May 24, 200917 yr First, bravo to this guy for changing his beliefs when he knew he was wrong. My stance on torture is pretty blunt: I say if we can prove they were terrorists or whatever, and have hard evidence, they deserve it. Yes, this is western thinking. Yes, it is narrow minded. Yes, to all those other arguments. But seriously, why should we be nice and civil to the bastards who want to kill us? Having morals would be a good start. Also using torture, from a purely tactical point of view, is counter-productive as it serves to recruit many more extremists who will attempt to attack and kill westerners. We can't be so easily bowed by the fear tactics of both extremists and politicians, that we go from 21st century democracies back towards the dark ages. And even beyond that, it endangers our men on the battlefield. Does anyone think anyone who wages war with America in the future will ever surrender now? Hell no, they'll go out blazing. They'd rather die a quick death than be tortured by a torture state; and that's how America will now be seen for the rest of time. That is of course unless we prosecute [bleep] Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the other [bleep]s that created the program to show that America follows the rule of law like every other country who signs Geneva and International Treaties.
May 24, 200917 yr First, bravo to this guy for changing his beliefs when he knew he was wrong. My stance on torture is pretty blunt: I say if we can prove they were terrorists or whatever, and have hard evidence, they deserve it. Yes, this is western thinking. Yes, it is narrow minded. Yes, to all those other arguments. But seriously, why should we be nice and civil to the bastards who want to kill us? Having morals would be a good start. Also using torture, from a purely tactical point of view, is counter-productive as it serves to recruit many more extremists who will attempt to attack and kill westerners. We can't be so easily bowed by the fear tactics of both extremists and politicians, that we go from 21st century democracies back towards the dark ages. And even beyond that, it endangers our men on the battlefield. Does anyone think anyone who wages war with America in the future will ever surrender now? Hell no, they'll go out blazing. They'd rather die a quick death than be tortured by a torture state; and that's how America will now be seen for the rest of time. That is of course unless we prosecute [bleep] Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the other [bleep] that created the program to show that America follows the rule of law like every other country who signs Geneva and International Treaties. They should but it'll never happen. America is to polarized for such a prosecution to be possible - the right would be up in arms and it would kill any politicians prospects of electability. Plus, even if it did happen the presidential pardon system (which should be reformed) would make it too easy for the next Republican president to pardon them. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)
May 24, 200917 yr From what I gather, he's going against waterboarding because when he tried it himself he thought it felt awful. Yeah. It does. That's the freaking point. Like I said earlier, the only reason torture is no good is because we can't guarantee they know anything, which means we just tortured an innocent person for nothing and probably got some false information along the way. I agree we shouldn't use torture, I just don't agree with his reason. Get back here so I can rub your butt.
May 25, 200917 yr Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Nominated for stupidest post of the year. [English translation needed]
May 25, 200917 yr Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Nominated for stupidest post of the year. You still got no competition. "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."
May 25, 200917 yr :roll: Oh, joy. Please, show me a stupid post I've made. [English translation needed]
May 25, 200917 yr :roll: Oh, joy. Please, show me a stupid post I've made. ... #-o A flood of quotes is coming. Anyway, the CIA is nowhere near as bad as Al Quaeda. Get back here so I can rub your butt.
May 25, 200917 yr Actually, show me a post I've made that is factually incorrect. You can't use my authoritarian beliefs as stupid posts just because you don't like them. [English translation needed]
May 25, 200917 yr From what I gather, he's going against waterboarding because when he tried it himself he thought it felt awful. Yeah. It does. That's the freaking point. Like I said earlier, the only reason torture is no good is because we can't guarantee they know anything, which means we just tortured an innocent person for nothing and probably got some false information along the way. I agree we shouldn't use torture, I just don't agree with his reason. No, he retracted on his previous statements. "I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' " He's rebutting this idea that waterboarding is no torture and no infringement on human rights and prisoner rights. But now he admits waterboarding is torture. This signature is intentionally left blank.
