# Chalk another one up for the "good guys"....



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Another U.S. Spook agency gets called out on lying to the public it's supposed to serve. Don't worry, no one will go to jail. They were all "doing their jobs". We all knew it anyways (but the confirmation is now in).

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...ure-tactics/aCznrj8OCs97G6NKdVIRnL/story.html

Funny how Bushy Jr. and his crew were so misled. As this happened under their watch, they should be held ultimately responsible (but will go free of course). One can only hope that there will be a next generation efraim zuroff going after international criminals of all religions from all countries.

No shock that the torture wasn't effective. Studies have long been out showing the fallacy of such.

Funnny how many Repubs wanted to bury the report. A bit shocking coming from the god fearing, neighbor loving, christian right.

Torture? How low can you sink? Is the U.S. providing the example? Or taking it from nazi germany, communist russia, and the terrorist mid-east? 
What's next?

More importantly, if you can't control your secret agencies, isn't it about time to disband them?

*

https://imageshack.com/i/f05lBxW6j
*


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

No Democrats that were in charge of oversight had knowledge of the program or were misled.

No Democrats that voted for military authorization to invade Iraq had knowledge of the program or were misled.

No Democrats that voted for or were in charge of oversight of our financial markets had knowledge of the program or were misled.

We get that.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No Democrats that were in charge of oversight had knowledge of the program or were misled.
> 
> No Democrats that voted for military authorization to invade Iraq had knowledge of the program or were misled.
> 
> ...


So we agree that both parties lost control over their secret agencies? This was one of my main ponts wasn't it?

Can we also not agree that at that particular time and place, it was Bushy Jr. in charge? Just a fact right? The democrats did not control the white house nor did the CIA answer to them at that particular period. Correct?

"The buck stops here" applies to who? The president last time I checked... Right?

Was it not the Bushy Admin that went to great lengths to find "legal justification" (A.K.A. loopholes) for allowing torture?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Was it not the Bushy Admin that went to great lengths to find "legal justification" (A.K.A. loopholes) for allowing torture?


It's all here and makes perfectly good sense to me...

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/legacy/2010/08/05/memo-gonzales-aug2002.pdf

...and it made sense to the Hysterical Ninnies at the time who are trying to hide from it now.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

justonemore said:


> So we agree that both parties lost control over their secret agencies? This was one of my main ponts wasn't it?
> 
> Can we also not agree that at that particular time and place, it was Bushy Jr. in charge? Just a fact right? The democrats did not control the white house nor did the CIA answer to them at that particular period. Correct?
> 
> ...


I am no lover of the Bush Administration nor the Obama one, but the question I always force myself to answer is would I apply the same standard of judgement if the other administration did it. Will you hold Obama as responsible - the buck stops here - for everything that happens under him?

I don't hold Bush or Obama responsible for everything that happens under them as all Presidents will fail by that standard. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be judged - but it is work to do that. One needs to read the details of this (today's) report and others (think about the bias of the writers of the report) to form a holistic opinion. If one hates Bush or hates Obama, there are plenty of "facts" out there in this or that report to grab to justify that hate, but the real honest answer comes from a holistic view and work.

For example, I am, to this day, disgusted with the Bush lied about WMD trope, when a holistic look at the fact - not a grab one statement from one report - shows that both Dems and Reps - based on the intelligence they were given at the time - thought Iraq had them. Did Bush seriously embarrass himself and give a whitewashed happy version of victory with the landing on the aircraft carry and "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background - absolutely. Did he fail miserably in his response to Katrina - absolutely. But these opinions are built on many facts acquired over time.

Did Obama lie about the affordable care act - yes, too many documented statements. Are the Republicans insane with the "Obama wasn't born here" nonsense - absolutely. Hating the other guy is easy, the facts rarely support a black and white story.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I agree & hold all (both) sides responsible for the state of the union. As such...Yes. The buck should stop with obama as well.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I don't care what party is at play here.

I haven't had time to digest this yet, but from what I know so far, it appears that people were illegally tortured by the CIA and that CIA officials tried to cover it up. If that's true, then I think that responsible CIA officials should be tried for war crimes. That's what we would demand if the shoe were on the other foot. There is no excuse for torture, someone ordered it and that someone, or someones, should be held accountable via criminal proceedings. If that includes W, or Obama for that matter, then they should be prosecuted. I don't know any other way to restore our country's reputation in the eyes of the world. Anyone who tried to cover it up should be tried for obstruction of justice. There's simply no excuse for this.

I also seem to recall allegations that the CIA hacked Senate computers during the course of the investigations. If that's true, then criminal prosecutions are also in order.

Interesting, also, I think that media organizations had copies of the report and agreed not to make them public until the appropriate time. I think that should be remembered by folks are often quick to bash the media and accuse responsible journalists of irresponsible journalism. Certainly, the media has behaved better in this matter than our government has.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I haven't had time to digest this yet, but from what I know so far, it appears that people were illegally tortured by the CIA and that CIA officials tried to cover it up.
> 
> Interesting, also, I think that media organizations had copies of the report and agreed not to make them public until the appropriate time. I think that should be remembered by folks are often quick to bash the media and accuse responsible journalists of irresponsible journalism. Certainly, the media has behaved better in this matter than our government has.


1) If CIA operatives exceeded the guidelines set forth by the DOJ at the time, (see link provided) they should be disciplined. However, if the interrogations did not exceed those guidelines it clearly is not/was not "torture."

2) Do you think they simply didn't want to scoop Feinstein??


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) If CIA operatives exceeded the guidelines set forth by the DOJ at the time, (see link provided) they should be disciplined. However, if the interrogations did not exceed those guidelines it clearly is not/was not "torture."
> 
> 2) Do you think they simply didn't want to scoop Feinstein??


With regard to point 2, my guess is that they were either convinced that delay was needed in the interest of national security or, more likely, they made a gentlemen's agreement. There's a lot of material to sift through, and so having a head start would serve the interests of accuracy and thoroughness. Regardless, they acted in a responsible fashion.

As to point 1, I don't care what it was called by whom. I care what happened, and what happened was clearly torture. If those responsible cannot be tried under U.S. law, then they should be turned over to The Hague and tried under international law. This is serious. If the world cannot be convinced by our actions that we stand for something, that we really do have principles that cannot be sidestepped, then those responsible need to be punished. Because if they are not punished, what do we say to ISIS and other terrorists? How are we any better than them?


----------



## herfitup (Mar 4, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) If CIA operatives exceeded the guidelines set forth by the DOJ at the time, (see link provided) they should be disciplined. However, if the interrogations did not exceed those guidelines it clearly is not/was not "torture."
> 
> 2) Do you think they simply didn't want to scoop Feinstein??


They were probably fed by Feinstein. The Boston Globe is a pale shadow of what it used to be back in the 1970s. Lost so much money spewing the DNC line that the NY Times had to dump it. Not much better now under the Red Sox owner Henry. I know, I read it every day and have for 40 years. At this point it is the only literate if misguided paper in town. At least I know why my enemies are up to.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

A US torturer, designed just for you
Agony guaranteed, they know what to do
CIA assassins are coming with guns
The people will mourn for dead priests and nuns


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Interesting, and both depressing and predictable, that the response to the torture report https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/experts-most-shocking-findings-cia-torture-report in the US, and in this forum is tending to polarise along party political lines. A sort of "it was the Democrats too" response, rather than a rational response to some pretty horrifying stuff. Not that Britain doesn't look bad as well. Many of us thought that Blair's "Tory-Lite" government was far too cosy with Dubbya.







Interesting as well that, once again, we get a careful re-definition of torture given to us to suggest that, therefore, torture didn't happen.







More here https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/torture-cia-amnesty-international-human-rights-watch Even the pro-American right wing Daily Telegraph is critical https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11283035/CIA-torture-report-summary.html and examples are given here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...amples-of-the-horror-in-the-CIAs-prisons.html These aren't what victims complained of, or hearsay, these are what the report stated.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

fuggitall - I am fed up to the back teeth with 3 types in politics/the media/society 
a) those wishing to discredit administrations and agencies and making anti-terrorism increasingly difficult for the people who have to work with it. ( I did in 3 different jobs)
b) those disillusioned types who have never encountered a terrorist and think that asking a terrorist politely will get them to handover useful info.
c) puzzyfooting do gooders like Amnesty International who care more about whether a scumbag terrorist or terroism suspect has had a proper breakfast than about the dozens or hundreds whose lives were saved when the piece of s.h.i.t was apprehended. 


Two points only 
1. the report said these brutal CIA torture methods led to no worthwhile info and that they had no deterrant effect.....really?

Conversely

2. How the FUGG do people in general expect the agencies empoweered to do a job, be it police, military, CIA, FBI etc to do the job if they don't give them the right tools & keep on tying their hands behind their backs.

Bad guys are BAD and the good guys need to be BAD to counteract them...I speak from first hand experience.

Fugg all this PC shite and softly softly boll.ox

Laughable comment on the radio yesterday: "none of the CIA have been identified and the CIA won't identify them"....Really? Well thank you for that acute observation Sherlock......now go renew your amnesty membership!!! 

Maybe all US agencies should just send all the personal details of all security personnel to the fuggnuts in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan ....FFS!!!

I'm glad we have warped fuggers in the world like the CIA, Christ knows how much they have prevented.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> fuggitall - I am fed up to the back teeth with 3 types in politics/the media/society
> a) those wishing to discredit administrations and agencies and making anti-terrorism increasingly difficult for the people who have to work with it. ( I did in 3 different jobs)
> b) those disillusioned types who have never encountered a terrorist and think that asking a terrorist politely will get them to handover useful info.
> c) puzzyfooting do gooders like Amnesty International who care more about whether a scumbag terrorist or terroism suspect has had a proper breakfast than about the dozens or hundreds whose lives were saved when the piece of s.h.i.t was apprehended.
> ...


Perhaps he also knows how much they have encouraged?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> fuggitall - I am fed up to the back teeth with 3 types in politics/the media/society
> a) those wishing to discredit administrations and agencies and making anti-terrorism increasingly difficult for the people who have to work with it. ( I did in 3 different jobs)
> b) those disillusioned types who have never encountered a terrorist and think that asking a terrorist politely will get them to handover useful info.
> c) puzzyfooting do gooders like Amnesty International who care more about whether a scumbag terrorist or terroism suspect has had a proper breakfast than about the dozens or hundreds whose lives were saved when the piece of s.h.i.t was apprehended.
> ...


If the spooks do the exact same thing as the "bad guys", then they're the "good guys"? It's a laughable concept at best.

If they're so proud of all the immoral cr*p, then why not put all their faces and policies out so everyone knows who/what they are? Too much of a coward I would guess? Come on. Take pride in your work. Stand up and be counted.

Is it ok to show this as an example? If the "bad guys" caught you or your spook buddies (or regular soldiers that don't play the spook game) , it would be fine to treat you in the same mannner? My guess is that you'd be crying about Geneve conventions this and Geneve conventions that.

Funny how these agencies are so badly needed nowadays. Or is it perhaps just a bunch of BS to keep money flowing into agency budgets?

Give these agencies Carte Blanche to do what they please? Really? It seems that they can't keep themselves Under control even when they have rules and régulations. Funny how you assume we all want spooks running around doing whatever they please. As a spook, I'm sure you'd like it, but we the people might just not agree with it & want your hands tied. Perhaps we have given the spooks the tools we want you them to use and not go beyond?

Spook agencies most likely have caused many more problems then they have prevented.

I'm sure it's hard to get the cloak and dagger nonsense out of your head but perhaps, just perhaps, all these studies over the past few décades are correct when it comes to torture and interrogation? Just perhaps? Perhpas the dinosaur in the room is you?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> And if you do the exact same thing as the "bad guys" then you're a "good guy"? It's a laughable concept at best.


