Scapegoat time at the CIA

[steeltoe]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53033

"One officer expressed concern that one day, Agency officers will wind up on some ‘wanted list’ to appear before the World Court for war crimes stemming from activities [phrase redacted],” said the IG report. “Another said, ‘Ten years from now we’re going to be sorry we’re doing this … [but] it has to be done."

I've got an idea, instead of investigating the folks on the ground how about the Senate members, former Pres and Vice Pres who signed off on the tactics. :up:

[RCjohn]

Wow, afraid the government won't back them up. Can't hardly blame them for those feelings. SOP for government boneheads.

[XFBO]

This is the kind of shit that creates majorily fvcked up morale issues at the ground level, this admin should be ashamed of themselves for airing this shit out in public. Other countries must be laughing their asses off at us.

Bank on this, chalk these actions up to another blunder and terror act in the not too far future.

[nycstripes]

Obama is running out of crap to blame the Bush administration for. My guess is that this can backfire and cause his popularity ratings to fall some more. Holder is an ass with no credibility since his office dropped the charges on the Black Panther voter scandals in Philly.
He's just the Distraction Czar for Obama.

[steeltoe]

Predictably, I knew you cats would find a way to put it on Obama. Um, newsflash, he wasn't on the radar at the time. These men and women were pushed into doing things they knew would bite them in the ass. Nothing to do with the current Admin and everything to do with legality. Now the folks who put the yoke on them are gone, like always.

Fact: Baby Bush blamed the CIA on Iraq, saying it provided crappy intelligence about WMD.

Fact:Cheney himself spearheaded the tactics the CIA knew would land them in hot water.

Tough to dispute the facts. CIA got crapped on left and right by Bush and Cheney. Now we find the Senate crapped on "the company" as well. Any way you look it it sucked to be a spook.

Where is Cheney now?

[J McStupidhead]

And the CIA lied to pelosi too, right :rolleyes:

[Orvis]

It appears that the Obama Presidency is headed for a short life, rightfully, and hopefully, so. These "investigations" against anything, and almost everything, that the CIA has done is not only stupid, it's extremely dangerous. Personally, I've never understood the tendency of the Democrat party to look at anything connected to National Security like they would a stepchild's worn out bicycle. It seems to be of no concern except for how they can gain some political miles out of the Republicans.

This latest thing about "investigating" the using of scare tactics during interrogations is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I mean, how can we scare those poor people that are trying to kill us by holding up an electric drill and spinning it a few time? what the hell? Are we going to drill for information. How deep do we have to drill? Is there horizontal drilling required? what kind of people are we that we might cause some nervous moments for our enemies? Do these Whitehouse people want us to sit down, and have pizza, and beer, with an enemy soldier? I know, let's exchange recipes with them. Is their Al Queda flatbread as good as our Indian flatbread? We need to know this stuff.







:rolleyes::)

[steeltoe]

And the CIA lied to pelosi too, right :rolleyes:
I doubt that. The CIA documentation seems pretty thorough on their reports to the Senate. But we'll never see her or any one of the rear echelon at the time in front of a jury. :Puke:

[cmra325]

I dont know about you guys but I sleep MORE soundly knowing that we use the necessary means to protect our freedom and safety.

[Czolgosz]

...

Bank on this, chalk these actions up to another blunder and terror act in the not too far future.

Another successful terrorist act is inevitable.

There's no amount of action the government can take to prevent it...aside from removing itself from all its entanglements and taking a neutral position in the world.

[Marcmcm]

I doubt that. The CIA documentation seems pretty thorough on their reports to the Senate. But we'll never see her or any one of the rear echelon at the time in front of a jury. :Puke:

Pelosi is in the House...but I still agree with you. :up:

[Joe Morris]

There's no amount of action the government can take to prevent it...aside from removing itself from all its entanglements and taking a neutral position in the world.

I think the Libertarian Party needs to map out this strategy and run with that in the next election. I think there is a growing sentiment that weilding international influence has been a futile masquarade that has only been convincing to the American people.

[steeltoe]

I dont know about you guys but I sleep MORE soundly knowing that we use the necessary means to protect our freedom and safety.

+1

Don't want to go to a secret CIA prison? Don't be fuggin round with Known Associates. These guys are supposed to strike fear in the heart of the enemy. C'mon everybody who ever worked construction has threatened someone with a drill before. At least I have.:D

[Czolgosz]

+1

Don't want to go to a secret CIA prison? Don't be fuggin round with Known Associates. These guys are supposed to strike fear in the heart of the enemy. C'mon everybody who ever worked construction has threatened someone with a drill before. At least I have.:D

Yet another thread getting all gayed up.

[XFBO]

Predictably, I knew you cats would find a way to put it on Obama. Um, newsflash, he wasn't on the radar at the time. These men and women were pushed into doing things they knew would bite them in the ass. Nothing to do with the current Admin and everything to do with legality. Now the folks who put the yoke on them are gone, like always.

Fact: Baby Bush blamed the CIA on Iraq, saying it provided crappy intelligence about WMD.

Fact:Cheney himself spearheaded the tactics the CIA knew would land them in hot water.

Tough to dispute the facts. CIA got crapped on left and right by Bush and Cheney. Now we find the Senate crapped on "the company" as well. Any way you look it it sucked to be a spook.

Where is Cheney now?Please, there is no partisanship when ppl on the ground level get fvcked by politicians. My point was THIS admin is airing this shit out in public. Some things are better off being kept a secret, if heads must roll then so be it but DO NOT air the shit out in public.

This is the problem with Obama, you and everyone who hated Bush so badly.....contrary to popular [liberal] belief everything SHOULD NOT be handled in the public's eye. Some shit needs to be kept quiet to keep outsiders from making a spectacle of us. And if you think for one second that BOTH parties dont sweep fvcked up shit under the rug, you're niave.

So what's the point of this thread anyway, to show BOTH parties are a bunch of fvck ups? Point taken, and even still some ppl think they can run every aspect of our lives better than we could.


Another successful terrorist act is inevitable.

There's no amount of action the government can take to prevent it...aside from removing itself from all its entanglements and taking a neutral position in the world. I agree it is inevitable but yet I disagree that we shouldnt be as prepared as possible if that's what you're suggesting, if not disregard. I do have a problem with how the laws limit LE from doing their jobs.

I also disagree with us removing ourselves from whatever and taking a neutral position. Islamic extremists will attack no matter our involvement cuz of the way we live our lives.

[Czolgosz]

I agree it is inevitable but yet I disagree that we shouldnt be as prepared as possible if that's what you're suggesting, if not disregard. I do have a problem with how the laws limit LE from doing their jobs.

I also disagree with us removing ourselves from whatever and taking a neutral position. Islamic extremists will attack no matter our involvement cuz of the way we live our lives.

I believe in the walk/talk softly and carry a big stick. So yes, we should be completely prepared and ready for offense & defense.

W/ regards to LE; the limits are there for a reason. Just as (if I've interpreted your overall views correctly) the Fed must be limited in scope so should LE w/ regards to our liberties.

On the topic of Islamic extremists; I can't say for certain that we'd have trouble w/ them today, but the probability is good that if we had no history of meddling perhaps the twin towers would still exist today.

