EPTI expect most people don't care, but I thought it deserved a thread.
US Secret Prisons
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
I expect most people don't care, but I thought it deserved a thread. | ||
|
Myxomatosis
United States2392 Posts
| ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
| ||
|
Pacifist
Israel1683 Posts
| ||
|
ToT)Testie(
Canada723 Posts
I'm sure even Canada has one. Though it's only for pretend to fit in. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27152 Posts
| ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On September 07 2006 17:55 Manifesto7 wrote: Canadas secret prison is even on the map. It is called Sudbury, Ontario. People cant WAIT to escape from there. Um, I'm in a similar situation... it's called New Jersey, United States of America. =( a.k.a: The Hellhole of the World a.k.a: The Armpit of the United States  | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
Zeto
United States2290 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On September 07 2006 18:00 thedeadhaji wrote: Um, I'm in a similar situation... it's called New Jersey, United States of America. =( a.k.a: The Hellhole of the World a.k.a: The Armpit of the United States things can be worse our state motto should be 'at least its better than the south' | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
On September 07 2006 18:00 thedeadhaji wrote: Um, I'm in a similar situation... it's called New Jersey, United States of America. =( a.k.a: The Hellhole of the World a.k.a: The Armpit of the United States Where do you live in NJ? | ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
On September 07 2006 17:55 Manifesto7 wrote: Canadas secret prison is even on the map. It is called Sudbury, Ontario. People cant WAIT to escape from there. Sudbury the armpit of Ontario. I've never been there, whys it so bad? | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
as for the prisons i'm not suprised. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
"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.. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
| ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
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) | ||
|
neSix
United States1772 Posts
They're terrorists. Don't they deserve a little bit of terror themselves? kekeke | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
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. Am I missing something or did you just try to justify those camps because Hitler had similar ones? | ||
|
Pacifist
Israel1683 Posts
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
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. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
| ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
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
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. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4612 Posts
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. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
I sincerely appologize, I missread your post, and I actually agree with what you wrote. It was entirely due to idiocy on my part. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
| ||
|
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. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4612 Posts
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? | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
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. | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
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. | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4612 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:37 Hippopotamus wrote: 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. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
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. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:17 Lemonwalrus wrote: 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: I was talking mainly about this: 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. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:37 The Storyteller wrote: 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.  | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4612 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:39 Orome wrote: I was talking mainly about this: 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. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:38 hasuprotoss wrote: 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. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:35 hasuprotoss wrote: 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? I didn't so much mean that we should punish them as they were going to punish us. I meant that, an I must stress the without uncertainty part, if we KNEW that they were terrorists, and getting information out of them could mean the difference between life and death for innocent people, we (the U.S.) should be basically allowed to use force if necessary to get the information that we need A.S.A.P. Incontrol, please re-read my last post, it has a few changes that you might appreciate. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:41 {88}iNcontroL wrote: 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. I'm not saying the USA is alone on this, in fact I'm disgusted as how much of the rest of the world reacted to this news, but it seemed like you were defending the USA's actions at least partly in your first post. If not, we can stop this now, and I can go to bed. | ||
|
ToT)Testie(
Canada723 Posts
Nearly impeached for infidelity. This administration has lied about far more than the last, that we know of. And has had more ties, and close connections to scandals than any other as well. No impeachment yet. He also did a much better job as president. And if anyone so much as thanks Reagan, or Bush Sr. for the work Bill did, I will personally shove my foot up their ass. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:43 hasuprotoss wrote: 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. Eh, I just tried to write a reply, but can't manage to put together a coherent sentence anymore, I really need to go to bed. ;p You misunderstood me, maybe we can continue this tomorrow. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
I regret so deeply my referance to the Nazi summer camps. This will be my last attempt to explain this. Litterally, the two are completely seperate, in severity and mechanics, i understand this. The referance was purely to exemplify the existance of such tactics throughout history, and throughout the world. No, im not saying its good or legal or swell. What i am saying, and this gets discussed more adequatly in my later points (which seem to have been completely forgotten) is these tactics, have and will be used by EVERYONE in varying ways and degrees. The media coverage and the bitchiness everytime the US utilizes what EVERYONE is utilizing as some kind of "unique" or "omg cruel" way of getting information geared towards ending a fuckign war and ultimately saving lives is painstaking to the least. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote: 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. Well you seem to dismiss opinions by trying to get at the idea that they were just thoughtless impulses evoked by your comment about concentration camps. As if being repulsed by nazi germany is unwarranted. But Nazi Germany has a lot to teach us. I don't feel like writing an essay about why it's important. Perhaps most relevant is that the consequence of failing to check government, of nationalism, of exagerrating threats was at one point in history, massive genocide. Instead of picking out one thing you object to in our responses explain the point of your post if it isn't to justify what Bush does? Is it just an aimless rant? | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:40 Hippopotamus wrote: 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. You are correct, when speaking in english, the 'an' would be replaced with 'a' in that sentence. But when writing in english, the 'an' would be used. English writing and speaking follow different rules for special circumstances. Although I do not claim to be a master of the english language, I am ALMOST 100% sure that this is correct. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:53 Hippopotamus wrote: Well you seem to dismiss opinions by trying to get at the idea that they were just thoughtless impulses evoked by your comment about concentration camps. As if being repulsed by nazi germany is unwarranted. But Nazi Germany has a lot to teach us. I don't feel like writing an essay about why it's important. Perhaps most relevant is that the consequence of failing to check government, of nationalism, of exagerrating threats was at one point in history, massive genocide. Instead of picking out one thing you object to in our responses explain the point of your post if it isn't to justify what Bush does? Is it just an aimless rant? Jesus tap-dancing christ. Are you cereal? Ive said like 4 times now with long winded drawn out explanations what-the-fucking purpose of my post was. Go look back and watch for the catch word: "FucK" usually around that word is where im trying to explain myself. | ||
|
Pacifist
Israel1683 Posts
| ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4612 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:48 ToT)Testie( wrote: If Clinton had released this news, he'd probably have been impeached. Why? Nearly impeached for infidelity. Read my post about what would have happened if Clinton released the news. It's true, and you know it deep down inside. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote: You can go to bed sir. I regret so deeply my referance to the Nazi summer camps. This will be my last attempt to explain this. Litterally, the two are completely seperate, in severity and mechanics, i understand this. The referance was purely to exemplify the existance of such tactics throughout history, and throughout the world. No, im not saying its good or legal or swell. What i am saying, and this gets discussed more adequatly in my later points (which seem to have been completely forgotten) is these tactics, have and will be used by EVERYONE in varying ways and degrees. The media coverage and the bitchiness everytime the US utilizes what EVERYONE is utilizing as some kind of "unique" or "omg cruel" way of getting information geared towards ending a fuckign war and ultimately saving lives is painstaking to the least. Yeah, but there has to be a point to what you're saying, no? So what if everyone does something? Does that make it right? If you don't think it's good or legal, then what is your point? Do you have some mercy for all who committ such transgressions against civil liberties? Do you want Bush to be judged on the standards of someone who got away with human rights violations? | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Its not about Germany. Its not about the legality of the tactics. Its not about Bush, and how I want him safe and happy. Its about the complete and utter bias towards the US and how this site gets so fucking twisted when the US does something that everyone else does. Is it right? No. Do i care? fuck no. Im trying to convey an annoyance. | ||
|
Locked
United States4182 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:55 Lemonwalrus wrote: You are correct, when speaking in english, the 'an' would be replaced with 'a' in that sentence. But when writing in english, the 'an' would be used. English writing and speaking follow different rules for special circumstances. Although I do not claim to be a master of the english language, I am ALMOST 100% sure that this is correct. you're wrong here ~_~, the rule is still phonetic for the next word even if it's not a noun check: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/ and http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/591/01/ http://www.rpi.edu/web/writingcenter/wc_web/school/articlesavsan.htm http://www.planetoid.org/grammar_for_geeks/a_vs_an.html etc. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
| ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:57 hasuprotoss wrote: Read my post about what would have happened if Clinton released the news. It's true, and you know it deep down inside. The reason I'm bringing up extraordinary rendition is because that's how Bush got fucked into telling everyone about the secret prisons. They probably existed for some time, yeah, but Clinton--as far as records show--used it no more than a dozen times. Bush, has used it over 150 times. It's not just because he's a conservative. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
Its about the complete and utter bias towards the US and how this site gets so fucking twisted when the US does something that everyone else does. Is it right? No. Do i care? fuck no. Im trying to convey an annoyance. I offered this in a question as a possible reason for your post. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 07 2006 20:05 Locked wrote: you're wrong here ~_~, the rule is still phonetic for the next word even if it's not a noun check: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/ and http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/591/01/ http://www.rpi.edu/web/writingcenter/wc_web/school/articlesavsan.htm http://www.planetoid.org/grammar_for_geeks/a_vs_an.html etc. Alright, I have just been informed that EVERYTHING that I initially said in this thread is completely false. Thankyou, locked, for not insulting me but just politely correcting me. Now I have to go beat the crap out of all my goddamn past english teachers for making me look like a jackass. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 07 2006 20:12 Hippopotamus wrote: I offered this in a question as a possible reason for your post. Only you brilliantly guised it as "aimless rant" sorry if i didnt view my opinion as such. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 07 2006 20:07 Lemonwalrus wrote: {88}iNcontroL, I apologize for incorrectly challenging one of your posts, and have gone back and changed my response to that post after realising that I am a total jackass. Sorry for the inconvenience. Yeah i saw that, was a misunderstanding completely fine. Im a heated debater i dont take any of this personal so no worries <3 | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
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. NO. The second USA decided to become the world's sheriff and God's right hand it lost its right to be like everybody else. | ||
|
whatever
Mexico693 Posts
On September 07 2006 20:24 Sfydjklm wrote: NO. The second USA decided to become the world's sheriff and God's right hand it lost its right to be like everybody else. Well the USA is not the first entity to claim their actions are God´s right, and "world sheriff" have also existed before (british empire?spanish?) just not at the same level because of obvious technological reasons | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
USA didnt "chose" to become "God's right hand" we decided to back up democracy and sometimes enforce it in places we think it should exist. Sure thats fucked up, but that is far from us proclaiming to be the rage of God. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
Could you please stfu. Can you Please stfu. What's the difference? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28690 Posts
you do not have the right to remain silent anything we make you say can and will be used against you you do not have the right for a lawyer those are the basic three principles of law used by your government. pretty fucking different from how it's supposed to be. if not for the fear of my own safety, if I were american I would be demonstrating night and day against this. and well, everything else regarded to the war against terror actually. if you reelect a republican representative after everything that has been discovered about this republican government then jesus christ there is no hope. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 08 2006 08:20 haduken wrote: Grammar Question #2 Could you please stfu. Can you Please stfu. What's the difference? First one is requesting that someone stfu, second one is asking if someone has the ability to stfu. I will now stfu. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
On September 08 2006 08:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I seriously cannot comprehend how anyone are not disgusted as hell by this. it's wrong on so incredibly many levels. seriously. you do not have the right to remain silent anything we make you say can and will be used against you you do not have the right for a lawyer those are the basic three principles of law used by your government. pretty fucking different from how it's supposed to be. if not for the fear of my own safety, if I were american I would be demonstrating night and day against this. and well, everything else regarded to the war against terror actually. if you reelect a republican representative after everything that has been discovered about this republican government then jesus christ there is no hope. Honestly i seriously can not see how the american people can re-elect a republican. Unless one is "re-elected" for us -_- | ||
|
ToT)Testie(
Canada723 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 08 2006 08:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I seriously cannot comprehend how anyone are not disgusted as hell by this. it's wrong on so incredibly many levels. seriously. you do not have the right to remain silent anything we make you say can and will be used against you you do not have the right for a lawyer those are the basic three principles of law used by your government. pretty fucking different from how it's supposed to be. if not for the fear of my own safety, if I were american I would be demonstrating night and day against this. and well, everything else regarded to the war against terror actually. if you reelect a republican representative after everything that has been discovered about this republican government then jesus christ there is no hope. Demonstrating day and night? This isn't like some countries, such as France, where demonstrations have any power. The US citizen only has the power to vote for the lesser among evils (assuming we are not screwed out of it by crummy ballots, e-voting machines, gerrymandering, and other travesties in our officially sub-UN standard operated elections). | ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
On September 08 2006 08:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I seriously cannot comprehend how anyone are not disgusted as hell by this. it's wrong on so incredibly many levels. seriously. you do not have the right to remain silent anything we make you say can and will be used against you you do not have the right for a lawyer those are the basic three principles of law used by your government. pretty fucking different from how it's supposed to be. if not for the fear of my own safety, if I were american I would be demonstrating night and day against this. and well, everything else regarded to the war against terror actually. if you reelect a republican representative after everything that has been discovered about this republican government then jesus christ there is no hope. Do people in Norway all think similarly? Would I get away with being an english only speaker? I wanna move to Norway. I hear the women are pretty, the sex is good, and marijuana is EZ breezy beautiful cover girl... | ||
|
ToT)Testie(
Canada723 Posts
Eri, the entire WORLD demonstrated in ... the biggest global public protest the world has ever seen? It didn't cause even the slightest dent. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32276 Posts
| ||
|
ToT)Testie(
Canada723 Posts
| ||
|
Longinus
Oman32 Posts
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's because they used the word source. If they had said "sources" the word are would be correct. I just read what lemonwalrus said. ROFL He is completely incorrect about the usage of "an". The word an is used as opposed to "a" anytime the next word starts with the sound of a vowel. For instance, if you pronounce "history" as ih-store-EE then saying "an history" is perfectly acceptable. If you pronounce it "hist-or-EE" then say "a history" is also perfectly acceptable. This bullshit about an large apple is retarded. I have no idea where you heard that, but it is false. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
BTW, I don't call this anti-USA... That is buying into the Bush propaganda that people against him are not patriotic, when the reverse is true. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 08 2006 08:50 Servolisk wrote: Incontrol, how you can make this into being a topic of liberal bias is amazing. Any country and anyone caught doing this would receive heavy criticism, and rightfully so. It would be funny to see the contrast between your first post in the thread and whatever you would say if you were the victim of some other country doing this. Fucking moron. Experience ALWAYS changes perspective. Perhaps if i was mobbed by a flock pf penguins and had my eyes pecked out by them i wouldnt be so in love with penguins either right? As it is, im fine with saying this because i know A. it is in noway unique or new. B. it gets results C. its a part of war. Yeah it fucking sucks. Yeah its against the law. Yeah its inhumane. But name me a war where shit like this DIDNT happen? | ||
|
ToT)Testie(
Canada723 Posts