You've never been a soldier, a cop, or a bodyguard have you? What do you know about it? Laughable, yea I bet you'd be laughing with a 9mm pointed at the back of your head. More like pissing in your pants


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Perhaps *he *also knows how much they have encouraged?


Who is he?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

There's only one thing worse than a terrorist and that is people that excuse terrorism and make the fight against terrorism even more difficult, I'm not saying we have a few of those here, how could we when you're all just over-opinionated armchair generals (Eagle, Busterdog & those others who served, are obviosuly excluded from that comment).


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You've never been a soldier, a cop, or a bodyguard have you? What do you know about it? Laughable, yea I bet you'd be laughing with a 9mm pointed at the back of your head. More like pissing in your pants


You obviously know nothing of my past and my service. Have you ever thought about how you spooks (and your immoral sh*t) hurt regular joes out in the field? You're heads are a bit too far up certain orifices to care much huh? As long as it's not you that has to suffer the conséquences of your actions and tactics?

Surely with all your experience you are aware that there is a big difference between cops, soldiers, bodyguards and spooks, right? The difference in mission, tactics, responsibilities,legal issues, etc? Putting them all together is like comparing mangoes and grapes.

Oh. And you high fallutin ideology only goes so far. All the other "bad guys" were pretty much idealists as well. To me, you are only a step away from being a member of the SS or the KGB. They had all the Tools they wanted and their hands were free to do as they pleased. But then again, this is what you stated you favour for society at large.

I love the "only we can protect you" attitude. If none of these agencies existed my chances of running into a terrorist attack would be less than my chances of winning the lottery (and I sure don't play the lottery). I and society would be fine without you & I certainly don't buy into the boo hoo terrorist sh*t that you're using to scare people into funding your pet projects. A couple thousand dead is no reason to enslave hundreds of millions of people using scare tactics.

Piss my pants? I'm comfortable enough with death not to be pissing my pants before the event happens. Thanks anyways.

Oh...I'd probably be a bit more worried if they were using a .45 ACP over a 9mm but that's me...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> There's only one thing worse than a terrorist and that is people that excuse terrorism and make the fight against terrorism even more difficult, I'm not saying we have a few of those here, how could we when you're all just over-opinionated armchair generals (Eagle, Busterdog & those others who served, are obviosuly excluded from that comment).


Oooh. The scary terrorists. They are hiding everywhere. There's one behind the bush right now. Thank goodness for Earl and his buddies. And as long as we all agree word for word with their ideology, we might just stand a chance of being safe from them too.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Who is he?


'He' is Jesus, I was referring to the text from your post which I had emboldened.

Keep your eye on the ball my friend.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Oh right, gotya!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

J1M, I don't want there to be any misunderstanding, I was never a spook in the generally understood meaning of the term. I served in regular military field units and on a CT unit, I served in regular police units,(including terrorism response), on regular security units (including diplomatic protection), and regular Swedish MoD and Observer Units. I was never a cloak & dagger, microchip in the heel type. 


I just don't buy into the whole media idea that ALL security services are staffed by evil people.

Hard men are needed to to horrible things to stop evil men - society knows that, and recognises it. So it can't claim shock or ignorance when it happens

And good men not doing anything also helps evil - society also knows that.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Oh...I'd probably be a bit more worried if they were using a .45 ACP over a 9mm but that's me...


hhhmmm...now there's a giveaway.....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Hard men are needed to to horrible things to stop evil men - society knows that, and recognises it. So it can't claim shock or ignorance when it happens


Hear Hear!!

And when the threat is over, or perceived to be over, those hard men are usually thrown over board and those who encouraged them and needed them try to distance themselves from them.

This has been true since the days of Pericles.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> If the spooks do the exact same thing as the "bad guys", then they're the "good guys"? It's a laughable concept at best.


Explain how water boarding a terrorist in an attempt to extract information and prevent more terror is "the exact same thing" as a terrorist blowing up a car bomb in a public square.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> hhhmmm...now there's a giveaway.....


That Americans used the .45 ACP almost exclusively until the 1990s??

Exactly.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> hhhmmm...now there's a giveaway.....


For an execution to the back of the head? Can you give me the advantages to the 9mm? Capacity has nothing to do with it in such a situation so perhpas you're refering to the cheaper manufacturing costs? Or..As you're acting to be the expert of the millenium, perhaps you can tell us average joes all the advantages a 9mm would have in the situation you mentioned?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

J1M, I'm talking about today. The fact is that most SMGs nowadays are either 9mm or 5.56, and most modern semi-auto pistols are 9mm
Very few people use 45s anymore. 
The fact is though at point blank range it doesn't matter, a 22 or 38 will get the job done just as well.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Spook agencies most likely have caused many more problems then they have prevented.
> 
> I'm sure it's hard to get the cloak and dagger nonsense out of your head but perhaps, just perhaps, all these studies over the past few décades are correct when it comes to torture and interrogation? Just perhaps? Perhpas the dinosaur in the room is you?


1. Facts please.

2. I'm willing to take that chance.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 2. I'm willing to take that chance.


That's very Christian American of you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That Americans used the .45 ACP almost exclusively until the 1990s??
> 
> Exactly.


Exactly


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Explain how water boarding a terrorist in an attempt to extract information and prevent more terror is "the exact same thing" as a terrorist blowing up a car bomb in a public square.


+1...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Explain how water boarding a terrorist in an attempt to extract information and prevent more terror is "the exact same thing" as a terrorist blowing up a car bomb in a public square.


Torture is a tool known (rumoured) to be used by the terrorists that are "everywhere". Seems to be an equal tactic or in other words "the exact same thing".

Who has killed more civilians? The U.S. with their bombing or the "terrorists" with their bombing? Is taking out a bus with 50 innocent people inside not a bit less drastic than blowing up a residential apartment building with a few hundred innocents to get to 1 supposed "terrorist". 50 innocenmts killed versus 299... The math seems to show that the Americans are in fact more destructive than the "monsters" they are going after. And this of course pisses off the friends and family of the innocents killed in such actions as well. This of course spurs further hatred and calls of action against the U.S. and its citizens. Bombing and killing civilians is bombing and killing civilians and most certainly "the exact same thing"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Explain how water boarding a terrorist in an attempt to extract information and prevent more terror is "the exact same thing" as a terrorist blowing up a car bomb in a public square.


Easy-peasy.

It is the reprehensible treatment, dehumanisation even, of 'suspects'* that reinforces a world view amongst certain ethnicities which allows radicalisation to flourish. Car bombs are set off in public squares (not exclusively because of, but still) because of water boarding et al.

As to bombs being set off... guess who holds the world record for bombing? If you need a clue you may wish to ask a citizen of Laos who was alive during 64 - 73.


*Not terrorists, merely suspects and on extremely tenuous grounds at that - often merely their religious beliefs are sufficient.

.
.
.
.
.
.

#.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Terrorism.......Churchill


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> There's only one thing worse than a terrorist and that is people that excuse terrorism and make the fight against terrorism even more difficult, I'm not saying we have a few of those here, how could we when you're all just over-opinionated armchair generals (Eagle, Busterdog & those others who served, are obviosuly excluded from that comment).


Is John McCain excluded from your comment? He served. If anyone is in a position to know, he is, and so I'll listen to his condemnation of what the CIA did, not this tripe from you. Your comments here are, in my opinion, beyond disgusting.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Explain how water boarding a terrorist in an attempt to extract information and prevent more terror is "the exact same thing" as a terrorist blowing up a car bomb in a public square.


It is the exact same thing because both acts involve putting aside rule of law and moral decency for the mistaken premise that the end justifies the means.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Easy-peasy.
> 
> It is the reprehensible treatment, dehumanisation even, of 'suspects'* that reinforces a world view amongst certain ethnicities which allows radicalisation to flourish. Car bombs are set off in public squares (not exclusively because of, but still) because of water boarding et al.
> 
> ...


It was McNamara, I believe, who said that he and others would have been tried as war criminals for the firebombings in Japan had we not prevailed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> Is John McCain excluded from your comment? He served. If anyone is in a position to know, he is, and so I'll listen to his condemnation of what the CIA did, not this tripe from you. Your comments here are, in my opinion, beyond disgusting.


I really don't care what you think about my comments. No one has the right to not be offended. 
What I find disgusting is that Islamist Jihadist terrorists have a pretty easy time of it moving around in the US and UK becasue of all the civil liberties crap that prevents the security services from being able to do a proper job.

Get back to me when you've had 3 colleagues on your team blown up by a terrorist bomb (IRA bomb Harrods 1983) ...till then I don't give a good god damn what you think!!!

God save America from terrorists & those wilfully making life difficult for those trying to keep America safe!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Sweden, UK, US, Canada, France, Germany etc. - all in the same boat, with young indoctrinated men leaving home and joining IS forces in Syria and elsewhere...now if you are a young man with a western passport & you go and fight for IS...or you are in the IS region for more than, lets be fair now ...visiting family etc...more than say six weeks...you better have a bloody good explanation when you get back to your "home" airport and the Special Branch or FBI start asking you questions....damn right, you're going to be a suspect, even if you weren't fighting for IS. Removal of citizenship, heavy fine, then sent straight back on the next plane, that is what Sweden is now considering...unless you can prove you were in that region for totally innocent purposes for that long of a period, over 6 weeks (& that is unlikely) then you will lose your passport and get sent straight back! Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Sweden, UK, US, Canada, France, Germany etc. - all in the same boat, with young indoctrinated men leaving home and joining IS forces in Syria and elsewhere...now if you are a young man with a western passport & you go and fight for IS...or you are in the IS region for more than, lets be fair now ...visiting family etc...more than say six weeks...you better have a bloody good explanation when you get back to your "home" airport and the Special Branch or FBI start asking you questions....damn right, you're going to be a suspect, even if you weren't fighting for IS. Removal of citizenship, heavy fine, then sent straight back on the next plane, that is what Sweden is now considering...unless you can prove you were in that region for totally innocent purposes for that long of a period, over 6 weeks (& that is unlikely) then you will lose your passport and get sent straight back! Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.


I am really glad that you live in Sweden and, presumably, cannot vote here. Really, really glad.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Get back to me when you've had 3 colleagues on your team blown up by a terrorist bomb (IRA bomb Harrods 1983) ...till then I don't give a good god damn what you think!!!
> !


So did the U.S. have to bomb the U.K. in its entirety in order to get the IRA Under control? Would leveling entire neighborhoods with bombing runs have worked out to be a better solution than the one reached? In the end wasn't it more negotiation that worked over rough hand tactics such as torture?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I really don't care what you think about my comments. No one has the right to not be offended.
> What I find disgusting is that Islamist Jihadist terrorists have a pretty easy time of it moving around in the US and UK becasue of all the civil liberties crap that prevents the security services from being able to do a proper job.
> 
> Get back to me when you've had 3 colleagues on your team blown up by a terrorist bomb (IRA bomb Harrods 1983) ...till then I don't give a good god damn what you think!!!
> ...


This "poor dead colleague" schtick goes only so far. Again, ask McCain. He has, or had, a colleague or two. He put himself in harm's way. He's been tortured and seen others tortured. He hasn't turned into a rabid "suspend civil liberties and freedom" nut job. He has managed to keep his head and see what you celebrate for what it is: crimes against humanity. It really is that simple.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Sweden, UK, US, Canada, France, Germany etc. - all in the same boat, with young indoctrinated men leaving home and joining IS forces in Syria and elsewhere...now if you are a young man with a western passport & you go and fight for IS...or you are in the IS region for more than, lets be fair now ...visiting family etc...more than say six weeks...you better have a bloody good explanation when you get back to your "home" airport and the Special Branch or FBI start asking you questions....damn right, you're going to be a suspect, even if you weren't fighting for IS. Removal of citizenship, heavy fine, then sent straight back on the next plane, that is what Sweden is now considering...unless you can prove you were in that region for totally innocent purposes for that long of a period, over 6 weeks (& that is unlikely) then you will lose your passport and get sent straight back! Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.


