|
Torturing SOB's
The weak-minded. Actually justifying torture. Chris Matthews can't even to make up his mind on whether to call it torture. What a weasel. They come up with all kinds of "scenarios" justifying it. All easily knocked down. If you torture the guilty, you'll end up torturing the innocent. You don't throw out due process. It's the basis of what makes America special, and special we are. Torture is as anti-American as it gets. I can't believe they're actually debating it. Morons. That's who we have representing us. Of course some here would allow the government to torture. And they are morons too. |
Torturing SOB's
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 18:54:21 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: The weak-minded. Actually justifying torture. Chris Matthews can't even to make up his mind on whether to call it torture. What a weasel. They come up with all kinds of "scenarios" justifying it. All easily knocked down. If you torture the guilty, you'll end up torturing the innocent. You don't throw out due process. It's the basis of what makes America special, and special we are. Torture is as anti-American as it gets. I can't believe they're actually debating it. Morons. That's who we have representing us. Of course some here would allow the government to torture. And they are morons too. And the biggest morons of all are those who judge when not in a position to do so. -- "The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a couple liberals." (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Torturing SOB's
On 12/9/2014 8:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 18:54:21 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: The weak-minded. Actually justifying torture. Chris Matthews can't even to make up his mind on whether to call it torture. What a weasel. They come up with all kinds of "scenarios" justifying it. All easily knocked down. If you torture the guilty, you'll end up torturing the innocent. You don't throw out due process. It's the basis of what makes America special, and special we are. Torture is as anti-American as it gets. I can't believe they're actually debating it. Morons. That's who we have representing us. Of course some here would allow the government to torture. And they are morons too. And the biggest morons of all are those who judge when not in a position to do so. This is all a ruse to sweep the testimony by Gruber today under the rug... This is disgusting, leaving the country on a limb to save a few admin hacks.... |
Torturing SOB's
On 12/9/14 9:04 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/9/2014 8:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote: On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 18:54:21 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: The weak-minded. Actually justifying torture. Chris Matthews can't even to make up his mind on whether to call it torture. What a weasel. They come up with all kinds of "scenarios" justifying it. All easily knocked down. If you torture the guilty, you'll end up torturing the innocent. You don't throw out due process. It's the basis of what makes America special, and special we are. Torture is as anti-American as it gets. I can't believe they're actually debating it. Morons. That's who we have representing us. Of course some here would allow the government to torture. And they are morons too. And the biggest morons of all are those who judge when not in a position to do so. This is all a ruse to sweep the testimony by Gruber today under the rug... This is disgusting, leaving the country on a limb to save a few admin hacks.... There's no doubt about it: you are psychotic. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
Torturing SOB's
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:01:11 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
And the biggest morons of all are those who judge when not in a position to do so. Like you, herring. |
Torturing SOB's
|
Torturing SOB's
KC
- show quoted text - " Yeah, cause Benghazi and the IRS scandal are "waaaaaay" in the past but what happened in a previous admin is very relevant right not... Specially since Gruber testified yesterday. This is sour grapes, the dems burning down the house cause they got evicted.... Same as what happened to me and my family... " Say what? You got evicted so you burned down your house? Talk about criminally insane...... |
Torturing SOB's
On 12/10/14 8:53 AM, KC wrote:
Yeah, cause Benghazi and the IRS scandal are "waaaaaay" in the past but what happened in a previous admin is very relevant right not... Specially since Gruber testified yesterday. This is sour grapes, the dems burning down the house cause they got evicted.... Same as what happened to me and my family... The half dozen or more GOP investigations of Benghazi were such a success for the GOP witch hunters that when Issa was term limited out of the chair of the main House investigatory committee, his next appointment was to chair a committee that is the equivalent of being sent to Siberia. Sorry, PsychoScotty, there's no more to Benghazi than there is to intelligence, comprehension and understanding between your ears. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
Torturing SOB's
|
Torturing SOB's
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:20:18 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... Of course the report puts members of the committee (including it's chairperson Feinstein) in a favorable light and as being victims. *They* wrote the report. They don't want any culpability tied to them. Bad for their legacy. Bad for the 2016 elections. That won't fly. The R's issued a report, and so did the CIA. History will judge Congress's culpability. What's known 100% is that the CIA ran the torture chambers. You say you want to know what your government is doing. I just told you. Personally, if it saved lives I don't care if they had driven toothpicks under the fingernails of some of the scum held at GTMO. Yeah, and you'd select which ones get tortured. Judge, jury and torturer all rolled into one. You would be better served keeping your mouth shut about your desire to torture people, and seek psychological counseling. "And the biggest morons of all are those who judge when not in a position to do so." -- "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 9:46 AM, Toad Gig wrote:
