Obummer Willing To Kill Civilians, But Not Torture Terrorists!! - WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum

hellblazer · 05-05-2009, 04:56 PM

The Teleprompter-In-Chief wants to make sure terrorists get their blankies, but doesn't care if Afghani civilians die. Say what?

Quote:

Afghans say US bombing run killed dozens

By RAHIM FAIEZ and JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writers Rahim Faiez And Jason Straziuso, Associated Press Writers – 41 mins ago

KABUL – Bombing runs called in by U.S. forces killed dozens of civilians taking shelter from fighting between Taliban militants and Afghan and international troops, Afghan officials said Tuesday. The U.S. promised a joint investigation.

A provincial councilman said he saw about 30 bodies, many of them women and children, after villages bought them to a provincial capital.
Overall death toll estimates varied widely. Villagers estimated from 70 to well over 100 civilians may have died, according to local and regional officials. But no government official could confirm such a toll.

Civilian deaths have caused increasing friction between the Afghan and U.S. governments, and President Hamid Karzai has long pleaded with American officials to reduce the number of civilian casualties in their operations. Karzai meets with President Barack Obama in Washington on Wednesday.

In remarks at a Washington think tank Tuesday, Karzai alluded to the problem of civilian casualties without mentioning the bombing deaths. He said the success of the new U.S. war strategy depends on "making sure absolutely that Afghans don't suffer — that Afghan civilians are protected."
"This war against terrorism will succeed only if we fight it from a higher platform of morality," he added in a speech at the Brookings Institution. Asked later what he meant by that remark, Karzai said, "We must be conducting this war as better human beings," and recognize that "force won't buy you obedience."

The latest fighting broke out Monday soon after Taliban fighters — including Taliban from Pakistan and Iran — massed in Farah province in western Afghanistan, said Belqis Roshan, a member of Farah's provincial council. The provincial police chief, Abdul Ghafar, said 25 militants and three police officers died in that battle near the village of Ganjabad in Bala Baluk district, a Taliban-controlled area near the border with Iran.

Villagers told Afghan officials that they put children, women, and elderly men in several housing compounds in the village of Gerani — about three miles to the east — to keep them safe. But villagers said fighter aircraft later targeted those compounds, killing a majority of those inside, according to Roshan and other officials.

The top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, confirmed that U.S. coalition forces participated in the battle. Julian said five wounded Afghans sought medical treatment at a military base in Farah.
"We offer our condolences to those affected by today's operations and will immediately investigate the claims to determine what happened," Julian said.

Abdul Basir Khan, another member of Farah's provincial council, said Farah's governor had hoped to send a delegation to the bombing site Tuesday to investigate, but that officials decided not to go because of how dangerous the region was. It wasn't clear when investigators might reach the village.
The United Nations often takes a lead role in investigating high-profile civilian death cases, but the U.N. doesn't have any officials in Farah province.

A Western official in Kabul said Marine special operations forces — which fall under the U.S. coalition — had called in the airstrikes. The official asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to release the information.
Khan said villagers brought bodies, including women and children, to Farah city to show the province's governor. Khan estimated that villagers brought about 30 bodies.

"It was difficult to count because they were in very bad shape. Some had no legs," Khan said.
Farah's hospital treated at least three wounded villagers, including an 11-year-old boy whose chest, arms and shoulders were completely bandaged. A girl named Shafiqa had bandages under her chin. Two of her toes were severed in the fighting.

"We were at home when the bombing started," she told AP Television News. "Seven members of my family were killed."
Khan said villagers told him more than 150 civilians had died, but he said he had no way to know whether that claim was true.
The issue of civilian deaths is complicated in Afghanistan. Journalists and human rights workers can rarely visit remote battle sites to verify claims of civilian casualties. U.S. officials say Taliban militants sometimes force villagers to lie and say civilians have died in coalition strikes.
But the villagers' claims on Tuesday were bolstered by the wounded at Farah's hospital shown on AP Television News. And Khan's account of several truckloads of bodies taken to Farah city added more weight to the claims.

Mohammad Nieem Qadderdan, the former top official in the district of Bala Baluk, said he saw dozens of bodies when he visited the village of Gerani.
"These houses that were full of children and women and elders were bombed by planes. It is very difficult to say how many were killed because nobody can count the number, it is too early," Qadderdan, who no longer holds a government position, told The Associated Press by telephone. "People are digging through rubble with shovels and hands."
Qadderdan said the civilian casualties were "worse than Azizabad," a reference to an August 2008 strike in a district immediately to the north of Bala Baluk.

An Afghan government commission found that an operation by U.S. forces killed 90 civilians in Azizabad, a finding backed by the U.N. The U.S. originally said no civilians died; a high-level investigation later concluded 33 civilians were killed.

After the Azizabad killings, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, announced a directive last September meant to reduce such deaths. He ordered commanders to consider breaking away from a fire-fight in populated areas rather than pursue militants into villages.

thunderlips · 05-05-2009, 04:57 PM

spoon pic or this is fake

guerilla · 05-05-2009, 05:16 PM

Obama has been slaughtering brown civilians in Afghanistan since he got into office. Big deal.

If you're a righty, this is a problem for you, as you are supposed to love killing all brown people because they are Al Qaeda., but when a black man does it, you feel, sorta cheated.

If you're a lefty, this is a problem for you, because you claim to want peace but recognize that it is necessary for Obama to perform mass abortions by bombing in order to stop global warming.

Basically, whatever your political ideology, murder of civilians can always be justified. Remember, if a democracy uses a nuke, it's not a weapon of mass destruction and the dead people are only collateral damage.

natewitt · 05-05-2009, 05:39 PM

sounds like oversimplification

ayzo · 05-05-2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

Obama has been slaughtering brown civilians in Afghanistan since he got into office. Big deal.

If you're a righty, this is a problem for you, as you are supposed to love killing all brown people because they are Al Qaeda., but when a black man does it, you feel, sorta cheated.

If you're a lefty, this is a problem for you, because you claim to want peace but recognize that it is necessary for Obama to perform mass abortions by bombing in order to stop global warming.

Basically, whatever your political ideology, murder of civilians can always be justified. Remember, if a democracy uses a nuke, it's not a weapon of mass destruction and the dead people are only collateral damage.

LOL 100% true, that's the really funny thing about politics. Both sides can always justify their actions, but only when it's their guy in office.

nevele · 05-05-2009, 05:44 PM

you know you could make some nice monies by posting this on a political blog.
here you'll just get schooled by master debaters, until someone drops some manboobs on the table.

...moobs, if you will.

often hairy, droopy, sickly looking moobs from men of all ages, races, and creeds.
moobs without political bias, without ego-serving agendas.
moobs, that simply wish to be.

yes my friends -- these moobs are what we should be focusing on in these troubled times.
these moobs represent all that we have fought for, all that we have killed for, all that our sons and daughters have died for.

our moobs speak truth when exposed, and they are often exposed when we need them most. our moobs serve us well when the media attempts to spin the corporate sanctioned use of military force to secure opium production in foreign lands into a holy and moral crusade against terror, throwing punditry from both sides into a steaming pit of intellishit where blame is laid on interchangable political mouthpieces packaged and presented to be in power.

when these periodic debates have no clear victor and have devolved into worseless personal attacks and fecal flinging, I find comfort when I am blessed with the vision of some dude's feminine bosom -- it serves as a reminder that yes, this shit is useless and yes, a manboob trumps any and all arguments that have been or could be conceived.

in fact no response can compare to the venerable moob in its capacity to express so eloquently the collective frustration and disappointment of populations from all walks of life, in any number of countries around the world, in response to such masterfully presented propaganda pieces -- courtesy not of the current nor past administration, but of the corporate interests which fund them.

so I thank you, anonymous moobers around the world.
your femininish, oft female-hormone-addled breasteses have given us so much hope in this dark hour of human existence.

henryhhernandez · 05-05-2009, 05:49 PM

As a smart man once said this to me when SH$% went horribly wrong: "FUC# it if they can't take a joke"

medicalhumor · 05-05-2009, 06:00 PM

please don't use words like SH$% and FUC# here, it's offensive. If you can't cuss, get the fuck out

LogicFlux · 05-05-2009, 06:16 PM

It'd be nice if you could negotiate with 7th century retards who think their god would like to see you either kill or convert anyone who not only doesn't buy their fairy tale, but doesn't buy the most dogmatic radical view of it.

It would be nice if saying nice words to them or giving them a hug would keep them from voyaging out into the modern/civilized world and killing large numbers of innocent people on purpose which has other side effects such as shaking global financial systems at their core. (9/11 -> unprecedentedly low interest rates for unprecedentedly long period -> financial bubble -> global recession)

If that was the world we lived in poppies wouldn't be growing in Afghanistan, cotton candy would, and the rugged mountains would be made not out of jagged rock, but gummy bears.

Here's some moobs before I list this thread in the turd filter:

medicalhumor · 05-05-2009, 06:32 PM

not really a side effect of taliban action, mostly a side effect of corporate greed and republican admin turning a blind eye.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

which has other side effects such as shaking global financial systems at their core. (9/11 -> unprecedentedly low interest rates for unprecedentedly long period -> financial bubble -> global recession)

Deliguy · 05-05-2009, 06:40 PM

i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.

LogicFlux · 05-05-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicalhumor

not really a side effect of taliban action, mostly a side effect of corporate greed and republican admin turning a blind eye.

When funds are too cheap for too long of a time people act stupid, because they're getting rich no matter what they do or how retarded they are. I've described the system before as being a ferrari enzo without brakes. 9/11 was the spark plug which ingnited it, the fed was the drive shaft which transmitted the energy and made the wheels turn, good regulations should have been the brakes, but there weren't any or they were defective.

Dimaseo · 05-05-2009, 06:55 PM

Spot on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deliguy

i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.

henryhhernandez · 05-05-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicalhumor

please don't use words like SH$% and FUC# here, it's offensive. If you can't cuss, get the fuck out

LOL!

TylerDurden · 05-05-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deliguy

i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.

What he said.

guerilla · 05-05-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

It'd be nice if you could negotiate with 7th century retards who think their god would like to see you either kill or convert anyone who not only doesn't buy their fairy tale, but doesn't buy the most dogmatic radical view of it.

But here is the point. Most of the attackers on 9/11 were not from Afghanistan. Most Afghans are illiterate and have never used a telephone, let alone watched TV. Most of them have absolutely no concept of where America is on the map of the world, let alone where they are!

They do live like it is the 7th century, but the country has no infrastructure to speak of. It really is a bunch of goat herders living in caves.

So this notion that they pose some huge risk to the world is simply not true. They fight like motherfuckers when the British, Russians and now Americans try to occupy them, but the Afghan people have never waged a war of aggression.

Even most of the NATO allies are refusing to send more troops to Afghanistan, no one in Western Europe sees the Afghanis as any sort of threat, not even the British or Spanish, both of whom had their own terrorist attacks.

For example, how many people can find Afghanistan on a map? Been at war with them for 8 years. Anyone know where it is? What about the language? Anyone know what they speak? How about the population? The capital city? Besides poppies, what is their biggest export? Import?

A real tragedy of the media, is that Taliban is conflated with Al Qaeda. They are two completely different groups. It would be like confusing Nicholas Sarkozy with Gordon Brown.

guerilla · 05-05-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deliguy

i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.

I don't doubt this may have happened in Iran or Pakistan, but I don't think it would have happened in Afghanistan. Afghans are 98% poorer than Americans, so find your average American, take away 98% of his quality of life, and you have someone too poor to have clean water, let alone buy a flag from Talibans'R Us to burn in a street march.

Of course, the media loves to mix that stuff up. If you really pay attention during network news, they are notorious for running graphics and images that are not related to the story, but could be confused as being part of the story. I remember seeing Russian Missle trucks being shown while MSNBC was talking about Iranian protests. They had nothing to do with one another, but the message clearly was that Iranian protests = Iranian Missile attacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

good regulations should have been the brakes, but there weren't any or they were defective.

Regulations are the grease. They create pockets of criminality no one can see.

LogicFlux · 05-05-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

But here is the point. Most of the attackers on 9/11 were not from Afghanistan. Most Afghans are illiterate and have never used a telephone, let alone watched TV. Most of them have absolutely no concept of where America is on the map of the world, let alone where they are!

The taliban allowed them to operate there though because they shared, more or less, the same backwards religious beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

So this notion that they pose some huge risk to the world is simply not true. They fight like motherfuckers when the British, Russians and now Americans try to occupy them, but the Afghan people have never waged a war of aggression.

The risk they pose is not theoretical or hypothetical. The risk the taliban posed was manifested in 9/11 by allowing terrorists safe haven and training ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

Even most of the NATO allies are refusing to send more troops to Afghanistan, no one in Western Europe sees the Afghanis as any sort of threat, not even the British or Spanish, both of whom had their own terrorist attacks.

I don't know if this is true. I don't know if they don't want to send troops because they don't see it as a threat or for other reasons.

But whether they see it as a threat or not does not confirm or invalidate whether or not it is a threat. Like I said, it's not theoretical or hypothetical to propose that the taliban are a threat. They've proven to be a threat to us in the past. Even if it was not them who attacked us, they were accomplices. Even if their intentions were not bad and they allowed Al Qaeda to set up shop there only because it is in their culture to extend hospitality and unflinching support and protection to a guest, they were still enablers of terrorists which attacked sites around the globe including the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

It would be like confusing Nicholas Sarkozy with Gordon Brown.

