"Let them torture"

[Free Palestine]

Cheney urges exception to torture ban for CIA
Vice president makes closed-door appeal to GOP senators

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9929724/

[Free Palestine]

Helen Thomas versus White House Spokesperson: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051108.html#l)

"Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.
Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --
Q He did not ask for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.
Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --
Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --
Q I'm asking about exemptions.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --
Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --
MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --Q He didn't ask for an exemption --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --
Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --
Q You're not answering -- yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.
Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.
Q If you could answer in a straight way.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.
Q -- yes or no --
MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
Q Did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.
Q Is that the answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.
Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.
Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.
Q What are we asking for?
Q Would you characterize what we're asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: We're asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that's what we --
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, let's talk about people that you're talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.
Q I'm asking you --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you're talking about.
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only --
Q What does that mean -- "

[Free Palestine]

This is something I would have expected to read in Catch-22...

[ComradeOm]

I'm surprised that the White House media corp seem to have actually found a collective spine :huh:

I wonder how long that actually went on for... and if there's a video.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 9 2005, 05:44 PM
Helen Thomas versus White House Spokesperson: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051108.html#l)

"Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.
Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --
Q He did not ask for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.
Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --
Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --
Q I'm asking about exemptions.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --
Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --
MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --Q He didn't ask for an exemption --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --
Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --
Q You're not answering -- yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.
Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.
Q If you could answer in a straight way.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.
Q -- yes or no --
MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
Q Did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.
Q Is that the answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.
Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.
Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.
Q What are we asking for?
Q Would you characterize what we're asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: We're asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that's what we --
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, let's talk about people that you're talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.
Q I'm asking you --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you're talking about.
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only --
Q What does that mean -- "
If ever there was evidence of how the war-mongers in Washington use "national security" as justification for the crimes they commit...

[Loknar]

Depriving a man of sleep isn’t torture.

Sometimes torture, even in its extreme, is OK. If a man had information absolutely imperative to save millions, why wouldn’t you use torture? If he isn’t talking, we should just say "well we cant beat it out of him. We'd loose millions.....but we'd follow the Geneva conventions the letter!"

[Free Palestine]

Defending torture? That's a new low even for a reactionary scumbag like you, Loknar.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 9 2005, 10:59 PM
Defending torture? That's a new low even for a reactionary scumbag like you, Loknar.
I didnt say say I condone it. I condone light methods such as sleep deprivation.

Only rarely would I say more extreme methods are OK. And if you say torture isnt OK when millions of lives are at stake, I'd say you should defend that line of thought.

And none could argue that you are the reactionary here. A supporter of Hamas certainly cant be called progressive.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:35 PM
Depriving a man of sleep isn’t torture.

Sometimes torture, even in its extreme, is OK. If a man had information absolutely imperative to save millions, why wouldn’t you use torture? If he isn’t talking, we should just say "well we cant beat it out of him. We'd loose millions.....but we'd follow the Geneva conventions the letter!"
torture is not a good way to achieve accurate information. people will admit to anything if the torture is bad enough

[Publius]

Defending torture? That's a new low even for a reactionary scumbag like you, Loknar.

A bomb is set and you need to know it's location to defuse it and save thousands of people.

The only way to get the information about the location of the bomb is to torture a conspirator you captured.

Is torture then justified?

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:56 PM

Defending torture? That's a new low even for a reactionary scumbag like you, Loknar.

A bomb is set and you need to know it's location to defuse it and save thousands of people.

The only way to get the information about the location of the bomb is to torture a conspirator you captured.

Is torture then justified?
Torture is an unrelible means of obtaining information.

Situation one) You just captured a very extreme Islamic terrorist. The motherfucker is not going to tell at all. He ain't afraid to die or pain. If he tells, God will hate him and he'll let everyone down. If these kinds of terrorists guys really flew airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon, do you think they're going to tell anyone anything?

Situation Two) You just captured an innocent man. He's trying to profess his innocent, but because he's so nervious, the lie detector test shows other wise. You can't see past his skin color and religion... and the tests show that he is lying. You're totally convensed that he's a terrorist. After awhile of torturing an innocent man, he's going to start confessing to things that doesn't even exist. Hell, if you torture an innocent man enough, you can make him think he is a dinosaur's saggy vagina.

Three) A real terrorist gives you FALSE information after torturing.

The only time it MIGHT work is if you find a terrorist that isn't as fanatic as his buddies. And what are you going to do, torture all 500+ prisoners and get maybe 3 REAL confessions?

[Loknar]

Somebody may not be afraid of dieing, but living in torment is different.

[RadicalLeft62]

the soviet union fought an unjust war in afghanistan right before the collapse.
the usa fought an unjust war in iraq....right before its collapse?

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:08 AM
Somebody may not be afraid of dieing, but living in torment is different.
Bullbutter. In terms of religious fanatic, it doesn't matter. If you study Christianity any, they used to beat people and eventually feed them to the lines if that didn't denouce Jesus and I don't think too many people denoused Christianity. If you believe you're doing something 'good' beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're not going to confess. It's that simple. You cannot extract information from the truely religious or the true revolutionaries through means of torture.

Therefore, it is both impractial and unethical.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:14 PM
the soviet union fought an unjust war in afghanistan right before the collapse.
the usa fought an unjust war in iraq....right before its collapse?
Soviet Imperialism began in Afghanistan during 1979, more than 10 years before the empire would collapse.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by FleasTheLemur+Nov 10 2005, 01:21 AM--> (FleasTheLemur @ Nov 10 2005, 01:21 AM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 01:08 AM
Somebody may not be afraid of dieing, but living in torment is different.
Bullbutter. In terms of religious fanatic, it doesn't matter. If you study Christianity any, they used to beat people and eventually feed them to the lines if that didn't denouce Jesus and I don't think too many people denoused Christianity. If you believe you're doing something 'good' beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're not going to confess. It's that simple. You cannot extract information from the truely religious or the true revolutionaries through means of torture.

Therefore, it is both impractial and unethical. [/b]
It's very true that most early Christians did not talk, or did not deny Christ when threatened with death.

I believe it is unethical to torture people, and I would only support torture in extreme circumstances. For example, a man who kidnaps a girl and doesn’t talk (this actually happened a couple years ago) I think should be beaten. The girl I am speaking of was already dead. However, hypothetically speaking, if there was a similar circumstance, and perhaps the child was buried alive somewhere and that man refused to talk, I'd say take out a knife and go for his nut sack. I really believe it is more unethical to allow thousands, perhaps millions to die, just because we wouldn’t use torture.

As I said, I would only support it in extreme circumstances.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:14 AM
the soviet union fought an unjust war in afghanistan right before the collapse.
the usa fought an unjust war in iraq....right before its collapse?
LOL, simple metaphors for simple minds.


The empire is greater and stronger than ever.


The war in Iraq is not unjust or illegal as you leftist scum like to claim. Lets put down the emotional apeals and deal with facts.

Sasddam Hussein was in violation of 17 security council violations.

He snubbed the UN countless times.

You leftists may be ok with that, but the American people are not.

[rioters bloc]

and between 1955-1992 israel, a country which is backed by the US, had violated 66 un resolutions. not to mention that over another 30 resolutions which would have been passed against them had the US not vetoed it.

so what's your point?

[KC]

LOL, simple metaphors for simple minds.


The empire is greater and stronger than ever.


The war in Iraq is not unjust or illegal as you leftist scum like to claim. Lets put down the emotional apeals and deal with facts.

Sasddam Hussein was in violation of 17 security council violations.

He snubbed the UN countless times.

You leftists may be ok with that, but the American people are not.


Respond to my post or shut the fuck up.

[LSD]

The empire is greater and stronger than ever.

There is something both refreshing and disturbing in the fact that American Imperialists are now willing to openly identify "empire".

Even Nixon was never that brave.