ZING! | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 08 2006 09:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Fucking moron. Experience ALWAYS changes perspective. Perhaps if i was mobbed by a flock pf penguins and had my eyes pecked out by them i wouldnt be so in love with penguins either right? As it is, im fine with saying this because i know A. it is in noway unique or new. B. it gets results C. its a part of war. So... you're saying you would change your mind if it happened to you, but you won't because it has not? As in... you won't be against something unless you are one of the victims? hmmm. Yeah it fucking sucks. Yeah its against the law. Yeah its inhumane. But name me a war where shit like this DIDNT happen? What would the point of establishing that this is as widespread as you believe be? What does it change. Anyway, it would be so easy to find a war where it didn't happen I suggest you refine you're criteria. And it would be even easier if we refine this to cases where it happened out of government endorsement, since it happens all the time where law enforcement and military go against the rules to abuse a prisoner. Those are distinctly separate scenarios. | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
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. Yeah, no one ever complained about concentration camp, goulag etc. Everyone found them perfectly normal and moral and now that the country who pretend to defend freedom and justice has some, they denonce it. Fucking propaganda... | ||
|
DarK]N[exuS
China1441 Posts
That's a short version, I can go on and on. And please, for fucks sake, don't try to argue with me using vague terms and ambiguous/nebulous examples; if you're going to debate with me you need to have REAL examples and intelligently explain what you want to say, because I don't want to hear blind American patriotism. Yes I do live in America (though my account says Chinese because I am an immigrant). | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
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. Maybe it's because of; a) The rest of the world expecting more from a first world democracy like the US b) Because of your holier than thou attitude and complaints about similiar practices in other countries. c) Both. | ||
Smurg
Australia3818 Posts
| ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
On September 07 2006 21:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote: French? Roman? Hungarian? Indian? USA didnt "chose" to become "God's right hand" we decided to back up democracy and sometimes enforce it in places we think it should exist. Sure thats fucked up, but that is far from us proclaiming to be the rage of God. USA didn't chose to "back up" democracy; USA chose to defend its one interest whatever are the costs for the other; see the early support of the Talibans, the recent support of armed bands in Somalia, all its actions in South America etc. So seeing this after USA has gone to a war for petrol/money/geopolitical reasons but by pretending to get rid off a dictator because he was torturing/killing his opponents is somewhat ironical. And no, sorry for you, but the majority of other civilized country don't torture their opponents. Looks like a killer who would say to the judge, "look there are plenty people who kill when they are angry so I don't see the problem". But yeah those were not American lifes, so I'm not surprised that you don't see it etheir. | ||
|
DarK]N[exuS
China1441 Posts
There is massive evidence that the Bush administration was seeking for something to turn public opinion back in his favor prior to 9/11 when his popularity was dropping FAST after having lost the popular election and doing jackshit while in office. Memos show plans to attack Iraq then as a centering point for American media attention and to boost both American support of Bush as well as his and his administration's agendas (recall that Bush' entire administration was involved in Desert Storm to some large degree). Karzai the president of Afghanistan is a former executive of the oil company (I forget the oil company's name at the moment) that has been contracted by the United States to drill the massive oil line (I forget its name as well; it's been awhile) in Afghanistan. I hate living in such a woefully ignorant country, where a poll of 50 thousand college students showed 90% could not find Iraq on a world map, 69% could not find the UK, and 10% could not find the USA. Where we can't concentrate on news if it's longer than a 10 second sound-bite. Where lobbyists control our legislative process and pork-barrel runs rampant because politicians care ONLY about being re-elected (ex. the senior Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska had a $72 million dollar bridge built for LITERALLY 90 people connecting a small island to the mainland because the people complained about taking a 10 minute ferry). Nobody knows what the fuck is going on with the war in Iraq and almost nobody is even aware that Adghanistan exists anymore since the media stopped reporting on it. And I hate blind patriotic people like InControl who get all pissy if you criticize the US. Guess what...the US has a LOT to answer for and is most open to criticism of any country in the world, including pre-OPERATION FREE IRAQ!!!! Iraq | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:22 Orome wrote: Am I missing something or did you just try to justify those camps because Hitler had similar ones? | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
On September 07 2006 19:55 Lemonwalrus wrote: You are correct, when speaking in english, the 'an' would be replaced with 'a' in that sentence. But when writing in english, the 'an' would be used. English writing and speaking follow different rules for special circumstances. Although I do not claim to be a master of the english language, I am ALMOST 100% sure that this is correct. you are not correct. I do not think "incontrol" grasps that the argument "he did it first" is not a good argument when coming from the premiere nation on this planet. I think even most 10 year olds have realized that. | ||
|
Resonate
United Kingdom8402 Posts
On September 07 2006 17:48 Myxomatosis wrote: ...these guys aren't members of a foreign militia. they are terrorists ... what the fuck is the difference? | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 08 2006 09:25 Servolisk wrote: So... you're saying you would change your mind if it happened to you, but you won't because it has not? As in... you won't be against something unless you are one of the victims? hmmm. What would the point of establishing that this is as widespread as you believe be? What does it change. Anyway, it would be so easy to find a war where it didn't happen I suggest you refine you're criteria. And it would be even easier if we refine this to cases where it happened out of government endorsement, since it happens all the time where law enforcement and military go against the rules to abuse a prisoner. Those are distinctly separate scenarios. Yes of course im saying if im on the negative end of ANY experience i would feel differently about it. As it is im not racist, but if 30 fucking black men raped and killed my entire family i would think i might end up a racist... maybe? As it is, im on the positive end of these brutal tactics. So yes, my opinion is going to be grossly minute as oppose to my opinion if I was locked up with no lawful representation indefinately. You can try to paint me the asshole, but fact is this is how humans work. Example: "Hey faggot, how do you feel about cute little koala bears?" Faggot: "Why i think they are swell!" Example dude: "Oh great, cause they are skinning your family alive with scary looking tools, how do you feel now!?" faggot: "Well not so good dude, i just darn well dont like em!" Anyways, obviously you guys are missing my point. Or im doing a horrible job trying to convey a thought. It got mutttled when i uttered the scary words of German camps and got further muttled when i realized im out numbered 10 to 1 in people who have an opinion on war and the US in particular. Continue your fucking circle jerk of overly liberal opinions on how war should be done. Fact is, war will always be fought in a brutal fashion that when a light is shined on it it fucking looks horrible. Nevermind the intentions, nevermind HOW those tactics escalated to that degree. Nevermind the tactics THEY use. Nevermind the positive results as oppose to the zilch results without the tactics. No, just continue to think its only the US and this is horrific shit that is somehow "new" to war? | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 08 2006 09:51 maleorderbride wrote: you are not correct. I do not think "incontrol" grasps that the argument "he did it first" is not a good argument when coming from the premiere nation on this planet. I think even most 10 year olds have realized that. Hey i know your a fucking retard, but lets try and keep this semi-intelligent. If you want to sum up my examples as "Hey lookie, they did it as well!" Than your missing the fucking point that i have verbalized 30 fucking times. No, i dont give a shit that "they did it first" its fucking examples of "look, this happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME" and the US doesnt deserve a god damn unique thread with 30 of the same people complaining about "Bush" andhow he invented these tactics or how hes "a criminal" when every fucking US president has done this, as well as almost every major leader in a war time through the course of HISTORY all over THE WORLD. So dont degenerate this into a flame war anymore than it already has. If you want to generalize my statements, dont do it incorrectly you dank ass jerk. | ||
|
RiSE
United States3182 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 07 2006 17:55 Manifesto7 wrote: Canadas secret prison is even on the map. It is called Sudbury, Ontario. People cant WAIT to escape from there. LoL~! Although jokes aside, Canada has had secret facilities and still does, a secret prison wouldn't be suprising, and contrary to what most believe Canada does have viable agents in the intelligent business i'm sure =P | ||
|
Smurg
Australia3818 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 08 2006 09:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Yes of course im saying if im on the negative end of ANY experience i would feel differently about it. As it is im not racist, but if 30 fucking black men raped and killed my entire family i would think i might end up a racist... maybe? As it is, im on the positive end of these brutal tactics. So yes, my opinion is going to be grossly minute as oppose to my opinion if I was locked up with no lawful representation indefinately. You can try to paint me the asshole, but fact is this is how humans work. Not all people. Such as those who believe in civil rights. There is a reason these things are unlawful. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
It is very clear that this topic is covered by the ideas of fairness and equality. If it is something you don't want to happen to you, then it is not fair for you to do it to others. | ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
Quanticfograw
United States2053 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2006 09:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Yes of course im saying if im on the negative end of ANY experience i would feel differently about it. As it is im not racist, but if 30 fucking black men raped and killed my entire family i would think i might end up a racist... maybe? As it is, im on the positive end of these brutal tactics. So yes, my opinion is going to be grossly minute as oppose to my opinion if I was locked up with no lawful representation indefinately. You can try to paint me the asshole, but fact is this is how humans work. Example: "Hey faggot, how do you feel about cute little koala bears?" Faggot: "Why i think they are swell!" Example dude: "Oh great, cause they are skinning your family alive with scary looking tools, how do you feel now!?" faggot: "Well not so good dude, i just darn well dont like em!" Anyways, obviously you guys are missing my point. Or im doing a horrible job trying to convey a thought. It got mutttled when i uttered the scary words of German camps and got further muttled when i realized im out numbered 10 to 1 in people who have an opinion on war and the US in particular. Continue your fucking circle jerk of overly liberal opinions on how war should be done. Fact is, war will always be fought in a brutal fashion that when a light is shined on it it fucking looks horrible. Nevermind the intentions, nevermind HOW those tactics escalated to that degree. Nevermind the tactics THEY use. Nevermind the positive results as oppose to the zilch results without the tactics. No, just continue to think its only the US and this is horrific shit that is somehow "new" to war? Can't remember who said but this reminds me of a quote that goes something like this; "To the intelligent mind, a prejudice recognized is a prejudice extinguished". Honestly, you can't just be content with letting something that you know is wrong go on simply because others have in the past, you Americans were not the first to take slaves, so perhaps you should have never let them go? You americans were not the first to allow women to vote, so again, perhaps you never should have changed that? | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Unfortunately i wasnt, i think this is horrendous and horrible, i just more contend that this is a fact of war. If you guys want to contest a better method that brings about positive results in a war time than we would have an actual debate. As it is its a bunch of "zomg usa is so bad and inc is just saying they didnt do it first" | ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
if this brings them limitations, so be it we have laws for a reason y'know | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2006 11:19 {88}iNcontroL wrote: THAT is a good arguement. And had i been arguing FOR these tactics, i would be in a pickle cause you raise a very good point. Unfortunately i wasnt, i think this is horrendous and horrible, i just more contend that this is a fact of war. If you guys want to contest a better method that brings about positive results in a war time than we would have an actual debate. As it is its a bunch of "zomg usa is so bad and inc is just saying they didnt do it first" First of all, war time? What war? Iraq? I thought the war in Iraq was declared 'over' long ago by you guys. The war on terrorism? Eh.. It's never going to be won by torture, and it's certainly never going to be won by brute force. Bully someone and they'll grow up to bully someone else, or if you do it bad enough - their children will grow up to bully you. Torture will only create support for the terrorists and their various causes, as is quite evident by this thread. I don't think the kind of militaristic approach that you are currently taking can stop terrorism without turning the entire world - or at least your own nation - into a police state. 2nd, no, if you want to condemn other countries (Iran, Iraq et al) for doing things like this, you can't go around doing it yourself, if you want to portray these countries as horrible for breaking UN sanctions.. You get the picture I guess? You need the worlds support, you need a stable middle east, you need.. I have no idea what needs to be done honestly, I just know that what you are doing now, clearly isn't working. After 9/11 you had every single sane persons sympathy, but your warmongering afterwards ruined it. Your politics ruined it. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
As for secret prisons and torture, every American concerned for the wellbeing of their country ought to consider these circumventions of their constitution as blatant violations against the spirit of that law to which the country owes its freedoms. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 08 2006 11:11 Chibi[OWNS] wrote: i think that's the whole fucking point!? Yet I had to type it anyway :p | ||
|
bine
United States2352 Posts
| ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
sdpgposd
United Kingdom1464 Posts
| ||
|
bine
United States2352 Posts
On September 08 2006 11:19 {88}iNcontroL wrote: THAT is a good arguement. And had i been arguing FOR these tactics, i would be in a pickle cause you raise a very good point. Unfortunately i wasnt, i think this is horrendous and horrible, i just more contend that this is a fact of war. If you guys want to contest a better method that brings about positive results in a war time than we would have an actual debate. As it is its a bunch of "zomg usa is so bad and inc is just saying they didnt do it first" More positive results: go to the UN immediately and tell them that you want help getting an exit from Iraq. something like "We want to relinquish control of Iraq to the international community in order to help Iraq transition to sovereignty, illiminate the presence of anti-american terrorists in the country, which are contributing to its destabilization, and prevent the current civil war from getting any worse. We understand that we have made a significant mistake, and are asking the world to help us keep the peace in a country that has been through a lot." Immediately disavow/get rid of internationally illegal practices (torture, secret prisons, etc.) and improve the world's standing globally. Hold a summit with the express purpose of starting the path toward reconciliation between the west and fundamentalist Islamic countries. Remove politics and personal loyalty from the selection process when determining who runs the institutions that are supposed to keep us safe. It's not like terrorists are something new, and it's not like we've always done flagrantly illegal and immoral things to terrorist suspects. The danger of 9/11 was always that we would let it scare us into destroying ourselves, not that our country would be killed by airplanes. Terrorism is psychological. And we fell victim to it by voting for a tyrant. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
On September 08 2006 10:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Hey i know your a fucking retard, but lets try and keep this semi-intelligent. If you want to sum up my examples as "Hey lookie, they did it as well!" Than your missing the fucking point that i have verbalized 30 fucking times. No, i dont give a shit that "they did it first" its fucking examples of "look, this happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME" and the US doesnt deserve a god damn unique thread with 30 of the same people complaining about "Bush" andhow he invented these tactics or how hes "a criminal" when every fucking US president has done this, as well as almost every major leader in a war time through the course of HISTORY all over THE WORLD. So dont degenerate this into a flame war anymore than it already has. If you want to generalize my statements, dont do it incorrectly you dank ass jerk. wait-- so now you are saying your argument is "everyone else is doing it too, go punish them! its not fair to punish me!" wow. its like kindergarden all over again. He even starts every post with an insult to the person that disagrees with him, as well as askign other people not to start a flame war... On September 08 {88}iNcontroL wrote: "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" "I feel like im teaching a class of down-syndrome students." "Jesus tap-dancing christ. Are you cereal? " (wtf?) "Fucking moron. " "Hey i know your a fucking retard, but lets try and keep this semi-intelligent." i think you need to calm down "incontrol", i think everyone understands that people have done bad things in the past, however that does not justify, or excuse its continuance. You keep avoiding the point. these things are wrong and SHOULD NOT be done. It doesnt matter if he did it first, or if everyone else is also doing it. It is still wrong. | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
On September 08 2006 09:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Fact is, war will always be fought in a brutal fashion that when a light is shined on it it fucking looks horrible. Nevermind the intentions, nevermind HOW those tactics escalated to that degree. Nevermind the tactics THEY use. Nevermind the positive results as oppose to the zilch results without the tactics. No, just continue to think its only the US and this is horrific shit that is somehow "new" to war? This is incontrol's true point. He does not feel bad about the existence of this prison or that people are tortured. He sees the positives that come out of denying due process of the law and their basic human rights. He sees it as a necessary action in order to continue his standard of living. He seems to see this constant betrayal of the principles our country was founded upon as a necessary victim of the war on terror. I know its not about bush, thats fine. its just about another person tearing down justice and supposedly unalienable human rights because it makes it easier for him to get his way than it would be if he actually acknowledged that people have intrinsic rights. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 08 2006 12:41 maleorderbride wrote: wait-- so now you are saying your argument is "everyone else is doing it too, go punish them! its not fair to punish me!" wow. its like kindergarden all over again. He even starts every post with an insult to the person that disagrees with him, as well as askign other people not to start a flame war... i think you need to calm down "incontrol", i think everyone understands that people have done bad things in the past, however that does not justify, or excuse its continuance. You keep avoiding the point. these things are wrong and SHOULD NOT be done. It doesnt matter if he did it first, or if everyone else is also doing it. It is still wrong. No, just no.. im done. This is fucking horrible. Jesus the comprehension skills some of you wield dazzles me. | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