Is there any difference over those young well indoctrinated men from UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, etc. that go and join Israel in the fight for religion? Surely not? One fairy tale is certainly not better than the other. They are all relious freaks claiming that only their version is real. Christian state, muslim state, jewish state. All the same nonsense to me.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

In addition to McCain, there is also Mr. Fair, whom I think sums it up very eloquently. And he should know, having been in charge of torturing prisoners: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/...n-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> I am really glad that you live in Sweden.


Me too, Christ knows how you people can stand living in the US or the UK for that matter


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> So did the U.S. have to bomb the U.K. in its entirety in order to get the IRA Under control? Would leveling entire neighborhoods with bombing runs have worked out to be a better solution than the one reached? In the end wasn't it more negotiation that worked over rough hand tactics such as torture?


Blimey, you know nothing about the IRA and Northern Ireland terrorism do you? Do you realise the levels of horrific torture the British used against the IRA and IRA suspects from 1916 onwards up to 1996? And how tough IRA prisoners were under torture? "Negotiation?" get real!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Christian state, muslim state, jewish state. All the same nonsense to me.


I invite you to pack up and move to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria or Sudan and set up shop and home. Then go on the internet and speak your mind freely as such.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Is there any difference over those young well indoctrinated men from UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, etc. that go and join Israel in the fight for religion? Surely not? One fairy tale is certainly not better than the other. They are all relious freaks claiming that only their version is real. Christian state, muslim state, jewish state. All the same nonsense to me.


I agree with you 100%. They are all brainwashed freaks. No difference at all.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> It is the exact same thing because both acts involve putting aside rule of law and moral decency for the mistaken premise that the end justifies the means.


There is no equivalency when neither the ends, nor the means are equal.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> He hasn't turned into a rabid "suspend civil liberties and freedom" nut job.


I would only want to suspend the injurous acitvities of the media, politicians and civil liberites bodies that directly endanger the operations of the various secret services and secret service operatives. Nut job? okay, I'll take that, I probably deserve it. I grant you I'm not mentally healthy, but nor am I brainwashed or deaf or blind or stupid, but I am overintelligent according to my headshrinker and all the tests I've done


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Blimey, you know nothing about the IRA and Northern Ireland terrorism do you? Do you realise the levels of horrific torture the British used against the IRA and IRA suspects from 1916 onwards up to 1996? And how tough IRA prisoners were under torture? "Negotiation?" get real!


Ohh? So the history books have it wrong? I see nothing as to force & torture being the brokers of peace on Ireland. Can you provide a bit more info on it?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> crimes against humanity. It really is that simple.


What, like beheading dozens of Christians because they couldn't quote verses from the Koran?
What, like flying aeroplanes into the WTC and killing thousands of people?
What, like gassing thousands of Kurds because they were Kurds?

Are they the types of crimes against humanity you are talking about? 
No, you're talking about sleep and food depravation for terrorist scum and non-lethal psychological methods like waterboarding.

Beheading is usually pretty much final!

You're a terrorist lover and as such part of the problem not part of the solution.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I invite you to pack up and move to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria or Sudan and set up shop and home. Then go on the internet and speak your mind freely as such.


I invite you to go to Israel & preach a religion other than judaism. They might not kill or imprison you but assault is certainly not out of the question. Would you like a few videos as to how "god's chosen people" in israel act towards those of other faiths? There are even videos of israeli jews spitting & cussing out other sects of israeli jews. I love the video where a 8 year old girl is being called a whore because she wasn't dressed to "standard". Now what other religions demand dress codes & treat women as 2nd class citizens? Hmmm. Muslims. Catholics. Baptists. Etc.

Sounds pretty much the same to me


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Is there any difference over those young well indoctrinated men from UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, etc. that go and join Israel in the fight for religion?


You are misinformed.

Israel and the Jews fight for survival, not religion.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I agree with you 100%. They are all brainwashed freaks. No difference at all.


This sounds remarkably like what I imagine terrorists say to each other when they discuss potential targets.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> I see nothing as to force & torture being the brokers of peace on Ireland.


No, the history books are right, you just haven't read them! You need to read the full story from 1916 onwards, torture and assassinations on all sides by all parties. If you've only read about the GFA, you've only read about the end of the end game.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What, like beheading dozens of Christians because they couldn't quote verses from the Koran?
> *What, like flying aeroplanes into the WTC and killing thousands of people?*
> What, like gassing thousands of Kurds because they were Kurds?
> 
> ...


A mis-post, presumably? The Conspiracy Theory thread is elsewhere on this sub-forum. :devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> This sounds remarkably like what I imagine terrorists say to each other when they discuss potential targets.


Hey, I'm just agreeing with the words of Justonemore in post #55...did you read it?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> A mis-post, presumably? The Conspiracy Theory thread is elsewhere on this sub-forum. :devil:


Nice one


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What, like beheading dozens of Christians because they couldn't quote verses from the Koran?
> What, like flying aeroplanes into the WTC and killing thousands of people?
> What, like gassing thousands of Kurds because they were Kurds?
> 
> ...


It is thinking like yours that has created the problem. Human beings are not entirely irrational.

Did you read the link I provided? The article written by the soldier who tortured prisoners in Iraq? If you haven't read it, I think that you should. I would be interested in your reaction.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Israel and the Jews fight for survival, not religion.


Actually, that is a very good and correct point.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Ah, The Tribe are involved now.

That's me done.

I'm the proverbial rat abandoning a sinking ship.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> I invite you to go to Israel & preach a religion other than judaism. They might not kill or imprison you but assault is certainly not out of the question. Would you like a few videos as to how "god's chosen people" in israel act towards those of other faiths? There are even videos of israeli jews spitting & cussing out other sects of israeli jews. I love the video where a 8 year old girl is being called a whore because she wasn't dressed to "standard". Now what other religions demand dress codes & treat women as 2nd class citizens? Hmmm. Muslims. Catholics. Baptists. Etc.
> 
> Sounds pretty much the same to me


You really have a major hang up about religion don't you? Is that the Swiss abortion & assisted suicide psyche rubbing off on you? Christianity is freely practiced in Israel.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> It is thinking like yours that has created the problem. Human beings are not entirely irrational.


Thinking like mine? What that terrorism and the killing of thousands by terrorism is wrong? You mean, you don't think that.....fugging helll!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Gotta go now guys, I'll pick this up with y'all tomorrow. Gotta go out and follow some bad guys, they're eating kebabs so they might be terorrists .....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You really have a major hang up about religion don't you? Is that the Swiss abortion & assisted suicide psyche rubbing off on you? Christianity is freely practiced in Israel.


Hmmm. Can you imagine the following scene in the U.S. or Europe with a Christian going to town in the same manner against a Jew? The S would hit the fan and the word "Anti-semite" would be thrown around like so much confetti at a parade. Any or all of the following videos would be considered a hate crime in the U.S. (well maybe not if perpetrated by jews. Afterall, only white christians are capable of hate crimes..Right?)


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

More side by side living in Israel...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

or this one....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Here is some Israeli Jew on Jew harrassment...I guess that 8 yo girl was just too much of a terrorist? Are they fighting for survival or religion here? Just a bunch of peaceful religious folk humbly praying to god...


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Perhaps this revelation will aid in the repeal of the ironically-named PATRIOT Act, which essentially invalidated much of the US Constitution.

The terrorists won when the PATRIOT Act was passed. Absolutely inexcusable IMO.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You're a terrorist lover and as such part of the problem not part of the solution.


I think we prefer the term "misinformed!!"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Ah, The Tribe are involved now.
> 
> That's me done.
> 
> I'm the proverbial rat abandoning a sinking ship.


Your timing was perfect!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Perhaps this revelation will aid in the repeal of the ironically-named PATRIOT Act, which essentially invalidated much of the US Constitution.
> 
> The terrorists won when the PATRIOT Act was passed. Absolutely inexcusable IMO.


Agreed.

Beyond the Patriot Act, it would be a good thing if this helped get us off the dime on Gitmo.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thinking like mine? What that terrorism and the killing of thousands by terrorism is wrong? You mean, you don't think that.....fugging helll!!


Didn't answer my question. Have you read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/...p-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

It won't take very long. I'd be interested in your thoughts.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You really have a major hang up about religion don't you? Is that the Swiss abortion & assisted suicide psyche rubbing off on you? Christianity is freely practiced in Israel.


Yep... The will of the people is freely practiced here. I find it quite nice that we don't live on the whims of politicians and lobbyists as much as other countries do. When politicians do spring something on us, we can get the issue put on the ballot. It's called a direct democracy. It keeps religious & social fanatics such as yourself from preventing the rest of the population from living their lives freely.

End of life choices concern only myself and my family. Not you. Not your phoney baloney god(and whatever your own personal interpretation states such an entity is). The Swiss population understands this. They voted for it. There it is.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Article~


> The students will come to know that this country isn't always something to be proud of.


WRONG!!

America is always a nation to be proud of.

Any illegal acts committed at Abu Ghraib have been dealt with including the firing of it's commander.

Like a few nutty Jews harassing passers by is not the action of Israel, excesses at AG is not the official policy of the US.

One can be ashamed for those who commit them, but not for humanity or for the nation.

I mean, you obviously do but I think that is wrong minded.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Article~
> 
> .
> 
> ...


I think my point was more as to the reverse being a hate crime. If someone were to do that to Jews in the U.S. or Europe would it be ok? Would they just be a "nutty American/European"? Or would it be labeled a hate crime? Would they most likely spend time in the court system and jail for such? Just out of your experience, wouldn't special interest groups seize on such a thing in order to promote a sense of "growing anti-semitism"? Be honest now...A few Christians harassing Jews in downtown anywhereville usa. What reaction do you honestly expect? "oh, that's ok, it's just a few nutty christians"? What would the local/state/federal governments say and do if such a thing happened? We're trying to answer honestly here.

Do you think anyone in the videos spent any time in jail? Are such actions by those in the jewish community even criminal in Israel? If so, are they fully investigated until the perps are arrested and put on trial? Is there a big international call from Christians pertaining to these incidents? Has there been an outcry from the Israeli government itself? The honest answer to pretty much all of it, is no. Isn't it?

What do you think the reaction would be to Christians bothering Jews in Israel? "Just a few nutty Christians"?

Would it be ok to have a few muslims bothering Israeli Jews in the middle of tel aviv? They're just being nutty right? No reaction to that whatsoever I bet....:rolleyes2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

You are right, of course.

Lets say a major greeting card manufacturer made Hanukkah gift wrapping paper with swastikas on it.

Heads would be chopped, embassies would be burned!!

https://nypost.com/2014/12/09/hallmark-pulls-hanukkah-wrapping-paper-covered-in-swastika/


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

So christians bothering jews is anti-semitism but jews bothering christians is ok because a few nutty muslims chop peoples heads off? I'm not quite sure of your logic here. Hate speech is hate speech in my thoughts but you seem ok with it as long as it's against muslims or christians.

Your whole point seems to echo the "african-americans can't be racist" theory. That all sins present & future should be forgiven because of past events that have nothing to do with the here or now.

Just curious. How many people in the u.s. have been beheaded by muslims in the u.s. since 1776? Has there been anything as recent as that wrapping paper recall you mentioned? Or is it more likely that when offended American muslims file complaints such as that shown in the linked article?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> Didn't answer my question. Have you read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/...p-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
> 
> It won't take very long. I'd be interested in your thoughts.


Oh sorry, forgot to respond, yes I did read it. Thankfully, I never did anything like that nor was I ever put in a position where I had to do anything like that i.e. torture. 
However, I have done things I am not proud of, that I was forced by my senior officers to do, usually because I disagreed politically with them.
Also, things have happened to me that I can never forget & will be with me and haunt me for the rest of my life.
And I'm sure, as he says, that we only know some of the horrors of torture.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> End of life choices concern only myself and my family. Not you. Not your phoney baloney god(and whatever your own personal interpretation states such an entity is).


My religious choices concern only myself and my family. Not you. Not your phoney murder-science (and whatever your own personal interpretation states such an entity is).


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My religious choices concern only myself and my family. Not you. Not your phoney murder-science (and whatever your own personal interpretation states such an entity is).


Really? Yet here you are pushing your ideology on others. You were the one that first mentioned assisted suicide and abortion. Not me. I didn't tell you to send your daughters over here for an abortion nor did I tell you to come yourself for assisted suicide. You however decided to make snide racist comments against the Swiss on issues that have been democratically voted on versus having religious and social groups telling us our own moral standpoints. It's called freedom. Something the rest of Europe and the U.S. seems to have somehow missed out on. Others religious views don't affect our daily lives.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Do you want salt & vinegar with that chip?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Do you want salt & vinegar with that chip?


Is that similar to having a wafer with your whine? :biggrin:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

No, cheese


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Alas, there are those who seem unable to recognize the tremendous good represented in a Country such as ours....and that is a sad thing. There are others who seem unable to see and/or acknowledge the failures or the bad in the actions of such a Nation...and that is unfortunate. The fact is it is a mistake of major proportions for nations (or individuals) that could make a difference to sit on the sidelines and not even try to make a positive difference. Only those who try are going to make a difference and mistakes are by nature going to be made by those involved. Embrace those mistakes, heal the wounds and move on, trying to make this old world of ours a better place. The US is not without it's faults, but I could claim no other place as my home. She is my Country in both good times and bad!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Alas, there are those who seem unable to recognize the tremendous good represented in a Country such as ours....and that is a sad thing. There are others who seem unable to see and/or acknowledge the failures or the bad in the actions of such a Nation...and that is unfortunate. The fact is it is a mistake of major proportions for nations (or individuals) that could make a difference to sit on the sidelines and not even try to make a positive difference. Only those who try are going to make a difference and mistakes are by nature going to be made by those involved. Embrace those mistakes, heal the wounds and move on, trying to make this old world of ours a better place. The US is not without it's faults, but I could claim no other place as my home. She is my Country in both good times and bad!


Wouldn't the wounds heal quicker if there was some accountability? Something like real jail time in a real jail with a real cellmate named bubba?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You are misinformed.
> 
> Israel and the Jews fight for survival, not religion.


But their religion is their identity.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Blimey, you know nothing about the IRA and Northern Ireland terrorism do you? Do you realise the levels of horrific torture the British used against the IRA and IRA suspects from 1916 onwards up to 1996? And how tough IRA prisoners were under torture? "Negotiation?" get real!


How do you think a peaceful solution was reached? Through torture and murder? Or a realisation that torture and murder wouldn't achieve the desired end?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Alas, there are those who seem unable to recognize the tremendous good represented in a Country such as ours....and that is a sad thing. There are others who seem unable to see and/or acknowledge the failures or the bad in the actions of such a Nation...and that is unfortunate. The fact is it is a mistake of major proportions for nations (or individuals) that could make a difference to sit on the sidelines and not even try to make a positive difference. Only those who try are going to make a difference and mistakes are by nature going to be made by those involved. Embrace those mistakes, heal the wounds and move on, trying to make this old world of ours a better place. The US is not without it's faults, but I could claim no other place as my home. She is my Country in both good times and bad!


Well said, sir!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Wouldn't the wounds heal quicker if there was some accountability?


There doesn't need to be accountability if the law has not been broken, no matter how horrific it seems. The military and all the security and intelligence services have a mandate granted by the govt and by extension the people. If that mandate is not exceeded then there is no case to answer.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> There doesn't need to be accountability if the law has not been broken, no matter how horrific it seems. The military and all the security and intelligence services have a mandate granted by the govt and by extension the people. If that mandate is not exceeded then there is no case to answer.


So the actions of nazi germany were legal & all those people in german uniforms that were hanged on the spot were actually murdered versus executed?

Is there not some type of international regulation that forbids various actions such as genocide, torture, targeting/killing civilians, rape as a weapon of war, use of children as combatants, etc.???

If the u.s. decided on its own that killing a village of people and raping the kids is perfectly legal (to the u.s.) then there should be no accountability from anyone anywhere?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

That would appear to be the case.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Alas, there are those who seem unable to recognize the tremendous good represented in a Country such as ours....and that is a sad thing. There are others who seem unable to see and/or acknowledge the failures or the bad in the actions of such a Nation...and that is unfortunate. The fact is it is a mistake of major proportions for nations (or individuals) that could make a difference to sit on the sidelines and not even try to make a positive difference. Only those who try are going to make a difference and mistakes are by nature going to be made by those involved. Embrace those mistakes, heal the wounds and move on, trying to make this old world of ours a better place. The US is not without it's faults, but I could claim no other place as my home. She is my Country in both good times and bad!


There is much truth in what you say. That the US, and their friends in the UK did bad things, or allowed bad people to do bad things appears to be true. The supreme test is how the revelations are responded to. An acknowledgement of wrong doing, the holding to account of those who did wrong, those who allowed wrong to be done, and those who authorised the wrong doing will go some way to minimise the damage caused to the perception of the US, and the UK, internationally as well as domestically. Justification of the wrong doing, in any form, will simply further the cause of those who distrust the West, the US particularly, and the UK.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^(In response to post #94)
Sir, your proclivity for reducing the efforts of the Nazi regime and their efforts to wipe out those of the Jewish faith living among us to the functional equivalency of CIA interrogators using "extreme interrogation methods" against captured combatants in an effort to secure critical operational intelligence is disturbing to me, even if to no one else. It strikes me that you are trying to equate a piss ant to an elephant and that is at best a distortion of the conversation at hand. Frankly, I wish we had looked to citizens such as John McCain to develop appropriately focused interrogation approaches, but that did not happen. However, that does not make the actions of individual CIA interrogators equivalent or directly comparable to the actions of those members of the German military who personally executed (as in carried out) the Jewish Holocaust. That is a gross misstatement and an insult!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ no, it's disturbing to me as well but I've come to expect such things from those who have run out of ideas.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(In response to post #94)
> Sir, your proclivity for reducing the efforts of the Nazi regime and their efforts to wipe out those of the Jewish faith living among us to the functional equivalency of CIA interrogators using "extreme interrogation methods" against captured combatants in an effort to secure critical operational intelligence is disturbing to me, even if to no one else. It strikes me that you are trying to equate a piss ant to an elephant and that is at best a distortion of the conversation at hand. Frankly, I wish we had looked to citizens such as John McCain to develop appropriately focused interrogation approaches, but that did not happen. However, that does not make the actions of individual CIA interrogators equivalent or directly comparable to the actions of those members of the German military who personally executed (as in carried out) the Jewish Holocaust. That is a gross misstatement and an insult!


I think you read it wrong eagle. My point was not to compare crimes as equals but each in its own right as criminal. Torture is indeed a crime under international law. Like it or not. Is it as bad as genocide? Well no... but it is still a crime. You didn't arrest only murderers and let the rapists go, did you? No? As you know, there are a variety of crimes & a variety of punishments. I didn't say we should hang the entire cia, but I did say there should be accountability.

I also was pointing out that "following orders" isn't an excuse for animalistic behavior. As mentioned, it certainly didn't keep the germans from getting their necks stretched.

Speaking of disturbing. I do hope that you're not saying that only nazi level international crimes deserve accountability.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(In response to post #94)
> Sir, your proclivity for reducing the efforts of the Nazi regime and their efforts to wipe out those of the Jewish faith living among us to the functional equivalency of CIA interrogators using "extreme interrogation methods" against captured combatants in an effort to secure critical operational intelligence is disturbing to me, even if to no one else. It strikes me that you are trying to equate a piss ant to an elephant and that is at best a distortion of the conversation at hand. Frankly, I wish we had looked to citizens such as John McCain to develop appropriately focused interrogation approaches, but that did not happen. However, that does not make the actions of individual CIA interrogators equivalent or directly comparable to the actions of those members of the German military who personally executed (as in carried out) the Jewish Holocaust. That is a gross misstatement and an insult!


+1...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> So the actions of *nazi germany *were legal & all those people in german uniforms that were hanged on the spot were actually murdered versus executed?


Godwins Law invoked. You've just killed the thread.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ no, it's disturbing to me as well but I've come to expect such things from those who have run out of ideas.




Rather funny coming from a guy that recently started a thread on HRC so he could rehash Whitewater (from the 80s).


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Godwins Law invoked. You've just killed the thread.


I don't see how. It's only history. It was determined that "following orders" & "threats of death" are not excuses for behavior deemed unsuitable at an international level. Wasn't all this supposedly settled in Nuremberg?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> There doesn't need to be accountability if the law has not been broken, no matter how horrific it seems. The military and all the security and intelligence services have a mandate granted by the govt and by extension the people. If that mandate is not exceeded then there is no case to answer.


The problem is, the law has been broken. Torture is illegal under international law--American authorities have long railed against it--and what Americans did was surely torture. We're signatories to the Geneva Convention at last check. The only way that it doesn't qualify as torture is via a tortured interpretation of law that was bent and manipulated by the Bush administration so that torture got re-named "enhanced interrogation techniques," and presto: It's legal! Just because you call a peach a nectarine doesn't make it so.

Sometimes, we miss forests for trees. People are, quite naturally, going to say that America put itself above the law here and tortured people, and they would be right. They don't care about mealy mouthed lawyers. At some point, somebody waterboarded helpless prisoners. At some point, someone chained prisoners to walls until they urinated on themselves and defecated on themselves (and, notably, W was reportedly informed of this chaining until prisoners lost control of bodily functions and did nothing to stop it.) Deprived them of sleep for a week. I am not sure, but I believe that there were also mock firing squads. And no one has been held accountable. Instead, the CIA and some politicians refuse to do what we all learned in kindergarten we should do when we are wrong: Admit our mistake, apologize and take steps to ensure that it never happens again. Instead, they defend their illegal actions and say that it accomplished positive things. That's just so galling.

At the very least, Congress should pass a resolution nullifying Tenet's Medal of Freedom if he does not return it on his own or Obama doesn't demand its return. That a man who presided over this brutalizing of prisoners and, apparently, lied to Congress and even the White House about it should possess our nation's highest civilian honor is nothing short of disgusting, and you can bet that other nations have noticed.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This is also nauseating: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The CIA whines because it says the Senate report didn't include interviews with CIA officials. Well, it turns out that CIA officials were interviewed by Dept. of Justice, but now the administration won't release reports on those interviews that likely include explanations for why no criminal charges have been filed, and the excuse is beyond flimsy: It's attorney work product. Well, every exemption under FOIA is discretionary. The government can choose to invoke an exemption or not invoke an exemption. In this case, the government has chosen to fight disclosure, which allows the CIA to continue protesting that they haven't been given a chance to tell their side of the story. Well, they were given that chance, we're just not allowed to see it.

Bravo, Mr. Obama. Remind us, again, what it was you said the day after becoming president, the part about how your administration would be open and that you were issuing an executive order mandating that agencies promptly and fully comply with FOIA requests and would not invoke exemptions unless there was a very good reason for doing so.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Oh. If you don't like the u.s. being compared to others then it would perhaps be best if they didn't perform actions that can be compared to such groups. I was raised believing the u.s. was better than this. That it was the boogeymen communists & nazis that would do so. If I'm taught this for years & years (and I was), then who else should I compare such atrocities to? The Lillyputians?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Rather funny coming from a guy that recently started a thread on HRC so he could rehash Whitewater (from the 80s).


Trust me, if she runs that story will surface and be exposed once again without any promoting from me.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Is there not some type of international regulation that forbids various actions such as genocide, torture, targeting/killing civilians, rape as a weapon of war, use of children as combatants, etc.???


Sure.

Call the U.N.

They will be right on it!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Sure.
> 
> Call the U.N.
> 
> They will be right on it!!


Yea, exactly, and my Cardinals vestments are in the post from the Vatican.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yea, exactly, and my Cardinals vestments are in the post from the Vatican.


If a rapist can't be charged for one reason or another it doesn't mean that a crime hasn't occurred.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^

By that logic we're all rapists as most of us here, I'll assume all of us, have never been charged with rape.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Alleged.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^
> 
> By that logic we're all rapists as most of us here, I'll assume all of us, have never been charged with rape.


What? I'm not quite sure how you interpreted it but my point was that a crime has still committed even if the criminal can't be charged.

If you did do it, and you aren't charged, you are still a rapist.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ how do you know someone has done something or if a crime has been committed by said individual if he/she is not charged?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ how do you know someone has done something or if a crime has been committed by said individual if he/she is not charged?


In this case they came out & admitted it didn't they?


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

At some point after reading thread after thread after thread with your endless railing of the US, one has to wonder are you the self appointed conscience of the US, rebelling against your teaching, prosecutor, jury, and judge rolled into one, what? Never once - although I am sure you'll dig up something on page whatever - have you've applied your same sensibility to the clowns who commenced this whole mess by being low life thugs who fly planes into buildings, attack ships, or otherwise kill in the name of their god. Do they get a free pass? Where is your Swiss diplomacy to solve things? Or perhaps you will contend that the US commenced the whole mess for oil back after beloved and evolved Europe drew up a half assed map and then couldnt do anything with their drawing. It gets very tedious after a while. You're entitled to your endless stream of anti-US diatribes and sometimes you make sense but like playing the same record into a mind numbing repeat of the same tune, apply your music equally.

The world is a messy place and the US can be a messy country with messy and poorly (if you want to call the one in question criminal, feel free, Your Honor) thought out polices. We get it. Is there anything similar to Feinstein's report coming out anywhere in the Middle East questioning their polices or even their choice of cutlery?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1..........and well put!

and where was the concern/outrage when Putin and his minions were rattling Russia's thermonuclear sabers and "cautioning" the rest of the world, we have the weapons and we can use them, if you interfere too much in our Crimean adventures, if your sanctions against us become too bothersome, if you quit buying our oil, etc. Indeed they went so far as to point out that their nukes were bigger, badder and more numerous that those with which the US could respond. The former Soviet Union and present day Russia have always seemed disposed to ply games of "nuclear chicken," but never quite so openly and aggressively as we have recently seen. Why even the lives of those securely hunkered down in the Swiss Alps would be devastatingly and irreversibly degraded in the event of any sizable nuclear exchange between members of the nuclear fraternity. If you want to get your guts in a knot about something, why not make it the careless words and actions of Vladimir Putin and those wild and crazy Russians? For those desperate for something to trouble yourselves over, take some time, pick up a Bible and read the Book of Revelations. For those not spiritually inclined, but still wanting something to trouble themselves over, pick up a copy of Cormac McCarthy's book the road and read it...it provides a fairly credible impression of life in a post apocalyptic world. And for those not inclined to read, but would rather stare at a TV for their entertainment, you can view "The Road" on video and while you are at it, you might also watch a video titled, "The Day After." Gentlemen, call me a doomsday nut, if you will, but there are a whole lot of very real evils out there in this nasty old world of our's. There is a whole lot of grey area, when differentiating between the forces of good and evil on both sides of the fence! How about a corresponding level of balance in our criticism of the players, eh?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I fail to see how any of these other countries claim to represent me, my family, my friends. I am not a registered voter in those countries. I was not born and raised in those countries. I was never taught that those countries were great (the greatest). I never served in their military. I don't file tax returns to them. 

I was told how it was history's worst criminals that tortured, spied on their citizens (through unapproved wiretaps, electronic monitoring etc.), used knockless warrants in the middle of the night and implemented Stop and identify laws. 

How can I not be critical when I see what my country is turning into? How can you not be?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^I can't help but wonder how many of the victims who died in the Twin Towers or on any one of the four hijacked airliners on 9/11 would have had any objections to the extreme measures employed in interrogating the bad guys, in attempts to catch those responsible and to prevent future attacks against their families and fellow citizens? Standing off the the side and throwing stones at the US doesn't correct any of her ills. It simply provides you with a chance to vent the displeasure that incited you to run off in the first place! As for me and as I've said before, I chose to embrace the sentiments expressed by the late, great General Daniel "Chappie" James; "This is my Country and I love her. When she is ill, I will hold her hand and comfort her!"


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."Beyond Good and Evil", Aphorism 146 (1886).

Your use of the dead to make an emotional plea for violence is somewhat disturbing. I too can't help but wonder but to the contrary. How many would like their names used to justify the actions of the past 13 years? That their names would be used in emotional pleas to justify spying on their fellow citizens? That their names were invoked to turn the country into a paranoid police state? That people would be held without trial. Even people that had nothing to do with it? Would they be happy thinking of all the dead civilians put under their names? Do you think they're up in heaven routing for more american scatter bombs? " oh yippie oh yeah. We just got another daycare center. My death is avenged". Would everyone one of them really believe that we have to sink to the lowest common demoninator? That we need "revenge" come hell or high water & that we should throw all notion of ethics and decency out the door?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^You read too much into my comments...I am not making an emotional plea for anything. My point is that different experiences provide different perspectives and different perspectives can lead to drastically differing conclusions. For example, how do you interpret the reaction of 9/11 Victims families at the 9/11 Memorial museum when the Navy Seal that shot OBL described putting two bullets in his head and a third in his torso. I suppose you would conclude those grief stricken family members and friends of the victims to be monsters as well for thanking that Seal for a job well done and for granting them some measure of peace of mind? Personally, I think their reaction to be a remarkably restrained and measured response! You and I simply look at things through drastically different hues of glasses!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I have to disagree with this. Torture is never OK. We create more problems than we solve by torturing. That, at least to me, seems so basic. Good guys don't torture people, period--it is, or at least I thought it was, in our DNA. While it is likely impossible, I still think those who did it should be prosecuted. If I had a loved one who died in 9/11, I would feel the same way. Tenet's possession of a Medal of Freedom disgraces the award.



eagle2250 said:


> ^^I can't help but wonder how many of the victims who died in the Twin Towers or on any one of the four hijacked airliners on 9/11 would have had any objections to the extreme measures employed in interrogating the bad guys, in attempts to catch those responsible and to prevent future attacks against their families and fellow citizens? Standing off the the side and throwing stones at the US doesn't correct any of her ills. It simply provides you with a chance to vent the displeasure that incited you to run off in the first place! As for me and as I've said before, I chose to embrace the sentiments expressed by the late, great General Daniel "Chappie" James; "This is my Country and I love her. When she is ill, I will hold her hand and comfort her!"


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I have to disagree with this. Torture is never OK. We create more problems than we solve by torturing. That, at least to me, seems so basic. Good guys don't torture people, period--it is, or at least I thought it was, in our DNA. While it is likely impossible, I still think those who did it should be prosecuted. If I had a loved one who died in 9/11, I would feel the same way. Tenet's possession of a Medal of Freedom disgraces the award.


I generally agree with this sentiment, excluding the Tenet part. Torture is a very, very tricky thing. Even if it was 100% guaranteed to work (which it most certainly is not), anyone who uses it thereby loses the right to say someone else should not use it.

Now, here is where the hard part comes in. What truly is torture? I am sorry, but the UN and most on the left are useless on this. They would define torture as anything that causes even a little bit of discomfort as torture and that is ridiculous. The people who have this information are brutal men, and they are not going to break just because you don't give them cookies. That said, you also can't pull out their fingernails either.

Bringing up the Geneva convention is also one that has unintended consequences, because like the First Amendment, most people have no idea what it means. So, if you claim that the al qaeda prisoners deserve protection under the Geneva Convention, then you cannot complain about the existence of Gitmo, as it is simply a POW camp. Also, I might remind these folks that criminal trials for POWs would be against the GC as well. And that they are allowed to be held for as long as the hostilities are going on - in other words, get used to them being there for a while.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Well said JP , the voice of sanity, the voice of the man on the street.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Eagle, The problem with your quote from James is that it mentions illness & not unethical behavior. Two different things entirely. Bad behavior is a choice, illness isn't. It does not say " if my country is involved in unethical behavior I will hide & deny it & then make excuses for it"

If my child is ill, I will hold her hand. If she misbehaves, I will slap that same hand instead. I love my children but by no means do I believe all their actions are justifiable. I can be critical of & punish my children while still loving them (although they[and outsiders] might think otherwise).

With all the excuses left and right for the wrongs & no admitting as to anything wrong in the first place, it sounds as if you guys are raising a spoiled child.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Terrorism is wrong!
Counter terrorism isnt!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I generally agree with this sentiment, excluding the Tenet part. Torture is a very, very tricky thing. Even if it was 100% guaranteed to work (which it most certainly is not), anyone who uses it thereby loses the right to say someone else should not use it.
> 
> Now, here is where the hard part comes in. *What truly is torture?* I am sorry, but the UN and most on the left are useless on this. They would define torture as anything that causes even a little bit of discomfort as torture and that is ridiculous. The people who have this information are brutal men, and they are not going to break just because you don't give them cookies. That said, you also can't pull out their fingernails either.
> 
> Bringing up the Geneva convention is also one that has unintended consequences, because like the First Amendment, most people have no idea what it means. So, if you claim that the al qaeda prisoners deserve protection under the Geneva Convention, then you cannot complain about the existence of Gitmo, as it is simply a POW camp. Also, I might remind these folks that criminal trials for POWs would be against the GC as well. And that they are allowed to be held for as long as the hostilities are going on - in other words, get used to them being there for a while.


What the CIA did--extensive waterboarding, sleep deprivation (I believe for as long as seven days) and chaining people to the point that they defecated and urinated on themselves, and one person died from hypothermia while chained to a floor in a cold cell--is torture by anyone's definition, I should think. When possible, I prefer talking about what happened instead of hypotheticals. I can't be proud to live in this country in light of this. Beyond the acts themselves, the legalistic gamesmanship that was played to justify it, the lying about it and now the reaction to it, the statements by some that it was justified, are collectively just sickening. Principles are important, and a country without principles is, well, just not much of a country.

Then there is this: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/...mark-tries-rehabilitation.html?ref=world&_r=0

I'm not sure whether forgive-and-forget is a good strategy. I do prefer it to torture, however.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I prefer torture to dead GIs. All the time every time any time, nonconforming arms bearing antagonists are involved.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hitch said:


> I prefer torture to dead GIs. All the time every time any time, nonconforming arms bearing antagonists are involved.


In that case, you should be against torture. One, it doesn't work--I believe McCain and others when they say this. Two, torture simply creates more terrorists. Accounts of U.S. torture are a jihadist recruiter's wet dream.

This said, Hitch, do you really, honestly support torture? Sometimes I wonder if you say outrageous things simply to be outrageous. Is this one of those times?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> In that case, you should be against torture. One, it doesn't work--I believe McCain and others when they say this. Two, torture simply creates more terrorists. Accounts of U.S. torture are a jihadist recruiter's wet dream.
> 
> This said, Hitch, do you really, honestly support torture? Sometimes I wonder if you say outrageous things simply to be outrageous. Is this one of those times?