I know the difference and I still think they should be bombed to hell in order to be kept as weak as possible. But unlike the OP, I don't really give a shit who's giving the orders to do it.

guerilla · 05-05-2009, 07:26 PM

At the risk of taking this completely offtopic, I always wondered what would happen if Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and they just carried on with tending their goats, harvesting their poppies, and then one day, SlapChop Vince donated them a million slap chops so they could have happy lives.

What would happen to 7th century goat farmers if their real exposure to western culture and convenience was the slap chop? How would their society change?

Would it really be bikini, martini, linguine and the end of shariah law?

Deliguy · 05-05-2009, 07:47 PM

I think i read in the divinci code somewhere that the slapchop will bring world peace, but not before there is a manufacturing shortage causing WW3.

nevele · 05-05-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

What would happen to 7th century goat farmers if their real exposure to western culture and convenience was the slap chop? How would their society change?

Would it really be bikini, martini, linguine and the end of shariah law?

the communists behind vbulletin want me to spread the rep around before I can +rep this pearl.
naturally, I refused. fuckin commies.

man. I'm enjoyin the cinco too much I think.
you'd think I'd have something worthwhile to add.
like russian missile trucks aren't the only things staged for mainstream consumption. yeah, that'll work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deliguy

i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.

think it was confessions of an economic hitman that elaborated on how easy, and cheap, it is to pay piss poor populaces to be anti-whatever for an hour or so.

but you really can't take the author seriously anyway. he's way too apologetic and remorseful and new agey to be taken seriously. right? right.

edit: although it might look like I'm attacking both guerilla and eli in this post, looks are deceptionary.

hellblazer · 05-05-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nevele

here you'll just get schooled by master debaters, until someone drops some manboobs on the table.

I see a lot of the latter, not too much of the former. Not to mention there's not really anything to debate; actions speak for themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

For example, how many people can find Afghanistan on a map?

It's fairly easy to find Afghanistan on a map. Not sure what type of ignoramuses you've been talking to.

In all actuality, I'm not too hyped up about this or surprised - I just like poking all the liberals on here every now and then. Right now, I'm more concerned with the escalation in the systemic targeting of conservatives, such as what's happening with Savage right now.

turbolapp · 05-05-2009, 09:43 PM

There are already 2 posts with moobies in this thread.

Pretty much speaks for it's self.

guerilla · 05-05-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

In all actuality, I'm not too hyped up about this or surprised - I just like poking all the liberals on here every now and then. Right now, I'm more concerned with the escalation in the systemic targeting of conservatives, such as what's happening with Savage right now.

What's happening to Savage, is that the same mentality behind the Patriot Act has lead to criminalizing speech and ideas in Great Britain.

This is how tyranny gets rolling. It doesn't matter who is doing it.

guerilla · 05-05-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

The taliban allowed them to operate there though because they shared, more or less, the same backwards religious beliefs.

Right, but the Saudis financed them, and supplied the man power. It's like bombing the hideout after the gang has left, rather than confiscating their bank accounts and turning off their cell phones.

I agree, they have the same backwards religious beliefs. But the Taliban don't have the capacity, never had the capacity to be a threat to anyone outside their own country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

Even if their intentions were not bad and they allowed Al Qaeda to set up shop there only because it is in their culture to extend hospitality and unflinching support and protection to a guest, they were still enablers of terrorists which attacked sites around the globe including the U.S.

Sure, but at best certain members of the Taliban might be accessories. But that doesn't validate slaughtering civilians in bombing attacks. To claim equivalency, would be to validate the 9/11 attacks on civilians because Al Qaeda saw them as collateral damage in attacking America. It's a real slippery slope to say "I can kill Afghanis because they are Afghanis, even if they did me and mean me no harm"

And again, I believe Al Qaeda is probably a global network, and we know it is funded out of Saudi Arabia. This is either not about Al Qaeda (which I believe) or no one knows how to fight a 4th generation war (which is equally likely because government is so incompetent).

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

I know the difference and I still think they should be bombed to hell in order to be kept as weak as possible. But unlike the OP, I don't really give a shit who's giving the orders to do it.

I get that. And disagree, because I see a lot of innocent people getting killed in order to maintain this weakness you find desirable. Again, if we apply a reductio ad absurdum (take it to it's logical end) then it would be a lot more efficient to slaughter every Afghani and burn the country to the ground.

And if I am using your perspective, I can actually argue that genocide is a good idea.

hellblazer · 05-05-2009, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbolapp

There are already 2 posts with moobies in this thread.

Pretty much speaks for it's self.

Yes. It's called 'How Liberals Respond To Inconvenient Truth'.

*cries of "we're not liberals!" in 3...2...1..*

hellblazer · 05-05-2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

What's happening to Savage, is that the same mentality behind the Patriot Act has lead to criminalizing speech and ideas in Great Britain.

