I wish some of you would get your terms right

[Michael Tee]

<<Perhaps at some point, you or Tee can actually demonstrate when and where our current President is lying about not supporting torture. >>

Oh, you're making it WAY too easy for me, sirs.  How about the Army covering up for three years that its Green Berets tortured prisoners to death in Afghanistan, including one guy whom they severely burned on the soles of his feet while beating him to death.  

Oh, OF COURSE, the "President" knew nothing about that, either.  Three years of torture scandals, and he never seems to know what's going on anywhere, does he?

(Take a look at my post "Is it torture if they only burn the soles of his feet?" for the link to the source.)

[Michael Tee]

<<As opposed to the current policy of beheadings and burning them alive? Yeah, I think it [burning the soles of their feet] would be an improvement.>>

The victim was also beaten to death.  Is that an improvement too?

[sirs]

How about the Army covering up for three years that its Green Berets tortured prisoners to death in Afghanistan

Excellent,  If it's so easy, you can produce the memo from Bush authorizing the cover-up, right?  Oh wait, this is going to be more of that lack of a memo actually proves the allegation, right?

[Amianthus]

The victim was also beaten to death.  Is that an improvement too?

Don't know if beating them to death is less painful than burning. Why don't you get me some facts on that?

[Michael Tee]

<<Excellent,  If it's so easy, you can produce the memo from Bush authorizing the cover-up, right?  Oh wait, this is going to be more of that lack of a memo actually proves the allegation, right?>>

No, sirs, YOU'RE right.  Murder after  murder, torture after torture, scandal after scandal, and yet the "President" of the United States of America and the Commander in Chief of its armed forces three years after the event knows NOTHING - - absolutely NOTHING - - about any of this.  He's as surprised by each new revelation as the man on the street.  How the heck would HE know any of this was going on?  If there's no memo authorizing a cover up, he knew nothing about a cover up.

OH-kay.

[sirs]

So, no memo, no proof, no nothing of any kind indicating that the President of the U.S, passed on his permission & support to some abhorent Green Berets to do what they wanted to some prisoners. 

Yep, more of that lack of proof is supposed proof crap again

[Michael Tee]

<<Yep, more of that lack of proof is supposed proof crap again>>

Nope, it's more of that "absence of smoking gun" is NOT proof of innocence" thing combined with "nobody could possibly have missed seeing things as often as the "President" claims to have missed seeing them."

Basically, more of that good old, plain old, common sense that you conservatives never had and never will have. 

[sirs]

it's more of that "absence of smoking gun" is NOT proof of innocence" thing combined with "nobody could possibly have missed seeing things as often as the "President" claims to have missed seeing them."

Naaa, more accurately it's the same tired lack of proof is supposed proof crap again.  Good idea about that sleep.  It's pretty apparent how transparently weaker your arguements keep getting

[_JS]

It was called "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)."

Thanks Ami. But if you'll read what I said I acknowledged the war in Iraq. Despite what you might think of me and leftists in general, I'm not an idiot, nor am I blind to the outside world. My problem is with the "war on terror(ism)."

Now Sirs, you said that these children were taught this at brith and that makes it a "malignancy" and an "infection." I have a few questions that I need answers on, because I don't understand this line of reasoning and why this makes it acceptable to go to war.

1. Children grow up. Clearly not all of them become violent suicide bombers and terrorists. As adults we make our own decisions, correct? Does that not diminish this "infection?"

2. What if a terrorist group denounces any religious symbolism and makes their case strictly political? Say, to free Palestine of apartheid policies? Do they still need to be attacked under this "war on terror" or are they no longer an Islamofascist threat?

3. What if, by bombing and using other methods to attack these groups, you are only driving more individuals to this cause by causing "collateral damage?" We've seen this effect in Cambodia, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland, will tactics change or will more attacks be necessary?

[Michael Tee]

<<Don't know if beating them to death is less painful than burning. Why don't you get me some facts on that?>>

Sure.  Why don't you take off your socks and shoes and stick out your foot.  Right . . . here.

[sirs]

Clearly not all of them become violent suicide bombers and terrorists. As adults we make our own decisions, correct? Does that not diminish this "infection?"

