitmo?
Or no pics of the secret prisons of with the grave size cells?
No pics of the AbuGraud and the other Iraqi prisons.
No pics like the one below from Bagram AFB
"In Bagram, we were handcuffed, blindfolded, and had our feet chained for days," he recalls. "They didn't allow us to sleep at all for 13 days and nights."

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/torture_bagram.jpg


sarcasmAlert
"What are you lefties cryin bout? No reason to complain about this, as long as the guberment says they had to.
and say it's not really torture. As a matter of fact My dad use to hang me by my feet like that all the time. got uncomfortable after an hour but it was fun... and good for the back i understand. And some circus performers do it ever day. you call that torture?!
And hospital interns go for like.. almost 13 days without sleep as well. and truck drivers too..
what's the problem? who says this type of thing is torture?!? chortle chortle. Uncomfortable maybe a little yes but not torture. Why are you in love with terrorist, the gov't said they are terrorist I believe them. and i had a dream they caught that guy in the picture with a car full of bombs. why do you love him so much? you love Obama to i knows it, you want to kiss him, and make babies with Hillary, communist.
What marks on his back? I have cuts from shaving worse than that. LETS SEE THE TERRORIST TAKE AS MUCH CARE WE HAVE WITH THEM?!!
I wish i was their doing acts myself, that ... not torture, they did on him. I wonder what info we got to save americans, the constitution, bill of rights and our good christian way of life. That they and you hate so much? why don't you go lay flowers in the ocean over your friend BinLaden and Chavez and Marxs.... I'm outraged that you would have a problem with this don't you remember 911 ...Iranmightgetnukes!!! "

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-forgotten-guantanamo-prisoner-abuse-continues-at-bagram-prison-in-afghanistan-a-650242.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bagram-torture
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/bagram_air_base_afghanistan/index.html

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/01/30/terror-comes-at-night-in-afghanistan.html#ixzz2SA6UoXoO






Bagram, eh ?

You now see a need to change the location, to make your case seem more credible ?

But here is what you're just not getting. Bagram, Gitmo ... either way, we're discussing the fate of TERRORISTS. Terrorists who, if free to do so, would exult in doing far worse to innocent people than the very worst you try to allege is done to THEM.

Still, though, you insist upon fighting for the 'rights' of terrorists, and not their VICTIMS.

And to think I've recently been accused of having no understanding of the Leftie mindset. Hah !

Revelarts .. these are TERRORISTS ! WHY ON EARTH MUST I CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM ???

[aboutime]

Bagram, eh ?

You now see a need to change the location, to make your case seem more credible ?

But here is what you're just not getting. Bagram, Gitmo ... either way, we're discussing the fate of TERRORISTS. Terrorists who, if free to do so, would exult in doing far worse to innocent people than the very worst you try to allege is done to THEM.

Still, though, you insist upon fighting for the 'rights' of terrorists, and not their VICTIMS.

And to think I've recently been accused of having no understanding of the Leftie mindset. Hah !

Revelarts .. these are TERRORISTS ! WHY ON EARTH MUST I CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM ???


Sir Drummond. They were all hoping we wouldn't recognize the tactic of changing the subject. Their mindset (as if they had minds) must, and always be the appeasement route. Where they avoid...at all costs. Any hint of seeming against the FLOW of the present administration. To do so would instantly create that air of being accused as racists if they dare disagree with anything Obama says, or does. It was all part of the grand bargain they fell for...when they voted for him.
And still None of his bargain promises have come true.

By the way REV. That photo you submitted WAS NOT Bagrahm Air Force Base. You still can't get your lies right.

[Drummond]

Of course I'd much rather that you would start to recognize it as this thread only proves that you are unable to recognize "lefties." Lord help us when an actual leftie shows up.

Only one comment is adequate in response to this ...

... who are you ??


I already know what you're really saying, I spotted it ages ago; You are what you say you detest. You wish for the power of government to remove the natural rights of man for your benefit.

Bog standard Leftie methodology at work .. trying to redefine for me what I think, and say. For your information, what I say, what comments I add, these are what I am really saying. MY words, are MY words. Not what YOU want to claim, but what I actually SAY.

This is itself typical Leftie arrogance at work.

I am what I detest ?? I'm .... a Leftie ? A Muslim ? A terrorist ??

I wish you joy in trying to prove any of that utter rot.


You remind me of the leftie that said this:

.... and I've identified the source of the quote you previously included. It turns out to be a Lyndon Johnson speech .. one made in support of fighting for the rights of the South Vietnamese, in their struggle against the tyranny threatened by their Commie enemies from the North.

Every once in a great while, one comes across that rarity in life: the Leftie possessing integrity, standing up for what is decent and RIGHT. Johnson's wish to defeat Commie tyranny and keep the South Vietnamese free is one such example. Tony Blair's support of the War on Terror is another.

Of course, though, such Lefties suffer from the wolf packs that attack them, 'people' who are also creatures of the Left. 'Hanoi Jane' did her best to undermine the cause of freedom in Vietnam. Blair's own Party rounded on him for supporting the Iraq War (two of his own Cabinet ministers even resigned their jobs, as I recall ..). Yes .. Lefties don't easily tolerate the Principled, Decent Leftie amongst them ...

So I can end this post on a positive note. I'm happy to be seen as reminiscent of a point of high principle. Even one fought for by a Leftie.

[Drummond]

Then it should be rather easy to convict them in accordance with due process and without simulated drowning.
Is there REALLY no end to your enthusiasm for fighting for terrorist scum ?

I wonder how many times I'll need to say it before the message becomes clear. I DO NOT CARE HOW MUCH TERRORISTS 'SUFFER'.

And note this point: these trash are not even being HARMED. Their fate is way better than what they want to mete out to their victims. Terrorists don't terrorise just by threatening some discomfort !! NO, THEY MAIM AND KILL, AND EXULT IN IT ALL.

But ... to a Leftie, it's the DISCOMFORT suffered that they care about, way more than the worst that terrorists can do.


In the field of battle? We're talking about detainees being tortured by trained interrogators, not some grunts in the heat of battle.

Sticking to your preferred context ?

Those detainees wouldn't be there in the first place, had their initial captors not had ample reason to take action.

But then ... this is a reality you'd much rather wasn't thought about.

I wonder why ?

[taft2012]

No pics like the one below from Bagram AFB
"In Bagram, we were handcuffed, blindfolded, and had our feet chained for days," he recalls. "They didn't allow us to sleep at all for 13 days and nights."

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/torture_bagram.jpg






Yeah, those guys look exactly like the crew you'd see standing around at an American Air Force base. Especially the guy in the doorway with the full-length maroon robe. :rolleyes:

Fail.

[aboutime]

Is there REALLY no end to your enthusiasm for fighting for terrorist scum ?

I wonder how many times I'll need to say it before the message becomes clear. I DO NOT CARE HOW MUCH TERRORISTS 'SUFFER'.

And note this point: these trash are not even being HARMED. Their fate is way better than what they want to mete out to their victims. Terrorists don't terrorise just by threatening some discomfort !! NO, THEY MAIM AND KILL, AND EXULT IN IT ALL.

But ... to a Leftie, it's the DISCOMFORT suffered that they care about, way more than the worst that terrorists can do.



Sticking to your preferred context ?

Those detainees wouldn't be there in the first place, had their initial captors not had ample reason to take action.

But then ... this is a reality you'd much rather wasn't thought about.

I wonder why ?


Sir Drummond. I have learned the hard way. Those who must always disagree so much, because they are uncomfortable for whatever reason. Just aren't worth the effort.
I have to keep reminding myself. No matter how many factual, honest examples of truth you present to them. It's like throwing mud up against a wall, hoping it will stick.
They do not want to be confronted with proven facts. Which explains why they are so easily convinced to always believe the made-up facts presented by those they WOULD NEVER DARE TO DISAGREE WITH.
Reality for many of those we call Liberals here in the USA is only a reality as long as they are not shoved into a corner, and called names they dislike that do not impress others like them.
So. Coming here to express our views, and opinions based on known, proven facts. Just isn't their "CUP OF TEA" so to speak.
Therefore. In order to remain liberally tolerant, and liked. They must always cry those phony Alligator tears, claiming they feel for humanity...even those who distort, and strive to destroy humanity. Because it is the FAIR, and Liberally Tolerant thing they have been brainwashed into believing.
In other words.
Let them go. They really aren't worth it. And...not one of them would step forward honorably to dispute anything Obama, or Terrorists might do.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. I have learned the hard way. Those who must always disagree so much, because they are uncomfortable for whatever reason. Just aren't worth the effort.
I have to keep reminding myself. No matter how many factual, honest examples of truth you present to them. It's like throwing mud up against a wall, hoping it will stick.
They do not want to be confronted with proven facts. Which explains why they are so easily convinced to always believe the made-up facts presented by those they WOULD NEVER DARE TO DISAGREE WITH.
Reality for many of those we call Liberals here in the USA is only a reality as long as they are not shoved into a corner, and called names they dislike that do not impress others like them.
So. Coming here to express our views, and opinions based on known, proven facts. Just isn't their "CUP OF TEA" so to speak.
Therefore. In order to remain liberally tolerant, and liked. They must always cry those phony Alligator tears, claiming they feel for humanity...even those who distort, and strive to destroy humanity. Because it is the FAIR, and Liberally Tolerant thing they have been brainwashed into believing.
In other words.
Let them go. They really aren't worth it. And...not one of them would step forward honorably to dispute anything Obama, or Terrorists might do.

Oh, I know. Left-wingers are blind and deaf to reason, decency, to any arguments not fitting their propaganda. They see what they choose to see, and nothing more.

What could be more perverse than to claim you 'feel for humanity' ... and are only willing to advance that claim by exclusively concentrating on the interests of those LEAST human ???

Actually, it's sickening.

You have this nailed, Aboutime. Many thanks.

[fj1200]

Only one comment is adequate in response to this ...

... who are you ??

Your comment was inadequate.


Bog standard Leftie methodology at work .. trying to redefine for me what I think, and say. For your information, what I say, what comments I add, these are what I am really saying. MY words, are MY words. Not what YOU want to claim, but what I actually SAY.

This is itself typical Leftie arrogance at work.

I am what I detest ?? I'm .... a Leftie ? A Muslim ? A terrorist ??

I wish you joy in trying to prove any of that utter rot.

It's already been proven by your own words as I'm not redefining anything you've said. You've previously defined conservatism as honoring the individual, or something along those lines, yet you withhold the natural rights of man at your own whim by granting government the authority to do so; Standard leftie thinking.

A bit better I'd say on your insistence of running around with your hair on fire with cries of, "LEFTIE," at every turn.


.... and I've identified the source of the quote you previously included. It turns out to be a Lyndon Johnson speech .. one made in support of fighting for the rights of the South Vietnamese, in their struggle against the tyranny threatened by their Commie enemies from the North.

...

So I can end this post on a positive note. I'm happy to be seen as reminiscent of a point of high principle. Even one fought for by a Leftie.

Great, you're on board with one of the great lefties of modern times. How did all of that work out for us?

[fj1200]

They see what they choose to see, and nothing more.

:laugh:

[aboutime]

Oh, I know. Left-wingers are blind and deaf to reason, decency, to any arguments not fitting their propaganda. They see what they choose to see, and nothing more.

What could be more perverse than to claim you 'feel for humanity' ... and are only willing to advance that claim by exclusively concentrating on the interests of those LEAST human ???

Actually, it's sickening.

You have this nailed, Aboutime. Many thanks.


Thank you. And, if you watch what takes place above. Much of what we agree upon will SUDDENLY APPEAR.
Unless they wise-up, and either Ignore what I said, or pretend I didn't say it.

[taft2012]

Yeah, those guys look exactly like the crew you'd see standing around at an American Air Force base. Especially the guy in the doorway with the full-length maroon robe. :rolleyes:

Fail.

ehhhhhh, BUMP! :laugh:

[revelarts]

Your comment was inadequate.

It's already been proven by your own words as I'm not redefining anything you've said. You've previously defined conservatism as honoring the individual, or something along those lines, yet you withhold the natural rights of man at your own whim by granting government the authority to do so; Standard leftie thinking.

A bit better I'd say on your insistence of running around with your hair on fire with cries of, "LEFTIE," at every turn.

Great, you're on board with one of the great lefties of modern times. How did all of that work out for us?

FJ, Log ahem ,
I've found over the years that these Cartoon Conservatives are blinder than earthworms in bucket of glue. I've grown to tolertarate and even at times be amused by there huffing and puffing about Vitims when all they really seem to care about is killing and torutre. that's where you see the glee in their writings. All there bailful mourning and protest about victims is never brought up unless they have no response to facts presented to them that would make them consider gving up there beloved torture and cardboard enemies. Like taking a pacifier from a fat spoiled child they have tantrum. reality is meaningless to them, only the pacifier -torture and a daily 5 minute hate of islamistterrorist and any who's ever been called one- . my my my, Cartoon Conservatives what are going do with them.

911 and there love of country, laudible as that is, has made them lose all sense of reality. And instead of coming to a place of calm and reason, they've lost there selves in a maze or cartoon fears on this issue. the shock and blood lust of that event has blinded them to any clear vison of right and wrong, good and evil, up or down, choclate or vanilla. like the greyhound dogs at the race tracks trained to chase a fake rabbit like there lives depended on it. Running after something that's not real. never thinking that it's can never bring them what they want, but it serves the pleasure of others. Stinking Cartoon Conservatives
Like the people in the town of the boy that cried wolf, except they've never wised up. Are there wolves? sure, we know that and are ready to fight them but we don't trust the Gov't boy any more. They still think every time he cries we are slacking because we aren't running to fields looking. they don't see how foolish they look to us. when the Gov't boy brings home a cat and calls it a wolf, they agree and never question. When the boy beats a neighbors dog to death they cheer. calling it a evil stinking wolf. when the boy admits it was a dog. they still say it was a wolf. so filled with cartoon rage and self-rightuosness, unable to admit any wrong. Then a enraged that others don't care for the victims of "the wolf" as they do for "the wolf". Cartoon Conservatives

The delusion is so deep that all that left for us on their behalf i think maybe prayers.

cartoon conservatives will not be moved by any facts, no realty or truth or grain alcohol, or gov't admission, or maps or charts or education or Tv or radio or movies or web site or dog food or mother milk or apple pie or humus or coal sands or cookies or pocket change or cell phones or ocean cruises or music i think i said music already..no.. or time or chance or angels or devils or rockets or ants or bicycles or ear wax

nooooooo they are lost to us in the real world. i truly care for them but, i think i must not hope to much for them.
alas alas.
sigh
to bad
oh well
we tried
yep


tisk tisk

my my my

it's a shame indeed

pity

if only if only

what a world what a world

....

[aboutime]

FJ, Log ahem ,
I've found over the years that these Cartoon Conservatives are blinder than earthworms in bucket of glue. I've grown to tolertarate and even at times be amused by there huffing and puffing about Vitims when all they really seem to care about is killing and torutre. that's where you see the glee in their writings. All there bailful mourning and protest about victims is never brought up unless they have no response to facts presented to them that would make them consider gving up there beloved torture and cardboard enemies. Like taking a pacifier from a fat spoiled child they have tantrum. reality is meaningless to them, only the pacifier -torture and a daily 5 minute hate of islamistterrorist and any who's ever been called one- . my my my, Cartoon Conservatives what are going do with them.

911 and there love of country, laudible as that is, has made them lose all sense of reality. And instead of coming to a place of calm and reason, they've lost there selves in a maze or cartoon fears on this issue. the shock and blood lust of that event has blinded them to any clear vison of right and wrong, good and evil, up or down, choclate or vanilla. like the greyhound dogs at the race tracks trained to chase a fake rabbit like there lives depended on it. Running after something that's not real. never thinking that it's can never bring them what they want, but it serves the pleasure of others. Stinking Cartoon Conservatives
Like the people in the town of the boy that cried wolf, except they've never wised up. Are there wolves? sure, we know that and are ready to fight them but we don't trust the Gov't boy any more. They still think every time he cries we are slacking because we aren't running to fields looking. they don't see how foolish they look to us. when the Gov't boy brings home a cat and calls it a wolf, they agree and never question. When the boy beats a neighbors dog to death they cheer. calling it a evil stinking wolf. when the boy admits it was a dog. they still say it was a wolf. so filled with cartoon rage and self-rightuosness, unable to admit any wrong. Then a enraged that others don't care for the victims of "the wolf" as they do for "the wolf". Cartoon Conservatives

The delusion is so deep that all that left for us on their behalf i think maybe prayers.

cartoon conservatives will not be moved by any facts, no realty or truth or grain alcohol, or gov't admission, or maps or charts or education or Tv or radio or movies or web site or dog food or mother milk or apple pie or humus or coal sands or cookies or pocket change or cell phones or ocean cruises or music i think i said music already..no.. or time or chance or angels or devils or rockets or ants or bicycles or ear wax

nooooooo they are lost to us in the real world. i truly care for them but, i think i must not hope to much for them.
alas alas.
sigh
to bad
oh well
we tried
yep


tisk tisk

my my my

it's a shame indeed

pity

if only if only

what a world what a world

....



Rev. Thank you so much for finally proving what I had suspected for a long time here. That it is obvious. Your Real, first name is Robert.

[Kathianne]

All I'm seeing after all these many, many posts; some detailed, some just from the gut? Too many are willing to give up all liberties in the name of 'terrorism.' Some willing to sacrifice American lives on philosophical points.

Me? I'll deal with wartime sacrifices when necessary, which is why I originally supported the Patriot Act. OTOH, when circumstances and time say that's no longer necessary, I'm for repealing and going back to max freedoms.

