• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

Boo Radley said:
Because the president isn't king.
Click to expand...

He certainly thinks he is...Need we pull all the times he mentioned "going around congress" or the times he actually has?

He needed congress and the republican fear machine was quite successful.
Click to expand...

Stunning. In one breath you say he isn't a king, and in the very next you castigate congress for not rolling over to every whim he has...

We cannot pretend we don't remember the events, or that there were not factors that influenced what happened.
Click to expand...

What kind of slippery language is this? Remember what specifically? Lay it out, and don't give me that "I have before" crap. This is a filler line meant to muddy the conversation and leaving you an out.

However, gitmo wasn't on my lst.
Click to expand...

Bull! all one has to do is read your arguments. You clearly think that those in custody in Gitmo are there in error, and innocent, if not all, then enough that you don't think they should be there in the first place...Here is a good example of that, just read the progression of the thread...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...7354-obama-releasing-1-3-gitmo-detainees.html

There are others, all the way back through the argument, you have expressed views that if not explicit in calling for the close of Gitmo, then on the broader argument of whether of not the entire endeavor is just. All you are doing is playing semantics. It is highly dishonest at best.

As the silly notion of cutting and running, it misses the point that both were an overreaction to begin with, that was ill conceived and did more harm than good.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. And even with all the information that is known, rightly, or wrongly in the end you don't have a say anymore than I do, and that burns you up.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because the president isn't king. He needed congress and the republican fear machine was quite successful. We cannot pretend we don't remember the events, or that there were not factors that influenced what happened. However, gitmo wasn't on my lst.
Click to expand...

He needed Congress and got Congress, and now you say it was the |Democrats who were frightened of the Republican 'fear machine'. You do not appear to have a coherent thought available to you, and this is so typically left.

There were factors that influenced what happened? No kidding?? Are you just trying to fill up space here and hoping it might be considered logical debate?

As the silly notion of cutting and running, it misses the point that both were an overreaction to begin with, that was ill conceived and did more harm than good.
Click to expand...

You said there was a continuum between Presidents but it seems now that this only applies in certain areas. If America is at war then the country is at war and must win that war. It is not wise for another President to come along and say we changed our minds, we are not at war after all and only want peace. Do you seriously believe that your enemies will go for that? It is not the United States who decides where, how or when wars will be fought or whether there is peace or no peace, yet that seems to be what too many Americans appear to believe. This is incredibly naive and dangerous.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
He certainly thinks he is...Need we pull all the times he mentioned "going around congress" or the times he actually has?



Stunning. In one breath you say he isn't a king, and in the very next you castigate congress for not rolling over to every whim he has...



What kind of slippery language is this? Remember what specifically? Lay it out, and don't give me that "I have before" crap. This is a filler line meant to muddy the conversation and leaving you an out.



Bull! all one has to do is read your arguments. You clearly think that those in custody in Gitmo are there in error, and innocent, if not all, then enough that you don't think they should be there in the first place...Here is a good example of that, just read the progression of the thread...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...7354-obama-releasing-1-3-gitmo-detainees.html

There are others, all the way back through the argument, you have expressed views that if not explicit in calling for the close of Gitmo, then on the broader argument of whether of not the entire endeavor is just. All you are doing is playing semantics. It is highly dishonest at best.



That's your opinion. And even with all the information that is known, rightly, or wrongly in the end you don't have a say anymore than I do, and that burns you up.
Click to expand...

J, you have to stop reading into what is written that isn't there. I merely pointed out that the president, any president, needs congress. Period.

And no matter how I feel about Gitmo, it is a fact that I did not mention it in our conversation. So take a deep breath and try to stay within the context of what is said.

Nor do I deny my views or speak for others. But I gave a specific list here.

J, I have. Brother, he's an idiot, and he thinks the government is putting chips in our ass to monitor us, and that space creatures are kidnapping people. He makes the same arguments about opinions you do.
 
Grant said:
He needed Congress and got Congress, and now you say it was the |Democrats who were frightened of the Republican 'fear machine'. You do not appear to have a coherent thought available to you, and this is so typically left.

There were factors that influenced what happened? No kidding?? Are you just trying to fill up space here and hoping it might be considered logical debate?



You said there was a continuum between Presidents but it seems now that this only applies in certain areas. If America is at war then the country is at war and must win that war. It is not wise for another President to come along and say we changed our minds, we are not at war after all and only want peace. Do you seriously believe that your enemies will go for that? It is not the United States who decides where, how or when wars will be fought or whether there is peace or no peace, yet that seems to be what too many Americans appear to believe. This is incredibly naive and dangerous.
Click to expand...

It's a very coherent thought. You just have to grasp and follow. Congress was, as always, concerned about being re-elected. Just as that fear made reasonable republicans like Grassley in Iowa cave and side with the tea party over death panels, despite being the architect of the idea, democrats caved to the fear mongering. You can hide from tis fact all you want, but that is factually what happened.

A continuum doesn't remove responsibility or praise for stupid and wise decisions. We never declared war (a huge mistake) and instead acted in an imperial manner. Spent much in terms of lives and money for eventually nothing. We never could have been defeated by al Qeada or any other such group. We elevated their status, training the next group of terrorist who will be killing people for decades to come (I think the CIA entwined this).
 
Boo Radley said:
You confuse things concerning 03. Bush hurt our credibility. That's a different issue. He also hard no moral core, lie in an area some of us could not accept, putting Americans in harms way needlessly, and largely did more harm than good concerning the war on terror.

And gitmo being open is the fault of conservative fear mongers as much as anyone else. You want we can revisit the Jordan notion that conservatives are never responsible for their actions. I'll leave that up to you.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a concrete example of what you are talking about when you say that Bush lied?

It's just my opinion, but Bush has more moral core in his discarded toenail clippings than all the liberals in the universe have put together.

And it's been 12 years since a major terrorist attack, and the current President is pretty much following the previous President's policies on the WoT all down the line. So much for more harm than good.
 
LowDown said:
Can you provide a concrete example of what you are talking about when you say that Bush lied?

It's just my opinion, but Bush has more moral core in his discarded toenail clippings than all the liberals in the universe have put together.

And it's been 12 years since a major terrorist attack, and the current President is pretty much following the previous President's policies on the WoT all down the line. So much for more harm than good.
Click to expand...

That Saddam was growing and gathering. Most knew there was one left over weapons, but Bush hyped it. By doing what he IG called an inappropriate use of intel, using the doubted intel the got from torturing al Libi, using Chalibi and his heroes in error, and ignoring information that disproved their claims, Bush created a false picture.

We can go over all hat again, but we all know just as some will always see 9/11 as an inside job. Others will never look honestly at Bush's deceptions.
 
j-mac said:
My misreading? Or your purposely piss poor articulation? You are pathetically dishonest Joe, I think for the best we are both done replying to each other for a while.
Click to expand...

Translation: I've fallen, and I can't get up.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's a very coherent thought. You just have to grasp and follow. Congress was, as always, concerned about being re-elected. Just as that fear made reasonable republicans like Grassley in Iowa cave and side with the tea party over death panels, despite being the architect of the idea, democrats caved to the fear mongering. You can hide from tis fact all you want, but that is factually what happened.
Click to expand...

So Democrats and Republicans, as well as their leaders, are all afraid. And the people who elect them? Are they afraid too?

A continuum doesn't remove responsibility or praise for stupid and wise decisions. We never declared war (a huge mistake) and instead acted in an imperial manner.
Click to expand...
So behaving in "an Imperial manner" may have offended your enemies and made them angry with you? That frightens you?
Spent much in terms of lives and money for eventually nothing.
Click to expand...

It's certainly nothing now because of Obama's retreats. The waste of lives, the costs of the war, all that investment is wasted. All that comes out of it is that Americans cannot be trusted to win a war and that the American public, and their leaders, will turn on each other in a time of crisis.

That was not the America of the past. Now it weaker and more subject to anti American propaganda than ever before, and much of it from within. There is no longer any pride in being an American, especially from the left.

We never could have been defeated by al Qeada or any other such group. We elevated their status, training the next group of terrorist who will be killing people for decades to come (I think the CIA entwined this).
Click to expand...

Yes, i'm familiar with this refrain. America gets attacked and it's America's fault. This self loathing has reached new dimensions when a murderous, misogynist bunch of misfit terrorists like Al Qaeda can get the benefit of any doubt when dealing with an arm of the American people. And you say you cannot be defeated?

You have been defeated, and from within. You're just not astute enough to realize it.
 
Grant said:
So Democrats and Republicans, as well as their leaders, are all afraid. And the people who elect them? Are they afraid too?

So behaving in "an Imperial manner" may have offended your enemies and made them angry with you? That frightens you?


It's certainly nothing now because of Obama's retreats. The waste of lives, the costs of the war, all that investment is wasted. All that comes out of it is that Americans cannot be trusted to win a war and that the American public, and their leaders, will turn on each other in a time of crisis.

That was not the America of the past. Now it weaker and more subject to anti American propaganda than ever before, and much of it from within. There is no longer any pride in being an American, especially from the left.



Yes, i'm familiar with this refrain. America gets attacked and it's America's fault. This self loathing has reached new dimensions when a murderous, misogynist bunch of misfit terrorists like Al Qaeda can get the benefit of any doubt when dealing with an arm of the American people. And you say you cannot be defeated?

You have been defeated, and from within. You're just not astute enough to realize it.
Click to expand...

Yes, congress critters do react all too often to protect their jobs. Yes.

And no. I think behaving imperialisticly is a mistake. We don't rule the world, no should we want to.

