patrick.net

How is it that it is morally reprehensible, even criminal, to mistreat an Animal in this country, yet torturing a Human Being is acceptable, sanctioned and our tax dollars support it?

Dan8267 says

2. flying planes into buildings --> flying smart bombs and missiles into buildings that kill all those inside including civilians and children. And such buildings include hospitals and schools.

...or weddings and other gatherings. Any male 12+ is considered a "potential militant" or the best weasel word, "Male of military age" which further reduces the real "Collateral Damage."

But, Dan, it's clear many mammals in our society are unable to get beyond Fourlegsgood/Twolegsbad Animal Farm thinking.

(snipped off topic rant)

Terrorists are Evil because they kill, torture, and disrespect the Rule of Law. We are not Evil when we kill, torture, and disrespect the Rule of Law.

In a similar vein:

This isn't an eye for an eye, it's an asshole for an asshole!

Call it Crazy says

HydroCabron says

No, we didn't. This is a common misconception, thanks to Zero Dark Thirty.

Due to a Hollywood movie??

Have some respect for conservative political philosophy, will ya?

- Scalia cited "24" when discussing torture.
- Many conservatarians believe that Hollywood screenwriters are the filth of the planet, but believe "It's a Wonderful Life" to be a documentary of life in the past.
- "Zero Dark Thirty", "24" and "Dirty Harry" are the basis of conservative theories on torture. "Zero Dark Thirty" is cited by conservative "researchers" as the primary evidence for the effectiveness of torture in catching Obama.

I don't know why conservatives are so stupid and unpatriotic, but they are.

sbh says

We torture Frank demanding that he give info about Joe. Frank has blown up some schoolkids but he doesn't know Joe. But we keep torturing him until he lies about Joe. After we've tortured Joe we find out he's innocent. Do we go back to torturing Frank some more?

Nope. We just shoot him. You said he blew up school kids, death is all he deserves.
Allow me to refine your story......It was Frank (Mohammad) and his buddy Joe (Ali) that blew up the kids. Mo. got caught, but Joe escaped to carry on with their next plan of blowing up a Kindergarten. We torture Mo. to squeal on his buddy Ali. He caves in and tells us which Kindergarten and when it will be bombed. With 60 seconds to go the police find Ali and kill him. 50 innocent toddlers are saved.
Next day the libruls sue the police for killing poor Ali.

Dan8267 says

LOL. It's all America's fault as usual.

Actually, it's all the fault of

- the Bush administration

- the Obama administration

- the warfare industry

It's called America.

Dan8267 says

It's not the fault of us liberal Americans, or anyone with a moral backbone.

I agree. Sadly, I am one of the few with a "moral backbone" The rest are phony :)

sbh says

Once you put a bag over someone's head and start making them TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY you're no longer innocent

What if I just want them to tell the truth?

thunderlips11 says

Ha ha. Loved that cartoon. Little moocher drank the breast milk when mom could have sold it to make a living.

sbh says

One time they just kept telling him to retake the test. They just insisted there was "some anomaly" and that they were going to persist until it was resolved. He knew he had to "give" them something, something suitable, plausible, but ultimately a fabrication with just enough foundation to allow his readings to pass muster as well. He did, and they were satisfied.

Can explain exactly what you mean here? I don't quite get it.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

LOL. It's all America's fault as usual.

Actually, it's all the fault of


- the Bush administration


- the Obama administration


- the warfare industry

It's called America.

The fact that you equate a small, but powerful, part of our government with America is what's truly sad. America is not its government and certainly not the most corrupt parts of its government.

Washington, D.C. is a cancer in America, not America itself.

The whole question of torture could have been avoided if the military had “just killed all these guys when they were captured on the battlefield,” when no one would have noticed, a former senior CIA officer told me over lunch today.

I set up an interview a few weeks ago with him to talk about the situation in Iraq. When we met today, naturally the subject of the Senate’s report on torture came up. He’s pretty hardline on military issues, as you’d expect.

In his view, torture is worse than killing people, because it doesn’t work, which was obvious before the release of the Senate report and further confirmed by it. A person being tortured will tell you anything you want to hear, even if it’s all lies, and a lot of the victims had to lie because they didn’t have valuable information to begin with.

