There was a lot of crying all during GWB's reign of "Terror", too, so we're even! Of COURSE you'd all cry! The Gravy Train Of The Rich is over for a while! Hope they all get to cry together in JAIL soon!!
yeah i was drunk i hate george bush. but look man ive seen zeitgeist and all that i know all about blackwater and i think you and i can agree that the first place that needs to go away is the federal reserve inflating our dollar and just generally fucking us over
The trouble may be too much to overcome - in which case treason charges should be filed against Alberto the East L.A. public access show sock puppet and his master Bush.
And so ends a disgraceful administration by a team of delusional incompetent fools. Not soon enough. It should have been four years ago. We wouldn't be in half the trouble.
americans are really stupid. they all have a different plan and they all think their plan is the best,,its not working assholes..your stupid fucking ideas dont ever pan out,,wake the fuck up..you re idiots.
Let's criticize the Bush admin without making it into a joke about them being gay. They're not, and there's plenty of material with which we can criticize them in a better way.
Watch UK MP SIR Gerald Kaufman exposes Israel's crimes (google qMGuYjt6CP8)
Watch US Professor Norman Finkelstein exposes Israel's crimes (Google bm5OvSeiAHc)
Israel admits: "No Hamas rockets were fired during ceasefire" (Google zfFMZ7Y-s_c)
Please distribute and complain to your Senator and/or Representative about Israel's killing Americans, heinous crimes, stealing our taxes, and its spying on USA. Peace!
I Know this was a while ago but killietrooper, 1: were not losing the war. 2: yes we have trillion dollar debts, but thats what happens in a 21st century war. And 3: whare the hell else are we going to put all the the enemys of the U.S. We certainly cant use the death sentance on them thanks to fairies like you.......and the fat guy on this vid is a retard cock jockey.
No, it would not, and i'm sure you're only kidding. Bush is a terrible president, but the untimely death of even the worst president would be a serious tragedy for the country. And we don't need it. Just like we neeed Obama to be safe.
If you wanna play the role of a reporter, shouldn't you be non-partisan? I mean, sure, everyone has their bias, but taking sides in the manner that you take them really only reflects poorly on you...
you are a moron!!!!! You guys are bigger terrorist then those I was injured fighting in iraq. It is a shame to see people like you take for granted the freedoms many men have died for. I hope some day you enjoy the same fate as they do.
IF YOU CAN'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS AND THOSE WHO COMMAND THEM GO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM.
Radical muslims will use ANY perverted argument to promote their twisted version of the most bipolar so called religion on earth. Thanks to Bush's courage, they hide in caves, have been killed in the thousands and have to now resorted to using power tools on the mentally handicapped women & children.
They are torturing the retarded for their volunteers!!!!!!!! If you will not fight that directly, what will you ever find worthy of fighting for?
People always seem to miss the point that any president would have been up against the corner after 9/11. Bush did what he thought was right, although he wasnt but at the time he needed to take action and hate him or love him, he showed those fucking terrorist bastards and the middle east that if they fuck with America the will anally be raped/sodomised in ways never seen before. Bush sent the message of dont fuck with America or we will kick your ass.
Bush is a drunk, a criminal and a frat boy. Bush has killed 3,000 Americans on 911 and 4,500 US soldiers in Iraq. Wounded 30,000+ in a war that did not have to happen. Bush has built his career on the bodies of dead Americans, from Gov of Texas to President. Big supporter of the Vietnam war but did not want to fight in it, Cheney too, 5 military deferments. Why would anyone want to be President who doesn't want to help all Americans? Not just their rich friends? Stay in that hellhole of Texas.
"Killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11"--PLEASE don't tell me we have ANOTHER "inside job" whackjob here?? Fine, argue all the rest of your points, but PLEASE tell me you mean he didn't do enough to stop 9/11 and not that you ascribe to that conspiracy bullshit.
WORST PRESIDENT & ADMINISTRATION EVER!!! Bush & Chenney co cohorts raped America, and made all sorts of profit off of sacrificing the Constitution, our jobs. and members of the armed forces. Good riddance, and never come back to DC you fucking traitors!
America is out of the torture business. The misadventure in Iraq at last has a planned ending. Our foreign aid can now include the vital mission of stopping overpopulation. Our coasts are safer from oil drills. Even the most hopeful of us thought we'd see weeks or months of quibbling and posturing to see any progress on these issues, yet we're not at all surprised that our new President has acted so quickly on them. That's why we hired him. That's why we worked so hard for him.
Thank God. Thank you, fellow Americans for finally giving us some hope. The last eight years have been hell worldwide. President Obama will rectify most of the damage done by Bush and Cheney but it might take a couple of decades to undo ALL the harm. Obama and Biden will need ALL our support to make this country whole again.
Rush Limbaugh now declares on our National public airways "I hope he fails" in regards to the Obama presidency.
Of course the problems we face today aren't 100% the fault of the Republicans. BUT it's just as ridiculous to pretend that it's a 50/50 split.
It's not 50/50. The Republicans are clearly far more at fault, particularly for the economic problems. In fact, the biggest issue with the Dems is simply that they didn't do enough to stop bad conservative ideology. You know, like when Clinton signed terrible Phil Gramm style deregulation into law.
man I'm so glad to see that the idiot right wing conservative are gone! that's the understatement of the millenium lol!
So Bush kept us safe even though two 110 story buildings were destroyed by terrorists during his watch and 3000 people died? and how many died in New Orleans AFTER the hurricane?
oh yeah, and the economic crises is the fault of Clinton even though Rethuglicans have been preaching de-regulation for the past 30 years every time they opened their mouths.
Yes indeed he kept us safe. 9/11 was a product of both sides asleep at the switch. Bush didn't do enough in the first seven months, but he inherited an intelligence system from Clinton that didn't allow for this kind of thing to be stopped. But at least he woke up after the fact and kept it from happening again.
The economy is the fault of both sides. Yes, the Repubs deregulated, but the Dems didn't try to introduce any new regulations either. Too good a chance to elect one of their own
that' s a bunch of bullshit. I might as well say that Clinton kept us safe because we were attacked in 1993 and we did not have another attack until bush became president.
Clinton went after Bin Laden. He failed to get him, but he went after him. Bush did absolutely NOTHING for 9 months though he was warned many times.
and don't give me this crap about the economy. repubs and their de-regulation "small government" "government getting out of the way" is the #1 reason for this
Except that the 9/11 Commission report revealed that they had been planning 9/11 since 1996, and Clinton repeated refused to untie his intelligence communities and give them the tools the need to get specific details of the plot. Bush was warned in very general details, but Clinton's own advisors have testified that the system simply wasn't there to find the specific info he needed. And don't give ME that one-sided crap. Bush is partly to blame, but show me where the Dems tried to regulate.
exactly. 9/11 was planned since 1996. so what did Bush do about it when he became president? other than IGNORE it?? even though he was warned about it...
Clinton went after Bin Laden. he failed to get him but he went after him. And Clinton atleast has the balls to admit he failed to get Bin Laden.
You PATHETIC CHILDISH losers will never take responsibility for anything. It's always someone elses fault hahahaha stupid little crybabiess
You obviously didn't read what I said. I said there's blame on BOTH SIDES but I also said four and a half years vs. eight months. One more time, the warnings Bush was given were vague and within a system that didn't give him the tools he needed to find the specifics. This is Clinton's own advisors saying this. It wouldn't have been just about getting bin Laden (who wasn't even the true mastermind-that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), it's about finding out what they're planning to do and when.
four and a half years vs. eight months? howa bout seven years, trillion dollars, 4500 lives and nothing to show for it.
if we get attacked under Obama i can 200% guarantee all you right wingers will blame Obama, not the guy who sacrificed $trillion $, 4500 lives to get those guys and failed.
NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT??? Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, many top Al-Qaida deputies captured, including the actual 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, several other plots stopped in their tracks. If we get attacked under Obama who's to blame will depend on the circumstances. If it turnes out they've planned it for several years, then yes, Bush will shoulder plenty of blame. But given that Obama's already gutted several of Bush's protective methods, it doesn't bode well for him.
Taliban is not out of power. They're making a strong comeback and honestly they'll be around for a while.
Al Qaeda is getting more recruits than ever and Bin Laden is still alive and living somewhere in a mansion
Obama has not gotted any of Bush's protective methods. Bush had turned this country into the Soviet Union with secret Gulgs, torture and ignoring the rule of law that was put in place to make sure stuff like what Hitler and Stalin did never happens again.
Have you listened to the news in the last seven years. The Taliban was driven from power in October of 2001--Afghanistan's president is now Hamid Karzai. They're ATTEMPTING a comeback now, but they'll be stopped just like before. And it doesn't matter how many recruits they have, because everything they've tried since 9/11 has been stoppe in its tracks. It's not about what they WANT to do, it's about what they CAN do, and under Bush after 9/11 that was NOTHING.
And bin Laden may still be alive, but he's nothing but a figurehead, a "godfather" so to speak. Without his working agency under him, there's nothing he can do. And yes, Obama did just gut protective measures, like the ability to interrogate beyond what's stipulated in the army field manual, which is woefully inadequate. We got information that saved lives by going outside of that. Hitler and Stalin didn't do what they did to save their own people's lives, so you can't even try that one.
the middle east is a bigger mess than it was 8 years ago. hamas, hezzbollah, iran, pakistan now have more power and are more dangerous. Taliban is still very active and even al qaeda is getting more recruits, meaning there are more people then before who hate us.
So Bush spend a trillion dollars and sacrificed 4500 american lives to create more people that hate us?
conservatives are a failure on every front. economy, foreign policy, healthcare, energy, civil rights. you name it.
Yet again, you don't get it. It's not about who hates us or who WANTS to get us, it's about whether or not they CAN do so. They spent that money to stop any future attacks, and I can point to at least six in the last 7 years that were stopped in their tracks. If you really think Bush deserves zero credit for this, then I hope you're at least willing to be consistent and say he also gets zero blame for the economy. You can't have it both ways, at least not if want to be taken seriously.
haha no you don't get it. this napoleon bonapart foreign policy of F*** the whole world cuz were #1 might have worked in the 18th century but it is a total disaster in the globalised world of the 21st century. That's the problem with you right winger, you think it's still 1950.
and bush did not foil anything. those six or whatever attempts are total B.S. At most its "maybe" one. and i'd question even that.
