stupid, evil, and corrupt by rue

Auraptor,

We're skating very thin ice here, and I need to make a point very clear, I hope you understand what I'm getting at, it's a subtle distinction, and I wish I was better at being terse about it.

Quote:
Yeah, those fucks are the ones doing the WIDESPREAD raping and murdering in Africa,all in the name of 'peace'. Not so w/ the US forces under Bush. Fact is, where a very few have acted in a criminal manner, they get nailed for it. And rightfully so.

Absolutely correct. No argument here, I think this is very true.

Quote:
And same goes for Gitmo. Those murdering bastards who got a trip down to that tropical paradise never had it so damn good.

I think this is going too far. I think Rue goes too far in the other direction.

What the US is doing officially, is out of line. What people under the US command are sometimes doing, unofficially, and not under order of Bush et al, but because of the lack of proper screening and leadership, is way the f^&k out of line. I think the army is going to end up shooting it's own guys over haditha, and it's probably right to do so.

You might be thinking "back in Saddam land, guys who did that sort of thing got thown a party" ... which is probably true. But the thing is, this is not the basis by which we define ourselves. "better than saddam hussein" in not only not good enough, it's not even a valid measuring stick. The evil of our enemy should not be taken into consideration when considering what is acceptable for the US to do.

In WWII, on of the key differences between the US and the USSR was that the soviets define proper behavior as "not as bad as the Nazis" whereas we defined it on an absolute scale, such as "how would we want to be treated?"

Right now, we're crossing a line from which there may be no coming back. We decide so far is acceptable, and maybe a little bit further, and then we aren't who we used to be. Wake up, one day in twenty years, and we'll be Saddam Hussein. This concerns me a great deal more than Al Qaeda, who, objectively, I think is a major nuissance on the world scene, but not a great deal more important than that.

I remember the confession of two british soldiers that made the UK news a while back. The two had taken pictures of the off-base torture they had been conducting on Iraqis. These guys had done their stuff outside the base because their commanders would have kicked their asses for what they were doing. They were picking up kids and slowly mutilating them until they died. Sometimes they'd chuck them in the river before they died and some probably survived, and told their families. They'd do things like blow off the boys dicks with shotguns.

A few guys like this are like a big billboard for the insurency. Don't you think? I know that when I talk to my friends here some of them get all riled up to go sign up because they hear some story about some guy setting his sister on fire because she committed adultery or something over in the ME somewhere. Picture what would happen if an iraqi came to their town and raped their daughter and cut their son into 20 pieces. Just one incident like that, we'd have a f^&king crusade.

Pretty soon the endless cycle of retribution takes over and we have no idea who we used to be. I agree, Americans aren't as bad as we're being painted, but we've definitely crossed a line and need to take a step back and take a good look at ourselves, or one day, not too far away, what they're saying today, won't even begin to describe our sins.

Btw, if you don't believe me, go and read about germany in the 1920s. It's a lot like here today. Add a sense of conviction that we're doing the right thing, that we need to do this, and about ten or twenty years.

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 12:12 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Btw, if you don't believe me, go and read about germany in the 1920s. It's a lot like here today. Add a sense of conviction that we're doing the right thing, that we need to do this, and about ten or twenty years.

There's very little, if anything, remotely in common w/ that time period of Germany and the modern USA. Not politically, not economically, not anywhere.

And I'm far less concerned w/ what we MIGHT turn into than what we're doing now. People in that part of the world understand force more than anything. If you hold back and show any signs of weakness, they'll pick up on that. It's been reported time and time again from the troops who are over there. How many choose to listen is another story. Quite frankly, I don't buy this ' we'll become no better than they are ' nonsense. That's nothing but a load of psychobabble horseshit. Wars run even in the BEST of circumstances are far uglier than most of us would ever imagine.

And that's what this is. A war.

Also, there's the other side of all this that ISN'T getting reported. That's the good things we're doing over there. Building of roads, wells, hospitals, power plants, schools.... there's a list a mile long of things good we've done over there, and it NEVER finds its way on the network news. Geee, ever wonder why?

Anyway, I think I've had quite enough of this thread.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 5:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA

DT ?

Right-wingies, as in Right Wingnuts, emphasis on nuts.

I don't have a very good description of em other than the fact that they scorn critical thought (See Comments like: no matter what your liberal arts professor thinks) and positively revere ignorance - yet spout off as if they have a pipeline straight to god, and often think they do, usually via Limbaugh, Hannity or Faux News.

They come on with a nice, reasonable sounding front that's based on complete fabrications and fallacies and then when people point that out go straight from sounding reasonable, to snarling pitbull because you dared do something other than meekly agree.
On two or more occasions i've done a little chain-yanking to bring this fact into clear focus so that folks realize what they're dealing with here.

I'll also note that PN does the same thing (cep't that he skips the nice front part), I suppose we'd call him a Left-wingie, by that same scale.

Basically it's a slagging term used on someone who has taken a political position to such an extreme end of the scale that it becomes a mockable parody.

As for the rest - lest you forget, imma Anarchist, and the terms liberal and conservative have become so slurred and completely distorted they make no sense anymore as descriptions and have fallen to use soley as political labels and slams.

I am no friend of Clintons little smiling liars clan any more than Bush's little elite club, neither one offers a damned thing I am interested in, which is essentially a free, or at least more free country and be-damned to safe, there's no such thing in a free country, you can minimize risks, but they're still there - and I think a monstrous resource eating engine of destruction more often than not against it's own citizens (i.e. our current FedGov) is a piss-poor entity to be depending on for our safety OR our freedom.

I want the FedGov out of my damn business, out of my damn pocketbook, out of my gun cabinet and most especially out of my LIFE, they're an uninvited guest with no legal right to be there, and the only politician currently with enough skill and experience to play in the big leagues who has any sympathy at all for my position is Ron.

Clear enough ?

-Frem

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 7:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"AUraptor"

I wasn't posting to you but I will reply.

All I get out of this is that you support torture.

This is how it works: when you say "NO, BUT" you are explaining your "YES".
It's one of those weird circumstances that really are black or white. If you don't oppose torture under ANY circumstance, then you support it under some, which means YOU SUPPORT TORTURE.

BTW - you claim to want a "civil conversation". I propose this. I will be civil IF you will actually converse. Though I have not a lot of hope for you as you seem to not understand what a conversation is. You post, then refuse to discuss. It's a pattern that goes back YEARS. Makes you kinda trollish.

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 8:08 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

You really just try to be difficult don't you?

If you think asking you to back up what your saying is being difficult I think that says more about you than me.

Quote:
Ants domesticate other insects, they don't just have pre-existing symbiotic relationships. I do understand the difference. We didn't domesticate the bacteria in our stomach. Ants actually trap and enslave other insects, much as humans do. But it makes me wonder, do you ever read science at all? I think this is pretty common knowledge.

Yes, But I don't see how the relationships are any different to that of Bees and Flowers. So who does the domesticating there, the bees or the flowers?

But one condescending remark deserves another: did you ever study a science, any science? I was always taught that one should attempt to back up one's statements, perhaps they teach things differently where your from?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 9:11 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"AUraptor"

I wasn't posting to you but I will reply.

All I get out of this is that you support torture.

This is how it works: when you say "NO, BUT" you are explaining your "YES".
It's one of those weird circumstances that really are black or white. If you don't oppose torture under ANY circumstance, then you support it under some, which means YOU SUPPORT TORTURE.

BTW - you claim to want a "civil conversation". I propose this. I will be civil IF you will actually converse. Though I have not a lot of hope for you as you seem to not understand what a conversation is. You post, then refuse to discuss. It's a pattern that goes back YEARS. Makes you kinda trollish.

Dismissing your irrelevent 'trollish' comments, I'll give this a go.

It seems we disagree on just what IS torture. You might think that anything which causes a captive individual discomfort is 'torture'. I don't. Also, you seem to be ignoring just WHO IT IS that is being held captive. Think more in the lines of al Zarqawi, who sawed off heads of innocent men and women and less Ahkmed the simple shop keeper, or Mohammad, the goat herder. The whole POINT of agressive questioning isn't to inflict pain, like Saddam did, but to get ANSWERS! Answers that will keep our soldiers safer, answers that will stop suicide bombers from blowing up entire market places full of civilians, answers that will lead to the capture of known terrorist.

So, by your definition, yes. I do support torture. If it keeps 10, 50 or 100 + men , women and children from being blown up, not just yes, but hell yes! Every single time. Doesn't matter if those men, women and children are Iraqi, American, British, Spanish or Russian. Any day we stop a terrorist is a good day. How we do it is of little consequence to me.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 10:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Torture is raping women, adolescent boys and little girls. Torture is hanging a man up, beating him on the backs of his knees for 18 hours, and leaving him to internally bleed to death in his cell. Torture is wrapping up an old man in a sleeping bag and kicking him to death.

Is THAT what you support?

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 10:39 AM

Frem

Not wingnuts. The left has started misusing this term. Wingnuts was a self-applied term for people so far to the right that they thought that the federal reserve was a threat, and that the republicans spend too much money, and take too many liberties with our civil liberties. The wing nuts are people like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and Larry Craig. At least, originally. I'm afraid the left's use of it will kill the term, and we'll revert to something else. I think the latest term is paleocon.

A lot of my recent post was pretty close to the language John McCain used recently, including the we-become-our-enemy stuff. I think McCain is closer to Bush than I'd like, but I agree with him on a lot of stuff. This isn't a far out position, but as you can see, there's a great divide over here on the right. I'd put myself in the wingnut camp, but not in the neocon camp. Neocons are misguided at best, and at worst, "the enemy within" to quote sherry boehlert.

Limbaugh isn't a wingnut, he's a hired gun. Any careful examination of Limbaugh shows he has almost no political positions whatsoever. He backs the line his contributors pay for. I think if you gave limbaugh enough money, he'd support gay marriage. If it was *enough* money, he'd marry a gay guy. Once in the distance past, limbaugh was probably a wingnut, but now he's a whore.

Hannity I haven't figured out, but I'm afraid he's on the same track. Ideology is replaced with rhetoric, rhetoric is replaced with talking points, talking points are replaced with advertisments.

PN isn't particularly left or right wing. Try him on Clinton some time. Clinton doesn't get as much abuse because he's not currently the idiot in chief, but come back in two years and folks will be grilling hillary alive, and pn will be leading the parade. I'm sure she's an MKUltra Moloch-worshiping drinker of childrens blood fascist femi-Nazi. I probably should have thrown jew in there somewhere.

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 10:47 AM

Citizen

Horticulture is not domestication. read up on some ants, you'll get it.

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 10:49 AM

Auraptor,

I agree it's not as bad as they say. I just think there are serious issues. America needs a reality check on what we stand for and who we are.

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 11:21 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Horticulture is not domestication. read up on some ants, you'll get it.

And a symbiotic relationship is not domestication either. I'd hardly call the relationship between Flowers and Bees Horticulture.

Who domesticated who, Crocodile or Plover?

Still nothing backing up your claims, re. Dogs.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 1:03 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Torture is raping women, adolescent boys and little girls. Torture is hanging a man up, beating him on the backs of his knees for 18 hours, and leaving him to internally bleed to death in his cell. Torture is wrapping up an old man in a sleeping bag and kicking him to death.

Is THAT what you support?

Wow. Easiest post I've had in a long time. All ya had to do was read up a few posts to see where I had already addressed this. Guess ya must have missed it.

" I don't condone 'rape, torture ', and what ever bullshit you claim. You obviously have the US forces confused w/ those of the U.N. Yeah, those fucks are the ones doing the WIDESPREAD raping and murdering in Africa,all in the name of 'peace'. Not so w/ the US forces under Bush. Fact is, where a very few have acted in a criminal manner, they get nailed for it. And rightfully so. Some might even get the death penalty. That's not 'whole sale condoing' of your precious 'war crimes', so stuff it. "

Did ya see where I said I DON'T condone rape? And in cases of severe and clearly excessive use of force on a prisoner, those found guilty should be charged to the fullest extent, even if the sentence is execution? Did ya somehow miss THAT too?

In the words of George Bush 41:

Fake torture - Goooood
Real torture - Baaaad. Very very baaaad.

(Dear lord, if this doesn't clear the matter up, then nothing will )

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 1:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

When you called rape "bullshit" it was confusing. I just want to be clear. You don't condone rape, torture and murder, when proven. Nod if you can hear me and you agree.

Do you think EVERYONE responsible should be prosecuted, no matter how high up in the chain of command?

Edited to add:
This is not a trick question. If a few rogue soldiers were responsible, then the next up who SHOULD have overseen them is reponsible, but it goes no futher.
But if, for example, someone higher up removed the 'torture' sections of Abu Ghraib from under Gen Karpinski's command, THAT person SHOULD be held accountable for what happened.

Do you agree?

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 7:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls. Often, trolls assume multiple aliases, or sock puppets.

Please explain to me how Asshat's behavior in these threads does NOT consitute the underlined portion of the definition of a troll.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?=18&t=23634

I post, he quotes post, with personal slam - quickly refuted, and never addressed again because the sole intent was the slam to begin with, and said thread was intentionally antagonistic from the start, it seemed to me he was looking for a flame war.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23879

Same behavior, different thread - nothing offered but insult, post intended to provoke flame war, or flame war by proxy, no attempt at discussion.

I know some folk would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but his own behavior defines him, he goes out of his way to be offensive and often offers nothing to a discussion beyond a couple of insults.

-Frem

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

Monday, September 11, 2006 11:51 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When you called rape "bullshit" it was confusing. I just want to be clear. You don't condone rape, torture and murder, when proven. Nod if you can hear me and you agree.

Do you think EVERYONE responsible should be prosecuted, no matter how high up in the chain of command?

Edited to add:
This is not a trick question. If a few rogue soldiers were responsible, then the next up who SHOULD have overseen them is reponsible, but it goes no futher.
But if, for example, someone higher up removed the 'torture' sections of Abu Ghraib from under Gen Karpinski's command, THAT person SHOULD be held accountable for what happened.

Do you agree?

Now you're dealing in a slippery slope... " well if soldier 'A' was guilty, wasn't his c.o. just as guilty? And if his c.o. was guilty....etc, etc...IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT! ". It's a false premise that needs to be established first before any such comment can be made. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. You're using ever changing definitions of torture. You do know that it's leagal,under Geneva Convention rules, for a hostile who is dressed as a civilian and carrying out military actions against uniformed soldiers who is caught to be killed, on the spot. So spare me the talk of 'torture'. Keeping a very bad al Qaeda guy in a cold room and making him listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers played very loudly , while not the most fun thing in the world, can't be viewed as 'torture'.

I've made my position abundantly clear on this issue. I think wasting any more time talking about this is just that. A waste of time.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 5:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sheesh - anything to avoid a subtantive discussion.

I tried very hard to distinguish between those with DIRECT oversight versus theoretical chain of command involvement. I'm just looking for some agreement here that people with DIRECT oversight are responsible and should be held accountable.

Was that not clear? Let me state it anew - should those with DIRECT oversight be held accountable for rape, beating or murder that occurred under their DIRECT command?

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

bump and RE-notify

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:23 AM

STORYMARK

Come on, Rue, you can't still be surprised by AU's chickenshit evasion at this point? Can you?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor- back to the Plame thing temporarily. The person you quote extensively proposing Joe Wilson as the source of Plame's undercover status- Clifford May- contradicts himself a month later when he says that Plame's status was common knowledge.

In any case, his reasoning is based on the specious assumption that only Joe Wilson or the WH knew of and could have "outed" Valerie's NOC status. In reality there were many possible sources (including Cliff himself, if you can believe what he writes). In fact I heard one possible source personally on KPFK. It was an anonymous call-in from someone claiming to be a CIA officer ("Don't call us 'agents'. Agents are foreigners that we recruit") and he sounded voice-shakingly pissed. I wouldn't be surprised if "someone" volunteered info to Corn... after Valerie's status was blown.

As far as I'm concerned the whole notion that Joe Wilson "outed" his own wife has been put to rest. Let's move on to other issues.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:56 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sheesh - anything to avoid a subtantive discussion.

I tried very hard to distinguish between those with DIRECT oversight versus theoretical chain of command involvement. I'm just looking for some agreement here that people with DIRECT oversight are responsible and should be held accountable.

Was that not clear? Let me state it anew - should those with DIRECT oversight be held accountable for rape, beating or murder that occurred under their DIRECT command?

I think folks should be held accountable for their OWN actions, and not be able to play the 'I was only following orders' game. If they INDEED were following orders, they and who ever gave them such orders should be held accountable.

Have your field day w/ that one. I'm beyond bored w/ this thread.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:23 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned the whole notion that Joe Wilson "outed" his own wife has been put to rest. Let's move on to other issues.

Yes, the whole notion can be put to rest. Joe indeed 'outed' his wife. Then we agree. Let's move on.

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auuuuu... now THAT was cogent! Or Cognet!

That's my answer, and now I'm going to ignore you and I trust the rest of you in this thread will do the same.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:47 AM