This is how tyranny gets rolling. It doesn't matter who is doing it.

Sigh...I don't know why you're obsessed with appearing 'fair and balanced'. It's the same thing that bothers me about O'Reilly.

The Patriot Act was invasive, yes, but its intentions were pure - to catch terrorists. I regret that it was passed, because successive administrations will not have as noble intentions.

What is happening to Savage is pure political persecution, and we should all speak out against it before its us they're coming after. I mean, to group him in with mass murderers and killers? They must have been out of their minds to think that would fly.

guerilla · 05-06-2009, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

Sigh...I don't know why you're obsessed with appearing 'fair and balanced'. It's the same thing that bothers me about O'Reilly.

I'm not fair and balanced. I am rational and not a fanatic.

Btw, Bill-O is a fanatic and a demagogue. I don't get informed from TV, people who do are generally poorly informed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

The Patriot Act was invasive, yes, but its intentions were pure - to catch terrorists. I regret that it was passed, because successive administrations will not have as noble intentions.

The Patriot Act was already written before it was passed, it was cobbled together legacy legislation, much of it authored by Joe Biden. It was also blatantly unconstitutional.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

What is happening to Savage is pure political persecution

Yes, it is. Welcome to Tyranny 2.0. If you want a super powerful central state that violates civil liberties like free speech, then this is what happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

I mean, to group him in with mass murderers and killers?

Yeah, it is outrageous. He's just a big mouthed fascist, not an actual violent offender. But then pot smokers get treated as bad as serial killers, so its all par for the course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

They must have been out of their minds to think that would fly.

That's what happens when you make security vs. liberty arguments. You end up with neither. This is a predictable result of the very beliefs you hold. Trade liberty to be safe. Pretty soon, as the paranoia gets so high, all liberties disappear.

PS, please be nice to Turbo. She may be a liberal (she's really more conservative than you, but I'll pretend to speak your language) but she is a nice lady, and I am starting to get excited by moobs.

LogicFlux · 05-06-2009, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

Sure, but at best certain members of the Taliban might be accessories. But that doesn't validate slaughtering civilians in bombing attacks. To claim equivalency, would be to validate the 9/11 attacks on civilians because Al Qaeda saw them as collateral damage in attacking America. It's a real slippery slope to say "I can kill Afghanis because they are Afghanis, even if they did me and mean me no harm"

We're not targeting civilians. That's a huge difference. We're targeting the group that harbored and enabled terrorists and helped make the attacks possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

And again, I believe Al Qaeda is probably a global network, and we know it is funded out of Saudi Arabia.

Which Saudis? The government or Saudi civilians sympathetic with terrorists? Because that's also a huge distinction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

I get that. And disagree, because I see a lot of innocent people getting killed in order to maintain this weakness you find desirable. Again, if we apply a reductio ad absurdum (take it to it's logical end) then it would be a lot more efficient to slaughter every Afghani and burn the country to the ground.

Wrong. Because again, we're not targeting civilians. Our goal isn't to destroy Afghanistan or kill innocent people, it's to keep it from being the breeding ground that it once was for terrorists. I don't believe anyone believes that killing innocent people helps anyone.(well actually some terrorist groups do like Hamas)

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

And if I am using your perspective, I can actually argue that genocide is a good idea.

Not unless you twist my perspective.

My perspective is quite simple: Letting the bad guys have their way in Afghanistan will actually cause more death and misery in the long run.

And I and others make this judgement based on historical fact/events, not conjecture about what might happen.

It really is a Chamberlainian set of decisions we're faced with.

hellblazer · 05-06-2009, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

I'm not fair and balanced. I am rational and not a fanatic.

Btw, Bill-O is a fanatic and a demagogue. I don't get informed from TV, people who do are generally poorly informed.

No, he's not. He's actually a conservative who's pretty good at combatting liberal propaganda. What's annoying is when he does what you just did - attacking the right for the sole sake of appearing 'fair'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

The Patriot Act was already written before it was passed, it was cobbled together legacy legislation, much of it authored by Joe Biden. It was also blatantly unconstitutional.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes, that quote has been beaten to death. I already said I regretted its passage, but I can also empathize with the genuine desire some have to catch terrorists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

Yes, it is. Welcome to Tyranny 2.0. If you want a super powerful central state that violates civil liberties like free speech, then this is what happens.

Nobody wants that. The problem with curtailing liberties is that eventually somebody with dishonorable intentions will come along and misuse that power. I didn't really have a problem with Bush doing it for the sole reason that he was an honorable man - of course the drawback was that you can't rescind those powers after you leave office. The next president will have access to the same powers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

Yeah, it is outrageous. He's just a big mouthed fascist, not an actual violent offender. But then pot smokers get treated as bad as serial killers, so its all par for the course.

