Just so we're clear - waterboarding foreign born terrorists, bad. by AURaptor

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Just so we're clear - waterboarding foreign born terrorists, bad.

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Saturday, October 8, 2011 06:26
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3203
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, October 7, 2011 3:24 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Make no mistake of who the villains are here. Islamic radicals. The issue is, what should be done about them.

Did you ever ask your self why they are radical?

Do you ask yourself WHY a rapist attacks the young woman, he randomly chose ?

Or WHY NAZIS gassed millions of innocent men, women and children ?

Quote:

You are fore the most part right about the USSR. The problem is after we gave people guns to fight off the Russians we stopped giving a good gorram. We should have helpped them then rebuild their country. Instead we left them to use the only tools they had, the weapons they were given.

Also don't talk to people about civil conversation if you are going to be dumb enough to use phrases like IslamoNazis.

Did we stop 'caring' or did we stop 'meddling' ? Because the answer to that isn't always easy to decipher as to where one ends, and the other starts.

IslamoNazis should only upset you if you're one of them. ( Or maybe not even then, so I really don't know what your issue is )

They're not " Muslims ", right ? Because Muslims are peaceful, and those who blow up school buses or pizza parlors, and saw heads off innocent men and women aren't 'peaceful' Muslims. And we'd never want to cast aspersions over ALL the members of a group, correct ?

So spare me the faux indignation of what to call heartless murderers, who pray to Allah, hold up the qu'ran, want to instill Sharia Law, and love death more than we love life. They're animals, and unless you have a better name for them, I'll refer to them as I like.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 3:38 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Do you ask yourself WHY a rapist attacks the young woman, he randomly chose ?

Or WHY NAZIS gassed millions of innocent men, women and children ?

Yes on both accounts.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Did we stop 'caring' or did we stop 'meddling' ? Because the answer to that isn't always easy to decipher as to where one ends, and the other starts.

It is only meddling when they don't want us to be there, or the aid we are offering. Once the Russians were gone I doubt they would have had a problem with us helpign them rebuild, if they did then we say "Okay, but we will be here to help if you would like."

Quote:
IslamoNazis should only upset you if you're one of them. ( Or maybe not even then, so I really don't know what your issue is )

They're not " Muslims ", right ? Because Muslims are peaceful, and those who blow up school buses or pizza parlors, and saw heads off innocent men and women aren't 'peaceful' Muslims. And we'd never want to cast aspersions over ALL the members of a group, correct ?

So spare me the faux indignation of what to call heartless murderers, who love death more than we love life. They're animals, and unless you have a better name for them, I'll refer to them as I like.

The issue is you sound like an idiot. Call them Radical Muslims, call them Radical Islamist. The add Nazi on to a description is just putting a words together that you think sound scary.

Just remember one man's heartless murderers is another man's freedom fighter.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 4:15 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Sure, maybe down the road, you might want to ask certain questions , but when you're actually dealing w/ the situation, you're not going to take a side bar and wonder ..." gee, what DID I do to this rapist who is attacking me... " . Just not gonna happen.

As for the NAZIs, I'm reminded of the House historian, *Christina Jeffrey, appointed by Newt Gingrich, being thrown under the bus. All she once said was it might be helpful to understand NAZI point of view, for why they did what they did. Because SHE said it, the Left went bonkers, and called her a sympathizer. She wasn't anything of the sort, nor was she a Holocaust denier, but the media being the media, her credibility was trashed, and she was shown the door. Funny how situations can distort the same basic premise.

'Radical' isn't itself a negative word, imo. It can indicate both positive or negative change, where as most ( thinking ) folks would agree that not much good came from the NAZI brand. Sure, they may have promoted some cool technology, but the reason for it was to murder more efficiently. Maybe 'Militant' Jihadists, would be more to your liking ? But I find getting entangled in the minutia of what to call these evil monsters a bit counter productive.

And freedom fighters don't, as a rule, attack innocent civilians. That's not fighting for freedom. I know the Left love to play the game of semantics, and twist the issue of the US helping Afghanistan fight the SOVIET ARMY, which had occupied their land, to the terrorists who have been attacking the West, long before 2001. It's completely false and disingenuous to equate 'freedom fighters' to those who behead and blow up markets full of shoppers.

* After meeting with her several months after her dismissal, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman, wrote that the ADL was "satisfied that any characterization of you as anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Nazism is entirely unfounded and unfair."

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 4:40 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sure, maybe down the road, you might want to ask certain questions , but when you're actually dealing w/ the situation, you're not going to take a side bar and wonder ..." gee, what DID I do to this rapist who is attacking me... " . Just not gonna happen.

