ThinkFast AM: July 7, 2006
ThinkFast AM: July 7, 2006
“A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed ‘large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists’ to infiltrate the military.”
House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s (R-IL) “net worth has soared from no more than $290,000 to more than $6 million during his 19-year tenure on Capitol Hill.” Hastert has made most of his money through land deals, sometimes using federal earmarks to turn a profit.
Coal industry veteran Richard Stickler, the man President Bush chose to oversee federal mine safety laws, “has not been able to win Senate confirmation but has gone to work at the Labor Department anyway.â€
Allegations of plagiarism in Ann Coulter’s new book are “trivial,” “meritless,” and “irresponsible,” says Steve Ross, SVP of Crown Publishing, which published the book. “The number of words used by our author in these snippets is so minimal that there is no requirement for attribution.”
Contrary to claims in the U.S. media that conditions in Guantanamo have improved, Australian terror suspect David Hicks, who is being held at the prison camp, told relatives that conditions have worsened since three inmates committed suicide last month.
“A diversion of dollars to help fight the war in Iraq has helped create a $530 million shortfall for Army posts at home and abroad, leaving some unable to pay utility bills or even cut the grass.â€
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. William Casey tried to calm Iraqi anger by strongly condemning the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and the killing of her family, saying that the crime had injured the “Iraqi people as a whole.” Bush added, “People will be held to account if these charges are true. … There will be absolute justice if this person is guilty.”
Russia has cracked down on Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, forcing 60 radio stations to stop broadcasting their news reports. “In a country where the news media increasingly avoid controversial subjects, millions of Russians had made the broadcasts a listening staple.”
Afghanistan’s foreign minister said yesterday that the “confidence of [the Afghan] people in the government to protect them, especially in our southern provinces, is not strong.” After meetings with Cheney, Rice, and Hadley yesterday, the minister added, “I think our government and international community were perhaps a little bit naive about how easy it would be to bring the Afghanistan project to an end.â€
And finally: A “bored-looking” President Bush “sprang to life whenever the subject turned to his birthday” during yesterday’s press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Afterwards, Bush invited anyone in the room with a July 6 birthday on stage; Harper “stood off to the side, rubbing his nose, as his photo op [with Bush] disintegrated.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The relative importance of plagiarism in Coulter’s book is not for Mr. Ross to decide. I’m susprised that the people she stole material from haven’t filed lawsuits already.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:24 amAnd finally: A “bored-looking†President Bush “sprang to life whenever the subject turned to his birthday†during yesterday’s press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Afterwards, Bush invited anyone in the room with a July 6 birthday on stage; Harper “stood off to the side, rubbing his nose, as his photo op [with Bush] disintegrated.â€
Yeah, diplomacy is on the march. Bush is capable of pissing even the brand new rightist canadian President. Tomorrow, GW will not understand why Canada sidelines the border control proposals of the USA. Diplomacy works both ways.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:27 amAmbassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. William Casey tried to calm Iraqi anger by strongly condemning the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and the killing of her family, saying that the crime had injured the “Iraqi people as a whole.†Bush added, “People will be held to account if these charges are true. … There will be absolute justice if this person is guilty.â€
Unfortunelly for the USA, the iraqis are used to die for their ideals or by faction wars. Until now, the USA had an opportunity, because islam puts honor and religion before people. But now, if USA pretends to do a whitewash with a crime so horrenodous for muslims as is the honour of their women, the USA will discover that the incident would become the rallying cry needed by the insurgence.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:33 amContrary to claims in the U.S. media that conditions in Guantanamo have improved, Australian terror suspect David Hicks, who is being held at the prison camp, told relatives that conditions have worsened since three inmates committed suicide last month.
Well obviously we should believe him at face value! Think Progress – giving the terrorist suspect’s side of the story every time.
Good job guys! Next, Osama bin Laden says that the USA rapes bunny rabbits. You’ll read all about it here at Think Progress!
July 7th, 2006 at 9:34 amThe whole skinhead things seems quite alarmist, I have no doubts that there are hard core racist elements in the military but that is buffered by a large number of hispanic and african americans too. These crazy crackers will have to live, work, fight, and depend on these other “alien” races, so getting them into the military might actually do more to open their minds and set aside their prejudices than we think.
This has always been the case, especially when a lot of the military rank and file come from rural populations that have traditionally had these sorts of racial problems.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:35 amCoal industry veteran Richard Stickler, the man President Bush chose to oversee federal mine safety laws, “has not been able to win Senate confirmation but has gone to work at the Labor Department anyway.â€
Why don’t the dem’s care about mine saftey?
“A diversion of dollars to help fight the war in Iraq has helped create a $530 million shortfall for Army posts at home and abroad, leaving some unable to pay utility bills or even cut the grass.â€
That diversion of funds wouldn’t be happening because the dems in the senate refuse to approve the new spending bill for Iraq would it? Yet anouther example of liberals refusal to support our troops.
/What to early for trolling?
July 7th, 2006 at 9:36 am“A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed ‘large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists’ to infiltrate the military.â€
That’s funny since I debated with what I later found out was a neo-Nazi about the Iraq war. He was against. Maybe Norwegian neo-Nazis are different from American ones.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:36 amI recall a report from a couple of weeks about street gangs, a la the Crips, using their military service in Iraq to learn tactics and strategies they then use back in the US.
I would think that every military force in the world has elements like this. Hopefully, possibly, after spending time in a regemented environment for a couple years, they will abandon their criminal ways (or in the case of neo-Nazis, abandon their racist beliefs).
You may say I’m a dreamer…
July 7th, 2006 at 9:39 amThat diversion of funds wouldn’t be happening because the dems in the senate refuse to approve the new spending bill for Iraq would it? Yet anouther example of liberals refusal to support our troops.
/What to early for trolling?
Comment by squegeeboo — July 7, 2006 @ 9:36 am
Good morning troglodyte, of course you know the only reason that any spending bill for Iraq has been rejected is due to excessive pork being buried in the bill which has nothing to do with the funding the troops, and most of the time those items are added by a person with an R next to their name. Talk to your people about why they aren’t supporting the troops.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:40 amChase
You may say I’m a dreamer…
I will, didnt that same report say that out of the 100+ they interviewed, only like 3 had decided to renounce their gangs when they got back?
July 7th, 2006 at 9:40 amonthefence
“Good morning troglodyte”
And a fine morning to you sir. Hope this Friday finds you well.
“Talk to your people about why they aren’t supporting the troops.”
July 7th, 2006 at 9:43 amBut mine are voting for the bill. Yours are the people that arn’t, after all the complaining about the troops not being properly funded or having proper supplies etc, sorta hard to get those things to them when you won’t fund them though, but I understand, it’s an election year.
#7 That’s funny since I debated with what I later found out was a neo-Nazi about the Iraq war. He was against. Maybe Norwegian neo-Nazis are different from American ones.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 9:36 am
You must know the differences, if any, for sure.
/Sarcasm off (you got it?)
And well, neo-Nazi tend to be extremely nationalist (like you). Iraq is a war of choice of the USA Neocon (~=neo-nazis) GOP. Hence, a neo-Nazi in the USA is in favor of, but a neo-Nazi in Norway sees it only as an USA bussiness, therefore, nothing ado with Norway interests.
Anyhow, nice friends you have.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:46 am#10 – Didn’t see that.
I’ll admit I didn’t follow that story too closely, I just recall something of that effect crossing the wires.
3 of 100 huh? That’s not so good buddy. Oh well. I don’t think I’m gonna lose much sleep.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:47 amYou missed the whole point…….Dems are unfortunately having to be the “party of fiscal responsibility” because of reckless R pork projects buried in these military spending bills, historically that has been the ONLY reason that these bills haven’t been passed immediately.
So tell your boys to stop putting their special interest friends ahead of supporting the troops.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:49 amseixton – Where is Osama anyhow? Why is it that your feuher stopped looking for the man who organized the 9/11 tragedy? How can you defend such a punk?
July 7th, 2006 at 9:49 amRegarding the young former soldier who will go to trial for rape and murder in Iraq, he has been described as a sociopath.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:59 amGreen, who served 11 months with the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., received an honorable discharge and left the army in mid-May. He was discharged because of an “anti-social personality disorder,” according to military officials and court documents.
At 21-years old, was he a under extreme stress for which he was not fully prepared, or does he suffer from a disorder that should have prevented him from acceptance in the military if the US were not so desperate for enlistees.
There is no excuse; Green certainly needs to account for his acitons and face punishment – but shouldn’t his commander in the field, and the military in general (from Rumsfeld and Generals on down) also be held accountable?
These crimes are very disturbing, but Green has received an honorable discharge and will be tried in civilian court — is this to save the military brass from their own responsibility? I’d like more information.
The Friday funnies…
Katherine Harris is back … and she’s hanging out with Alligator Bob in South Florida. No need to add a single solitary thing more. ……
July 7th, 2006 at 10:00 amSquegeeboo,
Stop hiding behind your sophomoric semantics. Voting for a bill stuffed full of GOP pork and waste does not equal supporting the troops, and voting against it does not equal opposing the troops. The Republicans started this unnecessary war without little thought and no planning. As a consequence, they have asked the troops to do a job that cannot be done with the tools available. Instead of focusing on reality-based planning for the occupation, Bush and his gang of incompetent lying political hacks have focused instead on setting up a system of war profiteering for their friends.
Bush favors keeping the troops in Iraq indefinitely, despite the monstrous failure and uselessness of the occupation. Supporting Bush is incompatible with supporting the troops.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:01 amThat, explains a lot really.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:05 am(TP is giving me problems posting – if this duplicates, my apologies)
#15 – When you said
do you really think that’s the case? I just can’t beleive this is the case.
From a Dowd article:
Makes sense.
#16 Marie
I think it’s worth waiting on a trial before we condemn this kid. In Ben Stein’s article yesterday he mentioned another article that discusses how some insurgent groups are threatening death on some Iraqi civilians who don’t “witness” American troops committing “crimes”. Interesting, at least. I wouldn’t doubt that happens (just as I wouldn’t doubt some American soldiers do some heinous things).
July 7th, 2006 at 10:14 amHere’s my question: What the hell is Universal Press Syndicate doing WITHOUT some kind of plagiarism detection software? Seems like they could find themselves in trouble on a copyright basis if they’re not bothering to make sure their content isn’t ripped off from somebody else. I find it amazing that they (a) don’t have anything, and (b) are allowing the marketplace to see that they never even thought about it. Amateur hour.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:15 amEvil Spaniard,
Anyhow, nice friends you have.
Friends? I debated him in a newspaper opinions section. Don’t you ever get tired of trying to demonize me?
kindness,
seixton – Where is Osama anyhow? Why is it that your feuher stopped looking for the man who organized the 9/11 tragedy? How can you defend such a punk?
My Fuehrer? Sorry, I never voted for Bush, he’s not my leader. Anyways, you might want to redirect your question towards those who were actually tasked with finding the guy. Ever read the story about the Nazi doctor that was just discovered in Spain? Took the Europeans 60 years to find the damn guy – and he was living among them. It took us 9 months to find Saddam in a country we controlled. If you’re such a genius, why don’t you go brief Bush on the perfect way to find Osama bin Laden in Pakistan or wherever the hell he is. Mk?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:20 amRussia has cracked down on Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, forcing 60 radio stations to stop broadcasting their news reports.
If only someone would stop FOX Nutworks [nationalist skinhead propaganda outlet] media from broadcasting…
July 7th, 2006 at 10:31 amIf you’re such a genius, why don’t you go brief Bush on the perfect way to find Osama bin Laden in Pakistan or wherever the hell he is. Mk?
Like Bush listens to anyone but those varied ranting voices in his alcohol blackened blob of brains?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:34 am#30 – What?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:43 amUnrelated but important, from Truthout:
July 7th, 2006 at 10:45 am“According to the National Journal, Mr Bush told prosecutors he directed Mr Cheney to disclose classified information both to defend his administration and to discredit Mr Wilson.”
So Bush ADMITS to yet another treasonable offense.
Get the rope.
You ‘da man, Ann!
July 7th, 2006 at 10:46 amDo really eat with that mouth?
God, it must taste filthy.
Plagerize, Hell, that’s the least of her crimes.
Lying about widows of 9/11 and everything else
that toilet she calls a mouth is the real problem.
Just like many Repulican’ts, her only skill is shrill.
Can you imagine living with a bitch like her? I’d think
I’d rather spend time in ‘Gitmo.
Go, Ann, Go…away.
#31,Chase – ignore that crazy, it comes here and types incaps all the time under different names. Off its meds again.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:47 amignore that crazy, it comes here and types incaps all the time under different names. Off its meds again.
Comment by SKdeA — July 7, 2006 @ 10:47 am
Santo or Chase? Probably both… :)
July 7th, 2006 at 10:50 amSKdeA,
So Bush ADMITS to yet another treasonable offense.
Get the rope.
What treasonable offense would that be? Declassifying intelligence on Iraq? Wow, yeah, that’s definitely a treasonable offense buddy. Yeah, get the rope, Murray Waas has you hanging by it.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:55 amCameroon is another country where women are second class citizens, crime is high, and diseases are ramapant. These issues are related. When women are equals with men, crime does downa nd health goes up.
‘Breast ironing’ to stunt girls’ growth widespread
1 in 4 girls in Cameroon suffer this abuse to protect against rape
Friday, July 7, 2006; Posted: 9:49 a.m. EDT (13:49 GMT)
YAOUNDE, Cameroon (Reuters) — Worried that her daughters’ budding breasts would expose them to the risk of sexual harassment and even rape, their mother Philomene Moungang started ‘ironing’ the girls’ bosoms with a heated stone.
“I did it to my two girls when they were eight years old. I would take the grinding stone, heat it in the fire and press it hard on the breasts,” Moungang said.
“They cried and said it was painful. But I explained that it was for their own good.”
“Breast ironing” — the use of hard or heated objects or other substances to try to stunt breast growth in girls — is a traditional practice in West Africa, experts say.
A new survey has revealed it is shockingly widespread in Cameroon, where one in four teenagers are subjected to the traumatic process by relatives, often hoping to lessen their sexual attractiveness.
“Breast ironing is an age-old practice in Cameroon, as well as in many other countries in West and Central Africa, including Chad, Togo, Benin, Guinea-Conakry, just to name a few,” said Flavien Ndonko, an anthropologist and local representative of German development agency GTZ, which sponsored the survey.
“If society has been silent about it up to now it is because, like other harmful practices done to women such as female genital mutilation, it was thought to be good for the girl,” said Ndonko.
“Even the victims themselves thought it was good for them.”
However, the practice has many side-effects, including severe pain and abscesses, infections, breast cancer, and even the complete disappearance of one or both breasts.
continued at:
July 7th, 2006 at 11:00 amhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/07/07/cameroon.breastironing.reut/index.html
I can’t believe there’s nothing on the DeLay ruling. Or did I just miss it?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:04 amunbelievable,
Re the breat ironing story. Simply horrifying. Girls have to be mutilated in order to try to avoid men’s sickness. Why not iron rapists’ family jewels?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:09 amWhy not iron rapists’ family jewels?
Comment by Zooey — July 7, 2006 @ 11:09 am
At a bare minimum…
This subject is repulsive. But not surprising when women get lumped in with asses and oxen in commandments about which of thy neighbor’s possessions you aren’t supposed to covet…
For women to feel responsible for being raped is appalling! Rape isn’t about sex, but about violence. And any socity that violent toward its women does not deserve to have any. I wish we could export all their women out of there and to a country where women are treated with respect.
China is working on ridding itself of all women… even if completely by accident. Their youngest generation has significantly fewer girls than boys. As a result, many boys will grow up and not be able to find a mate. Hopefully, it will make women more valued, and less seen as second class people.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:16 amunbelievable,
Rape isn’t about sex, but about violence.
Isn’t it about both?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:36 amI dont see how accusations of plagiarism can be both “trivial†and “meritless†at the same time.
If it is trivial, this means that, yes, she copied some material, but it is so not much and may be an honest mistake, so it is something that can be taken care of out of the courts by maybe paying some royalties and fixing the book for the next print.
If it is meritless, that to me implies it didn’t happen at all! Huh? Is this like how Bush will say “the NSA spying program is legal” and then a day later we hear how Congressmen are attempting to pass a law to make it legal?
Either way, of course the publisher will defend her. They have a lot of money wrapped up in this investment in her pyschoticness.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:36 amyeah it is too bad we can’t go in and liberate those people too…. cause as soon as we did, we will hear it was a lie and people dies… where is bin laden…. blah blah blah…
July 7th, 2006 at 11:36 amI know… lets have the UN work on it in between trading favors for sex and oil… we can throw money to the dictators and food too… i am sure they will see the error in their ways!!
actually you can look at Afghanistan to see what happens when there si nothing but men dealing with each other… soldiers who came back would reports about how the boys and young men behaved… hmm kind of like prison.. don’t drop the soap…
besides i thought we were isolationists all of a sudden.. who cares what they do… we should just talk them to death while they are holding the knife behind their back waiting…
July 7th, 2006 at 11:55 am# 41-Seixon: ”Isn’t it about both”?
Yes it is.
But of course,unbelievable KNOWS EVERYTHING,so now I’m not so sure.
And don’t you just love being regaled by those McDonald’s stories?
July 7th, 2006 at 12:07 pmSoooo informative.
Rape isn’t about sex, but about violence.
Isn’t it about both?
Comment by Seixon
Believe me, rape is violence and control. The sexual act is a convenient tool, if you will.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:14 pmRealscientist, onthefence
If its about the pork, not the military funding, how many soldiers have to die from underfunding before it stops being about the pork? One soldier per pork earmark? 2? 3?
July 7th, 2006 at 12:21 pmComment by Sybil — July 7, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Didn’t someone drop a house on you? Or was that your sister, the sweeter one?
July 7th, 2006 at 12:21 pmBelieve me, rape is violence and control. The sexual act is a convenient tool, if you will.
Comment by Zooey — July 7, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Oddly enough, even wikipedia has an entry for this subject…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
“Probably for much of human history, rape, violence, and war have often occurred in connection with one another.”
“Rape has been regarded as “a crime of violence and control” since the 1970s.”
July 7th, 2006 at 12:28 pmWikipedia has entries for everything. It’s amazing!
July 7th, 2006 at 12:30 pmWikipedia even has an entry for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:38 pmthe sex and violence goes hand in hand… (i don’t know why it needs to be nuanced to death) bottom line the rapist gets off sexually based on the violence and power… his goal is sexual gratification. otherwise he or she would crack the person over the head and be done with it… besides women can rape men too so quit discriminating… i am feeling offended now.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:39 pmFrom the article on Hate Groups:
He concluded: “As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.”
Anybody care to guess what will happen over the next 3-5 years as these men come home in large numbers, trained and experienced in street warfare, many of them with post-traumatic-stress symdrome? Cities and neighborhoods across the U.S. will be loaded with powderkegs, waiting for a match.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:40 pmThe neo-nazi’s have been talking about the coming race war for the last 30 years. I agree that having a large group of trained and experienced skinheads is a bad idea.
Chase, I had a friend who was army national guard for 8 years. He was more racist after he left, then before he got in. fortunetly it faded after a while. I don’t know that exposure changes minds in the military.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:46 pmyeah… makes me want to fund the military even better, to get the best and brightest, and push those types out… the poor military can’t when for losing…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:47 pmBush added, “People will be held to account if these charges are true. … There will be absolute justice if this person is guilty.â€
Like he held those responsible for the Plame leak accountable?
Unrelated but important, from Truthout:
“According to the National Journal, Mr Bush told prosecutors he directed Mr Cheney to disclose classified information both to defend his administration and to discredit Mr Wilson.â€
So Bush ADMITS to yet another treasonable offense.
Get the rope.
Comment by SKdeA
The rest of that story is he did it to falsely justify going to war with Iraq. THAT’S the real crime.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm
July 7th, 2006 at 12:49 pmComment by Seixon — July 7, 2006
This is what marks you as a supporter of a fascist dictator. This is nothing but unwarranted and unsupported derision.
Why don’t you get a first hand look: get yourself locked up in Gitmo indefinitely. Then, when you are allowed to communicate with outsiders, you can give us a first hand report of the conditions. Some future poster can then deride your version of what is going on behind closed doors.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:52 pmbesides women can rape men too so quit discriminating… i am feeling offended now.
Comment by joneser — July 7, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Can’t rape the willing.
And you meant to type that you are feeling OFFENSIVE.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:54 pmBriseadh na Faire is on fire today!
July 7th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#52.joneser; Good point.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:56 pmi am feeling offended now.
Comment by joneser
When women rape, it’s still violence and control.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:57 pmsorry not all men are willing, and uh… that “offended” part was sarcasm… you mean to tell me that you are steroptyping men? that all men want it? that they are always willing? That men don’t get harassed?
I don’t treat rape lightly … escpecially today where rape has lost it’s meaning because it gets thrown around so much that men get raped in their own way by being labled as such before even found guilty…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:59 pmmakes me want to fund the military even better, to get the best and brightest, and push those types out… the poor military can’t when for losing…
Comment by joneser — July 7, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
The more money you want to give to the military will not be given to the soldiers. Proof? The fact that we’ve spent $300 billion on Iraq while gear to those in the field is old and faulty. Why they are buying their own. Also, funding to veterens programs is down… even though we spend more on our miltary than the rest of teh world combined (second place for military funding is only $52 million. We annual spend $356 billion – with a B, not including Iraq)
Besides, it’s not about paying soldiers more money. It’s about the poor dying for the intentions of the rich… It’s always been that way, and will always be… until we manage to destroy human kind. And, saying more moeny will matter is saying that those who enlist don’t do so for valor and honor – but for a paycheck? Sorta ruins some other of your arguments…
But hey, talk is cheap – I’m sure the military would be happy to accept your application to inlist…
July 7th, 2006 at 1:02 pmi think it’s pretty obvious that ignorant racism was behind the atrocities at haditha, the rape and murders by green & co. (ok-alleged), even the “hadji girl” video and such…
July 7th, 2006 at 1:04 pmit’s not enough that these guys are trained killers, add some bigotry and racism to the mix and it’s no wonder there are such crimes… imagine how many go unreported and even not investigated…
there is nothing wosre than being a well of white male in this country… it is hilarious that “thinking progressive” nowadyas consists of discriminating and hate mongering the white male especially “rich” ones whatever “rich means”… and you get a pass…
July 7th, 2006 at 1:05 pmI don’t treat rape lightly … escpecially today where rape has lost it’s meaning because it gets thrown around so much that men get raped in their own way by being labled as such before even found guilty…
Comment by joneser — July 7, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
It’s very rare for a women to falsely accuse a man of rape. But, hey, if playing the victim is all you know, then why wouldn’t you use it in this regard as well? Makes you a hypocrite, but I doubt you’ll see it this time either. Just like your boy Bush going to the amputee center and talking up his scratch…
July 7th, 2006 at 1:07 pmthere is nothing wosre than being a well of white male in this country…
Comment by joneser — July 7, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
You’ve said that you are black…
July 7th, 2006 at 1:09 pmI got a great idea an insurgent group ( namely the mentally retarded person that swore allegance to al queda and thought of blowing up the Sears tower in an FBI sting ) should blow up the Holland Tunnel and a New York bridge because this could flood lower manhattan
Please keep this secret as the FBI are monitoring this site
July 7th, 2006 at 1:16 pmyeah i am black… and it is amazing what “white guilt” has done in the last 20. years…..
Content of my character… not the color of my skin..
July 7th, 2006 at 1:19 pmEvil Spaniard,
Don’t you ever get tired of trying to demonize me?
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 10:20 am
You do it perfectly alone, defending the indefensible, specially when confronted with facts.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:21 pmReply to 70:
Evil Spaniard, when Seixon starts accusing you of trying to ‘demonize’ him, that means you’ve won the argument.
I’ve had the ‘demonizing’ accusation leveled at me as well…in my case, when I was taking him to task over his pernicious lies regarding how ‘well trreated’ the Gitmo detainees were…go figure.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:27 pm#53 Anybody care to guess what will happen over the next 3-5 years as these men come home in large numbers, trained and experienced in street warfare, many of them with post-traumatic-stress symdrome? Cities and neighborhoods across the U.S. will be loaded with powderkegs, waiting for a match.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — July 7, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Is what happens after every big war in what the USA has taken sides. The highly stressed veterans return to home, and can’t live along with civilians. Look at the rise of motorbike gangs just after the WWII and Korea wars, the rising of gangs in the decade of 1970. The number of people with anti nuclear basements (”survivors”?). The Washington area sniper wasn’t a veteran of Gulf War I? And Wacko.
Just think in the number of veterans who have participated in a McDonalds shooting and draw your conclussions. War is hell. And a bit of hell returns to home every time. It’s because no war is good.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#’s 70 and 71 I wonder ho long it will take him to start crying this week!!!
and jonser you have no character – this is very obvious from your posts.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pmBriseadh na Faire,
This is what marks you as a supporter of a fascist dictator. This is nothing but unwarranted and unsupported derision.
As opposed to the unsupported claims being made by the terrorist suspect? I’m a supporter of a fascist dictator because I don’t take the claims of a terrorist suspect at face value? What next, we’re going to believe everything Saddam Hussein says because he’s being held in captivity? You seem to take anything at face value that agrees with your hilarious view of Bush as a fascist dictator. You don’t seem to know what fascism means in the slightest.
Why don’t you get a first hand look: get yourself locked up in Gitmo indefinitely. Then, when you are allowed to communicate with outsiders, you can give us a first hand report of the conditions. Some future poster can then deride your version of what is going on behind closed doors.
Well seeing as how I’m not a terrorist, don’t have any wish to harm US soldiers, and am a generally peaceful person, I’m not so sure I would fit in at Gitmo. Even if I were placed at Gitmo, I wouldn’t expect anyone on the outside to take what I say at face value without evidence of what I say.
Yet you will take anything at face value, from anyone, as long as it is anti-Bush. If a person murdered your entire family, you’d still believe every word they said as long as it was anti-Bush.
Evil Spaniard,
You do it perfectly alone, defending the indefensible, specially when confronted with facts.
It must be easy to go around making claims without ever having to give examples, huh buddy? I’m still waiting for you to detail a single lie I have told at Think Progress or otherwise.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#73 Thanks, Tripmaster, I know.
It’s because I don’t give him any bait lately. It has been become very evident that he simply types and types and types, dancing around facts, trying to obfuscate the reality. As a saying in my country goes “There is no worse blind than the one that doesn’t want to see”.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pmTripmaster,
I’ve had the ‘demonizing’ accusation leveled at me as well…in my case, when I was taking him to task over his pernicious lies regarding how ‘well trreated’ the Gitmo detainees were…go figure.
Lies? It’s fully documented how detainees are treated at Guantanamo. They get culturally sensitive meals. They have a larger space than many people do in US prisons. They get to exercise at least twice a week. They get their own Koran. Each cell has an arrow pointed towards Mecca. These are facts.
You did demonize me, it was not an accusation, it was a fact. You and others always make me out to be a fascist, a neo-Nazi, now a skinhead; I can’t wait what you guys think of next.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pmEvil Spaniard,
It’s because I don’t give him any bait lately.
Translation: I don’t actually prove anything I say about Seixon, I just keep repeating slander and smears against him so that he can never prove me wrong.
It has been become very evident that he simply types and types and types, dancing around facts, trying to obfuscate the reality.
Provide one example obfuscator. You never do because you’re nothing but a smear-artist.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#74 It must be easy to go around making claims without ever having to give examples, huh buddy? I’m still waiting for you to detail a single lie I have told at Think Progress or otherwise.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Or otherwise what?
Your profession is web developer, not debater. Using cheap dialectical tricks wouldn’t give you any credit with me, or any other rational thinker. As stated, there is plenty of examples of your debating tecniques (and loses) in the TP threads.
For newbies: seek in Google using “Seixon Think Progress global warming”, and you will find a good couple examples of Seixon being spanked, but acting like a child, not aknowledging any defeat, even after being disproved repeteadly.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:41 pmSeixon – just another lemming.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:46 pmEvil Spaniard,
Your profession is web developer, not debater.
As opposed to you and other TP commenters who are PhDs in Debate. LOL.
As stated, there is plenty of examples of your debating tecniques (and loses) in the TP threads.
Translation: some people called Seixon a Nazi and said he was wrong, so therefore he was wrong and I’m too lazy to actually evaluate the arguments for myself when my TP brethren make claims that I implicitlty have to agree with.
For newbies: seek in Google using “Seixon Think Progress global warmingâ€, and you will find a good couple examples of Seixon being spanked, but acting like a child, not aknowledging any defeat, even after being disproved repeteadly.
Why don’t you do it yourself and give a single example? Why, because you can’t, and then you’ll actually have to prove something, which you are too lazy and dishonest to do.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:46 pmmadashell,
Seixon – just another lemming.
You bet. Lemmings typically go into areas where they will be completely alone against a legion of people who attack them for their opinions and their citations of facts. Lemmings typically purposely head into places where they know they will find dissent against them and know they will be in the severe minority.
Oh wait…. I got that all backwards.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:49 pmThere is a chance we will evolve before that happens.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pmAny Comment by Seixon
See, newbies, what I said?
Seixon can’t debate without another person bringing a talking point, because his main dialectical trick is “No, you don’t”. Pretty much as a 4 years old. But to mask it, he needs loooong posts to seem rational. Seem is the keyword.
If all, who is lazy is Seixon.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:52 pmyeah i am black… and it is amazing what “white guilt†has done in the last 20. years…..
Content of my character… not the color of my skin..
Comment by joneser — July 7, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Yet you defend the rich white man… what’s wrong with you? Is the color of your skin the only trait keeping you from being one? Wake up. You’re being played like the rest of us. Not every one in here is poor. Just not white and male at the same time.
It was the rich white man who created racism. As the Southern Plantation Owner, he set the slaves and the Irish immigrants to hate one another for skin color while he did heinous and reprehensible things to the slaves, immigrants and women. How can you continue to support the group of people responsible for the crimes against your skin color? Because you want to be one of them? That makes you worse.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:52 pmSeixon – “it is fully documented” where – where, except neo con so called media outlets, has it been documented that the prisoners at Gitmo are well treated? Because Bushco said so?
You will believe anything anyone says or writes as long as it is pro-Bush or pro-neocon!!!
July 7th, 2006 at 1:54 pmDemocrats in Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawaii all have passed impeachment resolutions. Seven more state resolutions are pending, and 27 local political groups and parties nationwide have adopted such resolutions, according to an article on AlterNet.org.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:55 pmEvil Spaniard,
See, newbies, what I said?
Yes, you make tons of accusations against me and smear me, and then when I ask you to provide a shred of evidence for anything you say, you construct some mind game to fool the sheep at TP and then project your own intellectual laziness onto me. Bravo, bravo.
Now I’m still waiting for you to prove a single word you have slandered me with. Tick tock.
Pretty much as a 4 years old.
As opposed to your brilliant “Seixon is an idiot, and I don’t need to prove it!” posts.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:57 pmThere is a chance we will evolve before that happens.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — July 7, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
Human evolution is slow (we live 85 years). While Global Warming, water pollution (86% of our composition), and deadly diseases (daily and weekly life spans) are not.
I am an usually optimist, but in this case, I am a realist. Doesn’t look good for humanity. “Mother Nature” (in a completely inanimate and purely scientific way) seems to be having enough. 6.4 billion people is an epidemic.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:59 pmFYI Sexless: Lemming: The act of following the crowd into an investment that will inevitably head for disaster.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:00 pmIf all, who is lazy is Seixon.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — July 7, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
And afraid. He is hiding from bin Laden in Norway, after all… Fear combined with laziness is the most dangerous problem in America. It’s how Bush has stolen elections, waged illegal wars on countries who were never a threat to us, and is slowly eroding away our civil rights. And why lap dogs like Seixon continue to defend the Regime. Because they promise him guaranteed security and wealth when no such things (guarantees) exist in life…
I won’t read what he posts in response, but I already know that it will be lengthy and asinine. Oh, and he’ll call me silly pre-school names too.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:04 pmFor newbies: seek in Google using “Seixon Think Progress global warmingâ€, and you will find a good couple examples of Seixon being spanked, but acting like a child, not aknowledging any defeat, even after being disproved repeteadly.
Comment by Evil Spaniard
July 7th, 2006 at 2:04 pm=======================
Not necessary,Evil Spaniard.
I’ve only been posting here for a few weeks.But that was more than sufficient time to observe Seixon’s willful ignorance,and rhetorical sophistry.
madashell,
FYI Sexless: Lemming: The act of following the crowd into an investment that will inevitably head for disaster.
What crowd am I following? I’m here throwing myself into a position where virtually everyone disagrees with me. That’s the very antonym to being a lemming. The only lemmings here are all of you who follow Think Progress blindly and shore up each others untenable positions.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:04 pmThe only lemmings here are all of you who follow Think Progress blindly and shore up each others untenable positions.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
And yet you still have not produced any documentation proving your rheroric regarding Gittmo!!
July 7th, 2006 at 2:09 pm92.
all of you run around in here and throw out silly preschool names when someone doesn’t say something you like…
July 7th, 2006 at 2:09 pmunbelievable,
And afraid. He is hiding from bin Laden in Norway, after all…
Ah yes, I certainly have no other reason to be in Norway. Norwegian citizen. College. Love. Nope, nothing could bring me to Norway except for fear. You nailed it again unbelievable!
Fear combined with laziness is the most dangerous problem in America.
So you finally looked in the mirror did you? You fear Bush irrationally while lazily relying on Think Progress to tell you the “truth”.
It’s how Bush has stolen elections, waged illegal wars on countries who were never a threat to us, and is slowly eroding away our civil rights.
I rest my case.
And why lap dogs like Seixon continue to defend the Regime. Because they promise him guaranteed security and wealth when no such things (guarantees) exist in life…
Well since I live in Norway, how do those supposed guarantees affect me? Well gosh, they don’t. Wealth? What wealth? I’m poorer than you are, emit less CO2 than you do by a mile, but here you are acting self-righteous as always. What a joke.
I won’t read what he posts in response, but I already know that it will be lengthy and asinine. Oh, and he’ll call me silly pre-school names too.
As opposed to the mature names you and your friends here have been calling me for weeks. Nazi. Fascist. Stupid. Moron. Retarded. The list is virtually endless. You’re full of it unbelievable, you act all high and mighty, but you are as hypocritical as they come.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:09 pmComment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
And yet you still have not produced any documentation proving your rheroric regarding Gittmo!!
Comment by jules — July 7, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 2:12 pmComment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
And yet you still have not produced any documentation proving your rheroric regarding Gittmo!!
Comment by jules — July 7, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
Comment by jules — July 7, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Sounds like Seixon. Lots of words and nothing to say….
I loathe to think what he said about Gitmo. Why don’t we take up a collection and send him there to find out what it’s like for himself?
July 7th, 2006 at 2:21 pmWhy don’t we take up a collection and send him there to find out what it’s like for himself?
Comment by unbelievable — July 7, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
He still would not believe it. He is one of those rare individuals who can be fooled all of the time.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:26 pmjules,
He still would not believe it. He is one of those rare individuals who can be fooled all of the time.
As opposed to you who believes what Think Progress tells you, who passes off unsubstantiated claims by terrorist suspects as if they were the truth, while an abundance of evidence says otherwise. Yeah, I’m the one being fooled all the time, sure.
I love how you guys just suck up all TP has to say and never question a word of it, even if there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting otherwise. You’ve never been to Gitmo, but you claim that I have to be sent there personally in order to understand your vast knowledge about a place you haven’t visited either.
What a bunch of nonsense.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:30 pmReply to #76:
It’s fully documented how detainees are treated at Guantanamo. They get culturally sensitive meals. They have a larger space than many people do in US prisons. They get to exercise at least twice a week. They get their own Koran. Each cell has an arrow pointed towards Mecca. These are facts.
Here’s some more of that documentation for you.
Since I doubt you’ll actually follow the link, I’ll take the liberty of letting you know where it goes. It’s a Defense Department memorandum on the legality of torture (first reported by the Wall Street Journal). Essentially, it’s a step-by-step guide on how to conduct illegal torture and get away with it. The memo discusses ways to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay, lays out ways for government employees to avoid culpability under federal law, and explains why the president can unilaterally nullify the federal war-crimes statute.
If this isn’t enough for you, you might also check out the allegations of torture leveled by the ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.
And if that isn’t enough, you might want to ask yourself why dozens of detainees attempt suicide every single day in an attempt to escape their torment. Oh, that’s right, I forgot….that’s not ’suicide’….that’s ‘asymmetrical warfare’. Damn those crafty ragheads!
I said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you’re uncomfortable being ‘demonized’, Seixon, you might want to take a good hard look at the company you’re keeping.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:32 pmHe still would not believe it. He is one of those rare individuals who can be fooled all of the time.
Comment by jules — July 7, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
I’m sure you’re right. :)
July 7th, 2006 at 2:33 pmi assume you all of have been to gitmo then?
July 7th, 2006 at 2:36 pmHow the Democrats will screw up their victory in November 2006:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, have pledged support for Lieberman in the primary, but they refused to say whom they would back if Lieberman loses the primary.
The Democratic National Committee said it would not take sides in the primary but would back the nominee in the fall.
Lieberman’s move also complicates the political calculus for Democratic presidential hopefuls, including his Connecticut colleague, Sen. Christopher Dodd, and two other Northeast senators, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Dodd must consider whether his support for Lieberman alienates liberal voters who tend to dominate presidential primaries. Dodd backs Lieberman, but he won’t say whom he would support if Lieberman loses the primary and launches an independent run.
Clinton has been a loyal Lieberman supporter but said Tuesday that she would back the Democratic primary winner. Kerry said Wednesday that he also would support the Democratic nominee.
In April, Lieberman began airing TV commercials for the first time in more than a decade. One of the ads tackled the war issue head-on with Lieberman noting the passions his views stirred and urged both sides to find common ground.
Lamont has tapped $1.5 million of his personal fortune, which is estimated at between $90 million and $300 million, to help fund his race. He said Wednesday he may put another $1 million into his race.