[XFBO]

I believe in the walk/talk softly and carry a big stick. So yes, we should be completely prepared and ready for offense & defense.

Not a bad way to be so long as there's an emphasis on being 'prepared'. Which means not cutting back on defense spending.

W/ regards to LE; the limits are there for a reason. Just as (if I've interpreted your overall views correctly) the Fed must be limited in scope so should LE w/ regards to our liberties.

It's hard for me to get into this without bringing up specifics. In a nutshell, I believe the Patriot Act (specifically, wire tap and data mining) is a very important function for LE to stay up to speed. If certain aspects are removed it only makes conducting important investigations 'in a timely manner' much worse. And make no mistake about it, time means everything when related to terrorism.

On the topic of Islamic extremists; I can't say for certain that we'd have trouble w/ them today, but the probability is good that if we had no history of meddling perhaps the twin towers would still exist today. Well, that's just it, no one can say one way or the other. So let's say we take that approach, abandon our allies in the Middle East and whether it's one week or ten yrs, they get defeated. And we continue to stay out of that region but now they move onto Europe....then what? Do you see where Im heading?

Do we finally decide to get involved after 1, 2 or 3 countries are overrun or no we wait til they're knocking on our shore?

[Czolgosz]

Well, that's just it, no one can say one way or the other. So let's say we take that approach, abandon our allies in the Middle East and whether it's one week or ten yrs, they get defeated. And we continue to stay out of that region but now they move onto Europe....then what? Do you see where Im heading?

Do we finally decide to get involved after 1, 2 or 3 countries are overrun or no we wait til they're knocking on our shore?


I dig. But shouldn't Europe get their act together and manage their own affairs?

Outside of an actual attack and a request for backup I don't see that we have any business meddling over there. If they will allow their countries to be usurped by Islam then so be it, we don't need country or continent welfare.

Sharing intel and such, behind the scenes, is a-ok however.

[XFBO]

I dig. But shouldn't Europe get their act together and manage their own affairs?

Outside of an actual attack and a request for backup I don't see that we have any business meddling over there. If they will allow their countries to be usurped by Islam then so be it, we don't need country or continent welfare.

Sharing intel and such, behind the scenes, is a-ok however.Yes they should and trust me, I'd love to see the day when everyone gets along and we can spend our own money within our borders. However, that's not reality, Europe (let alone the M.E.) isnt quite as stable or economically sound as we are (even through this crisis) and I dont think it'd be wise to stay out, let some (Natzi like) force gain momentum and then attempt to take them on. IMHO, it'll cost a lot more money and lives doing it that way.

[Crackhead]

On the topic of Islamic extremists; I can't say for certain that we'd have trouble w/ them today, but the probability is good that if we had no history of meddling perhaps the twin towers would still exist today.Werd...

I dig. But shouldn't Europe get their act together and manage their own affairs?And double tru dat.

How many Western countries with no involvement in the Middle East have been under attack by extremists? Probably not a whole lot.

But as long as you have people willing to believe that "they hate us for our freedom", no reasonable conversation about this can take place.

[dasnd12]

I dont know about you guys but I sleep MORE soundly knowing that we use the necessary means to protect our freedom and safety.

I think Col. Jessup said it best:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

I think this perfectly applies to this situation..

[XFBO]

But as long as you have people willing to believe that "they hate us for our freedom", no reasonable conversation about this can take place.That can easily be said against what you believe. If you guys got your way and no one supports Israel, they will attempt to defeat them, no big deal to you right?

Ok now can you honestly sit there and think that'd be the end of the islamic extremists wishes?

I guess what Im trying to say is I highly doubt their dynasty will end with defeating Israel.....once done there will be another target. Who do you think it'll be?

[R Acree]

But as long as you have people willing to believe that "they hate us for our freedom", no reasonable conversation about this can take place.

If you are talking Islam, you have a point. Radical Islam, not so much. Well maybe they don't hate us for our freedom so much as what we do with it. Much of our way of life is offensive to them.

[Crackhead]

If you are talking Islam, you have a point. Radical Islam, not so much. Well maybe they don't hate us for our freedom so much as what we do with it. Much of our way of life is offensive to them.

I ask you again, how many Western countries with no involvement in the Middle East have been attacked by the radicals?

[Czolgosz]

I ask you again, how many Western countries with no involvement in the Middle East have been attacked by the radicals?

This could be an interesting stat.

[Crackhead]

I guess what Im trying to say is I highly doubt their dynasty will end with defeating Israel.....once done there will be another target. Who do you think it'll be?

Is that based on anything other than your personal beliefs?

Take the Taliban. As radical as it gets. Never been involved in shenanigans outside Afghanistan/Pakistan.

[steeltoe]

Rendition and interrogation guidelines are available to anyone looking to start their own business.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/082409/olcremand/2004olc97.pdf

[fjrfencer]

This could be an interesting stat.

Umm, I cant think of ANY western country with NO involvement in the middle east. not even New Zealand Can you?
p.s. Switzerland does not count

[Czolgosz]

Umm, I cant think of ANY western country with NO involvement in the middle east. not even New Zealand Can you?
p.s. Switzerland does not count

hmmm I guess maybe we're talking about level of involvement (aka meddling).

[R Acree]

I ask you again, how many Western countries with no involvement in the Middle East have been attacked by the radicals?

Give me a hint on which one you are thinking of, because I can't think of one that hasn't been involved with the possible exception of Germany and they have had attacks.

[HPPT]

Umm, I cant think of ANY western country with NO involvement in the middle east. not even New Zealand Can you?
p.s. Switzerland does not count

Somehow, I doubt he was talking about countries that are just trade partners.

[fjrfencer]

I have never under stood why we (the USA) has to be the good guy and "play by the rules" when our enemy has never even seen a copy of the rule book.

I am perfectly ok with beheading captured terrorist myself. milk them for all the info you can,(any way you can get it). treat them the same way we know our captives have been treated, and be done with it.

if you kill your enemy, you dont have to worry about a second attack

[fjrfencer]

Somehow, I doubt he was talking about countries that are just trade partners.

NZ has troops on the ground in the middle east, likewise with france, england, germany (at one point)

[XFBO]

I have never under stood why we (the USA) has to be the good guy and "play by the rules" when our enemy has never even seen a copy of the rule book.

I am perfectly ok with beheading captured terrorist myself. milk them for all the info you can,(any way you can get it). treat them the same way we know our captives have been treated, and be done with it.

if you kill your enemy, you dont have to worry about a second attackMy feelings arent far from yours except that I'd only like to see that done to ppl who are 100% guilty, wther they're caught in action or in a training camp.

The problem with liberals is they will say we're no better than them if we do the same thing, which is clear and utter BS. Those animals will kill and torture 'anyone' who opposes their views/fight. If and when we do it, it would be terrorists. This country has become too soft for wars.

[gixxerreese]

When will we wake up and admit that what we did is nothing compared to chooping off heads. Have any of you who support the aclu going after the cia ever watched a video of them chopping someones head off.

Art. 13. Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to it, such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers and contractors, who fall into the enemy's hands and whom the latter thinks expedient to detain, are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they are in possession of a certificate from the military authorities of the army which they were accompanying

CHAPTER I
The qualifications of belligerents

Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer
corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army

Rule 1. The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians. [IAC/NIAC]

Rule 2. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. [IAC/NIAC]

Rule 3. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel. [IAC]

Rule 4. The armed forces of a party to the conflict consist of all organised armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates. [IAC]

Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. [IAC/NIAC]

Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. [IAC/NIAC]

It seems to me terrorist break every existing law of war there is so who should really be on trial

[Orvis]

hmmm I guess maybe we're talking about level of involvement (aka meddling).


Well, now we need to define "meddling." :)

[Orvis]

One thing that has always puzzled me is that we have "rules" of war. We are willing to kill our enemies but it must be done according to the "rules?" I'm a firm believer that one of the reasons that it's so easy to go to war is because of these "rules." We need to make war so utterly horrible that no one wants to do it anymore. There is absolutely nothing sophisticated, or gentlemanly, about war, and we need to stop trying to make it that way.

[XFBO]

IMHO, the rules should have been tossed the minute we engaged in battle with a bunch fo faceless cowards with no organized military/uniforms. Why we honor 'rules' at the risk of another American (or allied) soldier being killed is beyond comprehension....why? so some politician can feel good about themselves in the comfort of their own home while smoking a stogie?

[HPPT]

NZ has troops on the ground in the middle east, likewise with france, england, germany (at one point)

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove at this point. Both France and England have been attacked.

I thought the original challenge was for you to come up with a list of countries that have been attacked despite their lack of meddling with Middle East affairs. Somehow, you took that into a direction I'm not following anymore. :confused:

[fjrfencer]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove at this point. Both France and England have been attacked.

I thought the original challenge was for you to come up with a list of countries that have been attacked despite their lack of meddling with Middle East affairs. Somehow, you took that into a direction I'm not following anymore. :confused:

the challenge really is to find a country that is not "meddling" really (hence NZ), not one that has not been attacked IMO

an by attacked do we mean airplanes flown into buildings, subways blown up, or just kidnappings for ransom?

[fjrfencer]

One thing that has always puzzled me is that we have "rules" of war. We are willing to kill our enemies but it must be done according to the "rules?" I'm a firm believer that one of the reasons that it's so easy to go to war is because of these "rules." We need to make war so utterly horrible that no one wants to do it anymore. There is absolutely nothing sophisticated, or gentlemanly, about war, and we need to stop trying to make it that way.

:stupid:

[Crackhead]

the challenge really is to find a country that is not "meddling" really (hence NZ), not one that has not been attacked IMO
You are wrong, I clearly said the following:

How many Western countries with no involvement in the Middle East have been under attack by extremists? Probably not a whole lot.
I ask you again, how many Western countries with no involvement in the Middle East have been attacked by the radicals?


an by attacked do we mean airplanes flown into buildings, subways blown up, or just kidnappings for ransom?Terrorist attack in a country with no history of meddling in the Middle East. Kidnapping foreigners in Iraq or in Afghanistan doesn't count.

[XFBO]

Im not as well versed in world politics as I should be but isnt there a lot of horrible sh!t going on in some African countries due to AQ influence? Nor do I believe they've had any or much involvement in the ME???

Now if you prove me wrong on their involvement, then Id ask you to give me a list of countries who havent had any involvement. LOL!

[Crackhead]

Well, I wasn't thinking about places like Somalia when I said Western countries, but clearly you guys will say anything to be right. :D

[XFBO]

Forgive me for not sticking to "Western" countries...:D.....but seriously, if not mistaken, your point is that if we dont meddle into ME issues we wouldnt have problem with islamic whackos. Yes?

If that were the case, why are they in African countries stiring sh!t up?

[Crackhead]

Forgive me for not sticking to "Western" countries...:D.....but seriously, if not mistaken, your point is that if we dont meddle into ME issues we wouldnt have problem with islamic whackos. Yes?

If that were the case, why are they in African countries stiring sh!t up?

Muslim extremists stirring shit up in predominantly Muslim countries (even if they are in Africa) fall outside the scope of the point I was making.

Give me a Norway, or a Belgium, or a Brazil, or something.

[XFBO]

Ohhh ok, well in that case I'll just quote you now. :D

but clearly you guys will say anything to be right. :D


What about France? I dont believe they engaged in the Iraq or Afghan War.

[Crackhead]

What about France? I dont believe they engaged in the Iraq or Afghan War.

I suppose you're right. They were only selling weapons and technology to Saddam Hussein, and they only have a few thousand people currently fighting the war in Afghanistan.

Are you serious with these questions?

Hey, if it is your opinion that we should be involved in wars in the Middle East so that Somalia can be safe from Al Qaeda, that's fine. Just say that. :D

[steeltoe]

More details of torture (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore).

[fjrfencer]

You are wrong, I clearly said the following:
.....



Terrorist attack in a country with no history of meddling in the Middle East. Kidnapping foreigners in Iraq or in Afghanistan doesn't count.

Blah blah blah
If you missed the bold type

THE CHALLENGE is to find a western country with NO involvement in the M.E.
You acknowledge France had no troops on the ground, but sold technology.

Every country has its hand in another country's business to some extent.

SO I CHALLENGE YOU to prove me wrong, If you can do that, I'll work on your meddling.

I think you have to prove no involvement before you can prove no attacks in retribution (that was the point I was trying to make):Poke:

[In Your Corner]

Blah blah blah
If you missed the bold type

THE CHALLENGE is to find a western country with NO involvement in the M.E.
You acknowledge France had no troops on the ground, but sold technology.

Every country has its hand in another country's business to some extent.

SO I CHALLENGE YOU to prove me wrong, If you can do that, I'll work on your meddling.

I think you have to prove no involvement before you can prove no attacks in retribution (that was the point I was trying to make):Poke:

So is it your point that retribution correlates to involvement of any kind? Involvement equates to retribution, is that the logic you're trying to sell?

[nycstripes]

No amount of meddling political or otherwise justifies Muslim extremist behavior. Period. All of these nations have a government, the extremists are a fringe segment and should be put down with "extreme prejudice". If the meddling was intolerable on any level, someone should have stepped up with diplomatic means. Their tactics involve the wholesale murder of anyone involved Muslim or not.
Their treatment of their own people should be evidence enough of their inability to live as modern human beings.

[Czolgosz]

W/ all these hands screwing around in the ME no wonder they hate the West. :crackup:

[sheepofblue]

Muslim extremists stirring shit up in predominantly Muslim countries (even if they are in Africa) fall outside the scope of the point I was making.

Give me a Norway, or a Belgium, or a Brazil, or something.
Russia

[Crackhead]

Blah blah blah
If you missed the bold type

THE CHALLENGE is to find a western country with NO involvement in the M.E.
You acknowledge France had no troops on the ground, but sold technology.

Every country has its hand in another country's business to some extent.

SO I CHALLENGE YOU to prove me wrong, If you can do that, I'll work on your meddling.

I think you have to prove no involvement before you can prove no attacks in retribution (that was the point I was trying to make):Poke:Learn to read better: I said they have thousands of troops in Afghanistan. Here, I did your homework for you. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,417242,00.html) Now you have no excuse for being ignorant on this topic.