May 25, 200917 yr :roll: Oh, joy. Please, show me a stupid post I've made. search.php?author_id=236819&sr=posts
May 25, 200917 yr Author Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Nominated for stupidest post of the year. Thanks for the no relevant info post :thumbsup: But let's go in to your Sri Lanka thread where 90% of your posts are either 2 sentences or just flaming people =)
May 25, 200917 yr [hide=]First, bravo to this guy for changing his beliefs when he knew he was wrong. My stance on torture is pretty blunt: I say if we can prove they were terrorists or whatever, and have hard evidence, they deserve it. Yes, this is western thinking. Yes, it is narrow minded. Yes, to all those other arguments. But seriously, why should we be nice and civil to the bastards who want to kill us? Having morals would be a good start. Also using torture, from a purely tactical point of view, is counter-productive as it serves to recruit many more extremists who will attempt to attack and kill westerners. We can't be so easily bowed by the fear tactics of both extremists and politicians, that we go from 21st century democracies back towards the dark ages. And even beyond that, it endangers our men on the battlefield. Does anyone think anyone who wages war with America in the future will ever surrender now? Hell no, they'll go out blazing. They'd rather die a quick death than be tortured by a torture state; and that's how America will now be seen for the rest of time. That is of course unless we prosecute [bleep] Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the other [bleep] that created the program to show that America follows the rule of law like every other country who signs Geneva and International Treaties. They should but it'll never happen. America is to polarized for such a prosecution to be possible - the right would be up in arms and it would kill any politicians prospects of electability. Plus, even if it did happen the presidential pardon system (which should be reformed) would make it too easy for the next Republican president to pardon them.[/hide] If there's anything Obama is always concerned with, it's the long term and precedent. This is why I'm so surprised about his propositions for "indefinite detentions," but also why I'm willing to hear him out first. The beautiful thing about the right as of late is, they're obsessed with Pelosi about "what she knew." Frankly, who cares "what she knew when she knew it;" if she did something illegal, prosecute her as well. This sideshow is embarrassing, just like the prosecutions of Clinton were embarrassing. However, it keeps the idea of releasing more information and declassifying more stuff to give more evidence for abuse and to prosecute. Speaking of which, why has [bleep]ey been so excited and coming out as of late?: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/22/ ... tion-fear/ I think there's some evidence that there will be a prosecution/trial somewhere, even if for show. While there's also evidence against it, like I said, Obama's focused on long term precedent. He doesn't want to be bogged down with all of this, and that's understandable, but the law and precedent is more important than any reform. As a law professor, he understands this. I hope he allows Holder to follow through with whatever is needed to be done, or we are, indeed, a nation of cowards.
May 25, 200917 yr [hide=]First, bravo to this guy for changing his beliefs when he knew he was wrong. My stance on torture is pretty blunt: I say if we can prove they were terrorists or whatever, and have hard evidence, they deserve it. Yes, this is western thinking. Yes, it is narrow minded. Yes, to all those other arguments. But seriously, why should we be nice and civil to the bastards who want to kill us? Having morals would be a good start. Also using torture, from a purely tactical point of view, is counter-productive as it serves to recruit many more extremists who will attempt to attack and kill westerners. We can't be so easily bowed by the fear tactics of both extremists and politicians, that we go from 21st century democracies back towards the dark ages. And even beyond that, it endangers our men on the battlefield. Does anyone think anyone who wages war with America in the future will ever surrender now? Hell no, they'll go out blazing. They'd rather die a quick death than be tortured by a torture state; and that's how America will now be seen for the rest of time. That is of course unless we prosecute [bleep] Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the other [bleep] that created the program to show that America follows the rule of law like every other country who signs Geneva and International Treaties. They should but it'll never happen. America is to polarized for such a prosecution to be possible - the right would be up in arms and it would kill any politicians prospects of electability. Plus, even if it did happen the presidential pardon system (which should be reformed) would make it too easy for the next Republican president to pardon them.