Lieberman raised $947,356 during the first three months of this year, pushing his campaign account to $4.7 million at the end of the quarter.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/05/ap/politics/mainD8IM3U700.shtml
July 7th, 2006 at 2:38 pmBusted for wearing a peace T-shirt; has this country gone completely insane?
Mike Ferner | July 5 2006
Friday afternoon, drinking a cup of coffee while sitting in the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center on Chicago’s south side, a Veterans Administration cop walked up to me and said, “Okay, you’ve had your 15 minutes, it’s time to go.”
“Huh?” I asked intelligently, not quite sure what he was talking about.
“You can’t be in here protesting,” Officer Adkins said, pointing to my Veterans For Peace shirt.
“Well, I’m not protesting, I’m having a cup of coffee,” I returned, thinking that logic would convince Adkins to go back to his earlier duties of guarding against serious terrorists.
Flipping his badge open, he said, “No, not with that shirt. You’re protesting and you have to go.”
Beginning to get his drift, I said firmly, “Not before I finish my coffee.”
He insisted that I leave, but still not quite believing my ears, I tried one more approach to reason.
“Hey, listen. I’m a veteran. This is a V.A. facility. I’m sitting here not talking to anybody, having a cup of coffee. I’m not protesting and you can’t kick me out.”
“You’ll either go or we’ll arrest you,” Adkins threatened.
“Well, you’ll just have to arrest me,” I said, wondering what strange land I was now living in.
You know the rest. Handcuffed, led away to the facility’s security office, past people with surprised looks on their faces, read my rights, searched, and written up.
The officer who did the formalities, Eric Ousley, was professional in his duties. When I asked him if he was a vet, it turned out he had been a hospital corpsman in the Navy. We exchanged a couple sea stories. He uncuffed me early. And he allowed as to how he would only charge me with disorderly conduct, letting me go on charges of criminal trespass and weapons possession — a pocket knife — which he said would have to be destroyed (something I rather doubt since it was a nifty Swiss Army knife with not only a bottle opener, but a tweezers and a toothpick).
After informing me I could either pay the $275 fine on the citation or appear in court, Ousley escorted me off the premises, warning me if I returned with “that shirt” on, I’d be arrested and booked into jail.
I’m sure I could go back to officers Adkins’ and Ousleys’ fiefdom with a shirt that said, “Nuke all the hajis,” or “Show us your tits,” or any number of truly obscene things and no one would care. Just so it’s not “that shirt” again.
And just for the record? I’m not paying the fine. I’ll see Adkins and Ousley and Dubya’s Director of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, if he wants to show up, in United States District Court on the appointed date. And if there’s a Chicago area attorney who’d like to take the case, I’d really like to sue them — from Dubya on down. I have to believe that this whole country has not yet gone insane, just the government. This kind of behavior can’t be tolerated. It must be challenged.
I was at the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center because I’m participating in the Voices for Creative Nonviolence’s 30-day, 320-mile “Walk for Justice,” from Springfield to North Chicago, Illinois, to reclaim funding for the common good and away from war.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:43 pmThat’s not a good argument. No one here was in the civil war but I’m sure a few people could tell you about it.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:44 pmSeixon and joneser
July 7th, 2006 at 2:48 pmNone of us have to go to Gitmo to recognize the most important fact, beyond what “amenities” they get. These people are denied their freedom without benefit of any hearing or trial, no opportunity to defend themselves and prove innocence. Maybe (I’d even be willing to accept “probably”) a large majority of these people are terrorists or terrorist supporters. Then they should be tried and held accountable. If there is only one individual (and I would wager there are many) who is innocent, justice demands that we find out and release that individual. Denying justice is not an American value.
to reclaim funding for the common good and away from war.
Comment by madashell — July 7, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Sounds like the dress code at the school district where I used to work. Jesus t-shirts were allowed, but don’t dare suggest anything about peace or free will… Then you had to change.
Sick what is happening in America. I remember as a kid reading about this kind of stuff in Russia and being appalled by it. For it to happen here is a sign that things have gotten even worse than we realized…
July 7th, 2006 at 2:49 pm35 corpses found across Baghdad
Thursday July 06, 2006 11:37 – (SA)
BAGHDAD – Thirty-five corpses have been discovered in different areas of the Iraqi capital over the past 24 hours, most of them showing signs of torture, police reported.
Five of the corpses were found in the insurgent-dominated western district of Amiriyah, while the rest were scattered throughout the capital, with the majority showing signs of torture and killed with a bullet to the head.
Since the destruction of a major Shiite shrine in the northern town of Samarra in February, sectarian-linked killings have been spiralling, especially in Baghdad, resulting in corpses being found each day.
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimesNEW/basket7st/basket7st1152178632.aspx
July 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pmI think Jules lived there… someone here who was in a military family did…
July 7th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#104 madashell
July 7th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI’d be mad as hell too. What in the hell has happened to our country?!
Sorry that happened to you. It is indicative of the prevailing thought processes of authorities today. When wearing a T-shirt “Veterans for Peace” becomes a crime, there is something drastically wrong here.
Sadly enough I am in Dallas, TX. I thought Chicago was progressive? I guess there are idiots everywhere.
OK trolls….now tell us all how horrible, unpatriotic, antiamerican, etc. it was for madashell, an actual veteran, to have been in a VA hospital wearing a T-shirt proclaiming peace, not bothering anyone and having a cup of joe!!!!
July 7th, 2006 at 3:10 pmTripMaster,
What you’ve provided does not refute what I said. Even taking your claims into consideration, that torture was inflicted upon some people at Guantanamo (which has never been proven), that still does not refute the other conditions I outlined there.
Since I doubt you’ll actually follow the link, I’ll take the liberty of letting you know where it goes. It’s a Defense Department memorandum on the legality of torture (first reported by the Wall Street Journal). Essentially, it’s a step-by-step guide on how to conduct illegal torture and get away with it. The memo discusses ways to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay, lays out ways for government employees to avoid culpability under federal law, and explains why the president can unilaterally nullify the federal war-crimes statute.
I’ve read some of it now, and quite honestly, you are summarizing it quite dishonestly. Page 5 states:
It then details the ways in which the USA has made reservations against certain parts of certain treaties they have entered into (which all precede the Bush administration), and that “degrading treatment” was made consistent with the US Constitution since the wording in the Geneva Convention was too vague.
Of course, you will just summarize it the way you want because you don’t want to actually understand what you are reading. You are more intent on misrepresenting it so it fits in with your predetermined story about it.
If this isn’t enough for you, you might also check out the allegations of torture leveled by the ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.
None of them have been to Gitmo. None of them have shown any proof of anything. The ACLU would file charges against a ham sandwich if they wanted to. Amnesty International revoked all credibility on the issue by calling Gitmo a “gulag” – when they haven’t even been there!
And if that isn’t enough, you might want to ask yourself why dozens of detainees attempt suicide every single day in an attempt to escape their torment. Oh, that’s right, I forgot….that’s not ’suicide’….that’s ‘asymmetrical warfare’. Damn those crafty ragheads!
Well if I was a jihadist, and I was captured by “Satan” and had to live in captivity of “Satan”, then I might be persuaded to do the same thing. These are people who think it is their religious duty to kill people to further the teachings of Islam to “sinners”. I’m not all too caught up in trying to rationalize the actions of such people. You have to admit, though, that those suicides a little while back did give Gitmo some massive negative press. Who does that benefit? These people are willing to blow themselves up to kill others, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t commit suicide to try and slander the USA as well.
I said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you’re uncomfortable being ‘demonized’, Seixon, you might want to take a good hard look at the company you’re keeping.
Ah yes, I’m a torturer now. Nevermind what I said about you demonizing me. Obviously that wasn’t true at all. /sarcasm
Everything I said about the conditions at Gitmo were true, but instead of just admitting that, you move to claim that alleged torture at Gitmo refutes that those conditions to indeed exist.
In other words, if some sort of incident were to happen at a US jail, you would use that incident to “prove” that everything else happening at that facility did not exist.
Then you smear me as a torturer. Wow. You people seriously have no shame.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:19 pmTripMaster,
And before I forget, the picture you linked to…
You do realize that the person pictured was never electrocuted, right?
If you consider it torture to be dressed up in some hood and gown, placed on a box, and the led to believe that you are about to be electrocuted (but aren’t), then I fear for the relevancy of the word “torture”.
Real torture happened at Abu Ghraib, at the hands of sadistic soldiers. It’s ultimately clear that you can’t understand the context in which some pictures are taken, or their ultimate truth.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:23 pmfas·cism
Pronunciation: ‘fa-”shi-z&m also ‘fa-”si-
Function: noun
We have a President who has assumed unlimited powers as Commander-in-Chief and a War Time President, during a time when Congress has yet to enact a Declaration of War, and has created a Department of Homeland Security. Ask Joe Wilson how the Administration deals with opposition.
I have to agree with you, I don’t know what fascism means in the slightest. I have a great deal of understanding of the term fascisim, and how it applies to the current Administration.
What a bunch of nonsense.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006
On the contrary, since Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross are not allowed unfettered access, you could give us an inside view of what is going on!
Given equal weight to the testimony, we have the jailors saying everything is wonderful, and the inmates saying, no, it is not. Then you have third-party, neutral observers excluded from observing conditions in the prison. The fact that the neutral observers are excluded lends credence to the inmates’ allegations.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:25 pmI think Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be sent to GITMO for a year, then they can tell us how nice the place is, after getting waterboarded and all > LOL.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:31 pmWhoa, Seixon. How can you criticize people for making judgements without direct experience then do the same yourself? Isn’t that hypocritical? If you’re going to be fair, shouldn’t you reserve any judgment of the Gitmo detainees of whom you’ve met none?
July 7th, 2006 at 3:32 pmBriseadh na Faire,
We have a President who has assumed unlimited powers as Commander-in-Chief and a War Time President, during a time when Congress has yet to enact a Declaration of War, and has created a Department of Homeland Security. Ask Joe Wilson how the Administration deals with opposition.
Unlimited powers? Is anyone supposed to take you seriously? I’m not sure the Supreme Court would agree with that hyperbolic and factually unsupported assessment. A Department of Homeland Security is a sign of fascism? Since when?
Ask Joe Wilson how the administration deals with opposition? I don’t know, why don’t you ask every single reporter involved with the whole thing, all of whom which say that no crime was committed. Ask Joe Wilson why he lied to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Ask Joe Wilson how come 5 people are going to say under oath that he told them about his wife’s occupation. You’re so brainwashed it’s almost pathetic to watch.
I have to agree with you, I don’t know what fascism means in the slightest. I have a great deal of understanding of the term fascisim, and how it applies to the current Administration.
Yet not a single facet of fascism applies to the Bush administration. It only works out if you claim a bunch of nonsense such as “unlimited powers”. You’re all washed up. Might as well go comparing Bush to Hitler. I’m ready with my harpoon to take on you, a whale in a barrel.
On the contrary, since Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross are not allowed unfettered access, you could give us an inside view of what is going on!
Ehm, the Red Cross hsa been allowed access. The UN has been invited to visit (but they declined).
Given equal weight to the testimony, we have the jailors saying everything is wonderful, and the inmates saying, no, it is not. Then you have third-party, neutral observers excluded from observing conditions in the prison. The fact that the neutral observers are excluded lends credence to the inmates’ allegations.
Nevermind the other inmates who say the same thing as the jailors after they have gotten out. Neutral observers are not excluded, that’s bullshit and you know it is. The Red Cross has been there the whole time, and the UN declined an invitation to come.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:32 pmHow many children did you guess were expelled from school for bringing a firearm? 50? 100?
400?
1,000?
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s latest figures possible, in 2002, more than 2,500 children were expelled from school for a period of one year for bringing a firearm to school.
Statistics like this should give us pause and ask, “Why and how are children getting their hands on guns?” Often the source is from the home.
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/FSA/tellafriend.jsp?tell_a_friend_KEY=881
July 7th, 2006 at 3:37 pm#117 The Red Cross has been there the whole time, and the UN declined an invitation to come.
The Red Cross hasn’t been granted access to the inmates, and they have published it broadly. And the UN declined to go by the exact same motive, they were not allowed to interact with inmates and, in plus, the UN doesn’t want to condone Guantanamo nor active or passively.
BTW, Norway is relatively near of Switzerland, the headquarter of the Red Cross, why is so difficult to get the facts straight.
See? Short and true arguments are far more effective.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:40 pm#118, Unbelievable: Statistics like this should give us pause and ask, “Why and how are children getting their hands on guns?†Often the source is from the home.
They are free americans and have the right to bear arms to defend themselves from knowledge, and teachers giving them homework.
/Sarcasm off
July 7th, 2006 at 3:42 pmFriends,
Just a quick note to let you know how things are going.
Back in February, I asked if people would send me letters describing their experiences with our health care system. I received over 19,000 of them. It was truly overwhelming as we literally took a month and read them all. To read about the misery people are put through on a daily basis by our profit-based system was both moving and revolting. That’s all I will say right now.
We’ve spent the better part of this year shooting our next movie, “Sicko.” As we’ve done with our other films, we don’t discuss them while we are making them. If people ask, we tell them “Sicko” is “a comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on earth.”
But like my other movies, what we start with (General Motors, guns, 9/11) is not always what we end with. Along the way, we discover new roads to go down, roads that often surprise us and lead us to new ideas — and challenge us to reconsider the ones we began with. That, I can say with certainty, is happening now as we shoot “Sicko.” I don’t think the country needs a movie that tells you that HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies suck. Everybody knows that. I’d like to show you some things you don’t know. So stay tuned for where this movie has led me. I think you might enjoy it.
At this point, we’ve shot about 75% of “Sicko” and will soon begin putting it together. It will be released in theaters sometime in 2007.
And if you don’t hear much from me in the meantime, it’s only ’cause I’m busy working. I realize that my silence doesn’t stop the opposition with their weird obsession for me! It seems like not a week passes without my good name being worked into some nutty news story or commentary. (I have to say, though, I did enjoy Tom Delay blaming me and Ms. Streisand for why he had to resign from Congress!)
{snip}
Well, that’s it for now. Bush has quietly closed down the special section of the CIA that was devoted solely to capturing Mr. bin Laden, so we can all rest easy now. I wonder who his next scary evildoer will be. A fearful nation awaits its marching orders, sir!
Yours,
Michael Moore
July 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pmmmflint@aol.com
They are free americans and have the right to bear arms to defend themselves from knowledge, and teachers giving them homework.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — July 7, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
Ha!
My father owned guns. But he was responsible about it – including educating his children on the inherent dangers of a loaded waepon – which was NEVER allowed in the house. Even our dog would growl at you if you made a gun shape with your fingers and pointed it at anyone.
I support our right to bear arms, but believe that it comes with the responsibility that many people don’t seem to understand until too late. Sad how some people will abuse any right…
July 7th, 2006 at 3:51 pm113 Seixon You do realize that the person pictured was never electrocuted, right? If you consider it torture to be dressed up in some hood and gown, placed on a box, and the led to believe that you are about to be electrocuted (but aren’t), then I fear for the relevancy of the word “tortureâ€.
Are you really this callous to say nothing of ignorant? You do realize if the person was actually electrocuted it would be execution, not torture? Imagine the police or military personnel come along, nab you, tie you to a post in front of five guys with guns, blindfold you, click the bullets into place in their rifles, and lead you to believe that you were going to be executed. Then, they take the blindfold off you and say “just joking”. No problem with that?
July 7th, 2006 at 3:54 pm115….
OK trolls….now tell us all how horrible, unpatriotic, antiamerican, etc. it was for madashell, an actual veteran, to have been in a VA hospital wearing a T-shirt proclaiming peace, not bothering anyone and having a cup of joe!!!!
Comment by jules — July 7, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Well Jules being that i have no character i odn’t know if I have any credentials to respond… but being the troll that I am (yawn) I will.. My home town is Dallas and now i reside in Chicago, how interesting… However lets look at it this way… do you think that those sick families twho stand in front of the military hospitals and call the soldiers murderers and that they are going to hell etc…. have a right to be there and say what they say and harrass those coming in and out? What ever your feeling is I am not going to call you some simplistic 6th grade juvenile name so feel free to respond….
as for me… I don’t think they have the right to be there… everyone has the right to free speech…. but they don’t have the right to express it in any shape or form they see fit…. Now as far as the t-shirt… i think it is a crying shame that the PC’d country we live considers the minorities “feelings” and being offended…where anything and everything a threat to those who think they don’t belong to a group etc… I see nothing wrong with the t-shirt… problem is now because of political correctness… everything has to be sanitized to the point that nothing can be acceptable and left alone as good or bad… only the indiffernt can exist…. which breeds apathy… I’m sorry that that is what happened to madashell…. but this is what happens when you shut down discent with stupid name calling like “racist” “bigot” “homophobe” “troll” without looking at the argument…
You breed apathy and stereotypes because, hell no one is allowed to talk about it….
So as Racist, bigotted, homophobe, uncle tom, TROLL, I will go back to my hole…
Thank You for you for allowing me to be humble before you… and speak before the progressive gods…
July 7th, 2006 at 3:55 pmEvil Spaniard,
BTW, Norway is relatively near of Switzerland, the headquarter of the Red Cross, why is so difficult to get the facts straight.
Relatively near? Eh… As for Red Cross, here’s what they have to say about Guantanamo:
Was there something you said about not knowing facts?
PLC,
Are you really this callous to say nothing of ignorant? You do realize if the person was actually electrocuted it would be execution, not torture?
Apparently you are ignorant since a person will only die if you electrocute them with enough of a charge. Nice attempt at evading the fact that the person pictured was never electrocuted at all.
Imagine the police or military personnel come along, nab you, tie you to a post in front of five guys with guns, blindfold you, click the bullets into place in their rifles, and lead you to believe that you were going to be executed. Then, they take the blindfold off you and say “just jokingâ€. No problem with that?
It’s not torture, is it? If that person has information that will save the life of a single person, I see no problem with that. I’d rather scare one terrorist and save a life than not scaring the terrorist and have a dead person on my hands. You might have other priorities.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:01 pmSeixon
You started the “you do realize” routine as an implication that the guy wasn’t tortured because he didn’t really die. No big deal to you, apparently.
Information gained through torture is highly unreliable. And that “if” they have information is pretty flimsy justification for such a barbaric act.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:11 pmSo when this all happens to one of our own, you’d not feel outraged? If, say, your own child were put through that you’d be fine? Because mock executing your son, daughter, niece, aunt, brother or nephew just might prevent more of their people from dying. And if that’s your standard, they why don’t you approve of what you consider torture?
July 7th, 2006 at 4:12 pmi’M STILL WAITING TO FIND OUT HOW YOU GET THE INFORMATION FROM THEM WHEN THE TIMER IS TICKING…. AND THOUSANDS COULD DIE…
July 7th, 2006 at 4:23 pmi assume you all of have been to gitmo then?
Comment by joneser
Yep.
I think Jules lived there… someone here who was in a military family did…
Comment by unbelievable
That was me. Two years.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIt’s not torture, is it?
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
From the United Nations’ High Commisioner for Human Rights:
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984
So, you tell us Seixon -is it torture?
If that person has information that will save the life of a single person, I see no problem with that. I’d rather scare one terrorist and save a life than not scaring the terrorist and have a dead person on my hands. You might have other priorities.
Ah, the ticking bomb scenario.
How many times has it happened that a prisoner confesses under torture and a “terrorist ploy” is thwarted because of that confession?
How many times has it happened that prisoners are tortured out of pure sadistic entertainment?
Draw your own conclusions.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:27 pmMarie & Jules – The incident were the guy got arrested at the VA Hospital didn’t happen to madashell, it happened to a guy named Mike Ferner — he wrote the article madashell posted. :P
July 7th, 2006 at 4:28 pmSo joneser, are you arguing that some torture is righteous?
July 7th, 2006 at 4:28 pmWhere is the debate over whether the influx of neo-Nazis into the U.S. military is because of lax policy or by design? Nobody can flush out all of the “deranged” gay’s from the army faster than some armed and angry skinhead’s.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/forum
July 7th, 2006 at 4:35 pmThe new SSA:Forum. Rant and rave as much as you want
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Where is the debate over whether the influx of neo-Nazis into the U.S. military is because of lax policy or by design? Nobody can flush out all of the “deranged” gay’s from the army faster than some armed and angry skinhead’s.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/forum
July 7th, 2006 at 4:35 pmThe new SSA:Forum. Rant and rave as much as you want
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006
YOU SUPPORT TORTURE. Plain and simple. This puts you in the company of the worst of mankind.
Sadly, the only way you’ll change your position is if you were interrogated using the same techniques you condone, all because someone believed you to possess information that would save the life of another.
Yes. I have other priorities. Like protecting innocent people from those who think as you do. You cannot guarentee the one whom you would torture has the knowledge you seek, nor that torture would extricate that information.
Torture is one of the worst evils of mankind. The civilized world has collectively said NO to torture. You, Seixon, are not of the civilized world.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:46 pmYou, Seixon, are not of the civilized world.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
I’m SO done with Seixon, how about you?
July 7th, 2006 at 4:58 pmThank You for you for allowing me to be humble before you… and speak before the progressive gods…
Comment by joneser — July 7, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
Not a problem…as you have nothing of intelligence to add to the conversation, you may leave now.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:59 pmrighteous?…..
no… but for me, evil is sending unwitting people in planes into towers… and I think stopping evil at any cost is necessary….. So if i have to pull a Jack Bauer… you best believe i would…
July 7th, 2006 at 5:10 pm141
Yep… that’s progressive for you…
July 7th, 2006 at 5:22 pm#131 zooey
July 7th, 2006 at 5:30 pmThanks! Of course, you are right – my bad for making the wrong connection in my reply when I knew full well it was clearly a report from madashell. :)
if there is a better solution i m entirely open to hearing one… because we busted the guys today and their plot… monitoring the internet… and we got the others from phone calls and finances…. all of which you all seem to think violates your rights… but i haven’t seen anyone being violated and i am waiting on the massive lawsuits….
July 7th, 2006 at 5:33 pmso you don’t want surveillance or “squeezing it out” so like i said… provide a solution… Bin Laden said himself that he was emboldened by our “cowardess” because we can’t stand blood shed…. we ran away… etc…
I was at the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center because I’m participating in the Voices for Creative Nonviolence’s 30-day, 320-mile “Walk for Justice,†from Springfield to North Chicago, Illinois, to reclaim funding for the common good and away from war.
Comment by madashell — July 7, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
you need to post your story on the many blog sites available…
July 7th, 2006 at 5:58 pmi hope you get someone who wants to take your case…
keep us all informed!
Then you will become evil, in the name of stopping evil.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:01 pmI’m SO done with Seixon, how about you?
Comment by Zooey — July 7, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
have been for a looooong time…
July 7th, 2006 at 6:03 pmthe best thing about his posts are that they are too long and so it’s easy to slide on by…
i like the word “pithy”…
I think stopping evil at any cost is necessary…..
Comment by joneser — July 7, 2006
Says the self-proclaimed “Good Christian”. I think Jesus said to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies. How exactly are you being Christ-like by advocating torture? (Hint: You’re not).
July 7th, 2006 at 6:43 pmI’m SO done with Seixon, how about you?
Comment by Zooey — July 7, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
have been for a looooong time…
Comment by katy — July 7, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
I truly wish I could dismiss him as blithely…but while I don’t have any trouble seeing through his poisonous lies, my main fear is that there are other, less well-informed people perusing this site that may actually buy into his fascist propaganda. (That’s right, Seixon, I just called you a fascist. Whine about how I’m ‘demonizing’ you all you like, but you managed to show your true colors rather convincingly in this thread, and if the jackboot fits…) For this reason, I feel compelled to wade into his mud pit and shine the light of reason on his filth once in a while.
I don’t harbor any illusions of changing him, you understand…it became too late for him a long time ago. But if anyone reads my replies and realizes “Hey…Seixon is nothing but a liar and a hatemonger, then I feel I’ve done my part to make the world a little more sane…and these days, the world needs all the sanity it can get.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:47 pmI truly wish I could dismiss him as blithely…but while I don’t have any trouble seeing through his poisonous lies, my main fear is that there are other, less well-informed people perusing this site that may actually buy into his fascist propaganda.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I leave him to your tender mercies…Peace.
July 7th, 2006 at 7:05 pmAlright, looks like I’m going to have to field this one before hitting the hay.
TripMaster,
Address a single lie I have told. How many times do I have to ask people this? Every single thread on TP someone calls me a liar, and when I ask them to prove it, they never do. All hat, no cattle.
Yes, you called me a fascist like you have smeared me many times before. I’m not sure why wanting to protect innocent people from terrorists is “fascist”, but you can answer the question I pose below along with the rest of the class.
PLC,
You started the “you do realize†routine as an implication that the guy wasn’t tortured because he didn’t really die. No big deal to you, apparently.
No, the guy wasn’t tortured because nothing happened to him other than being dressed up and scared into thinking they were actually going to do something to him. To put it to you even simpler: electricity never ran through the wires you see in the picture. Capisce?
Information gained through torture is highly unreliable. And that “if†they have information is pretty flimsy justification for such a barbaric act.
We’ll get back to this.
Gregor,
So, you tell us Seixon -is it torture?
Dressing up a person in a hood and gown, placing them on a stool, and attaching wires to them, to make them believe something is going to happen to them, but then not actually doing anything to them… Is that “severe pain or suffering”? No, it’s not. It doesn’t hurt to wear a gown and hood. It doesn’t hurt to stand on a stool. It doesn’t hurt to have wires attached to you. It doesn’t hurt to believe for a short period of time that you are going to be electrocuted, especially when you find out later that it was never going to happen anyways.
So no, that is not torture. I can name you some things that are, but dressing someone up in a hood and scaring them is not torture by any definition of the word.
Briseadh na Faire,
YOU SUPPORT TORTURE. Plain and simple. This puts you in the company of the worst of mankind.
Good job. You have just taken a nuanced position and made it black. Bravo!
Sadly, the only way you’ll change your position is if you were interrogated using the same techniques you condone, all because someone believed you to possess information that would save the life of another.
Ah, but the only way that would happen is if I’m a terrorist where they have an abundance of intelligence showing that I do in fact have knowledge of something. That will never happen because, well, I’m not a terrorist.
Yes. I have other priorities. Like protecting innocent people from those who think as you do. You cannot guarentee the one whom you would torture has the knowledge you seek, nor that torture would extricate that information.
OK, so you would rather protect the “innocent” terrorist, rather than the 1+ people that would die from not getting the information from them? Wow, good job. You just took the side of the criminals against the innocent people they want to kill.
Torture is one of the worst evils of mankind. The civilized world has collectively said NO to torture. You, Seixon, are not of the civilized world.
So for the grand finale… I will once again ask the question that liberals dread being asked because they will never answer straight up….
Faced with a terrorist who you have an abundance of intelligence that shows is in a position to know something about an event that will kill one or more innocent people… what do you do? Do you torture this one terrorist and save one or more people, or do you protect the right of the terrorist to not be hurt while one or more people die for your decision to do so?
Answer that question straight up, any of you. I know you won’t.
Shorter: would you rather hurt a terrorist, or have one or more innocent people die?
I’ve never once responded a straight answer from any liberal on this question. Try to break the streak folks. I live in the real world where shit smells and the Sun is hot. You guys live in a world where terrorists are nonexistent and bears are small cuddly animals.
This is the ultimate battle between realism and idealism.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:42 pmWhen a veteran, wearing a shirt that says “Veterans For Peace”, while in a VA facility, simply having a cup of coffee, is ARRESTED for ‘protesting’ (what was being ‘protested’?), I can no longer see any reason for soldiers to fight for our ‘freedom’. “Freedom of Speech” no longer exists in America. You are free to wear a shirt that says “Team Anniston”, because you are ‘protesting’ Angelina Jolie, that’s just dandy. Stupid, but dandy. But a veteran, wearing a “Veterans For Peace” shirt gets arrested. America, what a country. This is beyond f*cked up. The President needs to address how the troops are being treated. They can fight for our freedom, but aren’t allowed to partake of it. What the hell is that? And what do they have against ‘peace’, anyway? Thanks, Madashell, for sharing that story.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:57 pm149
Here’s your straight up answer. I will NEVER condone torture, which is a form of terrorism, to solve anything.
Your turn: Give your same logic, would you condone negotiating with and giving in to demands of a terrorist who has hostages if you think the hostages might be released as a result?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:59 pm149
Here’s your straight up answer. I will NEVER condone torture, which is a form of terrorism, to solve anything.
Your turn: Give your same logic, would you condone negotiating with and giving in to demands of a terrorist who has hostages if you think the hostages might be released as a result?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:59 pmPLC,
So you would rather that one or more innocent people die rather than hurt a terrorist?
Let me just get that clearly on the record.
Give your same logic, would you condone negotiating with and giving in to demands of a terrorist who has hostages if you think the hostages might be released as a result?
That depends on their demands. If their demands will end up with more people being killed than are taken hostage, I don’t see that as productive. I would evaluate each situation on its own and not take an ideological stance on the issue. I live in the real world, not the utopian one we all wish we lived in.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:06 pmHow many innocent people have died, from all of those attempts to “hurt” terrorists? Or does that even matter to you? Protecting innocent people by killing them, makes no sense to me. Care to explain it for me?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:58 pmAnswer that question straight up, any of you. I know you won’t.
***
This is the ultimate battle between realism and idealism.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
“Do you torture this one terrorist and save one or more people, or do you protect the right of the terrorist to not be hurt while one or more people die for your decision to do so?” Do you not see the fallacy in your own argument. “for your decision to do so” If someone has set the wheel in motion for others to be hurt or killed, that person alone must make the decision to stop the process. Whether I torture or not will not change the position of someone willing to die for his/her cause. But if I torture, I will have become my enemy.
I will not torture. If others die, it is not because of my decision, but because of the decision of the one who set the machinery in motion to cause their deaths.
That battle is illusory. The real battle is between the fear of death and enlightenment. The outcome is foretold, but the fear of death will cause the destruction of many before man-unkind finally sheds its collective fears.
I fight on the side of enlightenment. I have faced my fears and they hold no power over me. If I were in a position to do so, I would walk to the camp of the enemy to mediate an end to violence and bloodshed. That may yet be my future, and I accept that.
Such is the path of a Shaman.
To all who agree, I say “Namaste.”
July 8th, 2006 at 12:41 amSeixon > when has Norway had a terrorist act? How many years has it been? Why are you so concerned about terrorism when its probability of happening in Norway is next to zero? If you think standing on a box naked with a hood over your head, and wires attached to your penis is not torture, then I truely feel sorry for you, since the Geneva Conventions clearly state that prisoners are NOT to be stripped of clothes and degraded in that manner! One Iraqi had his penis sliced with little cuts by one of our soldier goons, so would you like some nut to hold your penis threatening to cut it off? Sexual degradation is a form of torture, so stop defending the Bush Regime antics on here please!
July 8th, 2006 at 12:55 amIt doesn’t hurt to believe for a short period of time that you are going to be electrocuted, especially when you find out later that it was never going to happen anyways.
So no, that is not torture. I can name you some things that are, but dressing someone up in a hood and scaring them is not torture by any definition of the word.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
That is not what several human rights organisations have said over the years: All have called mock executions torture and/or a gross violation of human rights:
To seek to justify these and similar practices on the ground that they do not constitute “severe pain or suffering” also flies in the face of our knowledge of the impact of torture on individuals who experience it.(…)Additionally, psychological forms of torture may not leave any physical signs but often cause extreme emotional pain and suffering. If a gun is held to someone’s head and the trigger pulled in a mock execution, there may be no physical marks, but the overwhelming terror and psychological harm can be devastating and may last a lifetime.
Physicians for Human Rights: Letter to Pres Bush
The Case of Rodolfo Pacificador
(…) the presiding judge stated that “it is important to view this record as a whole, and included consideration of evidence that Pacificador’s co-defendant had been tortured in detention in the Philippines. Evidence of the co-accused’s torture included subjection to electric shock and mock execution; evidence not contradicted by the Canadian government
Human Rights Watch: Diplomatic Assurances No Safeguard against Torture
In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and have been deprived of sleep.
Amnesty International: Iraq – Systematic torture of political prisoners
(…) a number of incidents already documented as part of the interrogation techniques employed by U.S. personnel violate the Convention against Torture. For For example, subjecting a person to mock execution violates the federal torture statute under all U.S. reservations and understandings.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:57 amHuman Rights First: The Real Law on Torture
154 Briseadh na Faire
July 8th, 2006 at 8:56 amThank you for your post. I wanted to give Seixon a short, to the point response because 1) I wanted to take him up on his challenge to do so 2) I wanted to be a counter to his wind-bag posts and 3) I was tired. Your post was a great follow-up. Seixon seems to believe the ends justify the means but he has no concept of “reaping what you sow” and that performing terrorism on another person will not stop terrorism from that person’s associates.
the world needs all the sanity it can get.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 7, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
I agree, and is why those of us who engage the neocons also do so – to point out the holes in the right-wing’s lies and propaganda. And, I think it’s making an impact on the way the average American sees some of these folks.
I support what you do. I think the left needs to stand up to the right and call them out on their nonsense. And you do a great job.
July 8th, 2006 at 9:08 amComment by Gregor Samsa — July 8, 2006 @ 1:57 am
Good to see you posting again!
July 8th, 2006 at 9:21 amBriseadh na Faire,
Good job at dodging the question just like I thought ya would.
I will not torture. If others die, it is not because of my decision, but because of the decision of the one who set the machinery in motion to cause their deaths.
True, but you could have prevented it from happening. So are you more concerned about Mr. Terrorist, or the innocent people his friends are going to kill?
Cyra,
How many innocent people have died, from all of those attempts to “hurt†terrorists? Or does that even matter to you? Protecting innocent people by killing them, makes no sense to me. Care to explain it for me?
How many innocent people have died from torturing terrorists? I don’t know, you tell me. How many terrorists have been tortured to save innocent people? You don’t seem the least bit interested in that.
You don’t understand that it is better to kill a terrorist who is about to blow up any number of people?
I think it is becoming clear why left-wingers are basically on the side of the terrorists and criminals: because everyone is treated exactly the same. Murderous maniacs, genocidal dictators, they are just like Jimmy Carter to you guys.
It’s funny, because I bet many of you would support torturing Bush or Cheney without even thinking about it.
Greg,
That is not what several human rights organisations have said over the years: All have called mock executions torture and/or a gross violation of human rights
That’s great, but they will call yelling at someone torture if it helps them get on the news. Human rights organizations, especially Amnesty International, have gone so way overboard that they are becoming little more than cartoons. They go after the US for a few American soldiers having tortured people at war, and then spend infinitely less time talking about all the millions of people starving to death in North Korea, in concentration camps, being tortured and killed by their own leader. Sorry, I can’t take that kind of mind-numbing double standard seriously. They know that no one will care if they talk about North Korea, they will only get attention from talking about the USA. Thus, that’s what they do. A human rights organization is only as good as its support from the public, and if no one knows they’re on the map, well, they’re not going to get that much support are they?
Mock executions do not cause “severe pain or suffering” no matter what way you slice it. If Amnesty International thinks so, that’s great. They also called Gitmo a “gulag”. We can see how credible their stances on things involving the USA are….
PLC,
Seixon seems to believe the ends justify the means but he has no concept of “reaping what you sow†and that performing terrorism on another person will not stop terrorism from that person’s associates.
You never followed up on my question. Yes, I do believe saving the life of a single person is worth more than not hurting a terrorist.
To all of you,
Let’s say your family was going to die if you did not torture a terrorist to get information about what was going to happen to them, what would you do?
None of you can honestly answer that you would not do it.
None of you would sell out your family to prevent a terrorist from severe pain and suffering.
You seem to have no problem with killing terrorists, so why the ideological blinds on this? You’re all living in a fantasy world. That’s the problem.
July 8th, 2006 at 9:57 am#160 Seixon- Why didn’t you answer my actual question? Looks like you are an ‘Artful Dodger’ yourself. And your ‘questions’ lack logic, and seem designed solely to aid you in avoiding answering the questions of other people. but whatever works for you, huh? That last question was rhetorical, by the way.
July 8th, 2006 at 10:19 am160 Seixon Let’s say your family was going to die if you did not torture a terrorist to get information about what was going to happen to them, what would you do? None of you can honestly answer that you would not do it. None of you would sell out your family to prevent a terrorist from severe pain and suffering.
Why should I or anyone here respond to loaded questions (i.e. “sell out”) when you have obviously divined our answers before we give them? I bow to you my lord, my saviour, my omniscient blog god! No more shall I question thee.
July 8th, 2006 at 10:20 amI did not dodge your question. You have a false premise. You assume that were I in a position to torture someone, I could prevent something from happening. I pointed out your fallacy and yet you persist. Your logic is flawed. You may now declare victory in this debate.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:08 pmLOL Seixon has revealed that he believes in sexual degradation of so-called terrorists, just like Rumsfeld does! He would make a fine concentration camp warden or guard! Torture is never justified, but fascists always believe its wonderful?!
July 8th, 2006 at 12:11 pmCyra,
I did answer you, but as usual, you didn’t like the answer so you pretend I never gave one. Nor did you answer mine to begin with.
And your ‘questions’ lack logic, and seem designed solely to aid you in avoiding answering the questions of other people. but whatever works for you, huh?
Care to demonstrate why they lack logic? Nope, the lazy intellectual powers here at TP will just call someone a liar, stupid, whatever and never actually explain themselves. The fact of the matter is that your and others’ stance on torture is riddled with ideology and idealism and does not fit for the real world. You came up against a situation with my question, and you could not answer it. In your mind your ideology clashed with reality, and you couldn’t decide which one should win.
PLC,
Why should I or anyone here respond to loaded questions (i.e. “sell outâ€) when you have obviously divined our answers before we give them? I bow to you my lord, my saviour, my omniscient blog god! No more shall I question thee.
Loaded questions? I’m just trying to get you to state on the record that you would rather have your family die than torture a terrorist. You won’t do it because, well, you wouldn’t do that.
This is the problem with having a blind ideology that ignores everything called reality. You can claim all you want that you’d never torture someone, but when it hits close to home, then you’re suddenly faced with the reality of it and you can’t any longer stand by your ideology.
You’ll never admit it though, because most of you are shameless partisan ideologues.
Instead of admitting this, you exclaim “YOU SUPPORT TORTURE!”
I could just as well exclaim “YOU GUYS SUPPORT MURDER!” and it would be equally stupid and moronic.
Black/white is all you people understand, it seems.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:14 pmBriseadh na Faire,
I did not dodge your question. You have a false premise. You assume that were I in a position to torture someone, I could prevent something from happening. I pointed out your fallacy and yet you persist. Your logic is flawed. You may now declare victory in this debate.
I have a false premise? Why?
Let’s try this, since you are so cowardly that you can’t even address the question as it is without trying to evade it.
The date is September 10, 2001.
You have just captured Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
You know from intelligence that al Qaeda has something in the works.
You know that they are planning to kill thousands of people.
Now, what do you do?
Do you torture bin Laden and KSM in the hopes of getting information from them to save the nearly 3,000 people that are about to die the next day?
Or do you say “no, I never torture, never” and let those 3,000 people die a horrible death?
Answer the question you cowardly ideologues.
Randal,
LOL Seixon has revealed that he believes in sexual degradation of so-called terrorists, just like Rumsfeld does! He would make a fine concentration camp warden or guard! Torture is never justified, but fascists always believe its wonderful?!
If I could save the life of a single person by sexually degrading a terrorist, then I would do it. If it were your mother on the line, wouldn’t you do the same?
Torture is never justified, eh Randal? So you’d rather have your mom die than torture Osama bin Laden? Let’s tell your mother of this news and see what she thinks of you.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:19 pmThat’s great, but they will call yelling at someone torture if it helps them get on the news.
This argument is as specious as they come. So, international human rights organisations are nothing but attention-starved whores? Right.
Since you claim to be a critical thinker in search of facts, I hope you have sources to back up this assertion.
[Amnesty International] go after the US for a few American soldiers having tortured people at war, and then spend infinitely less time talking about all the millions of people starving to death in North Korea, (…).
If that is your impression, it is only because you have failed to follow the news: Amnesty International has slammed N Korea for years due to their disregard for human rights, and incarceration of political dissenters. Follow this link and see how Amnesty mentions their “long standing concerns” regarding N Korea’s human rights abuses. You can also follow the links to their reports on N Korea.
Mock executions do not cause “severe pain or suffering†no matter what way you slice it. If Amnesty International thinks so, that’s great. They also called Gitmo a “gulagâ€. We can see how credible their stances on things involving the USA are….
In the quotes I provided, it was Physicians for Human Rights that said mock executions cause “severe pain and suffering” not Amnesty international.
Also, Amnesty defined mock executions as torture long before they issued their statement on Guantanamo, and regarding other countries (see my link to the report re Iraq prior to the invasion) -are you asserting that the “gulag” statement also damaged Amnesty’s credibility on work prior to that statement? And regarding their studies on other countries that also practice mock executions? Are you saying that when Hussein’s thugs held mock executions of their prisoners, they were not torturing people after all?
For someone who claims to be a critical thinker, to place one’s personal opinion above the long-standing work of four reputable human rights organisations is quite the display of arrogance.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:23 pmUnbelievable,
Thanks. The spam filter was catching all my posts and I got tired of submitting them multiple times. Somehow it’s letting me through again.
I will take advantage of it for as long as I can ;-)
July 8th, 2006 at 12:27 pmI will take advantage of it for as long as I can ;-)
Comment by Gregor Samsa — July 8, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
Seems that that has happened to several people… And not just those who deserve it :).. Hopefully they’ve fixed the problem. Never the same around here without you and your logic. Welcome back!
July 8th, 2006 at 12:34 pmGregor,
This argument is as specious as they come. So, international human rights organisations are nothing but attention-starved whores? Right.
Well, when it comes to Amnesty International, yes. The others, not to the same degree. You don’t find it odd that they spend a disproportionate amount of time ragging on the US for the actions of a few soldiers when entire governments are doing far worse things all over the world?
Since you claim to be a critical thinker in search of facts, I hope you have sources to back up this assertion.
Amnesty International: “gulag”
I rest my case.
If that is your impression, it is only because you have failed to follow the news: Amnesty International has slammed N Korea for years due to their disregard for human rights, and incarceration of political dissenters.
I think it was either Human Rights Watch or Amnesty, but they wrote huge reports on Abu Ghraib and wrote tiny reports on North Korea. I haven’t even heard them in the news at all about North Korea, nor anything other than the US. That may be due to the news media, but it is also because they don’t have a practice of giving out press releases about anything other than the USA.
In the quotes I provided, it was Physicians for Human Rights that said mock executions cause “severe pain and suffering†not Amnesty international.
That’s great. I don’t really care, because anyone with a grasp of reality knows that a mock execution doesn’t harm anyone.
Are you saying that when Hussein’s thugs held mock executions of their prisoners, they were not torturing people after all?
When I think of Saddam Hussein torturing people, I’m not thinking of mock executions, no. I’m thinking of acid baths, hanging people on walls, chopping off hands. You know, things that cause severe pain and suffering.
For someone who claims to be a critical thinker, to place one’s personal opinion above the long-standing work of four reputable human rights organisations is quite the display of arrogance.
Au contraire, a critical thinker will defy the established norms to evaluate whether or not they actually hold water. You might as well have told me in the 16th century that I would be arrogant to challenge the word of the Vatican or the powerful churches of the time.
Mock executions do not cause “severe pain and suffering” and thus cannot be considered torture. I don’t care who in the hell you bring up saying it is, because it is just an indisputable fact that cannot be explained away.
Human rights organizations were once the beacon of freedom for oppressed and innocent people. Nowadays they are beacons of freedom for terrorists who would cut their heads off at the blink of an eye. Things sure have changed in the last few decades, that’s for sure.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:41 pm#165-Seixon- Since I am obviously to simpleminded to grasp it, could you please re-post your answer to my actual question. Thanks Helper!
July 8th, 2006 at 12:52 pmMy mother is against torture just like me, so cut the crap about my mom being for torture! NO rational and/or moral human being thinks torturing people is OK for any reasons! Torturing Osama would be as repugnant as torturing Bush > they both deserve to be in prison, but NOT tortured! Someday the Secret Police of Norway might get you Seixon, then pray they do not torture you since you believe its justified!
July 8th, 2006 at 1:12 pmCyra,
Your question: How many innocent people have died, from all of those attempts to “hurt†terrorists? Or does that even matter to you? Protecting innocent people by killing them, makes no sense to me. Care to explain it for me?
My answer: How many innocent people have died from torturing terrorists? I don’t know, you tell me. How many terrorists have been tortured to save innocent people? You don’t seem the least bit interested in that.
To break it down for you by question:
How many innocent people have died, from all of those attempts to “hurt†terrorists?
I have no clue, do you?
Or does that even matter to you?
It does but a terrorist does not need to be tortured in order to kill people, they were convinced on killing innocent people before being tortured. Only terrorists with valuable information that could be used to save people are the ones who should be candidates for this treatment. The parameter is saving people, which will vary from situation to situation. Thus I don’t have some ideological “one size fits all” policy for this as every situation is different.
Protecting innocent people by killing them, makes no sense to me. Care to explain it for me?
This is a fallacy. A terrorist with information about innocent people going to be killed is not an innocent person as long as he does not surrender that information. He is a collaborator of those who are going to do the killing, an accessory to murder if you will.
Do you support the police shooting and killing people that are threatening others with death? If you do, then try and apply that to this discussion.
You’re all caught up in this ideological mind game about torture that has been massaged into your brains by the media and others without even thinking about the implications of what you are advocating.
Just as I would never make a zero-tolerance policy on negotiating with terrorists when they have hostages, I would never make a zero-tolerance policy on using torture because in certain circumstances, it is not only necessary but the right thing to do.
I will always protect the lives of innocent people over the feelings and physical health of a terrorist who is collaborating to target those innocent people.
If none of you can see this for what it is, I can’t find any reason why I shouldn’t call you terrorist sympathizers.
This is Stockholm Syndrome gone amok.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:18 pmYou have proven to us all on TP that you are a fascist Seixon, so nothing more needs to be said to you! Rumsfeld is a sick person who loves to torture people and you are just like him > shame on you!
July 8th, 2006 at 1:23 pmGregor
July 8th, 2006 at 1:23 pmLord Seixon has spoken. Please come to his light, become a Son of Seixon as I have. Do not listen to infidels such as those of Amnesty International. Lord Seixon is the truth. He is reality. He speaks French.
Randal,
Let me get this on the record: you would rather have your mother die than torture Osama bin Laden?
Yes/No will suffice quite nicely. Thanks.
Someday the Secret Police of Norway might get you Seixon, then pray they do not torture you since you believe its justified!
I believe it is justified in extreme circumstances, yes. Oh, and the “secret police” of Norway will never have any reason to come and get me, so I’m not all that concerned. Only those guilty of crimes need fear – the ones you seemingly would rather protect than your own mother.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:26 pmRandal,
Since when is it fascist to torture terrorists to save the lives of innocent people? You seem to have it ass backwards. Rumsfeld doesn’t love torture. If he did, there would have been massive torture all over Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Instead, he drew up a defined list of interrogation tactics that were allowed, none of which can be seen as torture. Not even all of these were to be used without his written consent, in the most extreme of circumstances.
You prove that you are a blind fool wandering in the dark. You cannot see the nuances of any position, you cannot understand anything other than black and white. I pity you for smearing everyone who doesn’t agree with your exaggerated and ideological stance on every issue.
You are a sheep Randal. You possess no critical thinking abilities. You possess no logic. You possess no demonstrated knowledge about the world around you. You are disingenuous, dishonest, and hypocritical. If you have children, I fear for their safety and well-being.
Now answer my question:
Would you rather torture Osama bin Laden, or have your mother die?
Answer the question or live the life of a coward.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:32 pmHe speaks French.
Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian) — July 8, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
Oh, well, that just changes everything! Why didn’t you say so sooner.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:43 pmunbelievable,
Answer the question: Would you rather torture Osama bin Laden, or have your mother die?
July 8th, 2006 at 1:45 pmRandal
July 8th, 2006 at 1:46 pmPlease my lost brother, for the sake of your soul, listen to Lord Seixon, follow Lord Seixon. Yes, he is the Light that can save you from your darkness. Be blind no more. Lord Seixon is Knowledge. Yes, torture can be good. Lord Seixon knows your soul is tortured from your lack of critical thinking, logic, knowledge, and truth. But that torture can bring you to Him. Surrender and be free. I pray for you. Praise be Lord Seixon.
Just answer the question PLC:
Would you rather torture Osama bin Laden, or have your mother die?
July 8th, 2006 at 1:48 pmseixon, would you hump my leg? i’ll click on your google ads some more? and beat up all the bad losers around here for you? pretty please!
July 8th, 2006 at 1:56 pmAwww where did everyone go? The question too scary to answer?
July 8th, 2006 at 1:57 pmi’m here my love. i would rather you torture me. “up” for it?
July 8th, 2006 at 2:03 pmSeixon,
Looks like you found a friend… Ha!
Too funny guys! I bet he’s crying about being ‘the victim’ again. Poor little Seixon… hangs out in a liberal blog insulting people and then cries up a storm whenever anyone disagrees with him or calls him out. Such a hypocrite.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:12 pmWay to keep avoiding the question unbelievable.
Oh well, just as I thought, not a single person will answer the question directly. I have never, ever, received an answer to this question from a liberal. I pity people who are so latched onto their illogical ideology that they would rather cower behind it rather than address reality.
unbelievable, seriously, you are not one to talk about anything. You’re a disingenuous and dishonest person, in addition to being a huge hypocrite. Nobody dug up information on you and posted it here, no one called you a neo-Nazi, a skinhead, a fascist. Yet you will actually protect a fascist terrorist instead of your own mother. Apparently. Since you won’t answer the question. I feel sorry for your mother.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:19 pm181 Lord Seixon
July 8th, 2006 at 2:19 pmPlease forgive me and thank you for addressing me. I must confess that my former self gave you a straight-forward answer that I would NEVER condone torture under any circumstances. But, of course, in your great wisdom, you knew me better than I knew myself. I stand humbly in your presence and in agreement with you in all matters. I am your servant. I shall keep my vow and not question you further.
PLC,
Just answer the question:
Would you rather torture Osama bin Laden, or have your mother die?
July 8th, 2006 at 2:22 pmSeixon,
I can tell that you’ve written something directly to me, but I seriously don’t read your posts. If you scroll to the bottom, and then scroll up, you can see the name first and avoid the post. I just catch my name at the top, because we all do that.
I told you, until you can discuss topics without the juvenile tactics, I’m not reading your nonsense.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:25 pm188 Lord Seixon
July 8th, 2006 at 2:28 pmPlease do not make me repeat my sacrilege from my former life. No, I vowed not to question you. Lord Seixon, I confess that in my former life when I said NEVER and under any circumstances would I condone torture that meant that I would not and could not torture Osama bin Laden or anyone, even if it meant to maybe save my mother’s life. Please forgive my lack of clarity and causing you to have to ask me these again. I know no words stronger than “never” and “any”. I await further enlightenment from you my lord, my master, my saviour, my blog god.
unbelievable,
I told you, until you can discuss topics without the juvenile tactics, I’m not reading your nonsense.
Look, you can’t lecture anyone about juvenile tactics. You’re ignoring every single post of mine simply because you disagree with me and can’t be bothered trying to defend your own opinion.
There was nothing juvenile about the question I just posed you and everyone else here. You won’t answer it because it would force you to admit either that you’re a terrorist sympathizer, or that you agree with the Bush administration on torture. You can’t bring yourself to doing either, so you don’t answer. Just like everyone else here.
Quit being a juvenile making up excuses instead of debating the merits of an issue.
PLC,
I would not and could not torture Osama bin Laden or anyone, even if it meant to maybe save my mother’s life
OK, thanks. Anyone else want to come out of the closet? We’ve got one person who would defend a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans instead of protecting his own mother. Anyone else?
July 8th, 2006 at 2:33 pmI have never, ever, received an answer to this question from a liberal.
Comment by Seixon — July 8, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
It would be scary to learn how your righty “friends” have answered that question.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:36 pm191 Lord Seixon
July 8th, 2006 at 2:40 pmBless you. You thanked me. I am honored. It is true, there is light and knowledge in Lord Seixon. He has given me the words to make clear what I was not clear in stating on my own. I am out of the closet, out of the dark. I can see. I can understand. Thank you, Lord Seixon. Glory to your wisdom.
curious,
It would be scary to learn how your righty “friends†have answered that question.
Most of my friends aren’t “righty”, and for those that are to the conservative side, none of them have a problem answering the question: they would choose to save their mother’s life rather than abstain from torturing Osama bin Laden.
What’s really scary is that virtually no one here is answering the question at all. Does that mean all of you would rather have a dead mother than torture Osama bin Laden? I can’t even grasp anyone who would try and rationalize that.
What if I asked: would you support the US military bombing a building containing Osama bin Laden?
Can you guys answer that? I don’t remember many being all that angered at the killing of Zarqawi, so I’m going to assume that you wouldn’t have anything against doing the same thing against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists.
With that in mind, how is it that at the same time you’d rather have your mothers die rather than torture Osama bin Laden?
It’s OK to drop a bomb on bin Laden, but not torture him to save your own mother?
Where’s the logic here guys? Can you clue me in?
PLC,
Can you stop the sarcastic show? It’s not funny and it’s not becoming of you.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:48 pmGlory to your wisdom.
Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian) — July 8, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
Your devotion is simply inspirational to us all! You know, if you keep this up for a few weeks, or longer, you might be able to convert the others to your way of thinking…. and utter devotion and blind faith in Lord Seixon :)
July 8th, 2006 at 2:53 pmI rest my case.
All of you have just been blown out of the water as people who cling to an ideology that makes no sense.
Have a nice evening folks, I will hope that your mothers will never be the target of terrorism since you will all sell them out to the terrorists in order to blindly follow your faith – your ideology.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:57 pmAmnesty International: “gulagâ€
I rest my case.
Comment by Seixon — July 8, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Ahem… this is not a source…. it is still a personal opinion.
Also, since you are a critical thinker, you certainly realise you are engaging in ad hominem circumstantial. You are attacking the motivations without examining the merits of the stance that mock executions constitute torture. And you still have to show that all four organisations are starving for attention.
I think it was either Human Rights Watch or Amnesty, but they wrote huge reports on Abu Ghraib and wrote tiny reports on North Korea.
“Tiny reports”? I guess years (well over a decade) of slamming Kim Jong-il’s regime for having “one of the worst human rights records of any nation” amount to little to you.
And please tell me you are not seriously advocating the US (a supposed shining beacon of democracy, justice, and freedom) be held to the same standard as N Korea (a backward dictatoship run by a bunch of thugs). If anything, the standards for the US should be higher.
I’m not thinking of mock executions, no. I’m thinking of acid baths, hanging people on walls, chopping off hands. You know, things that cause severe pain and suffering.
The definition of torture in the Convention Against Torture is clear: “whether physical or mental”. Torture is not just physical harm, it can also be psychological.
Au contraire, a critical thinker will defy the established norms to evaluate whether or not they actually hold water. You might as well have told me in the 16th century that I would be arrogant to challenge the word of the Vatican or the powerful churches of the time.
This argument would hold water if you had the credentials to dispute or refute the studies published by all four organisations. If you do have the credentials, please let us know your specific area of expertise, how many people you have examined, how long you have been practicing, and please direct us to your published work in peer-reviewed publications.
Mock executions do not cause “severe pain and suffering†and thus cannot be considered torture. I don’t care who in the hell you bring up saying it is, because it is just an indisputable fact that cannot be explained away.
See my previous response.
Human rights organizations were once the beacon of freedom for oppressed and innocent people.
They still are. Read Human Rights Watch describe Kim Jong Il’s regime as being “among the world’s most repressive”.
Also, visit HRW’s page on North Korea that has plenty of links to numerous reports and articles about the situation of human rights in that country, or lack thereof.
By the way, HRW does not have a similar page for the US because they have not written as much about the US as they have about N Korea. Your charges of anti-American bias are not holding water anymore.
Nowadays they are beacons of freedom for terrorists who would cut their heads off at the blink of an eye. Things sure have changed in the last few decades, that’s for sure.
I linked to a report that defined mock executions as torture before the now famous “gulag” statement was made. Here is another one (also before 2005) on Chile, and another one on Congo
As a final note, Amnesty International has already admitted that calling Guantanamo a “gulag” was definitely not the best analogy, in essence, retracting their statement.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:00 pm194 Lord Seixon
July 8th, 2006 at 3:01 pmSarcastic show? My lord, I am merely bowing to your greater wisdom. It is, after all, you who showed me that I did not know my true feelings or beliefs in post 165. Now, in my enlightenment, I am more concerned in “becoming” like you, not saying what is “becoming” of me. Of course, if my Lord Seixon has been testing my faith in post 165 and would in his infinite wisdom retract post 165, I would be happy to comply with his wishes now.
Gregor,
“Tiny reports� I guess years (well over a decade) of slamming Kim Jong-il’s regime for having “one of the worst human rights records of any nation†amount to little to you.
HRW has four publications on North Korea since 2000.
HRW has over 40, four zero, publications on the United States since 2000.
Ahem. I rest my case.
If anything, the standards for the US should be higher.
No, the expectations should be higher, not the standards. The standards should be the same for everyone. I’m sure Kim Jong Il hates having 1/10 the human rights violation coverage as the United States from HRW.
Torture is not just physical harm, it can also be psychological.
Mock executions will still not inflict “severe pain or suffering” even psychologically.
By the way, HRW does not have a similar page for the US because they have not written as much about the US as they have about N Korea. Your charges of anti-American bias are not holding water anymore.
Huh? HRW has the following menu on the left side of their page:
If you browse by publications, North Korea only has four since 2000, while the USA has over forty. I don’t want to accuse you of lying, but surely you can’t have overlooked this?
I linked to a report that defined mock executions as torture before the now famous “gulag†statement was made.
What’s your point? That still doesn’t mean they are actually torture. HRW, Amnesty and all the rest can call it that if they want, but making a terrorist believe he is doing to die is not torture.
Now will anyone, seriously anyone, explain the following question for me:
It’s OK to drop a bomb on bin Laden, but not torture him to save your own mother?
Seriously, anyone can field this one. Meanwhile, I’m heading out. Don’t talk too much shit while I’m gone.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:15 pmOr do you say “no, I never torture, never†and let those 3,000 people die a horrible death?
Answer the question you cowardly ideologues.
Comment by Seixon — July 8, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
I have already answered your question. You have made your decision. You will commit an international crime, a crime against humanity. You are therefore no better than the terrorists you would torture.
I point out, once again, your false premise.
Torture is wrong. Period. If you carve out any exception to that, then you condone torture. Period. You, Seixon, belong with the worst of humanity. Period.
As for the question you posed to others:
Would you rather torture Osama bin Laden, or have your mother die?
For me, the answer would be ‘neither.’ You pose an either/or choice. As such, you remove the hypothetical from the applications of reality, as reality is filled with infinite possibilities. Since your choices are not amenable to reality, ‘neither’ is the only correct response.
I wonder, who is more cowardly, one who stands for peace, or one who supports torture?
July 8th, 2006 at 3:51 pmNow answer my question:
Would you rather torture Osama bin Laden, or have your mother die?
Answer the question or live the life of a coward.
Comment by Seixon
July 8th, 2006 at 4:31 pm===================
You are indulging in magical thinking.
Mock executions will still not inflict “severe pain or suffering†even psychologically.
Comment by Seixon — July 8, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
That is not what Physicians for Humans Rights say, They are an organisation of medical professionals who have treated, and worked with, many who have been subjected to mock executions. They have observed their effects first hand. Those are their credentials.
Again, what are your credentials that allow you to issue such a statement and to dismiss their work?
If you browse by publications, North Korea only has four since 2000, while the USA has over forty. I don’t want to accuse you of lying, but surely you can’t have overlooked this?
Damn these small fonts in the comments section! I meant to remove that from my post… I thought I did. Quick explanation: From the N Korea page, I clicked on the “Americas” link and didn’t find “United States” in the list of countries. I found it only after I typed that paragraph; I thought I had deleted it. Consider it null and void.
What’s your point? That still doesn’t mean they are actually torture. HRW, Amnesty and all the rest can call it that if they want, but making a terrorist believe he is doing to die is not torture.
The point is you keep mentioning the “gulag” statement as the moment when Amnesty lost all credibility for you. Must I assume all their prior work and/or regarding other countries (N Korea included) no longer has any credibility to you?
It’s OK to drop a bomb on bin Laden, but not torture him to save your own mother?
Are you asking me? If so… tsk… tsk… any critical thinker recognises this as a highly hypothetical scenario that begs the question: You are trying to prove torture is morally ok, by assuming in your scenarion that it is ok.
Also, you use a hypothetical to justify a reality. A more accurate question would be: “Would you torture Bin Laden in hopes that you might be able to extract information that could potentially lead to save your mother’s life -who could probably be under danger from a ploy in which Bin Laden could be involved? That is, assuming you get the information on time to stop the conspiracy.” To that question the answer is no -there is no way to assure 100% that torturing anyone would save my mother.
July 8th, 2006 at 4:34 pmTo that question the answer is no -there is no way to assure 100% that torturing anyone would save my mother.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — July 8, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Appalling what fear will convince people to do to others….
July 8th, 2006 at 6:19 pmI just read 204 & 205. Hhmmmm.Just sayin’.
July 8th, 2006 at 6:47 pmIt’s OK to drop a bomb on bin Laden, but not torture him to save your own mother?
Seriously, anyone can field this one. Meanwhile, I’m heading out. Don’t talk too much shit while I’m gone.
Comment by Seixon — July 8, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Not defined well. 1) Nation vs. individual ? 2) Legal vs. Moral ? ). You personaly Throw gernade in cave knowing it will kill Osma ? vs. You personaly are giving Osma strapped to gurney and giving all sorts of instruments of torture and told to get him to talk?
July 8th, 2006 at 7:36 pm#204 –
You arre at odds with the rest of the civilized world, Iakeo.
The world already has. The intrnational proscription on Torture has risen to jus cogens. No nation may authorize torture. Torture is an international crime against humanity.
Don’t confuse me with “the left.” Study Shamanism. Then come back and talk to me about “reality.” There are far more “realities” than you or I are capable of imagining.
You are projecting your limited perception into matters you have not yet conceived. Some individuals are capable of perceiving multiple realities simultaneously (and without the use of psychotropic drugs, I might add.)
Anywhere, and everywhere, if you make it part of the essence of your being.
This is a lower, animalistic view. Humanity is capable of a greater understanding, we’ve had glimpses of it for a few thousand years now.
In so doing, you give power over to the being who is intent on causing you pain. You do not yet understand the true nature of power.
Since one could argue that “evil” is a human construct and does not exist in nature, I will not debate you on that. For one thing, it does not appear that you have a sufficient background in metaphysics to engage in debate.
Your understanding and rationale has been used before, to justify torture. The rest of the world has united in its stand against ANY rationale for torture.
Yet if individuals like you and Seixon have their way, we will spiral down into untold horrors. If we continue on the current path, hundreds of millions of people will die. This is the path you are choosing, albeit unknowlingly. Fear and ignorance breed hatred and violence.
I remain “hopeful in possibilities” because I see all to clearly the outcome of the one reality you espouse. But then, I’m just a shaman.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:55 pmAs a mother, I would rather die than know my child tortured someone in order to save me.
Namaste.
July 8th, 2006 at 9:51 pm204 Zooey
July 8th, 2006 at 9:58 pmAs a father, I feel the same.
You know, I can’t keep up the Son of Seixon stuff any longer. Thought I would barf on my keyboard. Anyway, I think the point is made and I’m obviously not going to get a retraction or apology. A few more minutes hanging around here and I’m off for a week – going away with no computer. Helping with a Habitat for Humanity type building project with my church. All you true American progressives keep up the good fight. Blessings to you all.
PLC,
Good on ya, mate! Habitat for Humanity is so cool.
I can’t believe you kept up that Son of Seixon routine for so long! We’ve had a bad influence on you.
Have a great week off!
July 8th, 2006 at 10:08 pmSeixon, I will answer your question. I would MUCH rather torture Osama bin Laden, than have my mother die. But how would me torturing OSM keep the ‘Grim Reaper’ away from my mom? And wouldn’t we have to actually CAPTURE OBL, for me to torture him, in the first place? Honestly, there have been times where torturing my mom has seemed like a reasonable thing to do. But I settle for yelling at her, not that it does a bit of good, she is a VERY stubborn woman. Before anyone wigs out on me, my mom has been walking around for damn near a year, with her LIVER sticking out of a hernia on her side. I have named her liver ‘Bob’. She REFUSES to have surgery to repair it, so, really she could drop dead at any moment. I have threatened to call the Police, and tell them she is trying to kill herself, or drug her and put her in the car and admit her to the Hospital while she is unconcious. Damn that woman anyhow. TMI… sorry.
July 8th, 2006 at 11:40 pmWho is Iakeo on here? He sounds like Seixon’s oriental brother or something > lol.
July 8th, 2006 at 11:42 pmCount them yourself:
Signatures to the UN Convention against Torture
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 22, that they agree to allow individual complaints to the Committee against Torture
Algeria
Argentina
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Uruguay
Yugoslavia
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture
Australia
Belize
Brazil
Cameroon
Chile
Colombia
Cyprus
Egypt
Estonia
Germany
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Jordan
Libya
Mexico
Nepal
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Senegal
Somalia
Uganda
United Kingdom
Venezuela
Yemen
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 28, that they do not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture to investigate allegations of widespread torture within their boundaries
Afghanistan
Belarus
Bulgaria
China
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Israel
Ukraine
States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture
Belgium
Bolivia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Gabon
Gambia
Iceland
Indonesia
Morocco
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Sudan
United States of America
——————————————————————————–
Created on July 14, 1994 / Last edited on January 25, 1997
See also:
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984
entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1)
Participant Signature Ratification, Accession (a), Succession (d)
Afghanistan 4 Feb 1985 1 Apr 1987
Albania 11 May 1994 a
Algeria 26 Nov 1985 12 Sep 1989
Andorra 5 Aug 2002
Antigua and Barbuda 19 Jul 1993 a
Argentina 4 Feb 1985 24 Sep 1986
Armenia 13 Sep 1993 a
Australia 10 Dec 1985 8 Aug 1989
Austria 14 Mar 1985 29 Jul 1987
Azerbaijan 16 Aug 1996 a
Bahrain 6 Mar 1998 a
Bangladesh 5 Oct 1998 a
Belarus 19 Dec 1985 13 Mar 1987
Belgium 4 Feb 1985 25 Jun 1999
Belize 17 Mar 1986 a
Benin 12 Mar 1992 a
Bolivia 4 Feb 1985 12 Apr 1999
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 Sep 1993 d
Botswana 8 Sep 2000 8 Sep 2000
Brazil 23 Sep 1985 28 Sep 1989
Bulgaria 10 Jun 1986 16 Dec 1986
Burkina Faso 4 Jan 1999 a
Burundi 18 Feb 1993 a
Cambodia 15 Oct 1992 a
Cameroon 19 Dec 1986 a
Canada 23 Aug 1985 24 Jun 1987
Cape Verde 4 Jun 1992 a
Chad 9 Jun 1995 a
Chile 23 Sep 1987 30 Sep 1988
China 12 Dec 1986 4 Oct 1988
Colombia 10 Apr 1985 8 Dec 1987
Comoros 22 Sep 2000
Congo 30 Jul 2003 a
Costa Rica 4 Feb 1985 11 Nov 1993
Côte d’Ivoire 18 Dec 1995 a
Croatia 12 Oct 1992 d
Cuba 27 Jan 1986 17 May 1995
Cyprus 9 Oct 1985 18 Jul 1991
Czech Republic 22 Feb 1993 d
Democratic Republic of the Congo 18 Mar 1996 a
Denmark 4 Feb 1985 27 May 1987
Djibouti 5 Nov 2002 a
Dominican Republic 4 Feb 1985
Ecuador 4 Feb 1985 30 Mar 1988
Egypt 25 Jun 1986 a
El Salvador 17 Jun 1996 a
Equatorial Guinea 8 Oct 2002 a
Estonia 21 Oct 1991 a
Ethiopia 14 Mar 1994 a
Finland 4 Feb 1985 30 Aug 1989
France 4 Feb 1985 18 Feb 1986
Gabon 21 Jan 1986 8 Sep 2000
Gambia 23 Oct 1985
Georgia 26 Oct 1994 a
Germany 13 Oct 1986 1 Oct 1990
Ghana 7 Sep 2000 7 Sep 2000
Greece 4 Feb 1985 6 Oct 1988
Guatemala 5 Jan 1990 a
Guinea 30 May 1986 10 Oct 1989
Guinea-Bissau 12 Sep 2000
Guyana 25 Jan 1988 19 May 1988
Holy See 26 Jun 2002 a
Honduras 5 Dec 1996 a
Hungary 28 Nov 1986 15 Apr 1987
Iceland 4 Feb 1985 23 Oct 1996
India 14 Oct 1997
Indonesia 23 Oct 1985 28 Oct 1998
Ireland 28 Sep 1992 11 Apr 2002
Israel 22 Oct 1986 3 Oct 1991
Italy 4 Feb 1985 12 Jan 1989
Japan 29 Jun 1999 a
Jordan 13 Nov 1991 a
Kazakhstan 26 Aug 1998 a
Kenya 21 Feb 1997 a
Kuwait 8 Mar 1996 a
Kyrgyzstan 5 Sep 1997 a
Latvia 14 Apr 1992 a
Lebanon 5 Oct 2000 a
Lesotho 12 Nov 2001 a
Liberia 22 Sep 2004 a
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 16 May 1989 a
Liechtenstein 27 Jun 1985 2 Nov 1990
Lithuania 1 Feb 1996 a
Luxembourg 22 Feb 1985 29 Sep 1987
Madagascar 1 Oct 2001 13 Dec 2005
Malawi 11 Jun 1996 a
Maldives 20 Apr 2004 a
Mali 26 Feb 1999 a
Malta 13 Sep 1990 a
Mauritania 17 Nov 2004 a
Mauritius 9 Dec 1992 a
Mexico 18 Mar 1985 23 Jan 1986
Monaco 6 Dec 1991 a
Mongolia 24 Jan 2002 a
Morocco 8 Jan 1986 21 Jun 1993
Mozambique 14 Sep 1999 a
Namibia 28 Nov 1994 a
Nauru 12 Nov 2001
Nepal 14 May 1991 a
Netherlands 4 Feb 1985 21 Dec 1988
New Zealand 14 Jan 1986 10 Dec 1989
Nicaragua 15 Apr 1985 5 Jul 2005
Niger 5 Oct 1998 a
Nigeria 28 Jul 1988 28 Jun 2001
Norway 4 Feb 1985 9 Jul 1986
Panama 22 Feb 1985 24 Aug 1987
Paraguay 23 Oct 1989 12 Mar 1990
Peru 29 May 1985 7 Jul 1988
Philippines 18 Jun 1986 a
Poland 13 Jan 1986 26 Jul 1989
Portugal 4 Feb 1985 9 Feb 1989
Qatar 11 Jan 2000 a
Republic of Korea 9 Jan 1995 a
Republic of Moldova 28 Nov 1995 a
Romania 18 Dec 1990 a
Russian Federation 10 Dec 1985 3 Mar 1987
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 Aug 2001 a
San Marino 18 Sep 2002
Sao Tome and Principe 6 Sep 2000
Saudi Arabia 23 Sep 1997 a
Senegal 4 Feb 1985 21 Aug 1986
Serbia and Montenegro 12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles 5 May 1992 a
Sierra Leone 18 Mar 1985 25 Apr 2001
Slovakia 28 May 1993 d
Slovenia 16 Jul 1993 a
Somalia 24 Jan 1990 a
South Africa 29 Jan 1993 10 Dec 1998
Spain 4 Feb 1985 21 Oct 1987
Sri Lanka 3 Jan 1994 a
Sudan 4 Jun 1986
Swaziland 26 Mar 2004 a
Sweden 4 Feb 1985 8 Jan 1986
Switzerland 4 Feb 1985 2 Dec 1986
Syrian Arab Republic 19 Aug 2004 a
Tajikistan 11 Jan 1995 a
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 12 Dec 1994 d
Timor-Leste 16 Apr 2003 a
Togo 25 Mar 1987 18 Nov 1987
Tunisia 26 Aug 1987 23 Sep 1988
Turkey 25 Jan 1988 2 Aug 1988
Turkmenistan 25 Jun 1999 a
Uganda 3 Nov 1986 a
Ukraine 27 Feb 1986 24 Feb 1987
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 15 Mar 1985 8 Dec 1988
United States of America 18 Apr 1988 21 Oct 1994
Uruguay 4 Feb 1985 24 Oct 1986
Uzbekistan 28 Sep 1995 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 15 Feb 1985 29 Jul 1991
Yemen 5 Nov 1991 a
Zambia 7 Oct 1998 a
Perhaps you should go before those countries and try to convince them that your view of acceptable torture should be adopted.
Then your dog is wiser than you.
July 9th, 2006 at 12:49 amIakeo,
You have no standing to lecture me, or make presumptions about me or my child.
July 9th, 2006 at 1:28 amYou know nothing of peace or love.
My definition of ‘torture’ (subject to change, of course) is having people who would scream the loudest, at the mere suggestion of their own potential torture, before the first electrode had been attached, pontificating about how “justified” torture can be, as a ‘tool’ to ’save lives’. But you never hear them say that they would have no problem being tortured themselves, should they be captured by the ‘enemy’. The ‘enemy’ might believe they have some vital information, even if they SWEAR on the Bible that they don’t know anything. So they (the enemy) are convinced that they should torture the prisoner anyhow, just in case they were lying.
July 9th, 2006 at 2:26 am”Iakeo”
Seems like everyone dismisses you just because others say to dismiss you.
July 9th, 2006 at 4:09 amWhat did someone once say about ‘circle-jerk’ ?
Even Jay Randal thinks you’re alright,even for a oriental guy.Do you think he meant asian?Do you think Jay understands that oriental means any land east of the mediterranean ?
And one last thing:Wouldn’t a shaman atleast know who he is talking to?
Maybe it’s just one of those multiple reality things.
Why are we still interrogating (torturing) the detainees at Gitmo, who have been held there for 4 years, or more? There is just no way on EARTH that they could have any valid information, regarding any threat to us. Those rounded up in Afghanistan REALLY have nothing to tell us. The ‘new and improved’ Taliban, that is making a ‘comeback’ at this time, would be unknown to our ‘guests’. And given their loooong and quite conspicuous absence, they probably wouldn’t be popular choices for membership in the club, too risky, can’t trust them, probably better just kill them, to be safe. BushCo’s clear reluctance to even begin to prove their cases against these people, makes BushCo look guilty, by comparison. They must be hiding something. Maybe Congress could find a way to make them tell us what it is they are hiding. I know I would feel so much safer, if I knew what they were up to. Transparency in Government is important to the President, you know. He said so.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:12 amWhat does “appaling†mean?
ap·pall ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pôl)
tr.v. ap·palled, ap·pall·ing, ap·palls
To fill with consternation or dismay.
(www.dictionary.com)
For anyone past about third grade, it means hideous, awful, shocking, unnerving, horrific…
It should fill you with dismay, but so should a terrorist about to blow you up with him.
Because that happens on such a regular basis? Seriously – you guys fear the wrong things. In 2001, 3000 Americans were killed by terrorist. Same year nearly 15,000 Americans were killed by other Americans. Tens of thousands more by heart disease, cancer, incurable disease that your side of the aisle wants to cut funding for while pumping billions into a risk less than getting struck by lightning, or a fatal fall in the shower, or harming yourself…
But being blown up by terrorists is not the topic here – it is torture. And it was not required to stop 9/11.
Though, it was responsible for Iraq, a war that was not only illegal, but invalid (he has no WMDs).
The question is, would you kill (which is worse than torture in that it is irrevocable) the terrorist before he could kill all those around him?
Well, how do you pick out the terrorist in the group? Or do you shoot first and ask questions to a corpse who may very well have been innocent? Or are you so afraid that you’re willing to kill people who look suspicious? Seems that last year over 16,000 Americans did just that (last year’s murder rate).
And what if someone thinks your look suspicious? Bye-bye?
Just because something “offends you sensibilities†does NOT mean that it has no purpose in the real world.
Comment by Iakeo — July 8, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Yes, it does. As humans we have an awareness of the world that most other animals don’t. We know right from wrong as a result. And therefore, anything that offends your sensibilities does so because it is wrong.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:48 amCyra,
Sorry to hear about your mom’s condition. I would think that refusing to get treatment could be grounds for you seeking it for her? I don’t understand how she can live like that. Good luck. I hope she’ll come around soon….
July 9th, 2006 at 8:51 am#221- Ms.Unbelievable, thank you. I am normally not the type to ‘go off’ on my elders. I usually try to use humor to make my point. Last August, my Uncle threw her a surprise birthday party, and I thought a little sibling pressure might be the ticket, paired with a little well meant ’shaming’, to induce guilt. I even made matching ‘party hats’, one for her and one for “Bob”. I even put “Bob’s” hat on him myself. Creepy. Mom laughed, but that is all that she did. This May, my Aunt, her sister, passed away. Pancreatic Cancer. I hoped it would motivate her, but, no. I can be just as stubborn, though, and I am willing to make a scene in public, I have done it many times, for fun. But it is QUITE vexing. Oh, thanks for letting me have my head up your rear, and for thinking for me as well. You are so tolerant. ;)
July 9th, 2006 at 10:07 amI see that this debate lacks the same logic from the left that is present when debating the death penalty.
The suggestion that murdering a murderer is the same as the murderer having committed murder is absolutely illogical. You might as well say that attacking Hitler was the same thing as Hitler attacking others first. It’s not the same becauae Hitler did so unprovoked and for his own selfish reasons, while we attacked him to make him stop. Our action happened to prevent more evil. To compare the two as equal would me moral relativism.
Just as with torture and the death penalty, it is not the same thing to torture a terrorist as it is for a terrorist to torture a completely innocent person. Obviously those who see only in black/white can only see “torture/no torture” and cannot see any other parameters existing.
I asked why it would be OK to drop a huge bomb on Osama’s head, but not OK to torture him to save thousands of people. I think the only response attempted was that dropping a bomb on him would be “legal” while torturing him would not be. What?
I’m asking those with a brain to explain the illogical stance of killing someone being OK, while torturing them to save others not being OK. I cannot grasp this illogical concept, it doesn’t compute for me.
As Brisdeah demonstrated, most people are 100% against torture because they have been brainwashed into having a zero-tolerance policy for torture. “Torture is wrong. Period.” Yet if we use the same logic towards, shall we say, killing, murder, shooting people… then we will completely neuter our military and our police force from being able to save anyone at all. Just think if we were to operate under the same way by saying, “Murder is wrong. Period.” Or how about, “Shooting someone is wrong. Period.”
Cyra, thanks for admitting that you would much rather torture Osama bin Laden than have your mother die. However, you like many other progressives (whatever that’s supposed to mean) try to claim that the situation is a false one, that there’s no way torturing bin Laden would save your mother, etc. Why not? On September 10, 2001 if we had apprehended Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed… you’re telling me that it would have been impossible to torture out of either of them the exact plan that was to be carried out the next day? Why would that be impossible?
It wouldn’t have been impossible – it’s only impossible to those who would rather stick to their own illogical ideology rather than save their own mother.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:22 amCyra,
Does your mom tell you why she won’t get medical attention? Sounds a bit like this way she can dismiss it as nothing instead of find out that it is worse?
Sorry about your aunt as well. Most of my family members have died from cancer. Not a nice way to go. Why I’m an absolute freak about my own lifestyle…
Well, I hope something can trigger your mom to go to the doctor. I can’t imagine that that is a very comfortable way to live…
It’s funny that anyone would accuse clearly intelligent people of needing others to think for them. But, I guess when people like that get their thoughts from others, they assume everyone else is just like them. Little do they understand that reality has a liberal bias, therefore those in touch with reality tend to have a liberal bias as well :)
July 9th, 2006 at 11:11 amIt is impossible to know to an absolute certainty that torture would extract the desired information.
And what do you say to the innocent person who is tortured? We have already “rendered” innocent people off to third countries to be tortured who have come back to tell their stories. What do you say? Oh, sorry, we were absolutely certain you had information that would stop a terrorist attack so we had to torture you until we were absolutely certain you knew nothing of the plot?
Iakeo,
you write well, I give you credit for that. But you’re too dismissive in things you do not fully understand (shamanism, for one).
And your rationale for torture is dangerous. You play word games with it. In doing so, you can rationally justify every step.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:19 amBriseadh,
It is impossible to know to an absolute certainty that torture would extract the desired information.
So in other words, you’d rather not do anything to Osama bin Laden and just shrug your shoulders while 3,000 people die from his direct collaboration? I’d love for you to tell the victims families that you would rather not lay a finger on Osama bin Laden than save their loved ones if it were up to you.
And what do you say to the innocent person who is tortured? We have already “rendered†innocent people off to third countries to be tortured who have come back to tell their stories. What do you say? Oh, sorry, we were absolutely certain you had information that would stop a terrorist attack so we had to torture you until we were absolutely certain you knew nothing of the plot?
Briseadh, the point is that we have to be more careful when using torture, not outlawing it completely. Just like the death penalty, we have to make sure that we use it only when we are 100% certain. That’s not how things are today, but that’s the way things should be.
You’re trying to undermine the justified uses of torture by dredging up “what if” scenarios that should not occur if torture is used properly. Yet just as the shooting of a man in London who was running away from police, an innocent man, mistakes always happen. Of course, you live in a utopian world where mistakes will never happen, and that’s also why you would never ever use torture – because in your world, everything to do with torture is impossible.
All you’re doing is trying to rationalize your illogical ideological position.
Let me just ask you this way, Briseadh: is there any scenario where using torture would be justified?
The scenario I had with bin Laden seemed pretty obvious – obviously bin Laden knew about 9/11, and it’s obvious there was every possibility of torturing this information out of him, or Khalid Sheik Mohammed, if we had caught them before it happened.
You seek to dismiss this as “impossible” so that you don’t have to actually try and make excuses for your illogical position.
And your rationale for torture is dangerous. You play word games with it. In doing so, you can rationally justify every step.
He’s not playing word games at all. You obviously don’t understand what he was showing you. By changing the definition of torture around, you can virtually outlaw everything, or make anything legal. This makes the entire idea of outlawing “torture” ridiculous since it will mean different things to whoever is talking about it.
And no one has yet to give me an explanation for why it would be OK to drop a bomb on bin Laden, but not torture him. That makes 100% no sense what so ever, which illuminates the completely illogical position most of you have on torture.
July 9th, 2006 at 12:16 pmWhat do I need to know about peace or love that you can tell me?
Comment by Iakeo
You have proved my point. What do I need to know about being a parent to my own child that YOU can tell me, dearheart?
What more will you presume to know, or presume to tell me about the values I have taught my sons, or my relationship with my sons? I have been a mother for almost 24 years, and both of my sons demonstrate more humanity and compassion with a simple “Hello,” than you have demonstrated with all of you useless words here.
July 9th, 2006 at 12:34 pmWould you rather torture Osama bin Laden, or have your mother die?
Comment by Seixon #182
Sexuallytransmittedemon,
Neither…
…I’d rather see YOUR mother have to die…
…for breeding an infection like you…
July 9th, 2006 at 1:54 pmI give up. There are no liberals who will explain their illogical position that torturing someone to save others is abominable, while bombing the shit out of the same person is fine.
July 9th, 2006 at 3:16 pmThe two statements below are contradictory.
The task of “enlightened†humans is to understand what makes a WISE use of a technology defferent from an UNWISE use of that technology.
Your view is myopic. Your arguments sophist. The logical extension of your arguments justify all forms of torture. You may not be willing to go down that path, but rest assured, others have, and others will.
You argue to proceed down a very slippery slope, yet trust enlightened humans to somehow stop short of whatever it is you deem unacceptable torture.
You broaden the definition of torture to include any and all infliction of pain, then argue that some infliction of pain is acceptable, therefore some torture is acceptable.
Save such sophistry for the uneducated.
Enlightened humans accept the possibility of more than one reality.
July 9th, 2006 at 3:46 pmBriseadh,
You argue to proceed down a very slippery slope, yet trust enlightened humans to somehow stop short of whatever it is you deem unacceptable torture.
We trust humans to stop short of doing all sorts of things every day. Why couldn’t the same be done for torture? The slippery slope argument is one of the laziest one can find.
You still haven’t addressed why it is supposedly OK to bomb a terrorist to death but torturing them to save people is not.
July 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pmIakeo,
Don’t you see? Torturing and killing me and my family, Bush, or any of their political opponents is all fine and good, but torturing Osama bin Laden is strictly abominable!
I love the logic demonstrated here at Think Progress on a daily basis. Well, the lack thereof anyways.
July 9th, 2006 at 4:22 pm# 240. Iakeo:
It seems that you and Seixon are headed for a life-long and close relationship.
July 9th, 2006 at 5:38 pmGood luck.
I never said it was.
Comment by Si Byl — July 9, 2006 @ 4:09 am
That is somewhat different from my definition of a shaman. Have you traveled to other realms? Have you healed the sick or injured? Have you walked inside a dream? Can you talk to the wind and make a cloud disappear? Have you guided a soul to the other side? Have you returned a soul from the void? Do you know your power animal? Your Spirit Guides? Have you walked in Lower World? Upper World? Have you brought back a power animal to heal someone in need? Have you done battle with the demons of another to heal that person? Have you called upon forces in other realms in order to heal a community?
Do these things, and we can talk about what it means to be a shaman.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:02 pmI beg to differ with your conclusion, but not about the right and wrong issue :)
No begging required…
The reason that “wrongs†exist in the world, and one’s (apparently not your) reaction to them is revulsion, is to signal one (apparently not you) to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT..!!
Two wrongs do not make a right. How many dead Iraqis will it take for you to feel 9/11 has been fixed or solved or assuaged? Even though Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11?
So what was the wrong that Iraq perpetrated that deserves this kind of blood shed that will fit your neat little definitions while ignoring the reality that wrong does not, by any definition, mean that any amount of revenge will make it better. Hence one wrong or two wrongs? They are all still wrong…
We, as humans, DO INDEED know right from wrong.
Wrongs are to be RIGHTED..! (Note: We do not LEFT wrongs..!)
You can’t right wrongs either. How many dead people in the 9/11 attacks have been brought back to life by all of the torture of those at Abu Ghraib? What exactly do you thinl you’ve “righted”? Not a damn thing. You’ve just added more wrongs to the existing wrongs. And that, again, produces no rights.
And apparently you, when faced with something that offends YOUR sensibilities consider YOURSELF and/or the victim to be wrong for having been offended.
Stop spinning. You’re gonna get dizzy. Not at all what I said. What I said was, that while the first wrong is horrible, the second wrong is appalling, because it does not fix the first wrong – only makes the wrong pile bigger. You seem smart enough to understand that. That 1 + 1 =2, not zero. One wrong plus a second wrong is two wrongs. Not zero wrongs. You can’t erase one wrong with another wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right. They make two wrongs, with the second more egregious than the first because it was done out of revenge (hatred and spite).
If someone, another human, does something wrong, and you deem what they did as wrong, it is incumbent on you to right that wrong. It is not your task to excuse the wrong, for whatever pathological reason you may have, and blame the wrong on the victim of the wrong.
You cannot right a wrong. Not with another one. Because you know what? There will soon be, after the second wrong, a third, fourth, fifth, etc. until everyone loses count.
How anything about history? Take a look at Northern Ireland. That was a prime example of your revenge theory in action. You can’t fight fire with fire – you just get bigger fires. And you can’t erase the past with revenge.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind – Gandhi.
If I see someone harming another person, you must stop the wrong-doer from doing the wrong, not punish the wronged person for attracting the wrong-done.
Punish the victim? How the hell do you think torturing prisioners at Gitmo or killing innocent Iraqis is punishing the victims of 9/11?
New York City and Washington DC overwhelmingly voted for John Kerry in 2004. Why? Because they knew that revenge and violence were only punishing them worse. Making a mockery of what they endured.
That is the way of madness,.. which describes you and yur ilk pretty darn well, actually.
Comment by Iakeo — July 9, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
Well, considering the majority of your argument was against a strawman, and not my actually argument, I’d say you and your ilk are running pretty short on valid debate.
Madness? You’re the one who wants to torture people for revenge.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:08 pmIs the difference between heart disease and terroristic threats/actions really that difficult for you to distinguish?
If the end result is death, and your goal to save lives, then really, the sources are irrelevent actually. You should be going after whichever saves the most lives. Therefore, while terrorists have killed 3000 Americans, but heart disease millions, you put more money into trying to stop terrorism than heart disease.
Seems pretty straight forward, so I’m sure you’ll try to spin it.
The question was, is torture ever an acceptable tactic.
And the answer is no. The evidence it extracted led to attacking Iraq. Does that clarify or do you need further explanation?
What was responsible for Iraq? All war, as you folks have said, is illegal, therefore your argument that ANY PARTICULAR war is illegal is diluted into utter meaninglessness.
What? Don’t be absolutist. It’s beneath even you.
The terrorist is the one that is wearing the vest with the explosives in it. This was discovered when he/she refused to be searched at the checkpoint, and scurried into the open area amongst all his/her potential victims.
You’ve watched one to many Jack Ryan adventures. Life is rarely what you expect it to be. It’s why they call these ’surprise’ attacks.
If they look suspicious, they are checked out. If they prove themselves to be a threat, then they are detained. If they prove themselves to be an immediate threat they are incapacitated, in whatever degree seems fit to render them inert, using the least amount of force possible within safety constraints.
You didn’t answer my question. I said what if YOU look suspicious? Naked strip search by some sweaty hairy unifroms do it for you?
What I’m coming to understand from you is that you see no threat from people who have explicitly stated their will to kill others.
Has no one ever said “I’ll kill you” in a moment of rage and then well, never did?
Besides, if we’re protecting our borders instead of fighting an illegal war in iraq that was no threat to us, then perhaps people like you might be a tad less afarid of boogeymen. If anything, you should be mad that we are in Iraq and not fixing border security…
THis means that you either condone what they’re doing, and in doing so actually suppprt their cause, or you actually see no threat, making you pathologically blind in this regard and therefore unworthy of listening to for perspective on this issue.
Comment by Iakeo — July 9, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
Life is not an either/or scenario. It comes in many shades of grey.
The fact that your so afraid of your own shadow that you’re hysterical, unrational, and willing to abuse people shows that you are the one who is unworthy of being listened to for perspective on this, or any issue.
I’ve travelled the world. Most people don’t want to hurt anyone. For you to suggest otherwise makes you a scared little boy. Your prerogative to be one, but go hide in your bomb shelter instead of encouraging others to ruin this world for the rest of us.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:21 pmPoor folks. I pity them, the miserable slaves.
Comment by Iakeo — July 9, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
YTour entire rant perfectly described YOUR side of the fence. Otherwise, we’d be in your neocon blogs trying to do whatever you think you’re doing here. The fact that it is you on a progressive blog shows that you cannot tolerate a difference of opion, as you are here in an attempt to shut it down, convert it, insult it, etc.
It is you who is here to shut us up, not the other way around. If not, then leave us to our beliefs.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:27 pm# 245.
”then leave us to our beliefs.”
Speak for yourself.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:37 pmBriseadh,
I never said it was.
You’re right, you haven’t said much at all in regards to my question. You’re an artful dodger.
unbelievable,
I won’t address the rest of the illogical stuff you posted, I’ll let Iakeo address it. But…
The fact that it is you on a progressive blog shows that you cannot tolerate a difference of opion, as you are here in an attempt to shut it down, convert it, insult it, etc.
That shows your mindset in a nutshell. Iakeo, obviously not in agreement with people at Think Progress much like myself, comes to Think Progress of his own choosing and engages in debate about issues. You attribute this to him not tolerating a difference of opinion, and by debating you, he is attempting to shut down other opinions. If he cannot tolerate a difference of opinion, why in the world would he come here??
unbelievable seems to believe that having a debate about something is tantamount to one side trying to shut the other down. That would only be true if he indeed did shut it down by showing the other position to be invalid. In that, I think you have just revealed that this is exactly what he has done, which is why you are mad. Not only at him, but at me as well. You can’t debate us, so you claim we are fascists and eventually start ignoring everything we write because you cannot tolerate a different opinion than your own.
It is you who is here to shut us up, not the other way around. If not, then leave us to our beliefs.
How has Iakeo tried to shut anyone up? He hasn’t and is not able to. I managed to shut quite a few of you up, but that was only because you were all too cowardly to answer a simple question for fear of revealing that your ideological position on torture was untenable when faced with reality.
As for “leave us to our beliefs”, isn’t that ironclad proof that you and many other people here at Think Progress would rather live in a world of groupthink, in a bubble of your own, never having to face a different opinion than your own?
I think it does. You have essentially just confirmed that you cannot tolerate a difference of opinion and want everyone who has a different opinion to leave you alone to your groupthink bubble.
Thanks for confirming virtually every suspicion I had.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:40 pm“t is you who is here to shut us up, not the other way around. If not, then leave us to our beliefs”
No one is shutting-you-up fool. Man, people on this site takes things way to seriously. If I ask you a question about something you believe in, I actually look forward to getting an answer, becuase then we can engage in an actual conversation. If you don’t answer, the only one shutting-you-up is yourself. No one here is trying to shut down this site, you, your mom, or Al Gore.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:49 pmBen, Ben, Ben,
It is you who has taken my comment far more serious than the way it was expressed. It’s the absolutists that you all are. Apparently you can’t see shades of grey…. You all are the ones who are ultra serious about everything. We after all, have the monopoly of political shows on Comedy Central. Sure you have O’Reilly, but he’s serious…
You aren’t here for rational debate. If so, you wouldn’t start out calling us ‘fools’…
July 9th, 2006 at 7:22 pmPeople who are indifferent act indifferently… The trolls at TP act angry… so, well, I hope at least one of you is smart enough to deduce that logic.
I don’t visit, oh let’s say, gay porn sites because I am indifferent about gay porn. The fact thay you all come to TP shows that you are not indifferent to opposing views. The anger thing is pretty much a dead give-away.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:25 pmunbelievable liar,
Yes, I do get angry when you make up lies about me, smear me, slander me, and do anything but the sole purpose for me being here: political discussion. That’s a no-brainer which it seems you can’t understand because, well, you seem to have no brain.