Wow, you're really slinging those labels around with gusto, aren't you? Michael Savage is one of the only true patriots left in America, as much as you might believe otherwise. I'm not particularly surprised you're misinformed on him, and I don't need to hear his clipped comments that have been taken out of context - suffice it to say he's a threat to a lot of people and many want to shut him up. They might succeed too. I don't really care about pot smokers - any and all drugs are usually run by organized crime and cartels, not to mention the effects narcotics can have on children in the womb. Not really interested in opening that can, so just let it lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

That's what happens when you make security vs. liberty arguments. You end up with neither. This is a predictable result of the very beliefs you hold. Trade liberty to be safe. Pretty soon, as the paranoia gets so high, all liberties disappear.

Alright, set down the lube. I'm in favor of trading liberty for security in time-determinant situations when there are only a select few in power. This is near impossible, so the alternative is to not do it at all. It's a raw deal - either way you end up with bloodshed. If you're getting at my multiple torture threads, yes it works, but the wrong person could end up on the wrong end, as is evidenced by this American teen getting picked up under the Patriot Act. It's a wrinkle in the securities of democracies. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes don't have to worry about any of this. They just maim, shoot, kill, torture whoever they want - they're not accountable to anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

PS, please be nice to Turbo. She may be a liberal (she's really more conservative than you, but I'll pretend to speak your language) but she is a nice lady, and I am starting to get excited by moobs.

I'm being totally nice, and if I remember correctly, on another thread Turbo referred to herself as a 'liberal housewife'. But I guess she was just speaking my language.

guerilla · 05-06-2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

We're not targeting civilians. That's a huge difference. We're targeting the group that harbored and enabled terrorists and helped make the attacks possible.

Yeah, the collateral damage claim. Doesn't change what I posted.

As far as targeting the group, that's really subjective. They are targeting the Taliban at large, which is pretty much every able bodied male in the east portion of the country. Did you know the median age in Afghanistan is under 18? That almost 45% of the population is under 14 years of age?

It's something to think about. Half of the population was 8 years old or younger on 9/11. Are they responsible for Al Qaeda?

And if the Chinese shot rockets into San Francisco because they thought there was a terrorist there, and blew up 100 civilians, would you be ok with their claim that they were targeting terrorists and it's just collateral damage? I hope you wouldn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

My perspective is quite simple: Letting the bad guys have their way in Afghanistan will actually cause more death and misery in the long run.

But who are the bad guys? Illiterate goat farmers who were hospitable to Al Qaeda a decade ago? I don't know how that theory bears out, because less than 4,000 people died on 9/11, hundreds of thousands have died since. The cure seems to be a lot more deadly than the disease.

God, I so don't want to even have this discussion with you because we're going to end up screaming at each other and it's not worth it. Neither of us is going to kill, protect or save anyone with this rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

It really is a Chamberlainian set of decisions we're faced with.

I hope you mean Wilt.

guerilla · 05-06-2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

No, he's not. He's actually a conservative who's pretty good at combatting liberal propaganda. What's annoying is when he does what you just did - attacking the right for the sole sake of appearing 'fair'.

What you call the right, is neoconservatism. It is not conservatism. I also explained to you that right and left are false paradigms. There is only liberty and tyranny to choose from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

Wow, you're really slinging those labels around with gusto, aren't you? Michael Savage is one of the only true patriots left in America, as much as you might believe otherwise. I'm not particularly surprised you're misinformed on him, and I don't need to hear his clipped comments that have been taken out of context - suffice it to say he's a threat to a lot of people and many want to shut him up. They might succeed too. I don't really care about pot smokers - any and all drugs are usually run by organized crime and cartels, not to mention the effects narcotics can have on children in the womb. Not really interested in opening that can, so just let it lie..

The problem with savage is that I can listen to him a bit, then he says a bunch of moronic shit and I want to punch him. I feel bad he was banned from going to England, but to be honest, he's no champion of civil liberties so it's crying over spilt milk in his case. Big problem for Republicans. After so many years of being the bullies, no one wants to hear them complain from the cheap seats now. Hopefully they learn their lesson and get another chance but I suspect the GOP is DOA. The next midterms will be a bloodbath in the Senate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

Alright, set down the lube. I'm in favor of trading liberty for security in time-determinant situations when there are only a select few in power.

Doesn't matter what the conditions are. When you trade liberty for security, you get neither. It's not just a cliche. You can only be safe when you are free. The bad guys are always free and outside the law. When you restrict innocent people from defending themselves, they have no liberty, and they become targets.

hellblazer · 05-06-2009, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

What you call the right, is neoconservatism. It is not conservatism. I also explained to you that right and left are false paradigms. There is only liberty and tyranny to choose from.

Yes, I've heard your concept of 'false left/right paradigms' many times. I just don't agree with it. It's propaganda that's been spread by the libs in order to turn moderates who won't join lib parties at least against the real patriots by convincing them they're the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

The problem with savage is that I can listen to him a bit, then he says a bunch of moronic shit and I want to punch him. I feel bad he was banned from going to England, but to be honest, he's no champion of civil liberties so it's crying over spilt milk in his case. Big problem for Republicans. After so many years of being the bullies, no one wants to hear them complain from the cheap seats now. Hopefully they learn their lesson and get another chance but I suspect the GOP is DOA. The next midterms will be a bloodbath in the Senate.

Savage hates Republicans almost as much as Dems, as do I. Conservatives are a people without a party by and large. But people like you always feel the need for moral equivocation and think anyone who is against liberals MUST be in the Republican Party. Sorry, not my party - can't get me there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

Doesn't matter what the conditions are. When you trade liberty for security, you get neither. It's not just a cliche. You can only be safe when you are free. The bad guys are always free and outside the law. When you restrict innocent people from defending themselves, they have no liberty, and they become targets.

I already said the trade I'd make is impossible and could never happen. There's no perfect solution. You need stricter laws in order to catch the bad guys, but a bad guy could get into government and use those stricter laws against the populace. It's a catch-22. When people then die from an attack, people say "Why didn't you do more?" When you 'do more', they say 'why are you taking away my liberties?'

Not sure what any of this has to do with Savage; Europe and Britain are swiftly becoming Islamic and will be Islamic republics within 40 years. A quick study of the various fertility rates reveals that. That's mainly the reason he was banned, along with figures like Geert Wilders who spoke out against radical Islamists. It's an insidious creep that is happening across the globe - Canada has already fallen prey to it, and America is one of the last nations remaining that is not in its grasp. Savage is the warning shot across the bow.

Somebody here(most likely Obama) pressured them to do this. A full-scale assault on conservative figures in talk radio is about to begin, especially with the ending of the Republican Commissioner's term at the FCC in June. The appointment of a Democratic Commissioner gives them a 4-3 majority, allowing them to pass 'localism' rules shutting down the last remaining communication medium conservatives have. They're also talking about 'filtering' the Internet, although Obama could just oursource the work to Europe, as was mentioned in another thread. He prefers to keep his hands clean and let others handle the dirty work.

What we are witnessing is a prelude to the storm, but you're too busy jacking off to thoughts about false left/right paradigms and trades of liberty for security to see we're about to become a police state where only one-sided political thought and speech is accepted.

guerilla · 05-06-2009, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

Yes, I've heard your concept of 'false left/right paradigms' many times. I just don't agree with it. It's propaganda that's been spread by the libs in order to turn moderates who won't join lib parties at least against the real patriots by convincing them they're the same.

No, I linked you to Reagan's "Time for Choosing" speech from 1964. It is directly from there. Are you going to tell me Reagan and Goldwater were not conservatives, but Savage and GWB are? Gimme a break.

Time for Choosing is considered the greatest stump speech in US history. And it's a conservative treasure. It would help if you understood real conservatism, and not neoconservatism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

What we are witnessing is a prelude to the storm, but you're too busy jacking off to thoughts about false left/right paradigms and trades of liberty for security to see we're about to become a police state where only one-sided political thought and speech is accepted.

No, I see it and it is happening everywhere in the world. China, Britain. You don't see the big picture, and you think the police state agenda is only a few months old since Obama got in. You're missing the big picture that real conservatives like the John Birch Society have been exposing for decades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

Savage hates Republicans almost as much as Dems, as do I. Conservatives are a people without a party by and large. But people like you always feel the need for moral equivocation and think anyone who is against liberals MUST be in the Republican Party. Sorry, not my party - can't get me there.

I read Savage's fascist screed about Republicans and Conservatives on his WorldNet Daily page.

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=692

Conservatives are not for compelling anyone with force to lower their prices. Conservatives are for the free market, not for government regulation. Conservatives do not think porn is an excuse to regulate free speech on the internet.

He's an idiot.

Again, learn something about conservatism. It existed before GWB. It used to be called classic liberalism.

micfire · 05-06-2009, 02:47 AM

America, fuck yeah.

That's sarcasm by the way..

LogicFlux · 05-06-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

God, I so don't want to even have this discussion with you because we're going to end up screaming at each other and it's not worth it. Neither of us is going to kill, protect or save anyone with this rhetoric.

Yeah, I know. We've had this discussion before anyway I'm sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

I hope you mean Wilt.

lol. I'll see if I can rep you for that. I tried yesterday with the slap chop comment but the rep nazis swatted me down for giving out too much.(there's been too many good posts in the affiliate section lately)

guerilla · 05-06-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

lol.

Don't laugh. Wilt claimed to have slept with 2,000 women or something. Given that he may have passed on his genetics, height, athleticism, strength, coordination, durability, there is a real possibility that 10% of today's NBA players are his illegitimate children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicFlux

I'll see if I can rep you for that. I tried yesterday with the slap chop comment but the rep nazis swatted me down for giving out too much.(there's been too many good posts in the affiliate section lately)

There is an affiliate section?

Slap Chop, making the world safe for democracy, one slap at a time.

05-05-2009, 04:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
thunderlips Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,723 iTrader: 0 / 0%	spoon pic or this is fake Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

05-05-2009, 05:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
guerilla Amat Victoria Curam Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: No Posts: 7,599 iTrader: 88 / 100%	Obama has been slaughtering brown civilians in Afghanistan since he got into office. Big deal. If you're a righty, this is a problem for you, as you are supposed to love killing all brown people because they are Al Qaeda., but when a black man does it, you feel, sorta cheated. If you're a lefty, this is a problem for you, because you claim to want peace but recognize that it is necessary for Obama to perform mass abortions by bombing in order to stop global warming. Basically, whatever your political ideology, murder of civilians can always be justified. Remember, if a democracy uses a nuke, it's not a weapon of mass destruction and the dead people are only collateral damage. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ Change Your Life Twitter ^ YouTube Thank you for your attentiveness, the forward thrusters, engage on you busters, I cut the mustard.

05-05-2009, 05:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
natewitt Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 197 iTrader: 0 / 0%	sounds like oversimplification Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

05-05-2009, 05:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
henryhhernandez SEO - I Wrote The Book Join Date: May 2009 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 15 iTrader: 2 / 100%	As a smart man once said this to me when SH$% went horribly wrong: "FUC# it if they can't take a joke" Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

05-05-2009, 06:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
medicalhumor Senior Moment Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,918 iTrader: 8 / 100%	please don't use words like SH$% and FUC# here, it's offensive. If you can't cuss, get the fuck out Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ pro-life adj. Valuing human life until birth.

05-05-2009, 06:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
LogicFlux Donkey Fucker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Across 110th Street Posts: 1,056 iTrader: 0 / 0%	It'd be nice if you could negotiate with 7th century retards who think their god would like to see you either kill or convert anyone who not only doesn't buy their fairy tale, but doesn't buy the most dogmatic radical view of it. It would be nice if saying nice words to them or giving them a hug would keep them from voyaging out into the modern/civilized world and killing large numbers of innocent people on purpose which has other side effects such as shaking global financial systems at their core. (9/11 -> unprecedentedly low interest rates for unprecedentedly long period -> financial bubble -> global recession) If that was the world we lived in poppies wouldn't be growing in Afghanistan, cotton candy would, and the rugged mountains would be made not out of jagged rock, but gummy bears. Here's some moobs before I list this thread in the turd filter: Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

05-05-2009, 06:40 PM	#11 (permalink)
Deliguy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 4,942 iTrader: 11 / 100%	i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________

05-05-2009, 07:26 PM	#19 (permalink)
guerilla Amat Victoria Curam Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: No Posts: 7,599 iTrader: 88 / 100%	At the risk of taking this completely offtopic, I always wondered what would happen if Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and they just carried on with tending their goats, harvesting their poppies, and then one day, SlapChop Vince donated them a million slap chops so they could have happy lives. What would happen to 7th century goat farmers if their real exposure to western culture and convenience was the slap chop? How would their society change? Would it really be bikini, martini, linguine and the end of shariah law? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ Change Your Life Twitter ^ YouTube Thank you for your attentiveness, the forward thrusters, engage on you busters, I cut the mustard.

05-05-2009, 07:47 PM	#20 (permalink)
Deliguy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 4,942 iTrader: 11 / 100%	I think i read in the divinci code somewhere that the slapchop will bring world peace, but not before there is a manufacturing shortage causing WW3. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________

05-05-2009, 09:43 PM	#23 (permalink)
turbolapp Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Houston, TexASS Posts: 8,335 iTrader: 7 / 100%	There are already 2 posts with moobies in this thread. Pretty much speaks for it's self. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ Workflowy Best Free Organizational App. Period.

05-06-2009, 02:47 AM	#35 (permalink)
micfire Spämmed Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 951 iTrader: 1 / 100%	America, fuck yeah. That's sarcasm by the way.. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode