| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Does admiting that you lied
DSK wrote: Joe wrote: OK you strive to do right, and they killed your kid because you were not able to make them talk.. Was that right? Evil won. You lost... over...no second chance. 1- torture is evil 2- People who torture others are evil 3- People who order others to commit torture are evil agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve torture. I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning. How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner? Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ? And here's a big one: 4- things prisoners say to avoid or reduce torture are not necessarily facts. Things you get by feeding prisioners 3 meals a day and providing AC, TV, koran, ect are not nessarily facts. 5- Torture very often goes wrong, such as when some "OGA guys" killed one of the Al-Queda #2 men they captured before he could reveal anything. Apparently had a weak heart or something. Oh well. Yeah oh well....to bad......so sad. BTW if your going to wage war and get captured you should make sure your heart is up to it. So tell us Joe, what if you torture an Al-Queda prisoner and gain NO useful info? Actually, that's not a 'what if' that is what has happened. Bummer......perhaps you can pitch in with OZ and send the *******s a care package! Someone sucker punches me I'm going to stomp the **** outta em, or go down trying. You can kiss and coddle his ass all you wan't and be the better man yet bloodier and perhaps dead if he see you are to weak to defend yourself. In short, whatever your opponent does is not an excuse for what *you* do, unless you're one of those weak-minded weenies who think everything is somebody else's fault and cannot take responsibility for your actions. Yeah I'm sure if the tower was taken down in LA, and 1000's died, you would be all over Bush saying why diden't you do everything you could to prevent it? You would want him impeached, for sure if we had the planner in custody and did not bother to find out what his next mass murder plan was. Right? You have studied history a bit Doug. Questions, you never bothered to answer 1. Did we capture enemy nazi's and Japs? 2. Did we question them? 3. Did we tell the world were we kept them during questioning? Were they given lawers to defend them during the war? And here's the one that matters. Would you use extreme questioning (" torture" to you Lilly Bural winnies) techniques on Abu Zubaydah to save 1000 Americans from getting murdered? Joe DSK |
Does admiting that you lied
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:43:30 -0700, Joe wrote:
agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve torture. I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning. How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner? Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ? Again, it depends on the President's definition of torture, doesn't it? I think most Americans would define torture far short of the definition in the Yoo/Bybee memo. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html And consider this, if the interrogation methods aren't legal, then there is a very good chance that the evidence obtained is not legal. Clearly, the 14 prisoners being transferred to Guantanamo are very dangerous. It would be a terrible injustice if this administration's bungling allows them to escape justice. |
Does admiting that you lied
thunder wrote: On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:43:30 -0700, Joe wrote: agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve torture. I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning. How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner? Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ? Again, it depends on the President's definition of torture, doesn't it? I think most Americans would define torture far short of the definition in the Yoo/Bybee memo. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html And consider this, if the interrogation methods aren't legal, then there is a very good chance that the evidence obtained is not legal. Clearly, the 14 prisoners being transferred to Guantanamo are very dangerous. It would be a terrible injustice if this administration's bungling allows them to escape justice. Bwahahahahahaha...FN pussies. I hear the fat one with Bobspirts back hair starting ratting on his mate's after 2 min of water boarding. Man o man I've been tortured worse becoming a shellback. Been more sleep deprived running crewboats.. My Brother was into Sea & Air rescue and has been thru the Navy pilots POW program in florida and they make the methods mentioned in your pansy memo look like kindergarden recess. Why do you call yourself Thunder if you are such a pussy? Change yor name to wimper. Joe |
Does admiting that you lied
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 15:25:05 -0700, Joe wrote:
Bwahahahahahaha...FN pussies. I hear the fat one with Bobspirts back hair starting ratting on his mate's after 2 min of water boarding. Man o man I've been tortured worse becoming a shellback. Been more sleep deprived running crewboats.. My Brother was into Sea & Air rescue and has been thru the Navy pilots POW program in florida and they make the methods mentioned in your pansy memo look like kindergarden recess. Why do you call yourself Thunder if you are such a pussy? Change yor name to wimper. Joe LOL, everybody is a tough guy on the internet. This country is still a country of laws. You get your choice, play by those laws and the bad guys get convicted and put away. Step outside those laws, and the bad guys may get to go and play with bin Missin'. Secret evidence, hearsay evidence, retroactive interrogation methods just don't get it. Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll point out that the Supreme Court has handed this administration several recent setbacks. There may well be more to come. |
Does admiting that you lied
1- torture is evil
2- People who torture others are evil 3- People who order others to commit torture are evil Joe wrote: agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve torture. In that case, he either lied or else is criminally clueless about what goes on in his chain of command. Rumsfeld has officially said yes to torture, as has Attorny General Gonzales. I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning. OK so ttell us the difference. How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner? By means other than torture. Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ? That depends on what you mean by "known enemy leaders." What if the Democrats win an election due to all these Republican screw-ups, and you get tagged as an enemy of the state because of your constant political posturing here? Wanna get hog-tied upside-down over a bathtub of ice water? Hey you say it's not so bad. 5- Torture very often goes wrong, such as when some "OGA guys" killed one of the Al-Queda #2 men they captured before he could reveal anything. Apparently had a weak heart or something. Oh well. Yeah oh well....to bad......so sad. Well? Your whole premise is to get info. It FAILED can you understand that? A big failure since this guy was so high up in the organization. Maybe you think failure to protect the US from terrorist threats is OK? .... BTW if your going to wage war and get captured you should make sure your heart is up to it. You don't seem to get it Joe... the issue is not the death of an enemy, the issue is 1- our moral stature and 2- FAILURE to get info. We agree on the moral issue, the only question is why you want the US to become an evil dictatorial regime. I am pointing out to you the FAILURE of your idealized meethods. Do you think it's perfectly OK to fail at protecting America, as long as you do it in a macho brutal way? Yeah I'm sure if the tower was taken down in LA, and 1000's died, you would be all over Bush saying why diden't you do everything you could to prevent it? Personally, I think that's a fantasy. We know that President Bush and his cabinet put a very low priority on terrorism and did almost nothing to stop the Sept 11th attack. That is a real failure. We know that President Bush pulled troops out of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in order to stage the invasion of Iraq. That is another real failure. And here's the one that matters. Would you use extreme questioning (" torture" to you Lilly Bural winnies) techniques on Abu Zubaydah to save 1000 Americans from getting murdered? Nope. Wouldn't even think about it. Your problem (one of them, anyway) is that you cannot accept responsibility for your own actions, and you apparently cannot assign responsibility to others for theirs. |
Does admiting that you lied
DSK wrote: 1- torture is evil 2- People who torture others are evil 3- People who order others to commit torture are evil Joe wrote: agreeded what's your problem? The president said he did not approve torture. In that case, he either lied or else is criminally clueless about what goes on in his chain of command. Rumsfeld has officially said yes to torture, as has Attorny General Gonzales. Well Gonzales is just a dumb beaner who hates gringos, and rummie's I do not endorse torture, just effective questioning. OK so ttell us the difference. Torture involves pain, and permanent damage to the body or mind. How do you think we should get intel from a captured prisioner? By means other than torture. Your the expert it seems, since you have judged and convicted the torturing mob thats abusing Ossama's boy's. Come on expert...tell us about the effective "other means" not pie in the sky rightious bull****. What works Doug? This time try not to be so vague Is it OK to detain and question known enemy leaders ? That depends on what you mean by "known enemy leaders." Guy's who planned and or killed 1000's of Americans in war. What if the Democrats win an election due to all these Republican screw-ups, and you get tagged as an enemy of the state because of your constant political posturing here? Wanna get hog-tied upside-down over a bathtub of ice water? Hey you say it's not so bad. never will happen, yu seem to think captured terrorist deserve the same rights and protection as citizens of the USA. But if it did.....I guess we will have a war and kill all the dems who want to torture American citizens. It's common knowledge republican's and independents have better weapons than democarts. 5- Torture very often goes wrong, such as when some "OGA guys" killed one of the Al-Queda #2 men they captured before he could reveal anything. Apparently had a weak heart or something. Oh well. Yeah oh well....to bad......so sad. Well? Your whole premise is to get info. It FAILED can you understand that? A big failure since this guy was so high up in the organization. Failed in your fairly land dream, but it seems to be working in the real world. We now have an excellent understanding of Al- Queda and have taken down most for the key planners of 9-11 Maybe you think failure to protect the US from terrorist threats is OK? Maybe not. .... BTW if your going to wage war and get captured you should make sure your heart is up to it. You don't seem to get it Joe... the issue is not the death of an enemy, the issue is 1- our moral stature and 2- FAILURE to get info. We agree on the moral issue, the only question is why you want the US to become an evil dictatorial regime. Who said I'd like that? I am pointing out to you the FAILURE of your idealized meethods. I know, you the expert on preventing future attacks, but havent provided one clue on how to do it, other than the "Evil Bush Ragime" way. Yeah I'm sure if the tower was taken down in LA, and 1000's died, you would be all over Bush saying why diden't you do everything you could to prevent it? Personally, I think that's a fantasy. Thats your problem...I think it's real and was prevented. We know that President Bush and his cabinet put a very low priority on terrorism and did almost nothing to stop the Sept 11th attack. That is a real failure. Clinton did it. We know that President Bush pulled troops out of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in order to stage the invasion of Iraq. That is another real failure. And here's the one that matters. Would you use extreme questioning (" torture" to you Lilly Bural winnies) techniques on Abu Zubaydah to save 1000 Americans from getting murdered? Nope. Wouldn't even think about it. Your problem (one of them, anyway) is that you cannot accept responsibility for your own actions, and you apparently cannot assign responsibility to others for theirs. Responsibility for my own actions. Doug first I've been in the military, second I've been a merchat Marine master for 10 yrs, and I own my one business and have employees Never taken a welfare buk in my life, And I'm the one responsable for success or failure in all my endevors. I know what being responable is. I'm sure as long as a republican is in office people like you will run around and screaming the sky is falling, ignoring all the good news, like no attacks on the USA in 5 yrs. |
Does admiting that you lied
It FAILED can you understand that? A big failure since this
guy was so high up in the organization. Joe wrote: Failed in your fairly land dream, but it seems to be working in the real world. In what "fairy land dream world" did the Bush Administration prevent an "attack killing 1000s" in LA? ... We now have an excellent understanding of Al- Queda and have taken down most for the key planners of 9-11 Except for the ones we let go because President Bush wanted to send those troops somewhere else. Bottom line: did not prevent terrorist attacks Has not captured Osama Bin Laden All your excuses and fairy tales do not change the basic facts, Joe. Maybe you think failure to protect the US from terrorist threats is OK? Maybe not. That's exactly what happened, ans you seem to be OK with it... in fact you seem to want to invite more attacks just so you can prove how tough you are. Smart! We agree on the moral issue, the only question is why you want the US to become an evil dictatorial regime. Who said I'd like that? You agree that torture is evil and you want our gov't to torture people. Most gov'ts in history that have openly practiced torture are dictatorial. I know, you the expert on preventing future attacks, but havent provided one clue on how to do it, other than the "Evil Bush Ragime" way. Actually I have several times, you just don't seem to be getting it. Yeah I'm sure if the tower was taken down in LA, and 1000's died, you would be all over Bush saying why diden't you do everything you could to prevent it? Personally, I think that's a fantasy. Thats your problem...I think it's real and was prevented. That doesn't make it real. We know that President Bush and his cabinet put a very low priority on terrorism and did almost nothing to stop the Sept 11th attack. That is a real failure. Clinton did it. Oh yeah, everything bad is Clinton's fault. Funny thing, it's still Clinton's fault (the economy, the terrorism, the low esteem for the US in other countries) even after 6 years of things getting worse. Your problem (one of them, anyway) is that you cannot accept responsibility for your own actions, and you apparently cannot assign responsibility to others for theirs. Responsibility for my own actions. Doug first I've been in the military, second I've been a merchat Marine master for 10 yrs, and I own my one business and have employees Then why are you blaming everybody else for your problems? Never taken a welfare buk in my life Which means what, exactly? Lots of famous people like Rush Limbaugh have been on welfare at one time in their lives. I'm sure as long as a republican is in office people like you will run around and screaming the sky is falling, ignoring all the good news, like no attacks on the USA in 5 yrs. There were no attacks on the US in the 5 years before, either. If a Republican in charge means everything is going OK then why are we discussing a ridiculous failure of a war that was started on a premise of lies, and whether or not torturing prisoners would make Americans safer from terrorism? If Republican = success than we wouldn't have these problems, unless you have a very odd definition of success. Frankly I don't care if the President (or other important elected officials) are Republican or Democratic... I do care if they're leading the country deeper into evil policies and a cycle of lies & failure. DSK |
Does admiting that you lied
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... In article , Dave wrote: So I take it you're advocating an invasion of Pakistan? Yes. I think that would be a heck of lot more appropriate than invading Iraq. They're certainly no friend of ours. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com Pervez Musharraf might take issue with that. He's been one of our most proactive allies in the war on terror. By agreeing not to attack the terrorists and letting them have a secure base of operations? With those kind of friends..... -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Does admiting that you lied
In article , OzOne wrote:
I've always thought that wars should be fought by the leaders of each country involved, after all they're the ones who declared it.....or not in the case of Iraq. I think there was a movie like that... both sides chose one person, and they fought it out on an island. I can't remember the details. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Does admiting that you lied
|
Does admiting that you lied
Maynard G. Krebbs wrote:
On 10 Sep 2006 21:31:44 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote: In article , OzOne wrote: I've always thought that wars should be fought by the leaders of each country involved, after all they're the ones who declared it.....or not in the case of Iraq. I think there was a movie like that... both sides chose one person, and they fought it out on an island. I can't remember the details. Yeah! Toshiro Mafuni sp and Lee Marvin. Can't quite remember the name though. :o( Guess I could hit the IMD if it bugs me too much. Mark E. Williams Hell in the Pacific |
Does admiting that you lied
That's not it. Although that's a good movie.
It wasn't with Lee Marvin for sure... not the movie I was thinking of... I'll find it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jeff" wrote in message ... Maynard G. Krebbs wrote: On 10 Sep 2006 21:31:44 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote: In article , OzOne wrote: I've always thought that wars should be fought by the leaders of each country involved, after all they're the ones who declared it.....or not in the case of Iraq. I think there was a movie like that... both sides chose one person, and they fought it out on an island. I can't remember the details. Yeah! Toshiro Mafuni sp and Lee Marvin. Can't quite remember the name though. :o( Guess I could hit the IMD if it bugs me too much. Mark E. Williams Hell in the Pacific |
Does admiting that you lied
Dave wrote:
In other words, Doug you've now made a Herculean effort to back up your claim and have come up empty 2 million + hits is "empty"??? .... so you're trying very hard to blow enough smoke to hide that fact. Not really. You are making the claim that either the Bush Administration gave full disclosure of their treatment of prisoners including torture, use of former KGB facilities, "extreme rendition" etc etc; or that they were never asked about it. You cannot back up either of those propositions with facts (not surprisingly). So now you're attacking me and refusing to look at the very obvious evidence from the real world. This is a little surprising, even from the most extreme Bush/Cheney apologists. I guess the next stage is to accuse me of ad-hominem attacks. DSK |
Does admiting that you lied
So, I guess being a general and having an opinion doesn't count much with
you. That's my answer. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On 10 Sep 2006 21:27:59 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said: This is a question on which General Walker has no greater expertise than you or I. Lawyers, whether military or otherwise, are supposed to be experts on what the law is, not what it should be. Give me a break. He's on the front lines of the issue. He certainly is more qualified than either of us to render an opinion. What facts does he know, which we don't, that makes him uniquely qualified to decide what the law in this area should be? My god, you don't know??? If I knew I wouldn't have asked the question. So what's your answer? |
Does admiting that you lied
Dave are you upset that you can't vote for Bush again? I think you can write
him in. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:03:42 +1000, OzOne said: You know yet another Bush lie......guess the proof of the lied denials was about to surface so he got in first. You mean the denials you've been unable to locate? |
Does admiting that you lied
Not my or Doug/Oz's job to do your searching for you. If you're interested
in the truth, do the search. If you're not, you're not really having fun at our expense. You're having fun as your loss. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... Not upset at all. Just having a little fun at your expense. And Doug's. And Oz's. Surely among the three of you and googling some 2 million entries, one of you must be able to find a report that the administration denied that the secret prisons existed. Even the proverbial million monkeys on a million typewriters ought to result in at least one such report. On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:14:40 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Dave are you upset that you can't vote for Bush again? I think you can write him in. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:03:42 +1000, OzOne said: You know yet another Bush lie......guess the proof of the lied denials was about to surface so he got in first. You mean the denials you've been unable to locate? |
Does admiting that you lied
Yes, they would not confirm nor deny it at a mimimum. They mislead the
American public. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:14:42 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Not my or Doug/Oz's job to do your searching for you. If you're interested in the truth, do the search. If you're not, you're not really having fun at our expense. You're having fun as your loss. You've got it backwards here, Jon. You, Oz and Doug made the claim that the administration had previously denied the existence of secret prisons. That claim should be easy to support if, as Doug says, it was widely reported. Ever heard of the inherent futility of trying to prove a negative? I could look at a zillion articles, none of which contained the your fairy tale claim, and it wouldn't prove a thing. You three, on the other hand, have to come up among the three of you with just one credible report. You haven't been able to do so. |
Does admiting that you lied
Bush lied, Cheney lied, Rumsfeld lied. I'm admitting that much.
Congratulations. You're supporting liars. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:00:50 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Yes, they would not confirm nor deny it at a mimimum. They mislead the American public. So you're finally admitting your inability to support your claim. Congratulations. |
Does admiting that you lied
He doesn't want you to look it up yourself??
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... So Oz lied. His inability to admit he erred is exposed for all to see. On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:35:06 +1000, OzOne wrote: On 14 Sep 2006 09:41:02 -0500, Dave scribbled thusly: On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:28:03 +1000, OzOne said: Who's Googling....I know what I've read. So, Oz, all I'm asking is that you identify specifically and in a verifiable fashion the publication you claim to have read supporting your claim. Dave,,I'm telling you to look it up yourself. Bye now! Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Does admiting that you lied
Joe wrote:
Tell me Doug, During WWII did we capture nazi's and question them to find out what they were up to? Did we give every prisioner a trail and a lawyer? What if we captured key Jap, or Nazi Generals? Did we give them trials, lawers ect during the war? To *not* effectively interrogate prisoners when said interrogation could lead to preventing more innocent deaths is nothing short of treason. I never said that....you did. Are you saying we should go back to pre 9-11 days and muzzle the CIA, FBI, DEA, Army, Navy, ect.ect.ect with so much red tape they are usless and miss preventing another 9-11 type of mass murder? Um, ya mean like the Clinton/Gorelick team did? But then, the Lib's have never let a little thing like treason stop their zealousness for destroying our country and getting our soldiers and citizens killed if they can use it for political gain. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com