I like how when you lose an argument you are graciously retreating because of the other sides inadequacy. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
You are saying the US isn't the only one to have done this, or indeed, doing it right now - which is true, but being in the company of the nazis, communist russia, the chinese and 3rd world countries isn't exactly where I think the US wants to be. You are saying that it's not about Bush, and it's not, sure, but he's the one doing it now and should be the one punished for it now. You impeached clinton over a fucking blowjob, I dare say this is a fair bit worse of a breach than that was so people have every right to get pissed off - just as they had when any other president did this. Others doing it does not make it right, which you agree to, but then you say it's a fact of war or something? What? We know it's wrong. We know it shouldn't be done. But we should do it anyway, just because others have before us? It is not a fact of war, it's true that horrible things are done during war but if you think the situation you are in is even close to what a real war is, then you are crazy-- And even during a real war (you know, like, world war 2) these things are unacceptable and should be avoided. On September 08 2006 13:21 Kwark wrote: I'm with inc here. And the US doesn't harm these people. They use sleep deprivation, loud annoying noises (and I mean really loud), bright lights blaring into your eyes etc.... Shit that I'd hate to be faced with admittedly. But in the end if you tell them what they want to know you'll end up in court with nothing but bad memories to show for it. And what they want to know is where the terrorists trying to kill innocent US citizens are. The question is reasonable enough imo. Sure it's not nice but it's not torture as such. Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle 1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain 2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING IMO, that's torture. And eh, just because that's what they say they are doing doesn't mean that's the whole truth. | ||
|
Ethenielle
Norway1006 Posts
edit: and yeah lol, if loud noises, sleep deprivation etc isn't torture, then what is it? just a simple little annoyance? i'd rather call it "alternative torture", sure, you don't rip their bodies apart and eviscerate them, but what they do is still fucking horrible. | ||
|
NSDAP
Canada53 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
Amnesty International calls those methods torture. The US doesn't. So don't give me all that shit about the pronounciation of torture. Ok? I am way ahead of you here. Kk? Given the dispute about what torture is defined as I jumped straight to the methods involved to avoid any argument. And the methods involved are in my opinion justified. So instead of treating me like an idiot you could presume that I was attempting to make a point, then listen to the point I made instead of dismissing it out of hand. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 08 2006 13:28 NSDAP wrote: secret prison AKA concentration camp I haven't opened a history book in a while, but wasn't the NSDAP the nazi party? And if so, doesn't this make the fact that you made this comparison unbelievably ironic? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
Spot on. lol. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2006 13:37 Kwark wrote: At FA. Amnesty International calls those methods torture. The US doesn't. So don't give me all that shit about the pronounciation of torture. Ok? I am way ahead of you here. Kk? Given the dispute about what torture is defined as I jumped straight to the methods involved to avoid any argument. And the methods involved are in my opinion justified. So instead of treating me like an idiot you could presume that I was attempting to make a point, then listen to the point I made instead of dismissing it out of hand. What the fuck? I wasn't trying to dismiss it out of hand, but after you say 'the US doesn't consider it torture'.. Well, no shit? You don't think they, being the perpetrators, are a weeeee bit too biased for their opinion on this matter to be taken seriously? I love your sig btw. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
Oh, and sorry for overreacting if you didn't mean the pronouciation thing to be patronising. I guess I took offence to easily. | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
On September 08 2006 14:15 Kwark wrote: Thanks. The word torture has connotations beyond what the US are doing here though. This is not tearing out fingernails or stuff like that. This is loud noises and bright lights. Even if you'd define that as torture I still would say it was justified. I want to clarify that doesn't mean I agree with torture as a whole. I agree with torture such as the methods listed above which causes no physical harm to the subject. This is why myself, and the US, draw that distinction about it not being torture. If I was speaking to amnesty international I'd be forced to say I'd agree with torture, if speaking to the US Government I'd say I wasn't. So sure, the US give media spin to it, say it isn't torture. You're entirely right, they're baised there. Well I support it, torture or no. If they worked with US investigators in stopping terrorist attacks the issue wouldn't come up. But the distinction the US has drawn is a useful one, it is the line between harming the terrorist and making him uncomfortable. Oh, and sorry for overreacting if you didn't mean the pronouciation thing to be patronising. I guess I took offence to easily. How many people were released from guantanamo without any charge? Do you have an idea how the us army is used in afghanistan by the local warchiefs to erase eachother? Don't you know that psychological pain cause often way more problem than physical pain? So you have no problem torturing people as soon as you think it reinforce your protection. You know, if you kill 100 random people, you are likely to kill someone who may have, one day, a car accident. Why don't you go kill them then, since it reinforce your protection? Or maybe agreing to torture people just so that you gain a little bit of security just make you a little bastard that doesn't worth more than those "terrorists"? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
| ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
On September 08 2006 14:48 Kwark wrote: I'd agree to the torture of these people, and we're talking torture by amnesty international definition, not physical harm, if it defended the ideal of people living free from the threat of terrorism simply for being a citizen of the wrong state. If 9/11 could have been stopped by the use of this 'torture' I'd be all for it. I believe there is a moral difference between the state securing a peaceful way of life for it's innocent citizens and a terrorist, seeking to kill those innocents. However you believe I'm a bastard for thinking that. In fact you put me on the same level as the terrorists who commit these atrocities. How exactly does that add up? I want people to be free to live their lives without fear of unwarranted terrorist attacks... Terrorists want to kill innocents for their ideal...... I'm as bad as them...... Explain. "innocent citizens" is a fucking myth that people developped to not face their responsability. A state is made of citizens, and citizens are responsible for the action of their state. By agreeing with the use of torture, you are just a torturer. You agree with the fact that some people didn't respect the most basics rights of other people so that they could live better. That's exactly what "terrorists" do. So yes you are just a reflect of what you pretend to fight. At least "terrorists" don't try to lie to themselves. Not to even mention that you way of fighting terrorism is actually developping it. If USA respected other people and didn't helped the talibans to grew strong there would not have been 11 septembre. So yeah, continue the cycle so that more people can die... | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2006 14:15 Kwark wrote: Thanks. The word torture has connotations beyond what the US are doing here though. This is not tearing out fingernails or stuff like that. This is loud noises and bright lights. Even if you'd define that as torture I still would say it was justified. I want to clarify that doesn't mean I agree with torture as a whole. I agree with torture such as the methods listed above which causes no physical harm to the subject. This is why myself, and the US, draw that distinction about it not being torture. If I was speaking to amnesty international I'd be forced to say I'd agree with torture, if speaking to the US Government I'd say I wasn't. So sure, the US give media spin to it, say it isn't torture. You're entirely right, they're baised there. Well I support it, torture or no. If they worked with US investigators in stopping terrorist attacks the issue wouldn't come up. But the distinction the US has drawn is a useful one, it is the line between harming the terrorist and making him uncomfortable. Oh, and sorry for overreacting if you didn't mean the pronouciation thing to be patronising. I guess I took offence to easily. Ah no, it was a copy paste out of Merriam-Webster dictionary haha, just highlighted it all =] On September 08 2006 14:48 Kwark wrote: I'd agree to the torture of these people, and we're talking torture by amnesty international definition, not physical harm, if it defended the ideal of people living free from the threat of terrorism simply for being a citizen of the wrong state. If 9/11 could have been stopped by the use of this 'torture' I'd be all for it. I believe there is a moral difference between the state securing a peaceful way of life for it's innocent citizens and a terrorist, seeking to kill those innocents. However you believe I'm a bastard for thinking that. In fact you put me on the same level as the terrorists who commit these atrocities. How exactly does that add up? I want people to be free to live their lives without fear of unwarranted terrorist attacks... Terrorists want to kill innocents for their ideal...... I'm as bad as them...... Explain. I think torture infringes on many of americas great ideals, as does terrorism, but if you let the terrorists scare you into breaking your own laws - your ideals - then you've lost, I think. And yeah, torture (let's call it 'torture') probably does more harm than it does good. Yes, you'll get a few names, but you'll also torture a few innocent persons and enrage large groups of people, from whom new terrorists (and more legal forms of anti-americanism) will emerge. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
WAIT A SECOND!!! What if someone in the twin towers didn't vote? In fact, what if a terrorist killed a child who couldn't vote? In fact, what if holding every innocent civilian who has died due to a terrorist attack responsible for it, claiming them not to be innocent (which is of course a myth) but in fact entirely to blame for being bombed, is a completely fucktarded thing to do? How can you possibly say that? And you call me a torturer. To FA, in my heart I'd agree with you. But I want less people to die. I cringe at the idea of holding the rights of one man above another, even if that man is a suicide bomber. But in the real world, I believe these things must be done. But hey, I hope you'd agree in my attack against the last post.  | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:01 Kwark wrote: Ah. So 9/11 was the fault of the people in the towers. I see now. There are no innocent citizens. Terrorism is the blame of the state which is attacked and therefore the fault of the citizens. So thats ok then. WAIT A SECOND!!! What if someone in the twin towers didn't vote? In fact, what if a terrorist killed a child who couldn't vote? In fact, what if holding every innocent civilian who has died due to a terrorist attack responsible for it, claiming them not to be innocent (which is of course a myth) but in fact entirely to blame for being bombed, is a completely fucktarded thing to do? How can you possibly say that? And you call me a torturer. So for you all is black or white? Too hard to think otherwise? When a country arms and strenghtens terrorists it is partially responsible for their actions yes. That doesn't mean that those terrorists have not any responsability. They have their own. Did you just discover than when a country make a choice it has some consequences? Or can't you understand that a choice has sometime several consequences? True innocence doesn't exist. You are a part of a system, learn to live with it; And if you deny your responsability (by not voting for example), that doesn't make you an innocent, just a man that have let the thing be done. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:10 Agone wrote: So for you all is black or white? Too hard to think otherwise? When a country arms and strenghtens terrorists it is partially responsible for their actions yes. That doesn't mean that those terrorists have not any responsability. They have their own. Did you just discover than when a country make a choice it has some consequences? Or can't you understand that a choice has sometime several consequences? True innocence doesn't exist. You are a part of a system, learn to live with it; And if you deny your responsability (by not voting for example), that doesn't make you an innocent, just a man that have let the thing be done. Like what, 30% of the US voted Bush? 30% voted Kerry? 40% didn't vote? | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:13 Kwark wrote: Ah. So now you call me stupid. Fine. The argument was over when you blamed terrorism on the victims. When you said that if an "ENTIRELY GUILTY FOR NO MAN IS INNOCENT" child is killed by a bomb he is to blame. Thats when you lost the argument. Understand? I see no point in replying further to one such as you. Ah so typical. I blamed terrorism partialy on the people that helped it to develop. And yes, sometimes those are ironicaly the victims of it. Note also how you try to pass from someone who acknowledge and agree with the action of their state to a little child. Too hard to face your responsability? You are not the little innocent that you would like to be? You can't stand to be for the torture of people and to be called a torturer. Continue to flee and deny your responsability, you don't have the strenght of mind to assume them. | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:17 FrozenArbiter wrote: Like what, 30% of the US voted Bush? 30% voted Kerry? 40% didn't vote? So? We don't speak here about a raise of taxes or some minor political actions. We speak of actions that negate some fondamental rights and generate a lot of murders/violence/terrorism just because some people think it will benefit them. If the majority were really against it, there would have been some serious demonstration and the government would have been empeached since a long time. When you let something be done, you are not as responsible as if you have encouraged it but you have still some serious responsabilities. Holy shit, the USA have no problem demanding economical sanctions against the Iranians (for their nuclear research and their support to Hezbollah). By the same logic the Iranians are total innocents that just work in their towers, so why should they get punished? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:26 Agone wrote: Ah so typical. I blamed terrorism partialy on the people that helped it to develop. And yes, sometimes those are ironicaly the victims of it. What exactly did the American citizens do that justified 9/11? That was bad enough that 3000 of them had to die. You seem to feel that it was their fault. That they caused it. That the Muslims were justified in attacking. So tell us, what did they do wrong? On September 08 2006 15:26 Agone wrote: Note also how you try to pass from someone who acknowledge and agree with the action of their state to a little child. Terrorists kill children too. However unlike US Marines, terrorists try and kill children. They deliberately set out to do so. And there are countless examples of Jewish school buses in Israel being suicide bombed if you even try and dispute that. Oh, and Iran is led by a man who wishes the destruction of Israel. A man who, while denying the holocaust, says he'd have been happier had it really happened. A man who will proudly say that if he had the means, he'd kill every Jew alive. And a man who will shortly have access to nuclear material. Unless someone does something.... But of course you're opposed to those sanctions. Because the Jews deserve to die right? Because there's no such thing as an innocent..... And second oh, far better a torturer of a terrorist using methods that may or not be torture depending on your definition to obtain information that will save innocent lives than a terrorist. I endorse torture in that context, you endorse terrorism. And then you bitch at me..... | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On September 08 2006 14:48 Kwark wrote: I'd agree to the torture of these people, and we're talking torture by amnesty international definition, not physical harm, if it defended the ideal of people living free from the threat of terrorism simply for being a citizen of the wrong state. If 9/11 could have been stopped by the use of this 'torture' I'd be all for it. I believe there is a moral difference between the state securing a peaceful way of life for it's innocent citizens and a terrorist, seeking to kill those innocents. However you believe I'm a bastard for thinking that. In fact you put me on the same level as the terrorists who commit these atrocities. How exactly does that add up? I want people to be free to live their lives without fear of unwarranted terrorist attacks... Terrorists want to kill innocents for their ideal...... I'm as bad as them...... Explain. First of all your definition of torture as physical harm doesn't just ignore the "Amnesty International " definition, you are ignoring the common sense definition. Physical harm is assault. Torture is meant to cause excruciating pain with the psychological effect of breaking the victim's will. Whether it causes any permanent effects is not even central to the idea of torture. The very fact that your starting to resort to such Orwellian twists on words shows that your state cannot be going down a good path.. And this brings me to the second point, which is if you are contesting the Geneva convention or the Amnesty International's ideas, come right out and admit it. Say you disagree that torture is wrong and declare that it is now standard practice. Don't pay lip service to it while candlestinely carry it out. It is shameful and insincere to couch behind legalistic definitions such as "enemy combatants" or attempts to redefine "torture". Vaguely reminiscient of "the Jewish Solution", isn't it? Actions like these by are not only cowardly, but they also erode political and civil ideals by promoting doublespeak and hypocrisy. Lastly, many of those ppl in Guantanamo aren't even convicted terrorists or even charged; they are simply "suspected" of terrorists organizations. United States and the 'free nations of the world' prides themself on 'innocent before proven guilty', and while you might argue it only applies to citizen of 'civilized and free nations', it started out as a moral philosophy which embraced all of mankind. Are you about to endanger the spiritual and philosphical underpinnings of your Constitution for the temprorary relief it brings you now. If you are, then maybe you aren't as free as you think you are. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:26 Agone wrote: Ah so typical. I blamed terrorism partialy on the people that helped it to develop. And yes, sometimes those are ironicaly the victims of it. Note also how you try to pass from someone who acknowledge and agree with the action of their state to a little child. Too hard to face your responsability? You are not the little innocent that you would like to be? You can't stand to be for the torture of people and to be called a torturer. Continue to flee and deny your responsability, you don't have the strenght of mind to assume them. Why are there about 5 posts on the 7th page of this thread that start with the word "Ah"? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:54 Aphelion02 wrote : Vaguely reminiscient of "the Jewish Solution", isn't it? Actions like these by are not only cowardly, but they also erode political and civil ideals by promoting doublespeak and hypocrisy. If the Jews in Germany were terrorists then it'd be reminscent of the Jewish Solution. As far as I'm aware they weren't. So don't pull the Nazi costume on me. It doesn't fit. I confess. I am a pragmatist. If the torture of one guilty man will save the lives of 100 I will consent to his torture. To an idealist that may seem unthinkable. But then what would you say to the families of those 100? That the right of the terrorist to not be tortured ranked above their right to life? The right to life of innocents. Could you say that? In the real world these choices come up. Two people will have conflicting rights. I'd make the pragmatic decision. | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:45 Kwark wrote: What exactly did the American citizens do that justified 9/11? That was bad enough that 3000 of them had to die. You seem to feel that it was their fault. That they caused it. That the Muslims were justified in attacking. So tell us, what did they do wrong? What about arming the talibans for example? If you don't have any clue about the actions of the USA durind these 20 last years, why do you try to discuss them? You have some serious reading comprehension problem too. Where did I say it was justified? you don't know the difference between "having responsability" and "beeing justified"? If you hit someone in the face, you will have some responsability in the fact that he will hit you back. That doesn't mean that his action was justified On September 08 2006 15:26 Agone wrote: Note also how you try to pass from someone who acknowledge and agree with the action of their state to a little child. Terrorists kill children too. However unlike US Marines, terrorists try and kill children. They deliberately set out to do so. And there are countless examples of Jewish school buses in Israel being suicide bombed if you even try and dispute that. Oh, and Iran is led by a man who wishes the destruction of Israel. A man who, while denying the holocaust, says he'd have been happier had it really happened. A man who will proudly say that if he had the means, he'd kill every Jew alive. And a man who will shortly have access to nuclear material. Unless someone does something.... But of course you're opposed to those sanctions. Because the Jews deserve to die right? Because there's no such thing as an innocent..... And second oh, far better a torturer of a terrorist using methods that may or not be torture depending on your definition to obtain information that will save innocent lives than a terrorist. I endorse torture in that context, you endorse terrorism. And then you bitch at me..... What the fuck Israel has to do with the discussion? As for the dead of childrens, what about the massacre of Cana? But yeah, of course, when a US marine or some Israelian throw a missile on some civilians, he is innocent of the death of those people; he clearly didn't want to kill them. Of course, the fact that he esteems their lifes so low that he doesn't hesitate to bombard them is not a problem for you. And now you try to make think I endorse terrorism? You know, blatant lies will not make you looks better nor will it help you win an argument. I'm quite sorry that there are not the Goods in one side and the Bad in the others. I'm quite sorry that the actions of some people/countries is not all good as you would like to think. And I'm even more sorry that when someone points this to you, you need to stereotype him as someone who endorse terrorism so that you could feel better and not question your thoughts. But you will have to live with it. Good night. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:14 Agone wrote: What about arming the talibans for example? If you don't have any clue about the actions of the USA durind these 20 last years, why do you try to discuss them? You have some serious reading comprehension problem too. Where did I say it was justified? you don't know the difference between "having responsability" and "beeing justified"? If you hit someone in the face, you will have some responsability in the fact that he will hit you back. That doesn't mean that his action was justified Oh jeez. The US armed the Taliban against the USSR. They armed Bin Laden against the USSR. And because of this Bin Laden attacks them? Erm... and then you call me clueless. Well, unless you believe the USSR was behind 9/11 (I swear they built a fucking time machine) I can't see how the Taliban would hold that particular incident in American history as a grudge. I mean of all the things that piss me off most, recieving free weapons in the middle of a war probably isn't near the top. That leads me to conclude that my grasp of history is infinitely superior to yours. In the way that I am right. And you are wrong. Oh, and you brought Iranian sanctions into it. And suggested American was wrong to stop Iran getting nuclear material. And then I pointed out the leader of Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel. And then I suggested he was possibly a bad person to let have nuclear material (same reason we wouldn't give it to Hitler, or any other mad antisemite). The Iran nuclear issue is entirely to do with Israel. We get to choose between Iranian nuclear capacity and Israel. We can't have both. | ||
|
africanboy
Korea (South)453 Posts
| ||
|
NSDAP
Canada53 Posts
On September 08 2006 13:42 Lemonwalrus wrote: I haven't opened a history book in a while, but wasn't the NSDAP the nazi party? And if so, doesn't this make the fact that you made this comparison unbelievably ironic? Even if it does, it actually make sence. USA are using similar methods as nazi germany. Germany wanted to clean their country from jews and USA from terrorist. When Hitler got power, he wasnt clearly saying he wanted jews to be eliminated, he started on an anti-jewish propaganda and he slowly progressed to the total elimination of the jews,bush have practically being using propaganda on terrorism, but will he progress to the final stage? | ||
|
NSDAP
Canada53 Posts
On September 08 2006 13:44 Kwark wrote: National Socialist German Workers Party. Spot on. lol. NationalSozialistische Deutsche ArbeiterPartei | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 08 2006 13:21 Kwark wrote: I'm with inc here. And the US doesn't harm these people. They use sleep deprivation, loud annoying noises (and I mean really loud), bright lights blaring into your eyes etc.... Shit that I'd hate to be faced with admittedly. But in the end if you tell them what they want to know you'll end up in court with nothing but bad memories to show for it. And what they want to know is where the terrorists trying to kill innocent US citizens are. The question is reasonable enough imo. Sure it's not nice but it's not torture as such. Uh, I thought they were "secret" prisons. The locations haven't even been revealed, yet you know what is going on? Why do you think it was necessary to hold these people secretly? | ||
|
NSDAP
Canada53 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:41 Servolisk wrote: Uh, I thought they were "secret" prisons. The locations haven't even been revealed, yet you know what is going on? Why do you think it was necessary to hold these people secretly? exactly, i totally agree with you | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:39 NSDAP wrote: Even if it does, it actually make sence. USA are using similar methods as nazi germany. Germany wanted to clean their country from jews and USA from terrorist. When Hitler got power, he wasnt clearly saying he wanted jews to be eliminated, he started on an anti-jewish propaganda and he slowly progressed to the total elimination of the jews,bush have practically being using propaganda on terrorism, but will he progress to the final stage? By similar methods exactly what do you mean? Can you name a single example of them killing someone in their custody. I can't really see how they are comparable. In the case of the US, they capture terrorists and hold them pending evidence and pressure them for information. In the other they round up innocent Jewish civilians and gas them. I mean think about it.... I can understand opposing US policy. But it's hardly mass genocide is it.... | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:41 Servolisk wrote: Uh, I thought they were "secret" prisons. The locations haven't even been revealed, yet you know what is going on? Why do you think it was necessary to hold these people secretly? That is based upon reports by the British guys they let out of Guantamano. Trawl through the BBC websites and you'll find it somewhere. Cba to find link. | ||
|
NSDAP
Canada53 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:48 Kwark wrote: By similar methods exactly what do you mean? Can you name a single example of them killing someone in their custody. I can't really see how they are comparable. In the case of the US, they capture terrorists and hold them pending evidence and pressure them for information. In the other they round up innocent Jewish civilians and gas them. I mean think about it.... I can understand opposing US policy. But it's hardly mass genocide is it.... Im not, by any case, trying to prove Bush is doing a ''mass genocide'' , just saying Bush's using ''KIND OF'' similar method, i meant to hide secret ''Prisons'' just like Hitler was hiding concentration camps. Bush also used same kind of propaganda, the anti-terrorists one, which created a kind of ''hate'' against the middle-east people. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:39 NSDAP wrote: Even if it does, it actually make sence. USA are using similar methods as nazi germany. Germany wanted to clean their country from jews and USA from terrorist. When Hitler got power, he wasnt clearly saying he wanted jews to be eliminated, he started on an anti-jewish propaganda and he slowly progressed to the total elimination of the jews,bush have practically being using propaganda on terrorism, but will he progress to the final stage? First of all, and I am in no way trying to be negative towards you or start a flame war, but does your name, added to what you've been posting, mean that you support hitler's views, or am I just associating your name incorrectly? Secondly, I think your comparison of Hitler is to the Jewish as George Bush is to the terrorists, however hard hitting, isn't an apt comparison. Whereas Hitler basically decided that the Jews were the cause of all of Germany's problems, economic and otherwise, with absolutely no proof of this, George Bush (no matter the fact that I do not personally support him) was just reacting to attacks on his country. The Jews did nothing to cause Hitler to want them dead, the terrorist did many things. Not only have they done these things, but whenever some attrocity happens in the Middle-East, the organization that cause it makes sure that everybody knows it was them that did it. I do not support Bush, at least as far as the military actions that he has started, but I do not think he deserves in any way to have his good, although dumb, intentions compared with those of Hitler. | ||
|
NSDAP
Canada53 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:55 Lemonwalrus wrote: First of all, and I am in no way trying to be negative towards you or start a flame war, but does your name, added to what you've been posting, mean that you support hitler's views, or am I just associating your name incorrectly? Secondly, I think your comparison of Hitler is to the Jewish as George Bush is to the terrorists, however hard hitting, isn't an apt comparison. Whereas Hitler basically decided that the Jews were the cause of all of Germany's problems, economic and otherwise, with absolutely no proof of this, George Bush (no matter the fact that I do not personally support him) was just reacting to attacks on his country. The Jews did nothing to cause Hitler to want them dead, the terrorist did many things. Not only have they done these things, but whenever some attrocity happens in the Middle-East, the organization that cause it makes sure that everybody knows it was them that did it. I do not support Bush, at least as far as the military actions that he has started, but I do not think he deserves in any way to have his good, although dumb, intentions compared with those of Hitler. okay, well as i explained to Kwarkz, im just comparing the methods.(propaganda,secret prisons(before it was secret concentration camps)) I actually ''support'' Hitler's view, but not regarding to the jewish systematic elimation. Hitler wasn't a bad dictator if we forget the genocide. He did many great things for Germany nonetheless | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
On reflection, do you feel perhaps you used Hitlers name a little lightly. Ya know, when the comparison is that they both hide things they don't want people to see. | ||
|
Shymon
United States620 Posts
that is all, please don't take this as taking sides, just making a point about people throwing the illegal claim around far too loosely. ie detaining foriegn "insert word you like here", invading iraq (which was actually called for IN a treaty, and other such things which while of morally debatable nature had no laws prohibiting them. FLAME ON! | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
| ||
|
NSDAP
Canada53 Posts
On September 08 2006 17:04 Kwark wrote: Ah, so Bush is hiding secret prisons like Hitler hid concentration camps and also like my sister hides her diary. They all hide things they don't want people to see. Shit! My sister is like Hitler. And so is George W Bush. Holy fuck! On reflection, do you feel perhaps you used Hitlers name a little lightly. Ya know, when the comparison is that they both hide things they don't want people to see. Dumbass. | ||
|
Shymon
United States620 Posts
On September 08 2006 17:09 Kwark wrote: Only under US law. The US would think it was legal. In the country the guy came from it probably qualifies as kidnapping. In which case it depends on the country. The British guys got released. Sucks to be from anyone else though. But a goverment is not bound by another's law, it by definition has no jurisdiction. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:55 NSDAP wrote: Im not, by any case, trying to prove Bush is doing a ''mass genocide'' , just saying Bush's using ''KIND OF'' similar method, i meant to hide secret ''Prisons'' just like Hitler was hiding concentration camps. Eat shit | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 08 2006 16:50 Kwark wrote: That is based upon reports by the British guys they let out of Guantamano. Trawl through the BBC websites and you'll find it somewhere. Cba to find link. In other words, you made it up about the prisons in this topic. | ||
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On September 08 2006 17:05 Shymon wrote: Ok, something that i think needs clearing up in a big way in this and any political discussion; Acts by a goverment (say the USA) against an individual who is NOT a citizen of said country is not illegal unless a treaty with another country says that act is prohibited. And before you all claim the geneva convention, you should relize that the USA did NOT sign it. that is all, please don't take this as taking sides, just making a point about people throwing the illegal claim around far too loosely. ie detaining foriegn "insert word you like here", invading iraq (which was actually called for IN a treaty, and other such things which while of morally debatable nature had no laws prohibiting them. FLAME ON! The u.s signed the Geneva Conventions with several reservations. States have responsibilities to prisoners of war and to political prisoners. The u.s. standards should be above the global standards. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42990 Posts
On September 08 2006 17:15 Servolisk wrote: In other words, you made it up about the prisons in this topic. Too lazy to google it yourself. Fine. In June of 2004, following the Abu Gharib prison scandal in Iraq, the CIA temporarily suspended the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in its facilities pending a Justice Department evaluation. The techniques include feigning drowning, feigned suffocation, 'stress positions', light and noise bombardment, sleep deprivation, and making captives think they are being interrogated by another government. However, the suspension of these tactics applies only to CIA facilities and will not change things at Guantanamo. [YAHOO] Four men were set free from Guantanamo in October, 2002 after being deemed not a security risk. Speaking from a hospital in Kabul, they told the BBC they had not been beaten, but they had been interrogated intensely and had been locked in tiny cells in sweltering heat for long periods. They had been cut off from the outside world for eleven months. Jan Mohammed was not given a letter from his family until three days before his release. The returned men say there are three kinds of people being held at Camp Delta: real fighters, those forced to fight and innocent Afghans who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. [BBC2] | ||
|
Akirus
United States124 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 08 2006 17:32 Kwark wrote: Too lazy to google it yourself. Fine. In June of 2004, following the Abu Gharib prison scandal in Iraq, the CIA temporarily suspended the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in its facilities pending a Justice Department evaluation. The techniques include feigning drowning, feigned suffocation, 'stress positions', light and noise bombardment, sleep deprivation, and making captives think they are being interrogated by another government. However, the suspension of these tactics applies only to CIA facilities and will not change things at Guantanamo. [YAHOO] Four men were set free from Guantanamo in October, 2002 after being deemed not a security risk. Speaking from a hospital in Kabul, they told the BBC they had not been beaten, but they had been interrogated intensely and had been locked in tiny cells in sweltering heat for long periods. They had been cut off from the outside world for eleven months. Jan Mohammed was not given a letter from his family until three days before his release. The returned men say there are three kinds of people being held at Camp Delta: real fighters, those forced to fight and innocent Afghans who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. [BBC2] Why are you talking about Guantanamo? | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
[QUOTE] What about arming the talibans for example? If you don't have any clue about the actions of the USA durind these 20 last years, why do you try to discuss them? You have some serious reading comprehension problem too. Where did I say it was justified? you don't know the difference between "having responsability" and "beeing justified"? If you hit someone in the face, you will have some responsability in the fact that he will hit you back. That doesn't mean that his action was justified[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Oh jeez. The US armed the Taliban against the USSR. They armed Bin Laden against the USSR. And because of this Bin Laden attacks them? Erm... and then you call me clueless. Well, unless you believe the USSR was behind 9/11 (I swear they built a fucking time machine) I can't see how the Taliban would hold that particular incident in American history as a grudge. I mean of all the things that piss me off most, recieving free weapons in the middle of a war probably isn't near the top. That leads me to conclude that my grasp of history is infinitely superior to yours. In the way that I am right. And you are wrong. [/QUOTE] I begin to think you lack any ability to resonate. The Talibans didn't care USA helped them; you see some people are not exactly rational or intelligent or they would not be terrorists. But they get the power to turn against USA because USA helped them in the first place. One more time i'm ashamed by the fact that you, who pretend to fight terrorism, see no probleme in the fact that USA helped a group of terrorist killing people and enslaving women; But yes they were Russians so that's not an issue. You have no real respect for the human life. You just respect what is good for you and then try to cover it. [QUOTE] Oh, and you brought Iranian sanctions into it. And suggested American was wrong to stop Iran getting nuclear material. And then I pointed out the leader of Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel. And then I suggested he was possibly a bad person to let have nuclear material (same reason we wouldn't give it to Hitler, or any other mad antisemite). The Iran nuclear issue is entirely to do with Israel. We get to choose between Iranian nuclear capacity and Israel. We can't have both.[/QUOTE] Where did I said the Americans were wrong to stop Iran? I said that you have no probleme to punish a population when you disagree with the actions of their government (Iran) but at the same time you find that the USA population is innocent of what its government has done... | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
staRt.toDaY
Germany38 Posts
"They beat him, stripped him naked, drugged him, and gave him an enema. He was then dressed in a diaper and a jumpsuit, and flown on a Boeing 737 N313P to Baghdad, then immediately to "the salt pit", a covert CIA interrogation centre in Afghanistan which contained prisoners from Pakistan, Tanzania, Yemen and Saudi Arabia." You`ve been talking about if treating "terrorists" in an unlawful way a lot, but thats not the point (well, not the main point). the point is that unblemished citizens, like Khalid are being kidnapped, tortured. when they finally realised they were fucking with an innocent person what did they do? "They flew him out of Afghanistan and released him at night on a desolate road in Albania, without apology, or funds to return home" nice going usa. same story with another german based "terrorist" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz "Kurnaz is one of the detainees who has alleged that he was subject to interrogation techniques that included suffocation by drowning, sexual humiliation, and the desecration of his religion." again, in the end no charges were made, he did nothing wrong. nevertheless they had him transported to germany bond and gagged -guantanamostlye. "k, we tortured and imprisoned you for no reason for years, whatever fuck you, we´re still gonna humiliate you now fuck off...." and these guys did nothing wrong, they just were on the wrong place at the wrong time, this could be any of us . this shit can´t be right. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
| ||
