I just farted “We Are the World”.
I’m expecting a phone call from the Nobel committee any moment now…
Again, they gave this same award to Yasser Arafat, a known terrorist/murderer. If he can win it, any one can. Next they’ll probably give it post-humorously to Mao Se Tung.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I just farted “We Are the World”.
I’m expecting a phone call from the Nobel committee any moment now…[/quote]
I don’t know if there are any “take-backs”, but if there were, I think you’d steal it from Obama with that feat of strength and peace.
[quote]valiance. wrote:
mmm the sweet taste of conservative tears yumm yumm[/quote]
You might as well enjoy it as liberals can not and never will win on the content of issues and ideas because you are wrong on almost everything. Yet you win awards for doing nothing.
Congrats Mr. President, not quit trying to fuck up our country.
Damn…don’t know how I missed this. Well,I don’t think he deserves this…but then again half of the people who have received it didn’t either.
But I can’t help but think this was done as sort of a “call out” for Obama. What a fucked situation that is.
I just heard they are retroactively awarding him the 2009 Mr. Olympia. You know, because he talks about being in shape and stuff.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Which “Bush policy” do you mean, Wreckless?
Torture.
Is that what Wreckless meant?
Well then, he is abso-darn-gum-lutely right!
Ending use of a non-injury, non-pain-producing method on a few dozen (or if more, not much more) terrorists at war against the United States is surely worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
Well usually torturing wins you a jail cell.
Did it ever occur to you that just because you think a word has a given meaning, that your ascribing that word to a given act does not necessarily mean that it is an act that merits being treated the same as differing acts that others use that word for?
By your reasoning, we could put you in a jail cell for your endlessly subjecting people to your claims that the blame for WWII falls not on your home nation Austria, the cradle of Hitler, and the German people, but supposedly on America.
It’s torture, man.
Easily as bad as pouring water into someone’s mouth (painlessly and injury-free.)
I think you could win the next Nobel by instead acknowledging that Austria and the German people of that time are to blame for WWII, not the US.
Far more have been tortured by your posts than by waterboarding 
Of course, neither is torture in the sense of being a criminal act whether on a captured combatant or the unfortunate reader.[/quote]
Water boarding has always been torture, it is torture and it will remain torture long after the US of A are no more.
And contrary to your claims all the people I have seen that actually were water boarded agree that that is what it is.
Fortunately though we do not have to make up definitions because we have decisions by US courts, definitions in US Army field manuals and those of the anti torture convention which is Us law-
I am sure Polanski does not like to call it rape either, but the law does, too bad for him.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Which “Bush policy” do you mean, Wreckless?
Torture.
Is that what Wreckless meant?
Well then, he is abso-darn-gum-lutely right!
Ending use of a non-injury, non-pain-producing method on a few dozen (or if more, not much more) terrorists at war against the United States is surely worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
That bothers me a bit. Non-pain-producing? Is the body’s absolute conviction that it is drowning not a form of pain? I watched the Mancow video (I think that’s who it was), and his actions during and demeanor after, definitely resembled that of a man who had just experienced something beyond excruciating. Is it, “well, I was having myself a drink of water, and next thing I know I’m blurting out stuff I didn’t want to say. How’d that happen?”[/quote]
It triggers a reflex, there is really nothing you can do against it.
And it was nit done once or twice but more than 150 times in one month on one guy alone.
In combination with sleep deprivation and lack of food.
Um, can you give the names of these people you’ve seen that were waterboarded?
Can you tell us of these decisions by US courts that state that waterboarding in the manner as done since say 2001 is torture? I mean, if you know of an actual decision surely you can specify it.
Don’t waste our time with references to different forms of waterboarding, e.g. the methods used by the Japanese in WWII. That would be sloppy thinking.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Which “Bush policy” do you mean, Wreckless?
Torture.
Is that what Wreckless meant?
Well then, he is abso-darn-gum-lutely right!
Ending use of a non-injury, non-pain-producing method on a few dozen (or if more, not much more) terrorists at war against the United States is surely worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
That bothers me a bit. Non-pain-producing? Is the body’s absolute conviction that it is drowning not a form of pain? I watched the Mancow video (I think that’s who it was), and his actions during and demeanor after, definitely resembled that of a man who had just experienced something beyond excruciating. Is it, “well, I was having myself a drink of water, and next thing I know I’m blurting out stuff I didn’t want to say. How’d that happen?”
It triggers a reflex, there is really nothing you can do against it.
And it was nit done once or twice but more than 150 times in one month on one guy alone.
In combination with sleep deprivation and lack of food.
[/quote]
Boo hoo.
And you are just so sorry that this happened to poor widdle Khalid Sheik Mohammed, saving very very many American lives in the process. It really causes you angst, doesn’t it.
What did he ever do to deserve it?
And no, as for the other poster, you are redefining words if you call thinking you are drowning “pain.”
But that’s what you gotta do to protect your precious terrorists. You’ve got just so much concern for enemies of America. They touch your heartstrings, don’t they.
