|
Torturing SOB's
Toad Gig wrote:
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? Which ships were sunk? Old, obsolete ships. The Carrier groups and more modern BBs were at sea. A few days before they left their slips. |
Torturing SOB's
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. I very much think they knew exactly when and where the attack was going to happen. Even the Japanese filling burn barrels in the yard of the DC embassy was a direct clue to war being eminent. |
Torturing SOB's
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. I am of the old school. You attack me, I destroy you. Payback is a bitch! |
Torturing SOB's
On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
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? Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the leaders. Payback is messy. If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious. -- 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 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote: 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? Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the leaders. Payback is messy. If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious. So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent, to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber ..45. That makes sense to you, Toad? -- "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 7:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote: 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? Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the leaders. Payback is messy. If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious. So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent, to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber .45. That makes sense to you, Toad? Have yourself tested for dementia. Seriously. What difference does it make to a victim if he/she is an innocent bystander and is killed by the actions of terrorists or spreaders of democracy? In both instances, the victim is dead as a result of the stupidity of men. -- 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 19:44:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/10/14 7:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote: On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote: 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? Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the leaders. Payback is messy. If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious. So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent, to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber .45. That makes sense to you, Toad? Have yourself tested for dementia. Seriously. What difference does it make to a victim if he/she is an innocent bystander and is killed by the actions of terrorists or spreaders of democracy? In both instances, the victim is dead as a result of the stupidity of men. The question had to do with moral equivalency, a subject you brought up. I can understand your desire to deflect, however. Those corners aren't nice, are they Toad? -- "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 9:23 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:44:51 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/10/14 7:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote: On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote: 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? Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the leaders. Payback is messy. If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious. So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent, to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber .45. That makes sense to you, Toad? Have yourself tested for dementia. Seriously. What difference does it make to a victim if he/she is an innocent bystander and is killed by the actions of terrorists or spreaders of democracy? In both instances, the victim is dead as a result of the stupidity of men. The question had to do with moral equivalency, a subject you brought up. I can understand your desire to deflect, however. Those corners aren't nice, are they Toad? D'oh. I was hoping you'd figure it out...but...no. There is no morality in either act... -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
Torturing SOB's
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote: 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? Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the leaders. Payback is messy. If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious. If you is dead, you lack an opinion. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com