Same with how we should address issues like 'waterboarding,' commonsense. Here's the deal, we need to know when to 'bring it to the enemy', including methods usually we frown upon. OTOH, we need to know when to end those methods, to move forward.

I do believe that is the real, 'shock and awe.' The 'awe' has always been our restraint.

[taft2012]

OK Rev, let's have a serious talk about cartoon posters. You posted a photo purporting to show prisoner abuse at an American Air Force.

Let's take a closer look at it. In the center we see quite clearly a prisoner hanging by his feet in a room full of men. Let's look at these men supposedly on an American Air Force Base.

All of the men are in civilian clothes. Possible, but hard to believe that not one of them is in uniform. But, like I said, it's possible.

One has a big beard, and one has a very thick black mustache. Odd look for a serviceman, but still possible I suppose.

One is wearing a tacky sweater vest, and others are in tackier sports coats without ties. It looks like they're lined up on the wall of a 1970s disco checking out the girls on the dancefloor. Doesn't look like US Servicemen or intelligence agents at all.

But the real deal breaker is the guy in the doorway, wearing the full-length maroon robe, with what looks like a black Ayatollah hat on his head, and a gray beard lightly air brushed out of the picture.

In fact, everyone in the picture has had their features air brushed out. This is clearly not a scene at a US Air Force Base It's bullshit.

At this point, if you wish to salvage even inkling of your flagging reputation, you would say "OK, you're right. This picture is bullshit, so it brings into question everything else that website posted." If not, be prepared to be dismissed as a nutter.

[taft2012]

Too many are willing to give up all liberties in the name of 'terrorism.'

That's a rather moronic misrepresentation of what's being said.

[taft2012]

While not agreeing that anything being done is unconstitutional, I will leave the ding-a-ling pothead conservatives with some words from Abraham Lincoln. Although Lincoln faced a much greater crisis, the principle applies not only to the Constitution, but to all laws passed by our democratically elected legislatures.



My oath to preserve the Constitution imposed on me the duty of preserving by every indispensable means that government, that nation, of which the Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life, but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground and now avow it.


If we preserve the liberals' interpretation of the Constitution, but in doing so wreck havoc upon the safety of the American people and their earned properties, and allow the democratically enacted laws of our country to go unenforced, of what use is preserving the liberals' interpretation of the Constitution?

[revelarts]

OK Rev, let's have a serious talk about cartoon posters. You posted a photo purporting to show prisoner abuse at an American Air Force.

Let's take a closer look at it. In the center we see quite clearly a prisoner hanging by his feet in a room full of men. Let's look at these men supposedly on an American Air Force Base.

All of the men are in civilian clothes. Possible, but hard to believe that not one of them is in uniform. But, like I said, it's possible.

One has a big beard, and one has a very thick black mustache. Odd look for a serviceman, but still possible I suppose.

One is wearing a tacky sweater vest, and others are in tackier sports coats without ties. It looks like they're lined up on the wall of a 1970s disco checking out the girls on the dancefloor. Doesn't look like US Servicemen or intelligence agents at all.

But the real deal breaker is the guy in the doorway, wearing the full-length maroon robe, with what looks like a black Ayatollah hat on his head, and a gray beard lightly air brushed out of the picture.

In fact, everyone in the picture has had their features air brushed out. This is clearly not a scene at a US Air Force Base It's bullshit.

At this point, if you wish to salvage even inkling of your flagging reputation, you would say "OK, you're right. This picture is bullshit, so it brings into question everything else that website posted." If not, be prepared to be dismissed as a nutter.

How about seriously analyzing the DOD autopsy reports of dead prisoners from Bagram before you try to super analyze a picture?

[taft2012]

How about seriously analyzing the DOD autopsy reports of dead prisoners from Bagram before you try to super analyze a picture?

How about defending the transparent bullshit you put up?

Or are we just supposed to accept it all and not look at it too closely?

[revelarts]

How about defending the transparent bullshit you put up?

Or are we just supposed to accept it all and not look at it too closely?

Yeah that's what i thought, ignore the DoD doc and all the other docs and find something anything to use as a tool to deflect this reality.

[aboutime]

That's a rather moronic misrepresentation of what's being said.


taft. Let them believe what they want to believe, or feel. Thank goodness they are not in charge of deciding which freedoms, rights, and liberties THEY would give up for their security.

[logroller]

Is there REALLY no end to your enthusiasm for fighting for terrorist scum ?
I am enthusiastic in seeking conviction and sentencing for terrorists. Why aren't you?
Is there really no end to your disdain for the American legal framework?


I wonder how many times I'll need to say it before the message becomes clear. I DO NOT CARE HOW MUCH TERRORISTS 'SUFFER'.
nor does I appear you care how much of your own sense of civility suffers.


And note this point: these trash are not even being HARMED. Their fate is way better than what they want to mete out to their victims. Terrorists don't terrorise just by threatening some discomfort !! NO, THEY MAIM AND KILL, AND EXULT IN IT ALL.
I believe they should face justice-- justice under Our rule of law-- which i believe to be a superior form of justice (and YOU DO NOT)-- that is what We should exalt rather than allowing our system to be perverted.


But ... to a Leftie, it's the DISCOMFORT suffered that they care about, way more than the worst that terrorists can do.

I think if the dictatorial militarists had their way, we'd behave no better than the terrorists.


Sticking to your preferred context ?
Just that of the OP.


Those detainees wouldn't be there in the first place, had their initial captors not had ample reason to take action.

But then ... this is a reality you'd much rather wasn't thought about.

I wonder why ?
I've discussed the circumstances of the war terror and its history extensively here, both before and after your membership here; to include a long string of backlash from subversive, anti-liberty policies, geopolitical power-struggles to the legal status of unlawful combatants-- So to quell your wonder, try the search feature and feel free to comment in those threads. But this thread is about a bi-partisan report on the unlawful treatment of detainees; regardless of the necessity for their detainment, once in our possession the circumstances change, as do the rules. It's the law of my country that I support...not that you seem to care much for US law; you're more of an expert on sharia. Me thinks you've become the monster you sought to destroy; but he is not I and you'd do well to check your reproach.

[Kathianne]

That's a rather moronic misrepresentation of what's being said. Actually, not moronic in the least Not at the point of 'no restraint,' what you have problems with is. 'restraints removed when no longer useful.' Reminds me again of the Boston PD catching the 'boat kin' AFTER the lock down.

[logroller]

While not agreeing that anything being done is unconstitutional, I will leave the ding-a-ling pothead conservatives with some words from Abraham Lincoln. Although Lincoln faced a much greater crisis, the principle applies not only to the Constitution, but to all laws passed by our democratically elected legislatures.



If we preserve the liberals' interpretation of the Constitution, but in doing so wreck havoc upon the safety of the American people and their earned properties, and allow the democratically enacted laws of our country to go unenforced, of what use is preserving the liberals' interpretation of the Constitution?

And yet just four years after that letter was drafted, in deference to the greater state of crisis, The States had ratified amendments to the constitution to address the threat presented. Such is not the case for terror. Democratically elected legislatures...you a big fan of PPACA then?

[red states rule]

that is a really nice prison, better than many in the US. On the water no less.
If your innocent of a crime how long would you like to stay at the invite of Bush/Obama RED?

I notice you didn't have any pictures of the dead tortured prisoners from gitmo?
Or no pics of the secret prisons of with the grave size cells?
No pics of the AbuGraud and the other Iraqi prisons.
No pics like the one below from Bagram AFB
"In Bagram, we were handcuffed, blindfolded, and had our feet chained for days," he recalls. "They didn't allow us to sleep at all for 13 days and nights."

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/torture_bagram.jpg


sarcasmAlert
"What are you lefties cryin bout? No reason to complain about this, as long as the guberment says they had to.
and say it's not really torture. As a matter of fact My dad use to hang me by my feet like that all the time. got uncomfortable after an hour but it was fun... and good for the back i understand. And some circus performers do it ever day. you call that torture?!
And hospital interns go for like.. almost 13 days without sleep as well. and truck drivers too..
what's the problem? who says this type of thing is torture?!? chortle chortle. Uncomfortable maybe a little yes but not torture. Why are you in love with terrorist, the gov't said they are terrorist I believe them. and i had a dream they caught that guy in the picture with a car full of bombs. why do you love him so much? you love Obama to i knows it, you want to kiss him, and make babies with Hillary, communist.
What marks on his back? I have cuts from shaving worse than that. LETS SEE THE TERRORIST TAKE AS MUCH CARE WE HAVE WITH THEM?!!
I wish i was their doing acts myself, that ... not torture, they did on him. I wonder what info we got to save americans, the constitution, bill of rights and our good christian way of life. That they and you hate so much? why don't you go lay flowers in the ocean over your friend BinLaden and Chavez and Marxs.... I'm outraged that you would have a problem with this don't you remember 911 ...Iranmightgetnukes!!! "

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-forgotten-guantanamo-prisoner-abuse-continues-at-bagram-prison-in-afghanistan-a-650242.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bagram-torture
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/bagram_air_base_afghanistan/index.html

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/01/30/terror-comes-at-night-in-afghanistan.html#ixzz2SA6UoXoO






Rev, the one thing about any prison - damn near every inmate there says they are innocent. Shocker eh?

So what if a large majority of the inmates released from GITMO are picked up on the battlefield trying to kill our troops? Or go to Allah as a homicide bomber and take innocent civilians with them? It's Bush's fault anyway right?

After reading all your posts worrying about the "rights" of terrorists and those of your buddies FU and LR - I am not surprised none of you are expressing your concern over the victims of terrorism

But the three of you would find a hard time doing that since all of you are so busy making the terrorists out to be the victim

[taft2012]

And yet just four years after that letter was drafted, in deference to the greater state of crisis, The States had ratified amendments to the constitution to address the threat presented. Such is not the case for terror.

How did the post-war amendments address the threat of future secession, authorize the suspension of habeus corpus, the arrest of opposition members of the Maryland legislature, etc? Those amendments did nothing to address those threats.


Democratically elected legislatures...you a big fan of PPACA then?

No, I'm a fan of representative republics.

What's the point you're trying to make? Because a rotten law was passed the system is flawed? To the contrary, the system allows the people to replace the entire legislature.

[taft2012]

Yeah that's what i thought, ignore the DoD doc and all the other docs and find something anything to use as a tool to deflect this reality.

Not "something anything".... just what *YOU* presented as evidence.

So where's this discussion at now? "Never mind that evidence I presented over there. This evidence over here is the real deal!"

You *do* realize, don't you, that the evidence you presented is much more likely showing an American servicemen tortured and killed by Muzzie captors, than vice versa?

[fj1200]

All I'm seeing after all these many, many posts; some detailed, some just from the gut? Too many are willing to give up all liberties in the name of 'terrorism.' Some willing to sacrifice American lives on philosophical points.

Me? I'll deal with wartime sacrifices when necessary, which is why I originally supported the Patriot Act. OTOH, when circumstances and time say that's no longer necessary, I'm for repealing and going back to max freedoms.

Same with how we should address issues like 'waterboarding,' commonsense. Here's the deal, we need to know when to 'bring it to the enemy', including methods usually we frown upon. OTOH, we need to know when to end those methods, to move forward.

I do believe that is the real, 'shock and awe.' The 'awe' has always been our restraint.

To continue with a phrase, cartoon conservatives always decry the lefties, another loaner, as always advancing their views forward, never backward; government is growing ever larger, never smaller; government can't do anything right, always wrong. Now, however, we are given the argument that government should be granted with powers that no government should be granted; the power to declare a group of people as "subhuman" and to grant one branch of government with the power to act in the capacity of all three branches.

I don't think anyone here wishes that we don't "take it to them," I certainly don't, but we don't need to give up values in the process. Do we want to advance the virtues of our way of life and values? Of course, should we have to give up those values to do so? No. We haven't banned cruel and unusual punishment because we have any particular love for those who commit crimes, even the most heinous one, it's just what we do.

[Drummond]

I am enthusiastic in seeking conviction and sentencing for terrorists. Why aren't you?
Is there really no end to your disdain for the American legal framework?

Show me any evidence of that so-called 'disdain'. But of course, you cannot.

But tell me. What, exactly, does that 'enthusiasm' for seeking convictions and sentencing really signify ?

I see a number of reasons to raise objections. Some, if not all, should be obvious to you. Still ... you apparently 'need' me to explain, so ...

Let's start off with a simple, and obvious, answer. It suffices in itself. However, you - BEING A LEFTIE - would never dream of accepting the following as truth.

Fact ... it is simply impossible to infer even the slightest evidence of a human mind at work from acts of terrorism. The human mind IS such, because it has a capacity for humanity. BUT A TERRORIST HAS NONE AT ALL. IF IT DID, IT WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF THE SAVAGERY TERRORISM DEMANDS.

.. and there it is. Terrorists are, demonstrably, NOT human. To say they require, or could ever deserve, human rights ... is an utter, and highly insulting, nonsense.

You want Gitmo inmates brought to trial. But .. human laws are for human beings. Terrorists, obviously, DO NOT QUALIFY FOR THAT STATUS.

So there's the first objection dealt with. They cannot deserve human trials if they are not human beings.

But then again ... you are a Leftie. I've never yet met any Leftie who'd ever dream of conceding that terrorists aren't human ... AND YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT. So, you will reject my first argument out of hand.

Of course you will. Your Leftie creed demands no less of you.

Now consider the security aspect.

Some of the trials that you hope for will involve the sifting of material that will be of a sensitive nature. Maybe the circumstances of a capture involved the actions of an undercover operative ? Or, maybe descriptions of military manoeuvres better kept classified would have to be brought out in any trials ? Yes, there's a definite likelihood that facts better left out of the public domain will need expression in such trials.

Are you STILL keen to have those trials occur ? I just bet you are ...

Then there's the security aspect of holding any. Would they have to be held on the American mainland ? Would doing so polarise opinion ? Maybe put innocent lives at risk ? Would terrorists, or their sympathisers, come out of the woodwork and attempt to free them ?

If held in secret .. I'll just bet Lefties would line up to castigate the authorities for doing so. [Perhaps you would be one such Leftie ?]

Maybe you'd get riots breaking out ?

More even than all of this ... removing inmates from their Gitmo environment and routines would also remove them from their interrogators. Would bringing them to trial, therefore, end their usefulness to the intelligence services ? And .. would that cost innocent lives ?

Finally ... the reality of trial process is that a defendant has his chances of acquittal improved if he has an especially good lawyer. Do you REALLY imagine that terrorist groups wouldn't see it as being in their interests to fund the very best lawyers money can buy ?

And what if one such lawyer found some legal loophole which put other incarcerations at risk ?

So, then, Logroller ....

Let's be honest, shall we ?

There's not a snowball's chance in hell that any of my arguments will be accepted, by you, as valid. You are keen to insist that terrorists must be 'human', therefore must qualify for 'human rights'. You will be committed to wanting trials to go ahead, REGARDLESS of where it could lead. And you'll want all of this ... without giving a moment's thought to thinking that THE RIGHTS OF TERRORIST VICTIMS SHOULD MEAN MORE TO YOU.

I know all of this to be true. After all, you will have your LEFTIE agenda to follow.

So prove me wrong ! I challenge you !!

[aboutime]

Not "something anything".... just what *YOU* presented as evidence.

So where's this discussion at now? "Never mind that evidence I presented over there. This evidence over here is the real deal!"

You *do* realize, don't you, that the evidence you presented is much more likely showing an American servicemen tortured and killed by Muzzie captors, than vice versa?


taft. Now, you've gone and done it. You've ruined everything they have mutually been saying to disprove the known, proven facts.
Gonna be a terrible weekend here unless they can come up with more Liberal Talking Points to prove us wrong again.

[fj1200]

.. and there it is. Terrorists are, demonstrably, NOT human.

:facepalm99: The only undeniable truth of the whole matter... and you manage to deny it.

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: The only undeniable truth of the whole matter... and you manage to deny it.

???????!???

A Leftie Speaks ....

Never mind the one-liners. If you're going to stick to such a stance, BE PREPARED TO BACK IT UP.

[fj1200]

???????!???

A Leftie Speaks ....

Never mind the one-liners. If you're going to stick to such a stance, BE PREPARED TO BACK IT UP.

Where? :looksaround: Wait, I know where some are. Guess who I'm looking at.

Besides, one-liners are superior to repetitive drivel about lefties.

[Drummond]

Where? :looksaround: Wait, I know where some are. Guess who I'm looking at.

Besides, one-liners are superior to repetitive drivel about lefties.

Seriously, this is the best answer you can manage ?

I really shouldn't be surprised.

[fj1200]

Seriously, this is the best answer you can manage ?

I really shouldn't be surprised.

Sorry, my mind is still boggled that you're unable to comprehend post #116.

And speaking of repetitive drivel:


... you - BEING A LEFTIE...

... you are a Leftie.

Your Leftie creed...

... your LEFTIE agenda...

[aboutime]

Sorry, my mind is still boggled that you're unable to comprehend post #116.


Still?

[fj1200]

Still?


Yes. Still. It was pretty clear.

[Drummond]

Sorry, my mind is still boggled that you're unable to comprehend post #116.

... you wish ...


And speaking of repetitive drivel:

A little context is a wonderful thing.

Try it sometime.

Fj .. it's obvious that you can't put together any reasoned arguments to counter what I've very recently posted on this thread ... and I've better things to do than sit around studying your displays of semi-coherence. My advice to you is, either, admit when a better argument has been advanced than one which your Leftie mind can concoct .. or ... IF you're capable of better than this, GO TO IT.

