Those Who Stand for Nothing
Will fall for just about anything. Today Dylan posts this picture at his blog:
(Click 1-2 times to expand to readable size.)
The poster claims that the recently-signed Military Commissions Bill "could cause you to be labelled an enemy combatant for simply protesting ANY government policy. Questioning the official 9/11 story could cause you to be labelled as a terrorist."
Oh, really? Let's see what the bill in fact says about enemy combatants:
Gee, Dyl, I'm having a hard time finding the part about how enemy combatants are those who protest any government policy. Could you point it out for me?
But that's not the end of the nonsense from this poster. Get this claim:
"The most heinous portion of this bill allows not only for the torture of detainees, but also the torture of their children--including sexual torture."
There are no occurences of the word "children" in the bill. But on the off-chance that another term (like offspring) was employed, I decided to search for "torture". Here's what the bill actually says about torture:
"A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissable in a military commission under this chapter except against a person accused of torture as evidence the statement was made."
Page 70:
"Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person... shall be punished... as a military commission under this chapter may direct."
There are a couple other mentions of torture and sexual abuse in the bill, but all in the context of laying out that they are specifically banned under the law.
Maybe Dylan should send this to the ACLU; although they oppose the law, they appear to have missed the part about it allowing the sexual torture of children:
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director:
"With his signature, President Bush enacts a law that is both unconstitutional and un-American. This president will be remembered as the one who undercut the hallmark of habeas in the name of the war on terror. Nothing separates America more from our enemies than our commitment to fairness and the rule of law, but the bill signed today is an historic break because it turns Guantánamo Bay and other U.S. facilities into legal no-man's-lands.
"The president can now - with the approval of Congress - indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions. Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act."
Seriously, how much of a paranoid nutter do you have to be to believe that Congress enacted and President Bush signed a law allowing the sexual torture of children?
posted by Pat @ 9:40 PM
78 comments
78 Comments:
This is all picked up from Alex Jones. They have been spending way too much time with him recently, I am starting to wonder if their is something going on between them...
I'm curious why so many people have such a hard time understanding the difference between a lawful and unlawful combatant.
Well, that's a handy ability - the ability to find things in documents that aren't there. Unfortunately that doesn't actually work in court.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The poster said: "The most heinous portion of this bill allows not only for the torture of detainees, but also the torture of their children--including sexual torture."
If all this means is what roger_sq says, " It isn't prohibiting the tribunal from doing anything. Also it isn't the tribunal's job to torture people, it's the CIA." Then it's still dishonesty. It IMPLIES that the bill authorises torture, including the sexual torture of children, when in fact (if I admit for the sake of argument that Roger's comment is even accurate) the Bill says nothing about it. That's naughty.
I'm curious why so many people have such a hard time understanding the difference between a lawful and unlawful combatant.
Irrelevant. Unlawful combatants have the same rights as lawful ones. Common mis-conception.
I'm curious how so many people justify torture. It's frightening how the US has prohibited it officially through world wars, minor conflicts and peace-keeping operations for centuries, and then suddenly support it at a whim just because Dubya does.
Oh, and has been said, it can be a bad idea to mis-interpret human rights laws with an ICRC member in attendance:p.
Here's a forum post I wrote some time ago, citing sources to the 'Conventions and the Declaration of Human Rights.
Also, if you bothered browsing their site, Amnesty International does a good job at answering typical mis-conceptions.
And finally, actually reading the Geneva Conventions and the Declaration of Human Rights, rather than subscribing to FOX "News"'s interpretation of them, might be an idea. For example, the Declaration of Human Rights makes (Article 5) deems it illegal to torture any "members of the human family". I'll be curious as to see how the torture-apologists manage to deliberately accidentally mis-interpret that rather clear statement:)!
I don't approve of torture. I'm very glad it's illegal, and that this bill (in a country I'm no citizen of) recognises that (Hey, Roger, even if it's meant to give a loophole for US forces, it certainly looks like it says torture's bad).
TORTURE IS WRONG. How'd you like it is someone did it to you? I'm a Christian, and I subscribe to the command to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I don't want anyone beating me with a baseball bat, thank you very much.
‘‘ UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The
term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hos8
tilities or who has purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States
or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy
11 combatant (including a person who is part of
12 the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or..."
Examine the bold print above. Doesn't it seem rather vague? How would you interpret that? The law doesn't define material support does it? How does the law define hostilities? And yes, a critic of the US government can be labeled as an UEC, especially conspiracy theorist! How do we know this, it was published in the National Strategy For Combating Terrorists! If you read the segment below, I'm sure you will agree that the strategy has already determined that conspiracy theories provide material support for terrorists. Of course there no evidence to suggest so, but hey what the Feds say is what goes.
The terrorism we confront today springs from:
Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.
Sorry gentlemen, there is no room to argue this.
Perhaps Pat and non-twoofers, you might want to pay a little more attention on this assault on the first amendment and your freedoms as a whole. You may not want to make fun of the folks trying to bring this stuff to light in posters, web sites, and blogs. And I would encourage you to stop spreading disinformation regarding this issue. That, sir, is a danger to our Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Examine the bold print above. Doesn't it seem rather vague? How would you interpret that? The law doesn't define material support does it?
Material support means "any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials"
Hope that helps.
I took "materially" to mean that it's something that has to have an actual benefit.
Whether it's a good, service, or currency.
Simply being a jackass with a website or bullhorn means nothing unless you're actually instigating something.