One can only hope

What if a terrorist group denounces any religious symbolism and makes their case strictly political? Say, to free Palestine of apartheid policies? Do they still need to be attacked under this "war on terror" or are they no longer an Islamofascist threat?

Depends on their actions, rhetoric, who's supporting them, and if they do or don't condemn actual militant Islam as the means to all and everything Allah

What if, by bombing and using other methods to attack these groups, you are only driving more individuals to this cause by causing "collateral damage?"

That is a legitimate "what if" concern, unlike Tee's asanine attempt.  A) we're not targeting and attacking innocent civilians as they do.  B) If we don't kill as many of them now, they grow in #'s regardless.  C) the more we take the battle to them there, and the more we kill them there, the less we have to deal with them here, on our own soil.

[_JS]

Depends on their actions, rhetoric, who's supporting them, and if they do or don't condemn actual militant Islam as the means to all and everything Allah

So, in theory, one can wage a political battle against a state like Israel and even use terrorism as a possible weapon, so long as they don't use Islam as an aspect of their assault? In that case they should theoretically not have to worry about the United States' war on terrorism (though of course Israel will still be looking for them).

A) we're not targeting and attacking innocent civilians as they do.  B) If we don't kill as many of them now, they grow in #'s regardless.  C) the more we take the battle to them there, and the more we kill them there, the less we have to deal with them here, on our own soil.

True, we're not targetting civilians specifically, but if we kill them then the end result is the same. In other words, if Ahmed's home just got shelled by American artillery and he lost his wife and daughter, I don't think he's going to care if you are sent to tell him "at least we didn't specifically target your wife and daughter like Hassan over there might have." Yet, after you leave, Hassan may come over there and say, "look, now do you see why the Americans have to go? You've got nothing left to lose Ahmed. Join us. Help us to send these murderers home."

See? You make an ethical clarification which is true, but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to those who suffer from collateral damage.

If we don't kill as many of them now, they grow in #'s regardless

That is an interesting point. That raises more questions for me.

1. Why are they growing in numbers?
2. Are we just trying to break even (i.e. keep their numbers down)?
3. Is this a war that can be "won?" Can we say at the end of a certain day that the war is over? Will there be a VT Day?

[Plane]

In every society and I suppose every Army there are people with poor judgement , or people who have a lapse in judgement .

In the US Army it is very clear that if you mistreat a Prisoner you will face procicution.


In some armys this is not so clear .

[sirs]

in theory, one can wage a political battle against a state like Israel and even use terrorism as a possible weapon, so long as they don't use Islam as an aspect of their assault?

In theory, anything is conceivable.  In reality, the battle against Israel is founded within the mutated interpretations of the Quran & Islam

if Ahmed's home just got shelled by American artillery and he lost his wife and daughter, I don't think he's going to care if you are sent to tell him "at least we didn't specifically target your wife and daughter like Hassan over there might have."...You make an ethical clarification which is true, but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to those who suffer from collateral damage.

Absolutely conceivable, and likely happens alot.  And I'm sure it doesn't hep with the Islmaic militants, the mullahs, and the terrorists, perseverate how the U.S doesn't care, and erroneusly even accuses the U.S. of targeting women & children.  and when you consider the emotional state many of these folks who have lost loved ones thru collateral damage, could join the bandwagon of believing such.  War is hell, isn't it.  If only Saddam had complied with the UN.

1. Why are they growing in numbers?
2. Are we just trying to break even (i.e. keep their numbers down)?
3. Is this a war that can be "won?" Can we say at the end of a certain day that the war is over? Will there be a VT Day?

1) Speculation on my part, but the combination of being indoctrinated in the movement practically out of the crib, the 24/7 media drumbeat both foreign & right here in the U.S. claiming how evil Bush and America is, the scenario of the 2nd question you posed, and likely many other factors playing along in that

2) No, the goal is in trying to kill as many of them as possible and prevent them from doing any damage to our citizenry here in the U.S.

3) Yes, but only if the Muslim community recognizes the threat growing among their ranks.  Only if they take an active part (not just us) in weeding them out and killing them.  It is in all practical purposes, a malignancy.  It can't be appeased, it can't be placated, it can't be made to be nice, by being nice.  It has to be surgically removed from the Muslim community, if the war is to be "won"

[sirs]