Sasddam Hussein was in violation of 17 security council violations.

I assume you meant to say Security Council resolutions.

Speaking of those resolutions, how many resolutions condemning the US would have passed if circumstances had allowed.

Remember, for all their numerous crimes, crimes which, by the way, far exceeded Mr. Hussein's, the USSR was never condemned by the Security Council.

And, mysteriously, after being accorded the ROC's old seat, neither was the PRC! Does that mean that China didn't commit any crimes after 1976?

The reason that Iraq has been condemned while the US has not is the same reason that Russia was not condemned for her actions in Chechnya and France was not condemned for her actions in Algeria and South East Asia.

It's called a veto.


He snubbed the UN countless times.

Then it's up to the UN to respond.

...but it wasn't the UN that invaded Iraq, was it?


You leftists may be ok with that, but the American people are not.

:lol:

Really?

Since when do the American people give a damn about the UN and her resolutions?

The US won't even consent to the ICJ!

In fact, her claims to territorial sovereignty are so high that her ratification of the international chemical weapons ban contains a special exemption allowing the President to stop any weapons inspection that he deems "poses a threat" to "US interests".

In other words, if Bush says an area is off-limits to inspectors, it's off-limits. That's the exact same thing that Hussein did in '98 and '03.

You know, your "justification" for killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 02:38 PM
The war in Iraq is not unjust or illegal as you leftist scum like to claim. Lets put down the emotional apeals and deal with facts.

Sasddam Hussein was in violation of 17 security council violations.

He snubbed the UN countless times.
oh, and i forgot to ask - whatever happened to those wmd's, anyway? seeing as how that was the "legal" justification for the invasion in the first place - pre-emptive strike and whatnot.

editL tags

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 10 2005, 03:38 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 10 2005, 03:38 AM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 01:14 AM
the soviet union fought an unjust war in afghanistan right before the collapse.
the usa fought an unjust war in iraq....right before its collapse?
LOL, simple metaphors for simple minds.


The empire is greater and stronger than ever.


The war in Iraq is not unjust or illegal as you leftist scum like to claim. Lets put down the emotional apeals and deal with facts.

Sasddam Hussein was in violation of 17 security council violations.

He snubbed the UN countless times.

You leftists may be ok with that, but the American people are not. [/b]
LOL, why is it you and every other fool who trys to justify this war always brings up the UN Security Council Resolutions. Here's why this is a pathetic argument. In order for anyaction to take place in the name of/ by the UN there has to be a vote. It doesn't matter how many Security Council resolutions were supposedly violated. In order for action to be taken a resolution authorixzing such must be approved through the Security Council. Nine of the 15 members must vote in favor of this action. If you recall there was to be such a vote, however it was apparent that the vote was going to fail, so the US moved to withdraw the resoltuion they drew up calling for action against Iraq from the floor and invaded another sovereign state anyways.

Also, what exactly was Iraq found to be in violation of? The WMDs that they didn't have? Try another argument, that one is very stale.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 10 2005, 03:49 AM
and between 1955-1992 israel, a country which is backed by the US, had violated 66 un resolutions. not to mention that over another 30 resolutions which would have been passed against them had the US not vetoed it.

so what's your point?
Israel doen not have a history of genocide or invasion of soveriegn nations, like Iraq has.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 10 2005, 06:16 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 10 2005, 06:16 PM)
rioters [email protected] 10 2005, 03:49 AM
and between 1955-1992 israel, a country which is backed by the US, had violated 66 un resolutions. not to mention that over another 30 resolutions which would have been passed against them had the US not vetoed it.

so what's your point?
Israel doen not have a history of genocide or invasion of soveriegn nations, like Iraq has.[/b]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:05 AM






Torture is an unrelible means of obtaining information.

Really?

COmpared to what?

Asking nicely?

"Will you PLEEEEASE tell us where the bomb is?"

Torture is more reliable than 'not-torture'.