_I prefer torture to dead GIs. All the time every time any time, nonconforming arms bearing antagonists are involved._


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Related;

Hostages held by 'Islamists' in Sydney cafe siege: liveAs many as 40 people being held hostage in a cafe in Martin Place - follow the latest developments

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-take-hostages-in-Sydney-cafe-siege-live.html


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hitch said:


> _I prefer torture to dead GIs. All the time every time any time, nonconforming arms bearing antagonists are involved._


Sad. Really. Just really sad.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> _I prefer torture to dead GIs. All the time every time any time, nonconforming *arms bearing antagonists are involved.*_


Apparently, even if they're not.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ how do you know someone has done something or if a crime has been committed by said individual if he/she is not charged?


And will torture help in that process?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> What the CIA did--extensive waterboarding, sleep deprivation (I believe for as long as seven days) and chaining people to the point that they defecated and urinated on themselves, and one person died from hypothermia while chained to a floor in a cold cell--is torture by anyone's definition, I should think. When possible, I prefer talking about what happened instead of hypotheticals. I can't be proud to live in this country in light of this. Beyond the acts themselves, the legalistic gamesmanship that was played to justify it, the lying about it and now the reaction to it, the statements by some that it was justified, are collectively just sickening. Principles are important, and a country without principles is, well, just not much of a country.
> 
> Then there is this: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/...mark-tries-rehabilitation.html?ref=world&_r=0
> 
> I'm not sure whether forgive-and-forget is a good strategy. I do prefer it to torture, however.


And herein lies the problem. Neither one of us truly knows what went on and most everyone is either exaggerating things, using strawmen, or plain making them up. But to use your specific cases - to say if they were torture or not, I would have to understand waterboarding better and the levels to which it used, sleep deprivation is pretty much fair game in my book, having someone go to the bathroom on themselves is not anywhere close to torture, and neither is being chained to a cold floor. While we are at it, I would also not consider it torture to have women interrogate Muslim prisoners, allow attack dogs to get close to them and scare the crap out of them, and a few others instances that people called torture.

The entire point of this exercise is to change the person's point of reference and reality with an eye on breaking them down. It is not supposed to be high tea with the queen.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> And herein lies the problem. Neither one of us truly knows what went on and most everyone is either exaggerating things, using strawmen, or plain making them up. But to use your specific cases - to say if they were torture or not, I would have to understand waterboarding better and the levels to which it used, sleep deprivation is pretty much fair game in my book, having someone go to the bathroom on themselves is not anywhere close to torture, and neither is being chained to a cold floor. While we are at it, I would also not consider it torture to have women interrogate Muslim prisoners, allow attack dogs to get close to them and scare the crap out of them, and a few others instances that people called torture.


It's always easier to say "we don't really know what is going on" than to confront evil. Are you suggesting that the report isn't true? That the report is simply made up? Did you read the list of methods and examples from the report that I posted? Or are you, as others have, simply changing the definition of torture to suit yourself?



vpkozel said:


> The entire point of this exercise is to change the person's point of reference and reality with an eye on breaking them down. It is not supposed to be high tea with the queen.


Even though they're not guilty of anything?

That Americans are either still in denial of the CIA's actions, or are justifying them, speaks very loudly to the rest of the world, and tells the rest of the world that their views of the attitude of America to them is as they fear it to be.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What, like gassing thousands of Kurds because they were Kurds?


Carried out by the armed forces of a legitimate government that the had US supported. Just because it happened in the Middle East doesn't mean that it was a Muslim terrorist action.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, you're talking about sleep and food depravation for terrorist scum and non-lethal psychological methods like waterboarding.


Terrorist scum? Or the convenient and encompassing term "suspects"? It isn't the same thing.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> You're a terrorist lover and as such part of the problem not part of the solution.


That is a wholely unreasonable thing to say.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> It's always easier to say "we don't really know what is going on" than to confront evil. Are you suggesting that the report isn't true? That the report is simply made up? Did you read the list of methods and examples from the report that I posted? Or are you, as others have, simply changing the definition of torture to suit yourself?


Are you saying that the report is 100% accurate and should be treated as the lone version of the truth? And are you, as others have done, simply changing the definitions of torture to suit yourself?



> Even though they're not guilty of anything?


You are not required to be guilty of anything to be interrogated, And how do you know that they are not guilty of anything?



> That Americans are either still in denial of the CIA's actions, or are justifying them, speaks very loudly to the rest of the world, and tells the rest of the world that their views of the attitude of America to them is as they fear it to be.


I don't think that most Americans are in denial of their actions. I think that we simply understand that sometimes things get messy and that choices have to be made between very unpalatable options.

Coventry is always one of the best examples of this.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> And herein lies the problem. Neither one of us truly knows what went on and most everyone is either exaggerating things, using strawmen, or plain making them up. But to use your specific cases - to say if they were torture or not, I would have to understand waterboarding better and the levels to which it used, sleep deprivation is pretty much fair game in my book, having someone go to the bathroom on themselves is not anywhere close to torture, and neither is being chained to a cold floor. While we are at it, I would also not consider it torture to have women interrogate Muslim prisoners, allow attack dogs to get close to them and scare the crap out of them, and a few others instances that people called torture.
> 
> The entire point of this exercise is to change the person's point of reference and reality with an eye on breaking them down. It is not supposed to be high tea with the queen.


I've posted the list of examples again for you https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...amples-of-the-horror-in-the-CIAs-prisons.html


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Are you saying that the report is 100% accurate and should be treated as the lone version of the truth? And are you, as others have done, simply changing the definitions of torture to suit yourself?


The definition is the one recognised in International Law.



vpkozel said:


> You are not required to be guilty of anything to be interrogated, And how do you know that they are not guilty of anything?


How do I know indeed. A classic displacement argument, seeking to use doubt to question the reality, rather than offer evidence. You are also, interestingly, and contrary to Common Law, seeking to put the onus on the innocent to prove their innocence, rather than proving their guilt. Under those conditions any one of us could be tortured with impunity!



vpkozel said:


> I don't think that most Americans are in denial of their actions. I think that we simply understand that sometimes things get messy and that choices have to be made between very unpalatable options.


Whatever the international consequences! I am aware that most Americans really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of them, yet get upset that people in other countries think Americans arrogant. This is a classic case of that!



vpkozel said:


> Coventry is always one of the best examples of this.


Coventry? What does torturing "suspects" have to do with Coventry?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I've posted the list of examples again for you https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...amples-of-the-horror-in-the-CIAs-prisons.html


Of that list I would only consider Russian Roulette and being handcuffed with your hands above you as definitely torture. Waterboarding could potentially be.

The others are most definitely not. Again, this is only my opinion.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Of that list I would only consider Russian Roulette and being handcuffed with your hands above you as definitely torture. Waterboarding could potentially be.
> 
> The others are most definitely not. Again, this is only my opinion.


"Rectal Feeding" for non-medical purposes is ok and "most definitely not" torture?

Perhaps you're actually right... Rape is the better term.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Of that list I would only consider Russian Roulette and being handcuffed with your hands above you as definitely torture. Waterboarding could potentially be.
> 
> The others are most definitely not. Again, this is only my opinion.


You think that interrogating an known innocent man in order to get a "suspect" to talk is reasonable?

*26 of 119 prisoners were wrongfully held*
Among the people who were wrongly held was Nazar Ali, "an 'intellectually challenged' individual whose taped crying was used as leverage against his family member".


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> The definition is the one recognised in International Law.


International Law is pretty much worthless when it comes to all but the most egregious cases. This is what I was referring to when saying that the UN and liberals are pretty much useless in this endeavor. Do you have the definitions of torture in International Law?



> How do I know indeed. A classic displacement argument, seeking to use doubt to question the reality, rather than offer evidence. You are also, interestingly, and contrary to Common Law, seeking to put the onus on the innocent to prove their innocence, rather than proving their guilt. Under those conditions any one of us could be tortured with impunity!


Yes, you most definitely did use the classic displacement argument. I am glad you recognized that you did so. Oops, you used it again in the second sentence. Where did I ever say that they were either guilty or required to prove their innocence? You brought up their guilt or innocence, not me.[

quote]Whatever the international consequences! I am aware that most Americans really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of them, yet get upset that people in other countries think Americans arrogant. This is a classic case of that! [/quote]

I don't think most Americans get upset that other countries think that we are arrogant. Many on the social elite most definitely do, but, in general, they are some of the most misinformed and isolated Americans who live in echo chambers where opinions other than theirs are almost never tolerated.



> Coventry? What does torturing "suspects" have to do with Coventry?


Perhaps you should reread what I was referring to, I was not saying that it has anything to do with torture specifically, but rather as an example of a case where very difficult - and sometimes tragic and painful - decisions have to be made.

I am against torture full stop. However, the definition of torture is the key.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> "Rectal Feeding" for non-medical purposes is ok and "most definitely not" torture?
> 
> Perhaps you're actually right... Rape is the better term.


This is the situation that Thatcher faced with Bobby Sands. He was hunger striking - which was HIS choice. I would say that they should have let him die, but apparently the authorities disagreed.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> You think that interrogating an known innocent man in order to get a "suspect" to talk is reasonable?
> 
> *26 of 119 prisoners were wrongfully held*
> Among the people who were wrongly held was Nazar Ali, "an 'intellectually challenged' individual whose taped crying was used as leverage against his family member".


Where in that passage does it say that he was known to be innocent? But, in general, even police interrogate people that they do not consider suspects. They can even be held against their will if need be - it is called a Material Witness.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> This is the situation that Thatcher faced with Bobby Sands. He was hunger striking - which was HIS choice. I would say that they should have let him die, but apparently the authorities disagreed.


Yes and I mentioned "non-medical" purposes. Rectal feeding was supposedly not needed to keep pretty much anyone alive versus a choice made in the spirit of cruelty. Rape or torture, it was certainly not used for humanitarian reasons.

"The CIA forced the nutrient enemas on two detainees who attempted hunger strikes, a third who "partially refus[ed] liquids", a fourth "without a determination of medical need", and a fifth whose case details are not divulged."

"Agency operatives had explicitly considered other methods of force-feeding, the report shows, but opted to subject detainees to rectal infusions at least in part because its officers considered them "a means of behavior control".


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> This is the situation that Thatcher faced with Bobby Sands. He was hunger striking - which was HIS choice. _*I would say that they should have let him die*_, but apparently the authorities disagreed.


They did. It created significantly more support for his cause.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Where in that passage does it say that he was known to be innocent? But, in general, even police interrogate people that they do not consider suspects. They can even be held against their will if need be - it is called a Material Witness.


So using "interrogation techniques" to cause a man to cry, so as to use his crying as leverage against a suspect is fine?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Sad. Really. Just really sad.


You should have spoken out sooner about those hundreds of muslims tortured in Australia.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> And herein lies the problem. Neither one of us truly knows what went on and most everyone is either exaggerating things, using strawmen, or plain making them up. But to use your specific cases - to say if they were torture or not, I would have to understand waterboarding better and the levels to which it used, sleep deprivation is pretty much fair game in my book, having someone go to the bathroom on themselves is not anywhere close to torture, and neither is being chained to a cold floor. While we are at it, I would also not consider it torture to have women interrogate Muslim prisoners, allow attack dogs to get close to them and scare the crap out of them, and a few others instances that people called torture.
> 
> The entire point of this exercise is to change the person's point of reference and reality with an eye on breaking them down. It is not supposed to be high tea with the queen.


Even Big Dick Cheney isn't defending alleged excesses, but he does defend the program.

Unlike the sad phoneys trying to distance themselves from a program they approved of and oversaw.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> They did. It created significantly more support for his cause.


Really? How so? Specifically, please.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> So using "interrogation techniques" to cause a man to cry, so as to use his crying as leverage against a suspect is fine?


So now we have defined torture down to anything that makes someone cry?

That certainly changes parenting a bit.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Really? How so? Specifically, please.


You doubt it? To use your tactics, please prove to me that it didn't.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> You doubt it? To use your tactics, please prove to me that it didn't.


I am sorry, but that is not the way discussions and debates work. If you make a claim it is on you to offer proof, not onnme to disprove your claim.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I am sorry, but that is not the way discussions and debates work. If you make a claim it is on you to offer proof, not onnme to disprove your claim.


No? You appear to think so!

You appear to be using a classic tactic of casting doubt on evidence such that it doesn't have to be taken seriously. Not that you can prove it wrong, but by demanding absolute proof you can avoid dealing with an unpalatable situation. 
America (and Americans) is loathed in the Middle East, apart from Jews in Israel, of course, and disliked in most of the rest of the world, even by many of the population of US allies. American attitudes to themselves and to the rest of the world is what causes the dislike. It is perceived as hubris and arrogance, as well as a kind of deliberate self-celebrating ignorance. I see the contempt that Americans attract every time I go into London, or Cambridge, or York. Not just from Brits who despise their loudness, but you can see the contempt shown them by those of other nationalities. However, some Americans seem to think that the rest of the world loves them, rather than their money, whatever the US does. Please feel free to continue to delude yourself.

The content of this report will increase dislike of the US in the rest of the world, and the justification and criticism of the report in the US will increase dislike, as it shows the rest of the world that Americans support the kind of behaviour that the report reveals and really don't care about the rest of the world. I don't need to prove it to such as you, the only concern I have is that anti-American sentiment might again cause problems for those seen as American allies. Your 9/11 was followed by our 7/7, which was carried out because we are your allies.

I'm not saying that I agree with the dislike, and I don't share the sentiment, but it is obvious to those who notice.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Your 9/11 was followed by our 7/7, which was carried out because we are your allies.


That was carried out because you are not them.

Just like...



> *Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN)* -- The Taliban stormed a military-run school in northwest Pakistan on Tuesday, gunning down at least 126 people -- most of them children -- in one of the volatile Asian nation's deadliest attacks.
> Hours after the attack, Pakistani troops were still exchanging gunfire with the militants inside the Army Public School and Degree College in the violence-plagued city of Peshawar, about 120 kilometers (75 miles) from the country's capital, Islamabad.
> Two explosions were also heard.


https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/world/asia/pakistan-peshawar-school-attack/


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That was carried out because you are not them.
> 
> Just like...
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/world/asia/pakistan-peshawar-school-attack/


No. The Pakistani Army, the target of this attack, are seen as US stooges. The Taliban attack them as allies of the US. Note that the Taliban don't attack the army of Kazakhstan, or Kirghizistan, or Iran, the other neighbouring countries, just US allies. Never mind, just keep believing that you and your allies aren't hated, that you're just attacked randomly, and everything will be fine, won't it.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> No? You appear to think so!
> 
> You appear to be using a classic tactic of casting doubt on evidence such that it doesn't have to be taken seriously. Not that you can prove it wrong, but by demanding absolute proof you can avoid dealing with an unpalatable situation.
> America (and Americans) is loathed in the Middle East, apart from Jews in Israel, of course, and disliked in most of the rest of the world, even by many of the population of US allies. American attitudes to themselves and to the rest of the world is what causes the dislike. It is perceived as hubris and arrogance, as well as a kind of deliberate self-celebrating ignorance. I see the contempt that Americans attract every time I go into London, or Cambridge, or York. Not just from Brits who despise their loudness, but you can see the contempt shown them by those of other nationalities. However, some Americans seem to think that the rest of the world loves them, rather than their money, whatever the US does. Please feel free to continue to delude yourself.
> ...


While I disagree with you on every thing you wrote - and as an American who has lived and traveled extensively in Europe, I think that I have a pretty good understanding about what it is like to be an American in Europe. And I have had plenty of discussions about the very topics that you describe. And most of the prejudice you describe comes from the "elite" who still want to live in a world where Europe is the center of power. I have never argued that Americans are perfect, and some of the stereotypes of us are true - as all stereotypes are - but not representative.

Now, to the rest of what you wrote - I never casted any doubt on your "evidence" because you never posted anything but your or someone else's opinion. But even if you had posted what you consider to be hard facts, then the way debates work is that I post counter arguments if I feel there are some. I have also offered my opinion, which of course, is also not evidence, any more than yours or the Telegraph's.

Next, you specifically said that the hunger striker's death significantly helped HIS cause. And that is what I asked for proof of. Europeans continuing their disdain for Americans because we bailed them out of world wars twice and then rebuilt all the damage that they inflicted amongst themselves, then acted as the only thing that kept many of them from speaking Russian is nothing new.

In short, there is zero doubt in my mind that this report will reinforce the false stereotypes that the extremely small percentage of people who already have a very dim opinion of the US (except the self loathing Americans who agree with them of course). However, I doubt that it will be a driving factor in increasing recruitment of terrorists.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The Taliban attack them as allies of the US. Note that the Taliban don't attack the army of Kazakhstan, or Kirghizistan, or Iran, the other neighbouring countries, just US allies.


Exactly, they don't attack those who are them, just those who are not them, like I said!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

More "American Stooges" killed...

A pair of car bombs in central Yemen on Tuesday killed at least 25 people, nearly two-thirds of them schoolgirls whose bus was hit, Yemeni officials said.A Shiite Muslim rebel group blamed Al Qaeda for causing the girls' deaths in a botched attack on a Shiite official under the rebels' protection.

https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-car-bombs-school-bus-yemen-20141216-story.html


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> More "American Stooges" killed...
> 
> A pair of car bombs in central Yemen on Tuesday killed at least 25 people, nearly two-thirds of them schoolgirls whose bus was hit, Yemeni officials said.A Shiite Muslim rebel group blamed Al Qaeda for causing the girls' deaths in a botched attack on a Shiite official under the rebels' protection.
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-car-bombs-school-bus-yemen-20141216-story.html


Only 25 dead to get at 1 person? That's pretty good compared to some countries I know of... Isn't it just standard in warfare nowadays? What are the normal excuses? "The school girls were hiding the target" ? Or... "the target was using them as human shields"? Something like that, right? Botched is botched, sometimes people get in the way of those with religious or social agendas. Be it bombing a (U.N.)school, a hospital, or a bus. To fanatics of all kinds, the target and the ideology is more important than the collateral damage.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> While I disagree with you on every thing you wrote - and as an American who has lived and traveled extensively in Europe, I think that I have a pretty good understanding about what it is like to be an American in Europe. And I have had plenty of discussions about the very topics that you describe. And most of the prejudice you describe comes from the "elite" who still want to live in a world where Europe is the center of power. I have never argued that Americans are perfect, and some of the stereotypes of us are true - as all stereotypes are - but not representative.


My exact point. As an American you'll have seen what you wanted to see. You'll have met hospitable and friendly people, clients, friends, hotel receptionists, whatever, who will have been accommodating and friendly. They are unlikely to have shown you the contempt that most Europeans feel for Americans. A few of the British "elite", the political Right who live in the past, mostly older people, might wish to live in a world where Europe is more powerful, but that wouldn't mean that they'll somehow resent Americans for that. That is a simplistic, rather delusory view.



vpkozel said:


> Now, to the rest of what you wrote - I never casted any doubt on your "evidence" because you never posted anything but your or someone else's opinion. But even if you had posted what you consider to be hard facts, then the way debates work is that I post counter arguments if I feel there are some. I have also offered my opinion, which of course, is also not evidence, any more than yours or the Telegraph's.


I would suggest that if the Right Wing Daily Telegraph has published extracts from the report, indeed scanned copies, that it is valid evidence. On the other hand you don't regard simulated drowning, waterboarding, as torture, so there isn't much point in arguing with you.



vpkozel said:


> Next, you specifically said that the hunger striker's death significantly helped HIS cause.


Rather than my proving it, I suggest that you read about it. The PIRA were already popular in the US, after all, the US were the main funders of that particular terrorist group. The Hunger Strike campaign simply made the PIRA more acceptable as they were killing themselves for their cause rather than others.



vpkozel said:


> And that is what I asked for proof of. Europeans continuing their disdain for Americans because we bailed them out of world wars twice and then rebuilt all the damage that they inflicted amongst themselves, then acted as the only thing that kept many of them from speaking Russian is nothing new.


Again, a classic American view. Trumpeting the view that they bailed us out so we should be jolly grateful. That is one of the hubristic, arrogant, annoying and inaccurate views that so many Americans present; a view guaranteed to annoy Europeans. Especially as this American perception isn't true. The European disdain and contempt for Americans is nothing to do with America's involvement in Europe. It is everything to do with how Americans behave, their expressed attitudes, their perceived loudness, their perceived ignorance and their perceived contempt for everything that doesn't in with a perceived American world view.



vpkozel said:


> In short, there is zero doubt in my mind that this report will reinforce the false stereotypes that the extremely small percentage of people who already have a very dim opinion of the US (except the self loathing Americans who agree with them of course). However, I doubt that it will be a driving factor in increasing recruitment of terrorists.


Again, self-delusion. Everything that you write reinforces the views that I've sought to explain. Europeans view you with contempt because of how you are, not for the reasons that you attribute. Everybody else, the East, the Middle East, Latin America hate you for your policies and the contemptuous way that the US, over the last hundred years or so, have trampled on their society and culture. Persisting as you do in your view that the US has done nothing wrong reinforces those views. Your determination to deny it reinforces it further.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Exactly, they don't attack those who are them, just those who are not them, like I said!!


So why haven't the Taliban attacked the countries I mentioned? Oh, and Tadhzikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as well? None of them have been attacked by the Taliban, yet none of them are "them", they're all "not them".


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> More "American Stooges" killed...
> 
> A pair of car bombs in central Yemen on Tuesday killed at least 25 people, nearly two-thirds of them schoolgirls whose bus was hit, Yemeni officials said.A Shiite Muslim rebel group blamed Al Qaeda for causing the girls' deaths in a botched attack on a Shiite official under the rebels' protection.
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-car-bombs-school-bus-yemen-20141216-story.html


Yes. That's right. More people killed for appearing to back the US.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Only 25 dead to get at 1 person? That's pretty good compared to some countries I know of... Isn't it just standard in warfare nowadays? What are the normal excuses? "The school girls were hiding the target" ? Or... "the target was using them as human shields"? Something like that, right? Botched is botched, sometimes people get in the way of those with religious or social agendas. Be it bombing a (U.N.)school, a hospital, or a bus. To fanatics of all kinds, the target and the ideology is more important than the collateral damage.


Indeed. And there will always be those who will seek to justify the collateral damage.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. And there will always be those who will seek to justify the collateral damage.


Not all collateral damage is equal.

If it were, you'd have a point.

But is isn't, so you don't.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> My exact point. As an American you'll have seen what you wanted to see. You'll have met hospitable and friendly people, clients, friends, hotel receptionists, whatever, who will have been accommodating and friendly. They are unlikely to have shown you the contempt that most Europeans feel for Americans. A few of the British "elite", the political Right who live in the past, mostly older people, might wish to live in a world where Europe is more powerful, but that wouldn't mean that they'll somehow resent Americans for that. That is a simplistic, rather delusory view.


I think it is quaint that you can't help yourself from looking down your nose at us Americans. I travelled extensively staying in hostels - interacting mostly with non-Americans. And I also lived and worked there. In Prague and London, so I met all kinds of people - including many with the skewed, incorrect opinion of Americans that you describe. But, I might also note that just because someone has this perception, it doesn't mean that they are correct.



> I would suggest that if the Right Wing Daily Telegraph has published extracts from the report, indeed scanned copies, that it is valid evidence. On the other hand you don't regard simulated drowning, waterboarding, as torture, so there isn't much point in arguing with you.


