PDA

View Full Version : William Ayers Just Doesn't Get It.


Preacher
11-14-2008, 03:15 PM
Before everyone goes nuts... Let's not make this post about the president elect . . .

It is about William Ayers and the comments he JUST made.

Campaign Boogeyman William Ayers Talks to 'GMA'


Chris Cuomo Grills '60s Radical Bill Ayers


By MARK MOONEY
Nov. 14, 2008




William Ayers, the 1960s radical whose violent history became a focal point in the 2008 presidential election, said today that the Republicans unfairly "demonized" him in an attempt to damage the campaign (rtsp://start.real.com/rd?pid=abcchan&url=081015_debate_ayers.rm) of President-elect Obama.
The former '60s radical says the extent of their association was exploited.


Ayers defended his bomb-throwing past and repeated a statement that has infuriated his critics: "I don't think we did enough."
The college professor also argued to "Good Morning America's" Chris Cuomo (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6252993) today that the bombing campaign by the Weather Underground, the group he helped found, was not terrorism.
The Weather Underground bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon and the New York City Police Department in protest of the Vietnam War.
"It's not terrorism because it doesn't target people, to kill or injure," Ayers said.
Ayers became a boogeyman for Sen. John McCain (http://blogs.abcnews.com/liveblogging/2008/10/if-mccain-doesn.html) and Gov. Sarah Palin, who demanded to know more about Obama's relationship with his Chicago neighbor. Palin accused Obama of "palling around ... with a terrorist."
Related[/URL]Breaking his silence today, Ayers said that the GOP attack was a "dishonest narrative ... to demonize me.



"I don't buy the idea that guilt by association should have any part of our politics," he said.
Ayers scoffed at the Republican effort to make his ties to Obama appear suspicious.
"This idea that we need to know more, like there's some dark, hidden secret, some secret link," Ayers said. "It's a myth thrown up by people who want to exploit the politics of fear."
But he was unapologetic about his [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5976774&page=1"]militant actions (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=6253871&page=1) during the Vietnam War.
"What you call the violent past, that was a time when thousands of people were being murdered every month by our own government. ... We were on the right side," he told "GMA."
The co-founder of the Weather Underground was, as McCain has claimed, unrepentant about the the bombings his group committed during the 1960s.
"The content of the Vietnam protest is that there were despicable acts going on, but the despicable acts were being done by our government. ... I never hurt or killed anyone," Ayers said.
"Frankly, I don't think we did enough, just as today I don't think we've done enough to stop these wars," he said.


When you are not in a war, yet set bombs to put terror in people, it is called terrorism

Dino 6 Rings
11-14-2008, 03:36 PM
He's attempting to cash in on his 15 minutes of fame. Now that the guy he clearly supported won the white house, he'll get more invitations to speak at Universities and will be able to get paid more. Bottom line. He was a spoiled rich kid who's dad owned the electric company and was a billionaire and I find it hilarious that he didn't send his own daddy a bomb in the mail.

Guess he really knows where his bread is buttered. Coporate America pays his bills and he knows.

Effing Toolbag. But hey, he's just like the Mullahs that call for terrorism and jihad, they never seem to sacrifice themselves, just ask others to do it.

Preacher
11-14-2008, 03:40 PM
Cashing in on 15 minutes of fame... eh?

That very well may be.

MACH1
11-14-2008, 03:42 PM
He's also reprinting his book from some years ago and doing public book signings.

Dino 6 Rings
11-14-2008, 04:14 PM
Yep, 15 minutes of fame.

If he's named to a single position in the Obama administration, like put in charge of the schools or something...then people will come out so against him that he'd need a really huge rock to get under....but then again...he kind of does like it underground as long as it has nice weather!

HA! A pun!

Preacher
11-14-2008, 04:17 PM
Hey guys...

I really want to keep this about Ayers, instead of another Obama bashing thread...

I think it is worth-while to discuss this guy in light of his comments, but we have enough threads going after Obama....


(I don't think you two were doing it, but it sure easily could go that way).

Dino 6 Rings
11-14-2008, 04:28 PM
Ok.

Ayers should be in jail and only got off because of a technicality involving the Feds using illegal wire tapping or something like that.

To me, he is nothing more than a glorified by the lefties in this country Tim McVeigh.

Tim McVeigh said the same crap about "fighting the government" and claimed his bombing of the Ok City building was in retaliation for the "evil" government attack on Waco.

Yet, they are both Terrorists in my eyes and I see nothing productive ever coming from this dirt bag.

Preacher
11-14-2008, 04:29 PM
Ok.

Ayers should be in jail and only got off because of a technicality involving the Feds using illegal wire tapping or something like that.

To me, he is nothing more than a glorified by the lefties in this country Tim McVeigh.

Tim McVeigh said the same crap about "fighting the government" and claimed his bombing of the Ok City building was in retaliation for the "evil" government attack on Waco.

Yet, they are both Terrorists in my eyes and I see nothing productive ever coming from this dirt bag.

:hatsoff:

Absolutely.

Leftoverhard
11-14-2008, 11:11 PM
To me, he is nothing more than a glorified by the lefties in this country Tim McVeigh.


Glorified? I'm a "lefty". I don't glorify that guy. I haven't heard of anyone that does and I think you're absolutely wrong when you say he's a lefty McVeigh. - no dude, he's not. There is an enormous difference between a mass murderer like McVeigh and a Vietnam War protesting amateur non-violent bomber like Ayers. It would be like me calling someone "nothing more than a glorified Ted Bundy" because they were in an alcohol related crash and their passenger died. Guilty of something really bad? Yes. Ted Bundy style? No.
Sometimes you say some smart things. This isn't one.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-14-2008, 11:34 PM
The guy is crazy yes, however, his point was to clear Obama name by telling everyone that it was a bad political move to try to tie obama to his organization??

tony hipchest
11-15-2008, 12:51 AM
what is most ironic is the likes of palin, glenn beck, o'reiley, and the obsessive hannity, who have given ayers some sort of relevancy. (sorry, i havent even bothered to hear what rush has to belabor.)

ayers couldve died in obscurity, but now the "evil right media" :rolleyes: (and potential '12 candidate) has resurrected him and given him the voice he always wish he had. :applaudit:

good job!

where were they, or their outrage against ayers 3 years ago?

will someone please remind the morons that ayers didnt win the election? (cause all this bs isnt about ayers. its about a democrat being elected president)

again... congrats to the right for advertizing his new/old "book".

if it werent so transparent, next week, they would be giving a voice to, and handing over the stage to the leader of the KKK.

and if ayers were such a big deal, why arent anyone making a big deal about his co-conspirators or the rest of the weathermen?

next on the agenda is pushing a book of philosophy by the venerable rev. do wright. :rolleyes:

Preacher
11-15-2008, 01:07 AM
I didn't care about anything else in this article but this...

"What you call the violent past, that was a time when thousands of people were being murdered every month by our own government. ... We were on the right side," he told "GMA."
The co-founder of the Weather Underground was, . . . unrepentant about the the bombings his group committed during the 1960s.
And yes, I edited McCain out because I don't really care about the politics now.

BTW,

The link was http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=6251086&page=1

Hence, it was ABC news that gave the interview...

Preacher
11-15-2008, 01:09 AM
People.

The election is over, Obama is our president.

Leave alone the politics for a second.