I may return later. If you, or any of your comrades, have anything here that's worth debating, I'll happily get back to you on it. And if not, at least have the good grace to admit when you're beaten.

[aboutime]

Yes. Still. It was pretty clear.


Thanks. I would say....Permanently, in your case.

[fj1200]

... you wish ...



A little context is a wonderful thing.

Try it sometime.

The context confused you? Wow.

[fj1200]

Fj .. it's obvious that you can't put together any reasoned arguments to counter what I've very recently posted on this thread ... and I've better things to do than sit around studying your displays of semi-coherence. My advice to you is, either, admit when a better argument has been advanced than one which your Leftie mind can concoct .. or ... IF you're capable of better than this, GO TO IT.

I may return later. If you, or any of your comrades, have anything here that's worth debating, I'll happily get back to you on it. And if not, at least have the good grace to admit when you're beaten.

I almost missed your brilliant edit. If I was a conspiracy nut I'd guess at your motives but until then...

I'm sure I'm not alone in this but I am waiting for the reasoned arguments to start coming. This is yet another thread where you deny what is in the OP and start to ranting against "lefties" without addressing the issues that come up and you repeatedly mischaracterize those who dare to not think exactly as you. It's quite tiresome actually.

Nevertheless how you're not able to get the gist of post #116 is beyond me, willful denial is my guess, because I directly challenged your premise. You can argue that terrorists are despicable, take despicable actions, and have despicable views; all of which I would agree with btw, you can argue that torture is acceptable against those; the point of the thread of course, but you can't argue that they are not human. A simple DNA check will give you their status that you deny.

Oh, and I know you'll be back. The daisy chain isn't complete without you.

[Robert A Whit]

My argument, supported by attorney's that surveyed how it was to be done by the CIA is that it is not torture. The careful procedure the CIA used prevented it from being torture.

I suppose they like myself realize that not all torment is torture.

Geneva covers those who are soldiers and terrorists do not represent a country.

[fj1200]

My argument, supported by attorney's that surveyed how it was to be done by the CIA is that it is not torture. The careful procedure the CIA used prevented it from being torture.

I suppose they like myself realize that not all torment is torture.

Geneva covers those who are soldiers and terrorists do not represent a country.

Attorneys look for what you want them to look for. And I believe Bush agreed that the GC covers terrorists.

[Robert A Whit]

Attorneys look for what you want them to look for. And I believe Bush agreed that the GC covers terrorists.

Perhaps but that does not matter.

Then there is this. Notice due to a court ruling that Bush changed.

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva ConventionsBy Charles Babington and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.

[Drummond]

I almost missed your brilliant edit. If I was a conspiracy nut I'd guess at your motives but until then...

I'm sure I'm not alone in this but I am waiting for the reasoned arguments to start coming. This is yet another thread where you deny what is in the OP and start to ranting against "lefties" without addressing the issues that come up and you repeatedly mischaracterize those who dare to not think exactly as you. It's quite tiresome actually.

Nevertheless how you're not able to get the gist of post #116 is beyond me, willful denial is my guess, because I directly challenged your premise. You can argue that terrorists are despicable, take despicable actions, and have despicable views; all of which I would agree with btw, you can argue that torture is acceptable against those; the point of the thread of course, but you can't argue that they are not human. A simple DNA check will give you their status that you deny.

Oh, and I know you'll be back. The daisy chain isn't complete without you.

Heh heh heh. Now, this is Leftieism at its so-called 'finest' ....

You can't usefully counter the arguments I've supplied Logroller with (one would suppose you'd try, what with you two evidently being comrades). So, you don't make the effort to. Instead, you go into denial, pretending to still be 'waiting for the reasoned arguments to start coming'.

Better to pretend that a post you and your ilk can't deal with is nearly 'invisible' to you, than begin to admit being bested by it.

Really - this is as sad as it is predictable. And tiresome, too. YES, I know that tactic. From other Lefties who can't handle inconvenient truths.

Your DNA argument, though token support, isn't convincing. Chimpanzees, though not having identical DNA to humans, are nonetheless quite close to us in DNA makeup. Yet, nobody would claim that we were 'almost' chimpanzees.

Fact is, a human being IS a human being ... possessing the traits, the capabilities, of human beings. Human beings have humanity ... the clue's in the name ! Yet, terrorists DO NOT.

So, even if given human rights, by what reasoning would anyone suppose that they are capable of appreciating it ?

One might as well ask a chimpanzee to fully appreciate Hamlet.

Since you can't show me that there's any good justification in putting terrorists on trial, any more than Logroller can ... and since you can only offer a token coherence in answer to an argument you claim not to have seen (!), I shall declare myself the winner in this debate.

[aboutime]

Heh heh heh. Now, this is Leftieism at its so-called 'finest' ....

You can't usefully counter the arguments I've supplied you with. So, you don't make the effort to. Instead, you go into denial, pretending to still be 'waiting for the reasoned arguments to start coming'.

Better to pretend that a post you can't deal with is nearly 'invisible' to you, than begin to admit being bested by it.

Really - this is as sad as it is predictable. And tiresome, too. YES, I know that tactic. From other Lefties who can't handle inconvenient truths.

Your DNA argument isn't convincing. Chimpanzees, though not having identical DNA to humans, are nonetheless quite close to us in DNA makeup. Yet, nobody would claim that we were 'almost' chimpanzees.

Fact is, a human being IS a human being ... possessing the traits, the capabilities, of human beings. Human beings have humanity ... the clue's in the name ! Yet, terrorists DO NOT.

So, even if given human rights, by what reasoning would anyone suppose that they are capable of appreciating it ?

One might as well ask a chimpanzee to fully appreciate Hamlet.

Since you can't show me that there's any good justification in putting terrorists on trial, and since you can only offer a token coherence in answer to an argument you claim not to have seen (!), I shall declare myself the winner in this debate.


Sir Drummond. I wonder why someone who claims to be so learned, intelligent, and more highly educated than the rest of us...like fj, would bother to lower himself to speaking, or dealing with we LOWER CLASS humans who....according to fj, have no right to dare disagree, or project our opinions, or insight into matters ONLY fj is permitted to discuss????

We lower humans should be ever so thankful, that someone like fj would sacrifice being on the same level of intelligence with anyone who doesn't think, or speak as fj obviously does.
So. We should all be thanking Jim for granting us the exclusive opportunity to speak to the Obama-wannabe member of this forum.

I do suspect fj would rather feel more power in having someone like jafar as a kindred spirit to communicate with. Instead of we small folks.
Just look at how he responded to you.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. I wonder why someone who claims to be so learned, intelligent, and more highly educated than the rest of us...like fj, would bother to lower himself to speaking, or dealing with we LOWER CLASS humans who....according to fj, have no right to dare disagree, or project our opinions, or insight into matters ONLY fj is permitted to discuss????

We lower humans should be ever so thankful, that someone like fj would sacrifice being on the same level of intelligence with anyone who doesn't think, or speak as fj obviously does.
So. We should all be thanking Jim for granting us the exclusive opportunity to speak to the Obama-wannabe member of this forum.

I do suspect fj would rather feel more power in having someone like jafar as a kindred spirit to communicate with. Instead of we small folks.
Just look at how he responded to you.

:clap::clap::clap:

Cutting to the chase, Aboutime ... really, I've seen it all before, and repeatedly.

Leftie types hope to persuade by any means they can contrive. This means they aren't limited to logic, reason, even coherency ... they try everything. They'll try bluster. Condescention. Any trick they think will serve them.

Fj knows he has precious little to fall back on, of any worth. But, being wedded to propagandist constriction, he can NEVER admit it. So, we see what we HAVE seen, on this thread, this evening.

Logroller evidently can't get anywhere with me, because logic and reason are on my side. Fj's intervention on this thread took a different tack, ignoring truths I'd already addressed. He ignored them because he HAD to. Better to ignore what is inconvenient rather than fairly acknowledge when a rightful case has been made ... AND what it must lead to.

Really, it's sad in its way. The Left can NEVER admit when their stances have no basis to them.

[aboutime]

:clap::clap::clap:

Cutting to the chase, Aboutime ... really, I've seen it all before, and repeatedly.

Leftie types hope to persuade by any means they can contrive. This means they aren't limited to logic, reason, even coherency ... they try everything. They'll try bluster. Condescention. Any trick they think will serve them.

Fj knows he has precious little to fall back on, of any worth. But, being wedded to propagandist constriction, he can NEVER admit it. So, we see what we HAVE seen, on this thread, this evening.

Logroller evidently can't get anywhere with me, because logic and reason are on my side. Fj's intervention on this thread took a different tack, ignoring truths I'd already addressed. He ignored them because he HAD to. Better to ignore what is inconvenient rather than fairly acknowledge when a rightful case has been made ... AND what it must lead to.

Really, it's sad in its way. The Left can NEVER admit when their stances have no basis to them.

Which I personally find So Much More Entertaining. Imagining how their shorts are all tied in knots, they stutter uncontrollably, resort to endless namecalling as a safety feature since any higher educational training becomes Gutter talk.
In other words. It's more fun watching them drown in their own, pre-made, liberal drool that can only assist them as long as they have light to read the LIBERAL HANDBOOK.

[logroller]

Show me any evidence of that so-called 'disdain'. But of course, you cannot.

But tell me. What, exactly, does that 'enthusiasm' for seeking convictions and sentencing really signify ?

I see a number of reasons to raise objections. Some, if not all, should be obvious to you. Still ... you apparently 'need' me to explain, so ...

Let's start off with a simple, and obvious, answer. It suffices in itself. However, you - BEING A LEFTIE - would never dream of accepting the following as truth.

Fact ... it is simply impossible to infer even the slightest evidence of a human mind at work from acts of terrorism. The human mind IS such, because it has a capacity for humanity. BUT A TERRORIST HAS NONE AT ALL. IF IT DID, IT WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF THE SAVAGERY TERRORISM DEMANDS.

.. and there it is. Terrorists are, demonstrably, NOT human. To say they require, or could ever deserve, human rights ... is an utter, and highly insulting, nonsense.

You want Gitmo inmates brought to trial. But .. human laws are for human beings. Terrorists, obviously, DO NOT QUALIFY FOR THAT STATUS.

So there's the first objection dealt with. They cannot deserve human trials if they are not human beings.

But then again ... you are a Leftie. I've never yet met any Leftie who'd ever dream of conceding that terrorists aren't human ... AND YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT. So, you will reject my first argument out of hand.

Of course you will. Your Leftie creed demands no less of you.

Now consider the security aspect.

Some of the trials that you hope for will involve the sifting of material that will be of a sensitive nature. Maybe the circumstances of a capture involved the actions of an undercover operative ? Or, maybe descriptions of military manoeuvres better kept classified would have to be brought out in any trials ? Yes, there's a definite likelihood that facts better left out of the public domain will need expression in such trials.

Are you STILL keen to have those trials occur ? I just bet you are ...

Then there's the security aspect of holding any. Would they have to be held on the American mainland ? Would doing so polarise opinion ? Maybe put innocent lives at risk ? Would terrorists, or their sympathisers, come out of the woodwork and attempt to free them ?

If held in secret .. I'll just bet Lefties would line up to castigate the authorities for doing so. [Perhaps you would be one such Leftie ?]

Maybe you'd get riots breaking out ?

More even than all of this ... removing inmates from their Gitmo environment and routines would also remove them from their interrogators. Would bringing them to trial, therefore, end their usefulness to the intelligence services ? And .. would that cost innocent lives ?

Finally ... the reality of trial process is that a defendant has his chances of acquittal improved if he has an especially good lawyer. Do you REALLY imagine that terrorist groups wouldn't see it as being in their interests to fund the very best lawyers money can buy ?

And what if one such lawyer found some legal loophole which put other incarcerations at risk ?

So, then, Logroller ....

Let's be honest, shall we ?

There's not a snowball's chance in hell that any of my arguments will be accepted, by you, as valid. You are keen to insist that terrorists must be 'human', therefore must qualify for 'human rights'. You will be committed to wanting trials to go ahead, REGARDLESS of where it could lead. And you'll want all of this ... without giving a moment's thought to thinking that THE RIGHTS OF TERRORIST VICTIMS SHOULD MEAN MORE TO YOU.

I know all of this to be true. After all, you will have your LEFTIE agenda to follow.

So prove me wrong ! I challenge you !!


You ever read a dictionary?


???????!???


A Leftie Speaks ....


Never mind the one-liners. If you're going to stick to such a stance, BE PREPARED TO BACK IT UP.


Definition of human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
-- Oxford English dictionary.
No mention of humanity. And yet even by your definition, hinging upon the capability of human train of thought (ie humanity: kindness good will etc,), the capability need not be demonstrably so...unless you feel as though an infant is not a person until it has demonstrated its capacity for humanity. Yet again, your proffered position runs afoul of US law.


1 USC section 8
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

[Drummond]

Which I personally find So Much More Entertaining. Imagining how their shorts are all tied in knots, they stutter uncontrollably, resort to endless namecalling as a safety feature since any higher educational training becomes Gutter talk.
In other words. It's more fun watching them drown in their own, pre-made, liberal drool that can only assist them as long as they have light to read the LIBERAL HANDBOOK.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Drummond]

You ever read a dictionary?




Definition of human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
-- Oxford English dictionary.
No mention of humanity. And yet even by your definition, hinging upon the capability of human train of thought (ie humanity: kindness good will etc,), the capability need not be demonstrably so...unless you feel as though an infant is not a person until it has demonstrated its capacity for humanity. Yet again, your proffered position runs afoul of US law.


1 USC section 8
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh::laugh2::laugh2:

This, Logroller, is as torturous - and feeble - an attempt to circumvent the arguments I have presented you with as I could ever have imagined you would offer.

Typical .. it really is.

You know you can't counter the arguments I've presented you with in any direct way, so you've tried this, instead.

No Leftie can ever admit when he or she is wrong. The subhumanity of terrorists is evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. And your attempt to change the positioning of the goalposts is noted. Previously, on this thread, the argument had to do with denial of 'human rights' ... did it not ? That torture was wrong, because it was wrong to act in denial of those 'rights'.

Now, it's .... er'm ... 'NO MENTION OF HUMANITY'.

Dear me !! Talk about convolutions !

Logroller, really, you're wasting my time. Do the decent thing and admit that you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. If you're NOT a bog-standard Leftie propagandist, then don't act like one. Admit it when you're wrong !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I almost missed your brilliant edit. If I was a conspiracy nut I'd guess at your motives but until then...

I'm sure I'm not alone in this but I am waiting for the reasoned arguments to start coming. This is yet another thread where you deny what is in the OP and start to ranting against "lefties" without addressing the issues that come up and you repeatedly mischaracterize those who dare to not think exactly as you. It's quite tiresome actually.

Nevertheless how you're not able to get the gist of post #116 is beyond me, willful denial is my guess, because I directly challenged your premise. You can argue that terrorists are despicable, take despicable actions, and have despicable views; all of which I would agree with btw, you can argue that torture is acceptable against those; the point of the thread of course, but you can't argue that they are not human. A simple DNA check will give you their status that you deny.

Oh, and I know you'll be back. The daisy chain isn't complete without you.

On your daisy chain rant again amigo? TSK,TSK,TSK :cuckoo:

Stop planting those daises long enough to try to counter Drummond's points.

When a man utterly denies his humanity and falls into a state of religious savagery as is often the case with these religiously insane murderers he ceases to be human. Any creature devoid of the sympathy, love and honorable principles that would restrain that creature from such murderous savagery has ceased to be human. That you think no level is low enough for a man to go that will destroy his humanity clearly indicates to me that you view humans as no more than talking animals. We are much more and as such we have god given souls. The terrorist murdering bastards have no such souls. Now we have went into the spiritual realm, happy?-Tyr

[Drummond]

On your daisy chain rant again amigo? TSK,TSK,TSK :cuckoo:

Stop planting those daises long enough to try to counter Drummond's points.

When a man utterly denies his humanity and falls into a state of religious savagery as is often the case with these religiously insane murderers he ceases to be human. Any creature devoid of the sympathy, love and honorable principles that would restrain that creature from such murderous savagery has ceased to be human. That you think no level is low enough for a man to go that will destroy his humanity clearly indicates to me that you view humans as no more than talking animals. We are much more and as such we have god given souls. The terrorist murdering bastards have no such souls. Now we have went into the spiritual realm, happy?-Tyr

:clap::clap::clap:

Thanks, Tyr. I can rely on you for sheer commonsense decency, and you provide it here, my friend.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am enthusiastic in seeking conviction and sentencing for terrorists. Why aren't you?
Is there really no end to your disdain for the American legal framework?

nor does I appear you care how much of your own sense of civility suffers.

I believe they should face justice-- justice under Our rule of law-- which i believe to be a superior form of justice (and YOU DO NOT)-- that is what We should exalt rather than allowing our system to be perverted.

I think if the dictatorial militarists had their way, we'd behave no better than the terrorists.

Just that of the OP.

I've discussed the circumstances of the war terror and its history extensively here, both before and after your membership here; to include a long string of backlash from subversive, anti-liberty policies, geopolitical power-struggles to the legal status of unlawful combatants-- So to quell your wonder, try the search feature and feel free to comment in those threads. But this thread is about a bi-partisan report on the unlawful treatment of detainees; regardless of the necessity for their detainment, once in our possession the circumstances change, as do the rules. It's the law of my country that I support...not that you seem to care much for US law; you're more of an expert on sharia. Me thinks you've become the monster you sought to destroy; but he is not I and you'd do well to check your reproach.

Log, you clearly miss the mark and identify the wrong party as the monster. I could post thousands and thousands of incidents which prove the muslim terrorists are the monsters but you already know of those actions taken by the swine. What you deny is that man can so utterly change himself as to cease being human . Your denial comforts you but is not reality. Reality shows in Islam's history over 160 million victims were murdered to satisfy this monster that they created and worship-Allah.
How many millions more murdered would it take for you call even one of those things subhuman?

[Drummond]

Log, you clearly miss the mark and identify the wrong party as the monster. I could post thousands and thousands of incidents which prove the muslim terrorists are the monsters but you already know of those actions taken by the swine. What you deny is that man can so utterly change himself as to cease being human . Your denial comforts you but is not reality. Reality shows in Islam's history over 160 million victims were murdered to satisfy this monster that they created and worship-Allah.
How many millions more murdered would it take for you call even one of those things subhuman?
:clap::clap::clap::clap:

This gets to the core of the issue and is the perfect summary of what's truly involved, and what needs to be our focus. Thanks again, Tyr.

[aboutime]

You ever read a dictionary?




Definition of human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
-- Oxford English dictionary.
No mention of humanity. And yet even by your definition, hinging upon the capability of human train of thought (ie humanity: kindness good will etc,), the capability need not be demonstrably so...unless you feel as though an infant is not a person until it has demonstrated its capacity for humanity. Yet again, your proffered position runs afoul of US law.


1 USC section 8
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


Log. Whenever you, or anyone else must drag out your premium version of a dictionary in order to patronize others...as you do.
The real victim of your smears becomes you. It proves to everyone else. You are incapable of actually forming your own thoughts, or opinions without resorting to the rhetorical drivel found not...between your ears. But safely within the confines of proven, smarter sources like a dictionary.
Patronizing others, like Hypocrisy. Are two of your strongest traits.

[Drummond]

Log. Whenever you, or anyone else must drag out your premium version of a dictionary in order to patronize others...as you do.
The real victim of your smears becomes you. It proves to everyone else. You are incapable of actually forming your own thoughts, or opinions without resorting to the rhetorical drivel found not...between your ears. But safely within the confines of proven, smarter sources like a dictionary.
Patronizing others, like Hypocrisy. Are two of your strongest traits.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Log. Whenever you, or anyone else must drag out your premium version of a dictionary in order to patronize others...as you do.
The real victim of your smears becomes you. It proves to everyone else. You are incapable of actually forming your own thoughts, or opinions without resorting to the rhetorical drivel found not...between your ears. But safely within the confines of proven, smarter sources like a dictionary.
Patronizing others, like Hypocrisy. Are two of your strongest traits.

Log refuses to admit that man can destroy that which brings him above the animal realm. He can destroy his soul by so completely immersing himself into a blind ,murdering cult masquerading as a religion= Islam. Islam demands the sacrifice of all that refuses to accept it. Why do you think they are forced by Allah's command to reaffirm themselves so many times a day?? It is because such utterly complete brainwashing requires that repetitive action to maintain long term control. Islamists are total slaves to the Koran and their cult. No freedom, no independent thinking , no love for fellow man allowed unless that person is also a muslim.-Tyr

[Drummond]

Log refuses to admit that man can destroy that which brings him above the animal realm. He can destroy his soul by so completely immersing himself into a blind ,murdering cult masquerading as a religion= Islam. Islam demands the sacrifice of all that refuses to accept it. Why do you think they are forced by Allah's command to reaffirm themselves so many times a day?? It is because such utterly complete brainwashing requires that repetitive action to maintain long term control. Islamists are total slaves to the Koran and their cult. No freedom, no independent thinking , no love for fellow man allowed unless that person is also a muslim.-Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

This actually adds a dimension to my own thinking ... though I basically took your point, the sheer repetitiveness of the reaffirmations, the point of it all, didn't gel in my thinking in quite that way. I see your point, Tyr. Thanks -

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap:

This actually adds a dimension to my own thinking ... though I basically took your point, the sheer repetitiveness of the reaffirmations, the point of it all, didn't gel in my thinking in quite that way. I see your point, Tyr. Thanks -

If one looks for a purpose of praying facing Mecca that many times a day there is only one that makes any sense at all. Reaffirmation, and why does it require such a high rate of repetitiveness? Because it demands total dominance over body, mind and soul. Such totally blind obedience requires that level of repeated affirmation. It is required to destroy man's soul. To forever block any remnant of that soul returning. That is why the devoUt muslims are all subhuman IMHO.
ALSO WHAT LOG AND FJ DO NOT WHAT TO DISCUSS .-TYR

EDIT.. SORRY MY 160 MILLION WAS A BIT OFF... 270 MILLION IS THE LOW ESTIMATE.. DOES THAT HELP LOG?
Tears of Jihad
These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.
Africa
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
120 million Africans
Christians
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians
Hindus
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the ‘funeral pyre of the Hindus.’
80 million Hindus
Buddhists
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]
10 million Buddhists
Jews
Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.
This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

[Drummond]

If one looks for a purpose of praying facing Mecca that many times a day there is only one that makes any sense at all. Reaffirmation, and why does it require such a high rate of repetitiveness? Because it demands total dominance over body, mind and soul. Such totally blind obedience requires that level of repeated affirmation. It is required to destroy man's soul. To forever block any remnant of that soul returning. That is why the devoUt muslims are all subhuman IMHO.
ALSO WHAT LOG AND FJ DO NOT WHAT TO DISCUSS .-TYR

Yep, this makes perfect sense.

My own thinking had gone in that general direction, though perhaps not quite as far. I thought of the repetitiveness as being tedious, possibly repressive. But when you think about it, the concentration of that repetitiveness has to be more soul-destroying than this.

Point taken, then. And this helps define the evil Islam spawns. Perhaps I've been guilty of a lack of imagination.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yep, this makes perfect sense.

My own thinking had gone in that general direction, though perhaps not quite as far. I thought of the repetitiveness as being tedious, possibly repressive. But when you think about it, the concentration of that repetitiveness has to be more soul-destroying than this.

Point taken, then. And this helps define the evil Islam spawns. Perhaps I've been guilty of a lack of imagination.

Not a problem, we are all blessed to learn in different ways my friend. I gather that my dedication to studying about my enemies started well before your research on the Islamists ever did. That however has not ever stopped me from learning from you as we discuss these damn vermin.
I am a firm believer in knowing one's enemy inside and out!-Tyr

[Drummond]

Not a problem, we are all blessed to learn in different ways my friend. I gather that my dedication to studying about my enemies started well before your research on the Islamists ever did. That however has not ever stopped me from learning from you as we discuss these damn vermin.
I am a firm believer in knowing one's enemy inside and out!-Tyr
:clap::clap:

Totally agree, Tyr. Nothing less than this should do.

And I'm grateful that I have your input to learn from.

Though those such as Logroller and Fj are evidently far too far gone to be open to the lessons they can learn from you, this is very much their loss. Perhaps in the fullness of time they can come to realise the truth of that.

[logroller]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh::laugh2::laugh2:

This, Logroller, is as torturous - and feeble - an attempt to circumvent the arguments I have presented you with as I could ever have imagined you would offer.

Typical .. it really is.

You know you can't counter the arguments I've presented you with in any direct way, so you've tried this, instead.

No Leftie can ever admit when he or she is wrong. The subhumanity of terrorists is evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. And your attempt to change the positioning of the goalposts is noted. Previously, on this thread, the argument had to do with denial of 'human rights' ... did it not ? That torture was wrong, because it was wrong to act in denial of those 'rights'.

Now, it's .... er'm ... 'NO MENTION OF HUMANITY'.

Dear me !! Talk about convolutions !

Logroller, really, you're wasting my time. Do the decent thing and admit that you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. If you're NOT a bog-standard Leftie propagandist, then don't act like one. Admit it when you're wrong !
Human beings are defined as I have submitted. That you find no common ground wih me is not of my volition, but your's. I'm have neither the time nor patience to deal with your ignorance. I will no longer engage with you here, but in the grand scheme of public debate know this: you will lose because of your ignorance and inhumanity. Time proves this true.

[logroller]

If one looks for a purpose of praying facing Mecca that many times a day there is only one that makes any sense at all. Reaffirmation, and why does it require such a high rate of repetitiveness? Because it demands total dominance over body, mind and soul. Such totally blind obedience requires that level of repeated affirmation. It is required to destroy man's soul. To forever block any remnant of that soul returning. That is why the devoUt muslims are all subhuman IMHO.
ALSO WHAT LOG AND FJ DO NOT WHAT TO DISCUSS .-TYR

EDIT.. SORRY MY 160 MILLION WAS A BIT OFF... 270 MILLION IS THE LOW ESTIMATE.. DOES THAT HELP LOG?
Tears of Jihad
These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.
Africa
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
120 million Africans
Christians
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians
Hindus
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the ‘funeral pyre of the Hindus.’
80 million Hindus
Buddhists
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]
10 million Buddhists
Jews
Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.
This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.
What I dont want to discuss? Shall we discuss your argument's likeness to nazis with your "subhuman" line of reasoning? That's not even hyperbolic; that's the kernal of the reasoning for defining terrorists as subhuman.
You two yahoos can even accept a definition from a dictionary and have the audacity to speak of truth. Where were you tyr when I gave the legal reasoning for the fort hood classification? There to say, oh wow, that's the law--ok! ???? Fuck no. You ran from that like you owed me money. Not until marcus says maybe do you submit there be something to it; But that doesn't keep you from oushing the same talking points. I wish I could just say fuck you and leave it at that but, and this may or may not register with you, but I don't discount your capability to spread understanding to those around you, even if its flawed. The fact you're all here indicates to me that there's atleast some iota of giving a shit...but Christ on a cross y'all seem like you just want push a sense of rank and file that knows no check. Humans are easily discernible. Hitler was human being. He fits the definition. Doesn't make him a good human being, nor any of his cohorts,but they were human. And if there's an ounce of humanity in you, you'd realize that not all nazis were bad human beings, nor all Muslims. My grandfather spent the night in a foxhole in North Africa with a nazi. Both injured severely, at the break of dawn my grandfather pulled that man to safety and despite medical attention that man died and my grandfather lived. But to hear my grandfather tell that story with tears in his eyes, that's humanity-- not reasoning why or why not to shove a waterhose on his face-- that's clearly inhumane. If you can't see why, then I have to question your own humanity.

[red states rule]

Log. Whenever you, or anyone else must drag out your premium version of a dictionary in order to patronize others...as you do.
The real victim of your smears becomes you. It proves to everyone else. You are incapable of actually forming your own thoughts, or opinions without resorting to the rhetorical drivel found not...between your ears. But safely within the confines of proven, smarter sources like a dictionary.
Patronizing others, like Hypocrisy. Are two of your strongest traits.

AT it is clear with the absence of Gabby LF and FU feel liberal voices should be heard once again. If you and others take the time to go back and read old threads in the cage you will see LR and FU are following in the footsteps of Virgil (aka Maineman, manfrommaine, retired man, and bean counter)

When losing a debate the personal attacks start to flow

Unlike Virgil, FU and LR laughingly deny they voted for and support Obama on most of his policies

But like Virgil they are experts at derailing threads and changing the subject

[fj1200]

Your DNA argument, though token support, isn't convincing.
...
Since you can't show me that there's any good justification in putting terrorists on trial, any more than Logroller can ... and since you can only offer a token coherence in answer to an argument you claim not to have seen (!), I shall declare myself the winner in this debate.

Like I said, you deny the undeniable and then you do the only thing you can do; appoint yourself winner via ignorance.

I also see your leftie debating ploy of changing the terms; The OP is about torture not putting terrorists on trial. Your desire for a big government that YOU desire is clear.

[fj1200]

Perhaps but that does not matter.

Then there is this. Notice due to a court ruling that Bush changed.

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions

The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.


It doesn't matter? The lawyers that you rest on were rejected by SCOTUS.

[fj1200]

On your daisy chain rant again amigo? TSK,TSK,TSK :cuckoo:

Stop planting those daises long enough to try to counter Drummond's points.

Rant? It's clear recognition of truth. If you guys would stop your incessant practice of groupthink you might see other arguments.


Sir Drummond.


:clap::clap::clap:

Cutting to the chase, Aboutime ...


Which I...


:laugh::laugh::laugh:


:clap::clap::clap:

Thanks, Tyr. I can rely on you...


:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Thanks again, Tyr.


:clap::clap::clap::clap:


Log refuses to admit...


:clap::clap::clap:

This actually adds a dimension to my own thinking ... I see your point, Tyr. Thanks -


ALSO WHAT LOG AND FJ DO NOT WHAT TO DISCUSS .-TYR


Yep, this makes perfect sense.


:clap::clap:

Totally agree, Tyr. Nothing less than this should do.

And I'm grateful that I have your input to learn from.

Remind me not to shake the hands of you guys if we ever meet in person. I know where those hands have been. :slap:

[fj1200]

...according to fj, have no right to dare disagree, or project our opinions, or insight into matters ONLY fj is permitted to discuss????

This again? Where have I suggested that you're not permitted to discuss?


Just look at how he responded to you.

I only respond in kind but then I'm sure you will only look at your sainted side as example.

[fj1200]

Which I personally find So Much More Entertaining. Imagining how their shorts are all tied in knots, they stutter uncontrollably, resort to endless namecalling as a safety feature since any higher educational training becomes Gutter talk.
In other words. It's more fun watching them drown in their own, pre-made, liberal drool that can only assist them as long as they have light to read the LIBERAL HANDBOOK.

More example of the liberal nature of the arguments coming from your side. In addition to the continued rants of "leftie" of course.


AT it is clear with the absence of Gabby LF and FU feel liberal voices should be heard once again. If you and others take the time to go back and read old threads in the cage you will see LR and FU are following in the footsteps of Virgil (aka Maineman, manfrommaine, retired man, and bean counter)

When losing a debate the personal attacks start to flow

Unlike Virgil, FU and LR laughingly deny they voted for and support Obama on most of his policies

But like Virgil they are experts at derailing threads and changing the subject

:facepalm99:

[fj1200]

When a man utterly denies his humanity and falls into a state of religious savagery as is often the case with these religiously insane murderers he ceases to be human. Any creature devoid of the sympathy, love and honorable principles that would restrain that creature from such murderous savagery has ceased to be human. That you think no level is low enough for a man to go that will destroy his humanity clearly indicates to me that you view humans as no more than talking animals.

I do believe that you're projecting there. Any rational look at what I've presented indicates the opposite; that anyone is deserving of their natural rights regardless of the actions that they take. Or do you reject the Constitutional principles of protecting "life, liberty, and property" and the prohibition of cruel and unusual?


We are much more and as such we have god given souls. The terrorist murdering bastards have no such souls. Now we have went into the spiritual realm, happy?-Tyr


That is why the devoUt muslims are all subhuman IMHO.

Wow. In no way am I happy with that type of logic. It's frightening and suggests that there is no limit to what you will do in the name of what you deem to be right.

[red states rule]

:clap::clap:

Totally agree, Tyr. Nothing less than this should do.

And I'm grateful that I have your input to learn from.

Though those such as Logroller and Fj are evidently far too far gone to be open to the lessons they can learn from you, this is very much their loss. Perhaps in the fullness of time they can come to realise the truth of that.

Both are quickly morphing into Virgil.

IMO they both have become a human hemorrhoid. They hang around and are a pain in the ass

[fj1200]

Both are quickly morphing into Virgil.

IMO they both have become a human hemorrhoid. They hang around and are a pain in the ass


... resort to endless namecalling ...

Yup, liberal arguments at their best. You guys should really get your stories straight.

[red states rule]

Yup, liberal arguments at their best. You guys should really get your stories straight.

You denying you are not a liberal is like James Carville saying MSNBC hosts are not far left

One would think you would have the balls to admit the truth about your liberal ideology, but that require a small amount of honesty

Which does not exit in most liberals

[fj1200]

You denying you are not a liberal is like James Carville saying MSNBC hosts are not far left

One would think you would have the balls to admit the truth about your liberal ideology, but that require a small amount of honesty

Which does not exit in most liberals

Point out my liberal, big government positions then. Put up...

[red states rule]

Point out my liberal, big government positions then. Put up...

You have defended Obama until you are blue in face over gas priced doubling on his watch

You have defended libs in MD charging a rain tax on its residents

Now you are defending the "rights" of terrorists
\
Yea, you are a liberal.... now man up

[taft2012]

One would think you would have the balls to admit the truth about your liberal ideology, but that require a small amount of honesty

Which does not exit in most liberals

Just a slight correction my friend.

Most liberals *will* own up to their ideology.

The pothead conservative can not. The pothead conservative's entire raison d'etat is to skulk around in conservative circles and seduce conservatives with buzzwords and catchphrases, and lure them to as many liberal positions as possible.

[fj1200]

You have defended Obama until you are blue in face over gas priced doubling on his watch

Point out the truth of oil prices is not defending BO.


You have defended libs in MD charging a rain tax on its residents

As I recall I was asking your opinion on what the conservative position should be on pollution. I'm pretty sure that I called the rain tax a dumb idea.


Now you are defending the "rights" of terrorists

I'm defending the natural rights of human beings and in the process demanding that government not have the authorization to deny such.


Yea, you are a liberal.... now man up

Anything with actual substance?

[red states rule]

Just a slight correction my friend.

Most liberals *will* own up to their ideology.

The pothead conservative can not. The pothead conservative's entire raison d'etat is to skulk around in conservative circles and seduce conservatives with buzzwords and catchphrases, and lure them to as many liberal positions as possible.

True but FU is a closet liberal. I am waiting for him to "come out"

[fj1200]

... buzzwords and catchphrases...

:laugh:

Your defense of big government Social Security is almost as funny.

