I'm crying a river...


Well, well well. I've seen posts and threads asking how ashamed am I to be American and telling me how ashamed I should be.
Kiss my ass.
I'm not ashamed to be American. What we did, and are doing is being attacked by those who hide behind their women and children to shoot at others; who blow themselves up, along with as many as they can.
And then, hehe, then, we have moist-eyed freedom-hating liberals who want these animals to be treated nicely.
I still have yet to see the torture so many are bemoaning. No one got their heads cut off, hands cut off, nipples burned off with electricity. The conditions were certainly cleaner than what they had been living in.
But I digress.

These three idiots go to a country that has already slipped into warfare against the most powerful nation on earth (still no apologies, by the way), and they want to "help" with a glaring absence of "who" they are helping. Just killing time before one of them gets married(but to who, there's curiously no mention).
Now, these three thugs (yes, convicted criminals all, in the UK)all of a sudden have a tug of conscience to help their fellow man whilst waiting to get married; and wind up on the wrong side of the conflict.
Now, stay with me:
They are captured WITH enemy combatants, and sent to a prisoner camp, and eventually wind up as American prisoners.
Now, the captors see these three convicts, and to everyones surprise, don't believe a single word of their humanitarian aid mission story. Gee, I wonder why...

"sorry, officer. But we were on our way to my wedding, had a couple of days, and wanted to go to a desert wasteland full of terrorist training camps and try to lend a hand. I thought I was on the right road, but, and this is REALLY gonna make you laugh, mate, we got caught up with some guys who were running from the bombs, and wound up in a cattle car. Imagine! But we really have nothing to do with these guys. No, really.
A conviction of inciting to riot in England? Oh, THAT! Well, that was a big mix-up, that. I was just in the neighborhood, and...
What?
Oh, no, officer those aren't my shorts."

There's a reason these morons were held for two years. International charge of "Public Stupidity".

Give me a break.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

I'm glad you think that.

Therefore when anyone dear to you is caught in suspicious circunstances you won't mind if they are sent over there, or Siria for that matter (extraordinary rendition), and as long as they aren't dismembered, mutilated or burned, you won't mind what happens to them, or for how long.

Right?

If they were there for a good reason, why weren't they changed with ANYTHING?

They were released without charges, remember?

Had they been killing and plotting left and right like you say, there should be plenty evidence of it.

Where is it?

Maybe you should stop seeing 24 and consider the consequences of people being abused in our name for the whole world to see. Because saying "we're not as bad as Hussein or the thugs in Iran" shouldn't be our standard, which seems to be the case for you.

Since terrorists in those areas don't lack laptops and cell phones and email, if they are indeed carrying out such actions there should be plenty of evidence (paper trails, money, gadgets, etc) of it.

Just remember that over 90% of the people at Abu Ghraib were innocent according to our OWN stats. I'm sure you were partying over their abuse also.

"According to the International Red Cross, close to 90% of the people being held are not guilty of the allegations and many were picked-up almost at random by US patrols on sweeps." Wikipedia.

Just remember that most of the people at Guantanamo were not picked up by the US, but by bounty huners and Northen Aliance thugs whom got paid big bucks for Al Qaeda and Taliban and suspicious persons they picked up. Since they all look the same, you think personal vendettas, greed and lazyness didn't play a factor in their selection of suspects?

If all these people are so guilty, where's the evidence?

And before you think that abuse ain't torture, try out yourself for 8 hours straight, or better yet, try it out on your mother/sister/wife/daughter for 8 hours straight (stress positions, extreme temperatures, beatings, loud noise, take your pick), and ask them afterwards what they think about it.

Don't take my word for it, read it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Sorry, couldn't find anything worth mentioning on conservapedia.

Because this same mentality is behind Guantanamo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainment_camp

reply

First off, being caught behind enemy lines is NOT "suspicious circumstances".
Secondly, where's the evidence that they weren't Al Qaida.
and third
If you want to be taken seriously, don't use Wikipedia as a source.

Tell me this, Al666, would you rather be uncomfortable or have your head slowly sawed off?
Your definition of torture needs to be revamped.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

"First off, being caught behind enemy lines is NOT "suspicious circumstances". "

Define the enemy line in Afghanistan. You mean the country's borders? Then anyone inside is behind enemy lines.

Did you ever consider that the civilian population couldn't just take off to France while we were blowing the country into the stone age? Maybe they had to remain there.

If the Katrina people couldn't get out of their hoods (never mind the city) in time for a hurricane, you expect Afghans about as well fed as africans to flee their country just like that?



"Secondly, where's the evidence that they weren't Al Qaida"

You serious? May as well show me the evidence YOU ain't Al Qaeda. You could be Jose Padilla's roommate, or John Walker Lindth's lover for all I know.

So everyone inside Afhanistan is Al Qaeda? Wow.