I agree we are not going to do that during an attack. An active attack that is. So right now, we should be acking that question. We need to understand why these people hate us and why they are fighting. As Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As for the NAZIs, I'm reminded of the House historian, *Christina Jeffrey, appointed by Newt Gingrich, being thrown under the bus. All she once said was it might be helpful to understand NAZI point of view, for why they did what they did. Because SHE said it, the Left went bonkers, and called her a sympathizer. She wasn't anything of the sort, nor was she a Holocaust denier, but the media being the media, her credibility was trashed, and she was shown the door. Funny how situations can distort the same basic premise.

Your not going to hear me say that what happened to her was right. It wasn't.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
'Radical' isn't itself a negative word, imo. It can indicate both positive or negative change, where as most ( thinking ) folks would agree that not much good came from the NAZI brand. Sure, they may have promoted some cool technology, but the reason for it was to murder more efficiently. Maybe 'Militant' Jihadists, would be more to your liking ? But I find getting entangled in the minutia of what to call these evil monsters a bit counter productive.

Militant Jihadists works find. You have to be concerned what you call them if you want people to listen to you and take you seriously.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And freedom fighters don't, as a rule, attack innocent civilians. That's not fighting for freedom. I know the Left love to play the game of semantics, and twist the issue of the US helping Afghanistan fight the SOVIET ARMY, which had occupied their land, to the terrorists who have been attacking the West, long before 2001. It's completely false and disingenuous to equate 'freedom fighters' to those who behead and blow up markets full of shoppers.

I'm not calling them freedom fighter. I'm pointing out that for some people that is wha they are. It doesn't matter if they don't fit your ideals. It matters that they fit other people's, and get support because of that. It also matters that you and I understand that.

Yes there were terrorist before 2001, that does not mean our actions did not help to create more of them.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 4:50 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

What 'freedoms' are the militant jihadists fighting for ? Who among those who practice Islam , or any other religion, actually believe they'll be more free by supporting those who side w/ the likes of the Taliban, or al Qaeda ?

'Freedom Fighter ' is a propaganda term, used by both those who want to indoctrinate gullible, ignorant fighters for militant jihadists, and those wanting to vilify and attack the US , and the West.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 5:25 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What 'freedoms' are the militant jihadists fighting for ? Who among those who practice Islam , or any other religion, actually believe they'll be more free by supporting those who side w/ the likes of the Taliban, or al Qaeda ?

'Freedom Fighter ' is a propaganda term, used by both those who want to indoctrinate gullible, ignorant fighters for militant jihadists, and those wanting to vilify and attack the US , and the West.

Your right it is propaganda. That does not mean people don't believe it or are not willing to die for it. I would imagine that those who do believe they are fighting to be free of American influence and as you put it meddling.

You have to understand where your enemy is coming from. If you don't you can't fight them as effectively and you may play right into the hands of their propaganda. That only lends them more support.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 1:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

"Freedom fighter" *IS* a propaganda term, used to gain support from the gullible. You're right about that. That's why Reagan used it to gain support for U.S. backing of the very same people who are now called the Taliban and al Qaeda.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 1:33 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Actually, it grew a great deal under Reagan, when he supplied and trained groups like the Taliban and called them "freedom fighters". He tried a military solution in Beirut, and got a whole bunch of Marines killed in the process, before cutting and running.

And then it (literally) EXPLODED under Dubya, to heights Osama himself could never have imagined.

It grew because the IslamoNazis wanted it to grow. But , I guess you'd be just fine with letting the Soviets over run Afghanistan, and then where next.... Pakistan ? Iran ? Just let them march right to the Indian ocean ? You're just not that bright, are you? The old USSR, with the oil fields of the Mid East, right on their door step, and a warm water port to boot. Yeah, what could go wrong with THAT picture ?

Where is there a warm water port in Afghanistan? You've claimed that before, but you've never been forthcoming with an answer to that question.

Quote:
Beirut? Hell, that was a totally separate issue from Afghanistan. But I guess I can see how , in your thimble sized brain, it's all the same.

Hey, "IslamoNAZIS" is YOUR pet issue. Seems to YOU, all Muslims are indeed the same. You claim radical Islam grew under Clinton; I showed you that it grew under Reagan as well, and provided a specific example of America being attacked by radical Muslims, and the U.S. President cutting and running from such an attack. You don't like the facts, take it up with our beloved messiah Reagan, since he's the one who did it.

Quote:

And I guess you also forget how many cruise missiles Clinton launched, at the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And one of those attacks on the eve of his impeachment vote...a clear 'wag the dog' maneuver.

