btw Illuminati, I believe you are the real deal. Honestly, thank you for your sacrifices. It is appreciated, and not in a ribbon bumper sticker flag lapel pin kind of way. Truly from the heart.
Hannity I,LL Let YOU WATERBOARD ME BOY OHBOY
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
Thank you Jabberwockey, in a non-bumper sticker lapel ribbon way. Neither I or any of my family members believe in ANY stumper bickers of any kind ! Those magnetic yellow ribbons fade the paint on your rig. It's funny that the focus is on WATERBOARDING only :mj07: There are so many other ways to make the "BAD GUY" shit his pants and talk, and never even touch him :shrug:
As for the RIGHT WING TROLLS, it al becomes talking points the is repeated, I mean bleated hourly ! Look up John Conner on you tube as a thrashes Savage and Vanity and the Left Wing "UH HUH" Shill Colmes :mj07:
I have been called the the entire spectrum of names because of my beliefs, and I could give 2 shits and or a DUCK what they think, just don't come to me when the "fit hits the shan"
as I said, you are the real deal.
As for making those fuckers talk, I truly am for whatever is effective.
I think that razor focus on a true understanding of the nature of the moral dilemma here (and where are the limits, where is the slippery slope.) What are the true "Geneva Convention" rules in play here?
How does one defeat the Terrorist/Guerilla/ASymmetrical warfaretactic?
Th first question has to be, is torture both necessary and effective.
In logical terms,
the question is reduced to
necessary
and/or
sufficient.
Is torture either?
I truly think it is neither. But whatever is effective.
The "would you sacrifice 1 to save 100?
Of course.
problem with the perfect scenario Jeremy Bentham Medieval Hard Pipe Hitting Utilitarianism.
As for making those fuckers talk, I truly am for whatever is effective.
I think that razor focus on a true understanding of the nature of the moral dilemma here (and where are the limits, where is the slippery slope.) What are the true "Geneva Convention" rules in play here?
How does one defeat the Terrorist/Guerilla/ASymmetrical warfaretactic?
Th first question has to be, is torture both necessary and effective.
In logical terms,
the question is reduced to
necessary
and/or
sufficient.
Is torture either?
I truly think it is neither. But whatever is effective.
The "would you sacrifice 1 to save 100?
Of course.
problem with the perfect scenario Jeremy Bentham Medieval Hard Pipe Hitting Utilitarianism.
Last edited:
If it came down to protecting anyone from harm--you damn right I wouldn't stop at anything--including bullet in the head if necessary.
If your family is in danger would you rather I run and call an attorney--or save them by whatever means necessary.
Smurph anwer- silly question makes as bout as much sense as rest of your--his problem --as with the rest of yours--comes when he has to explain why it is silly--he can't.
Bottom line is--most you would do what it took to protect your family
-yet you want to chatise and prosecute those that did exact same to save american lives.
I could take about 5 in this thread--and drop you all with O-Reid and Pelosi in enemy territory--with an m-16 and white flag and lay even money on that all of you pull out the flag without a shot fired in the bunch-which gives you honorary membership in the Pinkie Panthers
Last edited:
I could take about 5 in this thread--and drop you all with O-Reid and Pelosi in enemy territory--with an m-16 and white flag and lay even money on that all of you pull out the flag without a shot fired in the bunch-which gives you honorary membership in the Pinkie Panthers
Y'know most people move past the "how tough are you?, how much can you bench?, how big's your dick?" way of valuing someone's manhood by the time that they're 21 - you seem to embrace it and look for it in your geo-political philosophy and in your leaders.
It's not a sporting event. . . but, by the way . . . which 5?
If it came down to protecting anyone from harm--you damn right I wouldn't stop at anything--including bullet in the head if necessary.
If your family is in danger would you rather I run and call an attorney--or save them by whatever means necessary.
Smurph anwer- silly question makes as bout as much sense as rest of your--his problem --as with the rest of yours--comes when he has to explain why it is silly--he can't.
Bottom line is--most you would do what it took to protect your family
-yet you want to chatise and prosecute those that did exact same to save american lives.
I could take about 5 in this thread--and drop you all with O-Reid and Pelosi in enemy territory--with an m-16 and white flag and lay even money on that all of you pull out the flag without a shot fired in the bunch-which gives you honorary membership in the Pinkie Panthers
This babble makes less sense than Weasel. I have never said anything about this particular subject....because I don't really care about it. But you have made no sense and I'm just trying to help you start making sense. I don't like seeing you look so constantly foolish all the time.
Start with something that sounds normal and non-attacking of our President and half of the American population and then we can build something from there.