"If you want to be taken seriously, don't use Wikipedia as a source"

Why not? Any disputed/doubted/not fact checked article has a warning at the top of it (just check out Bush's website, or Middle East, or Israel-Palestine), this one doesn't.

Read the latest studies claiming Wikipedia is about as acurate as Britannica? Google for them.

Maybe you meant conservapedia.

If what the article says is not true, I'm sure you can produce an article from TIME, WP, NYT, ABC, etc that says so.


"Tell me this, Al666, would you rather be uncomfortable or have your head slowly sawed off? "

Like Daniel Berg? He was behind enemy lines. I guess he was Al Qaeda also. Sure didn't prove he wasn't before going in.

And speaking of choosing between fear and brutality to feel safe, then closed brutal societies like commy China and the former USSR must've been the safest ever, since they didn't think twice before torturing whomever they deemed a threat. I get the feeling their citizens weren't exactly washed over with ease...

Uncertainty and a degree of risk is the price of liberty. And like Franklin said, those whom would sacrifice fredom for security deserve neither.

Was he also Al Qaeda, a terrorist appeaser?


"Your definition of torture needs to be revamped"

Like Alberto Gonzalez's? That Geneva is now "quaint"? That only organ failure and death can be consider torture?

That kind of definition?

My definition is the one that I can accept be applied to EVERYONE, friend or foe. Anything less is hypocrisy.

reply

As I've asked many others before:


WHAT TORTURE?

People like you can't answer that, you're so full of contempt for America that you justify the insurgents atrocities; and nitpick the U.S.s' victories.
There was little outcry when the two soldiers from the 101st were found mutilated with their balls in their mouth, but(and this is classic), you let some towelhead get his turban folded wrong and all manner of hell is raised.
That, is hypocrisy.


Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

Since you're not adressing any of my replies, why bother address yours?

reply

I gotta say, I agree with Gra. Not even getting into if Gitmo is legit or not, but purely from a political point, you lefties sure lose a LOT of cred when you make a HUGE issue about a Koran being flushed down the toilet or a Turban being folded incorrectly, but you are totally silent about the far far far worse treatment of US soldier and journalists. I mean, some dude has his Turban folded wrong while our soldiers were mulitated....there is a slight difference here. That's the point, you make a mountain out of a molehill and when you WANT to be taken seriously people will not listen.

reply

[deleted]

"Not even getting into if Gitmo is legit or not"

Then you're avoiding the core issue. Like not getting into whether Hussein had WMD's or not (bet you remember that one...).

"you lefties sure lose a LOT of cred when you make a HUGE issue about a Koran being flushed down the toilet or a Turban being folded incorrectly,"

Straw man argument. What lefties exactly? Not me that's for sure. Then I can say all conservatives are warmongers and bloodthirsty religious crusaders because Ann Coulter said (without condemnation from any conservatives) that we should invade, kill leadership and convert muslim countries into Christianity.

"but you are totally silent about the far far far worse treatment of US soldier and journalists"

Journalists... Like when Bush mentioned bombing Al Yazeera's headquarters in Iraq (we have indeed done that) and taken their staff to Gitmo (a cammera operator)? Whetehr you agree with theyr political viewpoint or not doesn't ghange the fact they are a well established worldwide news organization (otherwise I can discualify Fox News just as well for their conservative tilt).

Soldier's abuse/torture: you mentioned ONE case (whom as I recall no one in the mainstream refused to condemnate and deplore). And done by either insurgents (ex Baathists) or Al Qaeda elements. Neither one is claiming to be bringing democracy to Iraq nor the moral high ground (unlike Bush administration), and are already despised and deplored by everyone. Sorry but just doesn't compare.

How about Jessica Lynch? She was captured by Iraq, whom treated her worse? According to her, the Bush Administration (listen to her hearings form past days in Congress). I guess she's also Al Qaeda...

When Iraq showed her dead companions on TV, everyone denounced that, even "lefties". Of course that didn't keep Rumsfeld from showing and parading captured Iraqui soldiers and officers on TV.

Had France done that then you could be right in demanding the same condemnation.

We're talking about widespread abuse against hundreds, or thousands, of people (no wonder they don't think the best of us when released). You bring up one case. Where there thousands of those I would agree.

Private contractors mutilated and burned hung on a bridge (that's the best known case, and the only one apart from the one you seem to be refering to) don't count. Why? Because they ain't "our dear patriotic soldiers", they are mercenaries, pure and simple, working for the buck making a windfall on the war (compare their salaries against the ones of our troops). If Al Qaeda were topping the Pentagon's offer, they would work for them.



"That's the point, you make a mountain out of a molehill and when you WANT to be taken seriously people will not listen"

That's why Democrats have now both chambers of Congress, and Bush is at 28% of popularity right now?