I want to talk about how a man can believe that he is actually in the right for bombing people.

tony hipchest
11-15-2008, 08:46 PM
I want to talk about how a man can believe that he is actually in the right for bombing people.i dont think anyone on this board is going to defend what he did. im not sure what you wanna talk about.

some people are very strong in their convictions, thus ayers thinking he is in the "right".

what do you wanna discuss, and where do you want this thread to go?

you might as well ask why hitler and stalin thought they were "right".

theres plenty of research on sociopaths. a better question to ask is why if ayers is so dangerous, why isnt he locked up behind bars as opposed to being a college professor?:noidea:

Preacher
11-15-2008, 08:50 PM
i dont think anyone on this board is going to defend what he did. im not sure what you wanna talk about.

some people are very strong in their convictions, thus ayers thinking he is in the "right".

what do you wanna discuss, and where do you want this thread to go?

you might as well ask why hitler and stalin thought they were "right".

theres plenty of research on sociopaths . a better question to ask is why if ayers is so dangerous, why isnt he locked up behind bars as opposed to being a college professor?:noidea:

That's actually the direction I am thinking. I just find it amazing, even though I see it all the time, how a person can rationalize just about anything and everything.

Now that you brought it up, I am absolutley fascinated by the question, "how can a society as ordered and rationale as the German culture be turned completely upsidedown in under 10 years."

Now, I don't think Ayers is CLOSE to what Hitler did, and I don't want to get into a reduxio ad Hitler argument.

I just find the thougth processees very interesting.
_______________

Of course, the other part of that was simply exposure. If he said it, let's let everyone read about it and see the true colors. That, in a nutshell, is behind a lot of my posts in this forum on these type of issues.

tony hipchest
11-15-2008, 09:24 PM
how can those who blow up bombs at abortion clinics actually think they are standing up for a "good cause"?

extremists. :tap:

Preacher
11-15-2008, 09:30 PM
how can those who blow up bombs at abortion clinics actually think they are standing up for a "good cause"?

extremists. :tap:

Exactly.

They are deranged.

However, the abortion clinic bombers usually aren't part of a larger group or "underground" they are individuals who are over the edge.

On the other hand, When you look at McVeigh, Ayers, etc. etc., there is a different mentality. Actually, Ayers moral equivalent isn't McVeigh, but Terry Nichols.

cubanstogie
11-15-2008, 09:55 PM
i dont think anyone on this board is going to defend what he did. im not sure what you wanna talk about.

some people are very strong in their convictions, thus ayers thinking he is in the "right".

what do you wanna discuss, and where do you want this thread to go?

you might as well ask why hitler and stalin thought they were "right".

theres plenty of research on sociopaths. a better question to ask is why if ayers is so dangerous, why isnt he locked up behind bars as opposed to being a college professor?:noidea:

That just goes to show you how screwed up our Colleges and Universities are by employing these radicals such as Ayers and Ward Churchill. Typical libs, they preach freedom of speech but try to sensor it when the speech is by conservatives.

Preacher
11-15-2008, 09:59 PM
While I am a big proponent of academic freedom, there must be a limit there just as there is a limit to freedom of speech (can't yell fire in a crowded theater).

The reason that Churchil and Ayers get college professorships is because they are considered out of the mainstream. Academia has gone so far in exalting "other viewpoints" that these type of professors are more the norm than one would think.

revefsreleets
11-16-2008, 02:28 PM
By Ayers logic, then we should exonerate G Gordon Liddy, Howard Hunt, et al...they acted on their beliefs, and nobody died. I believe they've been slightly more remorseful though...

That's the problem with bringing these old things up...there's always a countermove, and it's usually trumps the initial move.

Dino 6 Rings
11-16-2008, 08:25 PM
Glorified? I'm a "lefty". I don't glorify that guy. I haven't heard of anyone that does and I think you're absolutely wrong when you say he's a lefty McVeigh. - no dude, he's not. There is an enormous difference between a mass murderer like McVeigh and a Vietnam War protesting amateur non-violent bomber like Ayers. It would be like me calling someone "nothing more than a glorified Ted Bundy" because they were in an alcohol related crash and their passenger died. Guilty of something really bad? Yes. Ted Bundy style? No.
Sometimes you say some smart things. This isn't one.

This is exactly the incorrect thinking. There is no difference between Ayers and McVeigh other than Ayers was let go on a technicality. The Concept was the exact same. Bomb goverment sites in protest of what you believe to be a problem with the government. Ayers wasn't bombing churhes in Canada or Mosques in Indonesia, he was bombing Government Sites in the USA. Exactly what McVeigh did. Same exact thing. To think otherwise is exactly the type of "glorfied lefty" thinking I'm complaining about. Olympic Park Bomber, UnaBomber, McVeigh, Ayers. All One In The Same, only Ayers got off because of a technicality. He should have been put in Federal Prison for life. Not given free reign to start "teaching" at a University.

Just because he was "bad" at being a terrorist and didn't kill 300 + people, it doesn't make him any better than those other bombers.

And Ted Bundy, I'd compare John Wayne Gacy to Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dalmer, or Ed Geins, and that is Ayers to McVeigh, to Kasinksy to Robert Rudolph. All Guilty of trying to kill people with Bombs.

revefsreleets
11-16-2008, 08:51 PM
I'm not sure you understand, Dino...there IS a difference between trying to make a political statement via blowing up an empty building and actually blowing up a building filled with people.

Ayers problem isn't that he was a pseudo-terrorist back in the day, it's that he's unrepentant. And I suspect that stems from the fact that it took him all these years to actually GET any attention for his originally misguided acts...

Preacher
11-16-2008, 10:49 PM
I'm not sure you understand, Dino...there IS a difference between trying to make a political statement via blowing up an empty building and actually blowing up a building filled with people.

Ayers problem isn't that he was a pseudo-terrorist back in the day, it's that he's unrepentant. And I suspect that stems from the fact that it took him all these years to actually GET any attention for his originally misguided acts...


DING DING DING

bozz723
11-17-2008, 03:34 AM
Before everyone goes nuts... Let's not make this post about the president elect . . .

It is about William Ayers and the comments he JUST made.



When you are not in a war, yet set bombs to put terror in people, it is called terrorism

Just like what our current government and administration do every day. They are the very definition of terrorists.

Preacher
11-17-2008, 03:40 AM
Just like what our current government and administration do every day. They are the very definition of terrorists.

Really?

So when has our government planted bombs in a roadside for unsuspecting passerby's? When did we put a fertilizer truck next to a building full of innocents with no notice that war was coming?

Grow up.

We are in 2 wars which were DECLARED ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW. Or did you forget that.

Terrorism does NOT ISSUE A BILL OF WAR, nor do they go through the UN.

Man, you really need to get out a bit more often.

Dino 6 Rings
11-17-2008, 08:40 AM
I'm not sure you understand, Dino...there IS a difference between trying to make a political statement via blowing up an empty building and actually blowing up a building filled with people.

Ayers problem isn't that he was a pseudo-terrorist back in the day, it's that he's unrepentant. And I suspect that stems from the fact that it took him all these years to actually GET any attention for his originally misguided acts...

The intention of the Weather Underground was to KILL people.

"In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, using for the first time its new name, the "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO), adopting fake identities, and pursuing covert activities only. These initially included preparations for a bombing of a U.S. military non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey in what Brian Flanagan said had been intended to be "the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory"."

On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of an officers' dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[22] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated for unknown reasons. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion. Cathy Wilkerson and Kathy Boudin escaped unharmed. It was an accident of history that the site of the Village explosion was the former residence of Merrill Lynch brokerage firm founder Charles Merrill and his son, the poet James Merrill. The younger Merrill subsequently recorded the event in his poem 18 West 11th Street, the title being the address of the house. An FBI report later stated that the group had possessed sufficient amounts of explosive to "level ... both sides of the street".

The bomb preparations have been pointed out by critics of the claim that the Weatherman group did not try to take lives with its bombings. Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003, "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."
That is not Dissent, or "protest" that is actively trying to KILL Humans for your political agenda. That is TERRORISM.

Bottom Line. Ayers should be in prison for attempted Murder and Terrorism.

Leftoverhard
11-17-2008, 09:07 AM
Really?

So when has our government planted bombs in a roadside for unsuspecting passerby's? When did we put a fertilizer truck next to a building full of innocents with no notice that war was coming?

Grow up.

We are in 2 wars which were DECLARED ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW. Or did you forget that.

Terrorism does NOT ISSUE A BILL OF WAR, nor do they go through the UN.

Man, you really need to get out a bit more often.


Preacher - we are in these wars on foreign soil. We are fighting insurgents - a fancy name for "the locals." If our country was attacked and we had no military to defend us - guess who would be fighting for our freedom? You guessed it - our own version of insurgents, our beloved gun lovers, all the people who posted about protecting themselves on that recent gun thread. How do you fight an organized military with rogue groups of "locals with guns?" Well, you could use up all your ammo pretty quick or you could improvise. Hmm, that's a familiar word.

I don't think everything here is that simple, even my own scenario - but - there is a lot of standing inside other shoes to be had here. It's not so cut and dry as "We're right, they're wrong, we're fighting "legally", they're just a bunch of terrorists." I think that's a dangerous way to think.
Has our own government committed acts of terrorism in the past 7 years? You betcha :tm: . I'd even venture to say war crimes when it comes to the torture, homicide and complete disregard for the rule of law at Guantanemo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram.
I think the whole Ayers thing is a distraction. It's a non-issue. That happened a long time ago, no threat. I don't care what he thinks - about anything. I care what's happening right now and right now there is some major BS going on - any way you slice it.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-17-2008, 11:45 AM
Preacher - we are in these wars on foreign soil. We are fighting insurgents - a fancy name for "the locals." .

For taking such a strong stance...you would think that you would do more research into the very basics of your argument.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban in Afganistan is made up of muslims from around the world....(Remember the American from California who was jailed as a member of Al-Qaeda?) The Terrorist organization was led by a Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until he was killed in 2006, it is now led by Egyptian militant Abu Ayyub al-Masri

Al-Qaeda declared allegiance to Saudi-Arabian terrorist Osama bin Laden in October 2004....Keep in mind that there are another six Jihadi groups organized in the Islamic State of Iraq....be assured...Al Qaeda In Iraq is part of the global al Qaeda movement....and a full 10-20% of its cells are Foreign fighters.... however, 90% of the leadership and the suicide bombers are not Iraqi.

If our country was attacked and we had no military to defend us - guess who would be fighting for our freedom? You guessed it - our own version of insurgents, our beloved gun lovers, all the people who posted about protecting themselves on that recent gun thread. How do you fight an organized military with rogue groups of "locals with guns?"

How many mis-statements can you make in one paragraph?

1) Our brave soldiers did not "attack" an unarmed country with no military...and though I am trying to be nice....its total BS to make that insinuation....we defeated their army...not their civilians...and as with every ARMY I have ever seen (outside the Salavation Army)...they were armed.

2) As my first paragraph stated...up to 1 out of 5 Al-Qaeda "insurgents" are not "locals with guns"...and 9 out of 10 in leadership are foreign....I would be interested in hearing how you think that Bin-laden or al-Masri have a more justified and honorable goal in Iraq then America does.

3) I cannot imagine ANY scenerio in which Americans would accept the leadership of Foreign Terrorists....so your example seems like empty rhetoric instead of truly trying to make a correct analogy.

revefsreleets
11-17-2008, 12:10 PM
The US as terrorists? Nope...can't go there. What some people call torture is really glorified hazing. Torture is attaching electrodes to genitals, beatings until people are unconscious or dead, chopping off fingers, putting peoples heads in vices, etc, etc...What we did in Gitmo (sanctioned) was more akin to fraternity pranks. Now there were some isolated incidents where individuals went too far, but those were UNsanctioned actions.

Part of the problem we face is the liberal naivety that we can fight a war with a bunch of rules. Popularity polls dictate tactics. "Measured responses". When you fight limited wars, you get limited results. We need to return to making all-out war against our enemies. Will it be bloody? Yes, but war is literally Hell. I'd rather fight a short ultra-violent campaign then a long drawn out politically correct one. The collateral damage is going to be worse in the latter...

Preacher
11-17-2008, 02:02 PM
The US as terrorists? Nope...can't go there. What some people call torture is really glorified hazing. Torture is attaching electrodes to genitals, beatings until people are unconscious or dead, chopping off fingers, putting peoples heads in vices, etc, etc...What we did in Gitmo (sanctioned) was more akin to fraternity pranks. Now there were some isolated incidents where individuals went too far, but those were UNsanctioned actions.

Part of the problem we face is the liberal naivety that we can fight a war with a bunch of rules. Popularity polls dictate tactics. "Measured responses". When you fight limited wars, you get limited results. We need to return to making all-out war against our enemies. Will it be bloody? Yes, but war is literally Hell. I'd rather fight a short ultra-violent campaign then a long drawn out politically correct one. The collateral damage is going to be worse in the latter...


Boys and Girls, We have a winner.


BTW, you left one out in the torture realm, Cutting down the breast bone and pealing the skin back....

Leftoverhard
11-17-2008, 02:33 PM
What some people call torture is really glorified hazing. Torture is attaching electrodes to genitals, beatings until people are unconscious or dead, chopping off fingers, putting peoples heads in vices, etc, etc...What we did in Gitmo (sanctioned) was more akin to fraternity pranks. Now there were some isolated incidents where individuals went too far, but those were UNsanctioned actions.



Watch Taxi To The Dark Side. It's a good look into what kind of torture has been used in the name of the war on terror. I wish you would watch it. I really hope that someone like you would dig for truth on this topic the way you do with others.

revefsreleets
11-17-2008, 05:39 PM
I addressed that. Those were unsanctioned acts. You're talking about a LONG stretch in the chain of command trying to link Bush to the acts of privates in the Army.

It's cool if YOU believe that the US is a terrorist state, It's your right to feel that way. I would suggest YOU read up on the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Read a little about Darfur. Slobodan Milosevic. Khmer Rouge. "Soldiers" beating women to death with their own babies. Using machetes to dismember people and letting them slowly bleed to death. Public rape. THAT is State sanctioned terror, real human rights violations.

TheWarDen86
11-17-2008, 05:49 PM
Glorified? I'm a "lefty". I don't glorify that guy. I haven't heard of anyone that does and I think you're absolutely wrong when you say he's a lefty McVeigh. - no dude, he's not. There is an enormous difference between a mass murderer like McVeigh and a Vietnam War protesting amateur non-violent bomber like Ayers. It would be like me calling someone "nothing more than a glorified Ted Bundy" because they were in an alcohol related crash and their passenger died. Guilty of something really bad? Yes. Ted Bundy style? No.
Sometimes you say some smart things. This isn't one.

If that's not an oxymoron, then I don't know what is.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-18-2008, 05:01 AM
The intention of the Weather Underground was to KILL people.