Can you debate gay porn at a gay porn site? No, you can’t. Your example makes no sense, as usual.
If you ran the world, you’d have everyone live in their own groupthink bubble where they would never be exposed to altenate facts, opinions, and comments. Isn’t that the whole myth you have created about Bush, that he lives in a world protected from everything that he wouldn’t want to hear?
How odd that you seek to be in exactly this type of atmosphere yourself, protected from all opposing opinions, all facts contrary to your ideology, all comments that would make you have to actually reflect on your views rather than just buttering them up.
You’ve become your worst enemy.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmIakeo,
I hope you get everything you deserve in this life and the next.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:16 pmHey Zooey! Why don’t you answer the question I asked above? Chicken?
July 9th, 2006 at 9:51 pm-{@}-^-{@}-
July 10th, 2006 at 1:50 am——-*——–
I am not a shaman. I am too weak to be at this point, because my ego is in the way far too much.
Comment by Iakeo #255
Icky,
…don’t forget your ignorance…
July 11th, 2006 at 3:55 pmCould some of that anger be due to frustration at having to deal with people who SAY they love and want free expression and open dialogue who don’t behave that way in actual conversation?
Comment by Iakeo #263
Icky,
…you are from the “darkside”…
…Sexeduppig is from the “darkside”…
…demons (that’d be you and your gods Bushiva and L’il Dick) are liars and unworthy of serious consideration…
…innocent people are dying in Iraq for a ruse…
…innocent people are suffering here in America because of TREASON, corruption, racism and incompetence…
…TRAITORS like you and Sexedupvermin are here to try and support and defend the perpetrators of this mass murder, TREASON, corruption, racism and incompetence…
…NO intelligent, morally sound human being supports or condones what you right wing scum are selling…
…go eat your babies…
July 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pmComment by Iakeo — July 10, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
Your definition of shaman is limited. You have no knowledge of Power Animals, nor of battling another’s demons. You know nothing of Lower World, nor Upper World. You know nothing of talking to the wind, nor of Shamanic healing.
Your response is derisive of that which you do not know, nor understand.
No shaman can will something to happen that would not have happened anyway, other than through the use of his body and manipulation.
And one does not TALK to the wind. One LISTENS to the wind. One MAY converse with the wind, but the wind does most of the talking.
You speak as if it were a fact, yet you have not the knowlege not experience to know. For I have spoken to the wind and made clouds disappear.
You lack the knowledge and personal experience to talk about shamanism.
Do not talk to me of shamanism until you can do those things and more. When you speak of shamanism, speak in terms of your opinion, otherwise all you do is speak falsehoods as if they are truth, and the universe has a way of repaying those who speak falsely.
You have much to learn.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:28 pmI’ve seen much more “anger†from the “non-trolls†than the “trolls†around here.
With the written word, it is you who attaches tone… Therefore I am not surprised your bad guys speak angrily in your head….
And, no, I (for one) am NOT indefferent to opposing views. Do you think it’s a good idea to be that way?
Never said it was. Was simply pointing out that indifferent people act indifferently…
I enjoy opposing views, because they give my views contrast, and something to use to clarify my thinking. An antithesis is a good thing for a thesis to have, because the contrast between the two highlight the differences, and give a clue as to which proposition is “correct†to the observer.
You don’t write in accordance with this statement.
Why do you bring up gay porn? If you like gay porn, that’s fine, but your personal proclivities should really be pertinent to what we’re talking about to be helpful in the discussion we’re having.
See, this is childish. I specifically said I was indifferent to it… Try not to let your arousal interfere with your ability to focus here…
You apparently think that folks like me who aren’t of your ilk who come here display a lot of anger.
Not ‘think’. Go read Seixon’s posts. He’s a good example of why most liberals have started to ignore the far right.
Could some of that anger be due to frustration at having to deal with people who SAY they love and want free expression and open dialogue who don’t behave that way in actual conversation?
Nope. It’s because most of you come in and attack us.
When asked a question, I answer the question and tell you why I think that way.
Well, not very well. You clearly have a different definition for words than a standard dictionary. It’s hard to interpret what uou actually mean.
When you’re asked a question, you either don’t answer it at all, or skirt around the issue with dogmatic recitation instead of simply saying what you think.
Nonsense. That’s absolute bullshit. There is no dogmatic rhetoric to recite…
So, to summarize,.. we’re not claiming to be “indifferentâ€, which you seem to think is a good thing, and we’re only angry when people profess one behavior and exhibit another.
Comment by Iakeo — July 11, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Unless you have something better than stereotypes, strawmen, and insults, you’re wasting my time.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:20 pmFirstly, you don’t know that.
Comment by Iakeo — July 11, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
Oh? Did you not write:
Comment by Iakeo — July 10, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
However, you are correct in this assessment:
You already “know” too much about shamanism for me to be able to teach you. I have shared some of my experiences with you and you have judged me to be a “bad shaman,.. a shaman of deception and nonsense” by what you claim to know of shamans. You are not a shaman, yet claim to know what it is to be a shaman.
However, if you wish, you can read “The Way of the Shaman” by Dr. Michael Harner, Ph.D. It would at least give you some book knowledge of shamanism. But I doubt you will get much from it, as you are already derisive of the ancient ways.
The major problem the … shaman has with people is that they fear him, when he doesn’t want to be feared, and they think him impenetrably hard to understand, when he’s more than willing to converse toward understanding with someone who really wants to know.
That is true. However, you have not presented yourself as one who really wants to know, but as one who knows all, yet is not a shaman. You even seem able to quantify “good” and “bad” shamans, based, no doubt of your intimate and omniscient knowledge of what makes a shaman “good” or “bad.”
If you ever were to come across a shaman, you would think he or she to be “delusional,” a “full-on psychotic,” and a “psychotic adolescent.” These are highly judgmental terms for one who does not walk the path of a shaman.
I will not accept you as a student. When you are ready, a Teacher will come. You are not ready.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:19 amTowards meaningful significance:
Comment by Iakeo — July 12, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
I am a teacher for nearly two decades.
I am a student. Of law, and of shamanism. I have little time for discourse now as I am studying for the Bar. And I have little patience for one who come across as a know-it-all and totally derisive of what s/he does not understand.
Three years ago, I was totally skeptical about psychic phenomena, but I had an open mind. I have gone from disbelieving in “auras” to seeing auras. I have gone from skeptic over “faith healing” to healer. In what has seemed like a living version of the Twilight Zone, my experiences guided my research. And I was ready. A native American Shaman came as my Teacher.
He who knows he knows nothing will learn the most.
I challenge you to abandon your preconceived notions and open your heart and mind to possibilities.
Peace and Blessings.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:44 amJuly 14th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Perhaps your view of the basic laws of nature is limited.
I have abandoned my preconceived notions, thus to me, all things abound in possibilities.
You still speak of the “JOB” of a shaman as if you know. I did warn you about such talk.
July 14th, 2006 at 11:01 pmHmmm… interesting.
I’m not sure what “attaches tone†means in this context. Explain if you will? Thanks.
Read this sentance: That boy is smart.
Where is the emphasis? What is the intent of the writer? Was it a compliment or jealousy? Hard to tell in written form. That’s why when you read something, it is you who determines whether or not the person speaking is doing so calmly, angrily, proudly, sarcastically, etc. Sometimes you know, but if you don’t know the person it is hard to tell.
I’m not saying all on the left aren’t angry. I’m just saying that if most of them sound angry to you, you should re-think the inflection and tone you are assuming when you read their posts.
I’m glad you don’t think it;s good to be indifferent (spelled it RIGHT this time :) ) to opposing views. That’s wise of you, and anyone actually. And yes, indifferent people do tend to act indifferently, which means they tend not to care about responding to what they are indifferent toward. A good thing that we agree on this..! :)
But it’s not what you initially assumed. You initially assumed the exact opposite and started lecturing me based on a mis-perception. See what I mean… How if you read someone’s post with anger and assume the worst in that person, it doesn’t go very well from there.
I enjoy opposing views, because they give my views contrast, and something to use to clarify my thinking. An antithesis is a good thing for a thesis to have, because the contrast between the two highlight the differences, and give a clue as to which proposition is “correct†to the observer.
Just so you know, not everyone believes everything is right or wrong. Some of us actually accept that there are many different ways – none of them better or worse, just choices that individuals have to make in their own journeys in life.
I agree that it makes life more interesting to debate. For so many reasons. Why I am annoyed with the Democrats lately for not being the voice of opposition in our political system… How do we know we’re making sound choices if we don’t consider the alternatives, and criticize the one we are considering?
We seem, in our culture, to be so appalled by self-criticism that we will do anything to avoid it. To our own detriment, I believe.
You don’t think that I enjoy your opposing views? I do actually, as they indeed DO give me something to chew on with you in hopes of figuring out what makes sense to me about what I think and what you think.
Insulting people usually isn’t a very good sign that you do…
I don’t mind agreeing with you at all, when I actually DO agree with you,.. and if we were to talk more I think you’d find that we actually agree on many MANY things. The reason that may seem unlikely is that conversation is VERY protracted (slow) in this particular medium.
It is also the definition of a conservative to avoid maost change and the definition of a liberal to embrace most change that makes it difficult as well.
If we could have quicker interchange, we’d have a gret time..!
Not possible, unfortunately… Too many other things in life to take care of for do. In fact, I should be packing. I’m leaving tomorrow for a conference for a few days…
And this is one of those times when we do actually agree. That was silly of me, and meant entirely as a stupid little jab at you. Good catch..! :)
Well, we don’t know one another well enough for that…
Seixon’s postings sound “annoyed†and “frustrated†to me, which is a sensible and honest reaction considering the provocation.
He did it to himself. I was here before he was and I know many of the people he debates. He insults people who know what they are talking about when he does not. And when he is proven incorrect, rather than drop it or conceed, he stays in people’s faces insisting he is right and everyone else is picking on him, a liar, or a host of other childish ad hominems. Not a very good approach if you wanna be taken seriously. So, no one does anymore. And he owns that.
I like to annoy and frustrate my “conversation partners†occassionally as well, to get some “juices flowingâ€. It spices up the environment.
I disagree. I think the disagreement itself is usually drama enough without making it personal. Hard to build trust or comraderie with someone who calls you a liar when you are not. There are several people here I skip because they are habitually annoying. It’s absurd to me. The issues themselves have enough drama. Why make it personal?
The problem is when one party or the other (usually the “frustratorâ€) quits the conversation without mutual agreement that the conversation is over.
That’s just life. You don’t get a warning when you’re going to die always either… Things just end sometimes.
I see conversations much like the “escrow†process. To get out of it, both parties must mutually agree that they are satisfied that it’s over, or at least request that they be allowed to quit the conversation. Simply saying, “I’m not getting anything more out of this, unfortunately,.. may I leave to do things more important to me?†would suffice.
Well, conversations around here tend to just end with no recognition. I’d say, don’t take it personally. People just have things that come up. And while this is omportant to many of us, it’s not the most important thing to most.
That would be basically correct. Yet again we agree..! :)
Why attack people then? Personally, I don’t go to any conservative websites to attack people. I don’t get the attacking part.
BUT,.. the only way to pose an “antithesis†to people here is to state our opinions in ways that will ALWAYS sound like attacks to you.
I disagree. There was a poster here who was conservative who didn’t attack people and he was very respected. He’s moved on to other things now. We used to say that we wished more conservatives here were willing to debate the issues and stop the name calling. Sure, it applies to some progressives as well, but not the majority.
Thus,.. we either “attack†(your definition), or don’t speak at all,.. and not speaking at all does neither of us any good.
I disagree. I think it’s possible to have respectful debate.
The “dictionary†definitions of things are never what people “really†mean when they speak. The entire point of conversation is to try to understand what people “really†mean, to them, and see how that meshes with what how they think.
Then what is the point of language if we don’t understand what words mean? I think it’s the reason peole will fight over an issue to find out they argee, but were just futilely debating semantics… It’s important to agree on what words me in order to communicate effectively.
If the dictionary meanings of things were all that mattered in conversation, then all disputes could be solved by referal to the dictionary.
I don’t think so. Even if we agree on the words, we might not agree on the ideologies, and those have nothing to do with the definitions of words themselves.
We (the right) are constantly accused of being “drones†to our “lordsâ€.
Well, that sort of is the ideology behind it… You defer to those who you think you are supposed to defer to (hierarchical).
We (the right) are constantly accusing the left of being “drones†to their “lordsâ€.
Except that we don’t have ‘lords’. That’s the thing that the right doesn’t get about the left. We don’t take the same approach in life…
In large part, we’re both correct..! (Agreement AGAIN..!)
I think we don’t agree on that beyond the accusing part.
But to claim that there is no dogma is nonsense,.. speaking of nonsense.
Perhaps because you don’t understand how it is possible not to have dogma. That when people think for themselves based on reality, they wind up agreeing with others who do the same – is not dogma. It’s simply proof that reality has a liberal bias.
My point here is that it’s easy to describe something (especially something you don’t like) with common “jargon†that you’d use with someone you agree with in cases where you’re NOT speaking with someone who understands the “jargon†or has another maning FOR the “jargonâ€.
But if you don’t agree on teh definitions of words, then how can you communicate? You might as well be speaking Russian while I speak French… The basis of effective communication is a common language… therefore a common understanding of what words mean.
When I say “leftist†(or “rightistâ€), I have a view what that means. When you say “leftistâ€, you have a different view.
Well, in that case, you’re talking about ideologies and not definitions. And when it comes to a person’s ideology – only they can define it. You can’t define them for them. No more than they can define you for you.
The important part of our conversation is not battling over which definition is CORRECT, but in how our meanings for that term might be “reconciled†into a clearer view of reality. And how our differing world views can work WITH each other to better the world.
I agree. Which is why I think it’s important to share correct definitions of words, otherwise it ultimately becomes a battle of semantics…
Of course, since I’ve defined all LEFTISM as evil, then the only way to “reconcile†our worldviews is to utterly destroy LEFTISTS.
You could equally say the same of conservatives… Except reality says that you couldn’t destroy one without destroying the other – yin and yang – two sides of the same coin…
BUT,.. of course,.. since no one is truly leftist entirely, then that doesn’t mean that anyone needs to be destroyed at all.
Comment by Iakeo — July 12, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
Again, this is debatable…
All I’m looking for is someone who can state what they think clearly, in terms that we can work toward mutually understanding. It’s OK to ask me questions about “outrageous†statements (as you see them) that I make. Ask me what I mean and how I can better make myself understood. And of course, I will ask you what you mean by what you say.
As long as you can do it without playing games, then I’m open. Otherwise, as I stated, I’m not. I think it’s a waste of time to debate semantics and build or point out strawmen…
I say, “all leftists eventually degenerate into despotic slaversâ€, and you respond with, “what about leftists makes them do that?â€
Are you a control freak, by the way?
Then, I explain that by “leftists†I mean “those who claim to be super-democratic self-sacrificing proponents for the people, who actually use the conned masses that they attract to gain physical power over ALL the people in a population, then turn those people into farm animals (to have wealth to use for “the letist’s†pleasure and further self-agrandizement) and weaponry (to apply physical force to the populace and take-over targets).†Then you say, “But ‘leftists’ to me means supporters of democratic institutions that promote the common good. And what you describe I call fascist rightists!†Then we agree that the “bad characteristicsâ€, such as enslaving people and destroying people’s right to free expression and free action within the constraints of civil society are indeed “BADâ€.
Looks like you did that all on your own… so what do you need me for?
That gives us ground to talk about what you mean by “democratic institutionsâ€, and how we can agree on the good parts of that.
And what ofthe bad parts?
Do I make outrageous statements? YES..! Why..? Because in a forum where I disagree with many of the definitions and “jargonal†uses of language, I like (not need) to state my positions in ways that get your attention, and weed out those with no passion about the issue from those with passion about it. I suppose you could call that “bomb-throwingâ€, which I think is a perfect term for such behavior.
But then you get attached to those outrageous statements. Which, I think,. in the long run, does you more harm than good.
If you don’t wish to engage or associate with someone who would use such “provocative†behavior, then you certainly don’t have to.
Agreed.
But,.. most all of the “content†on TP is “bomb-throwing†behavior (stirring up the masses with provocative pronouncements), so at least consider that responding to my “bomb-throwingâ€, which was provoked by TP’s “bomb-throwingâ€, at least keeps the “conversation†going, and might perhaps possibly be fun and enlightening.
I think there are alternatives that don’t require verbal violence.
But if you’re (the rhetorical “youâ€) more into preaching only to the choir, and not having a meaningful dialogue with different thinkers (sharpening your knife on my whetstone, as it were) then do as you wish, and waste the opportunity.
I’m into meaningful dialog. I just don’t think that occurs when there is zero respect. And I think respect cannot flourish in an environment of constant bombing. It’s why, frankly, the conservatives on this site are not contributing. They come across as angry and then are therefore dismissed because people generally do not listen to those they distrust and dislike. Seixon, if he ever finds a valid point, won’t be heard because he’s been such a jerk to people they shut him out. You know that thing about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar…
In other words,.. let’s “talk storyâ€, and have a passionate good time in the doing..!
Passionate and name-calling are not the same to me. I don’t think we’re on the same page with that…
Mahalo a aloha nui loa kakou..! :)
Comment by Iakeo — July 12, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
Let’s see. I did a project in Hawaii a few years ago and I know ‘thanks’ and ‘greetings’ but that’s about it… You’ll have to translate the rest.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:49 amBig Tits Soft Tits Hot Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 6:20 amBoobs Giant Tits Gigantic Boobs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 2:30 amAaron
Dork.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pmNaked Girls Naked Young Girl Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pmobtaining press credentials
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:11 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pmBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pmNaked Girls Beyonce Naked Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 4:04 amBoobs Unreal Boobs Boobies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 8:39 amBoobs Monster Tits Big Tits Round Asses
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:53 amPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 4:54 ambussiness letter
Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing with spam became too burdensome.A Trackback is one of three types of Linkbacks,
March 19th, 2008 at 1:35 pmSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pmGarden Fountain Freak
Why would you say that, when you can see that what you sy is not correct.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:05 amYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 8:29 amWeight Loss Low Carbohydrate Diet The Zone Diet
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 8:31 pmTeen Girls Teen Mpeg Ass Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pmPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 amFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pmPersonal Loans Bad Credit
Nationwide provider on sub prime secured personal loan approvals.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 2:54 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pmAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 8:02 ambackground check software free trial
I’m with the earlier poster, this seems like a good idea.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:23 ambaths cheap
Nice Post… do you know what is the first? Maybe You can se My Post Here
March 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pmMarth
Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:16 pmCorey
Apply yourself. Get all the education you can, but then, by God, do something. Don?t
March 29th, 2008 at 12:17 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 10:52 amBelize Web Site Design
Want to take a look at my web site, you will find it very interesting.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pmPreteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 8:44 pmProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 amFree Granny Porn Lesbian Milfs Free Mom And Son Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 amPreteen Preteen Model Galleries Pre-Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 8:14 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 6:35 amKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 11:16 amTeen Girls Teen Chat Teen Panties
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 1:01 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 1:53 pmKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 7:24 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 10th, 2008 at 10:27 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 12:27 am