Hey Smurph ...keep thinking while in my fox hole you dumbazz....because while you think, I am warding off these terrorist shooting at our azz. What a dumbazz....Get out of my fox hole your pussy, who is too scared to shoot. There is no politics here buddy....its our lives we are talking about. And if the fellow brigades see you thinking and not shooting......its your azz when we get bk to the tent.
this is what I am talking about.....fight for America when in my fox hole and stop your political thinking. I would never throw an American under the bus. We will drive the bus after we kick some azz.
this is what I am talking about.....fight for America when in my fox hole and stop your political thinking. I would never throw an American under the bus. We will drive the bus after we kick some azz.
skeeter, you really should make the trip to go see DTB, and stop by Hedgehog's house on the way. You gurs are truly long lost brothers.
Fuck yeah. Seriously, what would you do if someone raped your sister. Poke their eyes out, or waterbaord them first? Be serious.
Fuck yeah. Seriously, what would you do if someone raped your sister. Poke their eyes out, or waterbaord them first? Be serious.
It's not about me--it's about you and everyone else. What would you not do to protect your family--let me rephrase that with another simple question--which I have seem to have tough time getting answers to-except one liners and methods of avoiding answer--maybe you will be the 1st to answer --or choose to avoid-its your call
here's the scenerio--
We pick up lead via electronic survailience of terrorist cell in U.S. plotting big event--survailence leads to capture of member of cell--the intelligence indicates event will happen the following day.
If you were in charge-What would you do or not do to extract info from this terrorist to prevent catastrophe the next day?
Last edited:
Of course no one should object to resorting to an argument that relies on assuming facts not in evidence - quite the contrary, in fact - for a "one-liner" starter.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
GL
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
GL
Always value your input LIA--as one of my fav posters here.
Granted there are those that say info obtained from water boarding is unreliable and those that say it saced numerous lives--given the degree of consequences in question above vs 30 seconds of discomfort to a terrorist--which would you be willing to error on?
What would be your call in hypothetical case?
Granted there are those that say info obtained from water boarding is unreliable and those that say it saced numerous lives--given the degree of consequences in question above vs 30 seconds of discomfort to a terrorist--which would you be willing to error on?
What would be your call in hypothetical case?
I'm pro-torture. I'm anti-VPOTUS stating it's not torture when it clearly is. What we do to our enemy has no effect on how the enemy treats our soldiers. I'd just like to keep cameras out of prisons and would rather this just not be part of the national discussion.
:toast:
I was hoping no one would come out and say they would huddle up with O and attorneys sing kumbaya--then ask politiely if they would please tell us.
Now if they get rid of lawsuits (which impossible to convict) and get ACLU out of gov--I'll be happy.
I see it no different than guy that crashes car--car starts to burn--a motorist stops and drags man to saftey--man sues good samaritan because he injured his back.
Next time motorist sees person in burning car--he keeps on driving.
I believe I heard Obama say for 3rd time today pass.
I don,t think he should because he should invorce the law. We let these people have a pass. Then others in future will try again. I mean did we let Willie get 2nd hummers. And did it hurt our security.
Now big mouth Hannity should go thru with this. He knows whats coming and no one will harm him.
Can,t have made easier. What surpprise me is the number of service men that volunteered to help show Shawn. Ouch no love for a dodger.
I don,t think he should because he should invorce the law. We let these people have a pass. Then others in future will try again. I mean did we let Willie get 2nd hummers. And did it hurt our security.
Now big mouth Hannity should go thru with this. He knows whats coming and no one will harm him.
Can,t have made easier. What surpprise me is the number of service men that volunteered to help show Shawn. Ouch no love for a dodger.
:toast:
I was hoping no one would come out and say they would huddle up with O and attorneys sing kumbaya--then ask politiely if they would please tell us.
(
Maybe. . . just maybe . . . .he's just being Presidential - y'know saying the right things
I'm inclined to agree with you Bobby--believe he has come a long way--from the naive person he was before being elected. Believe he has even opted now not to withdraw all troops from Baghdad and Mosel by June.
--No doubt it was ACLU that got him in this torture trap.
as you say--is fine line on saying what people want to hear and doing what is necessary.
You hit the nail on the head in earlier post--In many areas is best keeping reporters/media out of picture--as Jack Nicholson said in movie-most couldn't handle the truth--especially in fighting terrorist.
--No doubt it was ACLU that got him in this torture trap.
as you say--is fine line on saying what people want to hear and doing what is necessary.
You hit the nail on the head in earlier post--In many areas is best keeping reporters/media out of picture--as Jack Nicholson said in movie-most couldn't handle the truth--especially in fighting terrorist.