Obama largely held to the Iraq timeline, one reached Nader Bush. I have no problem with that. He handled Afghanistan poor, using a surge tactic even the generals admitted could fail even if they got all they asked for. Democracies have trouble maintaining needless conflicts like this, as well they shoud. We should learn and make sure there I a real need before recklessly entering into them, and this has always been true of American. You mistakenly seem to be comparing justified and need sacrifice with these more modern police actions that are not valid or proper.

And no one said it was America's fault. Is your argument so weak that you can't respond to what was actually Said?
 
Ray410 said:
Certainly the Muslims would never torture anyone. That wouldn't fit in the with the liberal requirement for worship of all enemies of the United States.
Click to expand...

Certainly the radical Muslims torture. And if you approve of these tactics, you are even worse than they are. Anyone condoning this needs to move to a Muslim country. At least they will be around those of their own kind.
 
Boo Radley said:
That Saddam was growing and gathering. Most knew there was one left over weapons, but Bush hyped it. By doing what he IG called an inappropriate use of intel, using the doubted intel the got from torturing al Libi, using Chalibi and his heroes in error, and ignoring information that disproved their claims, Bush created a false picture.
Click to expand...

Do you still not understand that all world leaders of the day believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, or are you, like any loyal leftist, trying to erase the past and reinvent history?
We can go over all hat again, but we all know just as some will always see 9/11 as an inside job. Others will never look honestly at Bush's deceptions.
Click to expand...

Remarkable!
 
Texmex said:
Certainly the radical Muslims torture. And if you approve of these tactics, you are even worse than they are. Anyone condoning this needs to move to a Muslim country. At least they will be around those of their own kind.
Click to expand...


Maybe it is your ilk that needs to move to the muslim world. You seem to be setting up scenarios that would only serve to strengthen or excuse Muslim enemy actions, while tying our hands in the matter.

How about images like this:

DownloadedFile.jpeg

do you feel this was justified, and better yet, did we have the right to respond to such barbarity?
 
Texmex said:
Certainly the radical Muslims torture. And if you approve of these tactics, you are even worse than they are. Anyone condoning this needs to move to a Muslim country. At least they will be around those of their own kind.
Click to expand...

How do you propose the United States confronts those who want to destroy them? You don't seem to want to fight them. can't torture them of course. Can't speak unkindly of them or publish anything that may offend them. Is is still an investment in the hearts and minds program in the hope that they will eventually see the enlightened superiority of your ways?
 
Grant said:
How do you propose the United States confronts those who want to destroy them? You don't seem to want to fight them. can't torture them of course. Can't speak unkindly of them or publish anything that may offend them. Is is still an investment in the hearts and minds program in the hope that they will eventually see the enlightened superiority of your ways?
Click to expand...

So I take it you support torture.
 
Grant said:
Under certain circumstances?

Certainly. I wouldn't hesitate.
Click to expand...

Well then, I think you are a disgrace to this country and certainly not fit to wear the uniform.
 
Texmex said:
Well then, I think you are a disgrace to this country and certainly not fit to wear the uniform.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what you think. If you aren't prepared to defend your family, your neighbors or your country and its freedoms, then it's best you not get involved in anything too serious at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
That Saddam was growing and gathering. Most knew there was one left over weapons, but Bush hyped it. By doing what he IG called an inappropriate use of intel, using the doubted intel the got from torturing al Libi, using Chalibi and his heroes in error, and ignoring information that disproved their claims, Bush created a false picture.

We can go over all hat again, but we all know just as some will always see 9/11 as an inside job. Others will never look honestly at Bush's deceptions.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some will never look honestly at Bush.
 
Grant said:
It really doesn't matter what you think. If you aren't prepared to defend your family, your neighbors or your country and its freedoms, then it's best you not get involved in anything too serious at all.
Click to expand...

Torture is not required to do any of the things you describe.
 
Texmex said:
Torture is not required to do any of the things you describe.
Click to expand...

You seems quite confident of this claim.

I'll wager that in 20 minutes alone with you, you'll tell me everything I ever wanted to know about you, your family and what your pin codes might be.
 
Grant said:
Do you still not understand that all world leaders of the day believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, or are you, like any loyal leftist, trying to erase the past and reinvent history?


Remarkable!
Click to expand...

Notice how you changed the wording. They believed, as I said, that he had some left over weapons. Not growing and gathering. You have it wrong, and deliberately changed the wording of my claim. This suggests you even know yourself.
 
LowDown said:
I agree. Some will never look honestly at Bush.
Click to expand...

Assume this is your confession and not a lame attempt to avoid the points presented.

:coffeepap
 
Grant said:
You seems quite confident of this claim.

I'll wager that in 20 minutes alone with you, you'll tell me everything I ever wanted to know about you, your family and what your pin codes might be.
Click to expand...


Watch out dude, he is one internet billy bad ass...Threatened to kick my ass if I ever came to Texas, in a PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom