• 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!

George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Conservative said:
Radical Islam wants you to convert or die. Seems to me the choice is very clear.
Click to expand...

Radical Christianity says the same thing. Radical Islam, btw, doesn't have the means to force a "convert or die" situation. Militant, fundamentalist Muslims who have the desire and means to strike the US... there's maybe 100 in the whole world. There are THREE HUNDRED MILLION of us. Nothing that Al Queda or any of their friends could ever do would either kill us or change us to be like them. Unless we allow ourselves to be governed by fear, infringe on liberty, and generally act like barbarians.

Oh wait, that's exactly what GWB's policies did... He made us more like Osama bin Laden wants us to be. Good job!
 
Jetboogieman said:
"Might Save Lives"

I'm not naive enough to think that its not possible lives has been saved through torture but...

What about the innocents who get tortured in this manner?
Click to expand...



How many innocents were waterboarded? link please.
 
Paschendale said:
It really doesn't bother you to commit heinous evil acts so long as we do it to our enemies? That's exactly the same mentality of Vlad the Impaler. Or of our enemies! I don't want to become Al Queda to fight Al Queda. It's not just about saving lives. It's about living with yourself afterwords. But I suppose some people's morality just doesn't include the inflicting of torture as evil.
Click to expand...




“There were young knights among them who had never been present at a stricken field. Some could not look upon it and some could not speak, and they held themselves apart from the others who were cutting down the prisoners at My Lord’s orders, for the prisoners were a body too numerous to be guarded by those of us who were left.

“Then Jean de Rye, an aged knight of Burgundy who had been sore wounded in the battle, rode up to the group of young knights and said: ‘Are ye maidens with your downcast eyes? Look well upon it. See all of it. Close your eyes to nothing. For a battle is fought to be won, and it is this that happens if you lose.’”


—from a Medieval Chronicle by Froissart, 14th Century
 
Paschendale said:
It really doesn't both you to commit heinous evil acts so long as we do it to our enemies? That's exactly the same mentality of Vlad the Impaler. Or of our enemies! I don't want to become Al Queda to fight Al Queda. It's not just about saving lives. It's about living with yourself afterwords. But I suppose some people's morality just doesn't include the inflicting of torture as evil.
Click to expand...

Watching GW Bush on Monday night and last night it looks to me like he is living with his decisions quite well and I believe he was right. Like it or not, he kept this country safe and attornies told him he was within his rights to do what he did. Democrats agreed or they would have impeached him. Democrats did not want their words put into the record during any Impeachment hearings as they preferred the issue vs. the trial.

The United States is the most moral country on the face of the earth and proves it every day. When a tragedy occurs we are the first in line offering help. When our friends are attacked we are the first to defend them. How anyone can grant civil rights to terrorists is beyond comprehension especially when the leaders of those animals cut off heads and authorize the murder of innocent civilians. My bet is that if one of your loved ones was killed by a terrorist you would have a different opinion on the issue.

I had three family members in Iraq and all three said we did the right thing. They saw the atroscities thrust on the Iraqi people and in particular women. They saw the people that picked up the head of those that went against terrorists and who actually did nothing to cause those beheadings other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sorry, but IMO you are totally and completely wrong in your assessment and that assessment would change if your individual circumstances changed.
 
winston53660 said:
Terrorists attacks

Obama 0 on American home soil.

Bush 1 heck of one on American soil.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... correction.

Ft. Hood was a terror attack by a radikal Muslim that was looked past because of PC.
Underwear bomber almost pulled it off... probably didn't work because he wet himself.
A van bomb in NYC... we got lucky.

And yes 911 happened on Bush's watch, but it was Clinton who wagged his finger after every attack, and let bin Laden slip away when offered up.
It was also Reno & Gorellick that created the firewall that prevented the FBI & CIA from communicating with one another.


Sadly... Obama and his Trons do not even use the term War on Terror. Might offend the bastards.

Insert coin... try again.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... correction.

Ft. Hood was a terror attack by a radikal Muslim that was looked past because of PC.
Underwear bomber almost pulled it off... probably didn't work because he wet himself.
A van bomb in NYC... we got lucky.

And yes 911 happened on Bush's watch, but it was Clinton who wagged his finger after every attack, and let bin Laden slip away when offered up.
It was also Reno & Gorellick that created the firewall that prevented the FBI & CIA from communicating with one another.


Sadly... Obama and his Trons do not even use the term War on Terror. Might offend the bastards.

Insert coin... try again.

.
Click to expand...

Then there is this

PDB 12/4/1998, Subject: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks The 9/11 Commission Report | 7/22/04 | CIA

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
1. Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda
 
zimmer said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... correction.

Ft. Hood was a terror attack by a radikal Muslim that was looked past because of PC.
Underwear bomber almost pulled it off... probably didn't work because he wet himself.
A van bomb in NYC... we got lucky.

And yes 911 happened on Bush's watch, but it was Clinton who wagged his finger after every attack, and let bin Laden slip away when offered up.
It was also Reno & Gorellick that created the firewall that prevented the FBI & CIA from communicating with one another.


Sadly... Obama and his Trons do not even use the term War on Terror. Might offend the bastards.

Insert coin... try again.

.
Click to expand...

Shooting at enemy soldiers is terrorism?

Man, we have a lot of veterans to put on trial now :(

edit: Ohhh I get it. It's terrorism because he was Muslim. Like how domestic abuse/violence ends up on those lists of "MUSLIM TERRORRRRRRR"
 
Last edited:
And if he IS an "enemy soldier," then there's no need for a trial; he can be held until the end of hostilities.

Or, as he was not wearing the uniform of his organization and infiltrated clandestinely, he can be summarily shot as a spy.

Both of these are provided for in the Geneva Conventions. Tell me, Deuce; which fate should await him?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
He shot at civillians as well. Please tell me you are not defending this jackoff as an enemy soldier.
Click to expand...

Hey! It's the regressive absolutism game again!

Any more slander you'd like to level? Accuse me of child molestation maybe?

He attacked soldiers at a military base. That sort of thing happens in war. Civilians were on the base, some got shot at.
We shoot at insurgents in Iraq. Sometimes civilians are there too and get killed. Terrorism?

Guy shoots up a convenience store. Shooting at civilians! Terrorism?

Ft. Hood was more "espionage" and "murder" than "terrorism." (he was apparently recruited via correspondence with islamic extremists)
 
Deuce said:
Hey! It's the regressive absolutism game again!

Any more slander you'd like to level? Accuse me of child molestation maybe?

He attacked soldiers at a military base. That sort of thing happens in war. Civilians were on the base, some got shot at.
We shoot at insurgents in Iraq. Sometimes civilians are there too and get killed. Terrorism?

Guy shoots up a convenience store. Shooting at civilians! Terrorism?
Click to expand...

You don't even have the slightest understanding of what you're saying, do you?

If he "attacked soldiers at a military base" as part of a "war," what could he be BUT an enemy soldier?

I guess you want it every possible way with no need for logical conclusion. Tell me, what is it that drives you to make such a ridiculous assertion? Seems like a knee-jerk reaction based on ideology, so the question is, what is it in your ideology which requires you make such a statement?
 
Harshaw said:
You don't even have the slightest understanding of what you're saying, do you?

If he "attacked soldiers at a military base" as part of a "war," what could he be BUT an enemy soldier?

I guess you want it every possible way with no need for logical conclusion. Tell me, what is it that drives you to make such a ridiculous assertion? Seems like a knee-jerk reaction based on ideology, so the question is, what is it in your ideology which requires you make such a statement?
Click to expand...

So, you're telling me that shooting at enemy soldiers is terrorism?

He's a murderer and a traitor.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
So, you're telling me that shooting at enemy soldiers is terrorism?
Click to expand...

I'm telling you that in order for them to BE "enemy soldiers," he had to be an enemy of the United States. How do you NOT get that?

And being an enemy of the United States, what would you call him?
 
Deuce said:
Hey! It's the regressive absolutism game again!

Any more slander you'd like to level? Accuse me of child molestation maybe?

He attacked soldiers at a military base. That sort of thing happens in war. Civilians were on the base, some got shot at.
We shoot at insurgents in Iraq. Sometimes civilians are there too and get killed. Terrorism?

Guy shoots up a convenience store. Shooting at civilians! Terrorism?

Ft. Hood was more "espionage" and "murder" than "terrorism." (he was apparently recruited via correspondence with islamic extremists)
Click to expand...

Who really friggin cares what you call it ? Engaging in such semantics is the argument of fools anyway. They're terrorists, murderers, scumbags ..... etc. What matters is that they deliberately target our civilians, do not wear uniforms, and hide amongst the civilian populace. That makes them illegal combatants, responsible for all the "civilian" collateral damage done in the pursuit of them, and OBTW, have very limitied protections anywhere by any law. And they are volunteers for all that befalls them:)
 
MetalGear said:
BBC News - George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Goes to show, its effective to a degree. I'm personally okay with violating the rights of terrorists if it means protecting the right to life of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

Does he provide evidence? And how much harm did wrong intel cause (I'm thinking of al Libi's coersed testimoney that help lead us to the needless war in Iraq)?

Saying something is so is very different than it actually being so. I wouldn't take Bush's word for it without evidence to support the claim.
 
Boo Radley said:
Does he provide evidence? And how much harm did wrong intel cause (I'm thinking of al Libi's coersed testimoney that help lead us to the needless war in Iraq)?

Saying something is so is very different than it actually being so. I wouldn't take Bush's word for it without evidence to support the claim.
Click to expand...

You don't have any problem taking the word of other media and continue to defend that media even when confronted with facts. Looks to me like a double standard.
 
Deuce said:
Hey! It's the regressive absolutism game again!

Any more slander you'd like to level? Accuse me of child molestation maybe?
Click to expand...


I didn't accuse you of anything chief. I asked you a question. Defensive much? :lamo


He attacked soldiers at a military base. That sort of thing happens in war. Civilians were on the base, some got shot at.
Click to expand...

What army and country was he representing, and what uniform was he wearing?

Who did he target?


Had he gone on the base and blew up its HQ or perhaps attacked the flight line you would have a better chance at a point. But

We shoot at insurgents in Iraq. Sometimes civilians are there too and get killed. Terrorism?
Click to expand...

/facepalm Your ignorance and comparison of a terrorist attack to the us military is far more slanderous than my asking you if you are defending this jackoff.


Guy shoots up a convenience store. Shooting at civilians! Terrorism?
Click to expand...

Depends on his motive.


Ft. Hood was more "espionage" and "murder" than "terrorism." (he was apparently recruited via correspondence with islamic extremists)
Click to expand...



Espionage? :lamo
 
Harshaw said:
I'm telling you that in order for them to BE "enemy soldiers," he had to be an enemy of the United States. How do you NOT get that?

And being an enemy of the United States, what would you call him?
Click to expand...

An enemy of the United States. Being our enemy does not make you a terrorist, you have to commit an act of terrorism to earn that label.

Eighty Deuce said:
Who really friggin cares what you call it ? Engaging in such semantics is the argument of fools anyway. They're terrorists, murderers, scumbags ..... etc. What matters is that they deliberately target our civilians, do not wear uniforms, and hide amongst the civilian populace. That makes them illegal combatants, responsible for all the "civilian" collateral damage done in the pursuit of them, and OBTW, have very limitied protections anywhere by any law. And they are volunteers for all that befalls them:)
Click to expand...

It matters because labeling this guy a terrorist means either holding a double standard or labeling some of our guys terrorists also.
Islamic extremists convince American soldier to switch sides and turn on his comrades: terrorism!
CIA convinces Iraqi insurgent to switch sides and turn on his comrades: some damned fine intelligence work!
 
Deuce said:
An enemy of the United States. Being our enemy does not make you a terrorist, you have to commit an act of terrorism to earn that label.
Click to expand...

Then you're saying he's an enemy soldier engaging in a war. Like I said, you apparently want it all possible ways.
 
Deuce said:
An enemy of the United States. Being our enemy does not make you a terrorist, you have to commit an act of terrorism to earn that label.



It matters because labeling this guy a terrorist means either holding a double standard or labeling some of our guys terrorists also.
Islamic extremists convince American soldier to switch sides and turn on his comrades: terrorism!
CIA convinces Iraqi insurgent to switch sides and turn on his comrades: some damned fine intelligence work!
Click to expand...

Do you have a clue ? What do you not understand ? In legal terms, he was an illegal combatant by more than one reference in the Geneva Conventions. We do not need some nice folder to file him in, as a "terrorist", or "murderer", etc. We have full authority to try him by hasty tribunal and execute him of we choose to. Or we can grant him a full civil trial. The choice is at our pleasure. He has no standing as an enemy combatant.

By Geneva Convention and all recognized rules of war, American soldiers in uniform are legal combatants. Capable of criminal acts, the deliberate killing of civilians, etc., for sure, and they have to be dealt with when they happen. "Acts or terror", that being the targeting of civilian populations and assets so as to compel surrender, occur in modern war. Dropping buzz bombs on London. Bombing Dresden. Hiroshima. But there are still distinctions to be had. Distinctions that make one legal or illegal as a combatant. Its in our laws and treaties. Hasan was not in a gray area. Nor are such as KSM.
 
Conservative said:
You don't have any problem taking the word of other media and continue to defend that media even when confronted with facts. Looks to me like a double standard.
Click to expand...

I don't take anyone's word. I take a look at evidence. I only ask that you do the same. BTW, media is only the method by which something is communicated. By us taking by way of the computer, we're the media. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't take anyone's word. I take a look at evidence. I only ask that you do the same. BTW, media is only the method by which something is communicated. By us taking by way of the computer, we're the media. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

No, we aren't the media, they are a propaganda machine as has been proven by the actual results.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't take anyone's word. I take a look at evidence. I only ask that you do the same. BTW, media is only the method by which something is communicated. By us taking by way of the computer, we're the media. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Barry has "saved, or created" 3 Million jobs?


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom