🚀 go-pugleaf

John wrote:
> <bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you want 
>>to hear:
...<snip link to waterboarding torture technique>...
> 
> Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't resort
> to such inhuman tactics.  They just deliberately target women and
> children in mosques and schools and marketplaces and blow them up with
> car bombs.  
...<Snip rant about terrorists>...

I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to win a war on
terror then you gotta break some laws. Of course, you can't actually
'win' such a war because there is always going to be another terrorist,
even if you have to train them yourself.

Anyone else have more frugal torture techniques? I hear that stun
guns are popular method of "questioning" people here in the United
States. It's not considered torture unless they die on you, maybe not
even then.

Anthony

John�]                                                                 
> Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't resort
> to such inhuman tactics. 


What does that have to do with anything?  My tax dollars aren't paying 
the terrorists' salaries, so I don't have any say over them.

It amazes me how eager some people are to assume that all the accused 
are guilty of something.  That way, whatever punishment they get is 
justified.  Too bad it's just wishful thinking.

In article <180920061919451916%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't resort
> to such inhuman tactics.  They just deliberately target women and
> children in mosques and schools and marketplaces and blow them up with
> car bombs.  If they want information and you refuse to provide it, they
> will saw off your head with a rusty hacksaw blade, videotape it and
> provide the tape to the television networks so your parents and
> children can watch you die. In Israel they routinely blow up busses and
> restaurants full of innocent people.
> 
> Thank Allah that they don't resort to prehistoric, subhuman tactics
> like putting panties on people's heads, forming naked pyramids, playing
> loud music, or turning down the air conditioner.

Okay, so you vote for legitimizing tactics employed by terrorists by 
incorporating those tactics into our interrogation procedures. So noted.

> Putz.

...by someone distinctive enough to express these views in Yiddish. 

No doubt your mother loves you very much anyway.

In article <sNKdnTAktNpE9ZLYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:

> John wrote:
> > <bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >>Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you 
> >>want to hear:
> ...<snip link to waterboarding torture technique>...
> > 
> > Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't 
> > resort to such inhuman tactics.  They just deliberately target 
> > women and children in mosques and schools and marketplaces and blow 
> > them up with car bombs.  
> ...<Snip rant about terrorists>...
> 
> I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to win a war on 
> terror then you gotta break some laws. Of course, you can't actually 
> 'win' such a war because there is always going to be another 
> terrorist, even if you have to train them yourself.
> 
> Anyone else have more frugal torture techniques? 

Sure, a pair of pliers and some fingernails. Oh, wait... the military 
spends $700 on a pair of pliers, so maybe that's not so frugal. Besides, 
only pussies care about their fingernails being pulled out. America 
needs something more effective to combat those Islamic fascists... how 
about sewing needles in the eyes? Sewing needles are cheap and 
interrogators could make a game of it, like darts.

> I hear that stun guns are popular method of "questioning" people here 
> in the United States. It's not considered torture unless they die on 
> you, maybe not even then.
> 
> Anthony

And if they die before giving you the info you want, or before you can 
torture them into admitting their guilt, it can't be "murder", because 
how can you murder anyone who is suspected of maybe being a possible 
potential terrorist sometime in the future? Torturers don't hurt people 
for no reason! Do they?

Now, it is possible that we might torture someone who our profile says 
could possibly turn into a terrorist at some point in the future. But 
that isn't wrong, it is precautionary, pre-emptive, you know? Like the 
Iraq war, it's all about protecting America.

It's all about keeping YOU and ME safe.

I guess like rape victims, torture victims were asking for it.

That's the kind of military it will take to win the "War On Terror". A 
brutal one. The kind of military that represents its civilian leaders 
well. The same rulers who represent us, the citizens, and what we stand 
for.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:09:07 -0600, timeOday
<timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>John�]                                                                 
>> Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't resort
>> to such inhuman tactics. 
>
>
>What does that have to do with anything?  My tax dollars aren't paying 
>the terrorists' salaries, so I don't have any say over them.
>
>It amazes me how eager some people are to assume that all the accused 
>are guilty of something.  That way, whatever punishment they get is 
>justified.  Too bad it's just wishful thinking.

Yeah, besides so many of our "leaders" thinking that torture is okay,
the same people think "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer
valid.  
But then, what would you expect from torturers? 
While I'm on it how about the wimps saying "if we don't get them
there, they'll follow us here."  When they say that - including that
torturing un-American wimp called "The President of the United States
of America, why doesn't anybody ask theses dipshits, "how?
Paratroopers?  Landing craft?  From subs onto beaches?
Doesn't "homeland security" cover invasions?
Maybe the "terrorists" will just pour over the Mexican border.
Anybody old enough to remember and have fought the cold war, where
we faced down a mighty military power who had thousands of nuke-tipped
missiles aimed at us has to shake his head in wonder at how this
so-called President and his buddies quiver in terror over a pack of
"sophisticated" ragheads.  Oh yeah, 9/11 shows their sophistication.
Buy some airline tickets and box-cutters.  Real sophisticated.    
These wimps, including that failed "warrior" Tommy Franks, couldn't
get Bin Laden because they're...wimps.  They outsourced that task
to Afghan ragheads at Tora Bora.  Why?  Because they were afraid
of casualties.  The men who would do the fighting weren't.  Just their
leaders.
And they could have even pursued him into the tribal areas of Pakistan
then, because the world still believed the lying words of Bush about
"those who harbor" this scum Bin Laden.
Bin Laden's head should have belonged to the U.S.
This shit of a President has squandered victory and honor, and now
wants us to countenance torture and "stay the course."
He's a low-life with a real big mouth.
When it is written this will be as shameful an era in U.S. history as
any previous.  I have never seen such a disgrace, and never felt
such shame for my country.  This is what happens when crackers
vote in other crackers.

--Vic  

"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:sNKdnTAktNpE9ZLYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> John wrote:
>> <bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you want 
>>>to hear:
> ...<snip link to waterboarding torture technique>...
>>
>> Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't resort
>> to such inhuman tactics.  They just deliberately target women and
>> children in mosques and schools and marketplaces and blow them up with
>> car bombs.
> ...<Snip rant about terrorists>...
>
> I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to win a war on
> terror then you gotta break some laws. Of course, you can't actually
> 'win' such a war because there is always going to be another terrorist,

And that terrorist will be you!



-- 
Sharktbbtfy 

Sharktbbtfy wrote:
> "Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message 
>>
>>...<snip link to waterboarding torture technique>...
>>...<Snip rant about terrorists>...
>>
>>I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to win a war on
>>terror then you gotta break some laws. Of course, you can't actually
>>'win' such a war because there is always going to be another terrorist,
> 
> And that terrorist will be you!

On that note (that anyone can be subject to torture)...

How to hold your breath.
http://www.wikihow.com/Hold-Your-Breath-for-Long-Periods-of-Time
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4964488.stm
http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/CharlesRemsberg/articles/98814/

Anthony

<bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message 
news:bearclaw-02D0A5.01000719092006@news.supernews.com...
><snip>
> That's the kind of military it will take to win the "War On Terror". A
> brutal one. The kind of military that represents its civilian leaders
> well. The same rulers who represent us, the citizens, and what we stand
> for.

Lead from an AP story in this morning's newspaper: "Al-Quida in Iraq warned 
Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West 
will go on until Islam takes over the world."

Just wondering, is there any part of that sentence that you're unclear on 
the meaning of? Or do you think the poor, misunderstood Islamists are just 
being misquoted? 

Speaking of frugal, is it possible to waterboard and waterski at the
same time?  That way, America's recreational boaters could win the War
on Terror, with grants fron DHS to cover their boat payments.

In article <a9TPg.7530$8e5.3375@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
 "Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote:

> <bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:bearclaw-02D0A5.01000719092006@news.supernews.com...
> ><snip>
> > That's the kind of military it will take to win the "War On Terror". A
> > brutal one. The kind of military that represents its civilian leaders
> > well. The same rulers who represent us, the citizens, and what we stand
> > for.
> 
> Lead from an AP story in this morning's newspaper: "Al-Quida in Iraq warned 
> Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West 
> will go on until Islam takes over the world."
> 
> Just wondering, is there any part of that sentence that you're unclear on 
> the meaning of? Or do you think the poor, misunderstood Islamists are just 
> being misquoted? 