[fj1200]

Anything with actual substance?


True but FU is a closet liberal. I am waiting for him to "come out"

Apparently not.

[red states rule]

Point out the truth of oil prices is not defending BO.



As I recall I was asking your opinion on what the conservative position should be on pollution. I'm pretty sure that I called the rain tax a dumb idea.



I'm defending the natural rights of human beings and in the process demanding that government not have the authorization to deny such.



Anything with actual substance?


I rest my case. You simply cannot admit the truth, you are a waste of time, and a hopeless troll

Like LR you lie about who you are and then become "offended" when called out on your lies

Waste someone else's time FU

[fj1200]

I rest my case. You simply cannot admit the truth, you are a waste of time, and a hopeless troll

Like LR you lie about who you are and then become "offended" when called out on your lies

Waste someone else's time FU

I'm offended? :laugh: I can only laugh at your ignorance and double standards. So please point out my big government positions.


... now man up

;)

[taft2012]

I rest my case. You simply cannot admit the truth, you are a waste of time, and a hopeless troll

Like LR you lie about who you are and then become "offended" when called out on your lies

Waste someone else's time FU

I arrived at the same conclusion weeks ago. He's been languishing in my on-line shitter (i.e., ignore list) for quite some time now. :salute:

To clarify, he *CAN'T* "come out" as a liberal. The whole point of being a pothead conservative is to hide one's liberalness, and move around freely in conservative circles. They cloak their positions in onion-paper-thin conservative buzzwords, but scratch the surface and the liberal is right there to be seen.

They love criminals, and look to free them from prisons.
They love terrorists, and look to bestow rights upon them.
They love liberal distortions of the Constitution designed to protect the above two special interest groups.
They love the welfare state, and seek to swell its rolls by flooding the nation with legally available addictive narcotics.
They want to allow the dregs of the planet to illegally flood into our nation, knowing they will vote Democrat.
They want to allow foreign nations freedom to manipulate their spheres of influence around the world until we are isolated and surrounded.

And they seek all of this under the guise of conservatism.

I ain't fooled. Never have been.

But what's the point in trying to argue genuine issues, with someone who is hiding behind fake positions?

[red states rule]

I arrived at the same conclusion weeks ago. He's been languishing in my on-line shitter (i.e., ignore list) for quite some time now. :salute:

To clarify, he *CAN'T* "come out" as a liberal. The whole point of being a pothead conservative is to hide one's liberalness, and move around freely in conservative circles. They cloak their positions in onion-paper-thin conservative buzzwords, but scratch the surface and the liberal is right there to be seen.

They love criminals, and look to free them from prisons.
They love terrorists, and look to bestow rights upon them.
They love liberal distortions of the Constitution designed to protect the above two special interest groups.
They love the welfare state, and seek to swell its rolls by flooding the nation with legally available addictive narcotics.
They want to allow the dregs of the planet to illegally flood into our nation, knowing they will vote Democrat.
They want to allow foreign nations freedom to manipulate their spheres of influence around the world until we are isolated and surrounded.

And they seek all of this under the guise of conservatism.

I ain't fooled. Never have been.

I am done with him. I will no longer respond to his crap

He is like the town drunk who staggers on the corner. no matter what you do he will not sober up and try to make something of his life

In the case of FU he has his head shoved so far up Obama's ass he can check for polyps

Then he thinks people are stupid enough not to think he does support Obama and his far left policies

I wonder if he has taken down his Obama yard sign and still has his Obama 2012 bumper sticker on his Prius?

[fj1200]

I arrived at the same conclusion weeks ago. He's been languishing in my on-line shitter (i.e., ignore list) for quite some time now. :salute:

To clarify, he *CAN'T* "come out" as a liberal. The whole point of being a pothead conservative is to hide one's liberalness, and move around freely in conservative circles. They cloak their positions in onion-paper-thin conservative buzzwords, but scratch the surface and the liberal is right there to be seen.

They love criminals, and look to free them from prisons.
They love terrorists, and look to bestow rights upon them.
They love liberal distortions of the Constitution designed to protect the above two special interest groups.
They love the welfare state, and seek to swell its rolls by flooding the nation with legally available addictive narcotics.
They want to allow the dregs of the planet to illegally flood into our nation, knowing they will vote Democrat.
They want to allow foreign nations freedom to manipulate their spheres of influence around the world until we are isolated and surrounded.

And they seek all of this under the guise of conservatism.

I ain't fooled. Never have been.

But what's the point in trying to argue genuine issues, with someone who is hiding behind fake positions?

:laugh: No, not you. It's easy not to be fooled when you ignore what you can't refute and assume what you can't prove.

[fj1200]

I am done with him. I will no longer respond to his crap

He is like the town drunk who staggers on the corner. no matter what you do he will not sober up and try to make something of his life

In the case of FU he has his head shoved so far up Obama's ass he can check for polyps

Then he thinks people are stupid enough not to think he does support Obama and his far left policies

I wonder if he has taken down his Obama yard sign and still has his Obama 2012 bumper sticker on his Prius?

:laugh: I guess this one works for you too.


:laugh: No, not you. It's easy not to be fooled when you ignore what you can't refute and assume what you can't prove.

[red states rule]

Log, you clearly miss the mark and identify the wrong party as the monster. I could post thousands and thousands of incidents which prove the muslim terrorists are the monsters but you already know of those actions taken by the swine. What you deny is that man can so utterly change himself as to cease being human . Your denial comforts you but is not reality. Reality shows in Islam's history over 160 million victims were murdered to satisfy this monster that they created and worship-Allah.
How many millions more murdered would it take for you call even one of those things subhuman?

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/politifake.org/image/political/1206/support-terrorismvote-democrat-democrat-terrorists-politics-1339373573.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What I dont want to discuss? Shall we discuss your argument's likeness to nazis with your "subhuman" line of reasoning? That's not even hyperbolic; that's the kernal of the reasoning for defining terrorists as subhuman.
You two yahoos can even accept a definition from a dictionary and have the audacity to speak of truth. Where were you tyr when I gave the legal reasoning for the fort hood classification? There to say, oh wow, that's the law--ok! ???? Fuck no. You ran from that like you owed me money. Not until marcus says maybe do you submit there be something to it; But that doesn't keep you from oushing the same talking points. I wish I could just say fuck you and leave it at that but, and this may or may not register with you, but I don't discount your capability to spread understanding to those around you, even if its flawed. The fact you're all here indicates to me that there's atleast some iota of giving a shit...but Christ on a cross y'all seem like you just want push a sense of rank and file that knows no check. Humans are easily discernible. Hitler was human being. He fits the definition. Doesn't make him a good human being, nor any of his cohorts,but they were human. And if there's an ounce of humanity in you, you'd realize that not all nazis were bad human beings, nor all Muslims. My grandfather spent the night in a foxhole in North Africa with a nazi. Both injured severely, at the break of dawn my grandfather pulled that man to safety and despite medical attention that man died and my grandfather lived. But to hear my grandfather tell that story with tears in his eyes, that's humanity-- not reasoning why or why not to shove a waterhose on his face-- that's clearly inhumane. If you can't see why, then I have to question your own humanity.

What you do is dismiss the enormity of their actions and the ultimate goal they pursue. That goal includes murdering every human on earth that does not submit. You not facing and considering the absolute monster that represents is your fallacy not mine. I consider it and then decide my action to take on the issue. Currently it is to make others aware but when fighting time comes I shall not be a wayside stranger . You talk but are you committed to give of yourself should need arise? I am and will do so with a clean heart. Opposing pure evil is to be praised not condemned. You judge them human, I do not. They abandoned that when they brainwashed themselves into the service of pure evil.
I pity you because you attempt to reason the goodness in that evil when none exists there.
270 million dead people are evidence of that evil and its relentless course. All of which you chose to ignore because your grandfather spent a night in a foxhole with a dying enemy. Very happy your grandfather made it but his enemy(german soldier) should have died sooner in my opinion. You do not like my solid and realistic approach to the huge threat we face and instead want to romanticize the goodness in purely evil people. I choose to not ever do that. I say indulge in silly romanticizing of them after they are dead and no longer a threat. That is how wars are won..........I come from a very long line of warriors and there is nothing about war you can ever teach me. We are at war with them despite lies stating the opposite. They war with us but again something you conveniently fail to factor in to the survival threat we as a nation now face.-Tyr

[red states rule]

What you do is dismiss the enormity of their actions and the ultimate goal they pursue. That goal includes murdering every human on earth that does not submit. You not facing and considering the absolute monster that represents is your fallacy not mine. I consider it and then decide my action to take on the issue. Currently it is to make others aware but when fighting time comes I shall not be a wayside stranger . You talk but are you committed to give of yourself should need arise? I am and will do so with a clean heart. Opposing pure evil is to be praised not condemned. You judge them human, I do not. They abandoned that when they brainwashed themselves into the service of pure evil.
I pity you because you attempt to reason the goodness in that evil when none exists there.
270 million dead people are evidence of that evil and its relentless course. All of which you chose to ignore because your grandfather spent a night in a foxhole with a dying enemy. Very happy your grandfather made it but his enemy(german soldier) should have died sooner in my opinion. You do not like my solid and realistic approach to the huge threat we face and instead want to romanticize the goodness in purely evil people. I choose to not ever do that. I say indulge in silly romanticizing of them after they are dead and no longer a threat. That is how wars are won..........I come from a very long line of warriors and there is nothing about war you can ever teach me. We are at war with them despite lies stating the opposite. They war with us but again something you conveniently fail to factor in to the survival threat we as a nation now face.-Tyr

Tyr, LR was probably like alot of liberals after the bombing. He was hoping like hell the bombers were a couple of white guys who were members of the Tea Party. But when they turned out to be Muslims, his natural reaction was to jump to their defense

Libs like LR do not care why they did what they did. The fact they soaked the MA taxpayers for welfare is not relevant. What matters to him is that America did something to piss them off and we have to find out why so we do not do it again

[jimnyc]

108 pages into this thread - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?11148-Do-you-support-torture/page108

And now 11 pages into this one. I just need to announce, that after 119 pages of debate and discussion, I still support both enhanced techniques and torture against terrorists.

:lol::coffee::laugh2::poke:

[fj1200]

And now 11 pages into this one. I just need to announce, that after 119 pages of debate and discussion, I still support both enhanced techniques and torture against terrorists.

:lol::coffee::laugh2::poke:

Just as long as you know that they are in fact human beings regardless of their despicable actions. :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just as long as you know that they are in fact human beings regardless of their despicable actions. :poke:

IN YOUR EYES THEY ARE . IN MY EYES THEY ARE THE MURDERING HEARTLESS SCUM THAT THEIR ACTIONS REPRESENT.

Your not holding them accountable for the evil deeds they commit is sanctioning of those deeds IMHO.
I AM SURE MILLIONS OF OTHER REASONABLE PEOPLE AGREE WITH THAT JUDGEMENT AS WELL.-TYR

[Robert A Whit]

Just as long as you know that they are in fact human beings regardless of their despicable actions. :poke:

Who called them rabbits or non human? Humans can do very evil things. We speak of those only.

[revelarts]

Cartoon Conservatives

They love to find criminals, even when there has been no crime, or proof of guilt and put them in prisons without trial and torture them. Or drone strike them, and those who were 'stupid' enough to stand near them.
They love the idea of terrorist under every bed and behind every tree , and to dehumanize anyone ever accused as such. because they KNOW the heart of men like "the Shadow" of old... only better.
They love Cartoon distortions of the Constitution designed to strip the clearly written rights of all people at will but especially anyone they fear.
They love the police state, and seek to swell its power by flooding the nation with new laws and stricter enforcements that apply to all but the those in gov't.
They want to blindly follow any so-called leader in the republican party as long as they are not democrat, they can be pro-choice, pro immigration, pro open boarders, pro- gay marriage, pro gun control, but as long as they are republican and are pro war (and anti-weed) they vote like robots and wonder why everyone isn't doing the same.
They don't want to allow foreign nations freedom to manipulate their spheres of influence around the world (like there own Country's resources) because they fear losing the empire we have -that is sucking our economy dry- will fall into the sea and we some how won't be the big kid on block. and that makes them think they will be nothing or will die if we don't have 500 times more firepower and 200 bigger economy than the world combined.

And they seek all of this under the guise of conservatism.

I ain't fooled. I used to be.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Cartoon Conservatives

They love to find criminals, even when there has been no crime, or proof of guilt and put them in prisons without trial and torture them. Or drone strike them, and those who were 'stupid' enough to stand near them.
They love the idea of terrorist under every bed and behind every tree , and to dehumanize anyone ever accused as such. because they KNOW the heart of men like "the Shadow" of old... only better.
They love Cartoon distortions of the Constitution designed to strip the clearly written rights of all people at will but especially anyone they fear.
They love the police state, and seek to swell its power by flooding the nation with new laws and stricter enforcements that apply to all but the those in gov't.
They want to blindly follow any so-called leader in the republican party as long as they are not democrat, they can be pro-choice, pro immigration, pro open boarders, pro- gay marriage, pro gun control, but as long as they are republican and are pro war (and anti-weed) they vote like robots and wonder why everyone isn't doing the same.
They don't want to allow foreign nations freedom to manipulate their spheres of influence around the world (like there own Country's resources) because they fear losing the empire we have -that is sucking our economy dry- will fall into the sea and we some how won't be the big kid on block. and that makes them think they will be nothing or will die if we don't have 500 times more firepower and 200 bigger economy than the world combined.

And they seek all of this under the guise of conservatism.

I ain't fooled. I used to be.

Too harsh, too one sided and fails to take into consideration that our nation has been by far the most benevolent of any of the great empires/super powers.
I am a conservative that often protests the evils of our government. I see its corruption and do not follow it blindly.-Tyr

[logroller]

EDIT.. SORRY MY 160 MILLION WAS A BIT OFF... 270 MILLION IS THE LOW ESTIMATE.. DOES THAT HELP LOG?


....
This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.
Did i read your estimates right, they covered from 30AD to 2200 AD? Besides the obvious doubt regarding their methodology of prognosticating some 87 years into the future, I'm perplexed at why they would include deaths 6 centuries before Islam would be founded. But nonetheless, estimates can be fun. And although I didnt request your "help", allow me to position your statistics within the context and elaborate on what these estimates equate to, and whether they are as "low" as you suggest.
270 million killed in just over 1300 years. That's 207,000 per year! Thats quite a number but, of course, its an estimate...a "low" estimate, right? Now for a real time empirical analysis-- how many killed last year?
2012: 11,309 http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2012.htm
2011: 9,073
2010: 9,230
2009: 9,176
2008: 10,793
2007: 20,136
2006: 15,241
2005: 7,624
2004: 7,166
annual average of deaths by jihad: 11,083
hmmm. Seems your "low" estimate of jihad deaths is over 24 times the annual average currently, but wait, there more--
Since 1 AD: 107 billion have been born. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
Since 1200 AD: 61 billion. So taking your 270M into account just over the time period since 1200 AD, nearly 20 billion have lived; 7 billion currently. Without regard to the likelihood of many of those estimates including Muslim deaths (not that they should count, right? being subhuman and all), that 270 million may seem an impressive number; but the reality is what you attribute to jihad amounts to 2% of deaths. This is a high estimate IMHO, as I have shown, but taking the current 7 billion population in mind, just since 1995 over 2 billion have been born yet the population has increased only by 1 billion, meaning 1 billion have died in the last 18 years-- So that even if all those deaths that your source has attributed to jihad during the history of Islam (plus 80 years into the future and 5 centuries before it existed) had all occurred since 1995 it would represent 1/4 the deaths in the world. Now Muslims account for about 1/5 to 1/4 of the world population, lets say 1.5 billion; and so attributing each of the estimated 270 million dead to one Muslim, it would mean that roughly 20% of Muslims commit jihad. Of course, these are drastic over overestimates for the sake of hypothetical consideration; those today are not responsible for what happened centuries ago. But what this shows is that even extreme statistical comparisons don't support your estimates and assumptions. A more realistic approach would take those having died since 1995, and compare that with the actual number killed from jihad, about ~12k per year, about 216,000. So jihad accounts for 216,000, or .2% of the 1 billion deaths: so of the 1.5 billion Muslims, assuming each act of jihad yielded just one death, they have a 1% chance of committing jihad every 18 years; if there's multiple deaths, that that probability is even lesser. Now quick, call me names, spout some unrealistic data you can't back that is completely unsupported by any empirical analysis nor anything resembling reasonably applied statistics....anything, really, to excuse your fear, hatred, and inhumanity.

[red states rule]

Too harsh, too one sided and fails to take into consideration that our nation has been by far the most benevolent of any of the great empires/super powers.
I am a conservative that often protests the evils of our government. I see its corruption and do not follow it blindly.-Tyr

Try, I find it telling that with the exception of Rev, the libs whining about the rights of terrorists have zero interest in the right of the babies murdered by the abortion butcher in Philly.

They also have zero interest in the murder of 4 US citizens in Benghazi and the gross incompetence of Obama and Hillary - as well as the coverup by the Obama administration

Seems they only get worked up and excited over protecting terrorists and do not give a damn about the rights of their fellow citizens. Particularly the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But in the above mentioned cases, FU and LR could not care less about their rights as it harms the rep of Obama and Hillary.

Of course in the world of FU and LR if Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, or Rev Al does not talk about it - it never happened

[fj1200]

Who called them rabbits or non human?

Have you been paying attention?


Humans can do very evil things. We speak of those only.

Who disagreed with that? The presumption in your statement though is that you do agree that they are human beings.

[fj1200]

IN YOUR EYES THEY ARE .

By any basic definition they are.