On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of an officers' dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University, there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated for unknown reasons. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion.

Bingo.....It was the weathermans FULL intent to kill soldiers and civilians....(as a side note...my aunt went to elementary school with Diana Oughton...and often played at their house.)

xfl2001fan
11-18-2008, 07:06 AM
Preacher - we are in these wars on foreign soil. We are fighting insurgents - a fancy name for "the locals." If our country was attacked and we had no military to defend us - guess who would be fighting for our freedom? You guessed it - our own version of insurgents, our beloved gun lovers, all the people who posted about protecting themselves on that recent gun thread. How do you fight an organized military with rogue groups of "locals with guns?" Well, you could use up all your ammo pretty quick or you could improvise. Hmm, that's a familiar word.

Since the rest of your post has been addressed, I'm going to bring up one point that others completely missed.

Ask the Colonists. Seriously, they were over-matched and still managed to push the British away. If you think it doesn't compare to today's society...look at how Vietnam in the 70's and Iraq today is going.

In regards to military training, weapons and technology available, we should be destroying them. But we're on their turf and they are using tactics that aren't really available to us. (Britain also could have use the same gorilla tactics against us...but it still favored us because it was our turf.)

In a "one shot-one kill" scenario, you don't need near as much ammo as you might think. The key is to ensure you have an escape route planned. Small pockets of "rogues with guns" is what is keeping unrest over in the Middle East. Yeah, they're using bombs too... If an attack were to occur on US Soil and our Military couldn't keep it away, you'd see some of the exact same things occurring by our "local nationals".

I'm sure our "liberal media" would portray it as a bunch of rednecks and thugs trying to take the law into their own hands though.

revefsreleets
11-18-2008, 08:00 AM
Actually the way you fight "Locals with guns" is all-out war. But those days are over for the US. We want antiseptic precision strikes with zero collateral damage, and that doctrine plays right into their hands.

SCSTILLER
11-18-2008, 08:38 AM
Actually the way you fight "Locals with guns" is all-out war. But those days are over for the US. We want antiseptic precision strikes with zero collateral damage, and that doctrine plays right into their hands.

I agree completely about going into a war with everything available. Wipe them out in one fatal swoop, game over. But if we did that, we would have Murtha and his buddies on TV calling our brothers and sisters in arms "Killers, murderers, Nazi like, etc.", then the insurgents are emboldened even more knowing that if they stage an incident Americas own politicians (not all of them) will leave our troops high and dry.

revefsreleets
11-18-2008, 08:45 AM
We set an extremely dangerous precedent when we pulled out of Somalia. The message was clear to guerilla fighters throughout the World: The US will not tolerate sustaining casualties.

Godfather
11-18-2008, 10:12 AM
We set an extremely dangerous precedent when we pulled out of Somalia. The message was clear to guerilla fighters throughout the World: The US will not tolerate sustaining casualties.


That wasn't our first cut and run. We pulled out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.

revefsreleets
11-18-2008, 10:46 AM
The US pulled out of Somalia a few days after "Black Hawk Down". Clinton sent in firepower, but only to cover their withdrawal. Somalia was actually a miltary success.

We didn't withdrawal from Beirut for 4 months after the marine barracks bombing.

Leftoverhard
11-18-2008, 11:57 AM
It's cool if YOU believe that the US is a terrorist state.

I didn't say that.

revefsreleets
11-18-2008, 12:10 PM
I didn't say that.
Your quote:

Has our own government committed acts of terrorism in the past 7 years? You betcha :tm: . I'd even venture to say war crimes when it comes to the torture, homicide and complete disregard for the rule of law at Guantanemo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram.

You are stating that our government commits war crimes and sanctions acts of terror, ergo, we are a terrorist state.

tony hipchest
11-18-2008, 09:14 PM
sean hannity believes bill ayers "blew up the pentagon and capitol hill". (his words, not mine).

its more than bill ayers who just dont get it. couldnt hannity trying to instill fear in the public also be considered an act of terrorism?

after all he is trying to incite terror into all the hearts of americans, now that obama is president based solely on a past association.

cubanstogie
11-18-2008, 09:31 PM
sean hannity believes bill ayers "blew up the pentagon and capitol hill". (his words, not mine).

its more than bill ayers who just dont get it. couldnt hannity trying to instill fear in the public also be considered an act of terrorism?

after all he is trying to incite terror into all the hearts of americans, now that obama is president based solely on a past association.

Hannity is correct, whats the problem with his words?

Come on Tony, what do you think the liberal media has done to Bush for 8 years. I will tell you, incite fear. Hannity has a right and will continue to expose Obama for what he is. It remains to be seen what he actually is or will do. Please don't tell me you libs are going to get your panties in a bunch everytime your savior is questioned or criticized. Get used to it.

tony hipchest
11-18-2008, 09:39 PM
Hannity is correct, whats the problem with his words?



nobody has ever blown up the pentagon or capitol hill. :noidea: even when hijackers aboard airplanes flew a jet into the pentagon on 9-11-01, did they blow it up.

the fear/terror mongers crack me up. keep it up with the domestic "terrorism". :thumbsup:

Preacher
11-18-2008, 09:45 PM
nobody has ever blown up the pentagon or capitol hill. :noidea: even when hijackers aboard airplanes flew a jet into the pentagon on 9-11-01, did they blow it up.

the fear/terror mongers crack me up. keep it up with the domestic "terrorism". :thumbsup:


Yep Michael Moore his hilarious... So is Al Gore... We're ALL GOING TO DIE! :toofunny:

tony hipchest
11-18-2008, 09:48 PM
truth is we all ARE going to die.

wow. al gore is a "terrorist" now? theres a far cry from hannity giving ayers a pulpit and pub from gores enviornmental concerns.

whatever makes you conservatives feel better though... :rolleyes:

cubanstogie
11-18-2008, 10:04 PM
nobody has ever blown up the pentagon or capitol hill. :noidea: even when hijackers aboard airplanes flew a jet into the pentagon on 9-11-01, did they blow it up.

the fear/terror mongers crack me up. keep it up with the domestic "terrorism". :thumbsup:

keep talking semantics, he participated in the bombings of the pentagon and the capitol building. Hannity sure made mountains out of molehills , lol. Your logic is like sticking up for a criminal who attempts murder but fails, and saying he didn't hurt anybody.

Preacher
11-18-2008, 10:11 PM
truth is we all ARE going to die.

wow. al gore is a "terrorist" now? theres a far cry from hannity giving ayers a pulpit and pub from gores enviornmental concerns.

whatever makes you conservatives feel better though... :rolleyes:

Yep, AL Gore and Sean Hannity!!! Just like you said!!!

tony hipchest
11-18-2008, 10:12 PM
keep talking semantics, he participated in the bombings of the pentagon and the capitol building. Hannity sure made mountains out of molehills , lol. Your logic is like sticking up for a criminal who attempts murder but fails, and saying he didn't hurt anybody.and you believe ayers actually brought down the pentagon and capitol hill in a smouldering pile of ashes... LOL

:blah:

hey, if buying into everything hannity says makes you feel safer and more secure, then by all means....

cubanstogie
11-18-2008, 10:15 PM
and you believe ayers actually brought down the pentagon and capitol hill in a smouldering pile of ashes... LOL

:blah:

hey, if buying into everything hannity says makes you feel safer and more secure, then by all means....

because he didn't succeed in bringing it down makes it less severe. Nice logic. I feel much more secure listening to Hannity than your buddy Colmes. Talk about a joke.

tony hipchest
11-18-2008, 10:17 PM
Yep, AL Gore and Sean Hannity!!! Just like you said!!!
youre comparing actual enviornmental concerns to the acts of bill ayers. :thumbsup:

and you continue making bill ayers relevant and giving him legitimacy on this board. :thumbsup:

GBMelBlount
11-18-2008, 10:17 PM
Preacher

That's actually the direction I am thinking. I just find it amazing, even though I see it all the time, how a person can rationalize just about anything and everything.



It is human nature. In fact the first chapter of one of my favorite books "how to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie, is about that. He basically says that even the worst murderers, etc. will say/feel that they are a good person. It is human nature that wrongdoers blame everyone but themselves and validate themselves by invalidating others. Again, it is simply human nature, as irrational as it seems.

Preacher
11-18-2008, 11:05 PM
youre comparing actual enviornmental concerns to the acts of bill ayers. :thumbsup:

and you continue making bill ayers relevant and giving him legitimacy on this board. :thumbsup:

Really?

Seems you're the one responding to a lot of the posts here. I poke fun, and here we go again...

Who is making him relevant?

BTW, Ayers acts were just "human concerns" weren't they? that evil military and the things they do. I am so glad Ayers decided to step up and try to stop it.. just like Gore!

Good for them both! Victors of the little people :thumbsup::thumbsup: (double thumbs up, trumps your single smiley).

We really need an over the top smiley!

tony hipchest
11-18-2008, 11:30 PM
Really?

Seems you're the one responding to a lot of the posts here. I poke fun, and here we go again...

Who is making him relevant?


probably the person who started this rediculous and redundant thread.

nevermind though... im off to start a debate on why charles manson hasnt yet been executed...

oh wait...

did he endorse or have past affiliations with obama?

:toofunny:

Preacher
11-19-2008, 12:33 AM
probably the person who started this ridiculous and redundant thread.

nevermind though... im off to start a debate on why charles manson hasnt yet been executed...

oh wait...

did he endorse or have past affiliations with obama?

:toofunny:

Seeing as how there were no other threads about Ayers not apologetic... I guess this can't be redundant.


By the way... I fixed "ridiculous" for you...

Don't worry about Mansion.... However, if you want to start an interesting thread, may I suggest the Mayor Daly-chicago democratic scam er.. machine.

Vote early, vote often!!!

:wink02:

Leftoverhard
11-19-2008, 10:29 AM
What some people call torture is really glorified hazing. Torture is attaching electrodes to genitals, beatings until people are unconscious or dead, chopping off fingers, putting peoples heads in vices, etc, etc...What we did in Gitmo (sanctioned) was more akin to fraternity pranks. Now there were some isolated incidents where individuals went too far, but those were UNsanctioned actions.


I can't get this out of my head. It's difficult for me to believe you think this is just like hazing or fraternity pranks. Well, how about this: Hazing in Las Vegas, NM - Varsity Football players sodomed at least 4 high school kids with a broomstick. I call that torture - rape. Hazing? That's making freshmen run naked with tu-tu's on through a girls locker room. Not quite the same.
Torture at Bagram Air Base - Interrogators kicked a handcuffed man's legs until they were pulp, making fun of how he would scream for his god every time they did. If he hadn't died while handcuffed to the chain ceiling, his legs would have been amputated.
And you say these acts are unsanctioned or UN sanctioned? Either way, that's baloney. Top officials visited Bagram constantly during the first years in Afghanistan. The soldiers never hid evidence of torture techniques when the big-wigs came - until the red cross would come for an inspection. Interrogators at Gitmo, Bagram, Abu, etc. are/were trained and given free-reign in these "glorified hazing" techniques, they didn't come up with these on their own, (sensory depravation, hoods, black goggles or duct tape over the eyes, headphones, standing on boxes with fake electrodes attached to body parts, forced nudity, forced sexual acts, dogs, induced hypothermia, long periods of being blindfolded in solitary confinement, sleep depravation, good old-fashioned beatings like the one I described above, etc...etc... Some of these are very old school, uniquely American, very well studied techniques, especially the sensory depravation which is proven to be very affective in causing insanity and hallucinations - not so sure about useful information.
When used one at a time, in a controlled environment, by scientists, some of these techniques could be excused as hazing. But together, performed by amateurs (who most, admittedly haven't even read the torture guidelines), given free-reign, given orders from higher-ups like "the gloves are off", with "you're with us or against us", by scaring the crap out of these soldiers into forgetting their own morals, these techniques are nothing short of torture. Torture cannot be a part of our vocabulary. This is not acceptable. Sure, you're gonna say, "these are isolated incidents" - no, they aren't and even if there were only one, it would be wrong. Ok, war is hell. But we are the USA. We have a duty to make sure we police ourselves - because clearly, no one else is going to.

GBMelBlount
11-19-2008, 01:28 PM
Either way, although the liberal media / democrats ran on closing club Gitmo based on supposed atrocities, now that Obama has been anointed, liberal rags & many democrats are changing their tune. hmmmm. sounds a little disingenious to me.

revefsreleets
11-19-2008, 02:18 PM
sensory depravation, hoods, black goggles or duct tape over the eyes, headphones, standing on boxes with fake electrodes attached to body parts, forced nudity, forced sexual acts, dogs, induced hypothermia, long periods of being blindfolded in solitary confinement, sleep depravation, good old-fashioned beatings like the one I described above, etc...etc... Some of these are very old school, uniquely American, very well studied techniques, especially the sensory depravation which is proven to be very affective in causing insanity and hallucinations -


Look, we're going to have to disagree on this one. 80% of the stuff you named I couldn't care less about...I suffered just as bad in my fraternity. 90% if you were to include black fraternities who have much more stringent standards and much heavier hazing tactics.

You're going to have to pick your side of the fence and live with it. Are we a State that sanctions terrorist acts? Are we a State that sanctions War Crimes? We either are or aren't. Sounds to me like you believe that we are...

cubanstogie
11-19-2008, 02:26 PM
I can't get this out of my head. It's difficult for me to believe you think this is just like hazing or fraternity pranks. Well, how about this: Hazing in Las Vegas, NM - Varsity Football players sodomed at least 4 high school kids with a broomstick. I call that torture - rape. Hazing? That's making freshmen run naked with tu-tu's on through a girls locker room. Not quite the same.
Torture at Bagram Air Base - Interrogators kicked a handcuffed man's legs until they were pulp, making fun of how he would scream for his god every time they did. If he hadn't died while handcuffed to the chain ceiling, his legs would have been amputated.
And you say these acts are unsanctioned or UN sanctioned? Either way, that's baloney. Top officials visited Bagram constantly during the first years in Afghanistan. The soldiers never hid evidence of torture techniques when the big-wigs came - until the red cross would come for an inspection. Interrogators at Gitmo, Bagram, Abu, etc. are/were trained and given free-reign in these "glorified hazing" techniques, they didn't come up with these on their own, (sensory depravation, hoods, black goggles or duct tape over the eyes, headphones, standing on boxes with fake electrodes attached to body parts, forced nudity, forced sexual acts, dogs, induced hypothermia, long periods of being blindfolded in solitary confinement, sleep depravation, good old-fashioned beatings like the one I described above, etc...etc... Some of these are very old school, uniquely American, very well studied techniques, especially the sensory depravation which is proven to be very affective in causing insanity and hallucinations - not so sure about useful information.
When used one at a time, in a controlled environment, by scientists, some of these techniques could be excused as hazing. But together, performed by amateurs (who most, admittedly haven't even read the torture guidelines), given free-reign, given orders from higher-ups like "the gloves are off", with "you're with us or against us", by scaring the crap out of these soldiers into forgetting their own morals, these techniques are nothing short of torture. Torture cannot be a part of our vocabulary. This is not acceptable. Sure, you're gonna say, "these are isolated incidents" - no, they aren't and even if there were only one, it would be wrong. Ok, war is hell. But we are the USA. We have a duty to make sure we police ourselves - because clearly, no one else is going to.

obviously some of them weren't tortured enough, since 50 or so prisoners of the the 200 released were captured again fighting against us.