No, Chloe, I understand the WHOLE statement. So what? It is from 
al-Qaeda. What else do you expect from them? Kisses and hugs?

Raggedy people on every street corner in every great population center 
on the planet have been mumbling the same senseless, mindless, idiotic 
crap for decades, if not centuries. 

So what? We should become torturers to satisfy what? 

Listen closely: torture doesn't work. Every regime in history that made 
torture the cornerstone of their military/intelligence has fallen, and 
rightly so. 

You really want to bring the "war" on terrorism home? Then legitimize 
torture, and get exactly what you deserve.

In article <190920061125334984%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> Do you mean legitimizing tactics employed by well-known terrorists 
> Bill Clinton and Janet Reno against women and children at Waco?

No, I mean legitimizing tactics used by al-Qaeda as George Bush wants 
to do. I know it is hard for you, but Clinton and Reno are gone. Their 
chapter is over. Now, it is your turn. What do you want to turn this 
country into?

> Where was your phony liberal outrage when they used loud music 
> through huge speakers and bright searchlights to deprive them of 
> sleep?

"Liberal", the damning word delusionals use when logic and reason 
fails.

In fact, you have no idea what my response was to Waco, Ruby Ridge and 
other actions taken by Clinton, or Johnson, or Nixon, or Ford or Carter 
or Reagan or H.W.

Now, in light of that, can we discuss W's advocacy of torture? 
Otherwise,  go killfile yourself.

> These people have declared war on us

Who? Please identify them. If you cannot (and I know you cannot), then 
their pissant war cries do not rise to the level of military response, 
and never did, even after 9/11. 

It is a POLICE/INTEL matter. The use of the military is entirely 
inappropriate and is the reason we are discussing torture today. And it 
is ALL the fault of George Bush and his band of merry men.

> 3000 innocent civilians are dead and you want to play childish 
> schoolyard games like this.

Or, you want to invite many, many more deaths, right here in our secure 
little nation.

> They *will* be back.  Perhaps when they kill 3000 more and 3000 more 
> and 3000 more you will finally get the message.

Well, if we are lucky, they will get all the torture advocates in this 
amd every other nation around the world. Because, brother, our country 
obviously ain't up to the task. And that's my message to you.

In article <190920061243093917%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> you can sit in your cozy little house and wait for the terrorists to 
> come and kill you.  They will, you know.  You heard it here first.

I'm shaking in my boots. I think you are afraid enough for the both of 
us.

In article <190920061243093917%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> Does the name bin-Laden mean anything to you?

Does it mean anything to President Bush? I didn't even need to look at 
your links to ask that.

In article <190920061243093917%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> So if you have a serial killer in your neighborhood, you tell the
> police to leave him alone because if you make him mad he might kill
> again?  How utterly silly.  We could bring every soldier home tomorrow
> and they would still do everything in their power to kill us.

Let's remember that the people we are talking about torturing (or just 
making a little uncomfortable, depending on your point of view) are NOT 
CHARGED with ANY CRIME. They are simply being detained.

Let's repeat that for effect: NO EVIDENCE. NO CHARGES. NO CRIME. JUST 
TORTURE.

They are being held without charges and without representation. They are 
being held at secret locations around the globe. No evidence is required 
for their detention. 

They are held in Guantanamo Bay. They are held by the hundreds, if not 
the thousands. They are scooped up in sweeps or found cowering after 
battle.

They might be hardened killers, determined to kill little Janie Smith 
sleeping in her bed on Main Street, USA. 

Or they might be taxi drivers. They might be housewives. Or children. We 
don't know, because the President, who wants to torture them, won't tell 
us.

These are the people whom our President wants our authority to torture 
without fear of legal reprisal. 

Is there any sane person who thinks this is a good idea?

In article <190920061243093917%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> So if you have a serial killer in your neighborhood, you tell the
> police to leave him alone because if you make him mad he might kill
> again?

Lovely. Your argument is, "because local police lawfully engage to 
apprehend a serial killer, our nation should unlawfully allow the 
President of the United States free reign to unlawfully torture 
detainees without evidence, trial or representation, just because they 
are suspected of being "unlawful combatants", a term we deliberately 
made up to avoid calling them prisoners of war so that we didn't have to 
afford them any opportunity to prove their innocence."

