kill michael moore

[bytech]

Originally Posted by Atom

And... why are you objecting to your own quotes? ..

Because they are selective... Like above... Why do you want to delete John?

Oh well, I really don't care to be honest. I'd love to have someone quote back the partial, and try to build on it only to be pointed to the full thing. Bwahahahaa... Make my day.

I've got to stop drinking coffee.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

Because ... I really don't care to be honest.

I love this quoting-out-of-context stuff.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by bytech

Saddam in many ways won the war

This is the only quote that didn't make sense to me, so I figured it had to be the quote in question...

.. sorry.. :wink:

[bytech]

Ya got it Atom. We should just setup a thread where we try to get someone else to look like a fool by editing their quotes. The person to win gets quote editing privileges for all other members. Than we can see some divine comedy.

[Atom]

I saw something pretty funny that one member was doing a little bit for a while there...

He was engaged in some humerous post activity in a thread, and when it died down, he went back and edited his posts to make the other participants look foolish.... it was pretty funny... and there were many that were edited well, to the point where if you hadn't witnessed the realtime posts or didn't have suspicion due to the auto edit referrence at the bottom of edited posts, you'd be quite embarrassed for the participants that had left the thread and were unaware that he had done this... LOL

[Atom]

<edit>

..was editing some grammar in one of my posts and didn't realize I had chosen the quote button instead of the edit button .... geezzz I hate when I do that!

[imaginemn]

This thread is so funny and ironic that it has turned into a typical michael moore script for one of his documentaries.



imaginemn

[nmgoodthing]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

LOL! I asked where the torture was "condoned", and you give me links to where we are condemning it.

LMAO John!
Dictionary anyone?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by nmgoodthing

LMAO John!
Dictionary anyone?

I did look it up, to be honest I did not really understand the word 'condoned' but good thing there are ways to translate. What about this one:

Jay Bybee, a devout Mormon who in 2002 was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, signed an August memorandum that year that said certain interrogation techniques could be used legally as long as the pain involved was less than that accompanying "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." If the intent is to gain information, not just to cause harm, the memo reasoned, these techniques fall outside the legal definition of torture forbidden by international law. The controversial memo, since disavowed by the White House, has sparked a lively Internet debate among LDS lawyers about whether Bybee violated his professional and religious ethics while writing it.

Read the news article here:
http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07032004/utah/180717.asp

In my humble opinion, torture is "condoned" here by the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

HIS BOSS is mr Ashcroft, do you really believe this kind of memos float around without the approval, or being discussed with the Uber chef first?

[John Scott]

In my humble opinion, torture is "condoned" here by the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

Ferre, I have no problem with the torture of terrorists when the intent is to divert tragedies such as 9/11. I think I specifically said "the torture of innocent people", and those who disagree with your political views, or the beheading of foreign aide workers and journalists.

I'm sure you can see that terrorists who kill thousands of innocent men, women and children are do not deserve the same treatment as innocent civilians.

[Ferre]

John, I can agree with you BUT the torturing is done before there is any prove of those people being terrorists. Also, where to draw the line?

We humans have been through all this before, we have had major wars and major violations of human rights. That is exactly why "civilisation" came in to stop barbaric methods of being used in wars.

Becomming terrorists ourselves to fight terrorism has been a proven dead end. Not only now, but the Romans already found out...and Hitler, to name a few who have "been there".

What to say to people who where tortured to find out they are innocent? Say sorry? Give them some money to "forget about it"

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

John, I can agree with you BUT the torturing is done before there is any prove of those people being terrorists. Also, where to draw the line?

Well, the memo condoning torture was "disavowed by the White House", so I'm pretty sure our Gov't isn't condoning torture. But the placve where I see torture as a valid option is when you have a known terroristr, for example, and you know that he knows where, when, and how something really bad is going to happen, but isn't spiliing the beans. In a case like that, I'd see torture as a valid option; torture meant only to coerce the person into giving up information that could save human lives.

But then, we could never get a law like that passed because 1). we have to many bleeding heart liberals in the country, and 2)., if we ever did pass such a law I'm sure law enforcement would abuse it.

[webmastery]

People need to remember their history. In World War II, when they fighting was heaviest with the Germans and Japanese, our soldiers almost never took prisoners.

The Japanese would blow themselves up, etc, so basically the GIs would kill every last one of them.

When Iwo Jima started, there were 25,000 Japanese fighters on the island. At the end, there 0. Not one remained alive.

There are no rules in war.

[SN3]

I just saw the movie yesteray, some of that stuff was disturbing.

[downtroden]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

But then, we could never get a law like that passed because 1). we have to many bleeding heart liberals in the country, and 2)., if we ever did pass such a law I'm sure law enforcement would abuse it.

I can't believe I actually saw someone condoning causing pain to another human being?!? Would you condone the murder of someone that you know will kill two people? Going that far, why don't we execute all people who are caught drinking and driving because they pose a threat to the general public while intoxicated? I know you mentioned both sides of the situation but to call someone against violence a 'bleeding heart' is kinda sad and shows why the country is in the state it is today. I think we will always have corruption in every aspect of our lives, how else could we distinguish purity from evil if you don't have both to judge? I'm going to admit I think Bush is an idiotic, oportunistic puppet. He is in the presidential chair to make his family and friends money (which in itself isn't bad, per se) but wouldn't know how to do it by himself. He is a facade for the public eye to blame their problems on. I don't think he cares though, when he gets out he will have a permanant salary, guards and his private affairs will have been set up to make crazy money by all of the actions he has taken in office.

Bottom line, whatever 'side' you are on... don't believe bush is looking out for the best interests of the country. This pharse of a presidency is merely a way to set up a retirement plan for him and his family at the cost of a country.

[John Scott]

I can't believe I actually saw someone condoning causing pain to another human being?!?

If you caught one of the terrorists, and torturing him into giving info about 9/11 could have averted 9/11, you wouldn't do that?

Pain is, after all, a very temporary state.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

But then, we could never get a law like that passed because 1). we have to many bleeding heart liberals in the country, and 2)., if we ever did pass such a law I'm sure law enforcement would abuse it.

I wouldn't agree as to the reasons why a law like that would never pass. The main reason, as stated many times by many politicians, including those in current administration is reciprocity. An attempt to curb torture protects also American citizens. If the US decided to legalize torture then what exactly would be a difference between the US, Saudi Arabia, or even alQeade for that matter?

Another important reason is the great potential for mistakes. Interrogators are humans like everybody else, and thus are subject to mistakes, often based on preconceived ideas that someone does have some information indeed.

And then... two and a half years later they let him out because the preconceived guilt was groundless, as it was in the case or recently released Swedish citizen.

Another problem is how a suspect got into the situation. In Afghanistan the US forces rewarded people monetarilly for tips regarding alQaeda suspects. Unfortunatelly, there are people who will "sell" anyone for a little pile of cash.

[SVB]

"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor like you like to be liked yourself"