And since twoofers don't actually DO anything, they don't count.
Geneva Conventions
Hmmm Is AQ a country? Did they sign the convention? Do they wear uniforms? Does anybody think that the terrorists will treat our guys any better beacuse of it? Anyone who hides behind civilians should have no rights what so ever
Thanks Manny!
One could interpet property to fall into the category of a website couldn't they? By definition of material support and the NCTC defines conspiracy theories as exactly that, I think the twoofers could be on the next watch list or get that knock on the door late at night.
Nah. I know the CT terrorist supporters like to imagine that they're just as badass and worthy of government persecution as actual terrorists, but they're not. Mere advocacy or lying to attempt to reduce terrorists' culpability for their acts is not material support under any definition. No, Alex, Dylan and their cohorts are completely free of any risk under the Military Commissions Act or otherwise unless it turns out they've been donating money to or receiving money from actual terrorists or their material supporters.
I guess the only way to say for certain is when lawyers begin to challenge this in a court of law. It should be interesting to see how that inevitable law suit is going to pan out.
Not really -- at least as far as the persecution fantasies of Dylan and Alex and the like are concerned. The parts that people are raising the biggest stink about -- the limitation on habeas petitions, for example -- apply only to alien unlawful enemy combatants. As alien lawful enemy combatants (i.e., POWs) have never, ever had habeas rights all the current law does is make clear that the terrorists' failure to qualify as a lawful combatant under the Geneva convention does not magically create a new right for them.
I think the twoofers could be on the next watch list or get that knock on the door late at night.
I guess the only way to say for certain is when lawyers begin to challenge this in a court of law.
Geez, dude, listen to yourself sometime.
Geez, dude, listen to yourself sometime.
I have and then I get stuck in that conversation with myself and end up getting a straight jacket slapped on me. ;)
One could interpet property to fall into the category of a website couldn't they?
Well I guess for people who think "pull" means "have the fire department blow up a building", anything is possible.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well I guess for people who think "pull" means "have the fire department blow up a building", anything is possible.
Or people who think it refers to the singular pronoun versus the plural form, they. And they as in reference to something plural other than the singular.
So, are you ready for the "torture" techniques that are so awful, so terrible, that they "must be" banned? Well, here they are:
"1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
Now, two things:
Number one, torture is smashing people's toes with a hammer, hooking electrodes up to their nether regions, and sticking bamboo shoots under the fingernails. It's not "making them cold" or giving them a "pink belly." While these interrogation techniques are undoubtedly unpleasant, none of them rises to the level of torture.
Number two, and this is the crucial one, what Americans have to ask themselves is if a high level Al-Qaeda detainee has information that may save American lives and the interrogators decide this is the best way to get it out of them, would we rather use these techniques or forego receiving the information?
Put another way, if we capture Osama Bin Laden and he knows the details of the next big terrorist attack on American soil, would you rather force him to give up the information via "Long Time Standing" or "Water Boarding" or would you rather the attack have a much better chance of succeeding?
That's what the misnamed "torture" debate is all about: is it more important to safeguard the lives of American citizens or is it more important not to make Al-Qaeda terrorists uncomfortable?
If we choose to use these interrogation techniques then, worst case scenario, somebody may go too far and it could cost a terrorist (or 3) their lives. On the other hand, if we don't use these interrogation techniques then, worst case scenario, it could lead to our missing the information needed to stop the next 9/11 or worse.
If the people who want these interrogation techniques banned think that putting these Al-Qaeda terrorists through this discomfort isn't worth saving countless American lives as a result, then they should plainly say so. But whether they do or don't, banning these techniques would be an enormous mistake that would needlessly put the safety and security of the American people at great risk.
All of our SO troops use waterboarding as part of their training but it is too tuff for the terrorists
A group led by al Qaeda in Iraq released gruesome footage of two corpses it said were of U.S. soldiers killed in June.
The video, issued by the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq and posted on an Islamist Web site on Tuesday, showed the bodies of two Western-looking men dressed in camouflage uniforms. It was not clear from the images whether they were U.S. soldiers.
One body had been decapitated. Both were bloodied and with flesh missing from several parts of their bodies. Several shots showed the bodies being trodden on by unidentified men.
We should give these people rights?
Put another way, if we capture Osama Bin Laden and we assume he knows the details of the next big terrorist attack on American soil, would you rather force him to give up the information via "Long Time Standing" or "Water Boarding" or would you rather the attack have a much better chance of succeeding?
Argument fallacy, kid. You provide a False Dilema by allowing only two options when in reality there are more on both examples. Lets pump him full of truth serum to get the answer out of him.
If you torture my butt, I'm going to tell you whatever you want to hear wether it is the truth or not.
And lets be real here, do you think the examples listed above are only the ones that are going to be used?
Or people who think it refers to the singular pronoun versus the plural form, they. And they as in reference to something plural other than the singular.
"The firefighting effort" is an inanimate singular noun. Is that your entire proof for accusing a man of murdering 3,000 people, "misuse of pronouns"?
Even Alex Jones said "they pulled them" when referring to WTC7. He must be involved in the plot too!
Sorry swing, what I put forth was not tortue and has been successfull, of course it has to be coroborated and you only address an anology. What ever the guys need to do to get accurate info from these guys is fine with me. You might read the AQ manual sometime
I don't know why everyone gets this part of the bill wrong, but I thought I'd point it out: the military commissions only apply to non-citizens. It's quite clear in that regaurd. So how Dylan imagines he might be subject to one, I'm not sure.