You cannot justify dysnomia (literally, "lawlessness") by pointing out 
the lawful procedures of criminal justice. Bush's plan flies in the face 
of both domestic and international law and utterly defies any concept of 
justice. 

Unfortunately for those who love torture, the Supreme Court agrees with 
this truth.

To quote from a Washington Post editorial:

"It is not possible for our elected representatives to hold any sort of 
honorable "debate" over torture. Bush says he is waging a "struggle for 
civilization," but civilized nations do not debate slavery or genocide, 
and they don't debate torture, either. This spectacle insults and 
dishonors every American."

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:29:26 GMT, "Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote:

><bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:bearclaw-02D0A5.01000719092006@news.supernews.com...
>><snip>
>> That's the kind of military it will take to win the "War On Terror". A
>> brutal one. The kind of military that represents its civilian leaders
>> well. The same rulers who represent us, the citizens, and what we stand
>> for.
>
>Lead from an AP story in this morning's newspaper: "Al-Quida in Iraq warned 
>Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West 
>will go on until Islam takes over the world."
>
>Just wondering, is there any part of that sentence that you're unclear on 
>the meaning of? Or do you think the poor, misunderstood Islamists are just 
>being misquoted? 
>
Let me get this straight.  You see a story about some anonymous group
called "Al-Quida in Iraq" threatening that Islam will take over the
world.
So then you think that means the U.S.A. should torture "suspects?"
What kind of thinking led you to that conclusion?
This type of flawed cause/effect "logic" is eerily similar to that
which has led our soldiers and many thousands of others to death in
that hell-hole called Iraq.
And that's the same "logic" which in fact created the anonymous group
"Al-Quida in Iraq."

--Vic 

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> To quote from a Washington Post editorial:

That makes it garbage right there.

Marsha/Ohio

In article <Dtidnal1re8gT4zYnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com>,
 Marsha <mas@ves.org> wrote:

> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> > To quote from a Washington Post editorial:
> 
> That makes it garbage right there.
> 
> Marsha/Ohio

Yeah. So sorry, but Mein Kampf doesn't address the issue.

In article <190920061929542245%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> Let's remember that you are blubbering, sputtering and grasping at 
> straws over nothing.

Let's remember just one interrogation technique only recently banned by 
the Bush Administration, and then only because of public outcry:

Waterboarding. Fiercely defended by the Executive Office as one of 
several "necessary" interrogation procedures that have foiled 
terrorists plots. 

Which plots? That's secret. 

How many plots? That's secret, too. 

Let's just say a lot.

Okay, one plot that we foiled by waterboarding is where the terrorists 
planned to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge. With a blowtorch. 

Damn those Islamo-fascists and their hand tools!

Okay, so how do we know that was *really* a terrorist plot? Sorry, 
that's a secret.

> Care to define it?  Has anyone in the administration at any time 
> asked for congressional authority to beat people, boil them in oil, 
> flog them, pull their fingernails out, or put them on a rack?

Sorry, that is secret. As Bush said, �I�m not going to talk about 
techniques. And, I�m not going explain to the enemy what we�re doing. 
All I�m telling you is that you�ve asked me whether or not we�re doing 
things to protect the American people, and I want the American people 
to know we are doing so.�

> Of course not.

Okay, then reassure me. You say it is so. Now have the President say 
it. Let's hear exactly what he and his interrogators HAVE done to 
extract information from these people held without charge or recourse. 
Let's hear it in detail, and let's find out exactly how effective it 
has been.

> Your childish argument is about whether we shold deprive them of 
> sleep or turn the air conditioner down. Wow; that's *real* torture.

Yeah, they have a name for it: "torture lite". Freezing prisoners, 
making prisoners stand upright for hours (a favorite punishment used on 
military recruits, but not for days or weeks on end), no sleep for days, 
and on and on. Torture Lite: an infinite variety of abuse that leaves 
few or no marks.

OOPS! I forgot. These aren't prisoners. They are detainees. "Unlawful 
combatants", although we don't need evidence that they were actually 
fighting or involved in combat in any way, shape or form.

