|
On September 07 2006 19:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
ZOMG They dont ask nicely for information? Fucking monsters! Not like those other institutions throughout history where national terrorists and conspirators are treated with dignity and respect, like in the glory days of Vietnamese prison camps, Russian holding cells, German concentration camps, South American executions, French dungeons or Middle Eastern mass graves. Shame on you USA, your the only ones who use forceful tactics to extract information. Fucking bastards, I bet pre-Bush these camps or anything of the sort never existed.. yeah, Bush solely set them up, it was all his idea that prick! He just hates non whites im sure of it. No President other than THIS American president have ever utilized such tactics, nobody.
HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE SO FUNNY!!!!!111
no.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Justify? Yeah, because by sarcastically alluding to historical examples of similar uses of brute force in other countries im clearly alluding to the legality and purity of this current tactic.
OR
Im simply complaining about the fucking anti US propoganda that circulates this site all the fucking time. Had you of read on, and maybe paid more heed to the other shit rather than just tighten your anus when "Germany" was mentioned, you would have seen the bulk of my comment was talking more about this ISNT new shit and this HAS ALWAYS been done. Yet somehow, because Bush is our president, these cuntlips seem to think this is new or unique to the US. THAT was the purpose of my post.
|
You know something's wrong when you're using Nazi concentration camps to make something look good.
|
On September 07 2006 19:17 neSix wrote:
FA you're right, it should be ARE, because even though source is singular, the plural terroristS ARE the source. Haha, difficult to explain, but you are correct afaik, but I'm no english pro.
I (and the english language) completely disagree.
They're terrorists. Don't they deserve a little bit of terror themselves? kekeke
I completely agree. If they are found to be (with no uncertainty) active terrorists, we owe them nothing more than what they were planning to do to us. But the with no uncertainty part is pretty much impossible.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Hippo, can you do me a favor and please please please get your ass to an educating facility, and smash your face into its purposes. Read my second comment, nowhere, no-how do i even remotely try and fucking do one of these next two things:
1. Justify
2. Make it "look good"
I realize everytime Germany or Nazis are mentioned some people here shrivel up into tunnel visioned rag dolls but lets try and rise above the example and look at the primary intentions of the post. If need be i will edit it out and replace it with Japenese American internment camps, unless that isnt kosher of course.
|
On September 07 2006 19:25 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Justify? Yeah, because by sarcastically alluding to historical examples of similar uses of brute force in other countries im clearly alluding to the legality and purity of this current tactic.
OR
Im simply complaining about the fucking anti US propoganda that circulates this site all the fucking time. Had you of read on, and maybe paid more heed to the other shit rather than just tighten your anus when "Germany" was mentioned, you would have seen the bulk of my comment was talking more about this ISNT new shit and this HAS ALWAYS been done. Yet somehow, because Bush is our president, these cuntlips seem to think this is new or unique to the US. THAT was the purpose of my post.
Agreed, if Clinton back in his day had released this news, the network news and New York Times would be harrolding it as the greatest invention ever. However, since it is Bush and he is a conservative, it's obviously more of his criminal intentions.
Not so much a post to support Bush, but seriously, the news that claims to be balanced (everybody but Fox News and talk radio for the left, Fox News and talk radio for the right) is seriously out of line. A good book on this subject is Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite by Bernard Goldberg. While the book does have a conservative slant, it does show with quotes, discussions with other journalists, and facts how the "mainstream media" has a leftish slant. Of course, I highly doubt a pure non-partisan media is capable, but he does give some good ideas on how to moderate it to just slightly liberal.
|
EDIT: Nuked by self, overlooked incontol's sarcasm.
I sincerely appologize, I missread your post, and I actually agree with what you wrote. It was entirely due to idiocy on my part.
|
People shrivel up for a good reason. It's probably the most important historical lesson to be learned from the 20th century. The way you wrote your post, you must either be trying to justify what Bush is doing or you're just aimlessly ranting about how everyone is "anti-American".
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:32 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Great since you seem to have the ability to quote online media sources why dont you go back and re-read my fucking post. I said i WASNT.. for purposes of highlighting i will repeat that word 3 times now, WASNT WASNT WASNT trying to establish the "purity" or "legality" of the tactic you fucking walrus. I made that pretty clear im pretty sure, by using such clever words like "wasnt" and "im not trying to prove that" i thought i had made myself fairly clear on what i was trying to say.
|
On September 07 2006 19:28 Lemonwalrus wrote:
I completely agree. If they are found to be (with no uncertainty) active terrorists, we owe them nothing more than what they were planning to do to us. But the with no uncertainty part is pretty much impossible.
