AP: Gitmo Soldier Details Sexual Tactics

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Ozoned
:eek: Sorry. Way to much assuming going on around here. Don't you agree?

Yes, but it is limited to certain posters.

Well, on the topic of this war, I don't think anyone on any side is innocent of making assumptions. We've all done it, and if we're to claim any semblance(sic?) of integrity, we really ought to have the honesty to admit it. We aren't "insiders" to the war, the president, the congress or anything else, so by definition we MUST assume certain things in order to proceed at all.

Jason

Semantics. You are trying to define "assumption" broadly enough so that everyone is doing it. Sure, if you define "assumption" as necessary to all knowledge (e.g., if I know Pluto exists it is because I assume it is), then sure we all assume. But that's not the meaning Ozoned was using.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Ah yes, you are pure as the driven snow, consistent in all ideas and all fronts at all times. WOW, who knew that a moral "Superman" typed and breathed on the same forum as we lowly maggots crawling on the soles of your shoes.
That's a great strawman there. I never argued I was pure or perfect.


And here I thought that you were at *least* honest, if misguided.
Jason
Personal attack. Not helpful.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
What's not helpful is your assertion that you don't have any sort of double standard at all. I am sure you make a conscious effort not to do so, as do any of us who care to be as objective as humanly possible. But the bottom line truth is that like it or not, you *will* have predispositions toward certain people in deference (or preference, if your prefer) to others. You will NOT unequivocally view all people at all times with perfectly consistent standards.

I don't say that as an attack, but as an observation of human nature. None of us is completely objective; we aren't capable of it.

Jason
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: kogase
I'm sorry that I'm making a somewhat offtopic post, but I feel compelled to say this. When I first came here, I was constantly frustrated by the number of "I'm not going to bother explaining, talking with you is a waste of time." posts I would see. I used to think that, no matter what, you should explain your point, as many times over, even if you were frustrated with the person on the other side of the argument. But God damn. This guy... TastesLikeChicken. Just reading his posts, it's tiring. It's really an ordeal. Every post I see him make, he says something outrageously moronic, and then proceeds to defend it, to one degree or another, from people making well reasoned rebuttals to his posts, they (his posts) being completely devoid of reason or forthought. And it just goes on. He will just not quit. And it makes me think that sometimes the right thing to do is just say: "Okay, you're an idiot. Talking with you is a waste of time." So... yeah. Carry on.
:beer:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
What's not helpful is your assertion that you don't have any sort of double standard at all. I am sure you make a conscious effort not to do so, as do any of us who care to be as objective as humanly possible. But the bottom line truth is that like it or not, you *will* have predispositions toward certain people in deference (or preference, if your prefer) to others. You will NOT unequivocally view all people at all times with perfectly consistent standards.

I don't say that as an attack, but as an observation of human nature. None of us is completely objective; we aren't capable of it.

Jason

Again, you're using relativism to mine everything of meaning. But anyway, what I was talking about was at least having on a policy/values level to not have double-standards for races and people. That is not exclusive with the idea that all humans have preferences for some humans over others.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
On the contrary I haven't used "relativism" in the least, but merely observed a simple fact. And as for "what I was talking about was..." bit, you didn't specify. I doubt that anyone on this forum has an EXPLICIT double standard for specific races. Maybe some of the more conservative elements have explicit double standards toward genders and/or gay people. For myself I try to only have double standards for things like "reasonable people" versus "fanatics". For reasonable people my standard is simple: Live and let live, learn from each other what you may and where you disagree, do so in civil, nonviolent ways.

For fanatics like the Al Quaeda type folks my standard is really very simple: Kill them, don't take any crap and don't bother trying to understand them or reason with them. They've abandoned reason, there is no point in wasting your breath. And yes, I'd apply the same standard to a Christian zealot as to a Muslim zealot.