> Please explain how we have "tortured" these islamic savages

I don't know about any savages. But as for the people we torture (who 
are not charged with any crime, remember):

I worked in a restaurant/food supple warehouse. There was a huge 
refrigerated section that held all the frozen food. They turned the A/C 
down _real_ low in there. The forklift drivers were limited to 15 
minute work sessions in that section. They wore heavy coats, gloves, 
knit hats, scarves over their mouths and insulated boots and trousers. 

When they emerged, thick frost would have already formed on their 
eyebrows, moustaches and beards. The ones who stayed too long literally 
had icicles hanging from their beards.

Now, imagine that you are naked, and the cold room measures 8 x 6 x 6 
feet; smaller than many closets. 

Imagine being locked inside as the room starts to cool. Imagine frost 
forming in your eyes, your nose, your lips, maybe even down your throat 
as you inhale the frigid air. In minutes, your skin turns blue. Your 
extremity flesh starts to harden as blood vessels freeze. Numbness 
gives way to incredible pain. 

Imagine begging to be let out as you shiver uncontrollably and the 
temperature drops further. Then, just as you are ready to lose 
consciousness, the door opens and two guards drag you out. You are 
questioned as you slowly recover. But you know nothing, and since you 
can't answer acceptably, they drag you back inside.

Now imagine that happening over and over and over again. Not for days. 
Not for weeks. But for MONTHS, maybe even YEARS. Some of the 
"detainees" have been held for more than four years. No charges. No 
representation. No chance to prove their innocence. 

Just torture. Yeah: REAL torture. Bonafide. Genuine. American. Torture.

> what the President is asking congressional permission to do.

Bush wants Congress to specify what his interrogators can and cannot 
do. 

This is totally opposed to the Geneva Convention, which-- after 
generations of warfare-- deliberately left the definition of torture as 
broad as possible because warfare showed that Man's cruelty knows no 
limits. It would be impossible to list every single means of torture 
imaginable to men who revel in such things.

Bush knows this. His advisors know it and so do the most bloodthirsty 
of his torturers. And now, you do, too. 

And don't get me started on the other part of Bush's plan: to immunize 
American torturers against criminal prosecution. 

We might as well throw the GC in the same Presidential trash can where 
he pissed on the Constitution, or as he calls it, "goddamned piece of 
paper".

In article <190920061919153823%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> Of course you won't look at the links; that would mean that you would 
> have to choke on these words:
> 
> > Who? Please identify them. If you cannot (and I know you cannot), 
> > then their pissant war cries do not rise to the level of military 
> > response, and never did, even after 9/11. 

> http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

Not choking yet. Nothing new there. 

> http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm

Worth reading if you don't understand why they "hate us". Still not war 
worthy.

> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Essentially a repeat of the outpost of freedom site. 

Great websites for the collected grievances of Osama bin Laden, 
tiresomely presented. Hardly justification for the torture of people 
who haven't been charged with any crime.

Anthony Matonak wrote:
> John wrote:
> > <bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you want
> >>to hear:
> ...<snip link to waterboarding torture technique>...
> >
> > Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't resort
> > to such inhuman tactics.  They just deliberately target women and
> > children in mosques and schools and marketplaces and blow them up with
> > car bombs.
> ...<Snip rant about terrorists>...
>
> I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to win a war on
> terror then you gotta break some laws. Of course, you can't actually
> 'win' such a war because there is always going to be another terrorist,
> even if you have to train them yourself.
>
> Anyone else have more frugal torture techniques? I hear that stun
> guns are popular method of "questioning" people here in the United
> States. It's not considered torture unless they die on you, maybe not
> even then.

Cutting out the middle man is a time-proven cost-savings technique.  In
the current system, a torturer (middle man#1) tortures some poor sap
(middle man #2) until he says what Vice-President Cheney (the customer)
wants to hear.  Why can't Cheney just say whatever he wants to say and
attribute it to a fictional captured prisoner? This cuts out two middle
men.

> 
> Anthony

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you want
> to hear:

Or in the case of several Al-Queda members, to tell you about 14
attacks they have planned so you can stop them and save American lives.

> I guess like rape victims, torture victims were asking for it.
>

I guess when you put terrorists and rape victims on the same moral
plane, I can understand why you're so confused.

> While I'm on it how about the wimps saying "if we don't get them
> there, they'll follow us here."  When they say that - including that
> torturing un-American wimp called "The President of the United States
> of America, why doesn't anybody ask theses dipshits, "how?

Through the Mexican border, obviously, with the other million illegals
that cross it every year.

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <190920061929542245%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
>  "John‰] 
>                                                                 "
>  <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Let's remember that you are blubbering, sputtering and grasping at
> > straws over nothing.
>
> Let's remember just one interrogation technique only recently banned by
> the Bush Administration, and then only because of public outcry:
>
> Waterboarding. Fiercely defended by the Executive Office as one of
> several "necessary" interrogation procedures that have foiled
> terrorists plots.
>
> Which plots? That's secret.
>
> How many plots? That's secret, too.

What would it matter to you if they came out and listed everything, you
wouldn't believe it anyway.

Vic Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:09:07 -0600, timeOday
> <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:
>
> >John‰]
> >> Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't resort
> >> to such inhuman tactics.
> >
> >
> >What does that have to do with anything?  My tax dollars aren't paying
> >the terrorists' salaries, so I don't have any say over them.
> >
> >It amazes me how eager some people are to assume that all the accused
> >are guilty of something.  That way, whatever punishment they get is
> >justified.  Too bad it's just wishful thinking.
>
> Yeah, besides so many of our "leaders" thinking that torture is okay,
> the same people think "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer
> valid.
> But then, what would you expect from torturers?
> While I'm on it how about the wimps saying "if we don't get them
> there, they'll follow us here."  When they say that - including that
> torturing un-American wimp called "The President of the United States
> of America, why doesn't anybody ask theses dipshits, "how?
> Paratroopers?  Landing craft?  From subs onto beaches?
> Doesn't "homeland security" cover invasions?
> Maybe the "terrorists" will just pour over the Mexican border.

I don't know how the "terrorists" would "follow us here."  Bush and
friends never say.  What I want to know is - why couldn't these
terrorists use the same method to go to America.  What is stopping them
from leaving Iraq and going to America?  Are American troops in Iraq
really sealing the borders and preventing people from leaving?

> Anybody old enough to remember and have fought the cold war, where
> we faced down a mighty military power who had thousands of nuke-tipped
> missiles aimed at us has to shake his head in wonder at how this
> so-called President and his buddies quiver in terror over a pack of
> "sophisticated" ragheads.  Oh yeah, 9/11 shows their sophistication.
> Buy some airline tickets and box-cutters.  Real sophisticated.
> These wimps, including that failed "warrior" Tommy Franks, couldn't
> get Bin Laden because they're...wimps.  They outsourced that task
> to Afghan ragheads at Tora Bora.  Why?  Because they were afraid
> of casualties.  The men who would do the fighting weren't.  Just their
> leaders.
> And they could have even pursued him into the tribal areas of Pakistan
> then, because the world still believed the lying words of Bush about
> "those who harbor" this scum Bin Laden.
> Bin Laden's head should have belonged to the U.S.
> This shit of a President has squandered victory and honor, and now
> wants us to countenance torture and "stay the course."
> He's a low-life with a real big mouth.
> When it is written this will be as shameful an era in U.S. history as
> any previous.  I have never seen such a disgrace, and never felt
> such shame for my country.  This is what happens when crackers
> vote in other crackers.
> 
> --Vic

bugme_69@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>
>I don't know how the "terrorists" would "follow us here."  Bush and
>friends never say.  
>


Shush - GW believes they don't know where to find us.  (We are hiding.)

On 21 Sep 2006 05:28:22 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> While I'm on it how about the wimps saying "if we don't get them
>> there, they'll follow us here."  When they say that - including that
>> torturing un-American wimp called "The President of the United States
>> of America, why doesn't anybody ask theses dipshits, "how?
>
>Through the Mexican border, obviously, with the other million illegals
>that cross it every year.

And illegal immigration is the only thing the Republican house has
right, but on that issue alone would get my vote if the opponent
is on the other side.  The Repub in my district doesn't even have a
position on his website and I had to e-mail him.
If he answers right he'll get my vote, as the Dem is on the wrong
side.  The Bush/Clinton side.  But my vote won't be enough. 
Now it's looking like because these Republican mutants rubber-stamped
everything Bush wanted (except illegal immigration) they will be
kicked out as the majority, at least in the House
Then the Dems will rename this country Amexida, which will make Bush,
Clinton and Globalist Corporate America very happy. 
Then reality will hit Globalist Corporate America when the unions
organize the new Amexidans.
Get ready for some big changes.  The center will not hold. 