Hmm... While I don't condone eye for an eye treatment for any criminal, if torture is capable of bringing out answers should it be used?
|
Agreed, if Clinton back in his day had released this news, the network news and New York Times would be harrolding it as the greatest invention ever. However, since it is Bush and he is a conservative, it's obviously more of his criminal intentions.
Clinton is the one who actually set up the authority to do this. What he used it for was a much more reputable purpose though. Clinton didn't take people away from the U.S. legal system and render them to lawless countries. He instead empowered law enforcement to go those lawless countries who would not bring to trial druglords and mafia bosses, and rendered the criminals hiding there to places where they could be.
|
On September 07 2006 18:52 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Just a grammar question;
"In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves,"
Is the terrorists? Shouldn't it be are the terrorists themselves, or is it is because source is singular? But that doesn't sound right when I say it..
I'm an English tutor, so let me give this a crack.
This is a matter of subject verb agreement, so we have to identify the subject that goes with the verb "is".
It's like saying "My book on monkeys IS interesting."
"Monkeys" is plural, but in this case, it's just elaboration on the book, which is the main subject and which is singular.
So, looking at the statement "In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves."
The verb "is" really refers to the subject "the source of information", which is singular.
The phrase "where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning" is not a noun, it simply gives some elaboration on the kind of information Bush is looking for.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:34 Hippopotamus wrote:
People shrivel up for a good reason. It's probably the most important historical lesson to be learned from the 20th century. The way you wrote your post, you must either be trying to justify what Bush is doing or you're just aimlessly ranting about how everyone is "anti-American".
Or im doing what i fucking said, now 3 times. I would like to ask Lemonwalrus and Hippopotomus to please read more carefully before engaging in further semi-intellectual discussion. I feel like im teaching a class of down-syndrome students.
And what, pray tell, was the most important lesson learned in the 20th century from Nazi Germany.. what THE FUCK was the single most important explosion of information that you have now deemed the greatest thing learned in over 100 years that came from my allusion to "German concentration camps"
I realize im steam boating towards a flurry of comments like "iNcontroL just let it go" or "relax" or "god you argue so much" But i have an alergic reaction to dumb, and these 2 guys are making my skin bleed.
|
On September 07 2006 19:37 Hippopotamus wrote:Show nested quote +
Agreed, if Clinton back in his day had released this news, the network news and New York Times would be harrolding it as the greatest invention ever. However, since it is Bush and he is a conservative, it's obviously more of his criminal intentions.
Clinton is the one who actually set up the authority to do this. What he used it for was a much more reputable purpose though. Clinton didn't take people away from the U.S. legal system and render them to lawless countries. He instead empowered law enforcement to go those lawless countries who would not bring to trial druglords and mafia bosses, and rendered the criminals hiding there to places where they could be.
So... basically he did what Bush is doing now?
I don't understand your argument, get the fucking answers and move on.
|
On September 07 2006 19:25 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Justify? Yeah, because by sarcastically alluding to historical examples of similar uses of brute force in other countries im clearly alluding to the legality and purity of this current tactic.
OR
Im simply complaining about the fucking anti US propoganda that circulates this site all the fucking time. Had you of read on, and maybe paid more heed to the other shit rather than just tighten your anus when "Germany" was mentioned, you would have seen the bulk of my comment was talking more about this ISNT new shit and this HAS ALWAYS been done. Yet somehow, because Bush is our president, these cuntlips seem to think this is new or unique to the US. THAT was the purpose of my post.
I was talking mainly about this:
On September 07 2006 19:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
ZOMG They dont ask nicely for information? Fucking monsters!
Also, all the other incidents you mentioned were from some years ago. I'd have hoped a first world country these days would be so far as to forgo such methods.
|
On September 07 2006 19:17 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2006 18:52 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Just a grammar question;
"In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves,"
Is the terrorists? Shouldn't it be are the terrorists themselves, or is it is because source is singular? But that doesn't sound right when I say it..