It doesn't matter if the paper is right wing, left wing, or somewhere in the middle. They are simply copying what the (I believe) is a flawed report said. Copying it does not change its flaws.

And are you sure that I don't regard waterboarding as torture? I suggest you reread what I wrote.



> Rather than my proving it, I suggest that you read about it. The PIRA were already popular in the US, after all, the US were the main funders of that particular terrorist group. The Hunger Strike campaign simply made the PIRA more acceptable as they were killing themselves for their cause rather than others.


Ahhh, this makes sense. I thought you were referring to the hunger striker named in the report. Yes, I totally agree on the PIRA support - especially the wrongheaded American glorification of them - increasing after Sands.



> Again, a classic American view. Trumpeting the view that they bailed us out so we should be jolly grateful. That is one of the hubristic, arrogant, annoying and inaccurate views that so many Americans present; a view guaranteed to annoy Europeans. Especially as this American perception isn't true. The European disdain and contempt for Americans is nothing to do with America's involvement in Europe. It is everything to do with how Americans behave, their expressed attitudes, their perceived loudness, their perceived ignorance and their perceived contempt for everything that doesn't in with a perceived American world view.


Do you dispute the accuracy of the message, or just the bad form that I said it out loud? I am proud that my country did these things - especially the Marshall Plan. None of this changes the facts of what occurred however, and it certainly does piss Europeans off a bit when we have the audacity to point it out when told what self centered, obnoxious, egotistical losers we are.



> Again, self-delusion. Everything that you write reinforces the views that I've sought to explain. Europeans view you with contempt because of how you are, not for the reasons that you attribute. Everybody else, the East, the Middle East, Latin America hate you for your policies and the contemptuous way that the US, over the last hundred years or so, have trampled on their society and culture. Persisting as you do in your view that the US has done nothing wrong reinforces those views. Your determination to deny it reinforces it further.


I know plenty of Europeans, thanks. And have very few bad interactions with any of them, so playing the "you speak for Europeans (and apparently the rest of the world as well)" card isn't going to work with me. But keep stereotyping us - I think it is funny - primarily because your assumptions about me are so woefully inaccurate.

I am curious though, how many Americans do you know? And how often have you come here and to what cities?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Also Chouan, I must ask you - do you support all stereotypes or just the ones that portray Americans in a negative light?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Appearing on FOX News' _Hannity_ on Monday, O'Neill said that those enhanced interrogation techniques should be used that work, including loud music, sleep deprivation, "stress positions, something that gets them uncomfortable, something that gets them out of their comfort zone."


Navy SEAL Rob O'Neill, the man credited with pulling the trigger that took out Osama bin Laden,

O'Neill, considered to be an American hero, took exception to the use of the term "torture" when describing enhanced interrogation techniques. 

"Torture, if you can walk away from it as soon as it ends, is not torture," O'Neill told Hannity. 

Im already laughing at anyone here who really thinks he knows better.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Also Chouan, I must ask you - do you support all stereotypes or just the ones that portray Americans in a negative light?


I don't support any stereotypes. I think that you're confusing a view that I'm describing with my own view. If you refuse to accept that Americans are viewed in that way, stereotype or otherwise, that's up to you. But you're deluding yourself.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I think it is quaint that you can't help yourself from looking down your nose at us Americans. I travelled extensively staying in hostels - interacting mostly with non-Americans. And I also lived and worked there. In Prague and London, so I met all kinds of people - including many with the skewed, incorrect opinion of Americans that you describe. But, I might also note that just because someone has this perception, it doesn't mean that they are correct.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the paper is right wing, left wing, or somewhere in the middle. They are simply copying what the (I believe) is a flawed report said. Copying it does not change its flaws.
> 
> ...


I think that you are confusing the message with the messenger. On the other hand, you do keep writing the kind of thing that I've pointed out to you is the kind of thing that non-Americans find so annoying. The attitude that you portray through your writing is exactly the attitude that you think is stereotyped! Rather ironic, don't you think? As is your stereotyping of Europeans!



vpkozel said:


> I am curious though, how many Americans do you know? And how often have you come here and to what cities?


And how is this question relevant in any way? We've been discussing how Americans are perceived by Europeans and others. Why would my experience of America be relevant to this topic?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Even Big Dick Cheney


he heehee, hey Beavis he said Big Dick...he heee hehe


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I think that you are confusing the message with the messenger. On the other hand, you do keep writing the kind of thing that I've pointed out to you is the kind of thing that non-Americans find so annoying. The attitude that you portray through your writing is exactly the attitude that you think is stereotyped! Rather ironic, don't you think? As is your stereotyping of Europeans!


So, just to be clear - you in no way agree with these views that you are so continuously pointing out?

And in my posts I have tried to use the qualifier of many or some. I am sure that I missed some instances because I am not closely editing my responses, but I don't think that anyone reading this would say that I am stereotyping Europeans at all.



> And how is this question relevant in any way? We've been discussing how Americans are perceived by Europeans and others. Why would my experience of America be relevant to this topic?


All experience is relevant when discussing a topic, so I am interested in yours. Most often people who form or propagate stereotypes do so without (or with very limited) firsthand experience of the topic that they are talking about. It is also rather arrogant for you to assume the role of spokesman for all Europeans (and in some cases apparently the world), don't you think?

But you do bring up a good point - how about we stick only to your thoughts on the subjects at hand, so you can own them instead of attributing them to others?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Let's face it; their inferiority complex turns otherwise rational people into America Haters!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let's face it; their inferiority complex turns otherwise rational people into America Haters!!


Is that anything like the victim of bullies deciding to end the abuse with a gun?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Is that anything like the victim of bullies deciding to end the abuse with a gun?


The bullies being the Head Chopping Jew Hating Jihadists and the victims being the peace loving, tolerant (within limits) USA and our allies??

Exactly like that!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> So, just to be clear - you in no way agree with these views that you are so continuously pointing out?
> 
> And in my posts I have tried to use the qualifier of many or some. I am sure that I missed some instances because I am not closely editing my responses, but I don't think that anyone reading this would say that I am stereotyping Europeans at all.


Don't you? You have attributed stereotyping views to Europeans at least. An example _*"*__*Europeans continuing their disdain for Americans because we bailed them out of world wars twice and then rebuilt all the damage that they inflicted amongst themselves, then acted as the only thing that kept many of them from speaking Russian is nothing new."*_ Your words. Another example _*"*__*I am proud that my country did these things - especially the Marshall Plan. None of this changes the facts of what occurred however, and it certainly does piss Europeans off a bit when we have the audacity to point it out when told what self centered, obnoxious, egotistical losers we are."*_ In both of these cases you appear to be giving us your view, not a suggestion, but your view, a view in which you are stereotyping.



vpkozel said:


> All experience is relevant when discussing a topic, so I am interested in yours.


But we aren't discussing my experiences in the US. My experiences in the US and of Americans have nothing to do with the discussion.



vpkozel said:


> Most often people who form or propagate stereotypes do so without (or with very limited) firsthand experience of the topic that they are talking about.


Do they? I suppose that I'll have to take your word for it. I wouldn't know.



vpkozel said:


> It is also rather arrogant for you to assume the role of spokesman for all Europeans (and in some cases apparently the world), don't you think?


Is it? I suppose it would be if I had appointed myself to that role, but I haven't. Again, you're conflating the message with the messenger. I do urge you to read my posts again, rather than continue to make yourself look foolish.



vpkozel said:


> But you do bring up a good point - how about we stick only to your thoughts on the subjects at hand, so you can own them instead of attributing them to others?


My thoughts? Why? What have they got to do with the profound unpopularity of the US and Americans all over the world? Again, you're conflating the message with the messenger. You may not like what I'm telling you, but attributing your own reasoning to explain, as you put it, European disdain for Americans, whilst continuing to deny the reality, whilst continuing with the kind of American rhetoric which causes the disdain in the first place would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> European disdain for Americans, whilst continuing to deny the reality, whilst continuing with the kind of American rhetoric which causes the disdain in the first place would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.


What separates the Euro America Haters from the Jew Hating Head Chopping Jihadists??

I mean, why are you and many like you content with pointing out our obvious failings on an internet forum, and the Jihadi do well, what they do.

Is the problem with Euro-America Haters, The JHHCJ, or us??


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Don't you? You have attributed stereotyping views to Europeans at least. An example _*"*__*Europeans continuing their disdain for Americans because we bailed them out of world wars twice and then rebuilt all the damage that they inflicted amongst themselves, then acted as the only thing that kept many of them from speaking Russian is nothing new."*_ Your words. Another example _*"*__*I am proud that my country did these things - especially the Marshall Plan. None of this changes the facts of what occurred however, and it certainly does piss Europeans off a bit when we have the audacity to point it out when told what self centered, obnoxious, egotistical losers we are."*_ In both of these cases you appear to be giving us your view, not a suggestion, but your view, a view in which you are stereotyping.




Which is why I said that I am sure that I missed some. Taken as a whole however, I think that any objective person would agree that you are the one relying on and perpetrating stereotypes.



> But we aren't discussing my experiences in the US. My experiences in the US and of Americans have nothing to do with the discussion.
> 
> Do they? I suppose that I'll have to take your word for it. I wouldn't know.
> 
> ...


And it has been my experience that you are incorrect in your stereotyping, but are of course free to continue if you like. However, I am not going to waste my time anymore with someone who refuses to have a discussion of what he thinks.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I am not going to waste my time anymore with someone who refuses to have a discussion of what he thinks.


What do you call such a person??

Fence sitter??

Pussy footer??

Waffler??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The bullies being the Head Chopping Jew Hating Jihadists and the victims being the peace loving, tolerant (within limits) USA and our allies??
> 
> Exactly like that!!


+1...well said!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The bullies being the Head Chopping Jew Hating Jihadists and the victims being the peace loving, tolerant (within limits) USA and our allies??
> 
> Exactly like that!!


How many civilian heads have been chopped off? Is it close to the 20'000 civilians shredded by the peace loving, tolerant, American bombs in Afghanistan alone?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> How many civilian heads have been chopped off? Is it close to the 20'000 civilians shredded by the peace loving, tolerant, American bombs in Afghanistan alone?


Bullies should think twice.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

A reminder of the recently posted guidelines on civility in the Interchange...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Which is why I said that I am sure that I missed some. Taken as a whole however, I think that any objective person would agree that you are the one relying on and perpetrating stereotypes.


 Again, you're conflating the message with the messenger.



vpkozel said:


> And it has been my experience that you are incorrect in your stereotyping, but are of course free to continue if you like.


Your *extremely limited* experience. How far, do you think, are polite people that you meet going to tell you what they _*really*_ think of America and Americans? My stereotyping? Again, you're conflating the message with the messenger.



vpkozel said:


> However, I am not going to waste my time anymore with someone who refuses to have a discussion of what he thinks.


Just because I tell you what most Europeans think it doesn't necessarily follow that I agree, as I have already pointed out. Perhaps you missed that bit.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Again, you're conflating the message with the messenger.


No, I am not conflating the two. You are spreading the stereotype each time you type it. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial. I also highly doubt that you would get on here and post racial, ethnic, or sexual stereotypes.



> Your *extremely limited* experience. How far, do you think, are polite people that you meet going to tell you what they _*really*_ think of America and Americans? My stereotyping? Again, you're conflating the message with the messenger.


You have no idea of my experience, except of what I have typed here, but I am guessing that it is far, far in excess of what you assume it is. And yes, I know that Europeans will tell me what they really think of America, because they have.



> Just because I tell you what most Europeans think it doesn't necessarily follow that I agree, as I have already pointed out. Perhaps you missed that bit.


Ah, most is it? Have you asked them all? And I really am not interested in what most Europeans think as they are not posting here. So again, I ask you - what is it that YOU think?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Well, I'm leaving this one now. I don't like censorship.


----------