[/hide] If there's anything Obama is always concerned with, it's the long term and precedent. This is why I'm so surprised about his propositions for "indefinite detentions," but also why I'm willing to hear him out first. The beautiful thing about the right as of late is, they're obsessed with Pelosi about "what she knew." Frankly, who cares "what she knew when she knew it;" if she did something illegal, prosecute her as well. This sideshow is embarrassing, just like the prosecutions of Clinton were embarrassing. However, it keeps the idea of releasing more information and declassifying more stuff to give more evidence for abuse and to prosecute. Speaking of which, why has [bleep]ey been so excited and coming out as of late?: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/22/ ... tion-fear/ I think there's some evidence that there will be a prosecution/trial somewhere, even if for show. While there's also evidence against it, like I said, Obama's focused on long term precedent. He doesn't want to be bogged down with all of this, and that's understandable, but the law and precedent is more important than any reform. As a law professor, he understands this. I hope he allows Holder to follow through with whatever is needed to be done, or we are, indeed, a nation of cowards. She's 2 steps away from becoming the president, I don't want an incompetent, blatant liar being that close. If anyone in government had any morals (what the hell does that mean anyway these days?) she would've resigned or have been forced to step down. it's a big issue because she's proven to be the biggest hypocrite of them all, but I guess that's okay right? So this is what we've become, where we allow people that high, to lie to our faces, show themselves to be dirty hypocrites and it's brushed aside. Give me a break, Cheney has nothing to lose, only the moron far lefties want them to be "prosecuted". What happened to change? what happened to "transparency". If Obama had any balls, which he clearly does not, he would get rid of Pelosi, but it goes to show, they're all the same, party first, country and citizens second. Scares me to see that people out there actually voted for Obama because they thought he was "change".
May 25, 200917 yr Tbh, stop acting like we're just grabbing random people and doing this to them. If it's happening, there's a good reason. Reason or not, it's still torture. Good or bad, that's another story. Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude? Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you? Camera guy: still laughing Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy Camera guy: runs away still laughing Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]! Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!
May 25, 200917 yr Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Round of applause please? =D> Oh boy, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, comparing Al-Qaeda to "the CIA". I'm sure the CIA would gladly rip off the head of a reporter, send kids out to die in mine fields and kill gays simply because they're gay. GREAT COMPARISON. Btw, huff post & a blog? :lol:
May 25, 200917 yr Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Nominated for stupidest post of the year. Thanks for the no relevant info post :thumbsup: But let's go in to your Sri Lanka thread where 90% of your posts are either 2 sentences or just flaming people =) I'd have to agree with Robert here though (shock!). The CIA is not an organization that believes it's fighting a holy war and that loss of life is justified in achieving its aims. The CIA did not attempt to destroy major centers of a country's government to terrorize its citizens. The CIA did mistreat prisoners, and while I don't believe that's justified entirely, it is far from being as bad as what Al-Qaeda is doing. I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr
May 25, 200917 yr Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Round of applause please? =D> Oh boy, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, comparing Al-Qaeda to "the CIA". I'm sure the CIA would gladly rip off the head of a reporter, send kids out to die in mine fields and kill gays simply because they're gay. GREAT COMPARISON. Btw, huff post & a blog? :lol: The CIA does an estimated 100,000 extremely illegal things every year. They've tortured people in the past, and anyone who thinks this is the US's first taste of torture is naive. I wouldn't say it's far fetched at all. I don't want an incompetent, blatant liar being that close. What makes her incompetent? Frankly, she's been doing a splendid job since there's a Dem in the White House; a big change since Bush left. Harry Reid is still a quivering old fool, afraid that the GOP might call him a terrorist sympathizer or something for housing them on our soil in our prisons. Second, if you don't want a blatant liar in the White House, why do you support any politicians? They're all liars; it's what politicians do, get used to it. There's not a soul on Capitol Hill that I trust besides Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold. If anyone in government had any morals (what the hell does that mean anyway these days?) she would've resigned or have been forced to step down. For what? She didn't do anything wrong. it's a big issue because she's proven to be the biggest hypocrite of them all As opposed to a "lesser hypocrite of them all?" I really don't see where these arbitrary labels are going, or what they're trying to prove. So this is what we've become, where we allow people that high, to lie to our faces, show themselves to be dirty hypocrites and it's brushed aside. Wait wait wait, are you Newt Gingrich? That's who you sound like lol. Give me a break, Cheney has nothing to lose, only the moron far lefties want them to be "prosecuted". Yep, because Jesse Ventura is such a far leftie. Because people who respect the law are far lefties, and they're all morons. Yep, sounds about right. I guess 2/3 of America who favor an investigation are all just raging far lefties: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Almost_40 ... _0212.html Read it carefully, and not just the first few paragraphs. What happened to change? Iunno, I've been wondering that, too. Change would be hanging these bastards out to dry in a court of law. what happened to "transparency". Well, I know you must be upset that those torture photos weren't released like I was, but we must be patient for the court order to be followed through. The photos will be released in due time, don't worry. f Obama had any balls, which he clearly does not, he would get rid of Pelosi, but it goes to show, they're all the same, party first, country and citizens second. Lolwut? Scares me to see that people out there actually voted for Obama because they thought he was "change". Depends what kind of change you're talking about. Engaging Iran? Change. Addressing climate change? Change. Getting a public option in health care reform? Change. Giving a speech in Cairo on June 4th addressing the Muslim world? Change. Not prosecuting these [bleep]ers for [cabbage]ting on the Constitution (although that's Eric Holder's job), and then trying to detain people indefinitely? Not change.
May 25, 200917 yr I'd have to agree with Robert here though (shock!). The CIA is not an organization that believes it's fighting a holy war and that loss of life is justified in achieving its aims. The CIA did not attempt to destroy major centers of a country's government to terrorize its citizens. The CIA did mistreat prisoners, and while I don't believe that's justified entirely, it is far from being as bad as what Al-Qaeda is doing. The CIA has participated and encouraged a number of coups in nations and helped install dictatorships which have terrorised their citizens. The CIA helped the Contra's and turned a blind eye to the Contra's sale of cocaine which ended up being sold in USA, the CIA removed Iran's democratic government in 1953 and installed the repessive regime of The Shah and the CIA helped general Pinochet overthrow the democratic government in Chile and then turned a blind eye to his killings. As horrible as Al Qaeda is, they haven't caused the deaths of anywhere near as many people as the CIA has. They're amatuers by comparison but it's all okay as long as it's for the 'greater good' right? He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)
May 25, 200917 yr Re: 1_Man_Army ...Or a case of me forgetting the CIA's involvement in most of Latin America :lol: have a long list of cases where that happened, thank you for reminding me... I suppose what it is is that it's all fun and games until it happens to you, then. I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr
May 25, 200917 yr Re: 1_Man_Army ...Or a case of me forgetting the CIA's involvement in most of Latin America :lol: have a long list of cases where that happened, thank you for reminding me... I suppose what it is is that it's all fun and games until it happens to you, then. Excactly, I have a lot of sympathy for the American people over 9/11 but I totally reject the notion that a lot of Americans (not you specifically, I mean generally) have that their nation has a monopoly on morality and that they're whiter than white when it comes to terrorism. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)
May 25, 200917 yr Re: 1_Man_Army ...Or a case of me forgetting the CIA's involvement in most of Latin America :lol: have a long list of cases where that happened, thank you for reminding me... I suppose what it is is that it's all fun and games until it happens to you, then. Excactly, I have a lot of sympathy for the American people over 9/11 but I totally reject the notion that a lot of Americans (not you specifically, I mean generally) have that their nation has a monopoly on morality and that they're whiter than white when it comes to terrorism. And this is why the world will stay bad until either A) All countries form a single alliance. B) We are all united under a single flag. This is what we need: One people, one empire, one leader. Nothing can go wrong with that! ...oh yeah. [hide=For the few people on here that don't get it.]Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer translates to One People, one Empire, one Leader.[/hide] Get back here so I can rub your butt.
