Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/18/2009 1:25:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2009 1:27:43 PM EST by Jayrod1318]
Not a"The view" fan but my wife told me about this today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc

He's a good man. A patriot.
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 1:35:44 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 1:43:21 PM EST
Trolling huh? Afraid to engage in a discussion that might evoke some other thought process other than "insert troll smiley here"

I'm just trying to stimulate some debate about current events. I thought it was a good piece with some good points.
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 1:44:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2009 1:44:50 PM EST by rike]
Ventura is a retard.

Whatsername uses reasoned discourse and Jesse responds with an inane analogy.

Typical leftist
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 1:47:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2009 1:47:45 PM EST by Jayrod1318]
They both used analogies. Jesse and his "why don't policeman use water boarding"

Hasselback with her " would you then go after Obama for killing pirates"


Link Posted: 5/18/2009 1:50:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2009 1:57:10 PM EST by Forsaken1]
Jesse should run for pres.He would end up eating a bullet like jfk.

Jesse Ventura talks about CIA implanted in State Government, his CIA interrogation.
Fixed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzfXOfpFcA
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 1:51:36 PM EST
bad link
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 1:56:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 2:36:33 PM EST
Jayrod,

Everyone has made a big deal about this waterboarding and "torture" that we have engaged in. Have you personally seen the video of the Taliban beheading Americans live on video? When was the last time you watched video of 911 and people jumping out of windows 80 stories high. I lost people in 911. I guarantee you that our gvmt. has been half as lenient as I and many many others like me would have been on these godless motherfuckers. Jesse can kiss my ass.
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 3:59:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2009 4:03:03 PM EST by Jayrod1318]
Originally Posted By 300rum:
Jayrod,

Everyone has made a big deal about this waterboarding and "torture" that we have engaged in. Have you personally seen the video of the Taliban beheading Americans live on video? When was the last time you watched video of 911 and people jumping out of windows 80 stories high. I lost people in 911. I guarantee you that our gvmt. has been half as lenient as I and many many others like me would have been on these godless motherfuckers. Jesse can kiss my ass.


Then I take you wouldn't mind getting waterboarded? I don't think anyone would.

but when the rule of law is disregarded just once, it opens doors for other offenses against our Constitution which explicitly states that no cruel and unusual punishments should be permitted.

The rule of law needs to be enforced.
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 4:22:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2009 4:23:13 PM EST by kap_x]
He justified Pelosi's actions by turning to Bush. What a surprise.
How is he a patriot, exactly?

And The View? Are you fucking serious?
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 4:50:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jayrod1318:
Not a"The view" fan but my wife told me about this today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc

He's a good man. A patriot.




he's an ever loving retard and fits in with the rest of the retards on that show.
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 5:17:52 PM EST

He's not a leftist, he's an American Vet who understands the implications torture has. Sure we don't mind when it's an arab in Gitmo but eventually the U.S. government will start doing this shit to AMERICANS.

You think a government that willingly defies the Geneva Convention gives a shit about your rights? HA

If they think you know something you will be tortured too. Anyone who defends Republicans OR Demo Rats is an idiot.

read up son, you got some learnin to do
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 5:24:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2009 5:25:25 PM EST by SilentType]
Jessie Ventura and Al Franken are proof that the voters of Minnesota aren't just social drinkers they're full blown alcoholics.

I'm sorry, but Jessie Ventura is a 9/11 "Truther" and has the mental capacity of a high school drop-out who sniffs glue. The fact that the OP is linking us anything to that cackle of women and their television show dominated by extreme communists and produced by a well known communist is conclusive evidence that he is a troll.

If you want to have an educated debate about coercive interrogation than don't cite Jessie Ventura and sure as hell don't link us the "View." This is up there with one of the most foolish threads I've ever seen in the "Politics and Activism" forum.
Link Posted: 5/18/2009 5:47:41 PM EST
For him the days of being a honorable American Navy Seal is long gone: Now he has transformed himself into a Mexican surfing dude who likes weed. He has lost my respect. I can understand the objection to waterboarding etc.. but to side with the libtards on anything and imply that Bush is a criminal l
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 3:32:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By FortyCal2freedom:

He's not a leftist, he's an American Vet who understands the implications torture has. Sure we don't mind when it's an arab in Gitmo but eventually the U.S. government will start doing this shit to AMERICANS.

You think a government that willingly defies the Geneva Convention gives a shit about your rights? HA

If they think you know something you will be tortured too. Anyone who defends Republicans OR Demo Rats is an idiot.

read up son, you got some learnin to do


I could give two shits about the Geneva convention, the U.S. constitution is what needs to be adhered to.

I am actually pretty torn on this issue. I don't have a problem with them waterboarding the 9/11 masterminds or whoever, I'm not even sure I acknowledge waterboarding as torture. BUT I do have a problem with the precedent that they are setting. How long before they start doing this to Americans? I can easily see a slippery slope. Especially with a country that, for the most part, has no idea what their real political ideals are. When so much of the country swings back and forth between voting republican or statist(statist or full blown statist), one administrations trustworthiness with a law, turns in to the next administrations abuse of the same law. I forget who said it but something to the effect of "with Jealousy guard your rights when approached by something or other." (someone will have to help me out there)

And then there's the patriot act. It's supposedly only for international calls to suspected terrorists, but how long would it have been before they extended it to "domestic terrorists." Need I remind you of the recent DHS report that would have labeled almost ALL of us in this forum as "right wing extremists." That same precedent could be extended to detaining us "extremists" and taking us up to CIA headquarters or whatever and "waterboarding" us to get some info on some nut job we may have met.

There again, supposedly waterboarding those two down at Gitmo helped us thwart an attack on California similar to those on the world trade towers. If that is the case, what price do we pay for protecting our own people. I just don't know.
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 3:42:07 AM EST
A lot of nutcases in this thread...
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 4:34:13 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jayrod1318:
Originally Posted By 300rum:
Jayrod,

Everyone has made a big deal about this waterboarding and "torture" that we have engaged in. Have you personally seen the video of the Taliban beheading Americans live on video? When was the last time you watched video of 911 and people jumping out of windows 80 stories high. I lost people in 911. I guarantee you that our gvmt. has been half as lenient as I and many many others like me would have been on these godless motherfuckers. Jesse can kiss my ass.


Then I take you wouldn't mind getting waterboarded? I don't think anyone would.

but when the rule of law is disregarded just once, it opens doors for other offenses against our Constitution which explicitly states that no cruel and unusual punishments should be permitted.

The rule of law needs to be enforced.



Waterboarding is not punishment. Geez, can anyone understand the English language anymore? The Constitution uses correct English. It's not hard to understand.
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 4:35:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2009 4:36:50 AM EST by Semiautots]
Originally Posted By FortyCal2freedom:

He's not a leftist, he's an American Vet who understands the implications torture has. Sure we don't mind when it's an arab in Gitmo but eventually the U.S. government will start doing this shit to AMERICANS.

You think a government that willingly defies the Geneva Convention gives a shit about your rights? HA

If they think you know something you will be tortured too. Anyone who defends Republicans OR Demo Rats is an idiot.

read up son, you got some learnin to do



Waterboarding is not torture. Look up the definition of torture. Again, geez . . .
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 5:00:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2009 5:01:02 AM EST by El-cid]
Originally Posted By Jayrod1318:
Originally Posted By 300rum:
Jayrod,

Everyone has made a big deal about this waterboarding and "torture" that we have engaged in. Have you personally seen the video of the Taliban beheading Americans live on video? When was the last time you watched video of 911 and people jumping out of windows 80 stories high. I lost people in 911. I guarantee you that our gvmt. has been half as lenient as I and many many others like me would have been on these godless motherfuckers. Jesse can kiss my ass.


Then I take you wouldn't mind getting waterboarded? I don't think anyone would.

but when the rule of law is disregarded just once, it opens doors for other offenses against our Constitution which explicitly states that no cruel and unusual punishments should be permitted.

The rule of law needs to be enforced.


You are ignorant of US history.

Was torture and capital punishment cruel or unusual during the founding of our country?


No. General George Washington used torture (Cat-o-nine-tails) on his own troops and executed British spies without trial.

Was suspending the Habeous Corpus and imprisoning 20,000 US citizens during the Civil War in inhumane conditions torturous and Unconstitutional?

President Abe Lincoln, considered on of our greatest presidents, did this.

Is purposely killing civilians by order of the President unconstitutional or cruel/unusual?


No. President Truman and FDR both ordered bombing of civilian populations during WWII.

Is assignation of our enemies and their leadership part of US military history approved by the White House cruel or unusual?

No. During the Vietnam War, the White House approved of Operation Phoenix. 20,000 were killed.