Nah, it's the right who keeps wanting to forget Clinton's attempts to take out Bin Laden. I've pointed them out repeatedly, and also pointed out that he was exactly as successful as Bush, but at a cost that was an order of magnitude less in both fiscal and human terms, and Clinton's attempts on Bin Laden also had the added benefit of getting a whole lot fewer American troops killed.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 1:35 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

As for the NAZIs, I'm reminded of the House historian, *Christina Jeffrey, appointed by Newt Gingrich, being thrown under the bus. All she once said was it might be helpful to understand NAZI point of view, for why they did what they did. Because SHE said it, the Left went bonkers, and called her a sympathizer. She wasn't anything of the sort, nor was she a Holocaust denier, but the media being the media, her credibility was trashed, and she was shown the door. Funny how situations can distort the same basic premise.

Yes, funny how often you try to distort things like that, depending solely on what political party the accused belongs to.

And of course, your post has absolutely nothing to do with... well, anything. Just your attempt to change the subject and back away from a topic you're incapable of discussing rationally or intelligently.

But that's your default setting, isn't it?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 2:35 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Yes, funny how often you try to distort things like that, depending solely on what political party the accused belongs to.

Like where ? Example ? What am I distorting w/ the Jeffrey issue ?

Quote:

And of course, your post has absolutely nothing to do with... well, anything. Just your attempt to change the subject and back away from a topic you're incapable of discussing rationally or intelligently.

But that's your default setting, isn't it?

Nothing you said comes remotely close to denying or debunking my post. Would be nice if you could at least try, instead of accusing me of something that I'm not guilty of doing.

As for the warm water port w/ regard to the Soviet take over of Afghanistan, just look at 1. what I ACTUALLY said, and 2. a map of that part of the world.

The Soviet Union had a history of annexing nations, and using them ( Eastern Block ) as buffer zones against potential attacks. ( Seems they were still a bit on edge from the previous skirmish w/ the Germans. Maybe you've head of it ? ) The very real fear was that the Soviets were going to take Afghanistan first ( which has very little in the way of natural resources, ) and then expand to either Iran and/ or Pakistan. Both of which open up onto the Arabian Sea. ( I inaccurately said Indian Ocean, so sue me ) 30 years ago , when the geo political landscape was a bit different than it is today, a Soviet Union cozied up to that much of the world's oil, and having direct access to warm water port, was the cause of very REAL concern.

Hell, find the typo already, and don't even bother w/ attempting any logical, coherent or grown up reply. I know it's too much to ask for you to have an adult exchange of ideas.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 4:16 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Yes, funny how often you try to distort things like that, depending solely on what political party the accused belongs to.

Like where ? Example ? What am I distorting w/ the Jeffrey issue ?

Quote:

And of course, your post has absolutely nothing to do with... well, anything. Just your attempt to change the subject and back away from a topic you're incapable of discussing rationally or intelligently.

But that's your default setting, isn't it?

Nothing you said comes remotely close to denying or debunking my post. Would be nice if you could at least try, instead of accusing me of something that I'm not guilty of doing.

As for the warm water port w/ regard to the Soviet take over of Afghanistan, just look at 1. what I ACTUALLY said, and 2. a map of that part of the world.

The Soviet Union had a history of annexing nations, and using them ( Eastern Block ) as buffer zones against potential attacks. ( Seems they were still a bit on edge from the previous skirmish w/ the Germans. Maybe you've head of it ? ) The very real fear was that the Soviets were going to take Afghanistan first ( which has very little in the way of natural resources, ) and then expand to either Iran and/ or Pakistan. Both of which open up onto the Arabian Sea. ( I inaccurately said Indian Ocean, so sue me ) 30 years ago , when the geo political landscape was a bit different than it is today, a Soviet Union cozied up to that much of the world's oil, and having direct access to warm water port, was the cause of very REAL concern.

Hell, find the typo already, and don't even bother w/ attempting any logical, coherent or grown up reply. I know it's too much to ask for you to have an adult exchange of ideas.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Typo? Hell, just your lies and idiotic statements are enough to show everyone what a fool you are.

"Indian Ocean"? Afghanistan has "very little in the way of natural resources"? Really?

Man, you really are a fool.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 4:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

And yet you fail to find any substantive fault with my posts, you simply continue to fabricate things out of thin air, being too stupid to comprehend what is being discussed, or even wanting to take the time to deal w/ the issues.

Quote:
"Indian Ocean"? Afghanistan has "very little in the way of natural resources"? Really?