“It doesn’t matter what tactics you use, you’re not going to get information if people don’t know anything and most of these Gomers didn’t know shit,” he said. “Who in the leadership was stupid enough to think they would? Why would these guys have detailed knowledge about plans and targeting? Even if they were hard-core jihadis who took part in operations, that doesn’t mean they would have knowledge of upcoming attacks.”

sbh says

DAMN RIGHT! We hold 'em under water for fifteen fucking minutes. If they fucking die, they're Gomers who don't know nuthin'. If they live we torture 'em until they tell us what we already know and then we hold 'em under water for thirty minutes just for being fuckin' terrorists. If they die it proves they told us the truth.

HOW CAN YOU ARGUE WITH THAT?

Enhanced interrogation techniques Monty Python style.

Here is something sensible.
1. All members of any known terrorist organization must be assumed guilty.
2. They must be killed or captured.
3. If captured, they must tell us everything we need to know, regardless of how that information is derived.
4. Once we are done with them, we feed them to the sharks.
Keeping it simple :)

Dan8267 says

Exactly. That's why ISIS rose to power. That's why there is more terrorism now than before 9/11.

Nope ISIS is O's handiwork.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Exactly. That's why ISIS rose to power. That's why there is more terrorism now than before 9/11.

Nope ISIS is O's handiwork.

Bullshit.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Exactly. That's why ISIS rose to power. That's why there is more terrorism now than before 9/11.

Nope ISIS is O's handiwork.

Because you believe it should be true?

The French King and the Catholic Church used enhanced interrogation on de Molay and the Knights Templar, proving they praised Mammon, kissed the Goat, worshipped Satan, etc. etc.

If they hadn't used interrogation, would they have discovered all the baby sacrificing to Satan that was going on in the 14th Century?

Baby sacrificing to Satan is horrible.

bob2356 says

Because you believe it should be true?

Not that you ever back up your assertions...

Does it ever occur to you mutts that there is a logical disconnect when goat herders know how to use high tech weapons?

This at about 22min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8AgwBpv-h8

Or google ISIS and Obama

and baby sacrificing via libby abortions is not??

thunderlips11 says

Baby sacrificing to Satan is horrible.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Because you believe it should be true?

Not that you ever back up your assertions...

Does it ever occur to you mutts that there is a logical disconnect when goat herders know how to use high tech weapons?

This at about 22min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8AgwBpv-h8

Or google ISIS and Obama

I skipped through parts of that broadcast. It wasn't an argument for ISIS being Obama's handiwork. It was an argument for non-intervention. It also points to the central role of GW. Did you even listen to any of it before linking it?

Bigsby says

It was an argument for non-intervention. It also points to the central role of GW. Did you even listen to any of it before linking it?

Listen to at the time I stated and google ISIS and Obama and the CIA

indigenous says

Bigsby says

It was an argument for non-intervention. It also points to the central role of GW. Did you even listen to any of it before linking it?

Listen to at the time I stated and google ISIS and Obama and the CIA

I did. He's complaining about Obama's intervention. He's not saying Obama is responsible for Daesh. He then goes on to make the assertion that Assad would have defeated the insurgency without Obama's intervention. Based on what? The intervention in Syria was very low key for a long time. I didn't notice Assad making great strides to regain control of all of Syria. And this person is a radio host for an antiwar show. What exactly makes him an expert on the Middle East?

Bigsby says

I did. He's complaining about Obama's intervention. He's not saying Obama is responsible for Daesh. He then goes on to make the assertion that Assad would have defeated the insurgency without Obama's intervention. Based on what? The intervention in Syria was very low key for a long time. I didn't notice Assad making great strides to regain control of Syria. And this person is a radio host. What exactly makes him an expert on the Middle East?

..

It is implied, and I'm sure he mentions it elsewhere. His depth of knowledge of the Middle East is impressive. Pick your poison would you rather go to there yourself? or listen to the NY Times? Or triangulate?

indigenous says

Bigsby says

I did. He's complaining about Obama's intervention. He's not saying Obama is responsible for Daesh. He then goes on to make the assertion that Assad would have defeated the insurgency without Obama's intervention. Based on what? The intervention in Syria was very low key for a long time. I didn't notice Assad making great strides to regain control of Syria. And this person is a radio host. What exactly makes him an expert on the Middle East?