IN MY EYES THEY ARE THE MURDERING HEARTLESS SCUM THAT THEIR ACTIONS REPRESENT.

Your not holding them accountable for the evil deeds they commit is sanctioning of those deeds IMHO.
I AM SURE MILLIONS OF OTHER REASONABLE PEOPLE AGREE WITH THAT JUDGEMENT AS WELL.-TYR

I already know what your eyes see and it's scary to live in such delusion.


When a man utterly denies his humanity and falls into a state of religious savagery as is often the case with these religiously insane murderers he ceases to be human. Any creature devoid of the sympathy, love and honorable principles that would restrain that creature from such murderous savagery has ceased to be human. That you think no level is low enough for a man to go that will destroy his humanity clearly indicates to me that you view humans as no more than talking animals. We are much more and as such we have god given souls. The terrorist murdering bastards have no such souls. Now we have went into the spiritual realm, happy?-Tyr

Nevertheless, this thread isn't about holding them accountable, it's about torture. Unless you think torture is the appropriate vehicle FOR holding them accountable but I assure you, it is not. There is no reason in your position.

[red states rule]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1210/only-liberals-obama-battaile-politics-1349127046.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

By any basic definition they are.

Definition lacking in consideration of actions taken means nothing to me.



I already know what your eyes see and it's scary to live in such delusion.

Damn right I am scared, scared for the future innocent victims some of which may be my family. You would be too if you had the IQ to truly understand .



Nevertheless, this thread isn't about holding them accountable, it's about torture. Unless you think torture is the appropriate vehicle FOR holding them accountable but I assure you, it is not. There is no reason in your position.

Sure no reason, that is if one ignores/denies their actions and the enormous savagery of their ultimate goal.. I being realistic do not engage in that convenient fantasy, you however do. Good luck in your fantasy world.



Your position only makes sense if they were not guilty of using wanton murder of innocent people as a method to advance their power.
They do and thus you LOSE!--Tyr

[red states rule]

Your position only makes sense if they were not guilty of using wanton murder of innocent people as a method to advance their power.
They do and thus you LOSE!--Tyr

Try, it is time FU and LR gets the recognition they deserve


http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/thumbnail_photos/2013/May/Dunce.jpg?1367685332

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Try, it is time FU and LR gets the recognition they deserve


http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/thumbnail_photos/2013/May/Dunce.jpg?1367685332

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again.

[red states rule]

Tyr, FU and LR did as they were told


http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vote-democrat-need-your-support-to-kill-you-muslims.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Did i read your estimates right, they covered from 30AD to 2200 AD? Besides the obvious doubt regarding their methodology of prognosticating some 87 years into the future, I'm perplexed at why they would include deaths 6 centuries before Islam would be founded. But nonetheless, estimates can be fun. And although I didnt request your "help", allow me to position your statistics within the context and elaborate on what these estimates equate to, and whether they are as "low" as you suggest.
270 million killed in just over 1300 years. That's 207,000 per year! Thats quite a number but, of course, its an estimate...a "low" estimate, right? Now for a real time empirical analysis-- how many killed last year?
2012: 11,309 http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2012.htm
2011: 9,073
2010: 9,230
2009: 9,176
2008: 10,793
2007: 20,136
2006: 15,241
2005: 7,624
2004: 7,166
annual average of deaths by jihad: 11,083
hmmm. Seems your "low" estimate of jihad deaths is over 24 times the annual average currently, but wait, there more--
Since 1 AD: 107 billion have been born. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
Since 1200 AD: 61 billion. So taking your 270M into account just over the time period since 1200 AD, nearly 20 billion have lived; 7 billion currently. Without regard to the likelihood of many of those estimates including Muslim deaths (not that they should count, right? being subhuman and all), that 270 million may seem an impressive number; but the reality is what you attribute to jihad amounts to 2% of deaths. This is a high estimate IMHO, as I have shown, but taking the current 7 billion population in mind, just since 1995 over 2 billion have been born yet the population has increased only by 1 billion, meaning 1 billion have died in the last 18 years-- So that even if all those deaths that your source has attributed to jihad during the history of Islam (plus 80 years into the future and 5 centuries before it existed) had all occurred since 1995 it would represent 1/4 the deaths in the world. Now Muslims account for about 1/5 to 1/4 of the world population, lets say 1.5 billion; and so attributing each of the estimated 270 million dead to one Muslim, it would mean that roughly 20% of Muslims commit jihad. Of course, these are drastic over overestimates for the sake of hypothetical consideration; those today are not responsible for what happened centuries ago. But what this shows is that even extreme statistical comparisons don't support your estimates and assumptions. A more realistic approach would take those having died since 1995, and compare that with the actual number killed from jihad, about ~12k per year, about 216,000. So jihad accounts for 216,000, or .2% of the 1 billion deaths: so of the 1.5 billion Muslims, assuming each act of jihad yielded just one death, they have a 1% chance of committing jihad every 18 years; if there's multiple deaths, that that probability is even lesser. Now quick, call me names, spout some unrealistic data you can't back that is completely unsupported by any empirical analysis nor anything resembling reasonably applied statistics....anything, really, to excuse your fear, hatred, and inhumanity.

http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/

Tears of JihadThese figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.
Africa
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
120 million Africans
Christians
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians
Hindus
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
80 million Hindus
Buddhists
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson,World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]
10 million Buddhists
Jews
Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.
This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

Of course it is only an estimate and could easily be a larger number and probably is.. -Tyr

[red states rule]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/TEM6Y45ZLUI/AAAAAAAAIiE/wbTjzSocfek/s1600/CALL+FOR+JIHAD.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, FU and LR did as they were told


http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vote-democrat-need-your-support-to-kill-you-muslims.jpg

Bravo... A point that should be made more often.. For that is exactly how Islam plays the game here in USA.
The fools with the low IQ's never see it. And they are out there by the millions dumbed down by the media and the liberal education system here.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Try, I find it telling that with the exception of Rev, the libs whining about the rights of terrorists have zero interest in the right of the babies murdered by the abortion butcher in Philly.

You actually think there are libs on this board? :laugh: BTW, have you started a thread that actually discusses whether abortion is right or wrong or do you just start threads that rants about those evil hypocritical libs?


Of course in the world of FU and LR if Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, or Rev Al does not talk about it - it never happened

Apparently you are still deluded to think there are libs here. Nevertheless I'm 100% positive that you see more of Matthews, Maddow, and Sharpton than me considering that I don't watch them at all.

[fj1200]

Definition lacking in consideration of actions taken means nothing to me.

Unfortunately for your delusion actions are not necessary to determine their status as human beings.


Damn right I am scared, scared for the future innocent victims some of which may be my family. You would be too if you had the IQ to truly understand .

Your delusion is what keeps you in fear and fear is not a desirable place in which to live.


Sure no reason, that is if one ignores/denies their actions and the enormous savagery of their ultimate goal.. I being realistic do not engage in that convenient fantasy, you however do. Good luck in your fantasy world.

So you do think that torture for tortures sake is appropriate for holding them accountable?


Your position only makes sense if they were not guilty of using wanton murder of innocent people as a method to advance their power.
They do and thus you LOSE!--Tyr

My position makes sense if we don't use torture for vengeance; apparently you disagree with that position.

[Drummond]

Just as long as you know that they are in fact human beings regardless of their despicable actions. :poke:

I don't know why I'm bothering with this following challenge. I've repeatedly made it before, I daresay I'll be doing so again, and all the while, I KNOW that I'll get no proper answer.

But, here goes ... AGAIN ....

You insist (and I doubt there's any such thing as a Leftie who wouldn't, anywhere on the planet !!) on declaring that the terrorists we're discussing are human beings. I now challenge you to PROVE that they are.

I say that their actions prove otherwise. I say that their mindset, both before and after their acts of terror, prove otherwise. So come on, Leftie, show me I'm wrong.

[Kathianne]

Without question they are human beings. They, like us have the free will to choose right or wrong.

To a large measure, this discussion has problems regarding the definition of torture. No minding that, greater minds than here have the same problem.

IMO torture is wrong. Then again, the problem is with definition. In my mind, some technique that may lead under normal, controlled circumstances to death is wrong, without due process. (Even then, I have some issues with the death penalty.)

The enhanced interrogation techniques if used as a punishment I'd have issues with. However if used to extract information as they were to gather said information to prevent loss of life? No problem.

[fj1200]

I don't know why I'm bothering with this following challenge. ... I now challenge you to PROVE that they are.

I'm not sure why either. A simple DNA check will show you the truth.


I say that their actions prove otherwise. I say that their mindset, both before and after their acts of terror, prove otherwise. So come on, Leftie, show me I'm wrong.

Still fighting that "leftie" boogeyman I see. :rolleyes: Like I've said before if you want to say that their actions are despicable, etc. you'll get, and haven't received one, no argument from me. But as this this thread is based on the OP that torture is unreliable, etc. we are left with the question that I posed to your cohort earlier; Do you think that torture for tortures sake is an appropriate method of holding them accountable?

[fj1200]

Without question they are human beings.

And the problem is not only what it does to them but what it does to us.

5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html?paging=off)



1. Torture violates the dignity of the human being. Every inch of the human body and every aspect of the human spirit comes from God and bears witness to his handiwork. We are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). Human dignity, value, and worth come as a permanent and ineradicable endowment of the Creator to every person.
...
2. Torture mistreats the vulnerable and violates the demands of justice. In the Scriptures, God's understanding of justice tilts toward the vulnerable. "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry" (Ex. 22:21-23). Primary forms of injustice include violent abuse and domination of the powerless.
...
3. Authorizing torture trusts government too much. Human beings are sinful through and through (Rom. 3:10-18). We are not to be trusted, and we are especially dangerous when in possession of unchecked power. This applies to all of us.
...
4. Torture dehumanizes the torturer. Mark Bowden, a military scholar and author of Black Hawk Down, believes that sometimes torture is the right choice. Even so, he worries, "How does one allow it, yet still control it? Sadism is deeply rooted in the human psyche. Every army has its share of soldiers who delight in kicking and beating bound captives. Men in authority tend to abuse it—not all men, but many. As a mass, they should be assumed to lean toward abuse."
...
5. Torture erodes the character of the nation that tortures. A nation is a collective moral entity with a character, an identity that carries across time. Causes come and go, threats come and go, but the enduring question for any social entity is who we are as a people. This is true of a family, a church, a school, a civic club, or a town. It is certainly true of a nation.


Number 3 is awesome and one I would expect a "rightie" to be on board with.

[Kathianne]

And the problem is not only what it does to them but what it does to us.

5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html?paging=off)




Number 3 is awesome and one I would expect a "rightie" to be on board with.

I don't disagree with any of that, just the definition of torture as being stretched, imo. Even if the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' fall short of torture, which I believe they do, because they likely fall in the psychological/cruel categories, they should be unusual. As far as I know, they have been that.

Again, not as punishment or retribution, but for defensive information only. That's my opinion.

[Drummond]

Without question they are human beings. They, like us have the free will to choose right or wrong.

To a large measure, this discussion has problems regarding the definition of torture. No minding that, greater minds than here have the same problem.

IMO torture is wrong. Then again, the problem is with definition. In my mind, some technique that may lead under normal, controlled circumstances to death is wrong, without due process. (Even then, I have some issues with the death penalty.)

The enhanced interrogation techniques if used as a punishment I'd have issues with. However if used to extract information as they were to gather said information to prevent loss of life? No problem.

I have to disagree. A vital part of what makes a human being definable as one is their capacity for humanity. Terrorists, in planning, executing, and even in exulting in terrorist attacks afterwards, prove that they lack the capacity for humanity. Therefore, they are not human beings.

The argument I've just seen put, namely that identifying human DNA in a terrorist proves in itself that the terrorist is human, is just nonsense. Human DNA can be found in skin cells. It can be found in hair. It can be found in toeclippings. It can be found in disembodied organs, like kidneys, livers.

Since when could anyone look at toeclippings and identify them as BEING a human being ? Or look at a hair follicle as a human being in its own right ?

Perhaps a hair follicle will one day compose a symphony ? Or, win the Nobel Peace Prize ?

Since terrorists are not human beings, the issue of whether or not they should enjoy the human right of not being tortured is of itself moot.

However, as we've seen proved time and again on these threads, it IS a Leftie obsession ....

Talking of Leftie obsessions .. Lefties are pro-abortion, by and large, aren't they ? But, don't the unborn have human DNA ? Don't they, therefore, have inalienable human rights ?

And who can tell me that abortion definitely doesn't inflict torture ?

... NO. The Left-wing obsession with saying that terrorists must be kept safe from torture is not a principled stand .. if it were, the principles of both their humanity AND how to define it would remain uniform if / when applied elsewhere. BUT THAT UNIFORMITY IS ABSENT .. which makes their persistent defence of terrorists, logically, A PREFERENCE OF THEIRS.

I'd like that preference explained.

[logroller]

Bravo... A point that should be made more often.. For that is exactly how Islam plays the game here in USA.
The fools with the low IQ's never see it. And they are out there by the millions dumbed down by the media and the liberal education system here.-Tyr
The confirmation bias inherent to your group think mentality is due to your ego, not iq.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The confirmation bias inherent to your group think mentality is due to your ego, not iq.

I assure you that I am not a group. So no group think mentality is being presented by me here. My ego has nothing to do with the research I've done to come to the conclusion that I have made.
The question is , can man so greatly debase his humanity as to lose it? I have come to the firm conclusion that ,yes, man can.
They do just that and glorify in it.......Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Without question they are human beings. They, like us have the free will to choose right or wrong.

To a large measure, this discussion has problems regarding the definition of torture. No minding that, greater minds than here have the same problem.

IMO torture is wrong. Then again, the problem is with definition. In my mind, some technique that may lead under normal, controlled circumstances to death is wrong, without due process. (Even then, I have some issues with the death penalty.)

The enhanced interrogation techniques if used as a punishment I'd have issues with. However if used to extract information as they were to gather said information to prevent loss of life? No problem.

Yes, at one time they were human. After such self-brainwashing and so great a corruption of their mind by hate they become monsters that delight in deliberately and savagely murdering innocent women and children they lose their humanity,in fact they reject it absolutely. Sorry but to me that disqualifies them as being human. I am quite willing to lay my life on the line backing that judgement myself. The moment they murder those innocent women and children they are the monsters that have no redemption. Thus no longer human, fit only to be destroyed for being the vermin that they are. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Since when could anyone look at toeclippings and identify them as BEING a human being ? Or look at a hair follicle as a human being in its own right ?

That is an utterly asinine train of thought.


And who can tell me that abortion definitely doesn't inflict torture ?

... NO. The Left-wing obsession with saying that terrorists must be kept safe from torture is not a principled stand .. if it were, the principles of both their humanity AND how to define it would remain uniform if / when applied elsewhere. BUT THAT UNIFORMITY IS ABSENT .. which makes their persistent defence of terrorists, logically, A PREFERENCE OF THEIRS.

I'd like that preference explained.

I see your necessity to group all "lefties" together. BTW, are you going to answer my question; Do you think that torture for tortures sake is an appropriate method of holding them accountable?


I assure you that I am not a group. So no group think mentality is being presented by me here.

I count a group of at least four right here alone. All feeding off the same delusions. BTW, are you going to answer my question; Do you think that torture for tortures sake is an appropriate method of holding them accountable?


Yes, at one time they were human. After such self-brainwashing... -Tyr

Great a base line. At what point does one lose the basic body chemistry as to no longer be a human being especially when they have "brainwashing" inflicted upon them?

[logroller]

So what is it have the capacity for humanity?

Main Entry: hu·man·i·ty
Pronunciation: \hyü-ˈma-nə-tē, yü-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hu·man·i·ties
Date: 14th century
1 : the quality or state of being humane 2 a : the quality or state of being human b plural : human attributes or qualities <his work has the ripeness of the 18th century, and its rough humanities — Pamela H. Johnson> 3 plural : the branches of learning (as philosophy, arts, or languages) that investigate human constructs and concerns as opposed to natural processes (as in physics or chemistry) and social relations (as in anthropology or economics) 4 : the human race : the totality of human beings

Main Entry: hu·mane
Pronunciation: \hyü-ˈmān, yü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain
Date: 1552
1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals 2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture : humanistic <humane studies>

So if humanity is defined by the quality or state of being humane and according to the definition proffered on human beings exhibiting the capacity for humanity, those here who justify torture of terrorists are not show compassion, sympathy or consideration of humans or animals and, therefore, are not demonstratively human beings.

[Kathianne]

I have to disagree. A vital part of what makes a human being definable as one is their capacity for humanity. Terrorists, in planning, executing, and even in exulting in terrorist attacks afterwards, prove that they lack the capacity for humanity. Therefore, they are not human beings.

The argument I've just seen put, namely that identifying human DNA in a terrorist proves in itself that the terrorist is human, is just nonsense. Human DNA can be found in skin cells. It can be found in hair. It can be found in toeclippings. It can be found in disembodied organs, like kidneys, livers.

Since when could anyone look at toeclippings and identify them as BEING a human being ? Or look at a hair follicle as a human being in its own right ?

Perhaps a hair follicle will one day compose a symphony ? Or, win the Nobel Peace Prize ?

Since terrorists are not human beings, the issue of whether or not they should enjoy the human right of not being tortured is of itself moot.

However, as we've seen proved time and again on these threads, it IS a Leftie obsession ....

Talking of Leftie obsessions .. Lefties are pro-abortion, by and large, aren't they ? But, don't the unborn have human DNA ? Don't they, therefore, have inalienable human rights ?

And who can tell me that abortion definitely doesn't inflict torture ?