This has nothing to do with being "#1", it has to do with stopping further attacks. And by the way, I'm not a right winger, I'm an independent. And nope, sorry, those attempts are documented, they were thwarted, and the people who were plotting them are rotting in prison. Look them up, there's the Brooklyn Bridge one, Sears Tower, JFK Airport, a financial tower in LA, Fort Dix, and the one to blow up ten planes over the Atlantic. All exposed and brought to a screetching halt--no accident
documented? you mean how bush made up a bunch of crap about how some kids wanted to burn down park bench, were caught and stopped, and Bush turned it into "stopping the terrorists"?
btw, wasn't europe attacked a few times since then? because they helped us in these two wars...
oh, and I know what "independent" means these days: you're a conservative who voted for Bush but is two embarassed to admit!
Nope, they not made up--well known by everyone not trying to minimize the threat. Look all those plots up--it wasn't from Bush. I've already done my research and I'm well aware that they're real. And it wasn't Bush's job to protect Europe, it was his job to protect his own citizens, and it seems to me that we haven't been attacked again. And no, independent means just that. I've voted for both parties in the past, (and actually not for Bush) but I do give him some credit for keeping us safe
or, maybe, they're just not that big of a deal? they're a bunch of losers running around with home made bombs. I mean, we have well over 10,000 dying every year in car accidents (i'm sure). you don't see anyone freaking out about cars.
and no I don't believe anything that comes from the Bush administration. Those Plots were vastly exagerrated to make Bush look good.
See the funny thing was that none of that came from "the Bush administration"--it came from the various law enforcement agencies that stopped those plots in their tracks. And yeah, they're a HUGE "deal". Al-Qaida's number two has declared his intention to use nuclear weapons on us if he can get his evil hands on them. That happens, and the numbers will DWARF those of car accidents.
Sir, you have nothing to stand on with that argument, because the fact still remains that we haven't been attacked again. No amount of moral standing or credibility is going to keep us safe. Clinton proved that conclusively. And no, those weren't bin Laden's goals--it was destroy this nation, and that hasn't happened. And why did they attack the WTC? Because it would kill the most people in the most efficient way. That's all they care about. Killing as many innocents as possible.
#1 we were attacked on 1993. Then there was not another attack until Bush became president. And no, we did not torture anyone during those years.
#2 we've been attacked plenty in the form of our troops and allies in europe. maybe they decided to just attack our troops and allies instead? easier that way.
this whole "Bush kept us safe" arguements is extremely idiotic. He hasn't. He's a total failure.
The 9/11 attacks were planned mostly during the Clinton administration. Are you honestly claiming that they started planning the attacks the day Bush took office?? We didn't "torture" anyone ever. We interrogated some people harshly since 9/11, as we should have done long before that, but you need to learn about what REAL torture involves. And sorry, but my definiton of "keeping us safe" is preventing further attacks on our soil, and that's exactly what Bush did.
who cares when they were planned? it could have been the frikkin 15th century for all I care. Bush was told about it by clinton and CIA, he chose to do NOTHING and completely ignored the threats for 9 months.
Just like he ignored the victims of Katrina.
Just like he ignored the warnings about the economic collapse.
There is a pattern. This is what happens when you have an anti intelectual person who is driven by blind ideology running things.
"WHO CARES WHEN IT WAS PLANNED?!!!" You've just told me all I need to know about you--namely, you're fucking CLUELESS. It was planned since 96--Clinton should have stopped it LONG before Bush ever took office. Bush was given very general, non-specific warnings that he didn't have the tools he needed to find out the specifics that would have been necessary to stop it. Clinton's own advisors have testified to this. Yes, he ignored economic warnings--want to know who else did? Congressional Dems
Listen you dumb SOB: republican congress and Bush could not care less about Al Qaeda. The only thing republicans cared about a decade ago was the blow job Clinton got from that intern and that stained dress.
Clinton went after Bin Laden 10 years ago. He failed to get him, but he did go after him.
He warned Bush about Bin Laden. CIA warned Bush about 9/11. Bush chose to do NOTHING AT ALL. I'm sure he came into office thinking he could just ignore al qaeda.
Look, I'm not a Republican, and I didn't support the impeachment. But Clinton tied the intelligence community's hands, again testimony of his OWN advisors, and thus there was only so much Bush could have done with the very vague, general warnings he was given in the months leading up to 9/11. Again, this isn't just about getting bin Laden--it's about finding out what they're planning to do and when, and Bush did not have the tools he needed to find this out.
And you can blame Bush for not insisting on an overhaul of the intelligence community in th first few months of his presidency, but given all the accusations of "fearmongering" that he's gotten for the POST-9/11 overhaul he undertook, can you imagine how it would have gone over if he had tried to do that BEFORE many people were jarred awake by reality???
He may still be alive and free, but that doesn't change the fact that everything that's been tried since that time has been stopped in its tracks. For the thousandth time, this isn't just about getting bin Laden, it's about stopping other attacks. The second doesn't necessarily follow from the first. And yes, Clinton tried to stop it, with every politically correct tool he could find. that wasn't enough. Bush recognized that after he was jarred awake along with much of the rest of the country
you sound like one of those brainwashed people who watches faux news all day long.
What has been stopped? most of those reported "attacks" were total B.S. And Al Qaeda has managed to kill a lot of our troops and allies during these years. What makes you think they really wanted to attack us here? attacking our troops was much easier.
Plus it seems to me like they are not very professional and it takes them 8-10 years to plan a major attack.
Nope, not brainwashed at all, and I watch a wide variety of news sources and read a wide variety of sources. I have already told you just a few examples of what has been stopped, and again, the information about them was not even from the administration, it was from law enforcement agencies--no credibility questions there. And what makes me think they wanted to attack us here? Hmmm, that would be THEIR OWN WORDS!!! And can you do math? That's 5 years to plan the attack, not 8-10.
And....I think Al Qaeda wants to destroy USA by collapsing our economy. That's why they attacked WTC- the heart of our economy.
Don't forget that they were a MAJOR player in destroying the soviet union because Al Qaeda got them stuck in a endless war in afghanistan that bled the soviet economy dry.
Bin Laden wanted us to get stuck in a long, bloody, expensive war and he wanted our economy to collapse after 9/11.
He hasn't gotten a thing that he wanted--he wants to destroy us--and not by economic collapse either. They want to SLAUGHTER EVERY LAST ONE US!!! Again, their own words. And anyway, the economy went down for a while after 9/11, but then it went back up. The current economic problems have nothing to do with that--this is about lack of regulations and mistakes made on BOTH sides. Independent of bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Again they went after the WTC because it would kill the most people, period
that's a bunch of bullshit. slaughter every one of us??? are you insane???? I'm sure even Bin Laden knows it is not possible.
They want the demise of the western civilization. They will never kill all of us and will never make us pray to allah or whatever else it is you lunatics are afraid of.
Right now it looks like Bin Laden has gotten just what he wanted. The whole economy of the western world is collapsing.
Not if he gets his evil hands on a few nukes it's not impossible. That's his goal. Everything else just leads up to all of that for these psychos. I'm only "afraid" of it if we decide we have to be politically correct about stopping them, which is what Obama has apparently decided. THAT'S what they want now, and I assure you, they'll rolling on the floor laughing right now, and licking their chops at the same time.
and lets not forget that the people who want to kill us in the middle east are really a small minority. most of them are just regular people who want to be left alone and have a chance to live a regular life: go to school, work, raise kids etc.
torture, secret prisons, illegal wars etc give more people reason to hate us.
We won't defeat Al Qaeda with military power. We can only defeat them by proving to the people in the middle east that WE are the GOOD GUYS.
They may be a minority--10% is usually the figure I hear floated out there--but even so, that's 100 million people--almost a third of the population of this country. That better be taken pretty damn seriously. They don't need real reasons to hate us--they manufacture plenty of fake ones. And again, Clinton proves that you're wrong when you say to defeat them by being the "good guys"--he tried that. We defeat them mostly by giving our intelligence community the tools they need. Obama's not.
Ok, we can argue over the numbers all we want, and frankly it may be different depending on what category you put them in, but maybe it's 1% who would actually carry out the attacks, but another 10% that support them. If you look at figures from some of the middle eastern countries it's a lot higher than that. And fine, get rid of nukes, but that doesn't stop the chem/bio threat either. The key is the intelligence community, and Bush gave them what they needed, while Obama's taking it away.
Yet again, Clinton tried that, and they still planned 9/11 with him in office. We didn't start an "illegal" war--it was based on intelligence we had no reason not to believe and turned out to be wrong. Again, you clearly have no idea what REAL torture involves--(hint it doesn't involve getting a little water in your face). They'll want to slaughter us just as much no matter who's in office, and that's why the key remains our intelligence capabilities which Obama has already gutted in two days
we started an illegal war, ignoring the international rule of law set in place to make sure stuff like what hitler and stalin did never happens again.
clinton did not do enough, if will take helluva lot more than he did to break this religious fanatical dogma.
waterboarding is torture. and yes we tortured.
I was born in the soviet union. it makes me want to throw up knowing I live in a country again that tortures, starts illegal wars, has secret gulag prisons etc.
Again, if you really think getting some water in your face to make you THINK you're drowning is "torture" you are extremely ignorant of what your own nation's regimes did. If those others did waterboard, it was the LEAST they did, not the MOST!!! No comparison. And again, Hitler and Stalin did what they did because they were sadists, not to save lives of their countrymen. And again, point to me what made this war illegal.
I'd argue Cheney is a sadist. And Stalin and Hitler argued they had to do what they did to protect their country men from the "evil liberal values".
This idea that we have to torture to protect ourselves is total bullshit you probably got from that stupid 24 show. And they did helluva more than waterboarding. People died from this torture.
Give me Liberty or Give me Death. I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than live in a country that tortures has gulag prisons and starts illegal wars
Cheney, sadist, nice one--based on WHAT??? And, uhhh, NO--never watched 24 in my life. Got those facts from CIA agents who were ACTUALLY THERE when we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and got information out of that psychopath that allowed us to bring that Brooklyn Bridge plot to a screeching halt. And yes, exactly, Hitler and Stalin were "protecting" from IMAGINED threats from these "values." We face ACTUAL threats from ACTUAL psychopaths.
And fine, choose death for yourself, but don't sentence the rest of us to death. Patrick Henry indeed said "give me liberty or give ME death"-- not "give me liberty of give a few thousand other innocent people death" And I happen to value my life and the rest of my countrymen's lives enough that if they can be saved by scaring a terrorist into thinking he's drowning, I won't be shedding any tears over that. And what other "torture" beyond that do you have evidence of, pray tell???
yawn...anyone who knows military and war will tell you that torture gets you nothing. it does not protect you and your country men.
people like youa re so simple minded. you think you make a guy think he's drowning then he'll spill the beans on some terrorist attack and you'll save lives. Totally ignorant bullshit.
I'm tired of arguing about this crap. torture does not save lives. it makes us look bad, gives people reason to hate us, and makes us criminals.
And the CIA contradicted that (though, again in referring to waterboarding, which yet again, is NOTHING compared to the REAL torture that's been practiced through the ages). No one has ever contradicted the specific example of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed giving up information on that Brooklyn Bridge plot--just a general statement that "it never works"--well there are exceptions to every rule, and if this exception saved lives, it must remain on the table.
We must NEVER put how we look or what other people think of us ahead of saving our citizens' lives. And actually, what would REALLY make us criminals would be knowing we would have any chance whatsoever to stop an attack, and we don't do it for fear of the consequences you suggest. You're the small minded one. I'm not saying any one practice will always work on everyone, but if anything has EVER worked, it must not be taken off the table when we need to save innocent lives.
Nope, no neo-con--my politics are all over the place, but you clearly aren't reading what I say. I didn't say we shouldn't care what people think of us, I said we can't put that ahead of saving innocent people's lives. And for the TWO thousandth time, the CIA agents who actually there when it happened have testified that in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "torture" (if you STILL insist on labeling waterboarding as such) did indeed save lives. Not the movies--REALITY.
And unless you can provide me with evidence that those specific CIA agents were lying about that specific example, don't even bother answering, because you cannot prove a universal negative. That may be true as a rule, but there have been demonstrated exceptions, without which we would have lost a couple thousand more innocent people.
don't believe it for a second. if anything this torture cost us lives since it is a great tool of recruitement for Al Qaeda and puts our troops in danger.
All this talk about Bush preventing attacks is a hoax. These people have lied about everything, and this is just another attempt to make Bush not look like the total loser that he is.
Torture has not done us any good and wont. It does not work.
Did you even read the part where I said I've never watch 24 in my life. And go ahead, don't believe it, but can you prove they're lying? No? Thought not. And until someone provides evidence to this effect, there's no legitimate reason to doubt it. No proof of any lies whatsoever. And again, it doesn't matter how many recruits they get if they're poweless to do anything, which they've clearly been for the past seven years. Once again, you can't prove a universal negative--always exceptions
Again, do some actual research about that Brooklyn Bridge plot. Look up the name "Lyman Faris" in relation to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and then, if you insist, go about showing that it was all a hoax. If you can do that, more power to you. But since you can't, my better piece of advice for you would be to SHUT THE HELL UP!!!
The main operative in that plot, Lyman Faris took a plea bargain to cop to a lesser charge to avoid prosecution. That's why no one was "tried." But they found all the details of his sick plot--surveillance tapes of the bridge, diagrams on how he planned to blow it up, and intercepts between Faris and other Al-Qaida operatives overseas--the kind of things we need the wiretapping ability in order to get.
and in that time the information gathered only added up to the capture of 5 officers of al qaida. is the loss of morality and overall disregard for human rights worth it?
If it saved thousands of innocent lives, you better believe it is. The people who got a little water in their faces sure as hell didn't have any disregard for human rights.
Indeed we are. First they do FAR worse than that. Name Daniel Pearl ring a bell, buster? He would be thanking GOD if the worst that was ever done to him was some water in his face--but guess what? HIS FACE IS NOW DETACHED FROM THE REST OF HIS BODY!!!!! And furthermore, they do what they do to kill as many innocents as possible. We do what we do to SAVE as many innocents as possible, so in a word, YES!!! We are better than them
what happened to daniel pearl wasn't torture it was an execution there's a difference. in ideology your right but in reality we've killed far more innocents than they. and stooping down to a terrorist's level or mentality should be unacceptable but the fact that we're debating it shows how low we've sunken.
Well I can name plenty of other torture methods they've used short of executions, but you probably don't want to hear them. In terms of who's been killed, intent matters--we don't try to kill innocents--they do. There's a reason courts distinguish between murder and manslaughter. If a cop shoots at an armed murderer and innocent bystanders die as a result, that cop is not morally responsible for those deaths--the murderer s/he was shooting at is. It's not sinking to a terrorist's level.
again in ideology your right but in reality one innocent person dead is one innocent person dead intent good or bad. the reason courts distinguish between murder and manslaughter is for responsibility reasons only. but while we hold the terrorist responsible we get a pass because of intent. strange ways.
Not exactly--if the terrorists were only going after military and/or government targets, they wouldn't be "terrorists." It's the fact that they target civilians that earns them that title. If they had only gone after the Pentagon, for example--say with a car or truck bomb, and not with a commercial airliner, and left the WTC's out of it, this would have been an act of war, but not necessarily an act of terrorism.
since 2002 130 american civilians have died from terrorists attacks (i rounded up i'm not sure of the exact number its between 115 and 130) counting contractors and embassy workers. 0 of which have been on US soil. partly a testament to the job are men and women are doing overseas and partly because the terrorists don't have to targets americans abroad. but over 200,000 civilians have died by american hands intent doesn't matter as far as i'm concerned killing is killing.
Not by American hands, sir. Those deaths are mostly the result of Iraqi insurgent attacks. Yeah, you can say if we hadn't gone in there in the first place, they wouldn't have happened, but you could also say that had the Civil War and emancipation proclamation never happened, the KKK wouldn't have committed all their savage murders.
that's not a fair comparison. the civil war was unavoidable in my opinion and had a real basis for happening in the first place. nobody denies the fact that the intel that led us into iraq was either wrong or falsified. we should've never been there in the first place as you said but just because we are it doesn't mean we should be exempt from the responsibility of the deaths of innocent people.
Radical muslims will use ANY perverted argument to promote their twisted version of the most bipolar so called religion on earth. Thanks to Bush's courage, they hide in caves, have been killed in the thousands and have to now resorted to using power tools on the mentally handicapped women & children.
They are torturing the retarded for their volunteers!!!!!!!! If you will not fight that directly, what will you ever find worthy of fighting for?
Wrong, not falsified. Bush couldn't afford to ignore the intelligence he was getting--yes, he had some on both sides, but if there was any saying that the WMD's were there, he had to act on that. And if soliders actually have targeted civilians, those soldiers should be prosecuted (and this has happened) but their mandate is to not target civilians, and the fact still remains that most of the Iraqi deaths have been at the hands of other Iraq's--insurgents--not our soldiers.
i'm not saying it was falsified i was saying there are people who believe that it was. and i know the soliders aren't purposefully killing civilians. but it doesn't change the fact that they are. over a million civilians have died in both iraq and afghan. i was using the UN report of collateral damage done by coalition forces and the estimate was 200,000. i don't know how many were killed by insurgents but it'd be interesting to find out.
I've seen the figures before, I don't remember them exactly but I do remember that it was a rather significant majority of the civilian deaths being at the hands of their own countrymen
It's true. Factional violence is directly responsible for more than half of the civilian deaths. Doesn't change the fact that our guys have done it too, but you know there are very few instances, relatively speaking, where our guys just randomly kill innocents.
Not if it's only used in an intelligence capacity and not in court. The constitutional law principles deal with what is acceptable to do with regards to prosecution--mostly what people cite on issues like this is the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, which are desgined to stop prosecution by unfair police tactics. They don't in any way prevent us from getting information to prevent an action from occurring if that action will result in the deaths of innocents.
but in prosecuting if the evidence presented is from warrantless wiretapping it becomes inadmissible in court. which defeats the whole purpose in catching a terrorist if he gets away on a technicality.
No, the purpose is to stop what he's intending to do. If he gets away on a technicality and tries again, then we'll stop him again. I don't care how many times he "gets off" in court, as long as we stop him from his evil plot
terrorist aren't going to keep getting caught and getting away and coming back. it's not a superman comic. the idea is to stop the terrorist and keep them from ever having the opportunity to strike any target again.
Agreed, but if we need information that's going to save lives that are in immediate danger, even if the information is inadmissible in court, we still need to be able to get the information.
Far as I know, waterboarding has only been used in three cases-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zabayda--and in these cases, only when everything else the interrogators had possibly thought of to try had been exhausted. The primary tools should be whatever are time tested and proven to be the most effective. For the Nazis, it often involved treating them like the very kings they fancied themselves as being. If this works on Al-Qaida, great, but there better be a back-up.
and i agreed on the idea of torture being used as a last resort but as it sits (as far as i know haven't checked the procedures since obama was inaugurated) it isn't being used that way.
Again, as far as I know, it was only used in those three cases. I could be wrong on that, and if so, I've said I agree you everything else at your disposal first. But from my research, it was only those three.
And by the way, one other thing--our troops are in danger no matter what we do or don't do. Whether or not we put water in their faces has ZERO affect whatsoever on whether they slice off our soldiers' (and journalists' too) heads when they capture them. They do that either way.
torture should be unacceptable in a modern society. the fact that the US has reduced itself to barbarism is a indicator of the deterioration of capability of the intelligence community and morality in the US as a whole. david petaeus, porter goss, robert mueller, as well as thomas pickard have all confessed that the information gained from torture most times is inaccurate. from 2002 to 2007 around 600 detainees have gone through techniques previously defined as torture...
You know what should be even more unacceptable? Allowing thousands of innocent people to die when there's ANY possible way to prevent it. THAT'S barbarism. And maybe as a rule the harsher techniques don't work (I refuse to refer to them as "torture" in the face of the REAL torture that has been engaged in through the ages), but ANYTHING that has EVER saved innocent lives must not be taken off the table.
this idea of doing whatever it takes to get the job done is fine when what your doing gets the job done. i would agree with you if all other options were exhausted but in reality torture isn't used to gain critical information on a practical scale it's used as an information gathering tool on a massive scale. needle haystack. "I refuse to refer to them as "torture" in the face of the REAL torture that has been engaged in through the ages" i'm sorry but torture is torture regardless of degrees.
Ok, fine. So I'll say it. Exhaust ALL other options before you do any of this. But if you get nowhere with them, you better have alternative options on the table, politically correct or no. And no, it's not torture compared to what the regimes who made the concept famous actually did. Care for a few examples? You probably don't.......
"And no, it's not torture compared to what the regimes who made the concept famous actually did"
i could see this argument if we were talking about torture in a relative sense but waterboarding was defined as torture prior to bush and now it's just water in the face.
It was wrong to define it as torture. I'll even say the U.S. was wrong to prosecute Japanese soldiers for doing it during WWII. If the "victim" can be no worse for the wear after the fact, it's not torture. Simple definition. Waterboarding in many cases does nothing but scare the shit out of someone. And just about anything can be claimed to do that..
while i admire your personal perspective on the definition of torture it doesn't really matter because waterboarding is torture. that's like saying an 18 year old guy sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend isn't statutory rape because you don't think it should be.
Who labeled it as such? Objective observers would look at the tactics that have been used through the ages, and would find too much difference between these and waterboarding to put the latter into that former category.
Seems to me those who've done so may not be aware of everything else that's been used. But anyway, we're arguing semantics here, and the fact still remains that our enemies do far worse than that. But again, I've agreed in saying try everything else first.
while i doubt those who defined torture were unaware of past torture techniques i agree we are arguing semantics. we are not our enemies and we should hold ourselves to higher standards. but if all else fails find a bucket of water and get to splashing.
ADEAL918, You are just wasting your breath and time on some more brain dead liberal idiots probably paid to lie & deny and would argue with a brick wall.
"Probably so, but I get insommnia sometimes, and this is one of my chosen cures!! "
I hear you,but most are a complete waste of time. They do not care to learn anything to cure so much ignorance, they just love proving their stupidity by not even trying to look for real facts. Maybe another civil war where 60,000 die in a day is the cure. Obama's current gun control policy just might be the trigger too.
i no longer care. you thought illegal aliens were more violent than others, you thought the homeless were lazy, and you thought naturalization was an exception to the constitution. i'm sure whatever historical facts you have are probably just as insightful as your previous ones.
I know this comment wasn't directed at me, but I just can't resist. That thing about slaves owing their masters/jungle remark was WAY over the top, but I do hope you acknowledge at least, that slavery requires both the elements of buying AND the element of SELLING. So again, slavery was terrible, but it was by no means a white man's unique phenomenon. Many of those slaves were SOLD into slavery by their own people.
i know. but there is a monumental difference between slavery in africa and that of the Europeans. there was no way for the sellers to know what awaited the people they traded. but i place blame accordingly and many of africans did engage in the selling of slaves.
You are absolutely correct. ?I have tried to tell many people this, AFRICANS created slavery! We were the first people on earth, and slavery happened in Africa from the start! Stronger tribes slaved weaker tribes!
You are wrong, I would authorize KSM to have been slit stem to stern with a dull deer antler for 1/10 of the info that 30 seconds of water boarding accomplished, only a pro-mass murdering sadist terrorist loving anarchist would disagree since his confession alone stopped future attacks.
You ignorant 24 year old liberal sack of shit, you have no clue. You better stay in Kalifornia Nintendo land zombie. The state is already bankrupt from the inferior liberal domination and I hope you wise up before we all get another taste of the shit cloud Carter & Clinton made us live under.
Blobama is now about to sign his political death sentence when he introduces more gun control crap.
Typical liberal hypocrisy, they cause all the problems and blame everybody else while creating more!
Huh, back to Clinton yeah why would we want that? God forbit we have a good economy, a budget surplus, an intact military and short victorious campaigns/wars. God forbid we go back to a time where the worst thing a president did was get his dick sucked by a member of the White House office staff.
Why would we EVER want to go back to that hell right?
No danm it we need more losing wars, trillion dollar debts and prison camps, because all those have worked out well so far eh?
Love Obama all you want, but if he doesn't wake the hell up and fast, mark my words, we're going to get hit again, and it's going to be worse than 9/11. Protecting a nation is not always a politically correct job, and someone you might have to piss a few people off in doing so.
Horseshit, you have no clue it seems except what you have been force feed by the liberal propaganda drive by media.
Bush, or more pointy the Pentagon was genius in their strategic plan. Instead of blaming Bush, try blaming the troops for not getting Bin Laden and see how popular that idiotic opinion goes!
Bin Laden is in a cave hiding like the roach he is while Bush (THE US MILITARY) put him there and now the kidnap the mentally ill for new suicide bombers.
The choice is clear, you have chosen your side, get the fuck out and go suck Bin Ladens cock you mouthy coward!
I think Alberto should pay close attention to the words Georgie spoke to him after kissing him on his forehead. "Stay strong" Now why would Speedy have to stay strong unless he was going to be facing some serious challenges down the road? Poor Speedy, a judge won't allow him to keep saying, "I don't recall," when he goes to trial. But I guess he can always plead the 5th.
Man! When Gonzales's was talking, I never saw Bush's lips moving.
octaviaaugustus1950 11 months ago
LOL CENKs laugh :D 2:30 XD LOLLL
NOSFERATUalu 1 year ago
this is just to funny bro
jahlyric 1 year ago
Vagina Safety
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
Alberto Gonzalez is a spic!
Norge260 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who is this fat guy ? sitting in a home made studio being an ass.
nukethewales1337 2 years ago
your mom
ncfwhitetigress 2 years ago
If I had money, Alberto Gonzalez would be offered a vasectomy.
4u2b1ib12 2 years ago
There was a lot of crying all during GWB's reign of "Terror", too, so we're even! Of COURSE you'd all cry! The Gravy Train Of The Rich is over for a while! Hope they all get to cry together in JAIL soon!!
redhead761 2 years ago 8
Amen to that!
LordHighXcutioner 2 years ago
yeah i was drunk i hate george bush. but look man ive seen zeitgeist and all that i know all about blackwater and i think you and i can agree that the first place that needs to go away is the federal reserve inflating our dollar and just generally fucking us over
seestickglue232 2 years ago
Mass hypnosis....The worst President in memory and he and his whole entourage are oblivious.
JohnnyRock2000 2 years ago 2
If Bush did a good job as president i dont feel so stupid then.
cycimian 2 years ago
The trouble may be too much to overcome - in which case treason charges should be filed against Alberto the East L.A. public access show sock puppet and his master Bush.
LaReinaDelBarrio 2 years ago
And so ends a disgraceful administration by a team of delusional incompetent fools. Not soon enough. It should have been four years ago. We wouldn't be in half the trouble.
xhagast 2 years ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And now comes an even worse administration.
listenbich 2 years ago
americans are really stupid. they all have a different plan and they all think their plan is the best,,its not working assholes..your stupid fucking ideas dont ever pan out,,wake the fuck up..you re idiots.
phsyco348 2 years ago
come say that to uncle sam's face and add in a little anthrax, then watch how he comes to your house and skull fucks your mom while you watch
seestickglue232 2 years ago
Let's criticize the Bush admin without making it into a joke about them being gay. They're not, and there's plenty of material with which we can criticize them in a better way.
flyingpig319 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Government has always used Fear to sell their scams.
Obama is NO different. he wants to spend another trillion!
Can you say New World order?
jeremy8080 3 years ago
IM HIGH NIKKA
jr602az 3 years ago
this would be funny if I were 3yrs old...
killswitchkidd 3 years ago
LOL
erfans22 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cenk - Get a life asshole.
talentokie 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch UK MP SIR Gerald Kaufman exposes Israel's crimes (google qMGuYjt6CP8)
Watch US Professor Norman Finkelstein exposes Israel's crimes (Google bm5OvSeiAHc)
Israel admits: "No Hamas rockets were fired during ceasefire" (Google zfFMZ7Y-s_c)
Please distribute and complain to your Senator and/or Representative about Israel's killing Americans, heinous crimes, stealing our taxes, and its spying on USA. Peace!
soubari 3 years ago
Worst Youtube vid ever.
JasonBrussee 3 years ago
I Know this was a while ago but killietrooper, 1: were not losing the war. 2: yes we have trillion dollar debts, but thats what happens in a 21st century war. And 3: whare the hell else are we going to put all the the enemys of the U.S. We certainly cant use the death sentance on them thanks to fairies like you.......and the fat guy on this vid is a retard cock jockey.
hitchhikers4LIFE 3 years ago
LOL
ca247365 3 years ago
I would be happy if some one had of blown the cunts up while they were together on the plane .
PYTHAGORAS101 3 years ago
hahahaahaha
KoutetsuTenshin 3 years ago
Sure would have been nice if that plane had flown through a flock of birds.
OHT53 3 years ago
No, it would not, and i'm sure you're only kidding. Bush is a terrible president, but the untimely death of even the worst president would be a serious tragedy for the country. And we don't need it. Just like we neeed Obama to be safe.
ca247365 3 years ago
The interviwer is laughing. ahahaha
grapeace1 3 years ago
cray republicans racis
atbt2006 3 years ago
I wish these replies would only post under the names they were intended for!
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
If you wanna play the role of a reporter, shouldn't you be non-partisan? I mean, sure, everyone has their bias, but taking sides in the manner that you take them really only reflects poorly on you...
DRUM57IX 3 years ago
cenk isn't a reporter he's a political commentator there's a difference.
icronianson 3 years ago
you are a moron!!!!! You guys are bigger terrorist then those I was injured fighting in iraq. It is a shame to see people like you take for granted the freedoms many men have died for. I hope some day you enjoy the same fate as they do.
IF YOU CAN'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS AND THOSE WHO COMMAND THEM GO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM.
DbD50 3 years ago
Radical muslims will use ANY perverted argument to promote their twisted version of the most bipolar so called religion on earth. Thanks to Bush's courage, they hide in caves, have been killed in the thousands and have to now resorted to using power tools on the mentally handicapped women & children.
They are torturing the retarded for their volunteers!!!!!!!! If you will not fight that directly, what will you ever find worthy of fighting for?
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
People always seem to miss the point that any president would have been up against the corner after 9/11. Bush did what he thought was right, although he wasnt but at the time he needed to take action and hate him or love him, he showed those fucking terrorist bastards and the middle east that if they fuck with America the will anally be raped/sodomised in ways never seen before. Bush sent the message of dont fuck with America or we will kick your ass.
xesisgood 3 years ago
Bush is a drunk, a criminal and a frat boy. Bush has killed 3,000 Americans on 911 and 4,500 US soldiers in Iraq. Wounded 30,000+ in a war that did not have to happen. Bush has built his career on the bodies of dead Americans, from Gov of Texas to President. Big supporter of the Vietnam war but did not want to fight in it, Cheney too, 5 military deferments. Why would anyone want to be President who doesn't want to help all Americans? Not just their rich friends? Stay in that hellhole of Texas.
Spytheweb 3 years ago
"Killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11"--PLEASE don't tell me we have ANOTHER "inside job" whackjob here?? Fine, argue all the rest of your points, but PLEASE tell me you mean he didn't do enough to stop 9/11 and not that you ascribe to that conspiracy bullshit.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
WORST PRESIDENT & ADMINISTRATION EVER!!! Bush & Chenney co cohorts raped America, and made all sorts of profit off of sacrificing the Constitution, our jobs. and members of the armed forces. Good riddance, and never come back to DC you fucking traitors!
Swordsquire 3 years ago
ok dude we all know he screwed up and said sappy kinda fruity things but dude...
talk about don be an asshole about it
SlinkROPG 3 years ago
the man ahahahaha
enferno00 3 years ago
I hope they cry all the way to Guantanamo bay too !
lmn8bush 3 years ago
FANTASTIC EPISODE.... LOVED IT!
michoumahtani 3 years ago
Why didn't they fly that plane straight to Baghdad.
Pathetic delusional losers.
Mmmmmmmbacon 3 years ago
America is out of the torture business. The misadventure in Iraq at last has a planned ending. Our foreign aid can now include the vital mission of stopping overpopulation. Our coasts are safer from oil drills. Even the most hopeful of us thought we'd see weeks or months of quibbling and posturing to see any progress on these issues, yet we're not at all surprised that our new President has acted so quickly on them. That's why we hired him. That's why we worked so hard for him.
ann1983iv 3 years ago
Thank God. Thank you, fellow Americans for finally giving us some hope. The last eight years have been hell worldwide. President Obama will rectify most of the damage done by Bush and Cheney but it might take a couple of decades to undo ALL the harm. Obama and Biden will need ALL our support to make this country whole again.
Rush Limbaugh now declares on our National public airways "I hope he fails" in regards to the Obama presidency.
ann1983iv 3 years ago
Of course the problems we face today aren't 100% the fault of the Republicans. BUT it's just as ridiculous to pretend that it's a 50/50 split.
It's not 50/50. The Republicans are clearly far more at fault, particularly for the economic problems. In fact, the biggest issue with the Dems is simply that they didn't do enough to stop bad conservative ideology. You know, like when Clinton signed terrible Phil Gramm style deregulation into law.
Will Obama cave in to tax cuts for the rich?
Encyclopeteia 3 years ago
man I'm so glad to see that the idiot right wing conservative are gone! that's the understatement of the millenium lol!
So Bush kept us safe even though two 110 story buildings were destroyed by terrorists during his watch and 3000 people died? and how many died in New Orleans AFTER the hurricane?
oh yeah, and the economic crises is the fault of Clinton even though Rethuglicans have been preaching de-regulation for the past 30 years every time they opened their mouths.
hahahahahaha
normalais 3 years ago
Yes indeed he kept us safe. 9/11 was a product of both sides asleep at the switch. Bush didn't do enough in the first seven months, but he inherited an intelligence system from Clinton that didn't allow for this kind of thing to be stopped. But at least he woke up after the fact and kept it from happening again.
The economy is the fault of both sides. Yes, the Repubs deregulated, but the Dems didn't try to introduce any new regulations either. Too good a chance to elect one of their own
ADEAL918 3 years ago
that' s a bunch of bullshit. I might as well say that Clinton kept us safe because we were attacked in 1993 and we did not have another attack until bush became president.
Clinton went after Bin Laden. He failed to get him, but he went after him. Bush did absolutely NOTHING for 9 months though he was warned many times.
and don't give me this crap about the economy. repubs and their de-regulation "small government" "government getting out of the way" is the #1 reason for this
normalais 3 years ago 3
Except that the 9/11 Commission report revealed that they had been planning 9/11 since 1996, and Clinton repeated refused to untie his intelligence communities and give them the tools the need to get specific details of the plot. Bush was warned in very general details, but Clinton's own advisors have testified that the system simply wasn't there to find the specific info he needed. And don't give ME that one-sided crap. Bush is partly to blame, but show me where the Dems tried to regulate.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
exactly. 9/11 was planned since 1996. so what did Bush do about it when he became president? other than IGNORE it?? even though he was warned about it...
Clinton went after Bin Laden. he failed to get him but he went after him. And Clinton atleast has the balls to admit he failed to get Bin Laden.
You PATHETIC CHILDISH losers will never take responsibility for anything. It's always someone elses fault hahahaha stupid little crybabiess
normalais 3 years ago 2
You obviously didn't read what I said. I said there's blame on BOTH SIDES but I also said four and a half years vs. eight months. One more time, the warnings Bush was given were vague and within a system that didn't give him the tools he needed to find the specifics. This is Clinton's own advisors saying this. It wouldn't have been just about getting bin Laden (who wasn't even the true mastermind-that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), it's about finding out what they're planning to do and when.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
four and a half years vs. eight months? howa bout seven years, trillion dollars, 4500 lives and nothing to show for it.
if we get attacked under Obama i can 200% guarantee all you right wingers will blame Obama, not the guy who sacrificed $trillion $, 4500 lives to get those guys and failed.
normalais 3 years ago
NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT??? Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, many top Al-Qaida deputies captured, including the actual 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, several other plots stopped in their tracks. If we get attacked under Obama who's to blame will depend on the circumstances. If it turnes out they've planned it for several years, then yes, Bush will shoulder plenty of blame. But given that Obama's already gutted several of Bush's protective methods, it doesn't bode well for him.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
Taliban is not out of power. They're making a strong comeback and honestly they'll be around for a while.
Al Qaeda is getting more recruits than ever and Bin Laden is still alive and living somewhere in a mansion
Obama has not gotted any of Bush's protective methods. Bush had turned this country into the Soviet Union with secret Gulgs, torture and ignoring the rule of law that was put in place to make sure stuff like what Hitler and Stalin did never happens again.
normalais 3 years ago
Have you listened to the news in the last seven years. The Taliban was driven from power in October of 2001--Afghanistan's president is now Hamid Karzai. They're ATTEMPTING a comeback now, but they'll be stopped just like before. And it doesn't matter how many recruits they have, because everything they've tried since 9/11 has been stoppe in its tracks. It's not about what they WANT to do, it's about what they CAN do, and under Bush after 9/11 that was NOTHING.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
And bin Laden may still be alive, but he's nothing but a figurehead, a "godfather" so to speak. Without his working agency under him, there's nothing he can do. And yes, Obama did just gut protective measures, like the ability to interrogate beyond what's stipulated in the army field manual, which is woefully inadequate. We got information that saved lives by going outside of that. Hitler and Stalin didn't do what they did to save their own people's lives, so you can't even try that one.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
the middle east is a bigger mess than it was 8 years ago. hamas, hezzbollah, iran, pakistan now have more power and are more dangerous. Taliban is still very active and even al qaeda is getting more recruits, meaning there are more people then before who hate us.
So Bush spend a trillion dollars and sacrificed 4500 american lives to create more people that hate us?
conservatives are a failure on every front. economy, foreign policy, healthcare, energy, civil rights. you name it.
normalais 3 years ago
Yet again, you don't get it. It's not about who hates us or who WANTS to get us, it's about whether or not they CAN do so. They spent that money to stop any future attacks, and I can point to at least six in the last 7 years that were stopped in their tracks. If you really think Bush deserves zero credit for this, then I hope you're at least willing to be consistent and say he also gets zero blame for the economy. You can't have it both ways, at least not if want to be taken seriously.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
haha no you don't get it. this napoleon bonapart foreign policy of F*** the whole world cuz were #1 might have worked in the 18th century but it is a total disaster in the globalised world of the 21st century. That's the problem with you right winger, you think it's still 1950.
and bush did not foil anything. those six or whatever attempts are total B.S. At most its "maybe" one. and i'd question even that.
normalais 3 years ago
This has nothing to do with being "#1", it has to do with stopping further attacks. And by the way, I'm not a right winger, I'm an independent. And nope, sorry, those attempts are documented, they were thwarted, and the people who were plotting them are rotting in prison. Look them up, there's the Brooklyn Bridge one, Sears Tower, JFK Airport, a financial tower in LA, Fort Dix, and the one to blow up ten planes over the Atlantic. All exposed and brought to a screetching halt--no accident
ADEAL918 3 years ago 2
documented? you mean how bush made up a bunch of crap about how some kids wanted to burn down park bench, were caught and stopped, and Bush turned it into "stopping the terrorists"?
btw, wasn't europe attacked a few times since then? because they helped us in these two wars...
oh, and I know what "independent" means these days: you're a conservative who voted for Bush but is two embarassed to admit!
normalais 3 years ago
Nope, they not made up--well known by everyone not trying to minimize the threat. Look all those plots up--it wasn't from Bush. I've already done my research and I'm well aware that they're real. And it wasn't Bush's job to protect Europe, it was his job to protect his own citizens, and it seems to me that we haven't been attacked again. And no, independent means just that. I've voted for both parties in the past, (and actually not for Bush) but I do give him some credit for keeping us safe
ADEAL918 3 years ago
gee, maybe they decided to attack europe instead?
or, maybe, they're just not that big of a deal? they're a bunch of losers running around with home made bombs. I mean, we have well over 10,000 dying every year in car accidents (i'm sure). you don't see anyone freaking out about cars.
and no I don't believe anything that comes from the Bush administration. Those Plots were vastly exagerrated to make Bush look good.
normalais 3 years ago
See the funny thing was that none of that came from "the Bush administration"--it came from the various law enforcement agencies that stopped those plots in their tracks. And yeah, they're a HUGE "deal". Al-Qaida's number two has declared his intention to use nuclear weapons on us if he can get his evil hands on them. That happens, and the numbers will DWARF those of car accidents.
