Author Topic: Finally. The press see's my point: Bush's administration = War Criminals (Read 9494 times)

Crazy Cooter · « **on:** October 24, 2004, 12:05:29 pm »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6315313/

Just like I said in another thread. The US is breaking Geveva Conventions. My example was how the US refused German courts access to Binalshibh and they had to release Motassadeq (the dude that had been convicted of helping the 9/11 terrorists).

Nice administration. Time for a change.

"El Motassadeq's lawyers asked the appeals court for acquittal or a retrial, alleging their client was wrongly convicted because the United States refused to allow court testimony by Ramzi Binalshibh, thought to be the Hamburg cell's key contact with al Qaeda.

Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks and is in U.S. custody.

The appeals court agreed that el Motassadeq was denied a fair trial because the United State refused to provide access to Binalshibh."
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/09/germany.911/

Grasshopper · « **Reply #1 on:** October 24, 2004, 01:57:23 pm »

I can't wait to see Drew's response to this...

shmokes · « **Reply #2 on:** October 24, 2004, 02:09:42 pm »

I'm more excited for Dartful's inciteful one-liner on the subject. Something to the effect of:

Finally we have an administration that realizes how ridiculous it is to abide by the rules and wishes of a bunch of countries we could blow off the face of the planet if we wanted to.

Grasshopper · « **Reply #3 on:** October 24, 2004, 02:23:08 pm »

Quote from: shmokes on October 24, 2004, 02:09:42 pm

Finally we have an administration that realizes how ridiculous it is to abide by the rules and wishes of a bunch of countries we could blow off the face of the planet if we wanted to.

Yee Haw!!!

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #4 on:** October 24, 2004, 03:39:43 pm »

Quote from: Grasshopper on October 24, 2004, 01:57:23 pm

I can't wait to see Drew's response to this...

Heheh, I thought of him and TA right when I saw it. I had to put a link up.

DrewKaree · « **Reply #5 on:** October 24, 2004, 11:15:08 pm »

Finally we have an administration that realizes how ridiculous it is to abide by the rules and wishes of a bunch of countries we could blow off the face of the planet if we wanted to.

shmokes · « **Reply #6 on:** October 25, 2004, 01:15:04 am »

Touche

LMAO

TA Pilot · « **Reply #7 on:** October 25, 2004, 11:54:29 am »

Lets see...

-Comply with the geneva Convention
-Keep a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

As much as I would like to see there be fewer liberals in the US, I'd have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

abrannan · « **Reply #8 on:** October 25, 2004, 12:22:08 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 25, 2004, 11:54:29 am

Lets see...

-Comply with the geneva Convention
-Keep a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

As much as I would like to see there be fewer liberals in the US, I'd have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

Not in Manhattan, huh? How about Queens? The Bronx, perhaps? How about this, we comply with the Geneva convention, and the terrorists agree to only target Hoboken, NJ with the Nuclear device. There's got to be a compromise here, right? Plus, think of all the job opportunities that would arise if a Briefcase Nuke detonated anywhere in the U.S. There's decontamination, demolition, waste disposal, the whole florist industry from all the mass graves and , reconstruction, etc. Not to mention that a commission will be formed to determine that we need to start yet another government agency with the job of coordinating the information gathered by all of the other law-enforcement agencies.

Absurdity breeds absurdity.

Santoro · « **Reply #9 on:** October 25, 2004, 01:27:55 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 25, 2004, 11:54:29 am

Lets see...

-Comply with the geneva Convention
-Keep a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

...have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

Amen brother. It is amazing how others are able to go down rat holes in order to to divert attention away from the overall common sense concepts such as this.

This is not WWII where we are fighting other troops. We are fighting savage animal sub-human filth who strive to murder women, children, and other innocents by the thousands. I am really not so concerned about their rights in custody. (Oh and I wouldn't have been worried about Hitler's treatment either.)

I understand the world should not be lawless. But there is a gray area and we should be as lax as possible with regards to the treatment of these animals.

