Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left

Wordslinger wrote:

KarlRove wrote:Torture ought to be on the minds of all our enemies.  They should realize that because their side will willingly do so to our folks, we will be happy to give them the same to the Nth degree.  It ought to be something they fear and fear a lot.  It ought to be a reason they think twice about fighting us.  See, the folks we're fighting in the GWOT are ones who respect strength and power.  Obama exudes none of that.  He exudes hemming, hawing, and drawing red lines he won't enforce.  Now that the other side understands Obama can be pushed around, they do what they want and when they want. For example see Assad in Syria, Putin, China on emissions,  and Iran on nukes.  

The sad part is we have too many people not willing to fight like we did in WWII and to end it once and for all when we get into conflicts.

come to think of it, we had just such an idiot as you crave -- a guy who lied like hell and talked tough as nails.  His administration kicked the Sunnis in the ass and coddled the Shiias, who managed to steal zillions from USA largess.  The same jackass thought he was building a genuine, hard-fighting army that could take over most of the combat needs -- wrong again!

The reason we don't have the same dedication and enthusiasm for today's wars as we had for WWII stems from the fact that WWII meant everyone had to sacrifice.  With a mercenary military (that's what today's professional, volunteer armed forces really are), and no taxes or shortages, who gives a shit?  Even with the loss of the Twin Towers, most Americans don't see our current foes (without air power, without ballistic missiles, without submarines, etc.) as a real threat.

And to tell the truth, the current batch of Muslim warriors with machine guns mounted on mini-trucks don't really threaten the residents of Charlotte, N.C.  

In WWII, virtually every family had members in the service.

Face the facts Pacedog -- the wars you have fought are like playing minor league ball.

As Sal said elsewhere, most of us don't fear a few jihadists that takeover an airliner.

Reality.

Minor league ball? tell that to the dead. BTW, that makes you a ticket paying fan because you've never participated.

Had daddy Bush taken out the Republican Guard leaving Kuwait like we could have, Gulf War Two never takes place. We had them all running north on the road to Basra and he gave Schwartzkopf an order to halt.

Well the MIC doesn't want to win they just want to keep making money. Daddy Bush was just following orders....and making money.

Wordslinger wrote:

As Sal said elsewhere, most of us don't fear a few jihadists that takeover an airliner.

It's not a big deal to you and Sal because you weren't on one of the airliners.

But here's the hypocrisy and inconsistency of that,  Wordslinger.  
You and Sal are just as just as unlikely to be shot dead by a cop too.  But that IS a big deal to you.  lol
You both are VERY inconsistent with your empathy for victims.

The more I think about that the more bizarre it gets.

Someone does a strongarm robbery and resists arrest and yours and Sal's hearts are bleeding profusely for him.

But your hearts just don't give a shit about a totally innocent person who is forced to go headfirst into a skyscraper at 500 miles an hour.

It just doesn't make any sense. Not when it's two intelligent people like you are.

Maybe this is the ONLY thing that will get you two to have any feeling for what happened on 9/11
You probably haven't heard about this,  but you should know that MUSLIMS were among the victims in the World Trade Center.  Hopefully that will make a difference for you.

911 = new pearl Harbor
required a LOT more coordination intelligence finance and manpower than any Muslim in a cave could muster...it floors me people still believe the government fairytale.

The man who made World War 2 happen conceived the whole thing while sitting inside a jail cell, teo.

Which is exactly the same place a medical doctor named Ayman al Zawahiri got his ideas.

You don't have to be Count Rothschild or Ernst Blofeld to have a big negative impact on the world.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:... than any Muslim in a cave could muster....

The notion that Bin Laden was a "caveman" is just a myth, teo, making it sound like he was some Fred Flinstone or something.
He came from one of the wealthiest families in the middle east. The only times he was in a cave was when he was avoiding apprehension by escaping into the hinterlands. There are no Hiltons in Tora Bora.

A senior NATO official tells CNN about claims that bin Laden is alive and well, living comfortably in a house in the north-west of Pakistan and being protected by local people and elements of Pakistani intelligence. Stating that "nobody in al Qaeda is living in a cave", the official stated the bin Laden was likely to have moved around in recent years in areas from the mountainous Chitral region in the far northwest, near the Chinese border, to the Kurram Valley bordering Tora Bora in Afghanistan. The official stated that Ayman al-Zawahiri is believed to be hiding close to bin Laden in houses in northwest Pakistan.
"If we knew where he was -- in a house, an apartment, a villa or an underground cave or bunker -- we would have gotten him; we can't rule out he may be in a cave one day and a house in a city on another."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_Osama_bin_Laden

Bob wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:... than any Muslim in a cave could muster....

The notion that Bin Laden was a "caveman" is just a myth,  teo,  making it sound like he was some Fred Flinstone or something.
He came from one of the wealthiest families in the middle east.  The only times he was in a cave was when he was avoiding apprehension by escaping into the hinterlands.  There are no Hiltons in Tora Bora.

A senior NATO official tells CNN about claims that bin Laden is alive and well, living comfortably in a house in the north-west of Pakistan and being protected by local people and elements of Pakistani intelligence. Stating that "nobody in al Qaeda is living in a cave", the official stated the bin Laden was likely to have moved around in recent years in areas from the mountainous Chitral region in the far northwest, near the Chinese border, to the Kurram Valley bordering Tora Bora in Afghanistan. The official stated that Ayman al-Zawahiri is believed to be hiding close to bin Laden in houses in northwest Pakistan.
"If we knew where he was -- in a house, an apartment, a villa or an underground cave or bunker -- we would have gotten him; we can't rule out he may be in a cave one day and a house in a city on another."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_Osama_bin_Laden

More fairy-tales...the dude died over 12 years ago.

While we're on the subject of it,  here's something I was researching earlier today.
I wanted to know exactly where Peshawar (the scene of yesterday's school slaughter) is.  Just to have some idea of the geography where these muslim fanatics are located.

Peshawar is right near the Khyber Pass.  The Khyber Pass is one of the world's oldest mountain passes,  the summit of it about 3 miles from the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
You can read about the history of it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
More fairy-tales...the dude died over 12 years ago.

That's nothing. Count Rothschild died at birth (immediately after his mother gave birth to him). So anything attributed to him is a fairy tale too.

Both claims are on the internet so they both have to be true.

Well when you put it that way....

boards of FL wrote:



You have an uncanny ability of missing the point - even when it is as incredibly basic as the hypothetical scenario I laid out.

Assume that the 10 and 100 are all equal at the individual level.  It is a very basic choice of opting between two outcomes that you have the ability to influence in a constrained way.  You can either have 10 dead people or 100 dead people.  Taking no action will make the choice for you at random.  Either way, no matter what, people are going to die.  What will you do with your influence?

You have the incredible delusion that anyone should answer any rhetorical question that you pose when you refuse to answer any directed at you.

How about this... I'll save the ten Swedish bikini babes who might have committed a little bit of waterboarding and damaged your delicate psyche but didn't mutilate or kill anyone, over the one hundred butchers who have murdered thousands of innocents, as you cheer on, when they decide to bomb a sovereign nation back into the stone age at a whim, and without Congressional approval; or decimate a wedding party for one or two suspected terrorists; or terrorists who fly jet liners filled with innocents into skyscrapers; or terrorists who behead people they've captured.

*****CHUCKLE*****

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZTYGPxEF8c

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I would drop on the train from a helicopter reverse the engines throw on the  brakes and stop the train saving the screaming Swedish bikini team in the bedroom cars and spend the rest of the day comforting them....

Yes, but you don't live in reality, so....

As real as your made up situation....okay I did add the Swedish Bikini team...the rest is totally believable.....

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k53DGIb5LA

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:Torture ought to be on the minds of all our enemies.  They should realize that because their side will willingly do so to our folks, we will be happy to give them the same to the Nth degree.  It ought to be something they fear and fear a lot.  It ought to be a reason they think twice about fighting us.  See, the folks we're fighting in the GWOT are ones who respect strength and power.  Obama exudes none of that.  He exudes hemming, hawing, and drawing red lines he won't enforce.  Now that the other side understands Obama can be pushed around, they do what they want and when they want. For example see Assad in Syria, Putin, China on emissions,  and Iran on nukes.  

The sad part is we have too many people not willing to fight like we did in WWII and to end it once and for all when we get into conflicts.

GOP 2016, everyone!  Growing more and more out of touch each and every day!

If you take to heart my last post to you, which you should, I don't think you should be accusing anyone of being out of touch.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v5skEpS_78

Bob wrote:The more I think about that the more bizarre it gets.

Someone does a strongarm robbery and resists arrest and yours and Sal's hearts are bleeding profusely for him.

But your hearts just don't give a shit about a totally innocent person who is forced to go headfirst into a skyscraper at 500 miles an hour.

It just doesn't make any sense.  Not when it's two intelligent people like you are.

Did I start something here?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqprkIfJgu4

TEOTWAWKI wrote:So if American bombs blow up my kids I would be oKay in your book Bob to cut the pilots legs and arms off inch at a time and cauterize the wounds each time   Maybe we could feed his legs to a dog while he watched.  Sure does feel good to be a subhuman demonic psychopath.  Mmmm

In one book, a sci-fi, that I read they cut the limb off and cauterized it. Then they cooked it and feed it to prisoner until they needed more... nourishment for him. It was supposed to be standard punishment for people that violated truces when they were declared. Needless to say people didn't listen to anyone, especially leaders, that suggested violating truces and if someone did make such a suggestion they tended to be disposed of quickly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9wiH9Iek00

Damaged Eagle wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:So if American bombs blow up my kids I would be oKay in your book Bob to cut the pilots legs and arms off inch at a time and cauterize the wounds each time   Maybe we could feed his legs to a dog while he watched.  Sure does feel good to be a subhuman demonic psychopath.  Mmmm

In one book, a sci-fi, that I read they cut the limb off and cauterized it. Then they cooked it and feed it to prisoner until they needed more... nourishment for him. It was supposed to be standard punishment for people that violated truces when they were declared. Needless to say people didn't listen to anyone, especially leaders, that suggested violating truces and if they did they tended to be disposed of quickly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9wiH9Iek00

Seems fair enough to me...

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Just prior to my arriving at a new command in Italy there was a dependent wife who was driving to Naples to go to the exchange. Along the way she passed a carabinieri (Italian police) who was standing at the side of the road waving his lollipop sign that they carry. He waved it at her as she approached, which means that she should pull over to be inspected, but she did not know what it meant so she kept driving. They pulled over forty slugs out of the back of car and the dependent wife was in the hospital for over six months in critical and/or serious condition...

That just helps support the position I took on this in my last post.  
Mistakes CAN and WILL be made.  By ANY authority.
It's one thing when those mistakes lead to unjust imprisonment.
But when they lead to either torture or an execution.  it goes beyond my willingness to tolerate it.

"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy8z557aK1Y

“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”
- Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, 1984
Address to the Nation upon signing the UN Convention On Torture

Sal wrote:“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”
- Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, 1984
Address to the Nation upon signing the UN Convention On Torture

We aren't fighting so much nationstates as an ideology. What country do we extradite the dirkas who torture?

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
You have an uncanny ability of missing the point - even when it is as incredibly basic as the hypothetical scenario I laid out.

Assume that the 10 and 100 are all equal at the individual level.  It is a very basic choice of opting between two outcomes that you have the ability to influence in a constrained way.  You can either have 10 dead people or 100 dead people.  Taking no action will make the choice for you at random.  Either way, no matter what, people are going to die.  What will you do with your influence?

You have the incredible delusion that anyone should answer any rhetorical question that you pose when you refuse to answer any directed at you.

How about this... I'll save the ten Swedish bikini babes who might have committed a little bit of waterboarding and damaged your delicate psyche but didn't kill anyone over the one hundred butchers who have murdered thousands of innocents, as you cheer on, when they decide to bomb a sovereign nation back into the stone age at a whim, and without Congressional approval; or decimate a wedding party for one or two suspected terrorists; or terrorists who fly jet liners filled with innocents into skyscrapers; or terrorists who behead people they've captured.

You're still not grasping the concept of lesser of two evils.  We're either going to get drone strikes or costly, large-scale occupations.  If I'm free to do whatever I want, I'm not broadly in favor of either of these options;  but if I'm constrained to select one or the other, I'll take the drone strikes.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
You have an uncanny ability of missing the point - even when it is as incredibly basic as the hypothetical scenario I laid out.

Assume that the 10 and 100 are all equal at the individual level.  It is a very basic choice of opting between two outcomes that you have the ability to influence in a constrained way.  You can either have 10 dead people or 100 dead people.  Taking no action will make the choice for you at random.  Either way, no matter what, people are going to die.  What will you do with your influence?

You have the incredible delusion that anyone should answer any rhetorical question that you pose when you refuse to answer any directed at you.

How about this... I'll save the ten Swedish bikini babes who might have committed a little bit of waterboarding and damaged your delicate psyche but didn't kill anyone over the one hundred butchers who have murdered thousands of innocents, as you cheer on, when they decide to bomb a sovereign nation back into the stone age at a whim, and without Congressional approval; or decimate a wedding party for one or two suspected terrorists; or terrorists who fly jet liners filled with innocents into skyscrapers; or terrorists who behead people they've captured.

You're still not grasping the concept of lesser of two evils.  We're either going to get drone strikes or costly, large-scale occupations.  If I'm free to do whatever I want, I'm not broadly in favor of either of these options;  but if I'm constrained to select one or the other, I'll take the drone strikes.

Sure I do. I provided you examples of two different evils and I chose to save the lesser of the two.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsNblIyg0dc

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the terrorist/looters in Ferguson?

Seems to me it would have saved the tax payers a lot of money by doing so and it's so much more cost effective than having boots on the ground and I wouldn't have to listen to people like you screaming how the police need more training.

You also seem to think that it doesn't take interrogations to come up with targets for drone strikes which indicates how delusional you really are.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXXLU8GFpw8