Jason
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I doubt that anyone on this forum has an EXPLICIT double standard for specific races.
Jason

And I'm saying that if tasteslikechicken had to answer the question (and if you don't know what question I'm talking about I'm not sure why you are bothering debating anything) he would have to admit to an explicit double standard for people in the middle east vs. Americans.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: kogase
I'm sorry that I'm making a somewhat offtopic post, but I feel compelled to say this. When I first came here, I was constantly frustrated by the number of "I'm not going to bother explaining, talking with you is a waste of time." posts I would see. I used to think that, no matter what, you should explain your point, as many times over, even if you were frustrated with the person on the other side of the argument. But God damn. This guy... TastesLikeChicken. Just reading his posts, it's tiring. It's really an ordeal. Every post I see him make, he says something outrageously moronic, and then proceeds to defend it, to one degree or another, from people making well reasoned rebuttals to his posts, they (his posts) being completely devoid of reason or forthought. And it just goes on. He will just not quit. And it makes me think that sometimes the right thing to do is just say: "Okay, you're an idiot. Talking with you is a waste of time." So... yeah. Carry on.


People come here and post for a variety of reasons.

Take your post for example....



 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I doubt that anyone on this forum has an EXPLICIT double standard for specific races.
Jason

And I'm saying that if tasteslikechicken had to answer the question (and if you don't know what question I'm talking about I'm not sure why you are bothering debating anything) he would have to admit to an explicit double standard for people in the middle east vs. Americans.

FYI, I already answered the question a while back.

And you and your liberal ilk in here do have a double-standard. While you're more than eager to take Christian fundies to task, you seem to give the Islamic fundies a pass and make all kinds of excuses for their behavior. In your eyes, the Chomskyist ethic of "Eveything is Americas fault" is more than evident.

So please don't jerk us around by claiming you have no double-standards. You're only fooling yourself making that claim. Nobody else is fooled.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: preslove
THOSE PEOPLE WERE CONSCRIPTED AT GUNPOINT YOU FVCKING BIGOT!

Given the culture they come from that wouldn't surprise me to learn, but do you have some evidence to back this up? It's not that I doubt your premise, I just would like to read something official to this effect, and I'm too busy/lazy to look it up for myself tonight :)

Jason

I wasn't talking about the four bits specifically. They may have been several of the detainees that were actually camp trained. I was specifically talking about a radio story I heard about one of the detainees released months ago, who was conscripted and given an ak and told to fight. This is pretty much what John Walker Lindh was doing as well as many others.

I did find a link about children at Gitmo. Apparently 15 year olds are "enemy combatants" Text

The reason you have laws and trials and charges and evidence and not summary executions is to separate the wheat (terrorists) from the chaffe (these kids and others who were just swept up by the taliban and given guns in order to tie up us forces while bin laden fled).

The point is, not every pashtun with a gun in Afhganistan is a Taliban/Al Qaida member.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: kogase
I'm sorry that I'm making a somewhat offtopic post, but I feel compelled to say this. When I first came here, I was constantly frustrated by the number of "I'm not going to bother explaining, talking with you is a waste of time." posts I would see. I used to think that, no matter what, you should explain your point, as many times over, even if you were frustrated with the person on the other side of the argument. But God damn. This guy... TastesLikeChicken. Just reading his posts, it's tiring. It's really an ordeal. Every post I see him make, he says something outrageously moronic, and then proceeds to defend it, to one degree or another, from people making well reasoned rebuttals to his posts, they (his posts) being completely devoid of reason or forthought. And it just goes on. He will just not quit. And it makes me think that sometimes the right thing to do is just say: "Okay, you're an idiot. Talking with you is a waste of time." So... yeah. Carry on.


People come here and post for a variety of reasons.

Take your post for example....

Can you expand on your comment and explain more pricely how it relates to kogase's post? I think it's a good post because you have a new poster like Kogase who based on relatively short experience sums up what its like to have a discussion with tasteslikechicken even when you come to the table with an open mind.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I doubt that anyone on this forum has an EXPLICIT double standard for specific races.
Jason

And I'm saying that if tasteslikechicken had to answer the question (and if you don't know what question I'm talking about I'm not sure why you are bothering debating anything) he would have to admit to an explicit double standard for people in the middle east vs. Americans.