(I don't advocate nuking liberals though...)

fredster · « **Reply #10 on:** October 25, 2004, 01:33:57 pm »

It's not even worth debating.

Bush is doing what he must do in order to protect the US.

He didn't line them up on a wall and shoot them. The Press is reacting to nothing.

abrannan · « **Reply #11 on:** October 25, 2004, 01:40:46 pm »

Quote from: fredster on October 25, 2004, 01:33:57 pm

It's not even worth debating.

Bush is doing what he must do in order to protect the US.

So, he's letting a terrorist supporter, an individual who most likely provided support to Mohammed Atta, get a new trial, and possibly go free because he won't provide Binalshibh to testify.

Wow! Thanks for all that protection!

Santoro · « **Reply #12 on:** October 25, 2004, 01:47:04 pm »

There are likely very strong national security reasons for not allowing him to testify. We and the media only know a fraction of what the decisionmakers in Washington know.

{edit - not that I am advocating being sheep and blindly following the gov't.... But there will be times when secrecy is warranted. The Bush Adminstration has at all times acted in a way that is consistient with protecting our nation. Based on that I trust that they are acting that way in this instance. If they had a record of acting against the interest of the USA, I would have instead been skeptical.}

DarkKobold · « **Reply #13 on:** October 25, 2004, 01:58:15 pm »

W00t. I love it. Let me know when my newspeak dictionary is ready.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Ben Franklin

TA Pilot · « **Reply #14 on:** October 25, 2004, 02:11:51 pm »

Quote

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Ben Franklin

Probably one of the best statements that could be made regarding gun control.

Santoro · « **Reply #15 on:** October 25, 2004, 02:56:15 pm »

"A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him. "
-Winston Churchill

{oh, and this is the last post I will make on the topic, lest I begin to break my own rule about not trying to force my views on others. We can disagree, that is just fine with me. The world would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed all the time, no?}

abrannan · « **Reply #16 on:** October 25, 2004, 04:03:33 pm »

Quote from: Santoro on October 25, 2004, 02:56:15 pm

The world would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed all the time, no?

Yeah, it would be... But my blood pressure would be a lot lower.

Grasshopper · « **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2004, 04:14:19 pm »

Quote from: DrewKaree on October 24, 2004, 11:15:08 pm

Finally we have an administration that realizes how ridiculous it is to abide by the rules and wishes of a bunch of countries we could blow off the face of the planet if we wanted to.

Come on Drew you're not really trying, we want links and we want lots of 'em!

There must surely be some obscure corner of the web that provides conclusive 'proof' that Bush is not a war criminal, but is in fact a cross between the Dalai Lama and Gandhi!

Grasshopper · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2004, 04:17:26 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 25, 2004, 11:54:29 am

Lets see...

-Comply with the geneva Convention
-Keep a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

As much as I would like to see there be fewer liberals in the US, I'd have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

Ahh, this is more like it, I knew TA wouldn't let us down!

Err, TA what precisely has this false choice you've presented us with got to do with Crazy Cooters original post?

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2004, 05:21:14 pm »

What ever happened to "lead by example"? We've pulled out of nuclear proliferation agreements, we've alienated ourselves in the UN, we break Geneva Conventions, what else can we do to show our "good will" towards humanity? Bush isn't living up to what I expect out of a leader of this country.

How is his actions by breaking Geneva Conventions helping? I doubt having him testify to keep a terrorist behind bars would cause a Nuke to go off anywhere.

"So, he's letting a terrorist supporter, an individual who most likely provided support to Mohammed Atta, get a new trial, and possibly go free because he won't provide Binalshibh to testify."

Possibly? He is free while the new trial is set up.

abrannan · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2004, 07:01:39 pm »

Quote from: Crazy Cooter on October 25, 2004, 05:21:14 pm

"So, he's letting a terrorist supporter, an individual who most likely provided support to Mohammed Atta, get a new trial, and possibly go free because he won't provide Binalshibh to testify."

