Obummer Willing To Kill Civilians, But Not Torture Terrorists!!

[nevele]

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.

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]

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.

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]

There are already 2 posts with moobies in this thread.

Pretty much speaks for it's self.

 

[guerilla]

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]

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.

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).

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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)

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]

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

I hope you mean Wilt.

 

[guerilla]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

America, fuck yeah.



That's sarcasm by the way..

 

[LogicFlux]

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.

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]

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.

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.