Gitmo = Hooters?

im not saying get rid of everyone, just make em scared as hell.
 
And that'll help you how?

I think that'll do the opposite. More people will come along to bomb you. Hell I'd probably join them.....
 
Well, if you're saying they arent military (& therefore covered by geneva conventions) then they must be civilian, and as we all know, the US engaged these civilians in afghanistan.

They are terrorists...
 
fear works better than anger. fear keeps feelings of vengence down. a lot of physc work was done in gulags, mass manipulation is quiet easy
 
seinfeldrules said:
They are terrorists...

hehe... ok, so they're civilian criminals then?

(being that a terrorist is one who employs terror-style tactics (eg hostage taking, armed battles) for the sake of a political point)
 
How do you define a terrorist who "wants you dead" anyway?

I think, more correctly, many of those "terrorists" simply want you to get the hell out of their land and leave them alone. So why do you believe that any and all of these people can be herded and tortured so harshly?
 
Eg. said:
no. im going to belive that those being tortured are the ones that are the ones wanting us dead. im inculding u in "us" because u are a westerner.
...

now, most of theses guys think that the west is evil


From the aspects of:

illegal invasion and occupation,
threats to Moslems and persecution of them,
killing of civillians,
humiliations, abuses and tortures,
Eg. said:
i dont see why we would have to respect their religion in any form,
Eg. said:
wars should serve as punishment and as a lesson. other nations should get a clear message: dont mess with us,
Crashing the democracy by installing governments, that they want, e.g. in Iran:
Mossadeq was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax"). ... But the nation demonstrates and supports Mossadeq, so Shah has to get out of country. The first time in the 2500 years history of Iran won the democracy. But the CIA needs even not a week to revolt Shah back to power.

...

isn´t it?


Humiliations and abuses are parts of the mosaic, thanks a lot ...
 
The Communion Waffer thing got me. I still laugh ...

This kind of behaviour disgusts me.

It does'nt disgust me so much as it shows me that when were at our worst, still better then them at practioning human rights. I understand the position that the fake menstural blood is a form of torture -- however I beg to differ on such a statement; including the fact we dont torture until death. We dont even technically, practise the correct way of torture.

We may aswell assault them with a classroom full of Kindergarteners dressed up as they're favorite villians or heros.

Also, how does this even categorize as fake "menstural" blood? Its fake blood, with a lie put behind it.

This behaviour makes you just as bad as the people who attacked you, fools.

Understanding your concern, I'd like to differ. Your addressal was for someone else as I understand -- however from how topics preceed in the path, I'd like for people to acknowledge now even though I'am an American, that I happen to be against tortures.

Don't you see that this, if they ever admitted it to their family, could lead to their complete exclusion religiously, a strong source of community?

So, were trying to win a war -- how do we convince these people to divulge information? The suggestion of being better then them ... seems to, through them for a loop.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
It does'nt disgust me so much as it shows me that when were at our worst, still better then them at practioning human rights. I understand the position that the fake menstural blood is a form of torture -- however I beg to differ on such a statement; including the fact we dont torture until death. We dont even technically, practise the correct way of torture.

not true

you know I really think it's idiotic to hold the terrorists under the same international laws as the US ...I mean, They're freakin TERRORISTS! did you expect them to behave according to international law? ..this very fact does not give the US carte blanche to do as it pleases ..they have the world's scrutiny to deal with ..the terrorists have no one to answer to except their misguided principles ..I really dont see why this is so hard for some of you to understand. I suspect that you dont want to deal with it because then you'd have to admit that your country not only participates in torture but they break moral and legal laws when they practice it

kerberos said:
Also, how does this even categorize as fake "menstural" blood? Its fake blood, with a lie put behind it.

so if I walk up to a police officer point an unloaded gun to his face, he'll let me go as soon as I tell him "dont worry mr officer it's not loaded"
 
I think, more correctly, many of those "terrorists" simply want you to get the hell out of their land and leave them alone. So why do you believe that any and all of these people can be herded and tortured so harshly?

They want us out of their land? Then how can you explain the deliberate killings of Iraqis when Americans arent even nearby. Doesnt sound like much of a freedom fighter to me. Having fake blood rubbed on your face doesnt sound very harsh either. There needs to be some way to extract information.

so if I walk up to a police officer point an unloaded gun to his face, he'll let me go as soon as I tell him "dont worry mr officer it's not loaded"
Completely different situation. It would be more like a police officer interrogating a murderer who could potentially lead the police to a serial killer. The police officer puts an empty gun to his head and tells him to talk. Even then, it is much worse than rubbing fake blood on somebody.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Completely different situation. It would be more like a police officer interrogating a murderer who could potentially lead the police to a serial killer. The police officer puts an empty gun to his head and tells him to talk. Even then, it is much worse than rubbing fake blood on somebody.

a police officer cannot do that
 
seinfeldrules said:
They want us out of their land?

Should we count dead Iraqi civilians?
By Joe Boyle
BBC News
Wednesday, 8 December, 2004

"A group of ex-diplomats, military men and academics has called on Tony Blair to hold an inquiry into civilian deaths in Iraq. They say the UK has a duty enshrined in international law to record the deaths.

The government thinks otherwise.

Estimates on civilian deaths in Iraq vary from 15,000 to 100,000. But the government has no official figures.

The only organisation keeping a running total of civilian deaths in Iraq is a non-governmental group called Iraq Body Count.

On Wednesday their website said the number of civilians killed since March 2003 was between 14,619 to 16,814"




Iraqi civilian casualties mounting

Posted on Sat, Sep. 25, 2004
By NANCY A. YOUSSEF

Knight Ridder Newspapers


"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder."
 
of course 2x as many civilians have been killed by american forces, it was a war. we bombed them. the terrorist though, have produced most of the deaths after we took the natio ex:

we kill 20,000 taking over the nation

in the time span of a year, the terrorists blow up 10,000 more, where as american forces kill none.
 
Eg. said:
im serious. i dont give a damn what religion u are, mess with america, and ur screwed. in a bad way
If an Iraqi soldier "interrogated" an American suspect (imprisoned without trial or conviction, yadda yadda yadda, details details) by smearing menstrual discharge on their faces - or at least making them believe that they were being smeared with menstrual discharge - you'd be f*cking outraged. So stop being such an ignorant little c*nt and realise that it's a foul f*cking act and yet another one that the people over in good ole Guantanamo Bay should be ashamed of.
 
Eg. said:
of course 2x as many civilians have been killed by american forces, it was a war. we bombed them. the terrorist though, have produced most of the deaths after we took the natio ex:

we kill 20,000 taking over the nation

in the time span of a year, the terrorists blow up 10,000 more, where as american forces kill none.

:upstare: you wanna backup your claims? 7000+ iraqis were killed by US bombing in the first few weeks of the invasion, another 7000+ died as a result of either terrorism or US military intervention ..still doesnt compare to the 500,000 children that died during the sanctions. The US is responsible for that because they deliberately targeted water treatment plants
 
CptStern said:
:upstare: you wanna backup your claims? 7000+ iraqis were killed by US bombing in the first few weeks of the invasion, another 7000+ died as a result of either terrorism or US military intervention ..still doesnt compare to the 500,000 children that died during the sanctions. The US is responsible for that because they deliberately targeted water treatment plants
Wait what? I'm having trouble reading this. Right now, in my brain, seems like you're saying we're responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children (no argument there) because we targeted water treatment plants with our sanctions? Set me straight here.
 
CptStern said:
:upstare: you wanna backup your claims? 7000+ iraqis were killed by US bombing in the first few weeks of the invasion, another 7000+ died as a result of either terrorism or US military intervention ..still doesnt compare to the 500,000 children that died during the sanctions. The US is responsible for that because they deliberately targeted water treatment plants


notice how i say example, i use "ex" in terms to twice as many civs died because of the war then to terrorists. the real number can be 16k to 8k or whatever.

half a million kids died? ok. how much money did saddam strangle out of the oil for food program? 21billion? u need 8 glasses(8oz) of water a day to live. since iraq is hot, ill give the kiddies 10 glasses

so a 80z bottle of water in my school is 1 dollar.

so 21,000,000,000/10(glasses0=2,100,000,000(bottles of water)

2,100,000,000/500,000=4,200 days of water

4,200/365(days in a year)=11.5

wow, somehow if iraq spent its money right, it could have kept those kids alive buy buying water. until the next war. at FULL market price, not at the reduced price bulk products are sold at. and what about all that damned aid the evil USA and Europe gave Iraq? so we are to blame for their fudge ups?

steve, hes saying we bombed them, which we did
 
exactly my point

You brought up no point...

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder."

Again, the situation is not taken into account. When terrorists are hiding amongst civilians, then casualties will result...
 
so then how did the 7000+ die during the invasion? where they strapping themselves to their friendly neighbourhood terrorists?
 
we bombed them. i ve been saying that all along. bombs dont blow up a 1ft by 1ft area, they tend to destroy buildings. thats what they r used for.

so you dropped the 500k dead right?
 
Eg. said:
notice how i say example, i use "ex" in terms to twice as many civs died because of the war then to terrorists. the real number can be 16k to 8k or whatever.

half a million kids died? ok. how much money did saddam strangle out of the oil for food program? 21billion? u need 8 glasses(8oz) of water a day to live. since iraq is hot, ill give the kiddies 10 glasses

so a 80z bottle of water in my school is 1 dollar.

so 21,000,000,000/10(glasses0=2,100,000,000(bottles of water)

2,100,000,000/500,000=4,200 days of water

4,200/365(days in a year)=11.5

wow, somehow if iraq spent its money right, it could have kept those kids alive buy buying water. until the next war. at FULL market price, not at the reduced price bulk products are sold at. and what about all that damned aid the evil USA and Europe gave Iraq? so we are to blame for their fudge ups?

steve, hes saying we bombed them, which we did

eg why do you come and debate here if you're knowledge of the issues can be summed up in one word: non-existant

do you even know when the oil-for-food program began? 1997, when where the sanctions put into place? 1991 ..the majority of that number were already dead by the time the oil-for-food program came into effect...why do you think they put the program in place? because people were dying at an alarming rate ..so unless you or seinfeldrules wants to dispute/defend this document, I dont want to hear another word on the matter
 
i dont have to defend something i agree with. by all means, bomb the treatment plants, power plants, factories, cities, and all other parts of the nation.

war. people die. i just happen to live on the winning side.
 
Eg. said:
i dont have to defend something i agree with. by all means, bomb the treatment plants, power plants, factories, cities, and all other parts of the nation.

war. people die. i just happen to live on the winning side.


Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

edit: hey I just noticed you were banned ..about time
 
so then how did the 7000+ die during the invasion? where they strapping themselves to their friendly neighbourhood terrorists?

When terrorists position themselves in mosques and residential housing...

What would a soldier have to gain by intentionally killing a civilian? 10 years like the Abu Gharib soldier?
 
seinfeldrules said:
When terrorists position themselves in mosques and residential housing...

What would a soldier have to gain by intentionally killing a civilian? 10 years like the Abu Gharib soldier?

what terrorists? for the last time this was DURING the invasion ..there were no terrorists only Iraqi soldiers
 
Saddam during the Iran Iraq, and Iraq Kuwait, AND Iraq OMFG PULL OUT OF KUWAIT war, used civilians targets to station his Anti-Aircraft batteries.

Its no suprise where the terrorist learned this from.
 
CptStern said:
edit: hey I just noticed you were banned ..about time

TBH His reason for being banned was completely effin' weak.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Saddam during the Iran Iraq, and Iraq Kuwait, AND Iraq OMFG PULL OUT OF KUWAIT war, used civilians targets to station his Anti-Aircraft batteries.

Its no suprise where the terrorist learned this from.

so 7000 iraqi civilians were standing right next to iraqi weapons when america bombed them? :upstare:
 
Not usually. Most of them were huddeled away in their homes, or busy listening to radios of the impending invasion.
 
Absinthe said:
TBH His reason for being banned was completely effin' weak.


he did have 9 warnings against him, that thread put him to -11, 10 will get you banned ..so he had it coming, sooner or later he would have slipped up and gotten another point
 
Looks like another one got hit by the ban stick.
 
fake menstrual blood

Oh for F*ck sake, the F*cking army is full of Pussies.

Out of all the things out there, why have the coalition leaned towards sexual warefare, this isn't the 1960's
 
We could've used real Menstural blood -- but then, when a used tampon was hung over a prisoners head; alls you'd get is a red jelly.
 
Absinthe said:
He posted a video advert for ending the use of landmines.

yeah, but then he posted a version "with music" at a domain called "childporn".
 
Back
Top