I guess people ain't listening indeed, but to YOU.

And you dare telling me about being taken seriously...

reply

[deleted]

I'm hesitant about bursting your bubble and violating your make believe reality (since you're answering your own questions you surely don't need reply), but I'll chance it.

Why don't you gear up and fight them vermin in Iraq?

Thought so.

It's good to cheerlead for a war as long as YOU ain't doing the fighting, heh?

Chickenhawk pussy.

reply

Quote: "Journalists... Like when Bush mentioned bombing Al Yazeera's headquarters in Iraq (we have indeed done that) and taken their staff to Gitmo (a cammera operator)? Whetehr you agree with theyr political viewpoint or not doesn't ghange the fact they are a well established worldwide news organization (otherwise I can discualify Fox News just as well for their conservative tilt).

Well established? Not agree with their political viewpoint? These idiots make Phred Felps look like a moderate(misspellings intentional).They are NOT a news source, they are the voice of the enemy.

Quote: "Soldier's abuse/torture: you mentioned ONE case (whom as I recall no one in the mainstream refused to condemnate and deplore). And done by either insurgents (ex Baathists) or Al Qaeda elements. Neither one is claiming to be bringing democracy to Iraq nor the moral high ground (unlike Bush administration), and are already despised and deplored by everyone. Sorry but just doesn't compare.

You're so right. It doesn't compare. Those were Baathists or Al Qaeda elements. Big effing deal WHO it was! And if they're so despised and deplored by everyone, why does the news slant toward them and how they're being mistreated?
And right on about the "moral high ground". We ARE the moral high ground. We took out an oppressing, cruel monster of a dictator, brought civilization and a working government to this patch of wasteland, only to be bit by a few of the mouths we've fed.

Quote: "When Iraq showed her dead companions on TV, everyone denounced that, even "lefties". Of course that didn't keep Rumsfeld from showing and parading captured Iraqui soldiers and officers on TV.

The Iraqi soldiers weren't DEAD. They were the DEFEATED ENEMY. You know, what people like yourself wish America was.



Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

"They are NOT a news source, they are the voice of the enemy."

What a well-balanced, carefully thought out opinion!

Have you ever thought that even to a moderate, peace-loving follower of Islam, the same might be said of Fox?

Perhaps you need to reconsider: yes, Al-Jazeera is a news company based in the Middle East and run by Muslims. They will therefore attract news stories and recordings from Muslim terrorists. The BBC is a news agency based in Britain and attracted recordings and news stories from the IRA.

According to you, that made the BBC the voice of the enemy too.

Have you ever considered thinking?

reply

I don't think these people even think.

Just read their replies to my posts.

reply

Agreed, Al666940-3. They'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

reply

"They are NOT a news source, they are the voice of the enemy. "

What enemy is that, muslim brown people?

Then you must live in fear every day, they are about 1/5 of world population.



"We ARE the moral high ground."

Not anymore. We're just slightly less brutan than Saddam or Iran (since it's OK now to abuse suspects as long as we don't go all the way, right?)


"We took out an oppressing, cruel monster of a dictator"

You mean our dear friend not so long ago? Remember there's a video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. As long as he towed the line the US goverment of then (and now) couldn't give a sh*t about the people of Iraq, so don't even pretend you do.



"brought civilization and a working government "

You mean the one under which people are dying by th hundreds each day, and plans to take 2 months off while our soldiers are fighting and dying?

The one that shields AL Sadr and his death squads?

And the one that's telling us to get TF out of there, and just leave them the guns?

And about civilization, that alone shows your utter contempt for iraquies. Why not just say we brought christianity also?


"They were the DEFEATED ENEMY"

And protected under Geneva conventions from being parraded like trophies. Or are you gonna say neither they deserve to be treated like POW?






reply

Quote: "What enemy is that, muslim brown people?"

No, the ones who are we engaged in with active combat.

Quote: "We're just slightly less brutan than Saddam or Iran "

I think you mean "brutal", but I digress.
This statement alone proves that you are an ignorant buffoon who is convinced the U.S. is in the wrong, regardless of our means or methods. We could put mints on their pillows, and you would have a fit because it wasn't cinnamon.

Quote: "about civilization, that alone shows your utter contempt for iraquies."

I have no qualms with Iraqis. If I didn't give a dump about them, I would say to pull out and let them kill each other off. I feel for the ones who are living a better life, only to be extorted or blown to bits by the scum YOU are DEFENDING.

Quote: "protected under Geneva conventions from being parraded like trophies. Or are you gonna say neither they deserve to be treated like POW?"

Well, at least they weren't beheaded after the parade. I neither support nor defend the decision to "parade" them around, it may have been tasteless, but the "paraded" ones will eventually go home to their loved ones, ALIVE.

In wartime, often the lesser of two evils have to be chosen. And for being the victor of the war, we are way less evil than any victor in history.



Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

GraGoste, you miss the point.

Think in terms of WW2 France. The Nazis invade and some French collaborate. The Nazis become the target of the resistance and so do the collaborators.

Look at Iraq. Under Saddam (helped by the US until shortly before the invasion of Kuwait), these "scum" were either part of the (like it or not) legitimate government or ordinary citizens. America invades - rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter. Except for all the lying to justify the invasion. Y'know, if it only takes 45 minutes to set up and fire WMD's you'd think they'd have found some by now. Not that it matters, the US still has the invoices...maybe that's the problem? Did G.W. invade to collect the debt?

But I digress. You can see where I was leading to. The fact is, these people are now targeting their invaders and their collaborators. Rightly or wrongly, this is how they see it.

There was no evidence of terrorism being sponsored by Iraq - but now it is sponsored by the very presence of the USA, UK, Australia and others. It doesn't matter what you say - the troops should not have been there in the first place, and the behaviour of some of the troops (US and UK, probably the others) has not helped. You've seen the photos, you've heard the testimony. You've seen a General lie under oath to the relevant Senate Committee at the time the photos were released - can't remember his name but it was obvious: he couldn't look them in the eye for just one question. Which was whether the systematic torture and mistreatment of prisoners had been ordered, as claimed by the soldiers now in prison, by senior officers. Funny how the most powerful country in the world is the only one to outright refuse to allow its troops to be tried as war criminals - and yet continues to try to take the moral high ground.

Sorry to burst your bubble. But as you say, your refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

[deleted]

"IF we invaded the country to take it over"

Then when are we exactly leaving?

Bush and company REFUSE to say when, or set up timetables, and are moving forward to build permanent US military bases.

Timetables help the enemy? Bush (and others) didn't think so when demanding Clinton for timetables to exit Somalia.


"we went there to free the 'common folk' and give them the chance at the freedoms we here in the western world take for granted"

Wrong, we went there to topple Saddam and get his WMD's.

Unless Bush and company were lying through their teeth all along, were they?

Read the papers, democracy in iraq is no longer the current (original goal was WMD's) goal (should say excuse) but an option, as increasing violence is making US command consider a strongman not unlike Saddam to take control of the country and stabilize it, democratically or not.


"and dont say they dont want it"

Straw man argument. Who has ever said they don't want freedom? They sure don't want anything shoved down their troaths unde rthe barrel of a gun, but if anyone has stated they don't want freedom, it's people like you (Bill O'Reilly), not us.



reply

[deleted]

galilleo, IF you used your brain and not your pecker, you would have noticed that I didn't make exact comparison - but I DID set it out the way some Iraqis see it. There are two sides to any conflict and being American does not automatically make you the good guys any more than being British makes me better. I'm not an ilk, or a moose. However, I do see that Bush has no timetable for leaving: this acts as proof for those against him that he intends to remain in occupation - whether or not it is true does not matter.

You went there for WMD's that did not exist. When you didn't find them you went to "free" the "common folk" - whatever they are. 3 sets of purple thumbs does not make a democracy work. The will and the strength of mandate makes it work - and there is neither.

As for full of it, try this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F07%2F04%2Fwtort04.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F07%2F04%2Fixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=9866

This kind of points out some interesting views on what went on.

I remembered Gen. Taguba's name shortly after posting and dug this up:

"LEVIN: General Taguba, the ICRC said that the military intelligence officers at the prison confirmed to them that this was all part of the military intelligence process -- these activities.

LEVIN: Would you agree with the ICRC that coercive practices such as holding prisoners naked for extended periods of time were used, in their words, in a systematic way as part of the military intelligence process at the prison?

TAGUBA: Sir, I did not read the ICRC report.

LEVIN: Would you agree with that conclusion?

TAGUBA: Yes, sir. Based on the evidence that was presented to us and what we gathered and what we reviewed, yes, sir.

LEVIN: Now, that's more than a failure of leadership. That's an active decision on the part of leadership. It's not just oversight or negligence or neglect or sloppiness, but purposeful, willful determination to use these techniques as part of an interrogation process.

Would you include that in your definition of failure of leadership?

TAGUBA: Yes, sir, they were."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17812-2004May11.html

They were what? He's taken the definition of failure of leadership to new levels - but I'm full of it? It was a lie - at the end of the day, a positive decision to use torture is NOT a failure of leadership, it is a policy decision taken by the officer in charge of the prison!

So believe what you will, galilleo: there's plenty of evidence out there - all you have to do is look, and not very hard at that.

reply

Don't even bother.

They'll say you got that out of some "far left smear web site" (Media Matters), at best. Or Al Jazeera.

