Welcome to the Jungle baby, we got what ya need!
Water down your throat and a confession in the bag!
It's all for Democracy, And oh don't forget: your Lib-er-ty!
Men fought and died in a civil war in your land many years back.
It's a shame the only thing they fought for was a piece of paper
It's a
>That might be a dictionary definition of it, however I can assure you
>it's not a military or treaty definition of it.
>
>BTW, why no complaints about the torture tactics used AGAINST U.S.
>Service men and woman in EVERY war we've ever fought in. Why do we
>always need to be the ones following
I'm still wondering why it's a left-wing site...but if you are tired
of the conversation, fine... I need to get some things done too.
On Feb 13, 2008 3:15 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I have knee jerk reactions, I think we all do about some things, and
> that is a sure fire way to
Ok, I have knee jerk reactions, I think we all do about some things, and
that is a sure fire way to make me shut down.
You're right I shouldn't say he has nothing to add to any conversation,
just that without some proof of their claims (photos or videos) and with
their obvious disdain for tho
You claim he called CIA and military officers "scumbags".
And from that you decided you "knew where he was coming from"
And from that you decided he was not credible, and had nothing to add
to any conversation.
But, you were wrong. Just thought you had more self-honesty than that.
After 8 years,
He also posted on a left wing site and provided no proof of his claims,
why would I care about that?
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> That is exactly why I figured you would care about getting it right,
> who said what, what their statements and beliefs are, rather than a
> knee-jerk reaction to what _some
That is exactly why I figured you would care about getting it right,
who said what, what their statements and beliefs are, rather than a
knee-jerk reaction to what _someone else_ said.
The "author", the OP who waterboarded himself, is a little to the
right of Sam on a political scale, and as gung-
This kind of makes me laugh, you guys have known me for what, about 8
years now?
I'm a constructionist constitutionalist libertarian objectavist.
I'm pretty sure that makes me about as closed minded as they come.
I'd rather see people die of starvation in the streets than violate my
political,
Amen to that too. One of the most sickening things about Abu Ghraib
was the way the lower ranks took the fall for it.
On Feb 13, 2008 2:41 PM, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, btw, if it is policy, don't leave the individual soldiers hanging
> out there on the limb alone.
>
> On Feb
Not at all, when did I claim to be?
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> OK, so one person, "Parental Advisory", used the term, that
> invalidates the entire thread?
>
> The author did not start using that term, but did, in a joking way,
> use it again, that invalidates the entire thread?
>
> You are not very
And, btw, if it is policy, don't leave the individual soldiers hanging
out there on the limb alone.
On Feb 13, 2008 4:25 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can agree with that.
>
> The ethics of the individual soldier are our highest law. We are told,
> you have a DUTY to disobey unlawful
I think that they probably are guilty of what they are accused of and
of wanting to do worse. I think that the validity of their trials will
be questioned because of the waterboarding and because of all the
deceit and incompetence that has surrounded such detainees.
Otherwise I pretty much agree w
I can agree with that.
The ethics of the individual soldier are our highest law. We are told,
you have a DUTY to disobey unlawful or immoral orders.
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> He is implying, I guess, that the Brits regularly torture and violate
> civil liberties.
>
> Let me be clear about my pers
Not at all, I just didnt get your repsonse I guess, brain damage from
reading about waterboarding ...
On 2/13/08, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> um... I am agreeing with you? Is that so suprising? Going back to work
> too...
>
>
~~
OK, so one person, "Parental Advisory", used the term, that
invalidates the entire thread?
The author did not start using that term, but did, in a joking way,
use it again, that invalidates the entire thread?
You are not very open in your views, are you?
On Feb 13, 2008 3:56 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL P
He is implying, I guess, that the Brits regularly torture and violate
civil liberties.
Let me be clear about my personal stance.
I am not too heartbroken over the 3 victims of waterboarding.
What does bother me is the weasly-mouthed, Clintonesque parsing of
words that is going on bu the administ
Why is a discussion of civil liverties "operational information"? I've
lived in Britain. There are differences. So?
On Feb 13, 2008 1:54 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not getting into operational information, Google it.
>
> They have different standards than we do, very different.
>
Nope, I looked at those posts, the use of scumbag was meant to claim we
were all scumbags, and shows me where the author is coming from.
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Of course it is relevant.
>
> This is one imagined circumstance.