"And the biggest morons of all are those who judge when not in a position to do so." Says the self-appointed "Mr. Judge" of rec.boats... -- 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 09:55:47 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/10/14 9:46 AM, Toad Gig wrote: "And the biggest morons of all are those who judge when not in a position to do so." Says the self-appointed "Mr. Judge" of rec.boats... Uh, no, Toad. I was 'appointed' Sheriff, if you'll recall. It was you and your buddies adjudging cops and Zimmerman guilty of murder and others guilty of 'ingrained racism'. Does that jog your little mind a bit? What a f'ing joke, Toad! -- "The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a couple liberals." (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Torturing SOB's
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 11:59:19 UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:55:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/10/14 9:46 AM, Toad Gig wrote: "And the biggest morons of all are those who judge when not in a position to do so." Says the self-appointed "Mr. Judge" of rec.boats... Uh, no, Toad. I was 'appointed' Sheriff, if you'll recall. It was you and your buddies adjudging cops and Zimmerman guilty of murder and others guilty of 'ingrained racism'. Does that jog your little mind a bit? What a f'ing joke, Toad! -- "The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a couple liberals." (Thanks, Luddite!) You appointed yourself sheriff, judge and executioner. Someone here was just mocking your appointments. |
Torturing SOB's
On 12/10/2014 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:20:18 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Of course the report puts members of the committee (including it's chairperson Feinstein) in a favorable light and as being victims. *They* wrote the report. They don't want any culpability tied to them. Bad for their legacy. Bad for the 2016 elections. That won't fly. The R's issued a report, and so did the CIA. History will judge Congress's culpability. What's known 100% is that the CIA ran the torture chambers. You say you want to know what your government is doing. I just told you. Personally, if it saved lives I don't care if they had driven toothpicks under the fingernails of some of the scum held at GTMO. Yeah, and you'd select which ones get tortured. Judge, jury and torturer all rolled into one. You would be better served keeping your mouth shut about your desire to torture people, and seek psychological counseling. Americans have a short memory. This was a year or so after 911 and if you released the report then, people would be saying "is that all that they are doing to catch these ****ers"? This whole thing is just incredible... Throwing the CIA under the bus for purely political reasons. It's almost like this POTUS is ****ed cause he got slammed in the election and he's taking it like a child who has never been told no before. |
Torturing SOB's
On 12/10/2014 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:20:18 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Of course the report puts members of the committee (including it's chairperson Feinstein) in a favorable light and as being victims. *They* wrote the report. They don't want any culpability tied to them. Bad for their legacy. Bad for the 2016 elections. That won't fly. The R's issued a report, and so did the CIA. History will judge Congress's culpability. What's known 100% is that the CIA ran the torture chambers. You say you want to know what your government is doing. I just told you. Personally, if it saved lives I don't care if they had driven toothpicks under the fingernails of some of the scum held at GTMO. Yeah, and you'd select which ones get tortured. Judge, jury and torturer all rolled into one. You would be better served keeping your mouth shut about your desire to torture people, and seek psychological counseling. Americans have a short memory. This was a year or so after 911 and if you released the report then, people would be saying "is that all that they are doing to catch these ****ers"? That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some things if it doesn't serve his argument. 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. |
Torturing SOB's
|
Torturing SOB's
On 12/10/2014 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. Nice try BOA but this subject is about as political as any subject can be. You are the one who started the thread, crying big crocodile tears about "your country" and "torture". Suck it up. |
Torturing SOB's
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:14:50 -0600, 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." Luddite made it a political ploy? What horse**** are you full of. I'm thinking Clydesdale. 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. ....according to Diane. Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay. But you want to get into political ****-slinging. You don't want to sling any more of the political **** you've been slinging? I don't. Sorry about that. You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead. Tell us about ISIS. -- "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 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 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 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. -- "The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a couple liberals." (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Torturing SOB's
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:32:19 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Christians are still doing "bad things," moron. Yeah, knocking on your door occasionally, trying to hand you a pamplet. |
Torturing SOB's
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? |
Torturing SOB's
|
Torturing SOB's
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. |
Torturing SOB's
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. -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
Torturing SOB's
On 12/10/14 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 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 14:36:54 -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. -- "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 2:26 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 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 14:39:25 -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! -- "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 2:49 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!) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com