Chances are they don't even know WTF you're talking about.

reply

Hi al - the sites are the Daily Telegraph (right wing British newspaper) and the Washington Post which published a transcript of the entire proceedings. Really far left stuff, the Senate.

reply

Oh c-huddle...

Even wikipedia and youtube are now far left, have you read the news on some dummis coming up with "conservapedia" and something like "Qtube" or something like that?

They REALLY need their own reality and facts, like Bush in his bubble...

Hell, I've got a better idea, let's debate you and me (more rewarding than debating the guys here)!

I'm all against torture (I live in Mexico, know firsthand it doesn't work, unles you're only looking to arrest anyone to make your quota), but hell, I can come up with far better arguments than these people, or Cheney (and that's without watching 24).

- Torture is an option because iraquies are used to only respect strength, and are not used to civil rights and stuff. They won't respect us unless they fear us more than Saddam.

- Torture is an option when clear cut regulations are set forth and only professionals carry it out (in other words don't tell prisioners what you need to hear, they'll just repeat it back and presto).

- Torture is an option when verification is possible (have time and info from other sources), so prisioners know they can't BS and get away with it.

- Torture is an option when laws are in place securing no american citizen can be tortured.

- Torture is an option because most if not every country carries it out to some degree (times of crisis), whether they admit to it or not.

- Torture works because most of the time you already know the guilty (regular offenders) from the innocent, and therefore they know they better cough it up and spare themselves a world of hurt (mexican police live by this one).


See? They can all be debunked, but make far more sense than "They hate us for our freedoms!" and "stress positions and waterboarding are no worse than hazing frats".

reply

[deleted]

Don't worry, we won't, on anything for that matter.

Nor 78% of the country, finally.

reply

[deleted]

No need to.

Dick Cheney is already trying to blow up smoke up our asses, saying Iraq looks good...

So good the goverment is taking 2 months off.

Go figure. And they just passed a resolution demanding the US to leave.

Have you ever wondered me might be shooting the wrong iraquies?

reply

ok, you start with an insult, how sweet.

That was to get your attention - it slipped when you were reading my first post.

ilk and elk are 2 different things.....so what a moose has to do with an ilk is beyond me.

It's called humour. You'll get used to it.

and your "proof" of a US takeover of the country forever just because we dont want to give the enemy our tactics is just , well....foolish and there is no more reason to comment on said remark.

I actually said (WHOLE context - you really are quite good at ignoring context and cherrypicking an argument: just obvious about it) "However, I do see that Bush has no timetable for leaving: this acts as proof for those against him that he intends to remain in occupation - whether or not it is true does not matter." Please note the latter half of this statement. It makes it clear to anyone with average or above intelligence that those opposing US occupation of Iraq would see the lack of a timetable as proof of lack of intent to leave. Which gives them the mandate to drive the US out. It's called a self-inflicted wound and has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that Bush doesn't know what to do. After all, 4 years ago the job was done. Then there was an insurgency that others saw as a civil war. You've swallowed the Bush line: do you work for Fox News?

are you kidding me? you're trying to say that the backbone of every successful democracy ISN'T the people voting represenatives and laws?

No I'm not. I'm saying that voting 3 times in as many years shows that democracy is failing to work. Which means that the conditions are wrong - too many people see democratic government as the creation of the US and their Iraqi government placemen - again, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it is the perception of the people affected directly by what happens that counts. But you ignored that point in the previous post so I doubt you'll do any better this time.

and that levin conversation.....im not going to follow the link, but i imagine it didnt have anything to do with beheadings, and other such murders?

Nope. If you'd paid attention to the post you'd know that it was about the Senate hearing in which a certain general lied. However, your attention span clearly isn't up to the mark, is it? You'd also note it's from the Washington Post. Don't tell me you have problems with a government transcript published in a highly respected newspaper? I also note you didn't even comment on the other link. Are they too difficult for you to read or do they challenge you so much that you have to blank out the truth?

thats true, check out the new tourture rooms they found in iraq, used by the terrorists. bet they didnt follow the geneva conventions in those rooms.

Didn't see this - will look it up though. Mind you, if it's anything like the "mobile chemical weapons trucks" that turned out to be completely innocent commercial vehicles, I won't hold my breath. I notice you claim WMD's weren't the only reason for invading Iraq. Yes they were. There was no UN mandate to invade and there were no WMD's: all of the "evidence" for WMD's were from one source. One person. Who was proven to be wrong. The only other evidence was from your invoices to Saddam for the relevant materials back in the 1980's. The last time Saddam had any.

As for your edit, can't comment - Wikipedia has been tested by academics and comes out as around 60-70% accurate on average, which is not good enough by a long way. Interesting fiction, but not something to rely on.

reply

[deleted]

The whole tenor of my posts has effectively been that the US (and, I'm ashamed to say, the UK) cannot take the moral high ground if it cannot show itself to be spotless in this regard. For example, claiming that individuals acted alone (and convicting them of a crime under those circumstances) while the findings are clear that they were indeed acting under orders - yet those responsible for giving those orders remain untrammelled by even a charge of conduct unbecoming...

Is that clear enough for you?

reply

[deleted]

I see we've slipped from three stooges "accidentally" getting "trapped" behind the lines in AFGHANISTAN to Bushs' policy in Iraq.
Hmmmm... quite a jump.
Let me see...
Oh, I GET IT!
You're attacking American policy and America in general. Because we've WON!
The war that is, we're slipping in the winning the peace...or are we?
You see, mates, people like you are so concerned with fighting a "nice-nice" war, trying to win a war and squash opposition without pissing anyone off, that you get bogged down in your own muddled philosophy. Which wouldn't be so bad, but you muddy the waters of people who have more important things to do.

First off, Saddam DID have a cache of WMD:
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 - 43k - May 8, 2007 -

Have mercy, it seems that almost 12 years of corrupt UN policies and tapdancing didn't give ol' Saddamn enough time to squirrel away ALL of his little hobbies.

And as for the Three CRIMINALS who -ooops- got caught with enemy combatants in a war that the ENTIRE PLANET backed us up on, piss on them.
What happened to them wasn't torture. They still lived to piss and moan and make a second-rate documentary, didn't they?
Which is more than can be said for PFC's Menchaca and Tucker, or any other victims of your "religion of peace" practitioners can say.
Islamic fanatics have been wreaking havoc on this planet for over 30 years. Bush may not be Franklin Roosevelt, but he damn sure stood up to the Muslimes and said "enough is enough", and people like you cry and wring their hands over a few embarrasing moments, call it torture, and try to pull a mass guilt trip on the victors of a war that we didn't ask for.
That's what this all boils down to: Islam has been fighting their cowardly way (shooting from behind their women and children, blowing up bystanders) and it's time we put a stop to it.
And the people who defend them are no better, and just encourage more innocent slaughter by downing the ones who fight them.
Wake up, and realize that if YOU had been personally touched by one of these idiots bombs, you might be singing a different tune.


If you can't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

Gragoste you are hilarious. You quote an obscure right wing "news" agency that publishes a story that nobody else has published and expect us to believe it?



When the New York Times, The (London) Times or another reputable news agency comes up with the story, I'll be much more likely to believe it. Until then, listen to Dennis Hopper in Speed: "Do not attempt to grow a brain."

If you actually knew ANYTHING about Islam you would know that it is rooted in the same religion that gave us Christianity - Judaism. That it is a religion of peace - just as Christianity is. That it is only fanatics who are the problem, rather like you.

You have no idea whether I have been "personally touched by one of these idiot's bombs" (or anyone else for that matter). Depends on how personally you mean: I haven't been hit by explosives but I do have extended family members who were bombed by the IRA. Same difference, believe me: fanatics are fanatics the world over. The fact is this: any action that legitimises terrorists, such as torture of innocents, murder of innocents (which has happened in Iraq at the hands of US and UK soldiers), etc., AIDS their cause and brings more fanatics to the table.

Clever of you: let's create even more enemies and make things worse.

If only I'd thought of that.

Welcome to ignore.

reply

[deleted]

Surrender is not an option, dwendt, but stupidity isn't either.

I seem to recall you being anti-invasion of Iraq. Why? Because it was wrong. So is torture. There are no half-measures about this. You either believe that torture is wrong, or you don't. If it's wrong for the other side to do it - as so many right wingers on this site claim - then it's wrong for the US and the UK. End of story.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

reply

[deleted]

"You and your country have no standing in how we deal with those associated with carrying out 9/11."

True - but you were telling us how to deal with the IRA for years. And funding them.

"Go away, Red Coat!"

You really ARE behind the times, dwendt.

You still haven't answered my points - I may have no standing but I do have freedom of speech, I do have opinions (which I am willing to share with you)

Why are you not willing to discuss yours (although you are happy to impose them on others without discourse - hardly the democratic, freedom of speech approach you claim to be defending)???

reply

c-hud...

Realize that such brainy comments like "go away red coat!" are conversation-enders, like when someone compares you to the Nazis or Hitler in an unrelated argument, you know it's pointless to continue beyond that point.

That person is probably some 4 year old evangelical fundi trained in the fine arts of creationism and science-hating.

reply

Fair comment, al!

reply

[deleted]

Dwendt, I never once accused your government of funding the IRA. NORAID did that through ordinary Americans who knew what the money was for, terrorism, but now expect everyone to fall in line because of the attack on their soil. And they expect us to believe all the lies and to swallow the idea that torture is ok, that everyone they catch is automatically guilty until proven otherwise...

I dictate nothing - I merely state my opinion, which I have a right to do in my country. These days I'm not so sure about yours: the infamous Patriot Act, anyone?

reply

Surrender?

To whom exactly, in Iraq?

They are killing each other, and our presence there is aggravating things.

Al Qaeda makes at most 5% of the insurgency, the Pentagon has said so.

Neither sunni or shiite want Al Qaeda.

So unless we pick a side, we're just swimming against the tide.

The second we leave, they'll fix their own problems their own way, like we did after the english took off.

And about Guantanamo, it's worse than when we stuck the japanese in concentration camps, we just haven't reached that point when the paranoia and fear recedes enough to think rationaly for a second.

The English sure didn't have a Guantanamo for the IRA, and guess what? They're getting things there in Ireland fixed and done, unlike us.

Guantanamo only makes us FEEL safe, that is, until american citizen start being sent up there...

reply

[deleted]

Unlike you, galilleo, I have read the Bible, the Torah (edit: Talmud! what was I thinking of?! galilleo must have got me more steamed than I thought) and the Qu'ran: they are strikingly similar.

Permanently ignored.

reply

Don't think he's read anything beyond Pat Robertson's comments on the 700 club.

And the Felt Behind series (where you actually kill people whom refuse to convert to fundie Christianity)

And Galileo, how old are you exactly? Your rants are sounding off more and more pathetic, even a grown up Bush loyalist can come up with better spin.

reply

[deleted]

dwendt, I can't speak for anyone else, but it's pretty clear that a lot of people who are supporting the war see themselves as Christians. However they are without any true understanding of their own faith - let alone that of others. They swallow the soundbite rantings of the religious right without consideration of the fact that everyone - especially the media - twists the presentation of the facts to suit their own ends.

Happens a lot on here, too. We have a choice with TV - we can turn it off. We have a similar choice here, I guess. We can spend a lot of time not listening to the other's argument or we can decide to stop wasting our time. On another board (bearing in mind I'm a Brit), there's a Brit dissing the US. Well, yeah, I do that too sometimes - but not mindlessly. I at least try to have a basis for argument/discussion whenever I post something. This guy is a joke - looks for out of context statements and presents them as something different.I'll deal with reasonable people - not others. He went on ignore. Others who do the same will get the same treatment - if they can't listen to the whole argument, they're not worth my time.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Why don't you just say that c-huddleston a nazi?

You are already implying he's a holocaust denier, may as well go the whole way.

I can do the same, you know.

By your rantings, you are either:

1. Young enough to serve but too much of a PUSSY to fight the war you support.
2. A war-cheerleading chickenhawk.

Come to think of it, that's really one category.


"and forget about the Iraq War for now"

Why, because it's too much of a mess and embarrasment? Guess what: YOU PEOPLE broke it, YOU PEOPLE either fix it or pay for it. Can't wait for 2009...

"I am talking about the war that Al Qaida declared on the West back in early 1993 starting with the first attack on the WTC. "

For which Clinton responded, care to name Bush's response to the USS Cole bombing, or the intel report warning about possible attacks on NY using airplanes BEFORE 9/11?

reply

al, what's this about Holocaust denier? Must be galboyleo.

My grandfather (mother's dad) was Jewish, and a Commando during WW2.

He had the choice of being shot or being gassed if he was captured.

The Holocaust is a stain on humanity that must never be forgotten.

reply

No dwendt. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and nobody deserves to be attacked in such a way.

But clearly some groups feel that the US deserves to be attacked in that way and it is important to find out why rather than simply class them as evil: terrorism cannot be stamped out without attacking its root cause - and the root cause is no more Islam than it is Christianity.

reply

It was "in england...arent they stopping the teaching of the holocaust in schools?"

What's the point of that, besides saying English are too wimpy to dare to offend anyone, AND imply that to them it's not worth it?

Sometimes it's hard to keep track of all the nonsense...

Well my grandaddies fought next to the Nazies (Lithuanians, had to side with whomever was fighting communism, lesser of two evils for them), yet I don't trivialize it by using it as an insult (calling others holocaust deniers).

reply

Thanks al.

Of course, as usual, he's wrong. The Holocaust is taught in our schools.

I'd guess that a few people need to think about their attitude to other religions before they fail to learn from what happened in Nazi Germany.

reply

You're welcome.

They usually get to reassess their attitude when thye are next on the chopping block (what makes them think Guantanamo won't be used eventually on american citizens deemed national security threats later on?).

I'm sure you are aware of any goverment's all to easy willingness of abuse their power when unchecked.

reply

[deleted]

"well, the USS Cole bombing was on clintons watch"

On his way out (Oct 2000), response corresponded therefore to Bush, and he did JACK SH*T, not even to say (to play ball with you) "Look, I, unlike Clinton, do respond".

"and there is no way we could have thought about 9/11"

Bull sh*t.