Situation one) You just captured a very extreme Islamic terrorist. The motherfucker is not going to tell at all. He ain't afraid to die or pain. If he tells, God will hate him and he'll let everyone down. If these kinds of terrorists guys really flew airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon, do you think they're going to tell anyone anything?

Perhaps you douse him in menstratuation blood, and THEN torture him.

That way you break his will, destroy his religious hope and torture him.

He can't go to God, according to his holy book.

Problem solved.


Situation Two) You just captured an innocent man. He's trying to profess his innocent, but because he's so nervious, the lie detector test shows other wise. You can't see past his skin color and religion... and the tests show that he is lying. You're totally convensed that he's a terrorist. After awhile of torturing an innocent man, he's going to start confessing to things that doesn't even exist. Hell, if you torture an innocent man enough, you can make him think he is a dinosaur's saggy vagina.

Presume we do have the right guy.

Assume our information is good.

We have tabs on a number of high-level terrorists. Assume it's one of them.



Three) A real terrorist gives you FALSE information after torturing.

And how would we then be worse off than if we didn't torture him?

At least there's a chance.

And we can always continue torturing him, just for the hell of it, for lying to us.

That'll teach the bastard.



The only time it MIGHT work is if you find a terrorist that isn't as fanatic as his buddies. And what are you going to do, torture all 500+ prisoners and get maybe 3 REAL confessions?

I'm not saying it's good, or practical, or should be used, but in some situations, it is morally definisible.

If you had to torture someone to save your family, would you do it?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+Nov 10 2005, 07:46 PM--> (Free Palestine @ Nov 10 2005, 07:46 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:16 PM

rioters [email protected] 10 2005, 03:49 AM
and between 1955-1992 israel, a country which is backed by the US, had violated 66 un resolutions. not to mention that over another 30 resolutions which would have been passed against them had the US not vetoed it.

so what's your point?
Israel doen not have a history of genocide or invasion of soveriegn nations, like Iraq has.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b]
ditto on the emoticonage

[Loknar]

A good way to gain info from a fundamentalist, is to pour pigs blood all over him and make him drink it.

[Intifada]

A good way to gain info from a fundamentalist, is to pour pigs blood all over him and make him drink it.

:rolleyes:

It's also a fantastic way of recruiting more Muslims to the cause espoused by the likes of bin Laden.

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005 Anno Domini, 08:11 PM




Really?

COmpared to what?

Some Sodium Pentothal and clever interrigators. Granted, the "truth serum" only lowers inhabitions, but that's what the clever interrigators are there for. You play on any small doubt that person might have for awhile and soon the small leak in the dam is going to bust wide up.

Perhaps doing some actual spy work out in the field. Of course, we all know how relible CIA intelligence is. :lol: ..or how easily it could be falsifed to send thousands of soilders into war for no reason other than oil.


Perhaps you douse him in menstratuation blood, and THEN torture him.

That way you break his will, destroy his religious hope and torture him.

He can't go to God, according to his holy book.

Problem solved.

Probably NOT solved! DENIED!

"They ask you about menstruation: Say, it is harmful; you shall avoid sexual intercourse with the women during menstruation; do not approach them until they are rid of it. Once they are rid of it, you may have intercourse with them in the manner designed by God. God loves those who are clean. Your women are the bearers of your seed. Thus, you may enjoy this privilege however you like, so long as you maintain righteousness. You shall observe God, and know that you will meet Him. Give good news to the believers." 2:222, 223

Your ignorance on the Quran is damn near unfathomible. When it comes to cootch blood, there's roughly only three verses on this, all of which say roughly the same thing. While cleaniness is very important to a Muslim, I'm pretty sure theyd think Allah would forgive them for the action's of the infidels. God loves those who are clean, but he also hates anyone that attacks the Islamic religion.


Presume we do have the right guy.

Assume our information is good.

We have tabs on a number of high-level terrorists. Assume it's one of them.

