BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 May 04 - 05:16 PM

I think beating someone to death would count as torture in any culture.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Gareth
Date: 13 May 04 - 07:12 PM

Kevin. Sorry - I take your previous point.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 May 04 - 12:16 AM

An Article On Sensory Deprivation

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 14 May 04 - 01:35 AM

Well, Kendall, unfortunately you haven't got it yet. The point of it WAS torture, and they well understood the "mores" of the Muslim culture. This is not an example of ignorance, it's an example of what real live war leads people to do- try and hurt the enemy where he hurts most and easiest. Not pretty, but it is what happens. And BTW, please don't equate "humiliation and degradation" with what went on in Saddam's torture chambers- regardless of cultural differences, they just plain ain't the same! Ending this conflict is simple- turn over the reins of government and beat an immediate retreat home. Too bad there are so many egos at the top of the pile....this probably won't happen.

Humiliation as went on in the prison under the U.S. supervision; in NO WAY equivocates as torture.

When Saddam Hussein was in charge; there was rape rooms to assault women, used a drill to drill through a person's hand, cut their tongue out, ground them to bits while they were alive, and on and on and on.

Then you have alleged Muslims that chant a chant meaning "God is Great" while they are hacjing of an American's head, and he is screaming for about 20 second.

What the Muslims suffered under the U.S. soldiers in prison is not mush more than a drop in the bucket when compared to the tortures above.

That the U.S. did to the muslim prisoners is absolutely shameful, and the ones that did the acts, and the ones that told them to do that should all be court martialed andgives 10 years in Levenworth (no matter how high up the chain of command it goes.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 May 04 - 03:11 AM

Peter K (Fionn) 13 May 04 - 09:31 PM, gives a number of examples of terrorism being neutralised:

Northern Ireland - Where the efforts of John Hulme and Seamus Mallin brought about the chain of events that led to the GFA and two referenda. One in Northern Ireland and another in both Eire and Northern Ireland. The results of which, in the former, clearly stated that the people of Northern Ireland expressed the wish that the future of Northern Ireland should be decided peacefully and politically, by the wish of the majority. In the latter, it showed by a resounding majority that the general concensus of the entire population of Ireland was that the use of violence to promote any political agenda, including the unification of Ireland, was not acceptable - i.e. the OIRA, PIRA, etc, had absolutely no mandate. The Nationalists/Republicans had a clear goal, it was therefore possible to negotiate because there was a basis. Factions such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA, did not accept the situation and still continue "The Struggle" against the wishes and desires of the majority of people in Ireland.

South Africa - Again the ANC had a political agenda and a clear goal, therefore a negotiated settlement was possible and preferable to all parties involved.

Kenya - same again

Egypt/Israel - same again, although in this case factions within Egypt still do not accept the peace accord or the treaty signed.

Compare the clearly attainable aims, identifiable in the above examples to the declared aims of Al-Qaeda - where is the basis for negotiation?

By the bye, Peter name calling does nothing to promote the points you wish to make.

In the Stage Manager's post reference is made with regard to the practice of "demonising" and "dehumanising" your enemy. That may well have been generally true across the board in the past. In the two conflicts that I have experienced in my time in the services, from our (serving members of the armed forces) perspective and briefings, there was never any attempt, on the part of anyone, to either demonise or dehumanise our enemy, to do so is a grave mistake as it does lead to underestimation and overconfidence, which is then reflected in losses taken by your own side.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,We haven't gone away, you know
Date: 14 May 04 - 03:24 AM

Ah-ah, Teribus. You meant to say:

"Where the efforts of John Hume and Gerry Adams brought about the chain of events that led to the GFA"

Incredibly widely accepted fact, my good man.
Surprised at you for that!

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 May 04 - 03:44 AM

Naw - GUEST,We haven't gone away, you know - 14 May 04 - 03:24 AM.