What about the NIE Bush got on his ranch before 9/11, titled Bin Laden determined to strike insode the US, and New York named as prime target, and even airplanes used as missiles were mentioned?

How about looking into people taking flight courses on how to take off and fly, but not landing?!!!

The guys from 9/11 did, you know?



reply

[deleted]

Take your own advice.

The 9/11 commission indeed asked Rice and company, and they simply said "we didn't think it was that serious", "well that's one way of looking at it", "I've already addressed that", and my favorite "I don't recall".

reply

[deleted]

Older than me?

Kiddo, I was NEVER your age, never will be.

reply

[deleted]

Some of us believe in a few small things like not mistreating prisoners and even actual trials!
----------------------

Nicebat and I had to party.

reply

"small things like not mistreating prisoners"

You never know how many turn up to be innocent, especially in Iraq (over 90% of the poor guys in Abu Graib were innocent, is estimated).

reply

If they were innocent, how did they wind up in the prison in the first place?
You can go to any prison or jail in America or any other country on earth, and about 90% of the inmates will tell you they're innocent.
BTW, who estimated this?
Let's not forget that ALL the prisoners of Abu Ghraib lived to piss and moan about their treatment, while there are few prisoners of the insurgents who live to tell their story.
Ask PFC Menchaca, PFC Tucker or Daniel Pearl about mistreating prisoners.
If you're really that gullible, I've a bridge I want to sell, and it'll go cheap; you may want to have a look.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

Sounds like terrorists had a big win with your head. Everything you write may be valid but the terrorists won with you - they played your head - now your nasty and hateful too. That's another 1 for the "nut-jobs".

Sorry, but I've been a perpetuated hate too and it feels horrible. Takes much more strength to fight the initial anger and hatred and find compassion and sorrow.

They're pointin' their fingers at us and we point back at them and on and on it goes.

The world's cryin' man. Many rivers.

reply

Compassion and sorrow?
While you're trying to arrange a group hug, be careful: the bulge under Raheem's jacket may be explosives.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

arguing on this board is pointless..

in case you havent realised, its just a bunch of inbred americans who think they know it all.

the torture is fine..unless its dont to an american of course.

they think the torture is fine, i think the beheadings of westerners is fine. i hav a few in my phone, just something to make me laff when im feelin a bit down

reply

you are right to an extent.

reply

These three idiots go to a country that has already slipped into warfare against the most powerful nation on earth


Yes it's a very POWERFUL thing to do, bomb a poverty stricken country who had already been through hell in previous wars.

Very powerful indeed..

I came.. I saw.. And I got lost.

reply

This "poverty stricken country" was a victim of it's own stupidity. Held in the 15th century by muslime barbarians who stirred up this hornets' nest, then hid behind its own women and children.

I guess you think that's ok. Oh, WAIT: you probably weren't one of the women they were hiding behind.

"I came..I saw.. I got lost"? How very fitting. After I saw this, it made your post more understandible.


Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

After I saw this, it made your post more understandible.

Learn how to spell before you point to others about being understandAble...

So, because of what happened in the 15th century Afghanistan deserves to be bombed? Makes no sense to me.

Then again, you Americans are always good at concocting void arguments in order to invade countries.. Weapons of mass destruction, my arse..

I came.. I saw.. And I got lost.

reply

One of the first rules of arguing on the net is when you start nit-picking spelling, then you've lost the argument.
And the point was the people of Afghanistan was kept in 15th Century like conditions by the backwards leadership.
And the Afghanistan invasion had nothing to do with WMD.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

One of the first rules of arguing on the net is when you start nit-picking spelling, then you've lost the argument.


Well then you certainly forgot the fact that ridiculing someone's signature on a fricking messageboard is actually the first indication of losing an argument on the web..

WEll I think I'm rather done with this conversation. I really don't think you have anything interesting to say anymore..Broken.Record.

I came.. I saw.. And I got lost.

reply

It wasn't ridicule, it clarified your position. Which I think was very fitting.
As for being done with the conversation, that seems to be the only thing we agree on.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

reply

"The threat of terrorism requires serious and possibly permanent abridgement of civil liberties. Unlike conventional wars, terrorism has an unlimited duration. Governments are justified in combating terrorism with "lesser evils", ranging from suspension of civil liberties, through secret uses of executive power, to torture of suspects, as well as targeted killings, right up to pre-emptive war to destroy terrorist bases in hostile countries and also to prevent the development or deployment of weapons which may be used by terrorists or states that support terrorist aims. No liberal democracy has ever defended itself against terrorism without at least some sacrifice of its liberties. International standards should not be considered too authoritative, because there are no valid ethical standards to guide any war against terrorists. The Geneva conventions are unhelpful because it does not define torture or state that terrorists are entitled to its immunities and protections."

Michael Ignatieff, Liberal Party of Canada

reply