Now, there are vast numbers of people in the world who have never harmed anyone and are subjected to far worse by all sorts of horrible dictatorships… but that doesn’t bother you folk a whit. The only thing that would bother you would be if the “sovereignty” of those dictatorships was “violated” and the real torture brought to an end.
If America did it.
Though if some other dictator came in and defeated the first, you wouldn’t care a whit.
Back to Orion: Tell us again how America is to blame for WWII and all the other ills of the world. Poor Hitler… if not for America he wouldn’t have come to such a tragic end. Geez, WWII sure wasn’t Germany’s fault. You don’t have Austrian atrocities among your concerns of serious problems that there have been in the world, just this pure-hearted angst and “righteous” condemnation about some other country’s modern-day waterboarding of terrorists, and various other things about and only about the United States.
Ever hear of casting out the beam?
But anyway, now that the two of you mention it, protecting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his like from ever being waterboarded again surely is worth the Nobel Peace Price.
That is the worst thing that has been happening in the world in this decade or even generation, for sure.
And now the one the world has been waiting for has finally freed terrorists from the stress of worrying about ever being so treated. Well done Mr Obama! A well-earned Nobel Prize.
Myself, I would have thought it was healing the planet or ending the rising of the seas that would have done it for him, or the book of course, but you’re right: Stopping waterboarding of terrorists is top of the list when it comes to world peace.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Wow!
I am awed.
You have totally disproven my point. (Never mind that many who have been, which includes many US military officers and journalists, say it is not torture.)
Now where is your information proving there is pain or injury?[/quote]
So, you have been waterboarded?
I am all for torture. I think we should use every tool we have at our disposal to defeat the enemy. They do worse things to us. go to the smoking gun .com and check out the al qaeda torture manuals which were found in an iraqi terrorist site. while your at it, google daniel pearl video and then convince yourself that we should that we should have our hands tied. we are fighting animals, sub humans. oh but yes they follow the mecca convention so we should of course not torture blahh
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Dustin wrote:
So, you have been waterboarded?
Wow!
I am awed.
You have totally disproven my point. (Never mind that many who have been, which includes many US military officers and journalists, say it is not torture.)
Now where is your information proving there is pain or injury?
So, you have been waterboarded?[/quote]
And you do it again. How does the man do it? A rapier wit and nuclear-force logic, all wrapped up in one.
Your intellect is so stunning, that I am sure my eyes will burn out from the brilliance of your posts… I had better protect myself with the Ignore list, as I don’t think my awe-meter could withstand another such riposte.
(Either that or it would totally waste my time, and there are better things to do.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And no, as for the other poster, you are redefining words if you call thinking you are drowning “pain.”
[/quote]
Ok, I’m curious. What criteria is missing, to be considered pain?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
And no, as for the other poster, you are redefining words if you call thinking you are drowning “pain.”
Ok, I’m curious. What criteria is missing, to be considered pain? [/quote]
This is going to end up being a semantics debate. It all depends on how you define pain. Is it related to actual or potential physical damage? Or is it just the broader idea of any kind of suffering?
I’m sure Sloth and others have no trouble understanding what “pain” means when talking to their doctor or to any other person about what their body is feeling as a consequence of anything done to them.
But if it’s a poor, poor terrorist, then what they would call extremely uncomfortable or miserable or really frightening or other such things if it happened to them and there was no political context and they had no clue anyone was going to apply it to a political matter, conveniently becomes “pain.”
But if you want to use the word broadly to mean any kind of suffering, then yes, they are very opposed to terrorists undergoing any kind of suffering after being captured. Or before. It really bothers them greatly, from all that they talk about. Much moreso than all kinds of other problems. Terrorists really shouldn’t be captured at all, but if that horror is going to happen, then these fine personages should be put up in Ritz Carlton style, they should have Internet access and air conditioning, freedom of movement, and overall quite nice conditions. And of course a New York lawyuh who bills the taxpayer hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, and naturally, access to the US Court system and the opportunity to be let free because there was no search warrant or other such reason. Heaven forbid they should sweat at Gitmo.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’m sure Sloth and others have no trouble understanding what “pain” means when talking to their doctor or to any other person about what their body is feeling as a consequence of anything done to them.
But if it’s a poor, poor terrorist, then what they would call extremely uncomfortable or miserable or really frightening or other such things if it happened to them and there was no political context and they had no clue anyone was going to apply it to a political matter, conveniently becomes “pain.”
But if you want to use the word broadly to mean any kind of suffering, then yes, they don’t terrorists to undergo any suffering after being captured. Or before. It really bothers them greatly, from all that they talk about. Much moreso than all kinds of other problems. Terrorists really shouldn’t be captured at all, but if that horror is going to happen, then these fine personages should be put up in Ritz Carlton style, they should have Internet access and air conditioning, freedom of movement, and overall quite nice conditions. And of course a New York lawyuh who bills the taxpayer hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, and naturally, access to the US Court system and the opportunity to be let free because there was no search warrant or other such reason. Heaven forbid they should sweat at Gitmo.[/quote]
So you’re looking at “pain” with a political definition? Gotcha.
See, I’m OK with torture. I want the people on my side to do what it takes to win. But, let’s not pretend that torture’s not painful. It needs to be to be effective.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I’m sure Sloth and others have no trouble understanding what “pain” means when talking to their doctor or to any other person about what their body is feeling as a consequence of anything done to them.
But if it’s a poor, poor terrorist, then what they would call extremely uncomfortable or miserable or really frightening or other such things if it happened to them and there was no political context and they had no clue anyone was going to apply it to a political matter, conveniently becomes “pain.”
But if you want to use the word broadly to mean any kind of suffering, then yes, they don’t terrorists to undergo any suffering after being captured. Or before. It really bothers them greatly, from all that they talk about. Much moreso than all kinds of other problems. Terrorists really shouldn’t be captured at all, but if that horror is going to happen, then these fine personages should be put up in Ritz Carlton style, they should have Internet access and air conditioning, freedom of movement, and overall quite nice conditions. And of course a New York lawyuh who bills the taxpayer hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, and naturally, access to the US Court system and the opportunity to be let free because there was no search warrant or other such reason. Heaven forbid they should sweat at Gitmo.
So you’re looking at “pain” with a political definition? OK[/quote]
I did not.
I use the term the same way in a political context as I would when discussing what the body feels at any time.
It is those that have so much sympathy for the poor, poor terrorists, so much angst for their plight, and so much opposition to anything that is effective against them that engage in redefining for political reasons.
And yes, they do consider sleep deprivation or loud noises or things like that “torture” as well. When it’s terrorists that are at the receiving end of that.
When it’s dictators in many places around the world doing far worse than that to people who never tried to kill anybody or blow them up or any bad thing to anyone, these same folk don’t express any remotely similar degree of concern, if indeed any at all (usually not.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’m sure Sloth and others have no trouble understanding what “pain” means when talking to their doctor or to any other person about what their body is feeling as a consequence of anything done to them.
But if it’s a poor, poor terrorist, then what they would call extremely uncomfortable or miserable or really frightening or other such things if it happened to them and there was no political context and they had no clue anyone was going to apply it to a political matter, conveniently becomes “pain.”
But if you want to use the word broadly to mean any kind of suffering, then yes, they don’t terrorists to undergo any kind of suffering after being captured. Or before. It really bothers them greatly, from all that they talk about. Much moreso than all kinds of other problems. Terrorists really shouldn’t be captured at all, but if that horror is going to happen, then these fine personages should be put up in Ritz Carlton style, they should have Internet access and air conditioning, freedom of movement, and overall quite nice conditions. And of course a New York lawyuh who bills the taxpayer hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, and naturally, access to the US Court system and the opportunity to be let free because there was no search warrant or other such reason. Heaven forbid they should sweat at Gitmo.[/quote]
In order to settle this debate, if we on this forum could arrange to have you waterboarded for 30 seconds at a time, 2 minutes total, in attempt to extract the opposite opinion from you, would you do it? Could you hold out and maintain it’s painlessness? Since we’d only use professionals, your safety wouldn’t be much of an issue. Therefore, fear of death shouldn’t be a factor. The feeling, the discomfort, of the experience would determine the outcome. I’m not being a smartass, though this is hypothetical.
[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Which “Bush policy” do you mean, Wreckless?
Torture.
Is that what Wreckless meant?
Well then, he is abso-darn-gum-lutely right!
Ending use of a non-injury, non-pain-producing method on a few dozen (or if more, not much more) terrorists at war against the United States is surely worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
Well usually torturing wins you a jail cell.
Did it ever occur to you that just because you think a word has a given meaning, that your ascribing that word to a given act does not necessarily mean that it is an act that merits being treated the same as differing acts that others use that word for?
By your reasoning, we could put you in a jail cell for your endlessly subjecting people to your claims that the blame for WWII falls not on your home nation Austria, the cradle of Hitler, and the German people, but supposedly on America.
It’s torture, man.
Easily as bad as pouring water into someone’s mouth (painlessly and injury-free.)
I think you could win the next Nobel by instead acknowledging that Austria and the German people of that time are to blame for WWII, not the US.
Far more have been tortured by your posts than by waterboarding
Of course, neither is torture in the sense of being a criminal act whether on a captured combatant or the unfortunate reader.
Water boarding has always been torture, it is torture and it will remain torture long after the US of A are no more.
And contrary to your claims all the people I have seen that actually were water boarded agree that that is what it is.
Fortunately though we do not have to make up definitions because we have decisions by US courts, definitions in US Army field manuals and those of the anti torture convention which is Us law-
I am sure Polanski does not like to call it rape either, but the law does, too bad for him.
[/quote]
Now I am not pro torture, but these terrorists they tortured…I could give a flying fuck less if they tortured them, or are continuing to torture them.
There’s lot’s of folks in the world who deserve pity, these cocksuckers are not part of that group.