- This topic has 425 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
Shadowfax.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 21, 2009 at 4:37 PM #385907April 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM #385280
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=scaredycat]we fetishize violence, and say we are for peace.
we fetishize and sexualize kids, and scream about pedophiles.
we scream about drugs, but we’re all doped up, on legal and illegal drugs.
we’re nuts!
“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”
-Charles Manson
>> [/quote]
A Special Forces Sergeant Major I used to work with had a great expression (it came out of the Vietnam War): “Killing for Peace is like Fucking for Chastity”.
There you go. Ben Tre Logic: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
Read Gore Vidal’s “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”, I think you’d find it interesting and edifying.
April 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM #385548Participant[quote=scaredycat]we fetishize violence, and say we are for peace.
we fetishize and sexualize kids, and scream about pedophiles.
we scream about drugs, but we’re all doped up, on legal and illegal drugs.
we’re nuts!
“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”
-Charles Manson
>> [/quote]
A Special Forces Sergeant Major I used to work with had a great expression (it came out of the Vietnam War): “Killing for Peace is like Fucking for Chastity”.
There you go. Ben Tre Logic: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
Read Gore Vidal’s “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”, I think you’d find it interesting and edifying.
April 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM #385745Participant[quote=scaredycat]we fetishize violence, and say we are for peace.
we fetishize and sexualize kids, and scream about pedophiles.
we scream about drugs, but we’re all doped up, on legal and illegal drugs.
we’re nuts!
“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”
-Charles Manson
>> [/quote]
A Special Forces Sergeant Major I used to work with had a great expression (it came out of the Vietnam War): “Killing for Peace is like Fucking for Chastity”.
There you go. Ben Tre Logic: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
Read Gore Vidal’s “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”, I think you’d find it interesting and edifying.
April 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM #385794Participant[quote=scaredycat]we fetishize violence, and say we are for peace.
we fetishize and sexualize kids, and scream about pedophiles.
we scream about drugs, but we’re all doped up, on legal and illegal drugs.
we’re nuts!
“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”
-Charles Manson
>> [/quote]
A Special Forces Sergeant Major I used to work with had a great expression (it came out of the Vietnam War): “Killing for Peace is like Fucking for Chastity”.
There you go. Ben Tre Logic: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
Read Gore Vidal’s “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”, I think you’d find it interesting and edifying.
April 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM #385932Participant[quote=scaredycat]we fetishize violence, and say we are for peace.
we fetishize and sexualize kids, and scream about pedophiles.
we scream about drugs, but we’re all doped up, on legal and illegal drugs.
we’re nuts!
“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”
-Charles Manson
>> [/quote]
A Special Forces Sergeant Major I used to work with had a great expression (it came out of the Vietnam War): “Killing for Peace is like Fucking for Chastity”.
There you go. Ben Tre Logic: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
Read Gore Vidal’s “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”, I think you’d find it interesting and edifying.
April 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM #385340luchabee
ParticipantInteresting discussion, all of it.
However, I don’t think we would be really having this discussion if these alternate histories had happened:
(1) The White House or Capitol were destroyed by the jet that was taken down by the passengers.
(2) AQ sent these jets into nuclear power plants instead of those buildings.
(3) Some of the larger, subsequent terror attacks weren’t foiled after 9/11.
These “anti-torture” stances seem so noble on a nice spring day with no recent attacks.
April 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM #385608ParticipantInteresting discussion, all of it.
However, I don’t think we would be really having this discussion if these alternate histories had happened:
(1) The White House or Capitol were destroyed by the jet that was taken down by the passengers.
(2) AQ sent these jets into nuclear power plants instead of those buildings.
(3) Some of the larger, subsequent terror attacks weren’t foiled after 9/11.
These “anti-torture” stances seem so noble on a nice spring day with no recent attacks.
April 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM #385805ParticipantInteresting discussion, all of it.
However, I don’t think we would be really having this discussion if these alternate histories had happened:
(1) The White House or Capitol were destroyed by the jet that was taken down by the passengers.
(2) AQ sent these jets into nuclear power plants instead of those buildings.
(3) Some of the larger, subsequent terror attacks weren’t foiled after 9/11.
These “anti-torture” stances seem so noble on a nice spring day with no recent attacks.
April 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM #385854ParticipantInteresting discussion, all of it.
However, I don’t think we would be really having this discussion if these alternate histories had happened:
(1) The White House or Capitol were destroyed by the jet that was taken down by the passengers.
(2) AQ sent these jets into nuclear power plants instead of those buildings.
(3) Some of the larger, subsequent terror attacks weren’t foiled after 9/11.
These “anti-torture” stances seem so noble on a nice spring day with no recent attacks.
April 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM #385992ParticipantInteresting discussion, all of it.
However, I don’t think we would be really having this discussion if these alternate histories had happened:
(1) The White House or Capitol were destroyed by the jet that was taken down by the passengers.
(2) AQ sent these jets into nuclear power plants instead of those buildings.
(3) Some of the larger, subsequent terror attacks weren’t foiled after 9/11.
These “anti-torture” stances seem so noble on a nice spring day with no recent attacks.
April 21, 2009 at 7:31 PM #385375KSMountain
ParticipantYou know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”
If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?
I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.
To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.
I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.
beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.
April 21, 2009 at 7:31 PM #385642ParticipantYou know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”
If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?
I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.
To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.
I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.
beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.
April 21, 2009 at 7:31 PM #385840ParticipantYou know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”
If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?
I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.
To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.
I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.
beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.
April 21, 2009 at 7:31 PM #385889ParticipantYou know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”
If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?
I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.
To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.
I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.
beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.