--Vic   

On 21 Sep 2006 05:24:07 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>> Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you want
>> to hear:
>
>Or in the case of several Al-Queda members, to tell you about 14
>attacks they have planned so you can stop them and save American lives.


Unless, of course, there are 14 other plots that this bunch wasn't
told about...

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:50:45 -0500, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 21 Sep 2006 05:28:22 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> While I'm on it how about the wimps saying "if we don't get them
>>> there, they'll follow us here."  When they say that - including that
>>> torturing un-American wimp called "The President of the United States
>>> of America, why doesn't anybody ask theses dipshits, "how?
>>
>>Through the Mexican border, obviously, with the other million illegals
>>that cross it every year.
>
>And illegal immigration is the only thing the Republican house has
>right, but on that issue alone would get my vote if the opponent
>is on the other side.  The Repub in my district doesn't even have a
>position on his website and I had to e-mail him.
>If he answers right he'll get my vote, as the Dem is on the wrong
>side.  The Bush/Clinton side.  But my vote won't be enough. 
>Now it's looking like because these Republican mutants rubber-stamped
>everything Bush wanted (except illegal immigration) they will be
>kicked out as the majority, at least in the House
>Then the Dems will rename this country Amexida, which will make Bush,
>Clinton and Globalist Corporate America very happy. 
>Then reality will hit Globalist Corporate America when the unions
>organize the new Amexidans.
>Get ready for some big changes.  The center will not hold. 
>
Well, I got a reply back from the Republican opposing the incumbent
Democrat in my Congressional district, and replied back to him.
I can't vote for either candidate.  Complete correspondence below.

--Vic

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:43:21 -0700 (PDT) 
From: "Victor Smith" 
Subject: Re: Illegal Immigration 
To: info@shannonforcongress.com 
There seems to be a misunderstanding here.  I asked that question
because I'm an American residing in the 9th Congressional District,
not a Mexican.  Your answer indicates you're running for a Mexican
office, or an office in "those countries."
Sorry for the confusion.
 
--Vic

info@shannonforcongress.com wrote:
My "interest" is to work to help countries like Mexico build
employment opportunities for its citizens in those countries. Until we
do that, families in search of work opportunities will continue to
migrate north. And labor is like water...it finds the lowest level
(wages).
 
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Smith 
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 04:25 PM
To: info@shannonforcongress.com
Subject: Illegal Immigration


What is your position on illegal immigration?
 
--Vic

You have to respect George's judgement on these matters.  He is an imminent
constitutional scholar and a savvy veteran of the Alabama Air National
Guard.

He alone is breaking new ground in reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions.

And that little shit Musharraf is a bald-faced liar. Richard Armitage
actually said the U.S. would "bomb Pakistan back to the bronze age."  There
is a big difference.

<bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message
news:bearclaw-D87344.13543218092006@news.supernews.com...
> Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you want
> to hear:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding>
>
> �I�m not going to talk about techniques. And, I�m not going explain to
> the enemy what we�re doing. All I�m telling you is that you�ve asked me
> whether or not we�re doing things to protect the American people, and I
> want the American people to know we are doing so.�
>
> --George W. Bush

What was the Pope thinking?

I guess he wasn't.

"Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote in message
news:a9TPg.7530$8e5.3375@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> <bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bearclaw-02D0A5.01000719092006@news.supernews.com...
> ><snip>
> > That's the kind of military it will take to win the "War On Terror". A
> > brutal one. The kind of military that represents its civilian leaders
> > well. The same rulers who represent us, the citizens, and what we stand
> > for.
>
> Lead from an AP story in this morning's newspaper: "Al-Quida in Iraq
warned
> Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West
> will go on until Islam takes over the world."
>
> Just wondering, is there any part of that sentence that you're unclear on
> the meaning of? Or do you think the poor, misunderstood Islamists are just
> being misquoted?
>
>

Vic, I think you got it wrong.