If it was left to men like you to defend our nation from our enemies, the country would cease to exist.
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 6:24:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2009 6:38:01 AM EST by SWATH]
Our society has evolved enough so that there is now a need to extract information from people through physical pain more regularly. In fact we should not question the government or police officers who torture suspects to get confessions or info, they are just doing their jobs keeping us safe. Whether or not a suspicious guy is picked up on the streets of NY by police or was detained by foreign governments or rival tribes and turned over to our custody doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that we get all the intel from him as possible at all costs, the collective greater good will thank us. There may be laws protecting us from torture by the government but those luxuries go out the window when your dealing with someone who may or may not have information that could pose a threat to someone at some point. The claim that information collected through coercion and duress not being accurate is bunk, since we have captured and waterboarded Bin Laden's men and they have spilled the beans on his whereabouts and we were able to capture him. And thank God we were able to establish a link between Al Qeada and Iraq through enhanced interrogations, lord knows this country would be in the crapper had we not invaded Iraq. Sure some people may actually be innocent, but we no longer have the time to try them in a court of law to know for sure, we must have the courage to assume guilt and to inflict pain, that's the American way, and besides that, we can trust the government. Occasionally we might encounter a suspect who will just not sing no matter how much we waterboard him, he just won't give us the info we are looking for, the obvious explanation is that he is not in enough discomfort and we must further enhance the interrogation method to include perhaps cutting or burning or bamboo or rape and if that doesn't work maybe dismemberment. The amount of pain we inflict should be proportional to how bad we want the info. We are also perfectly justified since other government men in our history have done it too, and there are no specific laws that say we can't do specific things to specific people. Politically if The Democrats and "libtards" are against torture than the "conservative" Republicans should be for it, if for nothing else than to maintain an adversarial position to that particular political party. Since they won't champion freedom and liberty, the only way the Republicans can win elections in the future is to defend and champion the use of torture. Americans want and need more torture.



Seriously, The View sucks but Ventura is right.

What do you define as not torture? No chance of death? No permanent physical harm? No severe physical pain? Sound about right? Ok, so then it should be fine to rape a prisoner to demoralize them into a confession, yes?

Then there is the straw man dilemma "what if your son/daughter/wife/loved one was threatened with death/torture/Celine Deon? Would you not torture those responsible to save them?

Assuming I were 100% certain I had the right guy and this was the only way he would talk, my answer would be, you bet your ass I would, but if I were mistaken I would also face the legal consequences of torturing an innocent person. If I turned out to be right then I am vindicated and my actions should be considered self-defense, but it should NEVER be the policy of America to torture. Making it a policy means that we can do it and not fear prosecution regardless of if the person was guilty of anything or not, just doing my job defense. It must be handled on a case by case basis, but you are really taking things to a whole new level when you go this route and you had better be right and it had better be worth it or you are taking your own life into your own hands. Of course this assumes that torturing out accurate information is effective, and what if you are only 95% sure it was the right guy or 90% or more likely 50% certain.

As with all policies, think of the worst most tragic thing that could possibly happen as a consequence of it and then imagine it happening to you or a loved one. "Oh sorry Mr. Swath, your wife fit the description of a known suicide bomber recruit and she was in the area where the recruit was last sighted so we picked her up. We found high explosives in the garage (tannerite, as well as H2O2 and nail polish remover in the bathroom, and concrete etch in the garage), an arsenal of weapons (a few AR's and such), a stock pile of ammo (a few thousand rounds), and subversive anti-government literature (The Constitution, a book shelf full of libertarian type books including some written by the domestic terrorist Ron Paul, and Ron Paul bumper stickers indicating likely membership in a militia). She claimed to be innocent but she did fit the description and we were desperate to stop the bombing so we had to rape her a few times and waterboard her to get some info but don't worry we didn't leave any permanent physical injuries, sorry about the mix up. She might be a fucked up basket case for life though but that's not our problem. The good news is that she didn't know anything so we have no further use for her and she is free to go, and if you have a problem with any of this, again, don't look at us it's not our fault or our problem we didn't break any laws, we are the government, we know best, we are trustworthy, we are here to help and we should not be questioned, we were just doing our job trying to save lives".

In other news, a government agency that was tasked with saving lives by tracking down would be suicide bombers and interrogating them for information was blown up today killing everyone who worked there. There are no motives that we can think of behind these horrible and cowardly attacks against our freedom. It is clear that we must become more aggressive in our efforts to get intel on would be terrorists. A local man was also reported missing. Fox news, fair and balanced.
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 6:43:28 AM EST
You are ignorant of US history.

Was torture and capital punishment cruel or unusual during the founding of our country?

No. General George Washington used torture (Cat-o-nine-tails) on his own troops and executed British spies without trial.

Was suspending the Habeous Corpus and imprisoning 20,000 US citizens during the Civil War in inhumane conditions torturous and Unconstitutional?

President Abe Lincoln, considered on of our greatest presidents, did this.

Is purposely killing civilians by order of the President unconstitutional or cruel/unusual?

No. President Truman and FDR both ordered bombing of civilian populations during WWII.

Is assignation of our enemies and their leadership part of US military history approved by the White House cruel or unusual?

No. During the Vietnam War, the White House approved of Operation Phoenix. 20,000 were killed.

If it was left to men like you to defend our nation from our enemies, the country would cease to exist.


What does history have to do with any of this? Just because an act occurred in the past does not make it morally acceptable, whether or not a given government (the US in this case) ordered or at least gave indirect tacit approval for the act in question.

If you want to talk history, slavery also existed at the same time the Constitution was in effect, so are we to assume slavery is somehow a justifiable act? Just because the government allowed it to happen and too many people turned a blind eye?

And I would respectfully beg to differ about your statement regarding our country ceasing to exist because of men like him... the person to whom you were responding. It is precisely because of the views and actions of men and women with great moral character, honesty, and mercy––people who abhor cruelty––that the USA has been such a wonderful environment in which to live and prosper. We have never been perfect in our national morality, but perfection should be the goal. I don't find such qualities to be a weakness; rather I see them as a strength that cannot easily be measured like the quantity of tanks or bullets a particular country can throw onto a battlefield.

I am no fan of Jesse Ventura, but he is right about why we don't allow our police to use waterboarding. It is both torturous and questionable in its effectiveness.
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 7:16:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2009 7:19:19 AM EST by SWATH]
Originally Posted By El-cid:


You are ignorant of US history.

Was torture and capital punishment cruel or unusual during the founding of our country?


No. General George Washington used torture (Cat-o-nine-tails) on his own troops and executed British spies without trial.

Is torture cruel or unusual? You say no because Washington did it?


Was suspending the Habeous Corpus and imprisoning 20,000 US citizens during the Civil War in inhumane conditions torturous and Unconstitutional?

Is suspending Habeous Corpus and imprisoning 20,000 innocent US citizen torturous and unconstitutional? You say no because Lincoln did it?

President Abe Lincoln, considered on of our greatest presidents, did this.

Yes by collectivists and statists he was great, otherwise he was a tyrant.

Is purposely killing civilians by order of the President unconstitutional or cruel/unusual?


No. President Truman and FDR both ordered bombing of civilian populations during WWII.

Is purposely killing innocent civilians by order of the president unconstitutional or cruel and unusual? You say no because Truman did it?

Is assignation of our enemies and their leadership part of US military history approved by the White House cruel or unusual?

No. During the Vietnam War, the White House approved of Operation Phoenix. 20,000 were killed.

This is different, you are referring to our enemies.


Is slavery unconstitutional or cruel and unusual? Would you say no because our country did it?


If it was left to men like you to defend our nation from our enemies, the country would cease to exist.

For that one, get lost.


Would it be ok for Obama to do any of those things?
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 11:35:10 AM EST
Waterboarding is not punishment. Geez, can anyone understand the English language anymore? The Constitution uses correct English. It's not hard to understand.

Waterboarding is not torture. Look up the definition of torture. Again, geez . . .


Look it up? Hey, great idea. From dictionary.com...

torture: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty

I saw an interview with a guy who used to do this (I'm sure you've seen them also), and he said the average person experiencing waterboarding breaks in well under a minute. Assuming mental anguish can be considered "excruciating pain" –– you know, the fear of becoming a corpse? –– I would imagine something that will cause a person to give in within 60 seconds is likely just that... excruciating pain, whether mental, physical or likely both.

Note that is also mentions the word "punishment" in there... punishment or revenge.

The purpose is then mentioned via "getting a confession or information," though that's irrelevant to this discussion.

So I guess you were wrong. Waterboarding is both punishment and torture.

And not that it matters, but what does the US Constitution have to do with this? It doesn't define "torture"; it forbids cruel and unusual punishment via the 8th Amendment. What's more, the US Constitution may use English as you say, but it is definitely not clear. I give you the term "interpretation." One might think that our beloved 2nd Amendment is clear, but time and time again issues related to it come before various courts.

If any of you think I've somehow missed the boat on this, feel free to fill me in. I'm all eyes.
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 1:02:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By El-cid:

You are ignorant of US history.

Was torture and capital punishment cruel or unusual during the founding of our country?


No. General George Washington used torture (Cat-o-nine-tails) on his own troops and executed British spies without trial.

Was suspending the Habeous Corpus and imprisoning 20,000 US citizens during the Civil War in inhumane conditions torturous and Unconstitutional?

President Abe Lincoln, considered on of our greatest presidents, did this.

Is purposely killing civilians by order of the President unconstitutional or cruel/unusual?


No. President Truman and FDR both ordered bombing of civilian populations during WWII.

Is assignation of our enemies and their leadership part of US military history approved by the White House cruel or unusual?

No. During the Vietnam War, the White House approved of Operation Phoenix. 20,000 were killed.


If it was left to men like you to defend our nation from our enemies, the country would cease to exist.



So... because some Presidents did immoral stuff makes it ok?

