Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The US secret war

ViolentPanda said:
Only if you're willing to potty-train him, Bernie.

His current incontinent ejection of smelly nuggets of stupidity from his arse isn't something I'd wish to see continue for too long. The carpets might stain.
thasnks to post Offline-events, i really don't wanna think about shit and carpets.... :eek:
 
Wanna' see a postin' example of pomposity?

rogue yam said:
(VERY poor intellectual skills by many on this site, unfortunately.) GWB has explicitly and repeatedly pointed to this in his speaches...

rogue yam said:
Here's a suggestion, DK: learn to read, spell, and Google. Fuckwit!
My advice, sweet potato should not cast the first stone.

However, I think I have been "pwned" (whatever that means -- alas I am only an occassional denizen of the internet). I admit I did not know Hamdi was released.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Yeah but he's the first person we've found in ages who is actually dumb enough to argue that the US is winning in Iraq. That counts for something.

Fish? Barrel? Meet Bernie.

Bernie? Come on, even for shits'n'giggles, heckling a rove-remora is low for you?
 
davekriss said:
However, I think I have been "pwned" (whatever that means -- alas I am only an occassional denizen of the internet). I admit I did not know Hamdi was released.

OMG! A flash of intellectual integrity on urban75! Nice one!
 
rogue yam said:
We are distinguishing between the terms. Others are mixing the terms. The terrorists are not POWs. (There have been some POWs in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and generally they have been treated according to the various treaties that we have signed.) It all boils down to your demand to put terrorists on trial. We have chosen not to, and repeatedly explained why not. Some leftists don't like this (big suprise...not!) and so they shriek incoherently about "international law" (we are complying with all treaties) and "world opinion" (which is just too rich for many reasons, some of which I've given above). But it really does boil down to that one point. You want American-style criminal justice procedures to be applied to terrorists whatever they've done, wherever they're captured, and wherever they're held. You will not get such from the U.S. so long as GWB is President.
This is not entirely accurate. There are three terms involved, not two: Terrorist, POW, and "enemy combatant", the latter a new term invented by the Bush Regime. The reason it was invented is they were well aware that if they claimed the prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere were "terrorists", then the US public would clamour for fair trials (or at least military tribunals). If they said "POW" they knew there would be pressure to honor the Geneva Conventions. So out of thin air they invented a heretofore unused term, "enemy combatant", to by fiat define human beings in ways not previously covered by law, military regulation, or treaties. Thus they could claim a right to treat them any way they wanted to, because it's something "new" without precedent and they are making new precedent. As you know, sweet potato, 9-11 changed everything.

Is this right? This is what you support? Neither you nor I know if every person imprisoned in Gitmo is accurately defined by any of these terms. We know that mistakes were made, as they released handfuls over the years. But without evidence, we are expected to agree that every person rotting in our various "black" prisons is guilty -- they're all ambassadors of evil, GWB would have us believe. But we were also expected to believe that Iraq presented a threat to the US, that Saddam Bin Laden might attack Kansas with anthrax-spraying balsa toy airplanes (I'll spare you a long list of other preposterous claims on both the domestic and foreign fronts).

Do you claim to be a conservative? You don't espouse any conservative ideal here. Instead, you express the morality of a schoolyard bully. If you were a conservative, then you would be very concerned that the executive branch of the USG has taken on the unconstitutional power to declare even US citizens "enemy combatants". When challenged they hide behind a veil of secrecy in the name of "national security". (I'm still waiting to see the minutes from Cheney's Energy Summit from way back in 2001.)

How can a purported conservative accept the usurpation of power to imprison US citizens for long periods of time without charges? What's to stop the Regime from jailing Rove (o if we'd be so lucky!) or Ted Kennedy (o if you were so lucky!) or, well, you? A real conservative and patriot would not accept this situation.

Again, these people are not your friends, you mean nothing to them. Why defend the undefendable? By your words on this thread it cannot be because you have a principled position.

On Edit: Bush rules over us by the power of lawyerly redefinition. Is waterboarding torture or not? The Regime says no, they have legal opinion that defines it as frat pranks. Is it unconstitutional and illegal spying on US citizens? Naw, they found another lawyer to redefine that. As a conservative, how can you tolerate this? Libertarians on both the Left and Right should be banding together to restore the democratic ideals of our nation before it is too late.

But then perhaps you share the authoritarian mindset of uber-rightists like Hitler, Mussolini, George Bush, etc. Which is it, sweet potato?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Yawn....

Is there supposed to be something new in there?
you mean, like all those links were sooo new, that you disinterred to substantiate the myth of a jewish diaspora from france?
glass houses, stones etc.
tt...ttt...ttt...
 
rich! said:
Fish? Barrel? Meet Bernie.

Bernie? Come on, even for shits'n'giggles, heckling a rove-remora is low for you?
Well, I'd certainly enjoy it more if it were more of a challenge.

I suppose we could all take turns pretending to be Bush supporters, perhaps by lottery or something, in order to improve their performance?

JC2, I don't suppose you'd reconsider supporting Bush would you? This kind of stuff was way more interesting back when there was always a chance of you jumping in to bail these guys out.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Well, I'd certainly enjoy it more if it were more of a challenge.

I suppose we could all take turns pretending to be Bush supporters, perhaps by lottery or something, in order to improve their performance?

JC2, I don't suppose you'd reconsider supporting Bush would you? This kind of stuff was way more interesting back when there was always a chance of you jumping in to bail these guys out.

I'd try, just for old time's sake, but my heart wouldn't be in it.

I am, however, all in favour of the CIA killing bad guys wherever they find them. I'm just not happy that it's Bush issuing the marching orders.
 
Bad guys? What bad guys?

Given that the America's secret war seems to consist in a fairly major way of supporting brutal dictatorships, I think it's possibly best if they don't kill anyone, whether they consider them to be bad guys or not.
 
Ah well, I have to say you're a hell of a lot more likeable since you stopped channelling Darth Vader JC, but I do miss the adrenaline buzz of arguing with the previous version of you. It had that 'life or death' edge, instead of, as Rich! put it, 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Our bushbots are a sad bunch without you.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Ah well, I have to say you're a hell of a lot more likeable since you stopped channelling Darth Vader JC, but I do miss the adrenaline buzz of arguing with the previous version of you. It had that 'life or death' edge, instead of, as Rich! put it, 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Our bushbots are a sad bunch without you.


Bernie, it's all me. Different things just come out at different times, is all.

Besides, you can only scream for people's deaths for so long, before you get a little tired of it.

I suppose that's why we're not fanatics. Problem is, fanatics do exist, and they don't give up the way that us reasonable people do.
 
Back
Top Bottom