During various criminal cases before the 1990's, we presumed to have the right guy. We assumed our information was good. These people went to jail or worse. After the advent of DNA testing, there was a sizible number of people that proven innocent, even when police, a judge and a jury that said they was guilty. This is through NORMAL interigation techiques. I hate to see the wacky truely guilty to falsey guilty ratio you'd get through torture.


And how would we then be worse off than if we didn't torture him?

You put in time and manpower to something that holds no yield. It's like trying to open a mayo jar from the bottom. It's dumb as hell and gets nothing accomplished. Only instead of feeling dumb, you just wasted tax-payer's money on following a lie.


At least there's a chance.

Of course there's a chance. If I was dumb enough to buy a lotto ticket, I'd have a chance at winning the lottery, but the odds are against me. ...and the odds are against you.



And we can always continue torturing him, just for the hell of it, for lying to us.

That'll teach the bastard.

Of course, going back to the innocent man caught, you would be torturing him again and again and again only to keep on getting all this wrong information.


I'm not saying it's good, or practical, or should be used, but in some situations, it is morally definisible.

If we give the green light to torture, it's only a matter of time that government starts green lighting other negitive things.. the end of free speech, maybe. Perhaps they'll end the second amendment, in order to 'stop the terrorists'. Maybe they'll get rid of due process (though they've already have for some detainee). Hell, let suspend ALL the civil rights amendments! It'll be morally definsible because we're protecting ourselves from the terrorists!

[Free Palestine]

Permit me to point out the hypocrisy in those cowardly people who say they're living in the "freest" country on Earth, and then go on to approve of deliberate torture (for any reason). All I can think of is the creeping fascism gradually taking hold of this country when I hear individuals defending war crimes. I don't like to use the word "evil", often, but that is my contention here.

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 10 2005, 11:26 PM
Permit me to point out the hypocrisy in those cowardly people who say they're living in the "freest" country on Earth, and then go on to approve of deliberate torture (for any reason). All I can think of is the creeping fascism gradually taking hold of this country when I hear individuals defending war crimes. I don't like to use the word "evil", often, but that is my contention here.
I love ya.

Why did ya get 'restricted' though?

[Free Palestine]

Apparently I'm "anti-Semitic" because I'm not oblivious to Zionist influence.

[FleasTheLemur]

Crap. Well, ya got my support man. I don't hate the Hebrew/Jewish ethnity, but the Isreali nation has no right to even exist outside of trying to compensate for Western guilty.

[Loknar]

oh yes, the untimate thing to do is actually to burry the body in pigs blood, or threaten the subject with that. No 70 virgins for them....

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 12:12 AM
Crap. Well, ya got my support man. I don't hate the Hebrew/Jewish ethnity, but the Isreali nation has no right to even exist outside of trying to compensate for Western guilty.
Yeah but the Israelis are cool.

Just look at Israel, it's *****in.

The Palestinians should roam as nomadic bedoine...its better for them. Better than living under Israeli missiles everyday. After that the Jews can take the land. The Jews have the money afterall.....so let em develop the land with the money they have

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:21 AM
Yeah but the Israelis are cool.

Just look at Israel, it's *****in.

The Palestinians should roam as nomadic bedoine...its better for them. Better than living under Israeli missiles everyday. After that the Jews can take the land. The Jews have the money afterall.....so let em develop the land with the money they have
this sucks, since you're restricted and you can only post here, otherwise interesting threads get fucked up by useless posts like that^

:angry:

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:12 PM
Crap. Well, ya got my support man. I don't hate the Hebrew/Jewish ethnity, but the Isreali nation has no right to even exist outside of trying to compensate for Western guilty.
I thought the restriction was bullshit too.

Seems people get a little jumpy when talking about anti-Semitism. Especially if it was about a quote froma website that he didn't even type.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Really?

COmpared to what?

Asking nicely?

"Will you PLEEEEASE tell us where the bomb is?"

Torture is more reliable than 'not-torture'.


yet people who are experts on torture say its not reliable. hmmm lets see who to believe?