Also, as to the comment about us all being anti-torture before, and now being pro-torture, that's nonsense. All of the interrogation techniques that are discussed when the media talks about our "torture" have been used for decades now by the military. The only difference is that nobody considered them torture before.
That's the best indicator of just how delusional the opposition to these wars is. Those opposed have claimed it's only for oil, have made insane predictions of the US troops getting slaughtered, have then predicted a quagmire with mounting losses due to guerilla warfare, have predicted civil war, have re-defined the term torture, have accused the entire military of sexual abuse of detainees based on the actions of a couple prison guards....and so on. I mean there's been so much lying about these conflicts that my biggest reason for still believing in them is that I can't trust ANYTHING that those opposed to them say. Just like the 9/11 deniers have destroyed any chance of legitimate questions being asked about 9/11, so the rabid anti-war crowd have destroyed any chance of serious discussion about the status or conduct of the war. How do you discuss anything someone who thinks that keeping a person awake for 48 hour constitutes torture?
If you torture my butt, I'm going to tell you whatever you want to hear wether it is the truth or not.
Not if you know that, when we find out you lied, we'll make it 10 times worse.
I keep hearing that "torture doesn't work" crap. Bullshit. Everyone breaks under torture eventually. It's just a matter of time. What might or might not work is the methods WE use because, realistically, they're not extreme enough. They don't constitute torture. A person subject to them general knows how far we'll go, and knows that we won't cause any lasting harm or serious damage. So they're much easier to resist. That's why a lot of our interrogation techniques are psychological in nature. If you can make a prisoner think you've gone insane and are willing to feed him through a wood-chipper, he's more likely to talk than if he knows you're limited to keeping him awake and playing loud music.
Alex
We could make him listen to Roaeann sing the national anthum 24/7, that would break me
Roseanne?
See, now that really WOULD be torture....
Crap both my typeing and spelling suck :)
Alex! What is up bro!
I keep hearing that "torture doesn't work" crap. Bullshit. Everyone breaks under torture eventually. Well everyone is the debatable term. But I will go with everyone breaks. The key is what kind of information will you get? Are you going to get factual information through torture?
Well that depends upon the type of person your torturing. Then there is the chance for total error on the intel side of the coin.
That is why I would advocate using a non-pain causing form of torture! Truth serum perhaps or whatever type of drugs the Spooks have nowadays.
If I'm willing to lie in the first place through the first round of torture, why do I care what is going to happen if and when the lie is discovered? That and knowing death is probably the end result anyway.
How is torturing someone the most effective way to find out factual information?
Is that your entire proof for accusing a man of murdering 3,000 people, "misuse of pronouns"?
I didn't accuse the man. Actually he stated they made the decision to pull and did not identify who they were. He didn't say I made the decision to pull. According to the CD industry, Pull It, means to bring down a building as in a CD, of course you already know that!
"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, singulartelling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is,is pull it.singular, industry term for CDing a building'
Uh, and they plural, not the singular commander he was talking toomade that decision to pull and then we who?watched the building collapse."
Why bring this up anyway regarding the MCA2006?
Didn't good Larry already clarify his statement anyway to clear up all of the CT crap?
Why use Alex, who your opposed to, to support your stance?
the military commissions only apply to non-citizens.
Don't confuse them with facts!
According to the CD industry, Pull It, means to bring down a building as in a CD, of course you already know that!
According to who? Please name a single person in the industry who claims this.
Well that depends upon the type of person your torturing.
Actually it depends more on the person doing the torturing. A skillful interrogator can get you to confess everything you know, or get you to confess (and believe) to things you've never done.
It's rather like the psychiatric cases where it's been found that a psychologist repeatedly asking a young woman about whether her father ever raped her can get her to actually believe that she was raped, even though no such event ever took place. Does that mean ALL psychiatrists will create that kind of effect? No, most will help you to remember and understand events which actually took place. Interrogating someone under torture is similar - if you know how to do it right you'll get the result you want, but if you're an amateur, or incompetent, you'll screw it up.
Truth serum perhaps or whatever type of drugs the Spooks have nowadays.
You've watched too many movies. Sodium Pentothal, while still used in some places for interrogation, is an anaesthetic, not some magical medicine that will make you always tell the truth. Although a useful tool, it's far from being fool-proof.
You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is,is pull it.singular, industry term for CDing a building'
Really? Ok, answer this question then. When I've got my squad spread out and covering 100 meters of terrain, and I yell:
"ok guys, pull it in!"
What am I telling them to do?
Pull a building in?
Unlawful combatants have the same rights as lawful ones. Common mis-conception.
Uh it isn't a common misconception. Unlawful combatants retain no rights under the Geneva Convention. The members of al-Qaeda and other groups do not qualify for Article 4 under the Third Geneva Convention.
They start wearing uniforms and fighting under a flag...we can talk.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
Such a policy, Peters writes, would be consistent with the "oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions" and with the traditional rules of warfare. And it would indeed solve the problem of what to do with all those prisoners who probably can't be kept imprisoned forever, but are too dangerous to release. Prospectively, anyway.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.
I guess if I learned anything from this thread, it's that you can't expect people who split hairs over the meaning of "it" to figure out the legal implications of a 98-page bill.
You've watched too many movies. Sodium Pentothal, while still used in some places for interrogation, is an anaesthetic, not some magical medicine that will make you always tell the truth. Although a useful tool, it's far from being fool-proof.