Yes, and Yes. Really.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 7, 2011 7:52 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Alawacky was killed 5 times. No body was found this time either. He eats lunch at the Pentagon with the Secretary of the Army.

But Dictator Hussein Obama has assassinated 3,000 people in Pakistan using Terminator drones (trying to start a nuke war), plus the other 5 wars he's waging, including 20,000 massacred in Libya to put Al Qaeda in charge.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-fleet/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2011 4:35 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And yet you fail to find any substantive fault with my posts, you simply continue to fabricate things out of thin air, being too stupid to comprehend what is being discussed, or even wanting to take the time to deal w/ the issues.

Quote:
"Indian Ocean"? Afghanistan has "very little in the way of natural resources"? Really?

Yes, and Yes. Really.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

You missed it, completely. That IS "substantive fault". And I didn't "fabricate" anything - I used your own posts and your own words. Did I make up your words?

Glorious Afghanistan: Gateway to the Indian Ocean!

Also, the U.S. calls Afghanistan's natural resources and mineral wealth "vast", contrary to your claims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewante
d=all

It's wrong for the Russians to invade and occupy such a country, but it's perfectly acceptable - to you, anyway - for the U.S. to do so. Why is that?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2011 4:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Kwickie, I see you have a huge problem in understanding things which aren't laid out before you.

Oh, wait. I actually DID that, and you still are clueless.

Any NORMAL thinking person could understand that, by looking at a map, Afghanistan was a logical stepping stone for the USSR to achieve both a warm water port AND position itself right next to a large portion of the world's easily accessible oil supply.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2011 4:50 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Kwickie, I see you have a huge problem in understanding things which aren't laid out before you.

Oh, wait. I actually DID that, and you still are clueless.

Any NORMAL thinking person could understand that, by looking at a map, Afghanistan was a logical stepping stone for the USSR to achieve both a warm water port AND position itself right next to a large portion of the world's easily accessible oil supply.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

So THEY invaded Afghanistan to get close to the oil, but WE invaded Afghanistan (and Iraq, of course) simply to spread "freedom" (because we were assured that IN NO WAY were those wars about oil, right?) Huh. Convenient how that works out.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2011 5:03 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So THEY invaded Afghanistan to get close to the oil, but WE invaded Afghanistan (and Iraq, of course) simply to spread "freedom" (because we were assured that IN NO WAY were those wars about oil, right?) Huh. Convenient how that works out.

You've already forgotten 9/11, huh?

Man, that's fucking pathetic and sad.

And I'll ignore your mindless attempt to toss in Iraq into the discussion. Are we getting, 10 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, any appreciable return on said VAST natural resources?

When does our windfall arrive. Another 5 years ? 10 ? 20 years down the road? And who'll be alive to benefit from all that Afghan goodness ? Those how supposedly pushed for this 'war for oil' or what ever ?

If this were only about material gain, then at what cost are we paying for such a little return of our investments ?

Hell, you can't even see what the Soviets were trying to do, how the hell can you be expected to explain any of this fairy tale ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2011 6:26 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So THEY invaded Afghanistan to get close to the oil, but WE invaded Afghanistan (and Iraq, of course) simply to spread "freedom" (because we were assured that IN NO WAY were those wars about oil, right?) Huh. Convenient how that works out.

You've already forgotten 9/11, huh?

Man, that's fucking pathetic and sad.

And you've already forgotten that Afghanistan did not perpetrate 9/11, huh? You somehow think that invading a country and occupying it for a decade is a proportional and appropriate response to the actions of a few unaffiliated people who weren't even from Afghanistan.

Talk about pathetic.

Quote:

And I'll ignore your mindless attempt to toss in Iraq into the discussion. Are we getting, 10 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, any appreciable return on said VAST natural resources?

When does our windfall arrive. Another 5 years ? 10 ? 20 years down the road? And who'll be alive to benefit from all that Afghan goodness ? Those how supposedly pushed for this 'war for oil' or what ever ?

If this were only about material gain, then at what cost are we paying for such a little return of our investments ?

Do you have answers for the Soviets to these same questions? Where is their warm-water port? What was the return they were supposed to get? How far down the road? 10 years? 20? 1200? Who would be alive to benefit from all that goodness?

Quote:

Hell, you can't even see what the Soviets were trying to do, how the hell can you be expected to explain any of this fairy tale ?

Oh, I can see what you claim the Soviets were trying to do (the same old "Domino Theory" that wasn't true in Southeast Asia); you are completely unable to see that we're trying to do almost exactly the same thing, though. Your jingoism has left you blind.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE