I saw it on Reddit which is made up of posters from around the world, and the posted article was from the International Business Times.
(Meaning it had nothing to do with the US MSM)
(Meaning it had nothing to do with the US MSM)
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
No, not yet, wait until he is elected before we agree. Worked for Obama and his supporters, we need to take a page from your books.
Here's a wonderful picture of Paul Ryan and the Republican summer interns. Anyone notice anything in particular:
Ryans college girlfriend would have felt pretty lonely in that shot.
I'm sorry for your loss. I believe you responded to something I didn't say. I think you believed I was talking about the charges in The Hidden Massacre. I wasn't. I'd never heard of the film until you denied that anything happened in Fallujah.
We used white phosphorous in Fallujah. You don't need the Italian documentary for that. Around half of the homes were destroyed. 4,000 casualties. Lingering health effects. The assault on the city -- the several assaults, actually -- recalled the saying from the Vietnam War, "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it."
The percentage of blacks living in Wisconsin is 9.7%; US average is 12.3%
Of the 9.7%, 70% of those live in Madison County.
Draw whatever conclusions you want lol.
tidy, counselor. You always seem to find a way to twist into a stance that would make it seem you are on a DNC retainer.
I approve drones (within reason) and the waterboarding did not bother me a gd bit. I am not a hypocrite, you are.
I don't need to "twist" anything. You don't detail what you mean so there's nothing to respond to. I'm sorry you approve of torture.
IOW, mainstream media. I don't watch TV news. Did Fox bring it up? They are mainstream media. If they didn't and only covered the horse race political story, well. you're in a pickle.You're stuck thinking Fox is some kind of lackey of the Obama Admin. At which point those near and dear to you might start to consider initiating a conservancy hearing on your behalf.
You're telling me, we killed 4,000 civilians in Iraq with white phosphorous? That's what you're saying? Gonna need a cite for that.
Waterboarding was used against lots of people. People suspected of having acted. People suspected of having information. And, since it was ineffective, was used simply to inflict pain. It drags down those who use it.
What words of mine make that accusation? We used white phosphorous in our assaults on Fallujah. Full stop. We inflicted 4000 casualties during our attacks.
Anyone can play that game. Cite my words. Make an assertion. Provide an argument.
Teachable
Not true to most experts and those who were privy to the results. Below is an excerpt about how it works which many do not understand.
"The Post writes that enhanced interrogation “leads to unreliable admissions by victims who are desperate to stop the mistreatment.” Again, this is incorrect. Enhanced techniques were never used to gain intelligence. They were used to gain cooperation. They were used to move terrorists like KSM from a state of resistance to a state of compliance. To gauge whether terrorists had made decision to stop resisting and start cooperating, interrogators asked the terrorists questions to which they already knew the answers. In other words, there is no way a terrorist can lie to get the techniques to stop. The only way to stop the techniques is to tell the truth. And once terrorists began telling the truth, the techniques stopped and traditional debriefing techniques were employed — leading to an intelligence bonanza from which the Obama administration continues to benefit today.
There are certainly reasonable arguments against enhanced interrogation, and The Post should vigorously make its case. But the paper would be more effective in doing so if it stuck to the facts and did not ignore the evidence and counter-arguments that have been laid out by supporters of such techniques"
Not true to most experts and those who were privy to the results. Below is an excerpt about how it works which many do not understand.
"The Post writes that enhanced interrogation “leads to unreliable admissions by victims who are desperate to stop the mistreatment.” Again, this is incorrect. Enhanced techniques were never used to gain intelligence. They were used to gain cooperation. They were used to move terrorists like KSM from a state of resistance to a state of compliance. To gauge whether terrorists had made decision to stop resisting and start cooperating, interrogators asked the terrorists questions to which they already knew the answers. In other words, there is no way a terrorist can lie to get the techniques to stop. The only way to stop the techniques is to tell the truth. And once terrorists began telling the truth, the techniques stopped and traditional debriefing techniques were employed — leading to an intelligence bonanza from which the Obama administration continues to benefit today.
There are certainly reasonable arguments against enhanced interrogation, and The Post should vigorously make its case. But the paper would be more effective in doing so if it stuck to the facts and did not ignore the evidence and counter-arguments that have been laid out by supporters of such techniques"
Last edited:
not absolute at all, Jose Rodriguez disagrees and just silly to pretend you know all that went on. But hey, that is what you really want to believe as you have built your defense strategy.
You and warrior-cat are forgetting basic ground rules: "settled science" depends on which side of the political spectrum is making an argument
Most of you guys haven't heard of this whole "media bias" thing, but I'm here to inform. QFT:
"When Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who died in the Benghazi attack, gave a moving and heartbreaking speech at the Republican National Convention, the liberal media jumped to attack her. I’m not talking about criticism or the suggestion that her solutions for what happened shouldn’t be enacted; I’m talking about personal attacks.
Smith, who is still obviously grieving over the loss of her child, blamed Hillary Clinton for it. Clinton was the secretary of state at the time and appeared to make conflicting statements about what caused the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
“For all of this loss, for all of this grief, for all of the cynicism the tragedy in Benghazi has wrought upon America, I blame Hillary Clinton,” Smith said Monday night. “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.”
MSNBC said her “gross accusation” against Clinton “ruined” the night. A GQ writer tweeted: “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.” He has since deleted the tweet. Still others, like Salon and the Guardian, claimed the GOP was “exploiting” her pain to score points.
But as Jim Geraghty at National Review pointed out, this accusation of exploitation (and the harsh words directed at Smith) only come from the media when Republicans are involved. Geraghty mentioned how Democrats and the media weren’t lodging similar claims when Cindy Sheehan traveled to President George W. Bush’s home in Texas to protest the war, nor when Mitt Romney was blamed for causing cancer.
These attacks also don’t come from the Left or the media when the grieving parents are calling for gun control or for cops to be arrested (things media often endorse)."
"When Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who died in the Benghazi attack, gave a moving and heartbreaking speech at the Republican National Convention, the liberal media jumped to attack her. I’m not talking about criticism or the suggestion that her solutions for what happened shouldn’t be enacted; I’m talking about personal attacks.
Smith, who is still obviously grieving over the loss of her child, blamed Hillary Clinton for it. Clinton was the secretary of state at the time and appeared to make conflicting statements about what caused the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
“For all of this loss, for all of this grief, for all of the cynicism the tragedy in Benghazi has wrought upon America, I blame Hillary Clinton,” Smith said Monday night. “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.”
MSNBC said her “gross accusation” against Clinton “ruined” the night. A GQ writer tweeted: “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.” He has since deleted the tweet. Still others, like Salon and the Guardian, claimed the GOP was “exploiting” her pain to score points.
But as Jim Geraghty at National Review pointed out, this accusation of exploitation (and the harsh words directed at Smith) only come from the media when Republicans are involved. Geraghty mentioned how Democrats and the media weren’t lodging similar claims when Cindy Sheehan traveled to President George W. Bush’s home in Texas to protest the war, nor when Mitt Romney was blamed for causing cancer.
These attacks also don’t come from the Left or the media when the grieving parents are calling for gun control or for cops to be arrested (things media often endorse)."
Since you can't back up your position with evidence or even argument, why do you respond to me?
"BTW, are you old enough to have been horrified when we firebombed Fallujah with white phosphorous? I can't remember exactly, but I think there were around 4000 civilian casualties."
Those are your exact words. You either don't understand what you said, or you are backtracking. Your choice.
Exchange the word "people" for "radical Islamic terrorists" and understand that these people were captured on a field of battle. Of course they were suspected of having information, the fact that all of them did not have any doesn't change the fact that we needed to take drastic steps to find out.
As shitty as you are, and as touched by liberalism that you are, you are still more important to me than any terrorist. I would fight very hard to keep you from being waterboarded.
