Reply #18 By: Juxtaposition - 2/6/2005 4:27:35 PM

The original article was an echoing of the sentiment that is used to justify the aforementioned atrocities. It is this system of justification that I have a problem with. I still don't see any mention of justifying torture or prison abuse in the original article. So it was in another article. Discuss it in that article.

naw jux aint gonna happen its typical democratic dementia... when they cannot make a point they type a reply to WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY SAW.. OR SAW last year.. or dreamed last night.

My problem is not with videotapes, as I don't see what rights they violate. My problem is with the Republican attempt to justify the violations that have been committed, i.e. torture, prison abuse, etc

philo by definition what your doing right now {bending truth and answering things NOT in my post is TORTURE.

I believe it's JUST not right. get me?

So someone punches you. You punch them back. Then you incapacitate them. Then you take pictures of the body. Then you show it to their family. Just, yes?

OH FOR gods sake man... its iraqis showing them, not american troops...

Alright, so then the terrorists showing videos of Iraqis wouldn't be wrong either. Satisfied?

thats a real nice rule to live by...in fantasy land.... in the real world you kill 3000 members of my family I try to kill all of your.. is it right? nope/ it just IS.

Let us know when your president, as you like to call him, actually catches the guy who killed those 3000 by the way.

I still don't see any mention of justifying torture or prison abuse in the original article. So it was in another article. Discuss it in that article.

naw jux aint gonna happen its typical democratic dementia... when they cannot make a point they type a reply to WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY SAW.. OR SAW last year.. or dreamed last night.

Alright look...lets try again...I am arguing a system of illogical justification, which is echoed in the article. I don't expect you to understand the concept of reading between lines or introspection or trying to devise a deeper meaning from what is said, since when someone insults you, it's apparantly just to insult them back, and beat them a little for good measure.

And BTW, moderateman, I have not deviated from contradicting ideas...It is you who starts saying this and that about democrats when you can't find anything useful to say anymore.

philo by definition what your doing right now {bending truth and answering things NOT in my post is TORTURE.

Yeah it is Webster, thanks. I would hope that you have enough common sense to differentiate between torture in this sense and torture in the violent sense, which is how I meant it, but there is nothing that tells me you possess the logic to do this when it comes to political discussion.

So yeah, keep thinking that my "torture" and "torture" in war is the same if it makes you feel better. Cuz the pictures from Abu Ghraib were of American soldiers "distorting the truth" of the POWs.

Alright, so then the terrorists showing videos of Iraqis wouldn't be wrong either. Satisfied?

If you consider incarcerating a violent insurgent as wrong as beheading an innocent civilian, then I guess it wouldn't be wrong. If you do though, then well... It's bad enough you think killing in self-defense is as wrong as murder (and saying "it's wrong, but it could be justified", because if it's justified, then how is it wrong? That sounds like pandering).

Alright look...lets try again...I am arguing a system of illogical justification, which is echoed in the article. I don't expect you to understand the concept of reading between lines or introspection or trying to devise a deeper meaning from what is said, since when someone insults you, it's apparantly just to insult them back, and beat them a little for good measure.

Could I start bringing up that old argument concerning gay marriage and polygamy in any thread you start, since something you say in any thread could apply in some obscure way to that discussion?

If you consider incarcerating a violent insurgent as wrong as beheading an innocent civilian, then I guess it wouldn't be wrong.

My apologies again, as I forget I am talking to those who need to be spoon-fed. I did not mean to equate civilians with those that are fighting. I did not mean civilians, I meant Iraqi troops.

It's bad enough you think killing in self-defense is as wrong as murder

Alright, I never said that, but you can keep putting words in my mouth. It's rather amusing from this end.

and saying "it's wrong, but it could be justified", because if it's justified, then how is it wrong? That sounds like pandering).

Because killing is wrong! Are you saying killing is not wrong? Killing in self-defense is justifiable, because it is a last resort that stems from extenuating circumstances. The act of killing, however, is wrong. I hope this clears that up.

Could I start bringing up that old argument concerning gay marriage and polygamy in any thread you start, since something you say in any thread could apply in some obscure way to that discussion?

If what I say could apply, then yeah, go ahead. Say whatever the hell you want about it.

Reply #28 By: Philomedy - 2/6/2005 5:15:06 PM

So someone punches you. You punch them back. Then you incapacitate them. Then you take pictures of the body. Then you show it to their family. Just, yes? OH FOR gods sake man... its iraqis showing them, not american troops... Alright, so then the terrorists showing videos of Iraqis wouldn't be wrong either. Satisfied?

yes I punch them back period... but if THEY took pics of me laying in a pool of blood I would return the favor.. not saying its right.. saying what I would do.

Reply #28 By: Philomedy - 2/6/2005 5:15:06 PM

So someone punches you. You punch them back. Then you incapacitate them. Then you take pictures of the body. Then you show it to their family. Just, yes? OH FOR gods sake man... its iraqis showing them, not american troops... Alright, so then the terrorists showing videos of Iraqis wouldn't be wrong either. Satisfied?

yes I punch them back period... but if THEY took pics of me laying in a pool of blood I would return the favor.. not saying its right.. saying what I would do. and the terrorist already have shown many pics of many peoples..... they started it ..

And BTW, moderateman, I have not deviated from contradicting ideas...It is you who starts saying this and that about democrats when you can't find anything useful to say anymore.

I calls em as I sees em my friend...

Yeah it is Webster, thanks. I would hope that you have enough common sense to differentiate between torture in this sense and torture in the violent sense, which is how I meant it, but there is nothing that tells me you possess the logic to do this when it comes to political discussion.

nope no way no how... the bleeders cry about this form of coercive torture alla time.. why can't I?

My apologies again, as I forget I am talking to those who need to be spoon-fed. I did not mean to equate civilians with those that are fighting. I did not mean civilians, I meant Iraqi troops.

So, the insurgents have not killed any innocent civilians intentionally, because if they have, then my original statement would still apply.

Alright, I never said that, but you can keep putting words in my mouth. It's rather amusing from this end.

Explain what you meant then.

Here's what you said: "And for the record, my implication is, and always has been, that using violence against anyone is wrong. Some people push you, and with some people there is no other option, but my feeling will continue to be that violence is wrong. In some cases it is justifiable, but it continues to be wrong."

So, did you change your mind? Is killing in self-defense (which is violence against somebody) not wrong?

Because killing is wrong! Are you saying killing is not wrong? Killing in self-defense is justifiable, because it is a last resort that stems from extenuating circumstances. The act of killing, however, is wrong. I hope this clears that up.

I'm saying killing isn't always wrong. For example, in self-defense, it isn't wrong, it's completely justified, it's right, and I support it. If it is wrong, then what would be right?
Do you also think that it was wrong for the US soldiers to kill Nazis in WW2?

In order for this to be contrary to ghe "Geneva Convention", it would have to be War, which it isn't; they would have to be "Enemy Combatants", which they are not. The Geneva Convention states that you can't put PoWs on public display inviting humiliation. They are no more PoWs than Timothy McVeigh or foreign drug cartels functioning in the US.

So, since most of these guys are Iraqis, and the ones that aren't are criminals, not "enemy combatants", they would be subject to Iraqi criminal law, not the derision of Democrat, opportunist, panty-waist law...

one more time.... they are taking pictures of terrorist captives not killings not torture just captives..

So, since most of these guys are Iraqis, and the ones that aren't are criminals, not "enemy combatants", they would be subject to Iraqi criminal law, not the derision of Democrat, opportunist, panty-waist law...

these bleeding hearts are from the same breed that spat on our serviemen 40 years ago.... they just make me sick.

Actually, moderateman, I haven't seen any "liberals" complaining about this, and i actually am not even sure about what the hell you are talking about taking pictures, so you could either elaborate with an external link or stop spewing anti-leftist nonsense.

Reply #13 By: Philomedy - 2/6/2005 3:18:01 PM Guess what..... someone spits on me, and I'll punch them in the eye. Wow. Judging from your take on what the correct retaliation is, you probably don't have any problem beating me half to death for disagreeing with you, huh? And just how is airing a video going against the geneva conventions or considered torture? I don't know. This was Moderateman's point, not mine. Just as a sidebar though, if airing videos of terrorists doesn't violate the Geneva condition, the terrorists airing videos of our troops doesn't violate it either.

Nobody has EVER said that it did, now have they? And the bit about the video being shown was the *original* topic!

Reply #16 By: sandy2 - 2/6/2005 3:42:09 PM Drmiller and moderateman are terrorists. Note to moderateman, by the way, use a dictionary. Now, these two people are terrorists. If they were Iraqi, they would be the insurgents. They are the same type of people. They are the type of people that say "hey, there are some Americans trying to control our lives. Fuck them. I don't like this. Let's blow them up". See. they would see the control by the Americans as "spitting in my face", and the terrorist acts they would perform would be the "punching in the eye". Let's round these two up and send them to guantamano.

You want to call me a terrorist? Guess what? Your an ignorant fool.

My apologies again, as I forget I am talking to those who need to be spoon-fed. I did not mean to equate civilians with those that are fighting. I did not mean civilians, I meant Iraqi troops. So, the insurgents have not killed any innocent civilians intentionally, because if they have, then my original statement would still apply.

I don't really know what he meant, but what I think he meant was if it's okay for Iraqi soldiers to videotape said treatment of terrorists, it must be okay for terrorists to do the same to Iraqi soldiers, not that the insurgents haven't hurt civilians.

" Actually, moderateman, I haven't seen any "liberals" complaining about this, and i actually am not even sure about what the hell you are talking about taking pictures, so you could either elaborate with an external link or stop spewing anti-leftist nonsense."

Here's a link to a story about the videotaping: Iraqi police, too, use video as tactic

Honestly, I can't find anything about Democrats here, but I only put a minute or two into looking.

Reply By: sandy2Posted: Sunday, February 06, 2005

stop spewing anti-leftist nonsense

no

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Sunday, February 06, 2005

You want to call me a terrorist? Guess what? Your an ignorant fool.

I think your a patriot... and that trumpts being called a terrorist by a bleeder.

Reply By: NJforeverPosted: Monday, February 07, 2005

nj? read the original post.... its about terrorist being taped in custody,, they are not being tortured, harmed, beheaded, mistreated,
its shows them for their true colors, cowardly, contrite , apoligetic, get it now?

While I see nothing wrong with showing a video tape of captured terrorists, I did not see anything in the original article about torture or the condoning of it either, so I think the equation that this is wrong because it is torture is off the mark.

I also dont see where the tape will stop the terrorists.  I think the intended audience is the terrorist sympathisers.  It shows them not as brave martyrs, but the sniveling cowards they truly are.

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Monday, February 07, 2005While I see nothing wrong with showing a video tape of captured terrorists, I did not see anything in the original article about torture or the condoning of it either, so I think the equation that this is wrong because it is torture is off the mark.I also dont see where the tape will stop the terrorists. I think the intended audience is the terrorist sympathisers. It shows them not as brave martyrs, but the sniveling cowards they truly are.

bingo!!!! short sweet and to the point doc.. insightful

If simply showing their faces is somehow a violation of the Geneva Convention, then all of our Post Offices have a big problem.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa, moderateman, please show me where liberals have said that anything is wrong about what is being done (again, I am not quite sure what is going on, but I couldn't find anything about it). I think this was a set up/