... NO. The Left-wing obsession with saying that terrorists must be kept safe from torture is not a principled stand .. if it were, the principles of both their humanity AND how to define it would remain uniform if / when applied elsewhere. BUT THAT UNIFORMITY IS ABSENT .. which makes their persistent defence of terrorists, logically, A PREFERENCE OF THEIRS.

I'd like that preference explained.

So you are agreeing that with the pro-choice, that an in utero human is NOT human? It is just 'cells' as are fingernails, etc., that you've so ably laid out?

[Kathianne]

Yes, at one time they were human. After such self-brainwashing and so great a corruption of their mind by hate they become monsters that delight in deliberately and savagely murdering innocent women and children they lose their humanity,in fact they reject it absolutely. Sorry but to me that disqualifies them as being human. I am quite willing to lay my life on the line backing that judgement myself. The moment they murder those innocent women and children they are the monsters that have no redemption. Thus no longer human, fit only to be destroyed for being the vermin that they are. -Tyr

Huh? God made them human beings. They chose to do wrong, so they can 'undo' God's work?

I have to disagree. They are and remain human, giving them other adjectives will not change what God made, just as a rose. They may be despicable human beings, they may be worthy of death, but human they are.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=635799#post635799)

Yes, at one time they were human. After such self-brainwashing and so great a corruption of their mind by hate they become monsters that delight in deliberately and savagely murdering innocent women and children they lose their humanity,in fact they reject it absolutely. Sorry but to me that disqualifies them as being human. I am quite willing to lay my life on the line backing that judgement myself. The moment they murder those innocent women and children they are the monsters that have no redemption. Thus no longer human, fit only to be destroyed for being the vermin that they are. -Tyr




Huh? God made them human beings. They chose to do wrong, so they can 'undo' God's work?

I have to disagree. They are and remain human, giving them other adjectives will not change what God made, just as a rose. They may be despicable human beings, they may be worthy of death, but human they are.

You two are not discussing the same issue. Tyr is speaking of actions.

[Drummond]

So you are agreeing that with the pro-choice, that an in utero human is NOT human? It is just 'cells' as are fingernails, etc., that you've so ably laid out?

I am suggesting that the argument advanced, that the presence of human DNA, is not enough to prove that a terrorist is human.

Toeclippings are (or were) PART of a human being. So would be true of a strand of hair, or an organ. To properly describe a human being AS a human being, you need to prove that the human being is there in totality.

And missing humanity says that the composite we call 'human' CANNOT be validly recognised as human, if the humanity isn't there.

Human beings have enough humanity in them to see terrorism as so repugnant, so unthinkable an act, as to never DO such a thing. But a terrorist cannot be constrained by MISSING humanity.

As for the 'in utero human', this is a human being in development. Not a part of something once human that becomes divorced from the whole, as is a kidney, or a tooth, but, something living, growing, developing, slowly becoming a complete human being.

You are trying to infer a case I was NOT making. However ... LEFTIES try to make such a form of case ... erroneously. To them, an unborn child is a 'thing' that's abortable. Indeed, what we see Lefties do is disgusting, isn't it ? On the one hand, they have zero reverence for a living, developing being having fully human destiny; and on the other, they insist on far greater reverence for the 'human rights' of an entity which is as fully developed as it will ever be, yet, is demonstrably NOT human.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Huh? God made them human beings. They chose to do wrong, so they can 'undo' God's work?

I have to disagree. They are and remain human, giving them other adjectives will not change what God made, just as a rose. They may be despicable human beings, they may be worthy of death, but human they are.

I see we shall differ greatly on what it is to be human. Sure they were born human and may have lived as humans but a change took place. Not a change like hairstyle, political orientation, cultural norms but one so profound ,so encompassing that it so utterly degrades the human soul, turns it into a mass of moving flesh that feels neither love, mercy or pity. I judge that to no longer be human obviously you do not. A matter of evaluation in my opinion. I shall remain with my judgement unless God tells me otherwise. I wish you well with yours.

No, you will not see me promote torture as a tool for vengeance. I am in perfect agreement with your view on torture as you expressed them.
I do however choose not to take exception to others having a much harsher view of how such murdering scum should be treated.

What we must do is find a way to remain united when facing this oncoming monster. For it never yields its final goals, cares not a damn whit for our tender mercies and would slay us all with joy . I prepare to face such head on and lay my life down . What others do is up to them.

Should they choose a moderate approach and care so greatly about the lives of those murdering scum will be their responsibility not mine. Should that failure to stay united cause ultimate defeat will not be because I chose to fight over words/definitions and disputes over the nature of the human soul. I have one as do you but they gave theirs up to the dark side.
In this coming fight (see note below)we fight principalities not of this world. Principalities allied with the evil scourge. I speak openly about it and designate myself as a target to be obliterated. But I will never yield, never falter and never relent. That is my stand not a defense in accord to the specifics of this topic. -Tyr

Note: The fight they will eventually force can not be stopped, by appeasement, by tender mercies , by bribes, by giving of treasure. It is coming , just a matter of time and they have plans that do not ever include ,mercy, humane treatment or freedom of any kind FOR ANY OF US THAT REFUSE THEIR COMMAND TO CONVERT TO ISLAM..

[Drummond]

That is an utterly asinine train of thought.

... but appropriate to the case I was building. And, since all you can manage in response to that is something derisory, I take it my point is duly made.


I see your necessity to group all "lefties" together.

There are certainly times when, if you're going to tell the truth about them, it's appropriate to do so. It was in this instance.


BTW, are you going to answer my question; Do you think that torture for tortures sake is an appropriate method of holding them accountable?
... and the proper context, is .. ??

IS it 'torture for tortures sake' .. or a means of gathering information ? Oh, I know that a Leftie argument is that torture leads to unreliable results. Then again, it's impossible to say that it NEVER works (and I believe it often works, and works well). It only has to work the once to save lives.

But the point also is that to torture a subhuman entity is not the same as torturing a fully human being. I know you have a Leftie script to follow, one telling you that torturing terrorists MUST be torture of human beings, but that's just not true. Attributing human rights to subhuman savages is a nonsense.

I'll add this, in passing. Anyone trying out the argument that to torture, demeans the torturer .. well, does a vermin exterminator never use methods which are less than humane ... ever ? In doing do, is said exterminator made 'less than human' by doing his job ?

In what way are Gitmo terrorists any better than vermin ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

le?

I count a group of at least four right here alone. All feeding off the same delusions. BTW, are you going to answer my question; Do you think that torture for tortures sake is an appropriate method of holding them accountable?

No and I never stated that torture for torture's sake was my idea of how to proceed.-Tyr



Great a base line. At what point does one lose the basic body chemistry as to no longer be a human being especially when they have "brainwashing" inflicted upon them?

At what point is a very subjective determination. I would say when they engage in their first act of brutally murdering innocent women and children. Others may have varied and greater requirements or none at all. -Tyr


Treating them with kid gloves and attempting to stop information gathering techniques that could possibly save tens of thousands of lives or even more and greater loss in future actions is not the way to go either IMHO. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Huh? God made them human beings. They chose to do wrong, so they can 'undo' God's work?

I have to disagree. They are and remain human, giving them other adjectives will not change what God made, just as a rose. They may be despicable human beings, they may be worthy of death, but human they are.


Kathianne. I agree with you above, and many others here do as well. Problem is. We who remind others about what God made have no reason, nor need to create any excuses to explain what our Faith is...to anyone, for any reason.
That is what bothers, upsets, insults, and offends those who claim NOT TO BELIEVE in any God.
So. There is no need to waste any time trying to convince those who CANNOT be convinced.
Faith. Our Faith is in the Unseen. And that, more than anyone who claims to be agnostic, or athiest is trouble to them because they cannot DISPROVE, or PROVE whether our Faith is real, or not.
They have nothing to argue with, or about, and never will.
Remember the expression...."Keep the Faith", and nothing else matters. No matter what anyone says, or thinks.

[Drummond]

Huh? God made them human beings. They chose to do wrong, so they can 'undo' God's work?

I have to disagree. They are and remain human, giving them other adjectives will not change what God made, just as a rose. They may be despicable human beings, they may be worthy of death, but human they are.

If terrorists are human beings, then how are they capable of committing acts which it is not human to commit ? And how are they capable of exulting in it afterwards ?

How is it that their humanity doesn't prevent all of that ?

This is not simply an issue of someone deciding to do something wrong. It is far worse, far more debased than that. What you see in a terrorist is a creature that does NOT POSSESS the humanity to be human. Because, if that humanity was there, it would have to assert itself.

A human being values human life, has a capacity for empathy and a drive to exercise it. Terrorists have none of that.

[aboutime]

If terrorists are human beings, then how are they capable of committing acts which it is not human to commit ? And how are they capable of exulting in it afterwards ?

How is it that their humanity doesn't prevent all of that ?

This is not simply an issue of someone deciding to do something wrong. It is far worse, far more debased than that. What you see in a terrorist is a creature that does NOT POSSESS the humanity to be human. Because, if that humanity was there, it would have to assert itself.

A human being values human life, has a capacity for empathy and a drive to exercise it. Terrorists have none of that.


Sir Drummond. But here in the U.S.A. We are not supposed to equate Human beings with Terror UNLESS...the word TERROR can be used without insulting, offending, or upsetting anyone who IS NOT A CHRISTIAN, or PROTESTANT.
Remember. We have Idiots in this nation, from border to border who insist the word GOD is as terrible as You, or I joining the words JAFAR with TERRORIST, or ISLAMIC RADICALS.
Even our Lame Pretender In Chief has instructed the Idiots like him, who work for him to AVOID, and DESIST in using such insulting language because it tends to expose the TRUTH...which the Obama administration, and friends of Stupidity..even to the point of Demanding that the word GOD be removed from our Currency.
But we all knew that already. It's fun to REMIND them of hos STUPID and HATEFUL they are.

[Kathianne]

I am suggesting that the argument advanced, that the presence of human DNA, is not enough to prove that a terrorist is human.

Toeclippings are (or were) PART of a human being. So would be true of a strand of hair, or an organ. To properly describe a human being AS a human being, you need to prove that the human being is there in totality.

And missing humanity says that the composite we call 'human' CANNOT be validly recognised as human, if the humanity isn't there.

Human beings have enough humanity in them to see terrorism as so repugnant, so unthinkable an act, as to never DO such a thing. But a terrorist cannot be constrained by MISSING humanity.

As for the 'in utero human', this is a human being in development. Not a part of something once human that becomes divorced from the whole, as is a kidney, or a tooth, but, something living, growing, developing, slowly becoming a complete human being.

You are trying to infer a case I was NOT making. However ... LEFTIES try to make such a form of case ... erroneously. To them, an unborn child is a 'thing' that's abortable. Indeed, what we see Lefties do is disgusting, isn't it ? On the one hand, they have zero reverence for a living, developing being having fully human destiny; and on the other, they insist on far greater reverence for the 'human rights' of an entity which is as fully developed as it will ever be, yet, is demonstrably NOT human.

And yet, you once again are using the language of prochoice
'Becoming', 'in development'... not a human being.

It may be one of the things that separates us, what we call human and what we call expendable.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So what is it have the capacity for humanity?

Main Entry: hu·man·i·ty
Pronunciation: \hyü-ˈma-nə-tē, yü-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hu·man·i·ties
Date: 14th century
1 : the quality or state of being humane 2 a : the quality or state of being human b plural : human attributes or qualities <his work="" has="" the="" ripeness="" of="" 18th="" century,="" and="" its="" rough="" humanities="" —="" pamela="" h.="" johnson=""> 3 plural : the branches of learning (as philosophy, arts, or languages) that investigate human constructs and concerns as opposed to natural processes (as in physics or chemistry) and social relations (as in anthropology or economics) 4 : the human race : the totality of human beings

Main Entry: hu·mane
Pronunciation: \hyü-ˈmān, yü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain
Date: 1552
1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals 2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture : humanistic <humane studies="">

So if humanity is defined by the quality or state of being humane and according to the definition proffered on human beings exhibiting the capacity for humanity, those here who justify torture of terrorists are not show compassion, sympathy or consideration of humans or animals and, therefore, are not demonstratively human beings.

Log, different subject . Humanity is a group while a human is a single individual. We as individuals are capable of rejecting our humanity , of rejecting our souls. In my opinion such absolute rejection does indeed take us into another realm. Those accepting that evil cease to be human. Sure it is a judgement call but one that can not be invalidated by a different judgement call IMHO. We are not capable of the discernment of God. We have to just do our best and hope we are correct. I disagree with those that take opposition to my judgement made on the subject but I bear no malice towards those people. I simply believe them to be wrong.-Tyr

</humane></his>

[Kathianne]

If terrorists are human beings, then how are they capable of committing acts which it is not human to commit ? And how are they capable of exulting in it afterwards ?

How is it that their humanity doesn't prevent all of that ?

This is not simply an issue of someone deciding to do something wrong. It is far worse, far more debased than that. What you see in a terrorist is a creature that does NOT POSSESS the humanity to be human. Because, if that humanity was there, it would have to assert itself.

A human being values human life, has a capacity for empathy and a drive to exercise it. Terrorists have none of that.

As humans, they looked at their options. They chose to go to terror, they could have chosen differently. One of the signs of being human. They committed their atrocities and rejoiced in the success. Totally human. That they are depraved is without a doubt. That the world needs to come down on these terrorists, without a doubt.

This whole argument regarding human and not is blurring the discussion of terror in general. It sort of reminds me of the discussion of 'humans' and 'slaves' and why the later were not considered the former. I've said my piece and now I'll just let you guys have at it.

[Drummond]

And yet, you once again are using the language of prochoice
'Becoming', 'in development'... not a human being.

It may be one of the things that separates us, what we call human and what we call expendable.

I'm just being factually correct. What I've described is what happens.

As to what we call human and what is expendable, it seems to me that your main quarrel is not with me at all. Though .. I would hope that your belief in terrorists somehow being 'human' (... when they keep proving the opposite ...) doesn't diminish your belief in the need to have them kept at bay, permanently rendered incapable of ever causing harm again.

There are those who are so intent upon crediting terrorists with 'human rights' that they want to risk seeing a trial process and the chance that they may gain their liberty ... to kill and main once more, as the supposed 'humans' they supposedly 'are'. I believed they should be denied this.

But then, I would. I do not subscribe to Leftieism, you see.

[Kathianne]

I'm just being factually correct. What I've described is what happens.

As to what we call human and what is expendable, it seems to me that your main quarrel is not with me at all. Though .. I would hope that your belief in terrorists somehow being 'human' (... when they keep proving the opposite ...) doesn't diminish your belief in the need to have them kept at bay, permanently rendered incapable of ever causing harm again.

There are those who are so intent upon crediting terrorists with 'human rights' that they want to risk seeing a trial process and the chance that they may gain their liberty ... to kill and main once more, as the supposed 'humans' they supposedly 'are'. I believed they should be denied this.

But then, I would. I do not subscribe to Leftieism, you see.

Actually your response above means that the 'developing person' in utero by definition is less human than the terrorist you are trying after birth to redefine. Weird, that.

No, I haven't a problem with not mirandizing, using enhanced interrogation methods against terrorists. None.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

as humans, they looked at their options. They chose to go to terror, they could have chosen differently. One of the signs of being human. They committed their atrocities and rejoiced in the success. Totally human. That they are depraved is without a doubt. That the world needs to come down on these terrorists, without a doubt.

this whole argument regarding human and not is blurring the discussion of terror in general. it sort of reminds me of the discussion of 'humans' and 'slaves' and why the later were not considered the former. I've said my piece and now i'll just let you guys have at it.

that is why it should not be a point of contention among us. Why i made the post that i did to logroller.-tyr

[aboutime]

Tyr. ALL of this topic has been derailed away from the original topic.

NONE of us here are qualified, nor knowledgeable enough to be the final answer to such questions.

Only one person knows, and is qualified to provide the answers being dragged about here.

Truth is. Some human beings believe such a person exists, or existed, and Other human's do not believe.

NOT ONE OF US HAS THE POWER, or the KNOWLEDGE to offer the definitive, absolutes on this topic.
Anyone who says differently needs to stop using the drugs they are using.

[logroller]

Log, different subject . Humanity is a group while a human is a single individual.. well if its a different subject, then i suggest you address the poster who said a human being (singular) was defined by their capacity for humanity.

As for what humanity is, I provided a definition tyr; number one defintion was a state or quality of being humane-- an individual can certainly have a such a quality, and therefore a group of individuals can also, but it is intrinsically an individual quality. A group can be comprised of individuals that do and individuals that do not express humanity. Nonetheless, they are all human, and indeed the human condition is one that has the capacity to manifest either way. Which was what I sought to illustrate in the first place-- to contradict the assertion that human beings are defined by their capacity for humanity, and that if this fails to manifest itself, then we are not human. Such is profoundly fallacious.
It's not unlike the insanity defense of a catch 22; if the capacity to express humanity is what makes us human beings; and that when someone fails so egregiously that it is determined they lack this definitive human trait and, thus, they are not human; then how can it be claimed that they ever were human, had the capacity for humanity and actually made the decision?
Then what of infants, or the mentally challenged-- lacking the capacity for humanity-- are they not human?
That whole line of reasoning as a definitive litmus test is beset with dilemmas and conflict that is best avoided. The solution is the personal expression of humanity; that of the moral agent, you, me, everybody... That regardless of whether we are considering man or beast, the moral agent's individual capacity for humanity is solely theirs to manifest without regard to what another does or does not.


We as individuals are capable of rejecting our humanity, of rejecting our souls.
each soul, each human being's capacity for expressing humanity is expressly theirs and theirs alone. That is the very essence of free-will, that of each agent being able to make their own decisions.



In my opinion such absolute rejection does indeed take us into another realm. Those accepting that evil cease to be human. Sure it is a judgement call but one that can not be invalidated by a different judgement call IMHO. We are not capable of the discernment of God. We have to just do our best and hope we are correct. I disagree with those that take opposition to my judgement made on the subject but I bear no malice towards those people. I simply believe them to be wrong.-Tyr

You're entitled to your opinions and are free to judge the facts as you see them relevant; just as you're free to be express your humanity for humans, animals, and terrorists, or not; after all, as a human, you're a free agent ;). But so are terrorists. Humane treatment is not something that is earned or deserved, it is either given or not. But if you fail to treat another humanely, you have rejected your humanity.

[red states rule]

Tyr. ALL of this topic has been derailed away from the original topic.

NONE of us here are qualified, nor knowledgeable enough to be the final answer to such questions.

Only one person knows, and is qualified to provide the answers being dragged about here.

Truth is. Some human beings believe such a person exists, or existed, and Other human's do not believe.

NOT ONE OF US HAS THE POWER, or the KNOWLEDGE to offer the definitive, absolutes on this topic.
Anyone who says differently needs to stop using the drugs they are using.

AT. the thread has not been derailed

Libs are opposed to the torture of terrorists but have voiced zero opposition to the torture (and murder) of babies who survive abortions

Very telling about the folks who claim to support human rights but do not give a damn about the rights of babies

Again, Rev is the only one who has been consistent on this topic. The other terrorist loving libs have ignored the Philly butcher and wish the story would go away

[red states rule]

BTW seems to me Gabby has not left the board

Her liberal views are being echoed via the posts of LR and FU

[taft2012]

Cartoon Conservatives

They love to find criminals, even when there has been no crime, or proof of guilt and put them in prisons without trial and torture them. Or drone strike them, and those who were 'stupid' enough to stand near them.
They love the idea of terrorist under every bed and behind every tree , and to dehumanize anyone ever accused as such. because they KNOW the heart of men like "the Shadow" of old... only better.
They love Cartoon distortions of the Constitution designed to strip the clearly written rights of all people at will but especially anyone they fear.
They love the police state, and seek to swell its power by flooding the nation with new laws and stricter enforcements that apply to all but the those in gov't.
They want to blindly follow any so-called leader in the republican party as long as they are not democrat, they can be pro-choice, pro immigration, pro open boarders, pro- gay marriage, pro gun control, but as long as they are republican and are pro war (and anti-weed) they vote like robots and wonder why everyone isn't doing the same.
They don't want to allow foreign nations freedom to manipulate their spheres of influence around the world (like there own Country's resources) because they fear losing the empire we have -that is sucking our economy dry- will fall into the sea and we some how won't be the big kid on block. and that makes them think they will be nothing or will die if we don't have 500 times more firepower and 200 bigger economy than the world combined.

And they seek all of this under the guise of conservatism.

I ain't fooled. I used to be.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/torture_bagram.jpg

Really? You sure got fooled by this picture, didn't you?

"ZOMG! Look at what the Americans did to this poor enemy combatant!"

:laugh2:

And you got fooled because you wanted to get fooled.

[taft2012]

4936


Rev, maybe you can help me out. Which rank in the US Air Force wears this uniform? :laugh2:

[fj1200]

... but appropriate to the case I was building. And, since all you can manage in response to that is something derisory, I take it my point is duly made.

The only thing you can take is that the case you were "building" is utterly nonsensical and useful only when you want to deny the undeniable.


There are certainly times when, if you're going to tell the truth about them, it's appropriate to do so. It was in this instance.

Your not telling the truth about "lefties" you're attempting to lump all arguments against a behemoth and have basically admitted that your position has no merit because you're incapable of distinguishing the views of those you disagree with. This is yet another example where you betray your basic point that conservatives value the individual; you are only able to "win" an argument by creating a strawman group that you can argue against.

You're a big-government advocate when it favors your worldview.


... and the proper context, is .. ??

Try paying attention to the thread. The context is that torture is unreliable and harmful to our overall goals. The argument has been made that they need to be held accountable and you support torture for those you would have government deem "subhuman." Therefore torture is in your world a form of retributive justice.


IS it 'torture for tortures sake' .. or a means of gathering information ? Oh, I know that a Leftie argument is that torture leads to unreliable results. Then again, it's impossible to say that it NEVER works (and I believe it often works, and works well). It only has to work the once to save lives.

But the point also is that to torture a subhuman entity is not the same as torturing a fully human being. I know you have a Leftie script to follow, one telling you that torturing terrorists MUST be torture of human beings, but that's just not true. Attributing human rights to subhuman savages is a nonsense.

I'll add this, in passing. Anyone trying out the argument that to torture, demeans the torturer .. well, does a vermin exterminator never use methods which are less than humane ... ever ? In doing do, is said exterminator made 'less than human' by doing his job ?

In what way are Gitmo terrorists any better than vermin ?

Get off the "leftie" crutch man and come up with an actual argument; one that doesn't rely on you denying the undeniable.

[fj1200]

No and I never stated that torture for torture's sake was my idea of how to proceed.-Tyr

That is the outcome of your logic when you deny their natural rights and suggest that we need to "hold them accountable." What you need to do to have a rational argument is challenge the premise of the thread. If torture is counterproductive to our goals then torture is the wrong course of action.


At what point is a very subjective determination. I would say when they engage in their first act of brutally murdering innocent women and children. Others may have varied and greater requirements or none at all. -Tyr

There's nothing subjective about it, as Kathianne pointed out they were created by God and your attempt to redefine His creation is blasphemy is it not?

Treating them with kid gloves and attempting to stop information gathering techniques that could possibly save tens of thousands of lives or even more and greater loss in future actions is not the way to go either IMHO. -Tyr

No one is suggesting that we stop all information gathering techniques, the suggestion is that "enhanced" information gathering techniques is morally wrong, unreliable, and counterproductive.

[Kathianne]

That is the outcome of your logic when you deny their natural rights and suggest that we need to "hold them accountable." What you need to do to have a rational argument is challenge the premise of the thread. If torture is counterproductive to our goals then torture is the wrong course of action.



There's nothing subjective about it, as Kathianne pointed out they were created by God and your attempt to redefine His creation is blasphemy is it not?


No one is suggesting that we stop all information gathering techniques, the suggestion is that "enhanced" information gathering techniques is morally wrong, unreliable, and counterproductive.

The 'suggestion' regarding 'enhanced interrogative' techniques though I don't have a serious problem with from what I've read over the years at the frequency they've been used. There are times to use what one has available to save the many. I don't agree that waterboarding is torture, however it isn't a type of punishment either.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=635894#post635894)
That is the outcome of your logic when you deny their natural rights and suggest that we need to "hold them accountable." What you need to do to have a rational argument is challenge the premise of the thread. If torture is counterproductive to our goals then torture is the wrong course of action.

There's nothing subjective about it, as Kathianne pointed out they were created by God and your attempt to redefine His creation is blasphemy is it not?

No one is suggesting that we stop all information gathering techniques, the suggestion is that "enhanced" information gathering techniques is morally wrong, unreliable, and counterproductive.


The 'suggestion' regarding 'enhanced interrogative' techniques though I don't have a serious problem with from what I've read over the years at the frequency they've been used. There are times to use what one has available to save the many. I don't agree that waterboarding is torture, however it isn't a type of punishment either.

The term torture is one concept to one person, yet a different concept to others.

In the interest of a decent and fair definition, I propose this.


An act upon any human by others, that damages the human body physically.

Waterboarding does not do that. It creates uncomfort, but we all have discomfort, perhaps daily.

When the Navy uses waterboarding on the Seals, they call it training.

Torture is not training. Torture leaves behind a damaged human.

Suppose the technique put prisoners hands into boiling water for instance. That harms the body.

Suppose they cut off fingers to get them to talk. That harms the body.

Anyway, holding your breath which is all waterboarding does, is not torture. Many of us have held our breaths and had we called it torture, somebody would call us a bit off.

Keep this in mind, torture must not ever be called training and by law, this country uses it on our military men.

[revelarts]

The 'suggestion' regarding 'enhanced interrogative' techniques though I don't have a serious problem with from what I've read over the years at the frequency they've been used. There are times to use what one has available to save the many. I don't agree that waterboarding is torture, however it isn't a type of punishment either.

while we agree in many areas here however since you do not think waterboarding is torture I have 4 questions?

Do you think all of the courts in the US that have tried and convicted people and LEOs for it as torture were wrong?
Do you think when it was done in the inquisitions that it was wrongly thought of, called and applied as torture?
Do you think that police - for example Taft- should use it in it's interrogations -or maybe a stop and "not torture" program - since its not torture and not punishment?

Since its not torture and not punishment what exactly is it?

[aboutime]

Since many believe waterboarding is, and many believe it isn't torture.

The following pair of words probably best describe, or define waterboarding....perfectly, or not. Depending on your beliefs.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plausible%20deniability

[Drummond]

Actually your response above means that the 'developing person' in utero by definition is less human than the terrorist you are trying after birth to redefine. Weird, that.

No, I haven't a problem with not mirandizing, using enhanced interrogation methods against terrorists. None.

Refuted. I thought I'd already made myself clear ?

Facts are facts, Kathianne. A foetus is a developing human being. That's medical fact. Birth occurs when the foetus has gone full term, i.e is ready to be born. The term of pregnancy undergone is one where the foetus is developing to become the human being taken care of after birth.

I fail to see how you can dispute this without denying established, known, medical fact.

HOWEVER .. this is the REAL point. Lefties are content to massacre the unborn, thereby murdering all that these unborn children can, and will, become. In so doing, they show themselves to have contempt for human life in the worst possible way ... by murdering potential. By killing the defenceless, denying them their right to BE what they are born to BE.

But when it comes to the 'rights' of those who demonstrate their SUBhumanity, then, suddenly, the myth of 'human rights applicability' becomes ALL important to them. THEN, they care about saving life. Not HUMAN life, just walking, talking life that kills others as a product of its subhumanity.

Perhaps they identify with terrorists ? Maybe that is the grim truth at work here ? Just as terrorists murder the walking, talking innocent, so Lefties do the same with the unborn innocent. Each has contempt for human life. Each will kill it, and not care.

[fj1200]

HOWEVER .. this is the REAL point. Lefties are content to massacre the unborn, thereby murdering all that these unborn children can, and will, become.In so doing, they show themselves to have contempt for human life in the worst possible way ... by murdering potential. By killing the defenceless, denying them their right to BE what they are born to BE.

So now "Lefties" are subhuman?

A side question; were the Nazi's subhuman?

[aboutime]

So now "Lefties" are subhuman?

A side question; were the Nazi's subhuman?


fj. Why do you feel a need to ask those two questions?

Is it offensive, or insulting to you because there might be a grain of truth that actually hit's home for you?

[Drummond]

As humans, they looked at their options. They chose to go to terror, they could have chosen differently. One of the signs of being human. They committed their atrocities and rejoiced in the success. Totally human. That they are depraved is without a doubt. That the world needs to come down on these terrorists, without a doubt.

I'm glad you want to take a tough line with terrorists. On this, at least, we can agree.

Terrorists did indeed choose to 'go to terror', as you say. They could instead have chosen to be inactive, to not kill. But, killing is what they chose. So I agree, choice was involved.

But tell me this. You agree that they rejoiced at what they'd managed. HOWEVER, where was their humanity, to put an empathic brake on that rejoicing ? In killing, they knew they were killing innocent people, people with families, loved ones. Killing fathers and mothers, depriving children of their parents. They also knew of the immense suffering they were causing innocent people. Where was their HUMANITY, Kathianne, when it came to recognising those truths, AND REACTING TO IT ?

How, Kathianne, do you explain away the absence of the humanity that SHOULD have been involved ?

There is but ONE way. To accept that IT DOES NOT EXIST.

The evidence I'm right is there for anyone to see.


This whole argument regarding human and not is blurring the discussion of terror in general.

Not at all. Torture matters if you're torturing human beings. Terrorists are NOT human beings, as their thoughts and actions completely prove. Therefore, whether or not anyone tortures them DOES NOT MATTER.

They cannot have any right to human rights and considerations if they're not human !!


It sort of reminds me of the discussion of 'humans' and 'slaves' and why the later were not considered the former. I've said my piece and now I'll just let you guys have at it.

There is no comparison at all. The slaves you have in mind were not provably subhuman, because, simply, they WERE human !!! The same doesn't apply to terrorist murderers.

[fj1200]

fj. Why do you feel a need to ask those two questions?

Is it offensive, or insulting to you because there might be a grain of truth that actually hit's home for you?

Why are offended by the dialectic method so much? Is it because you might learn something ugly about yourself?

[Robert A Whit]

Comments made to Kathianne's post.


while we agree in many areas here however since you do not think waterboarding is torture I have 4 questions?

Do you think all of the courts in the US that have tried and convicted people and LEOs for it as torture were wrong?
Do you think when it was done in the inquisitions that it was wrongly thought of, called and applied as torture?
Do you think that police - for example Taft- should use it in it's interrogations -or maybe a stop and "not torture" program - since its not torture and not punishment?

Since its not torture and not punishment what exactly is it?

Which courts do you mean?
Waterboarding done by the Bush admin were a far cry from the way things were done during the inquisition so it is moot.
Q about Taft is interesting. I believe he should be able to so long as the same procedure used on the terrorists is used by the police.

As to the way any evidence so obtained is viewed is it must have extra proof to be used in court. Such as the person being waterboarded won't tell where he hid the weapon. Being waterboarded, he says he put it in a particular place. If the cops locate the weapon where he said, they know it is true.

Waterboarding is a technique and not the entire solution.

I submit to be torture, the human must be actually harmed and that the government in using it in training either calls it torture or it is thought of as I do, as pretty much like training.

[Drummond]

So now "Lefties" are subhuman?

A side question; were the Nazi's subhuman?

I have a question to ask you by way of answering your own question. I'd be interested in your answer.

Imagine yourself at Auschwitz, responsible for preparing the gas chambers that killed so many Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Ask yourself how much humanity those who killed those Jews actually had. And ask yourself if, in their place, you would be equally lacking in humanity.

So tell me, what conclusions do YOU draw about Nazi subhumanity ?

[fj1200]

Not at all. Torture matters if you're torturing human beings. Terrorists are NOT human beings, as their thoughts and actions completely prove. Therefore, whether or not anyone tortures them DOES NOT MATTER.

They cannot have any right to human rights and considerations if they're not human !!

Why do you feel so comfortable placing yourself on the same level as God?

[aboutime]

Why do you feel so comfortable placing yourself on the same level as God?


fj. Only someone like you who is obviously uncomfortable with this topic would ask such a question. No sense, no faith, no reason for anything. Just pat yourself on the back as your own, favorite stupid hero.

[fj1200]

I have a question to ask you by way of answering your own question. I'd be interested in your answer.

Imagine yourself at Auschwitz, responsible for preparing the gas chambers that killed so many Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Ask yourself how much humanity those who killed those Jews actually had. And ask yourself if, in their place, you would be equally lacking in humanity.

So tell me, what conclusions do YOU draw about Nazi subhumanity ?

Was there an answer in there?

[Kathianne]

while we agree in many areas here however since you do not think waterboarding is torture I have 4 questions?

Do you think all of the courts in the US that have tried and convicted people and LEOs for it as torture were wrong?
Do you think when it was done in the inquisitions that it was wrongly thought of, called and applied as torture?
Do you think that police - for example Taft- should use it in it's interrogations -or maybe a stop and "not torture" program - since its not torture and not punishment?

Since its not torture and not punishment what exactly is it?

I've no doubt you caught the use of my words: frequency, not as punishment, etc. Do I think the police should be doing so? No. If they have caught a terrorist, the feds will be in soon enough, as we all saw at Boston.

[fj1200]

fj. Only someone like you who is obviously uncomfortable with this topic would ask such a question. No sense, no faith, no reason for anything. Just pat yourself on the back as your own, favorite stupid hero.

WTF are you blathering on about now? Your post is utterly nonsensical.

[Kathianne]

Refuted. I thought I'd already made myself clear ?

Facts are facts, Kathianne. A foetus is a developing human being. That's medical fact. Birth occurs when the foetus has gone full term, i.e is ready to be born. The term of pregnancy undergone is one where the foetus is developing to become the human being taken care of after birth.

I fail to see how you can dispute this without denying established, known, medical fact.

HOWEVER .. this is the REAL point. Lefties are content to massacre the unborn, thereby murdering all that these unborn children can, and will, become. In so doing, they show themselves to have contempt for human life in the worst possible way ... by murdering potential. By killing the defenceless, denying them their right to BE what they are born to BE.

But when it comes to the 'rights' of those who demonstrate their SUBhumanity, then, suddenly, the myth of 'human rights applicability' becomes ALL important to them. THEN, they care about saving life. Not HUMAN life, just walking, talking life that kills others as a product of its subhumanity.

Perhaps they identify with terrorists ? Maybe that is the grim truth at work here ? Just as terrorists murder the walking, talking innocent, so Lefties do the same with the unborn innocent. Each has contempt for human life. Each will kill it, and not care.

We've gone as far with this as useful.Tyr was correct.

[aboutime]

WTF are you blathering on about now? Your post is utterly nonsensical.


fj. And PEE WEE, your hero thanks you.

[Kathianne]

Why do you feel so comfortable placing yourself on the same level as God?

Personally all I see is a problem between the words humane, and human. I agree that there is no evidence of the terrorists being human, much less having empathy for their victims. That they are human beings? Without a doubt. A religious version of psychopathy.