Possibly? He is free while the new trial is set up.

RTFA (that *you* posted I might add)

"This process will take some time, she said, adding it was "highly unlikely" that a decision on whether he will be released from custody would come this week."

He had a mistrial declared, it doesn't mean he automatically gets set free. It just means he gets a new trial. And they can still hold him until that new trial takes place, if they so choose. I'd classify him as a pretty big flight risk.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #21 on:** October 25, 2004, 07:32:14 pm »

Err, TA what precisely has this false choice you've presented us with got to do with Crazy Cooters original post?

Simple enough:

Plainly, his premise is that the US should be held to the standards of the Geneva Conventions.

Just as plainly, these standards would and should apply to everyone we "detain", not just the people in question.

Its perfectly withn the realm of possibility that -someone- we capture and 'detain' will indeed have working knowledge of an active plot to detonate a nuclear weapon somewhere in the United States.

Unde these circumstances, do we worry more about:
-Compliance with the Geneva Conventions
-Keeping a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

As much as I would like to see there be fewer liberals in the US, I'd have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #22 on:** October 25, 2004, 07:37:21 pm »

Bush isn't living up to what I expect out of a leader of this country.

Thats funny... because I expect a CinC to do whatever is necessary to defend the United States.

Let me repeat that:
...whatever is necessary to defend the United States...

If this means pulling out of treaties and/or violating a few agreements that may or may not actually apply, then he damn well better do it.

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #23 on:** October 25, 2004, 09:45:43 pm »

"RTFA (that *you* posted I might add)

He had a mistrial declared, it doesn't mean he automatically gets set free. It just means he gets a new trial. And they can still hold him until that new trial takes place, if they so choose. I'd classify him as a pretty big flight risk."

Yeah, that's an older link (March) used just to show how Bush & company wouldn't let Binalshibh and other witnesses testify. Since then, Motassadeq has been released.
"He won a retrial in March, however, after appeals judges ruled he was unfairly denied testimony from Binalshibh, a Yemeni in U.S. custody who is believed to have been the Hamburg cell's key contact with al-Qaeda. Judges then freed el Motassadeq from prison, saying there was no longer enough evidence to hold him pending his retrial."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-08-04-germany-trial_x.htm

So he's out & about.

TA, the question is if this is really necessary. Ever since the first Geneva Convention we as a Nation have stood and said how nobody should be doing this thing or the other for any reason. Now suddenly it doesn't apply to us. What gives? It's not a matter of security, it's a matter of what is right and what is wrong. The world didn't change because of 9/11, America did. That's just what the terrorists wanted to happen. We're no longer standing up against bullies, we are the bully. All in the name of "Security". Bush has had three years to beefen security and all he talks about is how much danger we're in. And that's with him breaking international treaties and laws. How is that a good job? I'm just glad that the press is finally calling him on it.

DrewKaree · « **Reply #24 on:** October 26, 2004, 01:09:40 am »

Quote from: Grasshopper on October 25, 2004, 04:14:19 pm

Come on Drew you're not really trying, we want links and we want lots of 'em!

There must surely be some obscure corner of the web that provides conclusive 'proof' that Bush is not a war criminal, but is in fact a cross between the Dalai Lama and Gandhi!

Aw SHUCKS...*insert Sally Field voice* You like me...you REALLY like me!

See how TA and I tag team you guys? When he needs a rest, I come in and shoot my mouth off. When I'm out of breath, he picks me up.

I'm actually working on my wife's friend. She's under the impression that the conservatives will come in and steal her Social Security check and take away her Medicare and jack up her prescription prices, and I'm trying to ensure her that, in fact, we ARE going to do all those things and more, including giving UZI's to criminals to come into her house and steal anything left that the conservative administration isn't taking from her.

So far, I'm having a pretty easy time convincing her we're gonna do all that

I'll work on the links proving Bush is a bigger peacenik than Ghandi and the one where Mother Theresa was caught swearing because Bush was more compassionate than she was.

