Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/14 2:49 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:36:54 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:10 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:52:05 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.

Yeah, we should have left Hitler and Tojo just have their way.

What a f'ing joke, Toad.


As usual, you just don't get the point. The point is, if your enemy
engages in war against non-combatant civilians and you do, too, then
you've lost your claim to the high moral ground.

That the Japanese and the Germans killed millions of innocent people
didn't make it "ok" for us to firebomb civilian areas. Operation
Meetinghouse, for example, supposedly killed more than 100,000 civilian
Japanese, and many believe the death toll was much higher.

The only time you give a **** about 'high moral ground' is when it's
occupation may harm this country.

F'ing joke, Toad. Face it.


And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.

Personally, I don't give a **** one way or the other. But righties like
you do.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:26:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/10/2014 1:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.




I was recently reading about some of the lead up events to WWII, mainly
because some of the current global issues especially with regard to
Russia and Putin are somewhat similar. Japan was pushed into a corner
big time with sanctions, etc.

Roosevelt faced stiff domestic opposition to entering the war. He tried
to goad Germany into attacking a US convoy transporting aid to Great
Britain to create a justification for a war declaration. The Germans
didn't fall for the trap.

Instead, sanctions imposed on Japan were stiffened, leading to the
so-called "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor. Most historians are now of
the opinion that it wasn't a surprise. It was anticipated.


Anticipated by whom? Are these historians opining that we knew of the
attack and just left the ships there to be demolished?
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/2014 2:49 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 2:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/10/2014 1:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report
and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the
people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research
for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct.
Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough
shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese
civilians.




I was recently reading about some of the lead up events to WWII, mainly
because some of the current global issues especially with regard to
Russia and Putin are somewhat similar. Japan was pushed into a corner
big time with sanctions, etc.

Roosevelt faced stiff domestic opposition to entering the war. He tried
to goad Germany into attacking a US convoy transporting aid to Great
Britain to create a justification for a war declaration. The Germans
didn't fall for the trap.

Instead, sanctions imposed on Japan were stiffened, leading to the
so-called "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor. Most historians are now of
the opinion that it wasn't a surprise. It was anticipated.



I don't think the attack was unexpected, but the timing of it was.



We had broken the Japanese codes and knew it was coming. Probably
didn't know the exact date and time, but we knew it was Pearl Harbor.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:39 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:49 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:36:54 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:10 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:52:05 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.

Yeah, we should have left Hitler and Tojo just have their way.

What a f'ing joke, Toad.


As usual, you just don't get the point. The point is, if your enemy
engages in war against non-combatant civilians and you do, too, then
you've lost your claim to the high moral ground.

That the Japanese and the Germans killed millions of innocent people
didn't make it "ok" for us to firebomb civilian areas. Operation
Meetinghouse, for example, supposedly killed more than 100,000 civilian
Japanese, and many believe the death toll was much higher.

The only time you give a **** about 'high moral ground' is when it's
occupation may harm this country.

F'ing joke, Toad. Face it.


And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.

Personally, I don't give a **** one way or the other. But righties like
you do.

You obviously give a ****, Toad. How many posts have you now made on
the subject. Like I say, Toad, if occupying the 'high moral ground'
could hurt this country, you're all for it.

You've spent a lot of time and effort convincing all here you have no
morals.

WAFJ, Toad.
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:36:57 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?

Your question had to do with morals.

That wasn't even a decent deflection, Toad.

WAFJ!
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/14 4:09 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:36:57 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?

Your question had to do with morals.

That wasn't even a decent deflection, Toad.

WAFJ!



No, JohnnyTrash...my point was that neither way had anything to do with
morals, really, especially to the dead person. We can't claim "morality"
for our side when we're killing more innocent civilians these days than
our enemies, eh?

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:14:19 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Again, think intentions. You should be able to answer your own
question without the tap-dancing.
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)