So is it your point that retribution correlates to involvement of any kind? Involvement equates to retribution, is that the logic you're trying to sell?I don't think there is any logic in what he's saying.

No amount of meddling political or otherwise justifies Muslim extremist behavior. Period.I don't think anyone said it was justified.

Russia
Is this a joke? I make an effort to somewhat educate myself before getting involved in discussions here, I wish you guys would extend me the same courtesy.

There are no Jordanians or Iraqis blowing themselves up in Moscow. Maybe you are referring to the major hostage crises in a theater and in a school? Have you heard of Chechnya, and Russia's involvement there? I think this may have something to do with angering people like Shamil Basayev... OK, even if you haven't, surely you've heard about the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Russia has angered a few Muslims, believe me.

[sheepofblue]

...
Is this a joke? I make an effort to somewhat educate myself before getting involved in discussions here, I wish you guys would extend me the same courtesy.

There are no Jordanians or Iraqis blowing themselves up in Moscow. Maybe you are referring to the major hostage crises in a theater and in a school? Have you heard of Chechnya, and Russia's involvement there? I think this may have something to do with angering people like Shamil Basayev... OK, even if you haven't, surely you've heard about the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Russia has angered a few Muslims, believe me.
You asked about European countries attacked by Muslims. Chechnya was exactly what I was thinking about. It is in Russia, not the middle east (bordering it I believe) They stayed a long way out of Iraq though. The reality is that Islamic Fascists want to rule the world as they think G__ commands. They tend to create chaos wherever they are capable. The reality is that the trouble they cause is closer to their home since that is what they can do. They are even really good at killing their fellow Muslims. However they will also target any other place they are allowed in. Of course if you refine your argument lower and lower, then no they are not an issue. However the reality is that there is trouble from Muslims in China, Russia, England, Belgium, USA, Indonesia, Australia and the list goes on. What part of sawing a kids head off on video with a dull knife did you not understand :confused:

[Crackhead]

You asked about European countries attacked by Muslims. Chechnya was exactly what I was thinking about. It is in Russia, not the middle east (bordering it I believe) They stayed a long way out of Iraq though. The reality is that Islamic Fascists want to rule the world as they think G__ commands. They tend to create chaos wherever they are capable. The reality is that the trouble they cause is closer to their home since that is what they can do. They are even really good at killing their fellow Muslims. However they will also target any other place they are allowed in. Of course if you refine your argument lower and lower, then no they are not an issue. However the reality is that there is trouble from Muslims in China, Russia, England, Belgium, USA, Indonesia, Australia and the list goes on. What part of sawing a kids head off on video with a dull knife did you not understand :confused:

OK, perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. This is exactly what I meant to say: if you don't go meddle in their country, they don't follow you home and attack you there. I guess I made it confusing by mentioning the Middle East, but I was thinking about how this relates to the US when I said that.

Regarding the examples you listed, a few of them have invaded Muslim countries. Belgium hasn't, to my knowledge, but I don't remember them being attacked either. Russia, I just told you: they are very much involved in Chechnya. I don't remember any terrorist attacks in Australia. Indonesia is a Muslim country, that's a different kind of issue.

That leaves China. Who the fuck really knows what happens there?

[R Acree]

That leaves China. Who the fuck really knows what happens there?

China plays by pretty much the same rules of engagement as the extremists. Add to that the sheer numbers and there is nothing to gain by attacking.

[XFBO]

I don't remember any terrorist attacks in Australia.Here I did some homework for you too. :D

Does it have to be a full out attack or is a planned one, regardless of size, good enough?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_terror_plot

[nycstripes]

Here I did some homework for you too. :D

Does it have to be a full out attack or is a planned one, regardless of size, good enough?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_terror_plot

More...article from last September
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/asia/15iht-terror.1.16157999.html

From 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/08/australia.bernardoriordan

[Crackhead]

Here I did some homework for you too. :D

Does it have to be a full out attack or is a planned one, regardless of size, good enough?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_terror_plot

I knew about the plot, I was just making a remark that I don't remember an attack actually taking place in Australia.

He had already lost the argument when he mentioned Australia in the first place. Did you know that they sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan? You're not very good with homework. :D Remember a part in my post where I said "a few of them have invaded Muslim countries"? That was the clue. ;)

[sheepofblue]

I knew about the plot, I was just making a remark that I don't remember an attack actually taking place in Australia.

He had already lost the argument when he mentioned Australia in the first place. Did you know that they sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan? You're not very good with homework. :D Remember a part in my post where I said "a few of them have invaded Muslim countries"? That was the clue. ;)
Only because you failed to read my point. The fact is that Islamic Fascists are bent on subjugating EVERYONE everywhere. They are vicious buggers that will saw a persons head off with a dull knife and enjoy doing so. No you cannot appease them, no it is not our fault. That same type of thinking enabled WWII to be a lot worse. Millions died as people admired Hitler's management of Germany and tried to get along. To this day asking people from Asia if they are Japanese (when they are not) is perceived as an insult. This because the Japanese were also ruthless and thought the emperor was G__ and they could do anything and it was OK. How many died for that? How many more were enslaved?

You can try to narrowly define the issue until you create a delusion of being correct however that will not change the nature of evil people (nor protect you). Sadly this will not be clear enough for you either.

Oh and many of the appeasers and sympathizers for Hitler and Communism came from the Inteligensia just like today. This despite the history of communism killing those idiots first.

[Crackhead]

Only because you failed to read my point. The fact is that Islamic Fascists are bent on subjugating EVERYONE everywhere. They are vicious buggers that will saw a persons head off with a dull knife and enjoy doing so. No you cannot appease them, no it is not our fault. That same type of thinking enabled WWII to be a lot worse. Millions died as people admired Hitler's management of Germany and tried to get along. To this day asking people from Asia if they are Japanese (when they are not) is perceived as an insult. This because the Japanese were also ruthless and thought the emperor was G__ and they could do anything and it was OK. How many died for that? How many more were enslaved?

You can try to narrowly define the issue until you create a delusion of being correct however that will not change the nature of evil people (nor protect you). Sadly this will not be clear enough for you either.

Oh and many of the appeasers and sympathizers for Hitler and Communism came from the Inteligensia just like today. This despite the history of communism killing those idiots first.

You are the one trying to create diversions by going back to Hitler and the Japanese. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

You have repeatedly failed to answer the simple question I asked which started us down this path and keep trying to dance around that fact. No one here said anything about appeasing extremists are trying to reason with them. It is obvious that no amount of talking to them is going to have any effect after you have invaded them.

What's really sad here is you do not understanding that we're not dealing with a state, and we're not going to win this "war." Germany is a state, so is Japan. Your comparison was irrelevant, besides the fact that it failed as a diversion.

[sheepofblue]

You are the one trying to create diversions by going back to Hitler and the Japanese. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

You have repeatedly failed to answer the simple question I asked which started us down this path and keep trying to dance around that fact. No one here said anything about appeasing extremists are trying to reason with them. It is obvious that no amount of talking to them is going to have any effect after you have invaded them.

What's really sad here is you do not understanding that we're not dealing with a state, and we're not going to win this "war." Germany is a state, so is Japan. Your comparison was irrelevant, besides the fact that it failed as a diversion.
I did but you disagreed. As I do with you. But thanks for making my point more clear by again dismissing anything that conflicts with your opinion. Just leave them alone sounds nice but fails throughout history.... oops cannot use previous knowledge gained through the death of millions :Pop:

[fjrfencer]

Belgium hasn't, to my knowledge, but I don't remember them being attacked either. ?

I was just being lazy and wanted you to put the rope around you neck.

first hit on terrorist attack in Belgium from google

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/12/world/fg-terror12
, Belgian police today arrested 14 suspects allegedly linked to Al Qaeda, including one believed to be on the verge of launching a suicide attack


fortunately they were able to prevent the event from happening by arresting 14 terrorist

How bout Amsterdam?

http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/620-amsterdam-escapes-terrorist-attack

All you have to do is google terrorist attack and whatever country you think is not subject to it. GEEZ

[fjrfencer]

So is it your point that retribution correlates to involvement of any kind? Involvement equates to retribution, is that the logic you're trying to sell?

More or less.

The extremist who would attack you, view any foriegn activity in their country as a outside influence they do not want

[HPPT]

All you have to do is google terrorist attack and whatever country you think is not subject to it. GEEZ

You guys are still going on this? So far, you have not produced a single attack. His question asked where they had been one; nothing about alleged plots.

[sheepofblue]

You guys are still going on this? So far, you have not produced a single attack. His question asked where they had been one; nothing about alleged plots.
Yep heaven for bid they defended themselves from an unwarranted attack. No answer was going to satisfy his question since he did not want to hear it (even if true) Better to put the head in the sand and no one will see you or harm you (ask any Ostrich)

[glenngsxr]

This topic has gone down a weird path, so I want to take it back to the original idea.

We are the United States for god sakes. We have a pride and a duty to hold the higher morale ground and not torture, regardless of what circumstances are behind it. We are not a torturing country and since when did this become ok? We have a doctrine that you are innocent until proven guilty and it has allowed us wonderful freedoms and basic rights. If you think the other way around is acceptable, then you are standing on the most slippery slope imaginable. We cannot simply say it's ok to torture people because they commit mindless acts on us. That's not the way the US operates and it cannot operate like this going forward. Yes, it sounds wonderful and badass to say, "they cut our heads off, so let's torture them". Our founding fathers would be terrified to hear those statements coming from a country it worked so hard to defend and create.

We did the right thing by having the Nurembourg Trials, so why not do the right thing here? We need to put out partisan ideals aside and do the right thing. Glenn #62

[Czolgosz]

This topic has gone down a weird path, so I want to take it back to the original idea.

We are the United States for god sakes. We have a pride and a duty to hold the higher morale ground and not torture, regardless of what circumstances are behind it. We are not a torturing country and since when did this become ok? We have a doctrine that you are innocent until proven guilty and it has allowed us wonderful freedoms and basic rights. If you think the other way around is acceptable, then you are standing on the most slippery slope imaginable. We cannot simply say it's ok to torture people because they commit mindless acts on us. That's not the way the US operates and it cannot operate like this going forward. Yes, it sounds wonderful and badass to say, "they cut our heads off, so let's torture them". Our founding fathers would be terrified to hear those statements coming from a country it worked so hard to defend and create. ...

:beer:

[sheepofblue]

This topic has gone down a weird path, so I want to take it back to the original idea.

We are the United States for god sakes. We have a pride and a duty to hold the higher morale ground and not torture, regardless of what circumstances are behind it. We are not a torturing country and since when did this become ok? We have a doctrine that you are innocent until proven guilty and it has allowed us wonderful freedoms and basic rights. If you think the other way around is acceptable, then you are standing on the most slippery slope imaginable. We cannot simply say it's ok to torture people because they commit mindless acts on us. That's not the way the US operates and it cannot operate like this going forward. Yes, it sounds wonderful and badass to say, "they cut our heads off, so let's torture them". Our founding fathers would be terrified to hear those statements coming from a country it worked so hard to defend and create.

We did the right thing by having the Nurembourg Trials, so why not do the right thing here? We need to put out partisan ideals aside and do the right thing. Glenn #62
So you are against the training we give out military? You see, we water board them, yet only water boarded a single terrorist. Oh and as to the lie of the Geneva conventions make this illegal, there is a section on terrorists and battle field execution are allowed for irregulars. Further the Geneva convention only applies to signatories which are in compliance (the Islamists are neither) The other extreme torture was putting panties on someones head :wow:, discussing hurting their families:wow:, putting a drill near their face and pulling the trigger :wow:, etc.

There was journalists VOLUNTEERING to see what it was like being water boarded. Compare that to what was done to ANY of our captured soldiers, how many journalists would volunteer for 1/100 of what they went through? Certainly we should and DO maintain higher standards but the current thinking is getting silly. I suppose for the next war we will have to send a letter of apology to the target and their immediate family before we can fire on the :down:

[glenngsxr]

So you are against the training we give out military? You see, we water board them, yet only water boarded a single terrorist. Oh and as to the lie of the Geneva conventions make this illegal, there is a section on terrorists and battle field execution are allowed for irregulars. Further the Geneva convention only applies to signatories which are in compliance (the Islamists are neither) The other extreme torture was putting panties on someones head :wow:, discussing hurting their families:wow:, putting a drill near their face and pulling the trigger :wow:, etc.

There was journalists VOLUNTEERING to see what it was like being water boarded. Compare that to what was done to ANY of our captured soldiers, how many journalists would volunteer for 1/100 of what they went through? Certainly we should and DO maintain higher standards but the current thinking is getting silly. I suppose for the next war we will have to send a letter of apology to the target and their immediate family before we can fire on the :down:

Yes, we give this training to our military to expose them to what they might face in hostile areas. That's why it is called training. The waterboarding they are referring to happened over 160 times to this one individual alone. Do you think it's ok to put a black sheet over someone's head and make a drilling sound by them as to make them think you are gonna drill through their head? If you oversimplify it, as you did, sure it was merely a drill, merely discussing hurting someone's families(which is wrong in ANY aspect), and merely panties on the head. My point is that torture is wrong in every aspect, regardless of what the Geneva conventions say. We don't do it as Americans and it CANNOT be acceptable as it makes a very slippery slope. Convict the man of his crimes and put him to sleep, but don't torture the shit out of him. That's not right regardless of what he/she did.

[glenngsxr]

Oh and as to the lie of the Geneva conventions make this illegal, there is a section on terrorists and battle field execution are allowed for irregulars.

BTW, our former president made the change in the Geneva Conventions to make this little rule. I wonder what the hell for?

[HPPT]

Yep heaven for bid they defended themselves from an unwarranted attack. No answer was going to satisfy his question since he did not want to hear it (even if true) Better to put the head in the sand and no one will see you or harm you (ask any Ostrich)

I believe the question was whether any Western countries that have not meddled in the region had been attacked on home soil. If you listed any such countries, it wasn't in this thread.

[Crackhead]

No answer was going to satisfy his question since he did not want to hear it (even if true) Better to put the head in the sand and no one will see you or harm you (ask any Ostrich)
An answer to my question would have satisfied me. You have proved yourself to be very good at answering questions that were not asked in order to avoid the one that was. And to make it worse, you are convinced that having the last word somehow makes you right. So go ahead, say one more thing that doesn't answer the question so you can feel you are correct. You may have the last word. :D

[XFBO]

So far, you have not produced a single attack. His question asked where they had been one; nothing about alleged plots.You cant be serious?

Whether the attack happened or not is irrelevant, he was suggesting that if a country hasnt meddled in M.E. affairs they would be safe. It appears as if fjr found a country or two who havent meddled and still had a potential attack that was averted.

I, for one, wouldnt mind hearing how he's gonna explain or defend his position.

[fjrfencer]

You guys are still going on this? So far, you have not produced a single attack. His question asked where they had been one; nothing about alleged plots.

So how many attacks has the USA had on home soil? the answer?

1
I believe it occurred 9/11/01

we have thwarted numerious attacks before and since.

I want to make sure I get this straight.
To satisfy your question, you want the police/govt agencies to have failed in their duties to protect its citizens, and have the citizens die or mangeled in an attack.

in otherwords, if Jack Bauer comes in and clips the red wire with one second left on the nuclear bomb timer, the bomb does not go off, the attack did not happen?:Poke:

[steeltoe]

So how many attacks has the USA had on home soil? the answer?

1
I believe it occurred 9/11/01

we have thwarted numerious attacks before and since.

I want to make sure I get this straight.
To satisfy your question, you want the police/govt agencies to have failed in their duties to protect its citizens, and have the citizens die or mangeled in an attack.

in otherwords, if Jack Bauer comes in and clips the red wire with one second left on the nuclear bomb timer, the bomb does not go off, the attack did not happen?:Poke:

Well there was that little NYC Trade Center bomb. And hundreds of attacks on US tourists and military personnel worldwide prior to 9-11.

[fjrfencer]

We have a doctrine that you are innocent until proven guilty and it has allowed us wonderful freedoms and basic rights.

Yes, We do have a doctrine. A doctrine for AMERICAN CITIZENS. this doctrine does not apply (although the bleeding liberals are allowing it too) illegal aliens or TERRORIST.

Before you answer this post, ask yourself this.

I am an American, traveling in Turkey, someone put an illegal substance in my luggage hoping to get it through security.
It happened without my knowledge.
It is found.
I am arrested.
I tell them , I am innocent until proven guilty, I am entitled to a jury of my peers and they are not allowed to torture me.

Google the TV show "imprisoned Abroad" before you answer

[fjrfencer]

Well there was that little NYC Trade Center bomb. And hundreds of attacks on US tourists and military personnel worldwide prior to 9-11.

And all the tourist attacks and military attacks occured where? Not On US home soil.

Home many Foreign Nationals were killed when the Towers came down?

So No Belgium, OZ, or Amsterdam citizen has ever been on a flight that was bombed over Scottland, ET, Al.?

[XFBO]

So how many attacks has the USA had on home soil? the answer?

1
I believe it occurred 9/11/01I'm gonna have to disagree there. Like PooPoo said, AQ did try to knock down the towers during the early Clinton yrs. Nothing was done overseas which empowered them to bomb 3 or was it 4 embassies and/or military installations. Although, not US soil meaning stateside......technically, it IS US sovereignty.

[fjrfencer]

I'm gonna have to disagree there. Like PooPoo said, AQ did try to knock down the towers during the early Clinton yrs. Nothing was done overseas which empowered them to bomb 3 or was it 4 embassies and/or military installations. Although, not US soil meaning stateside......technically, it IS US sovereignty.

yes, but the dirt walking right up to it is not, making for a much easier target, and easier access.

------

OK so rather than the total being 1, we make it 5.

How many attacks have been thwarted (that we know about) Lots.

[tzrider]

USS Cole...

[glenngsxr]

Yes, We do have a doctrine. A doctrine for AMERICAN CITIZENS. this doctrine does not apply (although the bleeding liberals are allowing it too) illegal aliens or TERRORIST.

Before you answer this post, ask yourself this.

I am an American, traveling in Turkey, someone put an illegal substance in my luggage hoping to get it through security.
It happened without my knowledge.
It is found.
I am arrested.
I tell them , I am innocent until proven guilty, I am entitled to a jury of my peers and they are not allowed to torture me.

Google the TV show "imprisoned Abroad" before you answer

I see your point, and believe me it's true in some places. However, my point was Americans don't do that. It's not who we are, it's not who we want to be. We have to follow the higher ground when it comes to issues like this. It gets me riled up and emotional as well when they attack us so you are not alone, but sometimes you have to take emotion out of the equation when doing what's right. This is not a "bleeding liberal heart issue" or a "conservative torture king" type thing. It's the wrong thing to do no matter what side of the fence you are on. This brings me to another point. I will make a separate thread out of it. See title Repubs and Dems. Glenn #62

[HPPT]

You cant be serious?

Whether the attack happened or not is irrelevant, he was suggesting that if a country hasnt meddled in M.E. affairs they would be safe. It appears as if fjr found a country or two who havent meddled and still had a potential attack that was averted.

I, for one, wouldnt mind hearing how he's gonna explain or defend his position.Belgium and the Netherlands were part of the collation forces that invaded Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. Do you feel that's meddling or not? Apparently, the extremists feel it is.

So how many attacks has the USA had on home soil? the answer?

1
I believe it occurred 9/11/01

we have thwarted numerious attacks before and since.

I want to make sure I get this straight.
To satisfy your question, you want the police/govt agencies to have failed in their duties to protect its citizens, and have the citizens die or mangeled in an attack.For starters, the World Trade Center was attacked before 2001. But that this point, I'm just going, I am not surprised you did not know that.

Regardless, the question you keep answering repeatedly is "what countries have been attacked?" As pointed out to you earlier, that wasn't the question asked.

You can keep bringing up Japan, and Germany, and Jack Bauer, it won't change the lack of content of your answer as it pertains to the original question.

[sheepofblue]

An answer to my question would have satisfied me. You have proved yourself to be very good at answering questions that were not asked in order to avoid the one that was. And to make it worse, you are convinced that having the last word somehow makes you right. So go ahead, say one more thing that doesn't answer the question so you can feel you are correct. You may have the last word. :D
No reply you and I will continue to disagree. But check the manual and in the end the sheep win the rest burn :beer: Though in the meantime I will get passed WAY to much at the track :(

[Jed]

USS Cole...

CIA Gate shooting -- Pakistani national

Where is this thread anyway? The CIA got stupid and shouldn't have been involved in police maters? (FBI = criminal investigation. CIA = intelligence gathering.) The admin shouldn't have let the CIA get all John Wayne on the turrissts but should have used proven tactics that have worked in the past instead of their fear based methods???

The CIA fucked up with their interrogations. Cheney and Bush turned a blind eye. It's been proven time and time again that getting suspects to empathise, or offering them something in exchange for info works much better than threats and torture. You could get me to confess to anything if you put enough physical or psychological pressure on me. You offer to fly my sick little sister to the states for treatment and offer to protect my family then I'll tell you what I know and be in your debt.

[XFBO]

Belgium and the Netherlands were part of the collation forces that invaded Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. Do you feel that's meddling or not? Apparently, the extremists feel it is. I'll take your word on it, I didnt have the time to search what countries have never meddled with a muslim country......if you know, I'd LOVE to hear if any exist???

IIRC, those two countries were mentioned by crackhead so I assumed he did his homework.

[XFBO]

You could get me to confess to anything if you put enough physical or psychological pressure on me. You offer to fly my sick little sister to the states for treatment and offer to protect my family then I'll tell you what I know and be in your debt.Sick little sister, you watch too many movies bro. I'd be willing to bet a very large portion (if not the majority) are ppl they dont even have detailed records on.....a lot of you guys speak as if our interrogators have the luxury of time and location with each assignment. Does the empathy route work? Im sure it does, if given time. Do the harsher methods also work? I'm willing to bet it has more times than not. And please save the whole they'll confess to anything BS, you're insulting our government and interrogators by suggesting such stupidity. Does it happen on occasion, Im sure it does but one thing I am certain of.....we'll never hear about all the positive cases/intel retrieved these past few yrs and beyond using the old school method.

[HPPT]

I'll take your word on it, I didnt have the time to search what countries have never meddled with a muslim country......if you know, I'd LOVE to hear if any exist???Yes, there are. It's easy to do if you work your way backwards from the list of countries that got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take those that were not, and check if there was ever an attack there. Or an alleged plot.

Another way to look at this is to simply search for terrorist plots and attacks in Western countries before the war in Afghanistan. That would also help you answer the original question.

IIRC, those two countries were mentioned by crackhead so I assumed he did his homework.I think you got confused by that post where he was telling someone what's considered to be the Western world. At least, that was my read on it.

[steeltoe]

The CIA got stupid and shouldn't have been involved in police maters? (FBI = criminal investigation. CIA = intelligence gathering.)

Heh, you must actually be doing some reading. That is a big part of the problem. Also the FBI stated time and again they did not approve of the CIA contractor's "enhanced" techniques. On the contrary they said it screwed up their own investigations.:tut:

[Jed]

Sick little sister, you watch too many movies bro. I'd be willing to bet a very large portion (if not the majority) are ppl they dont even have detailed records on.....a lot of you guys speak as if our interrogators have the luxury of time and location with each assignment. Does the empathy route work? Im sure it does, if given time. Do the harsher methods also work? I'm willing to bet it has more times than not. And please save the whole they'll confess to anything BS, you're insulting our government and interrogators by suggesting such stupidity. Does it happen on occasion, Im sure it does but one thing I am certain of.....we'll never hear about all the positive cases/intel retrieved these past few yrs and beyond using the old school method.

Read up. http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906

The CIA should have never been involved once suspects were detained. It's not their job and never has been. But you Jack Bauer types just don't get it. The old school methods work because before that torture and coercion were the norm and they didn't work.

[fjrfencer]

Yes, there are. It's easy to do if you work your way backwards from the list of countries that got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take those that were not, and check if there was ever an attack there. Or an alleged plot..
OK now we are narrowing the timeline to after 9/11 for involvement?

Well that throws out the first attack on the trade centers then doesn't it?:Poke:

And by involvement are you saying the meddling must have a military force on the ground in the ME?


I think you got confused by that post where he was telling someone what's considered to be the Western world. At least, that was my read on it.

I read it the same way as XFBO.
Crackhead mentioned them as having no involvement

So we are now back to MY original question. What "western" countries have not meddled in the ME? you say there are some I say no.
But I guess our definition of meddling is different. because Saddam would have gotten away with it if it http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=And%20I%20would%20have%20gotten%20 away%20with%20it%20too%2C%20if%20it%20weren%27t%20 for%20you%20meddling%20kids&defid=447929:p

I am out of this thread. suffice it to say we differ in our views and neither will change the others view.

but, I leave you with this quip-it.

If you kill your enemy, you don't have to worry about a second attack.

P.S. I am just in this thread to up my post count to catch Cannoli:D I am too slow on the bike to offer anything in a racing thread:p

:beer:

[XFBO]

Read up. http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906

The CIA should have never been involved once suspects were detained. It's not their job and never has been. But you Jack Bauer types just don't get it. The old school methods work because before that torture and coercion were the norm and they didn't work.Yea us Jack Bauer types will always be at the wrong end of a debate when someone like you is engaged in it, no doubt.

You take the words of one FBI agent, who may very well be one of the most successful terrorist related agents of our time, as bond and so quick to dismiss the professionals in the entire CIA?

Wow, if it's that easy for you, have at it.

For the record tho, Ive never suggested that the harder tactics were superior or better than what the FBI agent above is pushing. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out a softer method would make more sense. The only thing Im against is the notion that the USA shouldnt use harsher methods cuz it makes us no different from them. Everytime I hear it I just wanna throw the BS flag cuz that's exactly what it is. At least until we start sawing ppl's heads off, blowing up busy districts, killing innocents day in/out, etc....If we wanna keep this nation safe, every option should remain open.

[RCjohn]

Holy shit this is a stupid thread.

:D

[sheepofblue]

Yes, We do have a doctrine. A doctrine for AMERICAN CITIZENS. this doctrine does not apply (although the bleeding liberals are allowing it too) illegal aliens or TERRORIST.

Before you answer this post, ask yourself this.

I am an American, traveling in Turkey, someone put an illegal substance in my luggage hoping to get it through security.
It happened without my knowledge.
It is found.
I am arrested.
I tell them , I am innocent until proven guilty, I am entitled to a jury of my peers and they are not allowed to torture me.

Google the TV show "imprisoned Abroad" before you answer
Or even better I am an American in Saudi Arabia that has a Bible and is willing to discuss the contents as I have been taught with a Saudi that is a Muslim. Contrast that with I am a Muslim here that demands time off of work to pray in the middle of the work day or even just wants to discuss the Koran with a non-Muslim.

Personally I am happy we don't maintain the world standards and I also think the treatment we give aliens (both legal and illegal) and guests is VERY well.

[HPPT]

I read it the same way as XFBO.
Crackhead mentioned them as having no involvement

Here is the actual post:
Muslim extremists stirring shit up in predominantly Muslim countries (even if they are in Africa) fall outside the scope of the point I was making.

Give me a Norway, or a Belgium, or a Brazil, or something.

You guys keep making shit up as if anyone couldn't simply go back a couple of pages and verify that you're lying. :D

[Jed]

Holy shit this is a stupid thread.

:D

Glad I could do my part. :up:

[RCjohn]

Since we are talking about the CIA I thought I would let you guys know that I have to be interviewed by Knox County's Internal Affairs Dept. next week regarding a complaint of excessive force by one of the Deputies. I didn't even realize that the Deputy's father is a member of IA though his father is not allowed to interview me.

He did tell me that Dad chewed his ass out for not having video tape and audio avail. :D

I said no problem, I was with you the whole time. :up:

[XFBO]

You guys keep making shit up as if anyone couldn't simply go back a couple of pages and verify that you're lying. :DSeriously........WTF are you talking about?

First off I dont appreciate being clumped in with "you guys" when you're talking about ppl making shit up. I dont come on here to make shit up.

Secondly, WTF are you talking about??? :D

In the post you quoted from CH does it not say give me a Norway, Belgium or Brazil????

Not sure when Brazil became a western country but Im sure you would have had some smart ass remark over that one, if it was someone you didnt particularly care for.

So fjr gave him Belgium only to get receive more sarcasm from you about their involvement in Afghan.

Does this become some sort of game amongst a few of you? :confused:

[Jed]

Ohhh ok, well in that case I'll just quote you now. :D


What about France? I dont believe they engaged in the Iraq or Afghan War.

I'll keep the stupid going.

Ever hear of Algeria? Check out their history with France. Nothing but love there.

[HPPT]

Seriously........WTF are you talking about?

First off I dont appreciate being clumped in with "you guys" when you're talking about ppl making shit up. I dont come on here to make shit up.:crackup:OK, that was funny.

Secondly, WTF are you talking about??? :D

In the post you quoted from CH does it not say give me a Norway, Belgium or Brazil????
Yes it does. And if you actually went back and looked at what you guys were discussing at the time, you could clearly see he was asking you to come up with countries that were in the Western world such as those he listed. You guys (there, I clumped you again) concluded that it meant those three had not been attacked. I choose not to jump to that conclusion until he does say so himself.

Anyway, I can see why he quit trying. I should have been as smart as him. :D

[XFBO]

Hey as long as you can laugh at your own shit cuz I cant find any humor in it.....would love to see you post up anything Ive made up.

I never even bothered searching for countries in the western world, I think Ive already stated this before. And there goes your stupidity again thinking you know ME and what MY conclusions are.....for the record, Ive never made any conclusions. Since CH mentioned those countries I figured he did in fact know those countries never meddled and when fjr provided proof of Belgium I thought it'd be interesting to see his reply.

That was pretty much my involvement.......cuz when its all said and done, ppl who think like CH about M.E. involvement will never change their minds.

Ive said it many times in other threads, there's only one way to prove ppl who rationalize like that wrong and that would be to pull out of everything we ever stood for worldwide. If we dont lead in helping the ONLY democratic nation in the M.E. (Israel), they will fall.......then ofcourse we'd have to turn our backs at all our allies over there when the muslim countries begin to stretch themselves beyond the M.E. borders to keep in line of CH's rationale..........sound familiar? Then what, admit we were wrong and attempt to take control in the matter once it's spun out of control?

[Czolgosz]

Ive said it many times in other threads, there's only one way to prove ppl who rationalize like that wrong and that would be to pull out of everything we ever stood for worldwide. If we dont lead in helping the ONLY democratic nation in the M.E. (Israel), they will fall.......



Or maybe, like welfare slobs (those who live off it), they'll take care of business in a way which suits them rather than being subject to the hand that feeds them.

And much like welfare, we need things to sunset rather than be a lifetime benefit. The lifetime shit really throws off human nature and its ability to survive on its own.

[XFBO]

Well, no one ever suggested resolving the M.E. crisis was going to be easy...:D...if Im understanding your post correctly, I also never meant to suggest we need to support Israel financially all this time.

I mean how do you go about breaking up a relationship with a country you're allies with anyway?
"Hey, you know we're friends BUT we cant support you with our military cuz some ppl here think that's why we're getting attacked."

[Czolgosz]

Well, no one ever suggested resolving the M.E. crisis was going to be easy...:D...if Im understanding your post correctly, I also never meant to suggest we need to support Israel financially all this time.

I mean how do you go about breaking up a relationship with a country you're allies with anyway?
"Hey, you know we're friends BUT we cant support you with our military cuz some ppl here think that's why we're getting attacked."


They need to live on their own and by their own means. If they're unjustly attacked then we support them in that defense, but we don't maintain support and coercion in perpetuity.

And always start out that talk w/, "It's not you, it's me."

[XFBO]

And I dont disagree with that but what I was commenting on was the mindset of these past few pages.
The USA is a "meddler" of the M.E......even if we use your approach in getting involved during an unjust attack, we'll still be viewed as meddlers to some and still subject to terrorism because of it.

[Czolgosz]

And I dont disagree with that but what I was commenting on was the mindset of these past few pages.
The USA is a "meddler" of the M.E......even if we use your approach in getting involved during an unjust attack, we'll still be viewed as meddlers to some and still subject to terrorism because of it.

I apply human tendencies to most situations but also accept that exceptions to every rule exist.

By and large, if we were to defend a friend from attack it would be in our best interest to resume normal operations immediately after. Not build an embassy, or have meetings w/ all our other friends to talk about the aggressor, or setup embargo's, or fvck w/ their ships on the high sea.

It's pretty much the same thing w/ North Korea. Trade some Hollywood DVD's for some rice patties (if they want) and ignore the stupid shit that attention whore KJIll does. Big deal, so he builds some nuke-u-ler stuff. He knows we'll obliterate his ass if he uses it against us or a friend (see previous paragraph on how to manage that relationship) :D.

[HPPT]

Hey as long as you can laugh at your own shit cuz I cant find any humor in it.....would love to see you post up anything Ive made up.

I never even bothered searching for countries in the western world, I think Ive already stated this before. And there goes your stupidity again thinking you know ME and what MY conclusions are.....for the record, Ive never made any conclusions. Since CH mentioned those countries I figured he did in fact know those countries never meddled and when fjr provided proof of Belgium I thought it'd be interesting to see his reply.
You got some nerve talking about my stupidity when you're too dumb to even the what a conclusion is. What you posted above is exactly that. You deduced (are you familiar with that word?) something from another thing that was posted. That's a conclusion.

It's one thing being ignorant of the issue you're trying to discuss (you know, doing dumb things such as citing France as a country with no involvement in the region), but topping it off with sheer stupidity makes this a pointless discussion.

[XFBO]

You got some nerve talking about my stupidity when you're too dumb to even the what a conclusion is. What you posted above is exactly that. You deduced (are you familiar with that word?) something from another thing that was posted. That's a conclusion.

It's one thing being ignorant of the issue you're trying to discuss (you know, doing dumb things such as citing France as a country with no involvement in the region), but topping it off with sheer stupidity makes this a pointless discussion.I so fvcking KNEW you were gonna hit me with that.....I swear on my life.

Ok fair enough, I'll be sure to do dbl duty and search ALL angles before ever commenting on anything again cuz that's clearly the norm in here. :rolleyes:

Obviously, you woke up on the wrong side today.

[HPPT]

I so fvcking KNEW you were gonna hit me with that.....I swear on my life.

Ok fair enough, I'll be sure to do dbl duty and search ALL angles before ever commenting on anything again cuz that's clearly the norm in here. :rolleyes:

Obviously, you woke up on the wrong side today.
Here is some free advice for you: if you don't want people throwing your own stupidity back in your face, don't call them stupid. ;)

[XFBO]

Thank you. I'll just leave it at that since Im leaving for NJMP and hoping to see some decent racing and dont need any negative 'Papa mojo' following me down the Turnpike. ;)

[steeltoe]

Huh oh!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112572525&ft=1&f=1001

"A federal appeals court delivered a stinging rebuke Friday to the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11, 2001, detention policies, ruling that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be held liable for people who were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after the attacks."