Torture away, Mr. Bush...Torture away..

[Raoul Duke]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040608/ts_nm/security_torture_memo_dc_1

God almighty...:mad:

[Grebdron]

Silly laws don't apply to our president, cause Jesus is on his side.:rolleyes:

[JohnTheHenchman]

Doesn't the Geneva Convention stuff only apply to uniformed military? Because if that's the case, abu-gharib, etc does not fall under its jurisdiction.

[Tweek]

What unfathomable bullshit!

Again my image of george bush is him in the oval office petting a white cat laughing manically.

Does it seem to no one else that torture is the easy way out? I'm really starting to think Dubya has no conscience.


That's it, I'm going to vote for john kerry, and i wasn't planning to vote at all after 2000.



"They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law may say," Malinowski added.


Why not? He already did things regardless of what the UN said... and he was voted president regardless of how the people voted.

[Scarface98.9]

What complete bullshit. Not sure what else to say but that

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Silly laws don't apply to our president, cause Jesus is on his side.:rolleyes:

Don't insult me as a Christian :)

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Doesn't the Geneva Convention stuff only apply to uniformed military? Because if that's the case, abu-gharib, etc does not fall under its jurisdiction.

The Geneva Convention applies to all POWs. Bush is getting around it (or trying to) by saying that the prisoners in Iraq aren'c covered because they're "insurgents", not POWs. However part of the Geneva Convention says that if there's any question about someone's POW status, they are to be treated like POWs (the Convention applies to them, then) until a tribunal can be put together to decide whether or not they can be considered POWs (which hasn't happened yet, by the way).

[Thrizzle]

I was watching Bill O'Rielly to get my daily dose of opinion from the right, and he brought up a hypothetical situation that justifies torture in all cases in his mind. The hypothetical was this:


What if a nuclear bomb was set to go off in the US and we had a suspect who knew the location and how to stop it. Do we torture him?



What do you all think? Should we torture based on something like this?

[Raoul Duke]

Well, personally speaking, I think O'Rielly is a piece of shit.

If you throw in a completley different situation, like a nuke in the U.S. that probably killed millions and there was ONE guy that knew where it came from. And the only way he would talk was through torture? Then you should probably do it. But these Iraqi prisoners didn't orchestrate or carry out any diabolical plan to attack a U.S. city, did they?

The tortures at Abu-Grahib are different. A lot of those prisoners were innocent. Many released after all the photos came out to the public. The army people doing the tortures also seemed to take some kind of sick joy out of hurting them. Smiling a making jokes as they analy violated them and made them have sex with eachother. Plus, I don't even think they had any reason to consider torturing them in the first place? Was there information they wanted from them, or what? Did any info come out?

[cstroman]

Silly laws don't apply to our president, cause Jesus is on his side.

Wow! That's biggoted of you. You throw around the "N" word alot too?

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by cstroman
Wow! That's biggoted of you. You throw around the "N" word alot too?

Wow! You've obviously not been here long, cause you know jack shit about me. And I resent the implication.

Dubya has invoked Jesus and god's names on numerous occasions. He's got us involved in an unwinnable war on the basis that god is on our side. That is fucking scary. He's running a fucking jihad, and it's bad for everybody involved.

[cstroman]

Wow, you're really tolerant. I'll just throw you and neo cons in the same boat.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by cstroman
Wow, you're really tolerant. I'll just throw you and neo cons in the same boat.

No, I'm not tolerant of hateful, dangerous religious fucking nutbags.

Or of people labeling me anything. "Neocon" is fucking laughable, especially coming from someone who doesn't know me.

[cstroman]

No, I'm not tolerant of hateful, dangerous religious fucking nutbags.
Yep, you're a bigot and intollerant of people who don't hold with your beliefs. You also LABEL anyone who doesn't believe the same as you as "dangerour religious fucking nutbags". That's the same as labeling black people with the "N" word.

Are you really that blind about yourself that I have to point this out?

Wow, I'm in awe. You really are spewing "love" right?

A bigot is a bigot. You're just a bigot of a different flavor. And I wasn't calling you a neo con, just in the same boat with them. You ARE the same as them, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. You're a preacher, just without the religion.


Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Congrats!

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by cstroman
Yep, you're a bigot and intollerant of people who don't hold with your beliefs. You also LABEL anyone who doesn't believe the same as you as "dangerour religious fucking nutbags". That's the same as labeling black people with the "N" word.

Are you really that blind about yourself that I have to point this out?

Wow, I'm in awe. You really are spewing "love" right?

A bigot is a bigot. You're just a bigot of a different flavor. And I wasn't calling you a neo con, just in the same boat with them. You ARE the same as them, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. You're a preacher, just without the religion.


Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Congrats!

If being intolerant of people who force their religious beliefs on mass amounts of people makes me a bigot, so be it. Thousands of people are dying because your president believes that Jesus is on his side. I do not tolerate that. I believe he is a war criminal. I also believe that he is no different than the people he's sending our kids to fight. He's fighting a "holy" war, and sacrificing my brothers to further his cause. I do not tolerate that.

[SLAW]

Cstroman, you insulted Greb by asking if he uses the N word. :confused:

[quoth_the_raven]

cstroman- As Greb points out, you don't know him at all. You seem to have formed a nasty little opinion about him, based on very little evidence. The insinuation that a person is racist is, IMO, one of the nastiest insults you could throw around. You've based that on one post, and just jumped into a whole load of conclusions that thus far, you have only been able to support by further name calling.

Knowing greb a hell of a lot better than you, I can safely say the only thing he is intolerant of is British cooking!

By the way, religion has killed a hell of a lot of people down the years and this is no different. Holy war is still war. I think thats the point greb is trying to make, in his usual subtle way ;)

[cstroman]

Holy Cow! (no offense meant to you Religious Indians BTW)

I defined Bigot quite simply. His views and his own admission of intolerance make him a bigot.

It's simple.

I'm not calling names any more than he was (or wasn't if you are a blind liberal).

I defined Bigot.
His posted views fall into that definition.

He is a what then?

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by cstroman
He is a what then?

What he is is...right.

[SLAW]

It is very hard to be tolerant of people who are intolerant. I admit that, but I make my way past it. I just don't end up associating with them. What you said to Greb was pretty unnecessarry.

[Morgana]

Originally posted by cstroman
Yep, you're a bigot and intollerant of people who don't hold with your beliefs. You also LABEL anyone who doesn't believe the same as you as "dangerour religious fucking nutbags". That's the same as labeling black people with the "N" word.

Are you really that blind about yourself that I have to point this out?

Wow, I'm in awe. You really are spewing "love" right?

A bigot is a bigot. You're just a bigot of a different flavor. And I wasn't calling you a neo con, just in the same boat with them. You ARE the same as them, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. You're a preacher, just without the religion.


Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Congrats!

Perhaps, instead of calling your fellow schmoe a plethora of names (which is the only thing you've done so far in this thread), you would like to comment on the actual topic of the thread? So far it's looking like your only purpose in posting in this thread is to knock a schmoe. Not cool.

I'm in agreement with Tweek. I don't think Bush has much of a conscience, and him being in office scares me more by the minute.

[JoBlo]

Cstroman, this forum (and our board) are for DISCUSSIONS, not put-downs, insults or disrespect toward your fellow schmoe.

As you know, this is a PRIVATE FORUM for all those who can discuss serious matters in a mature and constructive manner, without resorting to one-line generalizations or disses.

Unfortunately, you will no longer be allowed to post in this forum because of your inability to follow those guidelines. The same will go for any other schmoe who does the same. This is NOT what this forum is about.

Everyone else, please continue to DISCUSS the SUBJECT of this thread, or I will be forced to close it as well. Thanks for understanding.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by JoBlo
Cstroman, this forum (and our board) are for DISCUSSIONS, not put-downs, insults or disrespect toward your fellow schmoe.

As you know, this is a PRIVATE FORUM for all those who can discuss serious matters in a mature and constructive manner, without resorting to one-line generalizations or disses.

Unfortunately, you will no longer be allowed to post in this forum because of your inability to follow those guidelines. The same will go for any other schmoe who does the same. This is NOT what this forum is about.

Everyone else, please continue to DISCUSS the SUBJECT of this thread, or I will be forced to close it as well. Thanks for understanding.

Thanks, Jo. I actually wasn't insulted so much by his insinuation that I'm racist (ha-ha), moreso his tone. I would almost like him back in here, but your decision is laudable.

Again, thanks.

Now, Torture away, Mr. Bush.;)