Link Posted: 5/19/2009 1:07:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/19/2009 1:22:35 PM EST by SilentType]
Where is the physical pain in waterboarding?

It's a psychological fear of drowning there is no physical harm inflicted and while it was carried out medical personnel were on hand to prevent even the risk of physical harm.

There was no petty "revenge" element to the water boarding. It was done for the sole purpose of extracting information in a timely fashion to prevent the loss of more innocent lives.

There is certainly no "excruciating pain." I would not define any act that didn't leave a single physical mark as "excruciating pain."

These individuals were fighting under no flag. Wore no uniforms. Were not U.S. Citizens nor were they within any State of the United States of America. These individuals were "ticking time bombs" and the information that was provided from them has according to top intelligence officials saved lives.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that anyone in their right mind who would call himself an American would extend Constitutional protections to foreign enemies hell bent on killing them and every single American they can. These are TERRORISTS, not soldiers, not civilians in a combat zone, they are TERRORISTS. They are clearly terrorists there is no QUESTION whatsoever that people captured in foreign lands who have taken up arms against the United States and openly announced this multiple times to the world at large are TERRORISTS. There is no REASONABLE doubt that the men waterboarded were in fact TERRORISTS. Nobody has alleged that they were not directly responsible for the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001. The same men in question have proudly claimed their guilt for such horrible actions. Yet, the bleeding heart liberals that see this nation as the ENEMY, that sees those in our intelligence services as the terrorists is trying to convince logical and sane people that instead of fighting a WAR against these people we should extend to them Constitutional Protections? That although they are not civilians or uniformed soldiers that we should extend the "protections we have agreed to exercise with civilized nations to them?"

They burned a female American aid worker to death. They toss acid in the faces of school girls simply because they want to learn to read and write. They chop the heads off people. They use children to slip by their suicide bombs and then kill them. They rape women to turn them into suicide bombers. They get the mentally retarded to strap on suicide belts. They have killed American over and over AGAIN. They have proclaimed that will do so in the future and they are working every day to obtain more weapons and come up with new deadly strategies to do that and we're suppose to treat them like t hey robbed the 7-11?

The Constitution was not ratified for our Enemies in War. George Washington did not suggest that we give the British a trial before we shot each one in turn on the battle field. The Geneva Conventions were NEVER extended to protect Terrorists...EVER. We are under no legal or moral obligation to extract information from these scum bag puke pieces of human shit only through their legal counsel. So, if the CIA wants to dump water over their heads to get these bastards to talk then so be it.

We ought to find the men and women that did what they had to do to save American lives and give them medals not accuse them of some wrong doing.

Link Posted: 5/19/2009 1:20:31 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jayrod1318:
Originally Posted By 300rum:
Jayrod,

Everyone has made a big deal about this waterboarding and "torture" that we have engaged in. Have you personally seen the video of the Taliban beheading Americans live on video? When was the last time you watched video of 911 and people jumping out of windows 80 stories high. I lost people in 911. I guarantee you that our gvmt. has been half as lenient as I and many many others like me would have been on these godless motherfuckers. Jesse can kiss my ass.


Then I take you wouldn't mind getting waterboarded? I don't think anyone would.

but when the rule of law is disregarded just once, it opens doors for other offenses against our Constitution which explicitly states that no cruel and unusual punishments should be permitted.

The rule of law needs to be enforced.


I would if the other option was having my head sawed off.
Link Posted: 5/19/2009 2:04:38 PM EST
Originally Posted By wdatz:
Waterboarding is not punishment. Geez, can anyone understand the English language anymore? The Constitution uses correct English. It's not hard to understand.

Waterboarding is not torture. Look up the definition of torture. Again, geez . . .


Look it up? Hey, great idea. From dictionary.com...

torture: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty

I saw an interview with a guy who used to do this (I'm sure you've seen them also), and he said the average person experiencing waterboarding breaks in well under a minute. Assuming mental anguish can be considered "excruciating pain" –– you know, the fear of becoming a corpse? –– I would imagine something that will cause a person to give in within 60 seconds is likely just that... excruciating pain, whether mental, physical or likely both.

Note that is also mentions the word "punishment" in there... punishment or revenge.

The purpose is then mentioned via "getting a confession or information," though that's irrelevant to this discussion.

So I guess you were wrong. Waterboarding is both punishment and torture.

And not that it matters, but what does the US Constitution have to do with this? It doesn't define "torture"; it forbids cruel and unusual punishment via the 8th Amendment. What's more, the US Constitution may use English as you say, but it is definitely not clear. I give you the term "interpretation." One might think that our beloved 2nd Amendment is clear, but time and time again issues related to it come before various courts.

If any of you think I've somehow missed the boat on this, feel free to fill me in. I'm all eyes.


Sorry your wrong, waterboarding is NOT torture. Ollie North said it best 'Torture is when you want to die to make the pain stop'. Waterboarding the way the U.S. does it is just quite uncomfortable, and yes I've been waterboarded.



Link Posted: 5/19/2009 10:52:56 PM EST
Sorry your wrong, waterboarding is NOT torture. Ollie North said it best 'Torture is when you want to die to make the pain stop'. Waterboarding the way the U.S. does it is just quite uncomfortable, and yes I've been waterboarded.


First of all, try to tackle that English class. The phrase you were searching for is "you're wrong"... not "your wrong". The word that stumped you is called a contraction, and no, I'm not wrong. What I am, however, is tired... of being told how it is by people on this board who can't string together a basic, elementary school level sentence.

Quoting Oliver North as if he has some relevance in this matter is laughable. The person to whom I was replying was attempting to define torture, so that's what I provided –– a definition. Under said definition, waterboarding is an act of torture. The fact that you have experienced it is meaningless in relation to how it is defined.

It's a psychological fear of drowning there is no physical harm inflicted and while it was carried out medical personnel were on hand to prevent even the risk of physical harm.


So you admit there is some risk of physical harm (perhaps even death?). Otherwise, why would medical personnel be necessary? Why not just have a mechanic or a farmer there? By the way, that's a run-on sentence you've created. Again, I have to wonder why I should accept input from someone who can't recognize two independent clauses.

There is certainly no "excruciating pain." I would not define any act that didn't leave a single physical mark as "excruciating pain."


Ah, then let me enlighten you via your own imagination. You have a child. Your child is abducted. You are in agony as your life spirals out of control. There is no trace of your beloved offspring. Unbeknown to you, your child is kept in a basement or cellar, and he/she is given sustenance. Your child escapes from his/her captor months later only to be reunited with you. Not a single mark can be found on either your child's body or your own. Did you experience "excruciating pain" or not? Did your child? I submit to you that there are experiences that do not leave physical marks that are indeed excruciating.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that anyone in their right mind who would call himself an American would extend Constitutional protections to foreign enemies hell bent on killing them and every single American they can.


Who said I wanted to extend Constitutional protections to anyone outside US borders. I want to extend mercy into the world and treat others with a high sense of morality.

These are TERRORISTS, not soldiers, not civilians in a combat zone, they are TERRORISTS. They are clearly terrorists there is no QUESTION whatsoever that people captured in foreign lands who have taken up arms against the United States and openly announced this multiple times to the world at large are TERRORISTS.


Fair enough. Would you say that early settlers and soldiers "terrorized" Native Americans? Did our forebears deserve to be tortured? By your words it certainly looks that way.

You appear to be one of those folks that I find far too often have a black and white view of the world. "Well, they hate us cuz we're free, and they don't wear uniforms, and they're terrists. Kill 'em all, by God!" I find it odd that you can think one man deserves reasonable treatment while another deserves torture all because of apparel. Clothing has nothing to do with humanity. Uniform or not, the United States of America should not be in the business of torturing human beings.

For the record, I don't see the US, its military or its intelligence services as the enemy. But I also don't see people who despise us for some of our actions as evil terrorists. We act, so they react... or vice versa. Does that make them evil? No. Does it make us evil? Hardly.

They burned a female American aid worker to death. They toss acid in the faces of school girls simply because they want to learn to read and write. They chop the heads off people. They use children to slip by their suicide bombs and then kill them. They rape women to turn them into suicide bombers. They get the mentally retarded to strap on suicide belts. They have killed American over and over AGAIN.


These are atrocities without a doubt, and the people who perpetrated them should be brought to justice. But again I state my opinion that we must not torture.
Link Posted: 5/20/2009 1:08:02 PM EST
"Clothing has nothing to do with humanity. Uniform or not, the United States of America should not be in the business of torturing human beings. "

Without going into the inane parts of your post (" I want to extend mercy into the world and treat others with a high sense of morality." ), and without lecturing you on the Geneva Convention's proscription of combatants not wearing a distinguishing uniform or part of a uniform, and of them not fighting for a duly authorized and recognized governmental entity... said omissions disqualifying them from consideration under said Convention Articles, your childishly pedantic semantics discourse conjures up a picture of an unattractive female pseudonymed "wdatz" at odds with her surroundings and comfortable only at the keyboard, tuned in to MoveOn.org.

When I think of those people jumping out of the World Trade Center, choosing that kind of death over being roasted alive, I believe those responsible, directly or otherwise, and their like-minded successors in jihad, should be treated in whatever manner necessary to extract elements of information from them. And then executed.

"Let them hate us; as long as they fear us."
- Caligula

( Cheer up - you'll get a date one of these days! )



Link Posted: 5/20/2009 2:55:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/20/2009 3:46:44 PM EST by SilentType]
Originally Posted By wdatz:
Sorry your wrong, waterboarding is NOT torture. Ollie North said it best 'Torture is when you want to die to make the pain stop'. Waterboarding the way the U.S. does it is just quite uncomfortable, and yes I've been waterboarded.


First of all, try to tackle that English class. The phrase you were searching for is "you're wrong"... not "your wrong". The word that stumped you is called a contraction, and no, I'm not wrong. What I am, however, is tired... of being told how it is by people on this board who can't string together a basic, elementary school level sentence.

Quoting Oliver North as if he has some relevance in this matter is laughable. The person to whom I was replying was attempting to define torture, so that's what I provided –– a definition. Under said definition, waterboarding is an act of torture. The fact that you have experienced it is meaningless in relation to how it is defined.

It's a psychological fear of drowning there is no physical harm inflicted and while it was carried out medical personnel were on hand to prevent even the risk of physical harm.


So you admit there is some risk of physical harm (perhaps even death?). Otherwise, why would medical personnel be necessary? Why not just have a mechanic or a farmer there? By the way, that's a run-on sentence you've created. Again, I have to wonder why I should accept input from someone who can't recognize two independent clauses.

There is certainly no "excruciating pain." I would not define any act that didn't leave a single physical mark as "excruciating pain."


Ah, then let me enlighten you via your own imagination. You have a child. Your child is abducted. You are in agony as your life spirals out of control. There is no trace of your beloved offspring. Unbeknown to you, your child is kept in a basement or cellar, and he/she is given sustenance. Your child escapes from his/her captor months later only to be reunited with you. Not a single mark can be found on either your child's body or your own. Did you experience "excruciating pain" or not? Did your child? I submit to you that there are experiences that do not leave physical marks that are indeed excruciating.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that anyone in their right mind who would call himself an American would extend Constitutional protections to foreign enemies hell bent on killing them and every single American they can.


Who said I wanted to extend Constitutional protections to anyone outside US borders. I want to extend mercy into the world and treat others with a high sense of morality.

These are TERRORISTS, not soldiers, not civilians in a combat zone, they are TERRORISTS. They are clearly terrorists there is no QUESTION whatsoever that people captured in foreign lands who have taken up arms against the United States and openly announced this multiple times to the world at large are TERRORISTS.


Fair enough. Would you say that early settlers and soldiers "terrorized" Native Americans? Did our forebears deserve to be tortured? By your words it certainly looks that way.

You appear to be one of those folks that I find far too often have a black and white view of the world. "Well, they hate us cuz we're free, and they don't wear uniforms, and they're terrists. Kill 'em all, by God!" I find it odd that you can think one man deserves reasonable treatment while another deserves torture all because of apparel. Clothing has nothing to do with humanity. Uniform or not, the United States of America should not be in the business of torturing human beings.

For the record, I don't see the US, its military or its intelligence services as the enemy. But I also don't see people who despise us for some of our actions as evil terrorists. We act, so they react... or vice versa. Does that make them evil? No. Does it make us evil? Hardly.

They burned a female American aid worker to death. They toss acid in the faces of school girls simply because they want to learn to read and write. They chop the heads off people. They use children to slip by their suicide bombs and then kill them. They rape women to turn them into suicide bombers. They get the mentally retarded to strap on suicide belts. They have killed American over and over AGAIN.


These are atrocities without a doubt, and the people who perpetrated them should be brought to justice. But again I state my opinion that we must not torture.


You're not only a fool you're also guilty of misrepresentation, which makes you a liar.

You're posting quotes from different people and holding them out to be posts made by a single individual.

You clearly lack any ability to edit my posts so please check out Strunk and White The Elements of Style. Your post is fragmented and poorly written. I mean you can't even spell "terrorist" correctly half the time for God's sake. Did they have spelling lessons at your elementary school? Might want to know how to spell "terrorist" before you rush to defend one.

I will now address each of your absurd and unsupported points in what I assume you intended as an argument.

1. Having a doctor, nurse, medic, corpsman, or other individual trained in providing medical aid present during an interrogation does not provide evidence of any malice. What the presence of a doctor does show is that there was a concern that the suspect could be injured and require medical assistance. Terrorists in the past associated with radical Islam and al Qaeda have demonstrated a willingness to harm themselves as well as others. Certainly there is always a risk of harm whenever you have to restrain any individual or transport them.

2. Now, I'll grant you that I'm only a red neck lucky enough to be put through college on Uncle Sam's dime later in life than most, but I fail to see how a terrorist being held by the United States Military is tantamount to a kidnapping of a child. The fact that your brain even draws the connection between the two kind of makes me feel sad for you in a weird way. Some folks just can't see the forest for the trees I suppose. I mean if both situations are the same to you than I'm afraid this post is more for other people to read.

3. Mercy to the world huh? It isn't being merciful to the world when you allow thousands to die, because you couldn't make someone uncomfortable in a manner that would never result in any physical harm.

4. I'm sorry I would NEVER in my life as long as I draw breath compare Native Americans to terrorists as you have. A discussion about terrorists is no place to mention Native Americans unless it is to congratulate them on their continued service to this nation in protecting it from them.

5. The world is not black and white. It is a muddy mess and that is why I recognize that laws extended to uniformed soldiers, civilians, and even criminals should not be applied to terrorists. You're the one who is suggesting that one standard should be applied to everyone, everywhere, and all of the time regardless of the circumstances. Sorry, but it sounds to me like you're the one with a black and white view of the world. Whenever a court examines any law it always asks if the individual at issue is within the class of people that the law was drafted to include in order to apply it to them. Terrorists were never a class of people that this nation sought to protect by statute or treaty.

6. If you can't recognize true evil and if you find it necessary to excuse not just bad acts, but horrible unthinkable acts you really are beyond help. The United States of America did nothing to justify the killing of 2,998 Americans on 9/11. The United States of America is NOT the guilty party and it sure as hell isn't the enemy. You better take a look at the flag at the county courthouse and remind yourself what nation you live in that allows you the freedom to make ass nine suggestions.

7. Brought to justice? The people who are our enemies should be eliminated. We are in a War and you along with the fools who agree with you need to wake-up to that fact or we're going to lose more innocent lives.

Look you believe that these terrorist are justified in their anger. That it's a "black and white" view of the world to classify people as good or evil, but it's not to apply one rule to all people and things. That making someone uncomfortable is torture and that terrorists are a class of people that this nation sought to protect in treaties, statutes, or our Constitution. I believe that we are at war and that innocent lives are at stake. I believe that war is not always pleasant and filled with unpleasant acts. However, I believe it is best to win a war and to win it as quickly as possible to prevent those unpleasant acts from having to be repeated. Waterboarding is an unpleasant act, but it is not torture. If by carrying it out we can end this war sooner by killing or capturing the leaders of al Qaeda with the information we gain than I believe that's an honorable and moral act.

God bless our CIA Officers and Contractors for doing unpleasant acts to end this War.










Link Posted: 5/20/2009 4:01:13 PM EST
People here I hope can see the liberal bleeding heart position on waterboarding.

They have no law they can point to and say "this was intended to protect terrorists."

The bleeding heart liberals have to make a "moral argument."

To the bleeding heart liberal the concern is with the terrorist not with the innocent civilian.

Their hearts bleed only for our enemies who they believe are justified in their anger.

To the bleeding heart liberal it's more moral to risk the deaths of thousands than to make a single terrorists uncomfortable. It is exactly this line of thinking that prevented President Clinton from taking Bin Laden from the Government of Sudan, because he believed he didn't have enough for an indictment. The bleeding heart liberals are the ones that restricted our CIA's ability to gather human intelligence after Vietnam. The bleeding heart liberals want to view terrorism as a simple felony instead of an act of war. Well, if it is a crime than that would make the bleeding heart liberals accessories to murder.

Link Posted: 5/20/2009 5:27:16 PM EST
Originally Posted By SilentType:
Where is the physical pain in waterboarding?

It's a psychological fear of drowning there is no physical harm inflicted and while it was carried out medical personnel were on hand to prevent even the risk of physical harm.

There was no petty "revenge" element to the water boarding. It was done for the sole purpose of extracting information in a timely fashion to prevent the loss of more innocent lives.

There is certainly no "excruciating pain." I would not define any act that didn't leave a single physical mark as "excruciating pain."

These individuals were fighting under no flag. Wore no uniforms. Were not U.S. Citizens nor were they within any State of the United States of America. These individuals were "ticking time bombs" and the information that was provided from them has according to top intelligence officials saved lives.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that anyone in their right mind who would call himself an American would extend Constitutional protections to foreign enemies hell bent on killing them and every single American they can. These are TERRORISTS, not soldiers, not civilians in a combat zone, they are TERRORISTS. They are clearly terrorists there is no QUESTION whatsoever that people captured in foreign lands who have taken up arms against the United States and openly announced this multiple times to the world at large are TERRORISTS. There is no REASONABLE doubt that the men waterboarded were in fact TERRORISTS. Nobody has alleged that they were not directly responsible for the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001. The same men in question have proudly claimed their guilt for such horrible actions. Yet, the bleeding heart liberals that see this nation as the ENEMY, that sees those in our intelligence services as the terrorists is trying to convince logical and sane people that instead of fighting a WAR against these people we should extend to them Constitutional Protections? That although they are not civilians or uniformed soldiers that we should extend the "protections we have agreed to exercise with civilized nations to them?"

They burned a female American aid worker to death. They toss acid in the faces of school girls simply because they want to learn to read and write. They chop the heads off people. They use children to slip by their suicide bombs and then kill them. They rape women to turn them into suicide bombers. They get the mentally retarded to strap on suicide belts. They have killed American over and over AGAIN. They have proclaimed that will do so in the future and they are working every day to obtain more weapons and come up with new deadly strategies to do that and we're suppose to treat them like t hey robbed the 7-11?

The Constitution was not ratified for our Enemies in War. George Washington did not suggest that we give the British a trial before we shot each one in turn on the battle field. The Geneva Conventions were NEVER extended to protect Terrorists...EVER. We are under no legal or moral obligation to extract information from these scum bag puke pieces of human shit only through their legal counsel. So, if the CIA wants to dump water over their heads to get these bastards to talk then so be it.

We ought to find the men and women that did what they had to do to save American lives and give them medals not accuse them of some wrong doing.



+1000
Link Posted: 5/20/2009 5:31:56 PM EST
Originally Posted By Suuko:
Originally Posted By El-cid:

You are ignorant of US history.

Was torture and capital punishment cruel or unusual during the founding of our country?


No. General George Washington used torture (Cat-o-nine-tails) on his own troops and executed British spies without trial.

Was suspending the Habeous Corpus and imprisoning 20,000 US citizens during the Civil War in inhumane conditions torturous and Unconstitutional?

President Abe Lincoln, considered on of our greatest presidents, did this.

Is purposely killing civilians by order of the President unconstitutional or cruel/unusual?


No. President Truman and FDR both ordered bombing of civilian populations during WWII.

Is assignation of our enemies and their leadership part of US military history approved by the White House cruel or unusual?

No. During the Vietnam War, the White House approved of Operation Phoenix. 20,000 were killed.


If it was left to men like you to defend our nation from our enemies, the country would cease to exist.



So... because some Presidents did immoral stuff makes it ok?



Defne immoral. If you are suggesting it is immoral to use any and all force at your disposal to protect your country and its citizens from being overthrown, subjugated, or conquered and driven into slavery, your argument fails at every conceivable rational level.
Link Posted: 5/20/2009 5:34:17 PM EST
You want to be protected by the Geneva convention the you better damn well be in uniform and fighting under a flag. Otherwise reap the rewards.
Link Posted: 5/20/2009 5:53:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By wdatz:
Sorry your wrong, waterboarding is NOT torture. Ollie North said it best 'Torture is when you want to die to make the pain stop'. Waterboarding the way the U.S. does it is just quite uncomfortable, and yes I've been waterboarded.


First of all, try to tackle that English class. The phrase you were searching for is "you're wrong"... not "your wrong". The word that stumped you is called a contraction, and no, I'm not wrong. What I am, however, is tired... of being told how it is by people on this board who can't string together a basic, elementary school level sentence.

Quoting Oliver North as if he has some relevance in this matter is laughable. The person to whom I was replying was attempting to define torture, so that's what I provided –– a definition. Under said definition, waterboarding is an act of torture. The fact that you have experienced it is meaningless in relation to how it is defined.

It's a psychological fear of drowning there is no physical harm inflicted and while it was carried out medical personnel were on hand to prevent even the risk of physical harm.


So you admit there is some risk of physical harm (perhaps even death?). Otherwise, why would medical personnel be necessary? Why not just have a mechanic or a farmer there? By the way, that's a run-on sentence you've created. Again, I have to wonder why I should accept input from someone who can't recognize two independent clauses.

There is certainly no "excruciating pain." I would not define any act that didn't leave a single physical mark as "excruciating pain."


Ah, then let me enlighten you via your own imagination. You have a child. Your child is abducted. You are in agony as your life spirals out of control. There is no trace of your beloved offspring. Unbeknown to you, your child is kept in a basement or cellar, and he/she is given sustenance. Your child escapes from his/her captor months later only to be reunited with you. Not a single mark can be found on either your child's body or your own. Did you experience "excruciating pain" or not? Did your child? I submit to you that there are experiences that do not leave physical marks that are indeed excruciating.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that anyone in their right mind who would call himself an American would extend Constitutional protections to foreign enemies hell bent on killing them and every single American they can.


Who said I wanted to extend Constitutional protections to anyone outside US borders. I want to extend mercy into the world and treat others with a high sense of morality.

These are TERRORISTS, not soldiers, not civilians in a combat zone, they are TERRORISTS. They are clearly terrorists there is no QUESTION whatsoever that people captured in foreign lands who have taken up arms against the United States and openly announced this multiple times to the world at large are TERRORISTS.


Fair enough. Would you say that early settlers and soldiers "terrorized" Native Americans? Did our forebears deserve to be tortured? By your words it certainly looks that way.

You appear to be one of those folks that I find far too often have a black and white view of the world. "Well, they hate us cuz we're free, and they don't wear uniforms, and they're terrists. Kill 'em all, by God!" I find it odd that you can think one man deserves reasonable treatment while another deserves torture all because of apparel. Clothing has nothing to do with humanity. Uniform or not, the United States of America should not be in the business of torturing human beings.

For the record, I don't see the US, its military or its intelligence services as the enemy. But I also don't see people who despise us for some of our actions as evil terrorists. We act, so they react... or vice versa. Does that make them evil? No. Does it make us evil? Hardly.

They burned a female American aid worker to death. They toss acid in the faces of school girls simply because they want to learn to read and write. They chop the heads off people. They use children to slip by their suicide bombs and then kill them. They rape women to turn them into suicide bombers. They get the mentally retarded to strap on suicide belts. They have killed American over and over AGAIN.


These are atrocities without a doubt, and the people who perpetrated them should be brought to justice. But again I state my opinion that we must not torture.


Uhhh... the original definition, as provided by you, defines torture as having a physical element of pain. Not a risk of pain, not psychological pain, and not pain in the metaphorical or allegorical sense.

Although your argument that they react to our actions in absurd in the extreme , it pales in comparision to your assertion that terrorism arises because of the actions of the US government. What makes terrorism evil isn't the act of violence itself, it is the design of the violence. Terrorism is by definition directed against the unarmed, the weakest, and those least able to defend themselves. It isn't initiated in the name of achieving any sort of tactical or strategic objective in any military sense. It doesn't kill women and children by mistake, and it doesn't maim the innocent by accident; rather, it is a purposefully designed, wholly premeditated act of catasrophic violence designed to elicit a political or social response as a reaction to violence.

The rest of your post removes you completely from the arena of rational debate.
Link Posted: 5/20/2009 6:32:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/20/2009 7:30:08 PM EST by SWATH]
If we adopt a policy of torture to extract information from suspects, innocent people will be tortured, that is a fact. Most of you it seems are ok with this, after all you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet right? The ends justifies the means right? Every time I hear someone trying to argue in favor of government torture all I hear is "We are the government, we control your education, we control your banks, we are going to control your health care, and now we want you to give us the ok to torture you if serves our interests and we want you to like it". Explain to me who we should have tortured to prevent 9/11 from happening. It's not like we didn't already have all the info we needed.

Of course I'm always challenged with the fictitious bullshit fantasy land made for TV Jack Bauer scenario of the ticking time bomb in the mall with my family and I have the man who put it there and he's not talking, would I not torture him to find out where it is? Yes, I would gut that mother fucker like a fish if I knew it would save my family or the lives in the mall, but I would break the law to do it and I would be held responsible. As long as my family was safe or I saved lives my conscience would be perfectly clean when facing the jury no matter what they decided be my fate. If I was correct that I had the right guy and saved all those people, the jury would take that into consideration, if I was wrong and I tortured or killed an innocent man, well then I'm sure I would get what I deserved as a murderer. Torture is something you take into your own hands, not a blanket policy where there is no fear of repercussions from imprudently implementing it, it should never be sanctioned by the state.

Link Posted: 5/20/2009 8:49:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/20/2009 8:51:51 PM EST by wdatz]
@Espada

Without going into the inane parts of your post (" I want to extend mercy into the world and treat others with a high sense of morality." ), and without lecturing you on the Geneva Convention's proscription of combatants not wearing a distinguishing uniform or part of a uniform, and of them not fighting for a duly authorized and recognized governmental entity... said omissions disqualifying them from consideration under said Convention Articles, your childishly pedantic semantics discourse conjures up a picture of an unattractive female pseudonymed "wdatz" at odds with her surroundings and comfortable only at the keyboard, tuned in to MoveOn.org.


Oh come now. Do you really take advice from people who can't speak properly in the real world? Of course you don't (or at least you shouldn't if you have any wits about you). Someone offering up information on a message board by way of poor sentence fragments and misspellings conjures up goobers who barely exited high school with a diploma but seem to have an excess of testosterone, a less than optimal number of teeth, and the willingness to crack heads without considering long-term ramifications.

The desire to offer mercy even to the wicked may have appeared corny, but it comes from my attempt at being Christ-like. Perhaps my "discourse" as you call it could have been softened––in fact I'm sure it should have been. At any rate, it had nothing to do with some left-wing bleeding heart belief system.

Cheer up - you'll get a date one of these days!


Are you offering? I kid.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––­––––––––––-

@SilentType

You're not only a fool you're also guilty of misrepresentation, which makes you a liar. You're posting quotes from different people and holding them out to be posts made by a single individual.


You think so? What I'm actually doing is taking points made by others and submitting responses. The source to me is not terribly relevant, and to my knowledge there isn't a statute in place that handles how a US citizen may legally respond in... an... online... forum. If that upsets you, prepared to remain upset. I will post in whatever order I wish.

You clearly lack any ability to edit my posts so please check out Strunk and White The Elements of Style. I mean you can't even spell "terrorist" correctly for God's sake. Did they have spelling lessons at your elementary school? Might want to know how to spell "terrorist" before you rush to defend one.


Oh for God's sake, that was my text-based impersonation of Dubya. Remember how he pronounced terrorist? Also notice how I used the word "cuz" as in because and the word "em" in place of them. Yeah, those were intentional misspellings as well. That was obviously lost on you.

1. Having a doctor, nurse, medic, corpsman, or other individual trained in providing medical aid present during an interrogation does not provide evidence of any malice. What the presence of a doctor does show is that there was a concern that the suspect could be injured and require medical assistance. Terrorists in the past associated with radical Islam and al Qaeda have demonstrated a willingness to harm themselves as well as others. Certainly there is always a risk of harm whenever you have to restrain any individual or transport them.


That's a great point. What does it have to do with the definition of torture?

2. Now, I'll grant you that I'm only a red neck lucky enough to be put through college on Uncle Sam's dime later in life than most, but I fail to see how a terrorist being held by the United States Military is tantamount to a kidnapping of a child. The fact that your brain even draws the connection between the two kind of makes me feel sad for you in a weird way. Some folks just can't see the forest for the trees I suppose. I mean if both situations are the same to you than I'm afraid this post is more for other people to read.


You? A redneck? I never would have guessed. Seriously, you feel sad for me because I was attempting to make the point that there are indeed experiences that could be defined as excruciating pain which leave no physical marks on the human body? Check out my earlier post on this, because you missed the point.

3. Mercy to the world huh? It isn't being merciful to the world when you allow thousands to die, because you couldn't make someone uncomfortable in a manner that would never result in any physical harm.


Again with this physical harm issue as if mental harm is perfectly acceptable. According to the Supreme Court in 1972, there are four principles related to what we define as cruel and unusual. One of them is as follows: "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." So where in the United States of America is waterboarding allowed? That's right –– nowhere. It is wholly rejected in our society.

4. I'm sorry I would NEVER in my life as long as I draw breath compare Native Americans to terrorists as you have. A discussion about terrorists is no place to mention Native Americans unless it is to congratulate them on their continued service to this nation in protecting it from them.


You're a hoot. What a patriot you must be. For the record, I admire individuals, not groups of people. Native Americans don't serve this nation. Some people who happen to be Native Americans do. Then again, some don't. Some goes for European Americans like me.

5. The world is not black and white. It is a muddy mess and that is why I recognize that laws extended to uniformed soldiers, civilians, and even criminals should not be applied to terrorists. You're the one who is suggesting that one standard should be applied to everyone, everywhere, and all of the time regardless of the circumstances. Sorry, but it sounds to me like you're the one with a black and white view of the world. Whenever a court examines any law it always asks if the individual at issue is within the class of people that the law was drafted to include in order to apply it to them. Terrorists were never a class of people that this nation sought to protect by statute or treaty.


If you're such an expert, please tell us all what a terrorist is so that we may know him or her on sight. Again you've missed my point. I'm not saying that crimes should be glossed over and criminals allowed to roam free, and that includes these terrorists you keep mentioning. What I'm saying is that torture should not be a tool in our national inventory.

6. If you can't recognize true evil and if you find it necessary to excuse not just bad acts, but horrible unthinkable acts you really are beyond help. The United States of America did nothing to justify the killing of 2,998 Americans on 9/11. The United States of America is NOT the guilty party and it sure as hell isn't the enemy. You better take a look at the flag at the county courthouse and remind yourself what nation you live in that allows you the freedom to make ass nine suggestions.


Nothing to justify 9/11? According to... you? Listen, the acts of 9/11 angered me as much as the next guy, but I don't think for one second that people are willing to ram passenger-filled jets into buildings––killing themselves in the process––just because we accidentally bumped into them at the drive-in and forgot to say sorry. If somebody came up to you on the street and punched you in the neck, wouldn't you wonder at all if you knew the person and had done something to deserve it? Or would your initial thought be, "Since I'm perfect, the person who punched me must be an evil terrorist."

7. Brought to justice? The people who are our enemies should be eliminated. We are in a War and you along with the fools who agree with you need to wake-up to that fact or we're going to lose more innocent lives.


A war against what exactly? Oh, this is where you'll likely spout that simpleton mantra of a war on terrorism. Terrorism? Isn't that just fear with a suffix attached? Hey, let's have a war on jocularity. Get your guns, because we're going into battle against symbolism.

Look you believe that these terrorist are justified in their anger. That it's a "black and white" view of the world to classify people as good or evil, but it's not to apply one rule to all people and things. That making someone uncomfortable is torture and that terrorists are a class of people that this nation sought to protect in treaties, statutes, or our Constitution. I believe that we are at war and that innocent lives are at stake. I believe that war is not always pleasant and filled with unpleasant acts. However, I believe it is best to win a war and to win it as quickly as possible to prevent those unpleasant acts from having to be repeated. Waterboarding is an unpleasant act, but it is not torture. If by carrying it out we can end this war sooner by killing or capturing the leaders of al Qaeda with the information we gain than I believe that's an honorable and moral act.


It's obvious to me that I'll simply have to agree to disagree with you. You say it's "making someone uncomfortable," while the truth is that the perpetrators are making people believe they're on death's door. You say war is "not always pleasant," while the truth is that war is abhorrent and should only be entered into when no other options exist. You say waterboarding is "an unpleasant act," as if it were nothing more than having a cavity filled by a dentist.

God bless our CIA Officers and Contractors for doing unpleasant acts to end this War.


Wow. You're asking the God of the Bible to bless people who waterboard others? I'm... finally... speechless.
Link Posted: 5/20/2009 8:58:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jayrod1318:
Originally Posted By 300rum:
Jayrod,

Everyone has made a big deal about this waterboarding and "torture" that we have engaged in. Have you personally seen the video of the Taliban beheading Americans live on video? When was the last time you watched video of 911 and people jumping out of windows 80 stories high. I lost people in 911. I guarantee you that our gvmt. has been half as lenient as I and many many others like me would have been on these godless motherfuckers. Jesse can kiss my ass.


Then I take you wouldn't mind getting waterboarded? I don't think anyone would.

but when the rule of law is disregarded just once, it opens doors for other offenses against our Constitution which explicitly states that no cruel and unusual punishments should be permitted.

The rule of law needs to be enforced.


Ok so what rights do armed illegal comabatants (not uniformed etc? Have under the Laws of Land Warfare?

Terrorist does not equal criminal.
Link Posted: 5/20/2009 9:13:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By sebois:
Originally Posted By wdatz:
Sorry your wrong, waterboarding is NOT torture. Ollie North said it best 'Torture is when you want to die to make the pain stop'. Waterboarding the way the U.S. does it is just quite uncomfortable, and yes I've been waterboarded.


First of all, try to tackle that English class. The phrase you were searching for is "you're wrong"... not "your wrong". The word that stumped you is called a contraction, and no, I'm not wrong. What I am, however, is tired... of being told how it is by people on this board who can't string together a basic, elementary school level sentence.

Quoting Oliver North as if he has some relevance in this matter is laughable. The person to whom I was replying was attempting to define torture, so that's what I provided –– a definition. Under said definition, waterboarding is an act of torture. The fact that you have experienced it is meaningless in relation to how it is defined.

It's a psychological fear of drowning there is no physical harm inflicted and while it was carried out medical personnel were on hand to prevent even the risk of physical harm.


So you admit there is some risk of physical harm (perhaps even death?). Otherwise, why would medical personnel be necessary? Why not just have a mechanic or a farmer there? By the way, that's a run-on sentence you've created. Again, I have to wonder why I should accept input from someone who can't recognize two independent clauses.

There is certainly no "excruciating pain." I would not define any act that didn't leave a single physical mark as "excruciating pain."


Ah, then let me enlighten you via your own imagination. You have a child. Your child is abducted. You are in agony as your life spirals out of control. There is no trace of your beloved offspring. Unbeknown to you, your child is kept in a basement or cellar, and he/she is given sustenance. Your child escapes from his/her captor months later only to be reunited with you. Not a single mark can be found on either your child's body or your own. Did you experience "excruciating pain" or not? Did your child? I submit to you that there are experiences that do not leave physical marks that are indeed excruciating.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that anyone in their right mind who would call himself an American would extend Constitutional protections to foreign enemies hell bent on killing them and every single American they can.


Who said I wanted to extend Constitutional protections to anyone outside US borders. I want to extend mercy into the world and treat others with a high sense of morality.

These are TERRORISTS, not soldiers, not civilians in a combat zone, they are TERRORISTS. They are clearly terrorists there is no QUESTION whatsoever that people captured in foreign lands who have taken up arms against the United States and openly announced this multiple times to the world at large are TERRORISTS.


Fair enough. Would you say that early settlers and soldiers "terrorized" Native Americans? Did our forebears deserve to be tortured? By your words it certainly looks that way.

You appear to be one of those folks that I find far too often have a black and white view of the world. "Well, they hate us cuz we're free, and they don't wear uniforms, and they're terrists. Kill 'em all, by God!" I find it odd that you can think one man deserves reasonable treatment while another deserves torture all because of apparel. Clothing has nothing to do with humanity. Uniform or not, the United States of America should not be in the business of torturing human beings.

For the record, I don't see the US, its military or its intelligence services as the enemy. But I also don't see people who despise us for some of our actions as evil terrorists. We act, so they react... or vice versa. Does that make them evil? No. Does it make us evil? Hardly.

They burned a female American aid worker to death. They toss acid in the faces of school girls simply because they want to learn to read and write. They chop the heads off people. They use children to slip by their suicide bombs and then kill them. They rape women to turn them into suicide bombers. They get the mentally retarded to strap on suicide belts. They have killed American over and over AGAIN.


These are atrocities without a doubt, and the people who perpetrated them should be brought to justice. But again I state my opinion that we must not torture.


Uhhh... the original definition, as provided by you, defines torture as having a physical element of pain. Not a risk of pain, not psychological pain, and not pain in the metaphorical or allegorical sense.

Although your argument that they react to our actions in absurd in the extreme , it pales in comparision to your assertion that terrorism arises because of the actions of the US government. What makes terrorism evil isn't the act of violence itself, it is the design of the violence. Terrorism is by definition directed against the unarmed, the weakest, and those least able to defend themselves. It isn't initiated in the name of achieving any sort of tactical or strategic objective in any military sense. It doesn't kill women and children by mistake, and it doesn't maim the innocent by accident; rather, it is a purposefully designed, wholly premeditated act of catasrophic violence designed to elicit a political or social response as a reaction to violence.

The rest of your post removes you completely from the arena of rational debate.


The original definition I provided? You mean this one?

torture: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty

Where does it say anything about a physical element of pain? Excruciating does not necessarily equate to physical. Since you may not take my word for it, look it up.

To be honest, I'm not surprised about your opinion on how my posts remove me from rational debate. ARFCOM is just one of those places on the web that has little tolerance for those who go against its collective grain. This is overwhelmingly a right-wing, ultra-conservative, anti-liberal forum where dissenting views are met with extreme and vociferous opposition. By the standards of most people I meet I am considered a moderate Republican, but on ARFCOM I must appear to be some kind of loony, lefty fringe nut.
Link Posted: 5/20/2009 9:53:52 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jayrod1318:
Originally Posted By 300rum:
Jayrod,

Everyone has made a big deal about this waterboarding and "torture" that we have engaged in. Have you personally seen the video of the Taliban beheading Americans live on video? When was the last time you watched video of 911 and people jumping out of windows 80 stories high. I lost people in 911. I guarantee you that our gvmt. has been half as lenient as I and many many others like me would have been on these godless motherfuckers. Jesse can kiss my ass.


Then I take you wouldn't mind getting waterboarded? I don't think anyone would.

but when the rule of law is disregarded just once, it opens doors for other offenses against our Constitution which explicitly states that no cruel and unusual punishments should be permitted.

The rule of law needs to be enforced.


They were following the Rule of Law, it was approved by both the justice department and the senate was informed of the waterboarding. That makes it legal. Just ask your Idol Pelosi, she was informed of the enhanced interogation. She did not say it was wrong when she was informed. Of course being a good liberal she is a liar and after not voiceing dissaproval when informed of the waterboading of a couple terrorist she now wants to claim that she was never told yet others at the same meeting said she was.

So since waterboarding is used in the training of many of our own soldiers the military is breaking the law?

Maybe you need to spend some time in the shoes of the people you are attacking before you state this liberal bull shit. So what kind of AR do you own and shoot? Why are you on this site?

Jesse is a nut job publicity whore who now lives in Mexico. If he is your standard bearer you are an idiot.


Link Posted: 5/21/2009 2:29:33 AM EST
It's not an opinion, it is a function of the use of reason.

I care little for the methodology of this site. The political leanings tend to follow conservative views; as reason tends to be the currency of conservatives, the positions taken by the members of this site when it comes to things like Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, international affairs, or torture tend to be based around what we like to call objective reality rather than upon what liberals rely on. As reality is not open to interpretatioon, those positions tend to be the correct ones. Yes, there are absolutes such as right and wrong, correct and incorrect. No, interpretation does not matter when it comes to linear thought. A is A, always.
Link Posted: 5/21/2009 2:33:09 AM EST
Ventura has brain damage.
Link Posted: 5/21/2009 2:35:02 AM EST
I will contribute an extra $250 each april 15th if it can be used exclusively for boards and water.
Link Posted: 5/21/2009 2:35:33 AM EST
We killed, baked, boiled and fried countless civilians in WW 2. We won.

We firebombed 80% of Japanese cities before we nuked them. Many more died in fire raids.

If we can prevent some Johnny Jihadist from nuking the US by waterboarding, it is a good plan.
Link Posted: 5/21/2009 3:40:59 AM EST
Originally Posted By army_eod:
We killed, baked, boiled and fried countless civilians in WW 2. We won.

We firebombed 80% of Japanese cities before we nuked them. Many more died in fire raids.

If we can prevent some Johnny Jihadist from nuking the US by waterboarding, it is a good plan.


This, I understand the concern over the use of water boarding but I couldn't give a fuck less if they use it and it saves American lives!!! I've talked with some Islamofacist while they were waiting trans to BIA, they are nucking futs!! I've seen what these mother fuckers do to their own people to spread their message, and almost died my damn self thanks to these cowards. Water boarding is the worst we got? Really.... We're bitching about that? Who here has been to SERE? Does that count as torture or training? War is Hell, some shit has to happen and if you don't like how it's done then don't join, and thank a vet who was willing to do the job for your freedoms.
Link Posted: 5/21/2009 1:16:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/21/2009 1:26:05 PM EST by SilentType]
Again with this physical harm issue as if mental harm is perfectly acceptable. According to the Supreme Court in 1972, there are four principles related to what we define as cruel and unusual. One of them is as follows: "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." So where in the United States of America is waterboarding allowed? That's right –– nowhere. It is wholly rejected in our society. Bleeding Heart Liberal Troll.


Don't cite the Supreme Court without citing the name of the case. For example, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). If you cite a quote from a Supreme Court decision than you need to provide a pinpoint cite to it. The failure to properly cite the case shows either you're not directly quoting it or you're afraid to have others review the decision. For all I know you could be citing the dissent or making that up.

Waterboarding did not take place within the United States of America. Again you are drawing no distinction between the criminal justice system and War. Waterboarding is not severe. It does not leave any permanent harm and it does not cause death. Waterboarding is not "wholly rejected in our society." The very fact that many here do not agree with you is clear and convincing evidence of that.

If you're such an expert, please tell us all what a terrorist is so that we may know him or her on sight. Again you've missed my point. I'm not saying that crimes should be glossed over and criminals allowed to roam free, and that includes these terrorists you keep mentioning. What I'm saying is that torture should not be a tool in our national inventory.Bleeding Heart Liberal Troll.


You don't have to be an "expert," but it does help to have some common sense. You really need to learn the difference between criminals and terrorists involved in an ongoing campaign to destroy the U.S. Constitution. If you view all things in the narrow spectrum of the criminal justice system your ability to understand war will always be limited. We have wars and we have criminal acts. What happened on 9/11 was more than a crime it was an Act of War. We know that it was an Act of War, because those who carried it out proclaimed it as one. When you have war declared on your nation you act in a manner that insures that you win that war as quickly as possible.

Nothing to justify 9/11? According to... you? Listen, the acts of 9/11 angered me as much as the next guy, but I don't think for one second that people are willing to ram passenger-filled jets into buildings––killing themselves in the process––just because we accidentally bumped into them at the drive-in and forgot to say sorry. If somebody came up to you on the street and punched you in the neck, wouldn't you wonder at all if you knew the person and had done something to deserve it? Or would your initial thought be, "Since I'm perfect, the person who punched me must be an evil terrorist."Bleeding Heart Liberal Troll.


No, if someone punches me I don't sit there and contemplate why I just beat his skull in until he can't get back-up to do it again. The United States of America did nothing that justified killing 2,998 people on 9/11/2001.

A war against what exactly? Oh, this is where you'll likely spout that simpleton mantra of a war on terrorism. Terrorism? Isn't that just fear with a suffix attached? Hey, let's have a war on jocularity. Get your guns, because we're going into battle against symbolism.Bleeding Heart Liberal Troll.


A War of Survival. If you can't see that than you're not going to make it. Unfortunately, if the majority of people don't see it that way in this country none of use are going to make it. This is the continuation of a clash of civilizations that is older than Christianity or Islam. The only difference between today and the days of the Greek City States is now we have nuclear weapons. Continued nuclear proliferation. While you're sitting back in deep thought about your moral issues they're moving now some sixty miles away from Islamabad looking to obtain nuclear weapons that could kill millions.

It's obvious to me that I'll simply have to agree to disagree with you. You say it's "making someone uncomfortable," while the truth is that the perpetrators are making people believe they're on death's door. You say war is "not always pleasant," while the truth is that war is abhorrent and should only be entered into when no other options exist. You say waterboarding is "an unpleasant act," as if it were nothing more than having a cavity filled by a dentist. Bleeding Heart LIberal.


No other option did exist after 9/11. Your buddy President Clinton and people who think as you do made certain of that.


Link Posted: 5/21/2009 4:30:59 PM EST
@SilentType... if that is your real name:

Bleeding Heart Liberal Troll? That's what you've got? Playground name calling? All you're doing is confirming my assertion that a moderate Republican on ARFCOM is viewed as a lefty fringe freak.

Don't cite the Supreme Court without citing the name of the case.


I don't live by your rules. I'll quote any thing, any where, any time according to my own whims. If that frustrates you, so be it. My job in this life is not to please you. If you're as smart as you think you are, go hunting. These "tubes" (thanks, Ted Stevens) are wide open and free for use.

Waterboarding is not "wholly rejected in our society." The very fact that many here do not agree with you is clear and convincing evidence of that.


Name a case where waterboarding has been used as a form of justice in the US legal system. Tell me which police force has waterboarding in its toolbox for getting a confession. What's that? Silence? Hey, since you don't think waterboarding is torture, why don't cops just waterboard a guy who's 20 miles over the speed limit? Or maybe, "Tell us who sold you the pot!" Glug glug bluggluggg.

And really, you didn't just use ARFCOM as "convincing evidence" of anything, did you? You need to get out more. Believe it or not, there's a whole world full of people outside of this crowd... and some of them are actually very intelligent. In fact, they might disagree with you from time to time.

You don't have to be an "expert," but it does help to have some common sense. You really need to learn the difference between criminals and terrorists involved in an ongoing campaign to destroy the U.S. Constitution. If you view all things in the narrow spectrum of the criminal justice system your ability to understand war will always be limited. We have wars and we have criminal acts. What happened on 9/11 was more than a crime it was an Act of War. We know that it was an Act of War, because those who carried it out proclaimed it as one. When you have war declared on your nation you act in a manner that insures that you win that war as quickly as possible.


I can't disagree with your basic analysis of war. If you're on a battlefield against a guy who's pointing at gun at you, kill him. But if you catch a guy wearing rags on or near a battlefield under questionable conditions, you do all that you can to treat him humanely. Good people cannot sit idle and allow any and all means to exist for what is only a possible end.

No, if someone punches me I don't sit there and contemplate why I just beat his skull in until he can't get back-up to do it again. The United States of America did nothing that justified killing 2,998 people on 9/11/2001.


Ah, there's that testosterone I thought I'd see. Once again, I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself. I just think you lack introspection. You and others like you fail utterly in the ability to analyze your situation in the world and the possible ramifications of your actions. You always see everything "we" do as good and every response to anything by "them" as evil terrorism. It is indeed possible that you did something to deserve being punched. You'll never know because of how you view the world. It's a common problem among extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. The good thing for you is that you don't miss something you've never had, so your life will go on just fine.

A War of Survival. If you can't see that than you're not going to make it. Unfortunately, if the majority of people don't see it that way in this country none of use are going to make it. This is the continuation of a clash of civilizations that is older than Christianity or Islam. The only difference between today and the days of the Greek City States is now we have nuclear weapons. Continued nuclear proliferation. While you're sitting back in deep thought about your moral issues they're moving now some sixty miles away from Islamabad looking to obtain nuclear weapons that could kill millions.


I'm not going to make it? Holy crap, that almost made me laugh. Take off that tin foil hat and give yourself a chance at an enriching life. Your paranoia is diminishing your potential.

No other option did exist after 9/11. Your buddy President Clinton and people who think as you do made certain of that.


LOL... Clinton. You can't be serious. "I jess loves me that Billy Clinton!" Once again, you're the extreme end of the right side, so anything that doesn't conform to what you consider the norm must be radical leftism. I'm going to have to pass this one on to my friends. They all know me as a staunch but reasonable Republican, so they'll get a kick out of it.

You, sir, are gold. Thank you for your continued interest in me. But seriously, this has gotten rather personal, and I have been rude which is not my typical MO. My apologies if I have said something that has offended you. We can agree to (vehemently) disagree. And believe it or not, we'll likely be voting for the same guy on election day.
Link Posted: 5/23/2009 5:52:13 AM EST
Jesse Ventura should have stuck to westling. I certainly don't want to hear political views expresses by a semi-retarded oaf.
Link Posted: 5/24/2009 5:11:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By wdatz:
@SilentType... if that is your real name:

Bleeding Heart Liberal Troll? That's what you've got? Playground name calling? All you're doing is confirming my assertion that a moderate Republican on ARFCOM is viewed as a lefty fringe freak.

Don't cite the Supreme Court without citing the name of the case.


I don't live by your rules. I'll quote any thing, any where, any time according to my own whims. If that frustrates you, so be it. My job in this life is not to please you. If you're as smart as you think you are, go hunting. These "tubes" (thanks, Ted Stevens) are wide open and free for use.

No offense but if you can't cite sources don't be surprised when you have 0 credibility in a reasoned debate as opposed to a DU Bush bashing fest.

Waterboarding is not "wholly rejected in our society." The very fact that many here do not agree with you is clear and convincing evidence of that.


Name a case where waterboarding has been used as a form of justice in the US legal system. Tell me which police force has waterboarding in its toolbox for getting a confession. What's that? Silence? Hey, since you don't think waterboarding is torture, why don't cops just waterboard a guy who's 20 miles over the speed limit? Or maybe, "Tell us who sold you the pot!" Glug glug bluggluggg.

Ummm, ever gonna answer my question about the laws of land warfare from above. And sorry, terrorist does not = criminal like your strawman.

And really, you didn't just use ARFCOM as "convincing evidence" of anything, did you? You need to get out more. Believe it or not, there's a whole world full of people outside of this crowd... and some of them are actually very intelligent. In fact, they might disagree with you from time to time.

You don't have to be an "expert," but it does help to have some common sense. You really need to learn the difference between criminals and terrorists involved in an ongoing campaign to destroy the U.S. Constitution. If you view all things in the narrow spectrum of the criminal justice system your ability to understand war will always be limited. We have wars and we have criminal acts. What happened on 9/11 was more than a crime it was an Act of War. We know that it was an Act of War, because those who carried it out proclaimed it as one. When you have war declared on your nation you act in a manner that insures that you win that war as quickly as possible.


I can't disagree with your basic analysis of war. If you're on a battlefield against a guy who's pointing at gun at you, kill him. But if you catch a guy wearing rags on or near a battlefield under questionable conditions, you do all that you can to treat him humanely. Good people cannot sit idle and allow any and all means to exist for what is only a possible end.

Ahhhh, so your reasoning is all those guys in Gitmo were just poor innocent bystanders because our military personnel are too retarded to sort the dude walking by and the actual trigger pullers. Thanks.

No, if someone punches me I don't sit there and contemplate why I just beat his skull in until he can't get back-up to do it again. The United States of America did nothing that justified killing 2,998 people on 9/11/2001.


Ah, there's that testosterone I thought I'd see. Once again, I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself. I just think you lack introspection. You and others like you fail utterly in the ability to analyze your situation in the world and the possible ramifications of your actions. You always see everything "we" do as good and every response to anything by "them" as evil terrorism. It is indeed possible that you did something to deserve being punched. You'll never know because of how you view the world. It's a common problem among extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. The good thing for you is that you don't miss something you've never had, so your life will go on just fine.

Ahhhh, better and better. So a bunch of citizens from Arab countries that we are at peace with flying planes into buildings is a reasoned act of war as opposed to terrorism. Just fighting for the oppressed. You sir fail at basic logic. You might want to research that questioned I asked earlier as it might help you learn the definition of legal combatants. Which those in Gitmo are not. SO under international law they do not have the same rights a POWs.

A War of Survival. If you can't see that than you're not going to make it. Unfortunately, if the majority of people don't see it that way in this country none of use are going to make it. This is the continuation of a clash of civilizations that is older than Christianity or Islam. The only difference between today and the days of the Greek City States is now we have nuclear weapons. Continued nuclear proliferation. While you're sitting back in deep thought about your moral issues they're moving now some sixty miles away from Islamabad looking to obtain nuclear weapons that could kill millions.


I'm not going to make it? Holy crap, that almost made me laugh. Take off that tin foil hat and give yourself a chance at an enriching life. Your paranoia is diminishing your potential.

No other option did exist after 9/11. Your buddy President Clinton and people who think as you do made certain of that.


LOL... Clinton. You can't be serious. "I jess loves me that Billy Clinton!" Once again, you're the extreme end of the right side, so anything that doesn't conform to what you consider the norm must be radical leftism. I'm going to have to pass this one on to my friends. They all know me as a staunch but reasonable Republican, so they'll get a kick out of it.

You, sir, are gold. Thank you for your continued interest in me. But seriously, this has gotten rather personal, and I have been rude which is not my typical MO. My apologies if I have said something that has offended you. We can agree to (vehemently) disagree. And believe it or not, we'll likely be voting for the same guy on election day.


Link Posted: 5/24/2009 6:03:10 PM EST
[I want to extend mercy into the world and treat others with a high sense of morality.




what a pipe dream my friend.......if it were only that easy huh?

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top