It is right because source is singular. A lot of things don't sound right but actually are. I.E. I am about to eat an large apple. It sounds like it should be a large...but because apple starts with an A, it is an. It makes sense if you strip the sentence down to only the needed parts. I am about to eat an apple. (large is not needed) The most important source is terrorists. (everything else not needed)
Do you have some authority on the English language to back you on that one? I've always understood "an" to be more of a phonetic thing than a grammatical thing. That is why it would be proper to use it in front of a word beginning with a silent h. You're right about the terrorists though.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:39 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2006 19:25 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Justify? Yeah, because by sarcastically alluding to historical examples of similar uses of brute force in other countries im clearly alluding to the legality and purity of this current tactic.
OR
Im simply complaining about the fucking anti US propoganda that circulates this site all the fucking time. Had you of read on, and maybe paid more heed to the other shit rather than just tighten your anus when "Germany" was mentioned, you would have seen the bulk of my comment was talking more about this ISNT new shit and this HAS ALWAYS been done. Yet somehow, because Bush is our president, these cuntlips seem to think this is new or unique to the US. THAT was the purpose of my post. I was talking mainly about this: Show nested quote +On September 07 2006 19:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
ZOMG They dont ask nicely for information? Fucking monsters! Also, all the other incidents you mentioned were from some years ago. I'd have hoped a first world country these days would be so far as to forgo such methods.
Yes of course they were from years ago, but if you want I can give examples of countries doing this now..? All first world countries when faced with a ticking time bomb situation, or a situation in which organizations are amassing resources and personel with the distinct intent of killing citizens of that first world country, they ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL use whatever tactic gets the job done, to get the information necessary to reduce the chances of success from their opponents.
|
On September 07 2006 19:37 The Storyteller wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2006 18:52 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Just a grammar question;
"In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves,"
Is the terrorists? Shouldn't it be are the terrorists themselves, or is it is because source is singular? But that doesn't sound right when I say it..
I'm an English tutor, so let me give this a crack. This is a matter of subject verb agreement, so we have to identify the subject that goes with the verb "is". It's like saying "My book on monkeys IS interesting." "Monkeys" is plural, but in this case, it's just elaboration on the book, which is the main subject and which is singular. So, looking at the statement "In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves." The verb "is" really refers to the subject "the source of information", which is singular. The phrase "where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning" is not a noun, it simply gives some elaboration on the kind of information Bush is looking for.
But we could just rearrange the sentence to say: "In this new war, the terrorists themselves are the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning."
It really seems to me as though both the terrorists and the source could potentially be subject in this sentence, and it's not made clear -> both is and are are correct.
You're an English tutor, so I suppose you know much better though. 
|
On September 07 2006 19:39 Orome wrote:I was talking mainly about this: Show nested quote +On September 07 2006 19:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
ZOMG They dont ask nicely for information? Fucking monsters! Also, all the other incidents you mentioned were from some years ago. I'd have hoped a first world country these days would be so far as to forgo such methods.
History has, and always will, repeat itself.
However, I don't understand your point either. You are trying to compare Nazi death camps with current day US secret prisons. Here's a newsflash for you:
America hasn't rounded up all the Arabs/Muslims for genocide. America hasn't (to my knowledge) starved the people it has in its prisons. The only thing that Nazi death camps and US secret prisons have in common is that they hold prisoners that are seen as enemies to the state (rightfully so or not, that's up for you to decide).
Of course, I might have completely misread your argument, but I think I got it right.
|
On September 07 2006 19:38 hasuprotoss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2006 19:37 Hippopotamus wrote:
Agreed, if Clinton back in his day had released this news, the network news and New York Times would be harrolding it as the greatest invention ever. However, since it is Bush and he is a conservative, it's obviously more of his criminal intentions.
Clinton is the one who actually set up the authority to do this. What he used it for was a much more reputable purpose though. Clinton didn't take people away from the U.S. legal system and render them to lawless countries. He instead empowered law enforcement to go those lawless countries who would not bring to trial druglords and mafia bosses, and rendered the criminals hiding there to places where they could be. So... basically he did what Bush is doing now? I don't understand your argument, get the fucking answers and move on.
I'm not arguing. I'm telling you what Clinton did with extraordinary rendition. It should be obvious how it's different. Just because they use the same authority doesn't make them do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