Because your posts are entertaining.
Believe it or not, I do enjoy seeing people type "We used white phosphorous in Falluja. There were around 4,000 civilian casualties." claim they are not implying the white phosphorous led to the casualties.
Honestly, you'd fail a grade school English test if you made that argument.
Oh for sure. There is a big time double standard. The liberal media and their audience holds the Right accountable for everything that is said or done no matter how trivial but they conveniently gloss over or flat out ignore their own misdeeds. It is nauseating.
But has her past decision making reflect that she would be a great president? Or would she push the same shat as her predecessor?
You already know something. You don;t need anything from a suspect and yet you torture them anyway. And you want someone's cooperation to do what? you mean like calling someone on the phone like in the movies? "Akbar, yes, meet me at the casbah at midnight. Come with all the money and as many of our confederates as you can find. No, my voice sounds odd because I've got a little chest cold. Yes. Summer colds are the worst."
With torture you need torturers. You either start out with a goon or you decide to make someone a goon. Because there's no consequenceless torture. And then you've got people who work with the torturers. And the people who work with them. And "pitch defileth". And the guilt spreads like a disease.
With white phosphorous? Or did we use it in the desert where nobody was but later inflicted 4000 casualties during multiple attacks with guns, knives, mean words, and gender identifying restrooms?
I sure hope so. You know the funny thing? When you quote Obama's policies to people, without his name associated with them, most people approve them. Like the sign at the teabagger rally, "Keep the government out of my Medicare." Put his name to the query. People reject the policies. I wonder why?
And by "funny", of course, I mean "tragic". For the last seven years we've had a calm rational adult as president. Record low interest rates. We could have fixed so much in this country. And yet, Republicans vowed to block everything. Seven years of fixing infrastructure. Seven years of growth. All blocked. For what?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
And you removed the rest of my post in which I discussed the multiple assaults. If I could remove the context from an argument I could get the arguer to claim to marry a goat.
It didn't happen, the Italian media was the only ones who said it did.
Did we use white phosperous, yes, but we didn't firebomb a city. You believe if you like, but it didn't happen.
Just like I said, you don't understand what you wrote in that paragraph.
White phosphorous burns those it touches. It's a terrible weapon and it shames us to have used it. It's like the bombing of Dresden. You can string together words to defend it but the words would have been better that persuaded us to do it a different way.
But just to be clear, with those statements, you aren't implying the white phosphorous the US used actually touched anyone.
Except I didn't make the argument that movie made. Didn't use it as a source. You did that. We did attack Fallujah. We did use white phosphorous. [source Bill Derington, if needs be.] In the various military assaults on the city around half the homes were destroyed. There were 4000 casualties. I didn't say or imply that the only weapon used was the white phosphorous. You -- and others -- made that inference. I singled out white phosphorous because it has dreadful consequences on anyone it touches. I came to the subject of Fallujah as connected to the recent drone killing of Syrians. I used it as evidence of how civilians get hurt during military actions. What didn't happen -- or at least can't be proved -- were the lurid details from an Italian documentary about headless corpses and stuff. You seem to think that if the lurid stuff didn't happen then nothing bad happened. Which is nonsense.
Ah, the good old practice of deflecting blame by finding a person to ridicule.
***
BTW, we'll be getting ready to entertain out of town guests in a few minutes. Get your licks in soon or you'll have to wait until tomorrow for a reply.
I didn't use a movie as a source, you did, as its the only source for that info. You specifically wrothe that the US firebombed Fallujah with white phosperous, that did not happen.
Just to be clear, I wouldn't have cared if they had, just like I don't care that we firebombed Dresden or Tokyo. We were in a War, if it saved US troops lives I'm good with it, but I'm not good with you or anyone changing history to push an agenda.
I'm sure if it were to happen, we would send multiple drops of leaflets telling people to leave the area. If they stay, they stay. It's their fault at that point.
Similar threads