>> "Now imagine you have some CIA or military officer"
>
> This is a v
I don't know. And like Jerry, I am confused as to why it matters.
On Feb 13, 2008 1:36 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't he a brit?
>
> They really have no business opening their mouth during any discussion
> of civil liberties or torture.
>
>
> Dana wrote:
> > this maybe?
> >
> > http
I'm not getting into operational information, Google it.
They have different standards than we do, very different.
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Because???
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 3:36 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Isn't he a brit?
>>
>> They really have no business opening their mouth during an
um... I am agreeing with you? Is that so suprising? Going back to work too...
On Feb 13, 2008 1:12 PM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well that's what I meant by posting what I did ...
> Doesnt matter, I just thought that part of his post interesting enough to
> pull it out as
Of course it is relevant.
This is one imagined circumstance.
> "Now imagine you have some CIA or military officer"
This is a very different circumstance, to me implying a rogue or
unstable officer who is not using the torture as a last resort.
> "Now imagine you have some scumbag CIA or military
C. 27616
(919) 874-6229 (home)
(703) 220-2835 (cell)
-Original Message-
From: Loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:32 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Waterboarding (Re: [Obama] Client sent me this ...)
I'm sure it's disturbing, I don't kn
That might be a dictionary definition of it, however I can assure you
it's not a military or treaty definition of it.
BTW, why no complaints about the torture tactics used AGAINST U.S.
Service men and woman in EVERY war we've ever fought in. Why do we
always need to be the ones following the r
This post:
"Now imagine you have some scumbag CIA or military officer"
Means nothing they have to say is relevant to me or to any true level
discussion of the topic, plus without video and photos I call bullshit.
Erika L. Walker wrote:
> He thinks it's torture ...
>
> "So, is it torture?
>
>
Because???
On Feb 13, 2008 3:36 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't he a brit?
>
> They really have no business opening their mouth during any discussion
> of civil liberties or torture.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software
Isn't he a brit?
They really have no business opening their mouth during any discussion
of civil liberties or torture.
Dana wrote:
> this maybe?
>
> http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 12:17 PM, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I will include anoth
I'm sure it's disturbing, I don't know anything about WW2 war crime
convictions, I will however say this. Would you rather we just line
them up and kill them? I mean, thats pretty psychologically damaging
while your waiting for your turn neh?
I can admit that I have no problem with psychologi
Torture:
1
a: anguish of body or mind : agony
b: something that causes agony or pain
America can try all it wants to redefine Torture and to change the
English language, and they can bully the UN and other countries into
going along with it.
It won't change the fact that Waterboarding is Torture
Well that's what I meant by posting what I did ...
Doesnt matter, I just thought that part of his post interesting enough to
pull it out as point. That's all I did. Nothing more.
Going back to work now ...
On 2/13/08, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> it sounds to me like he would know...
it sounds to me like he would know...
On Feb 13, 2008 1:04 PM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know you posted it saying will did :P I replied to your email. I was
> just posting that bit of the page ... *He* referring to the guy that did
> the experiment.
>
>
> On 2/13/08, Dana
I know you posted it saying will did :P I replied to your email. I was
just posting that bit of the page ... *He* referring to the guy that did
the experiment.
On 2/13/08, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> yes. That is the link that will posted. I dunno if it is the one todd
> is thinking of.
yes. That is the link that will posted. I dunno if it is the one todd
is thinking of.
On Feb 13, 2008 12:55 PM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He thinks it's torture ...
>
> "So, is it torture?
>
> I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third
> party or
He thinks it's torture ...
"So, is it torture?
I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third
party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take
the fingers, no question.
It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I
this maybe?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717
On Feb 13, 2008 12:17 PM, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will include another of your comments in my response to your first.
>
> >>I'm using MY definition of what I think is acceptable treatment for an
> enemy combatant.
it was, by will bowen.
On Feb 13, 2008 12:17 PM, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will include another of your comments in my response to your first.
>
> >>I'm using MY definition of what I think is acceptable treatment for an
> enemy combatant. One that has NO rights under the rules of land w
I will include another of your comments in my response to your first.
>>I'm using MY definition of what I think is acceptable treatment for an
enemy combatant. One that has NO rights under the rules of land warfare
and could be summarily executed at any time as a spy or a saboteur.
Just because
37 matches
Mail list logo