We are there because the Iraqi people love freedom and democracy, just as we
told them they should. They are going to learn about the wonders of
democracy and free enterprise, wherein stock options can be back-dated and
given to a dead man.

And don't believe the stories about Schultz, Cheney, Rice, Bush, et. al.
saying that oil revenues would pay for the war and keep prices low.

I hope you invested in Exxon Mobil on 9/12/01 like everyone in Whitehorse
did.

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:21n0h2938egal4tjq7l56fgh176nn37f75@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:29:26 GMT, "Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote:
>
> ><bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:bearclaw-02D0A5.01000719092006@news.supernews.com...
> >><snip>
> >> That's the kind of military it will take to win the "War On Terror". A
> >> brutal one. The kind of military that represents its civilian leaders
> >> well. The same rulers who represent us, the citizens, and what we stand
> >> for.
> >
> >Lead from an AP story in this morning's newspaper: "Al-Quida in Iraq
warned
> >Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the
West
> >will go on until Islam takes over the world."
> >
> >Just wondering, is there any part of that sentence that you're unclear on
> >the meaning of? Or do you think the poor, misunderstood Islamists are
just
> >being misquoted?
> >
> Let me get this straight.  You see a story about some anonymous group
> called "Al-Quida in Iraq" threatening that Islam will take over the
> world.
> So then you think that means the U.S.A. should torture "suspects?"
> What kind of thinking led you to that conclusion?
> This type of flawed cause/effect "logic" is eerily similar to that
> which has led our soldiers and many thousands of others to death in
> that hell-hole called Iraq.
> And that's the same "logic" which in fact created the anonymous group
> "Al-Quida in Iraq."
>
> --Vic

"Furious George" <bugme_69@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158840248.764752.236610@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
> > John wrote:
> > > <bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you
want
> > >>to hear:
> > ...<snip link to waterboarding torture technique>...
> > >
> > > Well, we can thank Allah that the brutal Islamic savages don't resort
> > > to such inhuman tactics.  They just deliberately target women and
> > > children in mosques and schools and marketplaces and blow them up with
> > > car bombs.
> > ...<Snip rant about terrorists>...
> >
> > I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to win a war on
> > terror then you gotta break some laws. Of course, you can't actually
> > 'win' such a war because there is always going to be another terrorist,
> > even if you have to train them yourself.
> >
> > Anyone else have more frugal torture techniques? I hear that stun
> > guns are popular method of "questioning" people here in the United
> > States. It's not considered torture unless they die on you, maybe not
> > even then.
>
> Cutting out the middle man is a time-proven cost-savings technique.  In
> the current system, a torturer (middle man#1) tortures some poor sap
> (middle man #2) until he says what Vice-President Cheney (the customer)
> wants to hear.  Why can't Cheney just say whatever he wants to say and
> attribute it to a fictional captured prisoner? This cuts out two middle
> men.
>
> >
> > Anthony
>
Is that what they did to Colin Powell?  The last words he heard were "trust
me, Sadamm has WMD."

"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158841702.484357.225830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > While I'm on it how about the wimps saying "if we don't get them
> > there, they'll follow us here."  When they say that - including that
> > torturing un-American wimp called "The President of the United States
> > of America, why doesn't anybody ask theses dipshits, "how?
>
> Through the Mexican border, obviously, with the other million illegals
> that cross it every year.
>
Hey, we're going to put up a "virtual fence" to keep out those who want to
come here, not to kill us, but just to live a better life.

Just as the contract award for the virtual fence was being announced a
reporter asked why not a stone wall or a fence? What is wrong with low tech?
It worked in Berlin, in China, and for Hadrian.

The U.S. is building these gawd-awful concrete sound barriers on highways.
Why not take the same approach to the border?  Jeez, the feds can even hire
Mexicans to build the wall.  Every 25 miles there will be a supply depot
(Wal-Mart) where legals can cross.

Interesting stuff

RW Steel

bearclaw@cruller.invalid schreef:

> Useful technique for forcing others to tell you what they think you want
> to hear:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding>
>
> ³I¹m not going to talk about techniques. And, I¹m not going explain to
> the enemy what we¹re doing. All I¹m telling you is that you¹ve asked me
> whether or not we¹re doing things to protect the American people, and I
> want the American people to know we are doing so.²
> 
> --George W. Bush