..

It is implied, and I'm sure he mentions it elsewhere. His depth of knowledge of the Middle East is impressive. Pick your poison would you rather go to there yourself? or listen to the NY Times? Or triangulate?

How exactly do you think he implied it? You're just talking nonsense.
I live in the ME so am exposed to the issues more than most, but just as a general point, I prefer to get my information from experts rather than radio hosts, but I guess each to their own.

Bigsby says

How exactly do you think he implied it?

Where he said that Bashar al-Assad would have defeated the insurgents if not for US support, and that this activity is high treason, around the time I indicated.

Bigsby says

I prefer to get my information from experts

Do tell, IOW backup your assertions, like you complain I don't.

And don't give a bunch of tangential yik yak.

indigenous says

Where he said that Bashar al-Assad would have defeated the insurgents if not for US support, and that this activity is high treason, around the time I indicated.

Ignoring the fact that that is an extraordinarily dubious contention, it has nothing to do with your claim that Obama created Daesh.

indigenous says

Do tell, IOW backup your assertions, like you complain I don't.

And don't give a bunch of tangential yik yak.

Back up what claim? You're the only person I've ever heard claim that Obama created Daesh. Do you want me to link to every informed article on the internet to show that you are wrong in that assertion? As you said before about using Google, just type IS/ISIL/Daesh into your browser and you'll get a better understanding of the facts than you seem to have got from imprinting your own biases on the statements of a radio host who doesn't even agree with your stated view.

Bigsby says

That has nothing to do with your claim that Obama created Daesh.

Like I said it is implied.

Bigsby says

Back up what claim? You're the only person I've ever heard claim that Obama created Daesh. Do you want me to link to every informed article on the internet to show that you are wrong in that assertion? As you said before about using Google, just type IS/ISIL/Daesh into your browser and you'll get a better understanding of the facts than you seem to have got from imprinting your own biases on the statements of a radio host who doesn't even agree with your stated view.

There you go no expert...

The US needs an enemy, it created Bin Ladin through the CIA, of course this stuff is not main stream as they don't want it to be. The US has provoked every war it has engaged in for 100 years.

Are you really that ignorant?

indigenous says

Like I said it is implied.

And like I said, no it isn't.

indigenous says

There you go no expert...

The US needs an enemy, it created Bin Ladin through the CIA, of course this stuff is not main stream as they don't want it to be. The US has provoked every war it has engaged in for 100 years.

Are you really that ignorant?

Eh? Obama didn't create Daesh. End of discussion. You can go off on any number of tangents you want in an effort to distract, but your claim was, is and will always be complete bullshit.

Bigsby says

Eh? Obama didn't create Daesh. End of discussion. You can go off on any number of tangents you want in an effort to distract, but your claim was, is and will always be complete bullshit.

Agree to disagree and fuck off

Sure he did. Run away...

I don't have time for this shit.

sbh says

Strategist says

Here is something sensible.


...........any known terrorist

At this point it's clear you don't even care how stupid your logic is. You don't try to explain anymore

If I did you would not understand anyway.

indigenous says

Sure he did. Run away...

I don't have time for this shit.

Run away from what? Your idiocy? Good idea.

HydroCabron says

- "Zero Dark Thirty", "24" and "Dirty Harry" are the basis of conservative theories on torture. "Zero Dark Thirty" is cited by conservative "researchers" as the primary evidence for the effectiveness of torture in catching *Obama*.

Was this deliberate?

I have no sympathy for the terrorists as their are not your conventional soldiers but at the same time I hope that whoever ended up in guantanamo actually deserved to be there vs being fucked over 1937 soviet style when neighbors/haters would make shit up to get their enemies liquidated.

While torture is not intrinsically immoral, I question its economics.

Genghis Khan, the greatest man ever walked on earth (or on horseback, whatever), reportedly did not use torture in his conquest.

Anyone watched Netflix's Marco Polo yet?

I keep hearing about this Marco Polo guy from kids at the pool.

And of course I am a fan of Kublai Khan.