May 25, 200917 yr Author Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Round of applause please? =D> Oh boy, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, comparing Al-Qaeda to "the CIA". I'm sure the CIA would gladly rip off the head of a reporter, send kids out to die in mine fields and kill gays simply because they're gay. GREAT COMPARISON. Btw, huff post & a blog? :lol: It doesn't matter if it's from Huff, the most important part is the document released by the Red Cross. It could be posted for download on a porn site and it would still be relevant. Oh, and for clarification, the thing I said about CIA and Al-Qaeda was meant to be taken in the context of this topic (torture), but apparently the CIA is quite bad from what other people have posted Edit: Page 4 and still no empirical or direct evidence that can confirm torture's effectiveness
May 25, 200917 yr Congratulations to the CIA on becoming as bad, if not worse than Al-Qaida. Round of applause please? =D> Oh boy, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, comparing Al-Qaeda to "the CIA". I'm sure the CIA would gladly rip off the head of a reporter, send kids out to die in mine fields and kill gays simply because they're gay. GREAT COMPARISON. Btw, huff post & a blog? :lol: It doesn't matter if it's from Huff, the most important part is the document released by the Red Cross. It could be posted for download on a porn site and it would still be relevant. Oh, and for clarification, the thing I said about CIA and Al-Qaeda was meant to be taken in the context of this topic (torture), but apparently the CIA is quite bad from what other people have posted Edit: Page 4 and still no empirical or direct evidence that can confirm torture's effectiveness yeah the CIA has done some fairly awful stuff over the years There is a very simple reason you dont see any evidence of torture working; the CIA doesnt release information on everything, and I dont think they take pride on having to torture people for info. Thats not to say there is a giant pile of information, but its foolish to think we have never gotten anything from waterboarding. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
May 25, 200917 yr It's not torture. Yeah, please post a reason for your opinions or you'll end up with the reputation of Robert. Anyway, you say torture is torture, but you still haven't proven to me that it's torture. There's no harm being done to the person it's happening to. Because I say it's not, that's why. And, yes, that's a perfectly valid reason. The problem with the "It's torture!" crowd is that, by following the logic that any physical, mental or emotional pain inflicted on someone solely to obtain information is torture, then any way used to glean information from someone which isn't, "Would you be so kind as to tell me what you know?" would have to be, by it's very definition, also torture. Ergo, there would be no legal was to find out what someone knows, as anything involving any means of coercion would have to be wrong and the CIA, FBI and pretty much ever intelligence agency would be out of a job. *shrugs* So, to avoid all of this, let's just say its not torture.
May 25, 200917 yr Author It's not torture. Yeah, please post a reason for your opinions or you'll end up with the reputation of Robert. Anyway, you say torture is torture, but you still haven't proven to me that it's torture. There's no harm being done to the person it's happening to. Because I say it's not, that's why. And, yes, that's a perfectly valid reason. The problem with the "It's torture!" crowd is that, by following the logic that any physical, mental or emotional pain inflicted on someone solely to obtain information is torture, then any way used to glean information from someone which isn't, "Would you be so kind as to tell me what you know?" would have to be, by it's very definition, also torture. Ergo, there would be no legal was to find out what someone knows, as anything involving any means of coercion would have to be wrong and the CIA, FBI and pretty much ever intelligence agency would be out of a job. *shrugs* So, to avoid all of this, let's just say its not torture. Please tell me how asking someone questions inflicts pain and lasting effects
Create an account or sign in to comment