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 02:29 PM
they shoulda been shot on sight.

Preacher
11-19-2008, 04:00 PM
I find constantly amazing how people want to blame our govt. for not protecting them against terrorist attacks on 9-11, but in the next conversation, will decry the tactics which stop those attacks.

Look. The fact is, if you want to win a war of attrition, you have to be the one giving, not the one getting. Either we fight a war with lawyers, or with soldiers. If you can save a 1000 AMERICAN people by making a NON-AMERICAN think he is drowning, then I am all for it.

After all, when it comes to war, an American life IS worth more than the life of our enemy.

1000 American lives is worth 100,000 times more than the life of our enemy.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I can't be in the military, or in politics. Because my faith wouldn't allow me to act on those facts.

GBMelBlount
11-19-2008, 04:03 PM
That sums it up pretty damn well for me.

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 04:17 PM
too bad theyre not "facts".

Preacher
11-19-2008, 04:23 PM
too bad theyre not "facts".


From all your political posts, I doubt you would know a "fact" if it bit you in the but...

Furthermore, you REALLY don't understand "hyperbole"

hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le

  http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/H04/H0488800)  /haɪˈpɜrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngbəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)
–noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Keep this up Tony, and I am going to have to start charging you for your education. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 04:31 PM
fixed it for ya! :chuckle:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find constantly amazing how people want to blame our govt. for not protecting them against terrorist attacks on 9-11, but in the next conversation, will decry the tactics which stop those attacks.

Look. The hyperbole is, if you want to win a war of attrition, you have to be the one giving, not the one getting. Either we fight a war with lawyers, or with soldiers. If you can save a 1000 AMERICAN people by making a NON-AMERICAN think he is drowning, then I am all for it.

After all, when it comes to war, an American life IS worth more than the life of our enemy.

1000 American lives is worth 100,000 times more than the life of our enemy.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I can't be in the military, or in politics. Because my faith wouldn't allow me to act on this hyperbole.

From all your political posts, I doubt you would know a "fact" if it bit you in the but...

FACT- mccain camp is screwing it up.

FACT- obama will win the election

FACT- people will be sad, pissed, and even livid.

FACT- people will never get over it. :bite: :moon:

:hunch:

(btw its "butt")

:chuckle:

Preacher
11-19-2008, 04:59 PM
fixed it for ya! :chuckle:





FACT- mccain camp is screwing it up.

FACT- obama will win the election

FACT- people will be sad, pissed, and even livid.

FACT- people will never get over it. :bite: :moon:

:hunch:

(btw its "butt")

:chuckle:

:nono:

See what I mean.

FACT- mccain camp is screwing it up.

Is actually opinion. Facts are quantifiable by outside means. Opinions are explanations of events which are personally held.

FACT- obama will win the election
Actually, prognostication. Fact would be, "Obama has won the election.

You're last three actually fall between the first and second category.


That will be $250 for the basics of epistemological discourse course.:cash

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 05:34 PM
:nono:

See what I mean.



Is actually opinion. Facts are quantifiable by outside means.
you mean like the actual results of the election?

#2- it was a prognostication. it now is a fact.

#3, #4- its true. it is fact.

Preacher
11-19-2008, 06:19 PM
you mean like the actual results of the election?

#2- it was a prognostication. it now is a fact.

#3, #4- its true. it is fact.

You are correct on 2. Good, you're continuing to learn. I am proud of you :banana:

But then you make a couple more mistakes... let me help you (though your tuition keeps going up. Come on, I know you can do better than this effort). But I am a patient teacher, so I'll work with you here :coffee:

3. Prognostication. You projected whether that would happen.
4. Same, however on this one, it is so subjective that quantification is impossible.

Come on Tony.. miss it this time and I am going to have to doc you a grade.

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 06:46 PM
You are correct on 2. Good, you're continuing to learn. I am proud of you :banana:

But then you make a couple more mistakes... let me help you (though your tuition keeps going up. Come on, I know you can do better than this effort). But I am a patient teacher, so I'll work with you here :coffee:

3. Prognostication. You projected whether that would happen.
4. Same, however on this one, it is so subjective that quantification is impossible.

Come on Tony.. miss it this time and I am going to have to doc you a grade.

yes sensei. im the pupil and you are the master. :coffee:

but in all honesty, im learning MUCH more watching people deny the FACT that people are sad, pissed, and livid, (some of whom will never get over it).

and im learning that for free! thanks... :drink:

Preacher
11-19-2008, 07:05 PM
yes sensei. im the pupil and you are the master. :bowdown:

but in all honesty, im learning MUCH more watching people deny the FACT that people are sad, pissed, and livid, (some of whom will never get over it).

and im learning that for free! thanks. .. :drink:

Come on Tony, bowing isn't necessary, just a simple thanks would do.

See, now you're getting it. By looking at what is happening now, and quantifying it, you can claim it as a fact, though much more research would have to be done, some statistical work especially. You'd have to go to someone else for that.

However, I am glad my "Basics of Epistemological Discourse" has helped. I'll be waiting for the tuition check in the mail...

or is Obama going to pay for that too?

:noidea:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 07:19 PM
Come on Tony, bowing isn't necessary, just try this :jerkit:

See, now you're getting it.

ahhhhh.... thanks! i'll give it a whack. i think i can get the hang of this....

:toofunny:

revefsreleets
11-20-2008, 11:20 AM
I'm not sure I'm willing to call terrorists "soldiers". If they were they'd adhere to some kind of code of ethics, and these guys clearly don't...

If they remove themselves from the rest of humanity with their inhuman acts, I have a tough time drumming up sympathy for them when they land on the receiving end.

Preacher
11-20-2008, 02:02 PM
I'm not sure I'm willing to call terrorists "soldiers". If they were they'd adhere to some kind of code of ethics, and these guys clearly don't...

If they remove themselves from the rest of humanity with their inhuman acts, I have a tough time drumming up sympathy for them when they land on the receiving end.


Funny thing is, neither is the Hague. According to the rules of war, they ARE NOT SOLDIERS... not even "BELLIGERENTS"

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

SECTION I.--ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I.--On the Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Article 2

The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Leftoverhard
11-20-2008, 04:20 PM
I find constantly amazing how people want to blame our govt. for not protecting them against terrorist attacks on 9-11, but in the next conversation, will decry the tactics which stop those attacks.

Look. The fact is, if you want to win a war of attrition, you have to be the one giving, not the one getting. Either we fight a war with lawyers, or with soldiers. If you can save a 1000 AMERICAN people by making a NON-AMERICAN think he is drowning, then I am all for it.

After all, when it comes to war, an American life IS worth more than the life of our enemy.

1000 American lives is worth 100,000 times more than the life of our enemy.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I can't be in the military, or in politics. Because my faith wouldn't allow me to act on those facts.

Where does the thou shalt not kill thing figure into your dogma? Is it "thou shalt not kill*?"

*Bad people, non-Americans, evil-doers, people I don't like, people who want to steal my stuff, etc.

Is faith only about your actions and not your true feelings and what you would do if this wasn't holding you back? It's flat out confusing to me.

cubanstogie
11-20-2008, 04:22 PM
Where does the thou shalt not kill thing figure into your dogma? Is it "thou shalt not kill*?"

*Bad people, non-Americans, evil-doers, people I don't like, people who want to steal my stuff, etc.

Is faith only about your actions and not your true feelings and what you would do if this wasn't holding you back? It's flat out confusing to me.

let me guess, Kumbaya is your favorite song.

Leftoverhard
11-20-2008, 04:30 PM
I'm not sure I'm willing to call terrorists "soldiers". If they were they'd adhere to some kind of code of ethics, and these guys clearly don't...

If they remove themselves from the rest of humanity with their inhuman acts, I have a tough time drumming up sympathy for them when they land on the receiving end.


Rev - a lot of those "terrorists" that have been tortured and/or murdered while detained weren't even guilty of anything - not that they were even given that basic human right. Yes, there were some who were actually caught as POW's but it's the other ones that I'm referring to.

Leftoverhard
11-20-2008, 04:31 PM
let me guess, Kumbaya is your favorite song.

I wouldn't have expected anything less from you.

cubanstogie
11-20-2008, 04:34 PM
I wouldn't have expected anything less from you.

Its tough when I keep raising the bar, I will continue to do my best though.

cubanstogie
11-20-2008, 04:37 PM
Rev - a lot of those "terrorists" that have been tortured and/or murdered while detained weren't even guilty of anything - not that they were even given that basic human right. Yes, there were some who were actually caught as POW's but it's the other ones that I'm referring to.

just so I get this straight because I am slow sometimes, you aren't referring to the 50 plus prisoners that were released and later killed or caught while fighting us again.

revefsreleets
11-20-2008, 06:06 PM
Rev - a lot of those "terrorists" that have been tortured and/or murdered while detained weren't even guilty of anything - not that they were even given that basic human right. Yes, there were some who were actually caught as POW's but it's the other ones that I'm referring to.

Inexact science. Sorry. It sucks, but that's how it's gotta be.

We didn't set the rules of this new game. They use human shields, terror tactics, torture, etc, etc...we have to get our hands a little dirty.

Never answered my question about US as terrorist/war criminal state.

Leftoverhard
11-20-2008, 10:49 PM
Inexact science. Sorry. It sucks, but that's how it's gotta be.

We didn't set the rules of this new game. They use human shields, terror tactics, torture, etc, etc...we have to get our hands a little dirty.

Never answered my question about US as terrorist/war criminal state.

What's a war criminal state? The US is certainly not a terrorist state - but when higher ups, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others condone and support torture, they are responsible for what those interrogators do. I think those guys have entered war criminal territory. You don't think that. Whatever. Where are pulling this war criminal state idea from?
As for getting our hands a little dirty, this war on terror has soaked our hands in blood.

MACH1
11-20-2008, 10:54 PM
What's a war criminal state? The US is certainly not a terrorist state - but when higher ups, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others condone and support torture, they are responsible for what those interrogators do. I think those guys have entered war criminal territory. You don't think that. Whatever. Where are pulling this war criminal state idea from?
As for getting our hands a little dirty, this war on terror has soaked our hands in blood.

Maybe they should just tickle them with feathers. Or sit down over a hot cup-o-tea.

Preacher
11-20-2008, 10:56 PM
What's a war criminal state? The US is certainly not a terrorist state - but when higher ups, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others condone and support torture, they are responsible for what those interrogators do. I think those guys have entered war criminal territory. You don't think that. Whatever. Where are pulling this war criminal state idea from?
As for getting our hands a little dirty, this war on terror has soaked our hands in blood.


If those hands that are soaked in blood has stopped American blood from flowing on American soil. . . then... I am sorry, but that's too bad.

Leftoverhard
11-21-2008, 12:39 AM
If those hands that are soaked in blood has stopped American blood from flowing on American soil. . . then... I am sorry, but that's too bad.

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

That George Washington was a real tea drinker. I'm sure he was singing Kumbaya and doing some sort of Hippy dance while he said this, not to mention drinking kool-aid and of course the old feather dusting technique. And while we're at it, I'll throw you the old "what would Jesus do?" It's not just a bumper sticker.

tony hipchest
11-21-2008, 12:58 AM
Maybe they should just tickle them with feathers. Or sit down over a hot cup-o-tea.

what EXACTLY is wrong with drinking tea?

i remember something about a tea party in boston, and going to war over it...

:chuckle:

augustashark
11-21-2008, 01:16 AM
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

That George Washington was a real tea drinker. I'm sure he was singing Kumbaya and doing some sort of Hippy dance while he said this, not to mention drinking kool-aid and of course the old feather dusting technique. And while we're at it, I'll throw you the old "what would Jesus do?" It's not just a bumper sticker.

Pulling a quote from GW is kinda silly. His quote as you noted was from 1775, don't you believe that times have changed a little? GW never had to sit and watch people fly planes into buildings and kill almost 3000 people. He never had to watch people strap bombs on their bodys and blow up others. We are not 1775 America. I can't answer for how GW would have managed 9/11, but I don't think it would be how you think he would. If torture has to be done to save American lives then so be it. As far as "what would Jesus do" comment. HE WOULD'NT HAVE FLOWN THREE PLANES INTO BUILDINGS KILLING ALL THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Leftoverhard
11-21-2008, 02:05 AM
Pulling a quote from GW is kinda silly. His quote as you noted was from 1775, don't you believe that times have changed a little? GW never had to sit and watch people fly planes into buildings and kill almost 3000 people. He never had to watch people strap bombs on their bodys and blow up others. We are not 1775 America. I can't answer for how GW would have managed 9/11, but I don't think it would be how you think he would. If torture has to be done to save American lives then so be it. As far as "what would Jesus do" comment. HE WOULD'NT HAVE FLOWN THREE PLANES INTO BUILDINGS KILLING ALL THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Silly to use something George Washington said about this very topic? Oh, because people are way badder than they were during those peaceful times? People just keep getting worse and worse, really? Not to mention that still doesn't excuse the torture.
Now that we're clear (thanks augustashark, really) on what Jesus wouldn't do, maybe you could answer the actual question. Point a gun at a cat maybe?

Preacher
11-21-2008, 02:09 AM
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

That George Washington was a real tea drinker. I'm sure he was singing Kumbaya and doing some sort of Hippy dance while he said this, not to mention drinking kool-aid and of course the old feather dusting technique. And while we're at it, I'll throw you the old "what would Jesus do?" It's not just a bumper sticker.

Cherry picking quotes are fun
"We have a perfect horror at everything like connecting ourselves with the politics of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1801. ME 10:285


SO next time I hear that we need to worry about what France or Germany thinks of us.. Just whip a Jefferson quote out. Who cares about their politics, what they think, or if they will politically join us in any endeavor, including war.


As far as "What Would Jesus Do"

Jesus would leave the state to be the state, and tell you to give to the state what the states asks. He would then proceed to speak to you and me personally about OUR lives.

Sorry, neither the Sermon on the Mount, nor any other aspect of the New Testament is intended for to guide or govern our country. It is about individuals and the church. Not nations. Neither in morality, nor in governing. You will not find me once, in any post on this site, using the bible or Jesus as a justification for govt. that govt. must act accordingly.

augustashark
11-21-2008, 02:16 AM
Silly to use something George Washington said about this very topic? Oh, because people are way badder than they were during those peaceful times? People just keep getting worse and worse, really? Not to mention that still doesn't excuse the torture.
Now that we're clear (thanks augustashark, really) on what Jesus wouldn't do, maybe you could answer the actual question. Point a gun at a cat maybe?

Well I guess I was just pointing out how obsurd your post was. Oh well!:doh:

Leftoverhard
11-21-2008, 02:26 AM
Well I guess I was just pointing out how obsurd your post was. Oh well!:doh:

Ok, try harder next time. There's nothing absurd about my post.


Jesus would leave the state to be the state, and tell you to give to the state what the states asks.

Does that mean Jesus would say "hey you, if your superior tells you to torture a prisoner while his hands are cuffed, you do it buddy?"

If you're gonna cherry pick quotes, find one where someone talks about the benefits of torture. Because that's what I'm talking about.

Preacher
11-21-2008, 03:38 AM
Ok, try harder next time. There's nothing absurd about my post.



Does that mean Jesus would say "hey you, if your superior tells you to torture a prisoner while his hands are cuffed, you do it buddy?"

If you're gonna cherry pick quotes, find one where someone talks about the benefits of torture. Because that's what I'm talking about.

And I am talking about not caring about what europe says or does, or any of their concerns with this nation.

If we are not going to weight Jefferson's concerns about about involvement with European affairs and their feelings towards us, then there is no need to worry about Washington's concerns either.

Nonetheless, as I have said before, one reason I am NOT in the military is because I as a CHristian WOULD NOT carry out such orders. However, that doesn't mean they are not just or not right according to the state. THe state doesn't have the standard that I, as a Christian have concerning life. If it did, abortion would be illegal.

revefsreleets
11-21-2008, 08:50 AM
War Crimes. Terrorists. I do believe you were referring to the US in this quote, no?

Preacher - we are in these wars on foreign soil. We are fighting insurgents - a fancy name for "the locals." If our country was attacked and we had no military to defend us - guess who would be fighting for our freedom? You guessed it - our own version of insurgents, our beloved gun lovers, all the people who posted about protecting themselves on that recent gun thread. How do you fight an organized military with rogue groups of "locals with guns?" Well, you could use up all your ammo pretty quick or you could improvise. Hmm, that's a familiar word.

I don't think everything here is that simple, even my own scenario - but - there is a lot of standing inside other shoes to be had here. It's not so cut and dry as "We're right, they're wrong, we're fighting "legally", they're just a bunch of terrorists." I think that's a dangerous way to think.
Has our own government committed acts of terrorism in the past 7 years? You betcha :tm: . I'd even venture to say war crimes when it comes to the torture, homicide and complete disregard for the rule of law at Guantanemo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram.
I think the whole Ayers thing is a distraction. It's a non-issue. That happened a long time ago, no threat. I don't care what he thinks - about anything. I care what's happening right now and right now there is some major BS going on - any way you slice it.

cubanstogie
11-21-2008, 10:52 AM
Leftover are you employed by the ACLU, or do you just drink their kool aid. I am really trying hard to understand the logic of protecting these vile scumbags who would slit your throat in a effing heartbeat. Let me quess when San Quentin or your closest prison has an execution you are the guy holding the peace sign for the guy on death row, never thinking about the family he killed and lives he ruined. Does torturing go on, yes, do people commit rape, murder, kill for drugs I could go on, I think you get the point though, torture is not the norm but face it they are not at a resort. Of course many think they are since some don't want to leave. They are a lot more problems on the list of US priorities than are more important than the rights of terrorists, why don't you pick one to try and do some kumbaya singing with a different group. I am sure illegal alien amnesty would be your number 2 priority.

Leftoverhard
11-21-2008, 11:56 AM
War Crimes. Terrorists. I do believe you were referring to the US in this quote, no?

I'll address you one more time and then maybe you can decist your one-track attack on me. How many times do you want me to say what I already said? A terrorist state is one that condones deliberate attacks on civilians. It get fuzzy as a definition after that and you can interperet that in a number of ways. I mean seriously dude - we are the USA - I'm holding us to a high standard. I think we're above torture and I believe that the very fact we're in a war in Iraq right now - our treatment of the civilians of Iraq, as collateral damage for years upon years (including our sanctions on them before the war) fits the definition. It's rediculous that when we kill large numbers of innocent civilians, it's called collateral damage, when our enemies do it, it's terrorism. Of course people like cubanstogie and you (?) think by me making this argument, I'm defending terrorists and all the other cool things I've been accused of. Well, this is the thing, seriously, get this through your skulls - I'm not talking about them right now - I know what our terrorist enemies are about, I know what we're dealing with - I'm concerned about MY GOVERNMENT. I don't want my government committing war crimes in my name.

MACH1
11-21-2008, 12:42 PM
I'll address you one more time and then maybe you can decist your one-track attack on me. How many times do you want me to say what I already said? A terrorist state is one that condones deliberate attacks on civilians. It get fuzzy as a definition after that and you can interperet that in a number of ways. I mean seriously dude - we are the USA - I'm holding us to a high standard. I think we're above torture and I believe that the very fact we're in a war in Iraq right now - our treatment of the civilians of Iraq, as collateral damage for years upon years (including our sanctions on them before the war) fits the definition. It's rediculous that when we kill large numbers of innocent civilians, it's called collateral damage, when our enemies do it, it's terrorism. Of course people like cubanstogie and you (?) think by me making this argument, I'm defending terrorists and all the other cool things I've been accused of. Well, this is the thing, seriously, get this through your skulls - I'm not talking about them right now - I know what our terrorist enemies are about, I know what we're dealing with - I'm concerned about MY GOVERNMENT. I don't want my government committing war crimes in my name.

War Is War. People die. Thats how it is. If they want to strap on bright orange jump suits instead of hiding like cowards among the "civilians" then maybe we could have the neat and clean little war you want. But this is the real world and thats not going to happen. Of course were not strapping bombs to mentally challenged kids and sending them wandering through a public place waiting for the right time to push the button to maximize the kill. See the difference? Time for you to wake to the real world!

Preacher
11-21-2008, 04:39 PM
Pulled from another thread so that it wasn't hijacked...

It also explains what I was saying in another thread about not taking action (in the case of torture) because of one's religious beliefs but agreeing with it in your mind - in affect - I can't do it but I would if there wasn't my faith holding me back. It's a strange disconnect that I just don't get.
I have no faith. I'm the atheist. My heart tells me that torture is wrong, therefore I would not participate or even think it's an option.

I wrote a big long answer... then erased it for this simple point.


Why am I being told that I should not hold my government accountable to my own Christian values when it comes to abortion and homosexuality. . . but SHOULD hold my govt. accountable to my Christian values when it comes to torture (which I do not think waterboarding is, but that is a seperate discussion)?

No where in this forum will you see me arguing for a law or a position this nation should have or take, based on my faith. I argue for it all based on what I understand of the constitution. In that understanding, I do not think what has been done is illegal, or wrong in the same way that I do not think that abortion, in the last 40 years is illegal or wrong.

On the other hand, in my personal convictions which are based on biblical standards, I believe both are horrid and immoral.

What I have been arguing for... is based on constitution. Not my biblical beliefs.

If you can agree with this point, then we can discuss the deeper question, what IS torture.