[LSD]

Apparently I'm "anti-Semitic" because I'm not oblivious to Zionist influence.

No, because you refered to a "World Jewish Hierarchy" that controls global affairs.

Despite repeated begging, you persistantly refused to explain or justify that comment.

When people make reference to far-right staples like "Jewish conspiracies", we assume that they mean them.

[Columbia]

Don't torture them. Lock them up for the duration of the war and plus 10 years. Ignore them. They are of no value and only aide the enemy by even thinking about them.

[Free Palestine]

Does believing in the power of Jewish lobbyists make me a believer in an "international Jewish conspiracy"? No, I think it's just a fact that they exist and they have some influence. Cries of "conspiracy" are just attempts by childish idiots like yourself to discredit a rationale belief.

Do you deny the power and influence of AIPAC? Do you deny the overt bias of US foreign policy towards Israel? Of the mass media? Do you deny there exist many wealthy and influential Jewish citizens in the US who lobby Congress and powerful politicians in support of Israel? Do you deny many politicians and media moguls are themselves Jewish? Does believing in any of these things discredit you or make you nothing but a wild "international Jewish conspiracy" theorist?

[LSD]

Does believing in the power of Jewish lobbyists make me a believer in an "international Jewish conspiracy"?

No, but claiming there's a "World Jewish Hierarchy" does.


Do you deny the power and influence of AIPAC?

In terms of a "World Hierarchy"? Absolutely.


Do you deny the overt bias of US foreign policy towards Israel? Of the mass media?

No and no.

But neither are relevent to the question at hand.


Do you deny there exist many wealthy and influential Jewish citizens in the US who lobby Congress and powerful politicians in support of Israel?

Do you deny that there are many wealthy and influential Protestant citizens in the US who lobby Congress and powerful politicians in support of firearms?

NO? So how come we talk about the "gun lobby" and not the "world protestant hiearchy"?

If you want to talk about undue focus in US foreign relations, fine. But once you start blaming the "Jews" for that, we're in an entirely different area. One to which this board is not willing to go.


Do you deny many politicians and media moguls are themselves Jewish?

No, but they do constitute the definitive minority. The overwhelming majoirty of politicians and "moguls" are red-blooded American Christians.

But, again, you're not talking about a "world Christian hierarchy", are you?


Does believing in any of these things discredit you or make you nothing but a wild "international Jewish conspiracy" theorist?

Again, the reason that we accuse you of believing in "international Jewish conspiracy theories" is because you claimed there was an "international Jewish conspiracy"!

Remember?


Originally posted by Free [email protected] Oct 27 2005, 09:35 PM (emphasis added)
That doesn't wash. One has to ask if the world Jewish hierarchy, by now fully committed to the creation of Israel, had a real interest in exerting its power to overcome American opposition to Jewish immigration? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42079&view=findpost&p=1291961357)

[Ownthink]

So maybe it wasn't the best choice of words. Maybe "The Global Influence of Powerful Jewish people that support the murderous state of Israel" or something like that.

But I still honestly don't think he believes in a "world Jewish Hierarchy". As I recall, wasn't that something copied and pasted from another site?

[LSD]

Maybe "The Global Influence of Powerful Jewish people that support the murderous state of Israel" or something like that.

Again, though, that casts the "Jews" as secretly controlling US interests, when the reality is that most of the people steering US foreign policy are orthodox Christians.

The US supports Israel for her own reasons, none of which have to do with "World Jewish Hierarchies".

There is absolutely no truth in the mythology that "powerful Jews" run the US or "control world finance" and the perpetuation of such myths only helps the far-right groups that feed off them.


But I still honestly don't think he believes in a "world Jewish Hierarchy". As I recall, wasn't that something copied and pasted from another site?

If that's the case then he can admit that and renounce the sentiment; state that he doesn't believe in a "World Jewish Hierarchy".

He has been given ample opportunity to do both and has patently refused.