I know what question you're talking about. Like I said before, I'll ADMIT a double standard, but it's drawn on the basis of reasonable people vs fanatics (and I think that's a fair line upon which to discriminate; do you disagree?)

Sometimes people prefer to avoid questions here. I dunno why, I'd just as soon tell you what I think whether you like it or not :) Hopefully you'll do the same. The freedom to DISAGREE is perhaps the greatest freedom we have.

Jason

PS: I gotta go put gas in the car before it gets too late, so just FYI, I'm not flying the coup :)
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I think it's possible to take cultural sensitivity too far in cases like this; however, deliberate humiliation is definitely not a case of 'taking sensitivity too far'.

I've said it before, and nothing has changed - you can't fight a war of any sort, claiming the moral high ground, when you engage in disgusting tactics, and dehumanize your enemy. It automatically costs you any claim to moral superiority.

The ends don't justify the means if they destroy the very ends in question.
There is no moral high ground in war, so stop with that ridiculous red herring.

These people are not in Gitmo because they were innocent little Muslims minding their own business. They are jihadists and extremists who would gut you and yours on the spot if they had the chance. Some of them already probably killed at least one of your fellow countrymen on the field of battle and others who have been released because they supposedly were no threat hav been recaptured trying to kill coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. And here you are defending them, feeling sorry for them and their whacky fundie ideas, because they were humiliated, while their ideological brethren in Iraq are cutting the heads off of people?

Cry me a massive river.

The zeal in here of some to overlook the obvious for the mere pleasure of inpugning the US admin makes me sick. What a bunch of partisan troglodytes frequent this place.

What was the sig someone had in here about your ideology controlling you. Well ain't it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


In a conventional war, I might just agree with you, but it's a war of ideologies!

If you sacrifice your values to win a war intended to protect those values... what do you win?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And you and your liberal ilk in here do have a double-standard. While you're more than eager to take Christian fundies to task, you seem to give the Islamic fundies a pass and make all kinds of excuses for their behavior. In your eyes, the Chomskyist ethic of "Eveything is Americas fault" is more than evident.

So please don't jerk us around by claiming you have no double-standards. You're only fooling yourself making that claim. Nobody else is fooled.

My liberal ilk? Many times you've said you're a liberal too. So you should have said "our" liberal ilk.

And, as usual, you have no proof I give Islamic fundies a pass or have a double-standard towards Christian fundies.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: kogase
I'm sorry that I'm making a somewhat offtopic post, but I feel compelled to say this. When I first came here, I was constantly frustrated by the number of "I'm not going to bother explaining, talking with you is a waste of time." posts I would see. I used to think that, no matter what, you should explain your point, as many times over, even if you were frustrated with the person on the other side of the argument. But God damn. This guy... TastesLikeChicken. Just reading his posts, it's tiring. It's really an ordeal. Every post I see him make, he says something outrageously moronic, and then proceeds to defend it, to one degree or another, from people making well reasoned rebuttals to his posts, they (his posts) being completely devoid of reason or forthought. And it just goes on. He will just not quit. And it makes me think that sometimes the right thing to do is just say: "Okay, you're an idiot. Talking with you is a waste of time." So... yeah. Carry on.


People come here and post for a variety of reasons.

Take your post for example....

Can you expand on your comment and explain more pricely how it relates to kogase's post? I think it's a good post because you have a new poster like Kogase who based on relatively short experience sums up what its like to have a discussion with tasteslikechicken even when you come to the table with an open mind.

In fairness (why do I *DO* that?!), there are a LOT of people here on many sides of the fence who do the same thing. It's not like you can divide the line easily down the "Neocon/Liberal" fence and have a neat picture of who stands where and acts in what way. People on this forum are *all over* the spectrum. Right and Left have pretty little meaning here.

Jason
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie



In a conventional war, I might just agree with you, but it's a war of ideologies!

If you sacrifice your values to win a war intended to protect those values... what do you win?
Would you suggest conversion, or death?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I know what question you're talking about. Like I said before, I'll ADMIT a double standard, but it's drawn on the basis of reasonable people vs fanatics (and I think that's a fair line upon which to discriminate; do you disagree?)

I don't think it's useful to compare fanatic/reason to caucasian/arab. In one case you have some choice, in the other you have none. If I "discriminate" against fanatics it's only after apply the same standard that I apply to _everyone_.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're a hoot ... and wonderfully predictable. You're cornered, you desperately want to avoid addressing the point, so you find one word you can peck at, hoping against hope no one will notice you are trying to change the subject yet again. ROFL.

Never mind you ignored the "possibly" I placed before racist. Let's focus on the part to which you did NOT object:
  • The point is you made a repugnant ... comment, we exposed it, and now you are trying to evade accountability for your words. The honorable response would be to either apologize and retract the comment, or show the cajones to support it. Instead, you change the subject by playing lame semantics games.
Silence gives consent. I'm guessing it's about time for you to "lose track of the thread" or get indignant about my tone. Anything to avoid addressing the issue of your repugnant comment.

Joke.
Wow! Just...WOW.

Not only do you dictate the intent of my own comments to me by pulling something out of your a55 about racism, it seems I can't even take the time to take my wife out to dinner without you building some further ridiculous strawman about silence and consent.

Now please, define exactly what the fvck you're talking about.
Were I to follow your lead, I would sanctimoniously call you a "belligerent fvckwit" and run away with my tail feathers between my legs. Fortunately, I have no problem defending my comments and positions.

First, re. your possible racism, your allegation that these four Muslims "would gladly kill us" is an unsupported stereotype. The open question is whether your thoughts were, "All those prisoners are certainly guilty of terrorism and would therefore gladly kill us" -- presumption of guilt -- or the even more repugnant, "Those prisoners are Middle Eastern Muslims; they all want to kill us". I explicity said "possibly" racist since I was not sure of the rationale behind your repugnant comment. Please feel free to clarify.

Second, re. "silence gives consent", your reading comprehension skills are, once again, sadly deficient. As I clearly explained, when you replied to my comment, you objected strenuously to "possibly racist" yet completely ignored the main body of my comment, which I helpfully repeated and bolded for you. Here, let me do it again:
  • The point is you made a repugnant ... comment, we exposed it, and now you are trying to evade accountability for your words. The honorable response would be to either apologize and retract the comment, or show the cajones to support it. Instead, you change the subject by playing lame semantics games.
You objected to "possible racist" but expressed no disagreement with the main comment above. Therefore, silence gives consent. Your "take my wife to dinner" comment is just another duhversion. In this cases, it was a duhversion from your previous "I am not a racist" duhversion.

Any more questions? Care to address my original point as bolded above, or are you going to continue to duhvert from your repugnant comment with new semantics games and feigned outrage?

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I think it's possible to take cultural sensitivity too far in cases like this; however, deliberate humiliation is definitely not a case of 'taking sensitivity too far'.

I've said it before, and nothing has changed - you can't fight a war of any sort, claiming the moral high ground, when you engage in disgusting tactics, and dehumanize your enemy. It automatically costs you any claim to moral superiority.

The ends don't justify the means if they destroy the very ends in question.
There is no moral high ground in war, so stop with that ridiculous red herring.

These people are not in Gitmo because they were innocent little Muslims minding their own business. They are jihadists and extremists who would gut you and yours on the spot if they had the chance. Some of them already probably killed at least one of your fellow countrymen on the field of battle and others who have been released because they supposedly were no threat hav been recaptured trying to kill coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. And here you are defending them, feeling sorry for them and their whacky fundie ideas, because they were humiliated, while their ideological brethren in Iraq are cutting the heads off of people?

Cry me a massive river.

The zeal in here of some to overlook the obvious for the mere pleasure of inpugning the US admin makes me sick. What a bunch of partisan troglodytes frequent this place.

What was the sig someone had in here about your ideology controlling you. Well ain't it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


In a conventional war, I might just agree with you, but it's a war of ideologies!

If you sacrifice your values to win a war intended to protect those values... what do you win?
Ideologies don't pull triggers. Men do.

If you protect your values and lose your life, values don't mean squat.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ideologies don't pull triggers. Men do.

If you protect your values and lose your life, values don't mean squat.

Millions who have died defending their countries' freedoms, especially over the last centuy, might disagree with you rather strongly on this one.

You can't defend freedom by trampling it.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
In fairness (why do I *DO* that?!), there are a LOT of people here on many sides of the fence who do the same thing. It's not like you can divide the line easily down the "Neocon/Liberal" fence and have a neat picture of who stands where and acts in what way. People on this forum are *all over* the spectrum. Right and Left have pretty little meaning here.

Jason

First of all, right and left do have meaning in P&N. Many people tend to have their beliefs align with the right and left. Most aren't absolutely 100% in line (for example I am more critical of affirmative action than the traditional "left" wing), but that doesn't mean the categorization isn't useful.

Second of all, even if there are people that don't fit into this category, tasteslikechicken isn't one of them! 90% of the time he takes the standard predicatable conservative viewpoint. More tellingly he relies on the left/right paradigm to criticize the left.

Finally, this whole discussion on the utility of left/right categories is silly when you have tasteslikechicken who admits to being part of it! In other words, he explicitly says he is a liberal.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're a hoot ... and wonderfully predictable. You're cornered, you desperately want to avoid addressing the point, so you find one word you can peck at, hoping against hope no one will notice you are trying to change the subject yet again. ROFL.

Never mind you ignored the "possibly" I placed before racist. Let's focus on the part to which you did NOT object:
  • The point is you made a repugnant ... comment, we exposed it, and now you are trying to evade accountability for your words. The honorable response would be to either apologize and retract the comment, or show the cajones to support it. Instead, you change the subject by playing lame semantics games.
Silence gives consent. I'm guessing it's about time for you to "lose track of the thread" or get indignant about my tone. Anything to avoid addressing the issue of your repugnant comment.

Joke.
Wow! Just...WOW.

Not only do you dictate the intent of my own comments to me by pulling something out of your a55 about racism, it seems I can't even take the time to take my wife out to dinner without you building some further ridiculous strawman about silence and consent.

Now please, define exactly what the fvck you're talking about.
Were I to follow your lead, I would sanctimoniously call you a "belligerent fvckwit" and run away with my tail feathers between my legs. Fortunately, I have no problem defending my comments and positions.
Really? You mean like when you got all belligerent and pissed because you couldn't reason your way out of the logic about the supposed masses brainwashed by Bush. Seems you had no real answer to that.

First, re. your possible racism, your allegation that these four Muslims "would gladly kill us" is an unsupported stereotype. The open question is whether your thoughts were, "All those prisoners are certainly guilty of terrorism and would therefore gladly kill us" -- presumption of guilt -- or the even more repugnant, "Those prisoners are Middle Eastern Muslimsl they all want to kill us". I explicity said "possibly" racist since I was not sure of the rationale behind your repugnant comment. Please feel free to clarify.
How about, in the vast majority of cases, those prisoners were captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan?

Did you ever stop one moment to consider that maybe THAT'S what I saying, instead of creating some stupdendously ignorant stereotypical strawman and assuming I'm trying to malign every Muslim?

Second, re. "silence gives consent", your reading comprehension skills are, once again, sadly deficient. As I clearly explained, when you replied to my comment, you objected strenuously to "possibly racist" yet completely ignored the main body of my comment, which I helpfully repeated and bolded for you. Here, let me do it again:
  • The point is you made a repugnant ... comment, we exposed it, and now you are trying to evade accountability for your words. The honorable response would be to either apologize and retract the comment, or show the cajones to support it. Instead, you change the subject by playing lame semantics games.
You objected to "possible racist" but expressed no disagreement with the main comment above. Therefore, silence gives consent. Your "take my wife to dinner" comment is just another duhversion. In this cases, it was a duhversion from your previous "I am not a racist" duhversion.
Would you like to know what we had for dinner? Shall I scan the fvcking receipt and send it to you?

Once again, you're trying to salvage your stupidity by creating some strawman and marginalizing what you said. It was apparent exactly what you meant because you followed up your insipid comment in another post with 'Looks like Chicken has flown the coop, again.'

Now you're doing nothing but backpedaling in some weak attempt to save yourself from looking stupid with your premature ejaculation.

Sorry, you have failed. It's way too late for you not to look stupid.

Any more questions? Care to address my original point as bolded above, or are you going to continue to duhvert from your repugnant comment with new semantics games and feigned outrage?
You've displayed your complete lack of honesty. Once you apologize I'll answer whatever question you're trying to ask, though even what that is is still unclear.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: kogase
I'm sorry that I'm making a somewhat offtopic post, but I feel compelled to say this. When I first came here, I was constantly frustrated by the number of "I'm not going to bother explaining, talking with you is a waste of time." posts I would see. I used to think that, no matter what, you should explain your point, as many times over, even if you were frustrated with the person on the other side of the argument. But God damn. This guy... TastesLikeChicken. Just reading his posts, it's tiring. It's really an ordeal. Every post I see him make, he says something outrageously moronic, and then proceeds to defend it, to one degree or another, from people making well reasoned rebuttals to his posts, they (his posts) being completely devoid of reason or forthought. And it just goes on. He will just not quit. And it makes me think that sometimes the right thing to do is just say: "Okay, you're an idiot. Talking with you is a waste of time." So... yeah. Carry on.


People come here and post for a variety of reasons.

Take your post for example....

Can you expand on your comment and explain more pricely how it relates to kogase's post? I think it's a good post because you have a new poster like Kogase who based on relatively short experience sums up what its like to have a discussion with tasteslikechicken even when you come to the table with an open mind.



My comment was not meant to be subjective. Someone with an open mind could have figured that out. Now, I have to go get gas, also. :D



 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
These people are not in Gitmo because they were innocent little Muslims minding their own business. They are jihadists and extremists who would gut you and yours on the spot if they had the chance.
See, there's that presumption of guilt again. You don't know that all of them are guilty of this. If you would be honest with yourself for a moment, you'd admit you don't know that any of them are guilty. That is your presumption. (You don't even know how many of them are Muslims. It's just another of your assumptions.) You have assumed the role of judge and jury, based on nothing except third-hand hearsay and your undying faith in the infallibility of Bush and his minions.

Sorry, I don't worship at that altar. Until these "Muslims" are given a fair trial, I am going to assume their innocence. That's what real, patriotic Americans do. Yes, it's better than most of them probably deserve, but protecting the innocent is a fundamental American value. Once they are fairly tried and convicted of capital crimes, I am quite content to let the courts issue appropriate sentences ... including death as appropriate. The problem, of course, is that Bush & Co. won't put them on trial, preferring instead to hold them indefinitely, in some cases based only on hearsay. That is not just wrong, it is un-American.


Some of them already probably killed at least one of your fellow countrymen on the field of battle and others who have been released because they supposedly were no threat hav been recaptured trying to kill coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. And here you are defending them, feeling sorry for them and their whacky fundie ideas, because they were humiliated, while their ideological brethren in Iraq are cutting the heads off of people?

Cry me a massive river.
More fact-free presumption of universal guilt.


The zeal in here of some to overlook the obvious for the mere pleasure of inpugning the US admin makes me sick. What a bunch of partisan troglodytes frequent this place.

What was the sig someone had in here about your ideology controlling you. Well ain't it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The Bush administration impugns itself quite effectively, thank you very much. We just report.


Edit: typo
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ideologies don't pull triggers. Men do.

If you protect your values and lose your life, values don't mean squat.

Millions who have died defending their countries' freedoms, especially over the last centuy, might disagree with you rather strongly on this one.

You can't defend freedom by trampling it.
Well let me rephrase that then.

If we protect our values and we all lose our lives, values don't mean squat.

There are a group of people out there who have labeled all of us infidels and marked us for death. Sorry, but I'm really not concerned whether or not we're fighting those morons according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules or not.

This is not about values, it's about survival.