Even if it were, the very same people whining about things which go on every day in NYC police precincts would be whining that forcibly dosing terrorists with barbituates is inhumane. Nothing will make these people happy short of releasing the terrorists back to the battlefield. I agree with stevew. Oil-drum trials followed by battlefield executions for everyone picked up without a country and uniform unless they're KSH level.
alex jones revealed today that hallibuton is running concentration camps full of children for the government to use as our slaves
why should i disbelieve him?
Why should you believe him in the first place? Where exactly did he gain credibility in the first-place?
Does the fact that this story sounds elaborately far-fetched and isn't even hinted at by even the staunchest Bush critics in mainstream media suggest anything at all to you?
This is why you suck: You'll believe anything that fits your prejudice without any critical thinking.
It's the same mindset you'll see from a racist. If a racist hears a Charles Stewart type story (long story short, rich white guy kills his wife and says "a black guy robbed em", huge manhunt starts for generic looking black man and it eventually becomes clearer that he made it up) and just takes the story at face value cause "it sounds like something a black guy would do."
What reason is there to buy this? Because a loon with limited credibility and a clear undeniable bias is reporting it without any verifiable evidence?
Nobody's gonna deny that there were some shady financial dealings with Haliburton and that yes our government has an implicit role in some truly awful treatment of prisoners.
But all shit like this does is take the spotlight, point it away from the actual legitimate verifiable gripes and point it towards bullshit. If I didn't know he was just so fucking stupid, I'd swear he was actually a shill for the administration with all the smoke and mirrors crap he uses.
alex jones revealed today that hallibuton is running concentration camps full of children for the government to use as our slaves
why should i disbelieve him?
Why should you believe him in the first place? Where exactly did he gain credibility in the first-place?
Does the fact that this story sounds elaborately far-fetched and isn't even hinted at by even the staunchest Bush critics in mainstream media suggest anything at all to you?
This is why you suck: You'll believe anything that fits your prejudice without any critical thinking.
It's the same mindset you'll see from a racist. If a racist hears a Charles Stewart type story (long story short, rich white guy kills his wife and says "a black guy robbed em", huge manhunt starts for generic looking black man and it eventually becomes clearer that he made it up) and just takes the story at face value cause "it sounds like something a black guy would do."
What reason is there to buy this? Because a loon with limited credibility and a clear undeniable bias is reporting it without any verifiable evidence?
Nobody's gonna deny that there were some shady financial dealings with Haliburton and that yes our government has an implicit role in some truly awful treatment of prisoners.
But all shit like this does is take the spotlight, point it away from the actual legitimate verifiable gripes and point it towards bullshit. If I didn't know he was just so fucking stupid, I'd swear he was actually a shill for the administration with all the smoke and mirrors crap he uses.
alex jones revealed today that hallibuton is running concentration camps full of children for the government to use as our slaves
why should i disbelieve him?
Don't disbelieve him. It's all true. Something like 78% of all U.S. government output is produced by child slave labor. Tax collection, construction, the space program, military research. Pretty much all child slave labor. I just wish we could just get those little tykes to fix the space shuttles right for once...
I would handle the terrorists like Pershing did
HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS . . . it worked once in our History . . .
Once in US history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The US soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
The Moros were warriors and he learned about their culture and how to handle them best. History has shown how he got a great deal of respect from them after he defeated them but gives little detail.
My wife is from the Phillipines, she and all her brothers and sisters know this story and they got it from their parents who were alive during that time, so the story comes with a certain amount of credibility
They use appeasers to undermine and after they conquer, the appeasers will be killed as their usefullness is over.
It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison...
Actually, the historical evidence for that having occurred is mixed, at best and the evidence that it would be an effective tactic is even less persuasive.
Oh I get it...you're just a parody of a twoofer.
Yeah, I think that's a troll, pure and simple. I don't think Jones claimed any such thing -- pdo just wants to see if people will debunk it without confirming whether his account is accurate. Then he'll claim that people actually taking him at his word is a bad thing.
Yeah. For one thing, as far as I can tell, Gen. pershing was nowhere near the philipines in 1911. He WAS there in 1902, but wasn't a general. Besides which, the story has a mythical feel to it. And I'm not sure how effective it'd be in the long run. All it would take to counter such a strategy is for one of the local Imaams to say "listen, boys, I had a read over the Quaran yesterday, and it turns out if you get covered in pig guts and such, Allah will forgive it if it was done by an infidel whom you were fighting". And then BAM, the effect is undone, and you've probably created more people willing to fight you.
I am sure that story has changes over time but I do know that the Moros were warriors and he learned about their culture and how to handle them best. History has shown how he got a great deal of respect from them after he defeated them but gives little detail.
My wife is from the Phillipines, she and all her brothers and sisters know this story and they got it from their parents who were alive during that time, so the story comes with a certain amount of credibility. Myth, legend or what ever I for one would like to give it a try, I am sick of handling these bastards with kid gloves. They understand strength only, once you show weakness they will kill you.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.
Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.
Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.
Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.
And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?
SteveW, that was a provocative post, but I must ask one question:
Given the circumstances of the Iraq conflict, don't we have to be a teensy bit more PR-conscious than usual?
Considering the U.S. argues itself to be a benighted nation, bringing the light of freedom to freedom-loving people in the Middle East who just want freedom, shouldn't our standards for battlefield conduct be higher than those of the 15th-century murderous dogs on the other side?
I really hate to argue this position, because I know every restraint placed on U.S. forces risks lives, and makes it tougher to win the war. But I think it's a legit question and I'd like to know what you (and others) think.
quite honestly Trit I am sick of all this crap. I have been follow ing this for quite a few years. There is so much more and it really does not belong on this thread but these people are like a cancer and will lurk in the background and wait till the time is right before they will strike. I will hate to see the demise of western civilation but if we don't wake up to the real threat, it will be too late. It makes my blood boil so I will stop now.
SteveW, I understand. Thanks for your reply.
alex jones revealed today that hallibuton is running concentration camps full of children for the government to use as our slaves
why should i disbelieve him?
Because it's not true.
Considering the U.S. argues itself to be a benighted nation, bringing the light of freedom to freedom-loving people in the Middle East who just want freedom, shouldn't our standards for battlefield conduct be higher than those of the 15th-century murderous dogs on the other side?
Problem is, very few people believe that. The nicer you act, the more they demonize you. America is the new Jews. No matter what you do, the vast majority of the world will always hate you.
Take for example the Tsunami in India. The US was the first on the scene, and was providing humanitarian relief while other countries were still arguing about who should send what. The US government donated several hundred million dollars, and private individuals and corporations donated enough to match the rest of the world combined. And what thanks do you get? Conspiratoids claiming the US caused the tsunami. Brits laughing and saying "they get hit by a tidal wave and that idiot bush sends an aircraft carrier!". Others bitching and whining that you didn't give enough.
It's not worth it. They want to demonize you? Fine. Give them something to bitch about.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should go back to the barbarism of the 7th century, but at the same time you gotta know where to draw the line. You can't fight with both arms tied behind you, no matter how many foreigners keep insisting that it's not fair otherwise.
That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and could only be said by someone who has no clue what America is doing in the world today.
Yeah, well, we've pretty much established that you fall into the "knee-jerk anti-american" category, so I don't need to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Oh, and for the millionth time:
Do you ever LEAVE the country and ASK some people from other countries what their problem with America is?
I'M NOT FUCKING AMERICAN!!!
Good day again to you all. Not in defense of Alex Jones or anything at this point, but Halliburton's KBR was in fact rewarded a contract to build detention centers.
From http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0%7D&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656
KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.
Ok I changed my mind. Alex Jones is partially correct. The question arises then, what is deemed a new program?
James! What is up bro!
When you asked for the industry source..
A phone call made to CDI by Jeff at PumpItOut.com.
Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.
Now before you state it was the secretary isn't in the industry, you would be correct, however if you read the conversation she does ask someone else what the term is. Who that is? No idea. Someone who works at CDI? I would think so.
Next, documentary on the removal of debris. The building in reference is building 6. http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv
Now before you attack the website hosting the video clip, be sure to watch the clip itself.
The audio alone of the same clip: http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/PULLIT2.swf
The outtakes themselves are from http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1404489
a PBS documentary.
Any questions?
*shrug*
Alright, so you're not as bad as most, I'll grant you that. You're intelligent, and when it's 100% clear that the US was NOT responsible for something, you'll say so. However, you're also quite biased. If I remember correctly, you still think the US was pretty much entirely responsible for the cold war, and I get the feeling you would have been quite happy had the USSR won. So yeah, I certainly don't expect a reasonable comment from you because you're too damn unpredictable. You're totally rational on some subjects, and RTFO on others. This would be one of them.
I think mine is an apt comparison because:
a) Jews are widely persecuted, and have historically been hated and despised by pretty much everyone.
and
b) Jews have, historically, fallen into your "damned if we do, damned if we don't" category.
Likewise the US today can do no right. No matter what the situation or what the response, nearly everyone always focuses on the negative aspects. Sure, people of intelligence who can control their emotions and biases tend to see past a lot of that, but people like that are always the minority. I'm sure there were quite a few Germans who saw past the lies about the Jews, but once the masses got riled enough there wasn't much those few could do.
So what we've got right now is this insane loop of bigotry, where all actions are viewed through a filter of hate and distrust, while every perceived error or slight causes yet more hate and distrust. And now, here you are telling me that it's ok to hate the US because they've got their army all over the place. Well, frankly, so fucking what? One of the things Jews always get accused of is owning all the banks and newspapers. While holding a grain of truth (at least to a greater extent than your insane '130 countries' accusation), once again, so fucking what? How does that justify hating an entire religious group, or an entire nation? Same with your "interference" nonsense. Iran interferes to a greater extent in the middle east than the US does, yet nobody says much about them. China has a massive amount of influence in the Asian rim, yet you don't hear much about that. Russia still exerts some influence over it's old states, yet you hear zero about that. All you hear is:
"those goddamn Americans sent an aircraft-carrier to India! They're not there for humanitarian work, they're just looking to set up another base"
"yeah! and I hear they caused that earthquake in Kazakhstan too!"
A lot of this hate really has no logical basis. Like 9/11 CT's it built on layers upon layers of lies, mixed in with a tiny bit of truth. Just like the ignorant hate of Jews. Jews have the Protocols of Zion, Americans have the incorrect interpretation of the PNAC documents. Jews are accused of wanting to run the world, so are the Americans. Jews are hated for "owning everything", and so are the Americans. Once you start noticing the similarities, they just don't stop.
Any questions?
Yeah, I've got two:
Question #1:
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
What part of "pull it down" don't you understand, and how can you confuse that with "blow it up"?
Question #2:
You still haven't answered my question about what exactly you think I mean when I yell at my soldiers to "pull it in". Could you please do that now?
All America has to do to improve its image and security is to pull back to its own borders and tend to its own people. America and Canada are probably the only two major nations in the world that actually have this luxury.
That might have made sense back when we were still fighting with swords and catapults, but it's certainly not true in the days of stealth bombers and nuclear weapons. No country can afford to withdraw. Isolationism doesn't work, and hasn't worked since before WW2.
People tend to get pissed when they see a country that could easily provide free healthcare and high education to virtually all of its population at the drop of a hat- but would rather spend tax money on Pakistan or the Saudi or Egyptian dictatorship.
See what I mean about misconceptions? The US provides Medicaid for those who cannot afford insurance, or cannot pay for healthcare outright. Meanwhile those who CAN afford insurance end up spending less per-capita than, say, Canada. Why? Because the burocracy inherent in a country-wide all-inclusive government-run healthcare program is, pretty much by definition, less efficient than privately run companies. Also, the level of service tends to be worse. Meanwhile, because of the lower tax bracket in the American system, more people can actually afford to buy health insurance. The American system is, for all intents and purposes, vastly superior to the Canadian. Yet I hear people CONSTANTLY bitching about how the US doesn't provide healthcare for it's citizens. It's a claim stemming from a tiny grain of truth, and a lot of ignorance.
But America can do this, it can stop supporting dictators, overthrowing governments, and meddling in foreign affairs of other countries.
And what then? Everyone will hold hands, sing kumbaya, and live happily ever after?
I think not. The moment that the US bows out, other countries will be competing for center stage. I know you're not a stupid person JP, so you can't tell me you truly believe that everything would be peachy if the US wasn't "interfering" with other countries.
And just to end on a humorous note:
AHA!! "Pull it in" must mean "detonate yourself"! Your soldiers must be suicide-bombers!
You got it! Except ever since we started using thermite, it's been more of a suicide-fizzle. Just doesn't have the same effect.
A phone call made to CDI by Jeff at PumpItOut.com.
How do we know he wasn't calling his sister? Do you have anything other than a phone call of unknown origin from a conspiracy website? Is this what passes for proof in the conspiracy theory community?
I mean, this is a commonly accepted industry term, there must be dozens of controlled demolition experts on record explaining exactly what it means.
Next, documentary on the removal of debris. The building in reference is building 6.
Building 6 was literally pulled down with cables. Are you claiming this is what they did with building 7? We posted on that a month ago.
The point is America is able, because of its wealth and geographcy- abstain from the problems of most of the world.
So your opinion is, the US wouldn't be so hated if they just never bothered trying to help?
Well....that's one approach I suppose. Maybe I can try that with my friends and family. Next time they want to borrow some money, I'll cut them off. And if one of them ever gets attacked, well, sorry, you're on your own!
That should make EVERYONE love me.
Don't get me wrong....I understand what you're saying and I can see the appeal of an isolationist policy. It's simple. It's effective for the short term. It seems like it SHOULD work.
Unfortunately plenty of nations have tried it, and it hasn't worked for any of them. In this world you're either constantly improving or you're stagnating and dying. That's one of the bigger problems with communism - it creates no incentive for growth, which means it fails to compete with a capitalistic society. It's one of the reasons the USSR fell by the wayside, but it doesn't change the fact that the US had to make an effort to fight communism, or lose all relevance on the world stage. So the same stands true today: either we push our beliefs on others, or we get someone elses pushed on us. Muslims want us all to be Muslim and follow sharia law. Communists would like to see the whole world "equal". Fascists and dictators just want to control MORE of everything. And capitalist democracies want to see people everywhere given the rights and opportunities that we take for granted. We don't encourage democracy in Iraq for their sake, although it is of benefit to them. We encourage it for our own sake, in order to take another chunk out of an opposing ideology. If the US goes into isolation, all they're doing is giving opposing ideologies the opportunity to get stronger. Eventually, they'll have to deal with one of them again, whether it's a world-wide caliphate under Iran, a reworking of communism led by China, or some entirely new system under freakin' North-West-Switzerland. Either way, either we try to convert others to our system NOW, or we'll be facing them on the battlefield some day. And at that point it won't just be some piddly little insurgency, it'll be total war. At least we're largely using non-military means, and pushing an ideology which offers personal freedoms and a wealth of opportunities. The same can't be said for those we oppose.
There is a lot of propaganda against socialised medicine in the States and I believed a lot of it. But if you actually talk to most Canadians it's quite a different story.
I'm Canadian :)
Marxism is inherently anti-utopian because it acknowledges that progressive changes, like the revolution of parliamentary democracy in the past, can only be the result of violent conflict.
I thought Marx said that his idea of communism could only be brought about through fairly peaceful means, and that it would only occur once the world as a whole reached a certain level of prosperity.
Now granted it's been a while since I've read anything on Marx, so I could be totally wrong about that one....
It is likely that new causes of conflict will probably spring up in the future, but I think the whole point of human evolution is to fight these problems rather than tolerate them.
Well, I can't really think of a good way for the US to fight those problems if they lock themselves away in North America like you suggested.
Do your thermite equipped soldiers pulverize concrete as they burn?
You know, when Steven Jones sold us on the idea he insisted that they would. Then he ran off with the money and left us with just a bunch of piles of ash on the pavement. I'm starting to think that hiring a "fusion researcher" to design weapons might not have been such a good idea....
Since we've probably both seen thermate reactions this conjures up a rather disturbing yet hilarious image.
Definitely :)
How do we know he wasn't calling his sister? Yes I'm quite sure secretaries at corporations call relatives to answer questions all the time. That speaks of their professionalism at its peak.
The point is Larry has already clarified his. Implosion world has claified it.
The term 'pull it' by Larry S. in reference to the CTD of bulding 7 has been debunked. It was fun arguing semantics though and reading how some respond.
What hasn't been debunked is:
The visual documents which establish that the building's collapse was an implosion exhibiting all of the features of a standard controlled demolition, including:
* Very rapid speed of fall
* Symmetric collapse around its vertical axis when the damage was asymmetric.
* Production of large quantities of dust and pyroclastic flows.
* Collapse into a small, consolidated rubble pile, with exterior walls lying on top
* The now acceptance by the NIST to examine the theory of CD.
Alex! What is up bro!
Come on man, I'm not a Communist! Although the rich have been getting richer and the middle class has been getting poorer especially during the current political climate. Our country since the inception of Communism has slowly progressed toward said government system and society, which of course I don't support. Yeah I know the link sounds kooky, but ignore that and check out how we have progressively implemented the Communist Manfiesto in America. Scary. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
Now my question is, did the USSR win or did the Communists just move?
I will encourage you to read the tome, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, by Anthony Sutton. From that free online wiki-peed-onmyself Antony C. Sutton (January 17, 1925 - June 17, 2002) was a British-born economist, historian, and writer. He was educated at the universities of London, Gottingen, and California. He was a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institute from 1968 to 1973. That was just for those who might write him off as a tin hat conspiracy author.
Sutton published many books, including Wall Street and the RisIndeed it was Wall Street corporations who help to fund the Soviets. His research is impecable and relies on primary source documents. If you think about it, what a great way to obtain a monopoly in a country! No competition! Our wonderful corps. and the IMF were instrumental in funding the Soviets at the same they were supplying satelite states in actions against us across the globe.
And now, here you are telling me that it's ok to hate the US because they've got their army all over the place. Now Alex I never said such a thing. I would certainly state that our foreign policy has caused enough hatred throughout the world. The Armed Forces are an extension of the government and I know that you know that. They are simply doing their job. Tis the civilian government's policy that is at fault, and sadly many Americans are clueless as to the real reason of said policy.
In order to understand our FP during the Cold War, I would encourage the reading of Killing Hope. Great job of exposing the FP of the U.S. during the Cold War.
Steve,
What ever the guys need to do to get accurate info from these guys is fine with me.
I agree Steve, but the keyword is accurate. Can you get accurate info from torture? I guess the only way to find out is to investigate whatever is given. Which could lead to the truth or to wasted resources. Yankin' some Joe Jhiahad off the street and tuggin' on his sack probably isn't going to get the best intel available. Workin' over some high ranking Alciada figure on the other might. Depends on how well he is trained to resist torture.
Now Alex I never said such a thing.
I wasn't talking to you, numbnuts. You really need to learn how to read these threads. I have no desire whatsoever to discuss communism with you; I was talking to "JPSlovjanski". Although I'm not surprised to see that your ideas about communism in America are just as wacky as your CD nonsense. Yes there's been a shift towards larger government and more social spending, but if you think that the US is even close to being communist, you REALLY need to get out and travel a bit. Canada is more socialist than the US will ever be, yet even Canada isn't communist.
Can you get accurate info from torture?
Yes.
Depends on how well he is trained to resist torture.
You can't really train someone to resist torture. All you can do is show them what to expect, and give them some tips on what to do and what not to do. The rest depends on the personality of the individual. And, ofcourse, on time. Because eventually EVERYONE breaks. Without exception.
And do you REALLY think Al-Qaeda is conducting anti-interrogation training on their personnel, especially when they know we're not allowed to torture prisoners? Hell no. What they're probably doing is teaching their operatives about how best to complain to amnesty international, and the news crews. Get the best PR possible and make the Americans look like savages. At least, that's what I'd be focusing on if I were them.
Alex, your statements show a true lack of knowledge regarding a subject you know nothing about.
You can't really train someone to resist torture. All you can do is show them what to expect, and give them some tips on what to do and what not to do.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/29/torture/index_np.html
Torture teachers
An Army document proves that Guantánamo interrogators were taught by instructors from a military school that trains U.S. soldiers how to resist torture.
By Mark Benjamin
You should really stick to what you know as opposed to what you think you know.
And do you REALLY think Al-Qaeda is conducting anti-interrogation training on their personnel, especially when they know we're not allowed to torture prisoners? Hell no.
I don't pretend to know what Al-Qaeda is doing and isn't doing. So how can you claim you do? Again stick with what you know, not what you THINK you know.
You can't really train someone to resist torture. All you can do is show them what to expect, and give them some tips on what to do and what not to do. The rest depends on the personality of the individual. And, ofcourse, on time. Because eventually EVERYONE breaks. Without exception.
I'm not sure I agree with that. A lot of people try to just say what they think their captors want to hear....And thee's also stuff like John McCain who gave the names of Packers offensive linemen when asked to identify his commanding officers.
It's ultimately a person to person thing, but I seriously question the effectiveness on people who are so fucking deluded by their own religious convictions that they're willing to die for it and kill for it.
That's difficult territory to break
Tym Great example! I forgot all about that one, and I'm a Packer's Fan!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You should really stick to what you know as opposed to what you think you know.
Yeah...see...I've actually BEEN through that type of training...so I think I'm a little more qualified to comment on it than "saloon.com" or some internet doofus who calls himself "swing dangler". Don't be fooled by what you read, there's very little that any "interrogation resistance" program can teach you about actually resisting torture.
I don't pretend to know what Al-Qaeda is doing and isn't doing. So how can you claim you do?
It's called intel analysis, and once again, you should take your own advice. When it comes to things military, I really don't think you should be trying to give me advice.
Tym:
And thee's also stuff like John McCain who gave the names of Packers offensive linemen when asked to identify his commanding officers.
Not trying to downplay what McCain went through, but from all accounts his interrogators were rank amateurs. And he DID end up signing a document for them, so they did succeed in breaking him to some extent.
As you OSers like to say, Alex
PROOF! Show me the proof big guy! Scan the docs in! Give me the government websites! And you said a torture program like that. I guess if you have been through that, you DIDN't attend Ft. Detrick which is what the article was about right?
Not trying to downplay what McCain went through, but from all accounts his interrogators were rank amateurs Jesus H Christ, now you can judge NVA interrogatos?! Where the heck do you get this stuff, Alex. Great way of downplaying McCain's ordeal.
And how the heck do you know what I've done or haven't? Oh that is right, you don't. But you like to play god on these forums and pretend like you know everything, and when someone counters your posts, you play the name calling game. Nice Alex!
And besides, I thought you were done wasting time with me?
Try wasting all of you limited intellectual capacity on a different site, because your arguements are as amateur as those NVA interrogators you know so much about.
Swing I think I explained in previous posts where I stand. There are a lot of conflicting reports about this and I will let the pro's deal with it but I want to give them every tool they need to get intel.
Have you read the AQ manual?
PROOF! Show me the proof big guy!
I have nothing to prove to you. Either you believe me or you don't. If you don't then feel free to ignore any posts where I offer my assessment based on training and experiences.
I guess if you have been through that, you DIDN't attend Ft. Detrick which is what the article was about right?
Yeah funny. I think TAM attended medical school in Canada, but if you told him that a school in the US is teaching new doctors how to perform surgeries telepathically, he'd rightly tell you that you're full of shit. Basic facts don't change, regardless of which school you attend.
Jesus H Christ, now you can judge NVA interrogatos?!
Yes.
Great way of downplaying McCain's ordeal.
Like you give a shit. You're just using that line as an argument point. And no, I'm not downplaying anything he went through. The guy refused to be repatriated, and received regular beatings for 6 years. He deserves respect. But that doesn't change the fact that his interrogators were amateurs.
But you like to play god on these forums and pretend like you know everything, and when someone counters your posts, you play the name calling game.
Well, it's quite obvious that I know more on the subject being discussed than you do. If, however, I ever require advice on how to properly suck cock, I'll be sure to defer to your knowledge and experience.
Was that insulting enough for you?
The term 'pull it' by Larry S. in reference to the CTD of bulding 7 has been debunked. It was fun arguing semantics though and reading how some respond.
So you are admitting that you and the majority of conspiracy theorists are lying about this point?
So you are admitting that you and the majority of conspiracy theorists are lying about this point?
James, did you not read my original post referring to the explosion before WTC 7 collapsed? I typed, Pull It! ;)
See the wink! It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Am I lying? Of course not! I simply played the Devil's Advocate and argued semantics with a bunch of people who take it really seriously. Are CT's wrong to use that quote to justify the building fell as a result of CD? Yes. Is there a misapplication to the quote? Sure. I pointed out earlier that good Larry clarified the issued, but people wanted to keep hammering it. Ok, so I'll take the bait. I love a good arguement.
Is there other evidence pointing to a CD? Of course. See the earlier post.
Alex Of course you don't have to prove anything to anyone. But how can we take your claims seriously without evidence? Oh wait nevermind, we can't! Just because you are in the majority here that makes your word bond? What training and experience do you keep referring to?
Oh wait nevermind, we can't! So keep preaching from the pulpit big guy cause the pews are empty.
Well, it's quite obvious that I know more on the subject being discussed than you do. You pretend to know a lot Alex. A whole bunch.
But that doesn't change the fact that his interrogators were amateurs. You forgot to insert your opinion here.
If, however, I ever require advice on how to properly suck cock, I'll be sure to defer to your knowledge and experience.
LOL! Ahh true intelligence shining through. You give OS'ers, Pat and James, a bad name with comments like that Alex, tsk tsk. That just proves me correct. True middle school tactics, I love it!
Is there other evidence pointing to a CD?
Only in your delusional little mind.
But how can we take your claims seriously without evidence? Oh wait nevermind, we can't!
Oh, but I have evidence. If you watch the collapse of the WTC really carefully, about 13 seconds into it there's a really blurry portion of the dust cloud that kinda spells my name. That's because I planted the charges. So I'm fully qualified in controlled demolition, and I obviously work for the government. And since all government people are evil, I must also know how to torture people. Ergo, I'm an expert.
That should meet all the requirements for YOU to consider it "evidence", no?
You give OS'ers, Pat and James, a bad name with comments like that Alex, tsk tsk. That just proves me correct.
Ah, I see you're a graduate of the Peter Doherty School of Debate and Logic.
Post a Comment
<< Home