ADEAL918 3 years ago 2
Bush has not kept us safe. From a national security point of view his presidency is the worst ever.
he's managed to make us less safe by making middle east an even bigger mess (which is pretty unbelievable).
he's also destroyed our moral standing and credibility in the world.
Bin Laden has gotten everything he wanted. USA stuck in a long stupid war: check. Economic collapse: check.
why do you think al qaeda attacke the WTC? cuz its the heart of our economy
normalais 3 years ago
Sir, you have nothing to stand on with that argument, because the fact still remains that we haven't been attacked again. No amount of moral standing or credibility is going to keep us safe. Clinton proved that conclusively. And no, those weren't bin Laden's goals--it was destroy this nation, and that hasn't happened. And why did they attack the WTC? Because it would kill the most people in the most efficient way. That's all they care about. Killing as many innocents as possible.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
yeah I do have a lot to stand on.
#1 we were attacked on 1993. Then there was not another attack until Bush became president. And no, we did not torture anyone during those years.
#2 we've been attacked plenty in the form of our troops and allies in europe. maybe they decided to just attack our troops and allies instead? easier that way.
this whole "Bush kept us safe" arguements is extremely idiotic. He hasn't. He's a total failure.
normalais 3 years ago
The 9/11 attacks were planned mostly during the Clinton administration. Are you honestly claiming that they started planning the attacks the day Bush took office?? We didn't "torture" anyone ever. We interrogated some people harshly since 9/11, as we should have done long before that, but you need to learn about what REAL torture involves. And sorry, but my definiton of "keeping us safe" is preventing further attacks on our soil, and that's exactly what Bush did.
ADEAL918 3 years ago 2
who cares when they were planned? it could have been the frikkin 15th century for all I care. Bush was told about it by clinton and CIA, he chose to do NOTHING and completely ignored the threats for 9 months.
Just like he ignored the victims of Katrina.
Just like he ignored the warnings about the economic collapse.
There is a pattern. This is what happens when you have an anti intelectual person who is driven by blind ideology running things.
normalais 3 years ago
"WHO CARES WHEN IT WAS PLANNED?!!!" You've just told me all I need to know about you--namely, you're fucking CLUELESS. It was planned since 96--Clinton should have stopped it LONG before Bush ever took office. Bush was given very general, non-specific warnings that he didn't have the tools he needed to find out the specifics that would have been necessary to stop it. Clinton's own advisors have testified to this. Yes, he ignored economic warnings--want to know who else did? Congressional Dems
ADEAL918 3 years ago 2
Listen you dumb SOB: republican congress and Bush could not care less about Al Qaeda. The only thing republicans cared about a decade ago was the blow job Clinton got from that intern and that stained dress.
Clinton went after Bin Laden 10 years ago. He failed to get him, but he did go after him.
He warned Bush about Bin Laden. CIA warned Bush about 9/11. Bush chose to do NOTHING AT ALL. I'm sure he came into office thinking he could just ignore al qaeda.
you're the clueless idiot
normalais 3 years ago
Look, I'm not a Republican, and I didn't support the impeachment. But Clinton tied the intelligence community's hands, again testimony of his OWN advisors, and thus there was only so much Bush could have done with the very vague, general warnings he was given in the months leading up to 9/11. Again, this isn't just about getting bin Laden--it's about finding out what they're planning to do and when, and Bush did not have the tools he needed to find this out.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
And you can blame Bush for not insisting on an overhaul of the intelligence community in th first few months of his presidency, but given all the accusations of "fearmongering" that he's gotten for the POST-9/11 overhaul he undertook, can you imagine how it would have gone over if he had tried to do that BEFORE many people were jarred awake by reality???
ADEAL918 3 years ago
since 9/11 was planned from 1996 you said "clinton should have stopped it".
Well, it's been 7 years now since 9/11. Bin Laden is still alive and free.
And unlike Bush, Clinton tried to stop it. He failed, but he tried.
normalais 3 years ago
He may still be alive and free, but that doesn't change the fact that everything that's been tried since that time has been stopped in its tracks. For the thousandth time, this isn't just about getting bin Laden, it's about stopping other attacks. The second doesn't necessarily follow from the first. And yes, Clinton tried to stop it, with every politically correct tool he could find. that wasn't enough. Bush recognized that after he was jarred awake along with much of the rest of the country
ADEAL918 3 years ago
you sound like one of those brainwashed people who watches faux news all day long.
What has been stopped? most of those reported "attacks" were total B.S. And Al Qaeda has managed to kill a lot of our troops and allies during these years. What makes you think they really wanted to attack us here? attacking our troops was much easier.
Plus it seems to me like they are not very professional and it takes them 8-10 years to plan a major attack.
Bush is a failure no matter how you spin it
normalais 3 years ago
Nope, not brainwashed at all, and I watch a wide variety of news sources and read a wide variety of sources. I have already told you just a few examples of what has been stopped, and again, the information about them was not even from the administration, it was from law enforcement agencies--no credibility questions there. And what makes me think they wanted to attack us here? Hmmm, that would be THEIR OWN WORDS!!! And can you do math? That's 5 years to plan the attack, not 8-10.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
Comment removed
normalais 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And....I think Al Qaeda wants to destroy USA by collapsing our economy. That's why they attacked WTC- the heart of our economy.
Don't forget that they were a MAJOR player in destroying the soviet union because Al Qaeda got them stuck in a endless war in afghanistan that bled the soviet economy dry.
Bin Laden wanted us to get stuck in a long, bloody, expensive war and he wanted our economy to collapse after 9/11.
He's gotten just what he wanted so far.
normalais 3 years ago
He hasn't gotten a thing that he wanted--he wants to destroy us--and not by economic collapse either. They want to SLAUGHTER EVERY LAST ONE US!!! Again, their own words. And anyway, the economy went down for a while after 9/11, but then it went back up. The current economic problems have nothing to do with that--this is about lack of regulations and mistakes made on BOTH sides. Independent of bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Again they went after the WTC because it would kill the most people, period
ADEAL918 3 years ago
that's a bunch of bullshit. slaughter every one of us??? are you insane???? I'm sure even Bin Laden knows it is not possible.
They want the demise of the western civilization. They will never kill all of us and will never make us pray to allah or whatever else it is you lunatics are afraid of.
Right now it looks like Bin Laden has gotten just what he wanted. The whole economy of the western world is collapsing.
normalais 3 years ago
Not if he gets his evil hands on a few nukes it's not impossible. That's his goal. Everything else just leads up to all of that for these psychos. I'm only "afraid" of it if we decide we have to be politically correct about stopping them, which is what Obama has apparently decided. THAT'S what they want now, and I assure you, they'll rolling on the floor laughing right now, and licking their chops at the same time.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
and lets not forget that the people who want to kill us in the middle east are really a small minority. most of them are just regular people who want to be left alone and have a chance to live a regular life: go to school, work, raise kids etc.
torture, secret prisons, illegal wars etc give more people reason to hate us.
We won't defeat Al Qaeda with military power. We can only defeat them by proving to the people in the middle east that WE are the GOOD GUYS.
Bush did the opposite.
normalais 3 years ago
They may be a minority--10% is usually the figure I hear floated out there--but even so, that's 100 million people--almost a third of the population of this country. That better be taken pretty damn seriously. They don't need real reasons to hate us--they manufacture plenty of fake ones. And again, Clinton proves that you're wrong when you say to defeat them by being the "good guys"--he tried that. We defeat them mostly by giving our intelligence community the tools they need. Obama's not.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
10% my ass. It's probably more lie 1%.
and yeah we need to get rid of nukes. that includes USA also. Obama has a plan on how to do that, or at least get the ball moving.
normalais 3 years ago
Ok, we can argue over the numbers all we want, and frankly it may be different depending on what category you put them in, but maybe it's 1% who would actually carry out the attacks, but another 10% that support them. If you look at figures from some of the middle eastern countries it's a lot higher than that. And fine, get rid of nukes, but that doesn't stop the chem/bio threat either. The key is the intelligence community, and Bush gave them what they needed, while Obama's taking it away.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
total bullshit.
I'm sure its more than 10% who support them, why wouldn't they? we started an illegal war, we torture people and put random people in secret prisons.
combine that will an old fashioned religious extremely conservative ideology and propaganda and its easy for them to hate us.
We need to start treating them with respect and dignity to get the young muslims on our side. Obama will be great for that.
normalais 3 years ago
Yet again, Clinton tried that, and they still planned 9/11 with him in office. We didn't start an "illegal" war--it was based on intelligence we had no reason not to believe and turned out to be wrong. Again, you clearly have no idea what REAL torture involves--(hint it doesn't involve getting a little water in your face). They'll want to slaughter us just as much no matter who's in office, and that's why the key remains our intelligence capabilities which Obama has already gutted in two days
ADEAL918 3 years ago
we started an illegal war, ignoring the international rule of law set in place to make sure stuff like what hitler and stalin did never happens again.
clinton did not do enough, if will take helluva lot more than he did to break this religious fanatical dogma.
waterboarding is torture. and yes we tortured.
I was born in the soviet union. it makes me want to throw up knowing I live in a country again that tortures, starts illegal wars, has secret gulag prisons etc.
I love Obama
normalais 3 years ago
Again, if you really think getting some water in your face to make you THINK you're drowning is "torture" you are extremely ignorant of what your own nation's regimes did. If those others did waterboard, it was the LEAST they did, not the MOST!!! No comparison. And again, Hitler and Stalin did what they did because they were sadists, not to save lives of their countrymen. And again, point to me what made this war illegal.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
I'd argue Cheney is a sadist. And Stalin and Hitler argued they had to do what they did to protect their country men from the "evil liberal values".
This idea that we have to torture to protect ourselves is total bullshit you probably got from that stupid 24 show. And they did helluva more than waterboarding. People died from this torture.
Give me Liberty or Give me Death. I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than live in a country that tortures has gulag prisons and starts illegal wars
normalais 3 years ago
Cheney, sadist, nice one--based on WHAT??? And, uhhh, NO--never watched 24 in my life. Got those facts from CIA agents who were ACTUALLY THERE when we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and got information out of that psychopath that allowed us to bring that Brooklyn Bridge plot to a screeching halt. And yes, exactly, Hitler and Stalin were "protecting" from IMAGINED threats from these "values." We face ACTUAL threats from ACTUAL psychopaths.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
And fine, choose death for yourself, but don't sentence the rest of us to death. Patrick Henry indeed said "give me liberty or give ME death"-- not "give me liberty of give a few thousand other innocent people death" And I happen to value my life and the rest of my countrymen's lives enough that if they can be saved by scaring a terrorist into thinking he's drowning, I won't be shedding any tears over that. And what other "torture" beyond that do you have evidence of, pray tell???
ADEAL918 3 years ago
yawn...anyone who knows military and war will tell you that torture gets you nothing. it does not protect you and your country men.
people like youa re so simple minded. you think you make a guy think he's drowning then he'll spill the beans on some terrorist attack and you'll save lives. Totally ignorant bullshit.
I'm tired of arguing about this crap. torture does not save lives. it makes us look bad, gives people reason to hate us, and makes us criminals.
normalais 3 years ago
And the CIA contradicted that (though, again in referring to waterboarding, which yet again, is NOTHING compared to the REAL torture that's been practiced through the ages). No one has ever contradicted the specific example of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed giving up information on that Brooklyn Bridge plot--just a general statement that "it never works"--well there are exceptions to every rule, and if this exception saved lives, it must remain on the table.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
We must NEVER put how we look or what other people think of us ahead of saving our citizens' lives. And actually, what would REALLY make us criminals would be knowing we would have any chance whatsoever to stop an attack, and we don't do it for fear of the consequences you suggest. You're the small minded one. I'm not saying any one practice will always work on everyone, but if anything has EVER worked, it must not be taken off the table when we need to save innocent lives.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
you sound like the typical full bown neoconservative.
the vast majority of the free world disagrees with you big time.
We should care about what people think of us.
and let me say that for the thousand time: TORTURE DOES NOT GET YOU ANYTHING IT DOES NOT SAVE LIVES.
period. it might work in the movies but it doesn't in real life.
normalais 3 years ago
Nope, no neo-con--my politics are all over the place, but you clearly aren't reading what I say. I didn't say we shouldn't care what people think of us, I said we can't put that ahead of saving innocent people's lives. And for the TWO thousandth time, the CIA agents who actually there when it happened have testified that in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "torture" (if you STILL insist on labeling waterboarding as such) did indeed save lives. Not the movies--REALITY.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
And unless you can provide me with evidence that those specific CIA agents were lying about that specific example, don't even bother answering, because you cannot prove a universal negative. That may be true as a rule, but there have been demonstrated exceptions, without which we would have lost a couple thousand more innocent people.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
don't believe it for a second. if anything this torture cost us lives since it is a great tool of recruitement for Al Qaeda and puts our troops in danger.
All this talk about Bush preventing attacks is a hoax. These people have lied about everything, and this is just another attempt to make Bush not look like the total loser that he is.
Torture has not done us any good and wont. It does not work.
24 is not real life.
normalais 3 years ago
Did you even read the part where I said I've never watch 24 in my life. And go ahead, don't believe it, but can you prove they're lying? No? Thought not. And until someone provides evidence to this effect, there's no legitimate reason to doubt it. No proof of any lies whatsoever. And again, it doesn't matter how many recruits they get if they're poweless to do anything, which they've clearly been for the past seven years. Once again, you can't prove a universal negative--always exceptions
ADEAL918 3 years ago
Again, do some actual research about that Brooklyn Bridge plot. Look up the name "Lyman Faris" in relation to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and then, if you insist, go about showing that it was all a hoax. If you can do that, more power to you. But since you can't, my better piece of advice for you would be to SHUT THE HELL UP!!!
ADEAL918 3 years ago
nobody was ever tried in the brooklyn bridge plot. though 5 people were arrested.
icronianson 3 years ago
The main operative in that plot, Lyman Faris took a plea bargain to cop to a lesser charge to avoid prosecution. That's why no one was "tried." But they found all the details of his sick plot--surveillance tapes of the bridge, diagrams on how he planned to blow it up, and intercepts between Faris and other Al-Qaida operatives overseas--the kind of things we need the wiretapping ability in order to get.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
and in that time the information gathered only added up to the capture of 5 officers of al qaida. is the loss of morality and overall disregard for human rights worth it?
icronianson 3 years ago
If it saved thousands of innocent lives, you better believe it is. The people who got a little water in their faces sure as hell didn't have any disregard for human rights.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
a little water in the face that causes severe mental damage and physical shock.and again are we no better than them?
icronianson 3 years ago
Indeed we are. First they do FAR worse than that. Name Daniel Pearl ring a bell, buster? He would be thanking GOD if the worst that was ever done to him was some water in his face--but guess what? HIS FACE IS NOW DETACHED FROM THE REST OF HIS BODY!!!!! And furthermore, they do what they do to kill as many innocents as possible. We do what we do to SAVE as many innocents as possible, so in a word, YES!!! We are better than them
ADEAL918 3 years ago
what happened to daniel pearl wasn't torture it was an execution there's a difference. in ideology your right but in reality we've killed far more innocents than they. and stooping down to a terrorist's level or mentality should be unacceptable but the fact that we're debating it shows how low we've sunken.
icronianson 3 years ago
Well I can name plenty of other torture methods they've used short of executions, but you probably don't want to hear them. In terms of who's been killed, intent matters--we don't try to kill innocents--they do. There's a reason courts distinguish between murder and manslaughter. If a cop shoots at an armed murderer and innocent bystanders die as a result, that cop is not morally responsible for those deaths--the murderer s/he was shooting at is. It's not sinking to a terrorist's level.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
again in ideology your right but in reality one innocent person dead is one innocent person dead intent good or bad. the reason courts distinguish between murder and manslaughter is for responsibility reasons only. but while we hold the terrorist responsible we get a pass because of intent. strange ways.
icronianson 3 years ago
Not exactly--if the terrorists were only going after military and/or government targets, they wouldn't be "terrorists." It's the fact that they target civilians that earns them that title. If they had only gone after the Pentagon, for example--say with a car or truck bomb, and not with a commercial airliner, and left the WTC's out of it, this would have been an act of war, but not necessarily an act of terrorism.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
since 2002 130 american civilians have died from terrorists attacks (i rounded up i'm not sure of the exact number its between 115 and 130) counting contractors and embassy workers. 0 of which have been on US soil. partly a testament to the job are men and women are doing overseas and partly because the terrorists don't have to targets americans abroad. but over 200,000 civilians have died by american hands intent doesn't matter as far as i'm concerned killing is killing.
icronianson 3 years ago
Not by American hands, sir. Those deaths are mostly the result of Iraqi insurgent attacks. Yeah, you can say if we hadn't gone in there in the first place, they wouldn't have happened, but you could also say that had the Civil War and emancipation proclamation never happened, the KKK wouldn't have committed all their savage murders.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
that's not a fair comparison. the civil war was unavoidable in my opinion and had a real basis for happening in the first place. nobody denies the fact that the intel that led us into iraq was either wrong or falsified. we should've never been there in the first place as you said but just because we are it doesn't mean we should be exempt from the responsibility of the deaths of innocent people.
icronianson 3 years ago
Radical muslims will use ANY perverted argument to promote their twisted version of the most bipolar so called religion on earth. Thanks to Bush's courage, they hide in caves, have been killed in the thousands and have to now resorted to using power tools on the mentally handicapped women & children.
They are torturing the retarded for their volunteers!!!!!!!! If you will not fight that directly, what will you ever find worthy of fighting for?
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
Wrong, not falsified. Bush couldn't afford to ignore the intelligence he was getting--yes, he had some on both sides, but if there was any saying that the WMD's were there, he had to act on that. And if soliders actually have targeted civilians, those soldiers should be prosecuted (and this has happened) but their mandate is to not target civilians, and the fact still remains that most of the Iraqi deaths have been at the hands of other Iraq's--insurgents--not our soldiers.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
i'm not saying it was falsified i was saying there are people who believe that it was. and i know the soliders aren't purposefully killing civilians. but it doesn't change the fact that they are. over a million civilians have died in both iraq and afghan. i was using the UN report of collateral damage done by coalition forces and the estimate was 200,000. i don't know how many were killed by insurgents but it'd be interesting to find out.
icronianson 3 years ago
I've seen the figures before, I don't remember them exactly but I do remember that it was a rather significant majority of the civilian deaths being at the hands of their own countrymen
ADEAL918 3 years ago
well i believe you. you don't seem like the type to bs.
icronianson 3 years ago
It's true. Factional violence is directly responsible for more than half of the civilian deaths. Doesn't change the fact that our guys have done it too, but you know there are very few instances, relatively speaking, where our guys just randomly kill innocents.
ca247365 3 years ago
warrantless wiretapping is a gross violation of constitutional law.
icronianson 3 years ago
Not if it's only used in an intelligence capacity and not in court. The constitutional law principles deal with what is acceptable to do with regards to prosecution--mostly what people cite on issues like this is the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, which are desgined to stop prosecution by unfair police tactics. They don't in any way prevent us from getting information to prevent an action from occurring if that action will result in the deaths of innocents.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
but in prosecuting if the evidence presented is from warrantless wiretapping it becomes inadmissible in court. which defeats the whole purpose in catching a terrorist if he gets away on a technicality.
icronianson 3 years ago
No, the purpose is to stop what he's intending to do. If he gets away on a technicality and tries again, then we'll stop him again. I don't care how many times he "gets off" in court, as long as we stop him from his evil plot
ADEAL918 3 years ago
terrorist aren't going to keep getting caught and getting away and coming back. it's not a superman comic. the idea is to stop the terrorist and keep them from ever having the opportunity to strike any target again.
icronianson 3 years ago
Agreed, but if we need information that's going to save lives that are in immediate danger, even if the information is inadmissible in court, we still need to be able to get the information.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
i agree. but this idea that we are constantly in immediate danger and need to torture all hvt all the time is ridiculous and shouldn't be accepted.
icronianson 3 years ago
Far as I know, waterboarding has only been used in three cases-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zabayda--and in these cases, only when everything else the interrogators had possibly thought of to try had been exhausted. The primary tools should be whatever are time tested and proven to be the most effective. For the Nazis, it often involved treating them like the very kings they fancied themselves as being. If this works on Al-Qaida, great, but there better be a back-up.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
and i agreed on the idea of torture being used as a last resort but as it sits (as far as i know haven't checked the procedures since obama was inaugurated) it isn't being used that way.
icronianson 3 years ago
Again, as far as I know, it was only used in those three cases. I could be wrong on that, and if so, I've said I agree you everything else at your disposal first. But from my research, it was only those three.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
And by the way, one other thing--our troops are in danger no matter what we do or don't do. Whether or not we put water in their faces has ZERO affect whatsoever on whether they slice off our soldiers' (and journalists' too) heads when they capture them. They do that either way.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
and we're no better than them right?
icronianson 3 years ago
torture should be unacceptable in a modern society. the fact that the US has reduced itself to barbarism is a indicator of the deterioration of capability of the intelligence community and morality in the US as a whole. david petaeus, porter goss, robert mueller, as well as thomas pickard have all confessed that the information gained from torture most times is inaccurate. from 2002 to 2007 around 600 detainees have gone through techniques previously defined as torture...
icronianson 3 years ago
You know what should be even more unacceptable? Allowing thousands of innocent people to die when there's ANY possible way to prevent it. THAT'S barbarism. And maybe as a rule the harsher techniques don't work (I refuse to refer to them as "torture" in the face of the REAL torture that has been engaged in through the ages), but ANYTHING that has EVER saved innocent lives must not be taken off the table.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
this idea of doing whatever it takes to get the job done is fine when what your doing gets the job done. i would agree with you if all other options were exhausted but in reality torture isn't used to gain critical information on a practical scale it's used as an information gathering tool on a massive scale. needle haystack. "I refuse to refer to them as "torture" in the face of the REAL torture that has been engaged in through the ages" i'm sorry but torture is torture regardless of degrees.
icronianson 3 years ago
Ok, fine. So I'll say it. Exhaust ALL other options before you do any of this. But if you get nowhere with them, you better have alternative options on the table, politically correct or no. And no, it's not torture compared to what the regimes who made the concept famous actually did. Care for a few examples? You probably don't.......
ADEAL918 3 years ago
"And no, it's not torture compared to what the regimes who made the concept famous actually did"
i could see this argument if we were talking about torture in a relative sense but waterboarding was defined as torture prior to bush and now it's just water in the face.
icronianson 3 years ago
It was wrong to define it as torture. I'll even say the U.S. was wrong to prosecute Japanese soldiers for doing it during WWII. If the "victim" can be no worse for the wear after the fact, it's not torture. Simple definition. Waterboarding in many cases does nothing but scare the shit out of someone. And just about anything can be claimed to do that..
ADEAL918 3 years ago
while i admire your personal perspective on the definition of torture it doesn't really matter because waterboarding is torture. that's like saying an 18 year old guy sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend isn't statutory rape because you don't think it should be.
icronianson 3 years ago
Who labeled it as such? Objective observers would look at the tactics that have been used through the ages, and would find too much difference between these and waterboarding to put the latter into that former category.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
again that would be fine if objective boservers hadn't already labeled the latter into the former.
icronianson 3 years ago
Seems to me those who've done so may not be aware of everything else that's been used. But anyway, we're arguing semantics here, and the fact still remains that our enemies do far worse than that. But again, I've agreed in saying try everything else first.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
while i doubt those who defined torture were unaware of past torture techniques i agree we are arguing semantics. we are not our enemies and we should hold ourselves to higher standards. but if all else fails find a bucket of water and get to splashing.
icronianson 3 years ago
ADEAL918, You are just wasting your breath and time on some more brain dead liberal idiots probably paid to lie & deny and would argue with a brick wall.
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
Probably so, but I get insommnia sometimes, and this is one of my chosen cures!!
ADEAL918 3 years ago
"Probably so, but I get insommnia sometimes, and this is one of my chosen cures!! "
I hear you,but most are a complete waste of time. They do not care to learn anything to cure so much ignorance, they just love proving their stupidity by not even trying to look for real facts. Maybe another civil war where 60,000 die in a day is the cure. Obama's current gun control policy just might be the trigger too.
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
"You are just wasting your breath and time on some more brain dead liberal idiots probably paid to lie & deny and would argue with a brick wall."
says the cherokee who believes that african slaves owe their masters for taking them out of the jungle.
icronianson 3 years ago
That is a pretty simplified version, but historical facts are facts.
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
i no longer care. you thought illegal aliens were more violent than others, you thought the homeless were lazy, and you thought naturalization was an exception to the constitution. i'm sure whatever historical facts you have are probably just as insightful as your previous ones.
icronianson 3 years ago
I know this comment wasn't directed at me, but I just can't resist. That thing about slaves owing their masters/jungle remark was WAY over the top, but I do hope you acknowledge at least, that slavery requires both the elements of buying AND the element of SELLING. So again, slavery was terrible, but it was by no means a white man's unique phenomenon. Many of those slaves were SOLD into slavery by their own people.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
i know. but there is a monumental difference between slavery in africa and that of the Europeans. there was no way for the sellers to know what awaited the people they traded. but i place blame accordingly and many of africans did engage in the selling of slaves.
icronianson 3 years ago
You are absolutely correct. ?I have tried to tell many people this, AFRICANS created slavery! We were the first people on earth, and slavery happened in Africa from the start! Stronger tribes slaved weaker tribes!
ca247365 3 years ago
slavery in africa was more like indentured servitude.
icronianson 3 years ago
You are wrong, I would authorize KSM to have been slit stem to stern with a dull deer antler for 1/10 of the info that 30 seconds of water boarding accomplished, only a pro-mass murdering sadist terrorist loving anarchist would disagree since his confession alone stopped future attacks.
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
haha shut up stupid bitch.
Bush is a failure. The whole neocon movement is a failure.
It's over. We'll have Obama for 8 years and then Hillary Clinton for 8 years. Dems will win more senate seats in 2010.
Conservatives are FINISHED. LOL hahahaha
normalais 3 years ago
You ignorant 24 year old liberal sack of shit, you have no clue. You better stay in Kalifornia Nintendo land zombie. The state is already bankrupt from the inferior liberal domination and I hope you wise up before we all get another taste of the shit cloud Carter & Clinton made us live under.
Blobama is now about to sign his political death sentence when he introduces more gun control crap.
Typical liberal hypocrisy, they cause all the problems and blame everybody else while creating more!
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
Huh, back to Clinton yeah why would we want that? God forbit we have a good economy, a budget surplus, an intact military and short victorious campaigns/wars. God forbid we go back to a time where the worst thing a president did was get his dick sucked by a member of the White House office staff.
Why would we EVER want to go back to that hell right?
No danm it we need more losing wars, trillion dollar debts and prison camps, because all those have worked out well so far eh?
killietrooper 3 years ago 2
Love Obama all you want, but if he doesn't wake the hell up and fast, mark my words, we're going to get hit again, and it's going to be worse than 9/11. Protecting a nation is not always a politically correct job, and someone you might have to piss a few people off in doing so.
ADEAL918 3 years ago
Horseshit, you have no clue it seems except what you have been force feed by the liberal propaganda drive by media.
Bush, or more pointy the Pentagon was genius in their strategic plan. Instead of blaming Bush, try blaming the troops for not getting Bin Laden and see how popular that idiotic opinion goes!
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
Bin Laden is in a cave hiding like the roach he is while Bush (THE US MILITARY) put him there and now the kidnap the mentally ill for new suicide bombers.
The choice is clear, you have chosen your side, get the fuck out and go suck Bin Ladens cock you mouthy coward!
FreedomsPatriot 3 years ago
I think Alberto should pay close attention to the words Georgie spoke to him after kissing him on his forehead. "Stay strong" Now why would Speedy have to stay strong unless he was going to be facing some serious challenges down the road? Poor Speedy, a judge won't allow him to keep saying, "I don't recall," when he goes to trial. But I guess he can always plead the 5th.
1140Cecile 3 years ago
Gonzales = tool.
pbridge1300 3 years ago
Gonzalez..."It was fun"... breathtaking shamelessness
jpbroadwater 3 years ago
Cenk , please fix your audio mate, its always really bad ?
ViperWK 3 years ago <