I'll stand by what I said in my original post - John Hulme and Seamus Mallin - they started the process and convinced Gerry Adams to put the idea to his side. He (Gerry Adams) did manage to do that, assisted by Martin McGuiness, and a proposal was put forward by the PIRA and that led to Major's Downing Street Declaration and the train was put in motion that ultimately resulted in the GFA.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 May 04 - 03:50 AM

Peter K (Fionn) 13 May 04 - 09:31 PM, gives a number of examples of terrorism being neutralised:

Northern Ireland - Where the efforts of John Hulme and Seamus Mallin brought about the chain of events that led to the GFA and two referenda. One in Northern Ireland and another in both Eire and Northern Ireland. The results of which, in the former, clearly stated that the people of Northern Ireland expressed the wish that the future of Northern Ireland should be decided peacefully and politically, by the wish of the majority. In the latter, it showed by a resounding majority that the general concensus of the entire population of Ireland was that the use of violence to promote any political agenda, including the unification of Ireland, was not acceptable - i.e. the OIRA, PIRA, etc, had absolutely no mandate. The Nationalists/Republicans had a clear goal, it was therefore possible to negotiate because there was a basis. Factions such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA, did not accept the situation and still continue "The Struggle" against the wishes and desires of the majority of people in Ireland.

South Africa - Again the ANC had a political agenda and a clear goal, therefore a negotiated settlement was possible and preferable to all parties involved.

Kenya - same again

Egypt/Israel - same again, although in this case factions within Egypt still do not accept the peace accord or the treaty signed.

Compare the clearly attainable aims, identifiable in the above examples to the declared aims of Al-Qaeda - where is the basis for negotiation?

By the bye, Peter name calling does nothing to promote the points you wish to make.

In the Stage Manager's post reference is made with regard to the practice of "demonising" and "dehumanising" your enemy. That may well have been generally true across the board in the past. In the two conflicts that I have experienced in my time in the services, from our (serving members of the armed forces) perspective and briefings, there was never any attempt, on the part of anyone, to either demonise or dehumanise our enemy, to do so is a grave mistake as it does lead to underestimation and overconfidence, which is then reflected in losses taken by your own side.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,We haven't gone away, you know
Date: 14 May 04 - 03:51 AM

Wrong Teribus. Go check your sources!

Even Trimble was forced to concede as much in an interview with Jonathan Mann after they won the peace prize.
Mann from CNN queried him as to why he got the prize instead of Adams. Hume said Adams actually kicked the whole process off.

To the victors the history, is that it?

You talk the greatest amount of bollocks sometimes, Teribus.
You realize this, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 May 04 - 03:52 AM

Apologies for repeating that last post - hit the wrong key.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 04 - 06:04 AM

Teribus yer head's full of wee doors, and they're all bangin'

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 May 04 - 06:20 AM

GUEST,We haven't gone away, you know - 14 May 04 - 03:51 AM

Thanks for the correction re Hulme/Adams. I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,We haven't gone away, you know
Date: 14 May 04 - 06:29 AM

Fair play to you

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Steve-o
Date: 14 May 04 - 11:33 AM

"Humiliation as went on in the prison under the U.S. supervision; in NO WAY equivocates as torture." BUT...."That the U.S. did to the muslim prisoners is absolutely shameful, and the ones that did the acts, and the ones that told them to do that should all be court martialed andgives 10 years in Levenworth (no matter how high up the chain of command it goes." Yessir, there's a piece of logic for ya! Yoo hoo, Boo Bear, this is WAR.....people whose job it is to kill and maim other people who are trying to do the same to them. Get the concept?

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 04 - 07:19 PM

"in NO WAY equivocates as torture"

I think the word you are after there is equate - but "equivocate" is quite a good word to use when you are trying to argue that what happened in Abu Ghraib was not torture. (And remember, there are recorded cases of two prisoners dying in the course of interogation by US operatives in the prison.)

However there appears to be evidence that some of what appears to be pre-interrogation softening-up shown in the pictures, really needs to be seen in the context of what happens in US prisons back home - there's a passage in this story that is relevant here:

"A chilling story in last Saturday's New York Times made plain that the humiliations depicted in the Abu Ghraib pictures are regularly practised in domestic American prisons. The reporter, Fox Butterfield, dug up examples of hooding, stripping naked and forced sex inflicted by guards in jails in Arizona, Utah, Virginia and Texas. At least two of the American soldiers due to be court-martialled are reservists who are "corrections officers" in civilian life, and it seems likely that in Baghdad they were indulging in sadistic amusements perfected back home in the US."

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 04 - 07:28 PM

Well, gol danged...

Okay, lets say I own a trucking company and I put an ad in the newspaper that reads, "Truck drivers needed, no experience necessary" and so I get a few folks who not only haven't driven a truck but don't even know how to drive anything for that matter. But I hire 'em and give 'um keys and tell 'um to have at it... And, well, they try they end up crashing the trucks is a short order.

Who is responsible?

Okay, so the DOD sends kids over to act as jail guards who know nuthin' about the Geneva Convenetion, let alone the rules???

Who is responsible?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 04 - 07:45 PM

It's not just a matter of "bad apples" and lack of training, as this story from this morning's Guardian illustrates. US forces were taught torture techniques:

"The attitude that was communicated started from the highest levels and was sent on down the chain. It created an overall climate in which adversaries were dehumanised, the distinction between suspect and known perpetrator was effaced, and the overall message was that international law or domestic niceties get in the way of doing quote 'what we had to do', said Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks, formerly a senior adviser on human rights to the State Department. "When that is the message from the top it enables all sorts of bad behaviour."

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: dianavan
Date: 14 May 04 - 10:16 PM

"Again the ANC had a political agenda and a clear goal, therefore a negotiated settlement was possible and preferable to all parties involved."

What is it you don't get about the goal of middle east terrorists? The goal seems to be convincing the U.S. to stay out of the Middle East and their business. I think they also disdain our so-called "democracy" and resent the Christian missionaries who are trying to enlighten them. Basically, they do not want to be occupied.

McGrath - excellent post. "When that is the message from the top it enables all sorts of bad behaviour."

Rumsfeld sent that message in 2002 when he declared that the prisoners were not POWS but were enemy combatants, hence there were no rules.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 15 May 04 - 12:41 AM

I think the word you are after there is equate - but "equivocate" is quite a good word to use when you are trying to argue that what happened in Abu Ghraib was not torture. (And remember, there are

I'm sorry you are unable to understand words with more than two sylables.

recorded cases of two prisoners dying in the course of interogation by US operatives in the prison.)

I am aware of that. But throwing statements out there (such as yours) does not help much. Provide us with names dates, whether they were being questioned by U.S. Military, or were they being questioned by the CIA? We need to find out who killed the people. then punish those that are guilty.

Since you insist on throwing charges around; the onus is on you to provide useful so we can do research, and if it is true; comntact the White House, the congress members, etc to get those activities stopped, and punish the guilty persons.

However there appears to be evidence that some of what appears to be pre-interrogation softening-up shown in the pictures, really needs to be seen in the context of what happens in US prisons back home - there's a passage in this story that is relevant here:

Some people are just cruel.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 15 May 04 - 12:53 AM

What is it you don't get about the goal of middle east terrorists? The goal seems to be convincing the U.S. to stay out of the Middle East and their business. I think they also disdain our so-called "democracy" and resent the Christian missionaries who are trying to enlighten them. Basically, they do not want to be occupied.

If "Christianity" is offering enlightenment; then most "Christians" need to take the course again.

I had "Christianity" shoved down my throat for the first 18 years of my life, and was SEVERELY beaten up according to the Bible. I attended gathering with most of the "christian faiths, and never saw ANY enlightened people there.

I sat in pipe circle with the Native American Indians (devout pagans), and saw MUCH enlightenment there.

Rumsfeld sent that message in 2002 when he declared that the prisoners were not POWS but were enemy combatants, hence there were no rules.

The Geneva Convention CLEARLY identifies a POW (a soldier for the other country) The people in the prison were NOT members of the Iraqi army so they can NOT be Prisoners of war.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 15 May 04 - 03:02 AM

dianavan 14 May 04 - 10:16 PM

"What is it you don't get about the goal of middle east terrorists?"

You obviously have not read, or fully understood, the fatwah(sp?) issued by Osama bin Laden in 1998. Read it, and come back to me with what you see as being the basis for a posible negotiated settlement - other than complete and utter surrender.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 15 May 04 - 09:13 AM

You obviously have not read, or fully understood, the fatwah(sp?) issued by Osama bin Laden in 1998. Read it, and come back to me with what you see as being the basis for a posible negotiated settlement - other than complete and utter surrender.

Thank goodness and light; another mudcater understands these inhuman terrorists!

From the point of view of Islam; infidels have three choices.

   Conversion ro Islam
   Become a third class citizen (if the infidels stay in their place).
   be killed.

Now most of the Muslim terrorists; they adhere to the Wahabi sect of Islam (which began in Saudi Arabia (if memory serves)). and Osama bin Laden adheres too. you have two choices. Conversion to what THEY believe, or be killed. They also believe it is proper to kill brother and sister muslims if they do not adhere to the most radical tradition in Islam.

These terrorists can not be bargained with, they can not be reasoned with, so in order to protect society from these nut cases is to arrest of kill them.

This is the time to stand against evil instead of surrender to evil as Spain did.

May I remind you that the Muslims that that beheaded poor Mr. Berg WERE Al Qaeda. This has been proven by voice print. How many more inocent human beings will have to be butchered as he was before people will wake up?

Mr. Berg screamed 9 times in 20+ seconds while these human beings that had no souls cut off his head! This was not a beheading. It was cruel and inhumane torture before a beheading took place.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 04 - 11:09 AM

Two Bears:

In general, I agree with your last post.

However, I must argue with the statement "while these human beings that had no souls cut off his head!" If they were human, they should be considered to have souls- perhaps evil ones, but still they have souls.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 04 - 11:43 AM

Also... "It was cruel and inhumane torture.."
Which indeed it was.
(although S O P in 'Is The War Lost' thread reckons that it would have been much better if they had 'killed Berg without boring him first')

But the standing of innocent Iraquis on boxes and telling them if they move, they will die, is not torture.
Neither is beating Iraquis to death, apparently.

I see!

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 04 - 12:46 PM

The Geneva Covention against torture does not just apply to soldiers, Two Bears - it applies to everyone. Torture is criminal whoever does it, and whoever they do it to. The fact that Nick Berg wasn't a soldier doesn't mean that somehow that it was any less of a crime to butcher him. If the people being tortured in Abu Ghraib were civilians, that doesn't mean it was legal to torture them, either for Saddam or his successors in US unifiorms.

The fact that someone is a Prisoner of War does not mean they have more rights than anyone else - if amnything it mean sthey have fewer rights. It is legal to keep a POW in custiody even if there is no reason to think they ahve done anything wrong. That does not apply in the case of people who are not POWs - there has to be sufficient evidence against them to stand up in court.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 04 - 12:57 PM

Two Bears, there is no reason to be insulting.

To Equivocate is to Lie
To Equate is to Equal

Now, which word did you mean to use?

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 04 - 02:14 PM

Strictly speaking "equivocation" isn't direct lying, it's misleading someone into thinking you have said one thing, when you have actually avoided saying it. "Use ambiguous words to conceal the truth" is how my dictionary defines the term.

Politicians do it all the time - Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that women" was a classic case, because he was relying on a definition of "sexual relations" which was a lot narrower than that normally understood by the words.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: dianavan
Date: 15 May 04 - 02:18 PM

TwoBears - If the Wahabi sect is primarily Saudi, why don't we invade Saudi Arabia to kill or jail them as you suggest? Do you really think we can "stamp out" a religion? There are more of them than there are us.

Everytime we invade a middle-eastern country, we only strengthen their belief system. War is no way to resolve our differences. If the economic situation is dealt with, there will be no need for fanatics on both sides to use their religion as a weapon.

,,,but this is thread creep.

Let me say again, abuse is tortuous.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 15 May 04 - 03:14 PM

TwoBears - If the Wahabi sect is primarily Saudi, why don't we invade Saudi Arabia to kill or jail them as you suggest? Do you really think we can "stamp out" a religion? There are more of them than there are us.

Do NOT put words in my mouth.

I am NOT saying invade Saudi Arabia, (unless there is evidence there are terrorist training bases in Saudi Arabia), but I WILL say that 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were saudi. Even Osama bin Laden is Saudi.

I am sick of the U.S labeling Saudi Arabia as our friends and allies

The problem is not with muslimsin general or Saudi's in particular.

The problem is the 1-2% of the muslims that believe it is acceptable to kill ANYONE that doesn't agree with them spiritually.

I get so tired of talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Steve Gill, Phil Valentine, ? Mc Connel, (do not remember his first name at the moment), and others complaining about why moderate muslims refuse to publicly denounce the attrocities committed by the terrorists.

If they WERE yo speak out against the terrorists; they would simply wake up DEAD.

I do not blame the moderate muslims for NOT speaking out publicly; but the only we we are going to stop muslim terrorists is to take them prisoner or KILL them.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 04 - 07:37 PM

There have been a great number of muslims who have denounced terrorist atrocities carried out by their co-religionists. However I doubt very much if that would actually ever get a mention on those kind of talk shows, or indeed in quite a lot of other media outlets.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 15 May 04 - 07:46 PM

There have been a great number of muslims who have denounced terrorist atrocities carried out by their co-religionists. However I doubt very much if that would actually ever get a mention on those kind of talk shows, or indeed in quite a lot of other media outlets.

Would you name some of them?

I do not get my news from those talk shows.

I get my news from the liberal news media, the Internet, andlistening to international broadcasts on shortwave.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 04 - 08:01 PM

For example Haram Imams Denounce Terrorist Attacks
:
"The imams of the two holy mosques in Makkah (Mecca) and Madinah yesterday (May 7th 2004) denounced recent terrorist attacks in the Kingdom and said the terrorists were playing in the hands of Islam's enemies.

"Our hearts tremble... from these criminal acts in Riyadh, from what followed in Yanbu... because they claimed sacred lives," said Dr. Osama Khayyat, an imam at the Grand Mosque in Makkah (Mecca).

Delivering his sermon to the thousands of faithful who thronged the mosque for the Friday prayer, the imam reiterated that Islam prohibits the killing of innocent people.

The imam was referring to the killing of five Western engineers and a National Guard officer in the latest terrorist attack in the industrial city of Yanbu and the suicide bombing of a security forces building in Riyadh, which killed six people, including four security men and a young girl, and wounded 145 others.

And a Google search quickly enough comes up with similar denunciations of atrocities from Muslim religious and community leaders in other countries, including the UK and the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 04 - 10:29 PM

The problem is the 1-2% of the muslims that believe it is acceptable to kill ANYONE that doesn't agree with them spiritually.

Similar problem with the "christians" in the current U.S. administration (and their supporters) who believe it is acceptable to kill anyone that doesn't agree with THEM.

We sure have come a long way since 1095.

Best,

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: dianavan
Date: 15 May 04 - 10:45 PM

Greg F - Thank-you.

As long as we view this conflict as primarily religious, there will be no solution. The public perception of Bush, the crusader against Muslim's who want to erradicate the infidels is a situation where nobody wins and thousands of innocents will die.

This war is about greed and corruption and this war is being orchestrated by multinationals who are making billions.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 May 04 - 12:32 AM

"The imams of the two holy mosques in Makkah (Mecca) and Madinah yesterday (May 7th 2004) denounced recent terrorist attacks in the Kingdom and said the terrorists were playing in the hands of Islam's enemies.

OK. Maybe that is one. Don't be surprised if he is killed shortly.

Would you E-Mail me that URL so I can read it for myself?

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 May 04 - 12:56 AM

Similar problem with the "christians" in the current U.S. administration (and their supporters) who believe it is acceptable to kill anyone that doesn't agree with THEM.

Extremists of ANY faith are dangerous.

I remember Pat Robertson (if I am not mistaken) said about 4-5 years ago that people that saw UFOs should be stoned.

There have been some "Christian" fundamentalists that have killed abortionists. Those nut cases should be charged, tried, and convicted (if they did it)

I am pro life, and abortion and expecially partial birth abortion makes me ill. However; Abortion is legal, and people that break the law should be punished. All I can do is protest against abortion, and educate others in hopes they will see how evil to murder an unborn child that COULD be born as a premie, and adopted.

Are there times I would accept abortions? yes.

1. rape
2. incest

But only in the first trimester.

3. If the mother's life or health was at risk.

after receiving a second opinion. No ONE doctor should be given the authority to decide if an unborn child lives or dies.

When the "Christian" extremists start killing people; I will be in favor of sending them to prison or killing them too.

The Muslim Terrorists are murderous thugs that have NO respect for life. That have already killed more than 3000 Americans on 9/11.

Muslim terrorists have killed hundreds of thousands or millions of human beings around the world in America, Africa, Israel, Bali, and many more!

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 May 04 - 01:01 AM

As long as we view this conflict as primarily religious, there will be no solution. The public perception of Bush, the crusader against Muslim's who want to erradicate the infidels is a situation where nobody wins and thousands of innocents will die.

This is not a war of "Christianity" against Islam.

This is a war of Muslim Terrorists against the rest of the world.

9/11 was an act of war on America and the rest of the civilized world, by murderous thugs

There IS a solution. Arrest or kill the Muslim terrorists that are trying to hijack the religion of Islam!

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 May 04 - 01:18 AM

Diana; There is another solution; so the religion of Islam to stand up and arrest or kill the terrorists that act in the name of the Islam religion.

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 May 04 - 01:32 AM

Sadamm Hussein used to do that, Two_bears.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 May 04 - 02:08 AM

Interesting in retrospect, that one of the more common quips amongst the Iraqis on the streets of Baghdad, after the Americans rolled in was, "Out goes the apprentice, In comes the master".

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 May 04 - 02:15 AM

Sadamm Hussein used to do that, Two_bears.

Is the sky blue in your world?

1. Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.

2. Saddam Hussein allowed an Al Qaeda terrorist training camp to operate in Iraq.

3. Saddam Hussein permitted Palestinian terrorists to train in Iraq.

You simply do not get it.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 May 04 - 02:25 AM

Nah Two_bears, you don't get it my brother. If you add up all the reasons the administration has advanced for going after Saddam, the only thing left to say is "Damn right, we need to take out Pervez Musharraf right now!" Musharraf has destroyed democracy in his country, he's backing terrorists in India.... our democratic ally. His CIA was hand-in-bloody-glove with Al Qaeda, his military is riddled with militant Islamists, his madrasas teach hatred of the West, his heroes are Napoleon and Hitler, and he not only has nukes... he's threatened to use them.

Just shades of grey, Two_Bears.
Shades of grey..........

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Raptor
Date: 16 May 04 - 08:20 AM

The amount of rasism on this thread makes me sick!

Labling people as inhuman, subhuman, whatever, because they were born into a religion they think is the best and follow what they were brought up thinking is the way to deal with people they are comvinced are "evil" themselves.

The Muslims believe George Bush And his Troops of "mindless followers" are evil subhuman monstars who should Die!

I can't hate my Father in law because he was in the hitler youth. He didn't know better. He was taught from infancy on to trust the powers that be!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 May 04 - 09:29 AM



Sorry Raptor; my brother; but what label would you apply to people that hack off a man's head while he is conscious, It takes them more than 20 seconds to do it, and the victom screams NINE TIMES.

They did not want a quick death, they wanted the poor man to undergo horrendous torture before he actually expired.

I will stand by my statements they are inhuman or subhuman. We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I can't hate my Father in law because he was in the hitler youth. He didn't know better. He was taught from infancy on to trust the powers that be!

Of course you can not hate you father-in-law. He did not really have a choice.

I do not have a problem with 98% of the world's Muslims. I do have problems with the Muslim terrorists that are trying to hijack the religion of Islam.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Raptor
Date: 17 May 04 - 07:32 AM

Two Bears you don't think the Americans are torturing any prisoners?

Does that not make them Subhuman too?

Bush executed hundreds of prisoners while he was govener of texas so he's subhuman!

Or is it subhuman to do it in the open in front of cameras to make a point as apposed to in the confines of a prison in guantonamo or Texass?

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Raptor
Date: 17 May 04 - 07:36 AM

Racism is hard to admit!

But without it there would be a lot less war!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Two_bears
Date: 18 May 04 - 04:24 PM

Does that not make them Subhuman too?

Aloha nui loa Raptor; ny brother.

There are reports of the CIA killing Muslims, and in my opinion the ones that kill the Muslims are inhuman too.

Racism is hard to admit!

I will not admit to racism where none exists.

I would like to remind everyone that a shell filled with Sarin was exploded yesterday in Iraq and two U.S, Troups was affected. I did not report this yesterday. I wanted to wait for positive identication was made.

I have been told for about a year "There are no WMDs in Iraq" Well Sarin (SP) is a WMD, and i was found in Iraq. Hmmmmm.

I am waiting for the conspiracy theories to explain real WMDs poping up were NONE were supposed to exist.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 May 04 - 05:41 PM

From CNN 5/18/04:

"Chemicals in artillery shell tested

The Iraq Survey Group was conducting tests on an artillery shell believed to have been loaded with the chemicals needed to create the nerve agent sarin.

The 155 mm artillery shell exploded Monday before it could be disarmed. It had been found Saturday near the Baghdad airport.

Kimmitt said U.S. troops who found the device showed "minor traces of exposure" to sarin, but they were quickly treated and released.

The unmarked shell contained two inert chemicals meant to be mixed together when fired from a cannon. As an improvised explosive device, Kimmitt said, the weapon was "ineffective," and he said he doubted whoever had rigged it even knew it contained the potentially lethal chemicals.

No stocks of banned weapons have turned up since the U.S. invasion.

A Pentagon official told CNN that a single field test indicated the shell contained sarin and that a more definitive laboratory test had not been conducted. Initial field tests are often incorrect.

CNN military analyst Ken Robinson noted that more than 15,000 "false positives" for chemical weapons were registered during the first Gulf war."


Let's wait and see Brother Two Bears....

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: Raptor
Date: 18 May 04 - 07:04 PM

Thats weapons of minor irritation!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: It is TORTURE not 'abuse'!!!
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 May 04 - 07:21 PM

One malfunctioning shell doesn't make much of a WMD. The Spokane Spokesman-Review says,

"While the finding of (this shell) is notable it would take an arsenal of such shells to pose a meaningful military threat, arms policy experts said."

I recall a few months back someone in Spokane was accused of intending to poison his wife with the sarin he had made in his kitchen. I don't now how the trial turned out, but there was a fully functioning facility for manufacturing a WMD right here in River City. And the raw material: castor beans.

Don't wait for the UN; send the troops into Spokane now. Shock and awe, by God. Or shuck & jive, whichever.

But I don't think we ought to torture the guy that made it; just abuse him for a while. Leash & banana, like that. Before we convict him. And anyone else that don't look right.

Or we could go after Osama & maybe Kenny-boy Lay.

Unless of course we have some of those well-known Other Priorities.

clint

Sorry, but I get really fed up every now & then.