I'd say it feels good to be a conservative, but we all know we don't actually have feelings.....or a heart....or a soul

Mameotron · « **Reply #25 on:** October 26, 2004, 01:23:54 am »

Sorry, Cooter, but that link is useless. All American sources are partisan and biased, so you have to quote an Irish source to give your argument any credibility.

Let me restate:

TA Pilot · « **Reply #26 on:** October 26, 2004, 06:00:59 pm »

It's not a matter of security, it's a matter of what is right and what is wrong.

I'm very willing to be "wrong" and not have a nuke go off in NYC.

How about you?

What are YOU willing to do to prevent over a million Americans from dying instantly in a brilliant flash?

The world didn't change because of 9/11, America did. That's just what the terrorists wanted to happen.

You're right -
-because prior to 9/11, a large part of the world was as it is now - full of militant islamo-fascists that want to kill as many of us as they can. On 9/11, a large part of our poulation woke up to that fact.

Sadly, a large part of them seem to have gone back to sleep.

You and John Kerry may want to return to that pre-9/11 world... and in that, Islamo-fascists agree with you.

We're no longer standing up against bullies, we are the bully. All in the name of "Security".

Horseshi'ite. If the US is the worst problem the world faces, the world is in good shape. And if the world has a problem with us hutning down and killing thoise that want to hurt us, then the world is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Bush has had three years to beefen security and all he talks about is how much danger we're in. And that's with him breaking international treaties and laws.

Thats right... because "beefing security" is a passive defense - the only way to proivde long-term protection from terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them.

Playing defense isnt going to get you a win.

How is that a good job? I'm just glad that the press is finally calling him on it.

How many terrorist plots have we foiled?
How many have succeeded?

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #27 on:** October 26, 2004, 06:20:04 pm »

So the Geneva Conventions mean nothing? All in the name of security. How sad.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #28 on:** October 26, 2004, 06:38:30 pm »

So the Geneva Conventions mean nothing? All in the name of security. How sad.

I'm very willing to be "wrong" and not have a nuke go off in NYC.

How about you?

What are YOU willing to do to prevent over a million Americans from dying instantly in a brilliant flash?

patrickl · « **Reply #29 on:** October 26, 2004, 06:58:09 pm »

Such utter nonsense. If your aunt had a dick she would be your uncle. So?

The mentality is see on this thread is the stuff world wars are made off. Really scary degrees of nationalism and arrogance.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #30 on:** October 26, 2004, 06:59:03 pm »

Quote from: Crazy Cooter on October 26, 2004, 06:20:04 pm

So the Geneva Conventions mean nothing? All in the name of security. How sad.

The UN means nothing.
I'm just glad the US figured that out before Bill Clinton becomes secretary-general.

DrewKaree · « **Reply #31 on:** October 26, 2004, 07:18:02 pm »

Quote from: patrickl on October 26, 2004, 06:58:09 pm

If your aunt had a dick she would be your uncle.

Dunno why, but that struck me as pretty damn funny!

Quote

nationalism and arrogance.

AAAAHHHHH the calling card of the conservative American!

We're also against clean air and clean water too.

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #32 on:** October 26, 2004, 07:41:12 pm »

Quote from: DrewKaree on October 26, 2004, 07:18:02 pm

We're also against clean air and clean water too.

I wouldn't say that, didn't Bush lower the quality standards so air that used to be called dirty is now "clean"?

*POOF* Clean Air!

TA Pilot · « **Reply #33 on:** October 26, 2004, 08:16:05 pm »

The mentality is see on this thread is the stuff world wars are made off. Really scary degrees of nationalism and arrogance.

How about you?

What are YOU willing to do to prevent over a million Americans from dying instantly in a brilliant flash?

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #34 on:** October 26, 2004, 08:58:10 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 26, 2004, 08:16:05 pm

How about you?

What are YOU willing to do to prevent over a million Americans from dying instantly in a brilliant flash?

I'm going to vote for Kerry so convicted terrorists stay in prison where they belong and the Geneva Conventions are respected.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #35 on:** October 26, 2004, 10:20:45 pm »

I'm going to vote for Kerry so convicted terrorists stay in prison where they belong and the Geneva Conventions are respected.

You're avoiding the question.

I'll rephrease.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

danny_galaga · « **Reply #36 on:** October 27, 2004, 12:06:59 am »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 26, 2004, 10:20:45 pm

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear it?

patrickl · « **Reply #37 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:39:29 am »

Good thing I frequent these boards, cause otherwise I would have never known that conventions were a triggering device on nukes.

Dexter · « **Reply #38 on:** October 27, 2004, 08:47:43 am »

Quote from: danny_galaga on October 27, 2004, 04:22:22 am

dont you know nuttin, patrickl? thats what the C stands for in E=MC2

Really? I thought that part of the equation deals with invading a country with no WMDs and no links to Al Quaida to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan

Thank god I pre-emptively blew up all the scientists before they attacked my theory, which they may have intended to do at some stage in the future. I'm of course excused now of murdering them, as I ultimately did it in self defence.

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #39 on:** October 27, 2004, 09:15:52 am »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 26, 2004, 10:20:45 pm

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

But that's not what the question was. The question was:
If the only way to keep a convicted 9/11 terrorist was to comply with geneva Conventions, did Bush do it?

No, he didn't. The German courts even asked if they could just get a written copy of sworn testimony. Did Bush do it? No, he did not. Surely if he was concerned about security he could have offered a "black lined" version. He didn't. Rather than trying to justify his actions with "what if" scenarios, we should be asking why he did nothing.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #40 on:** October 27, 2004, 09:20:13 am »

But that's not what the question was. The question was:
If the only way to keep a convicted 9/11 terrorist was to comply with geneva Conventions, did Bush do it?

That was YOUR question, and you provided an answer.

You havent provided an answer to mine - and my question directly addresses your complaint.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

Dexter · « **Reply #41 on:** October 27, 2004, 10:09:30 am »

Quote from: danny_galaga on October 27, 2004, 09:23:28 am

god bless pre-emptive strikes

us aussies are having some troubles with those pesky east timorese. they insist on rights on some deep sea gas (just because theyre dirt poor and the gas IS closer to them than us doesnt give them the rights...).

Attention coalition, todays freedom hating east timorese children are tomorrows terrorists. Lets kill them all, level the country and remove their natural resource before they use income from it to develop weapons of mass distraction which will keep us from noticing Americas economy go down the tubes.

patrickl · « **Reply #42 on:** October 27, 2004, 10:57:03 am »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 27, 2004, 09:20:13 am

But that's not what the question was. The question was:
If the only way to keep a convicted 9/11 terrorist was to comply with geneva Conventions, did Bush do it?

That was YOUR question, and you provided an answer.

You havent provided an answer to mine - and my question directly addresses your complaint.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

If you want your own question answered then start your own thread. It's very impolite to start asking silly questions on other peoples threads.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #43 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:01:16 am »

If you want your own question answered then start your own thread. It's very impolite to start asking silly questions on other peoples threads.

Whats that?

You dont have the testicualr fortitude to try to supply an answer?

I thought not.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

danny_galaga · « **Reply #44 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:13:56 am »

testicular fortitude. isn't that a cologne they use down south?

(drew adjusts 'package' and nods a howdy)

fredster · « **Reply #45 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:24:09 am »

I didn't think you would understand anything about that either Danny. It's way over your experience.

Dexter · « **Reply #46 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:47:04 am »

Quote from: danny_galaga on October 27, 2004, 11:13:56 am

testicular fortitude. isn't that a cologne they use down south?

Brilliant! Apparently I don't have testicular fortitude either so I looked up the meaning:

Testicular fortitude (expression) - Meaning to dodge a draft by your daddy getting you into the texas national air guard, then send young men and women off to die in another war while shouting 'bring it on' at the enemy from behind your ring of steel.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #47 on:** October 27, 2004, 01:37:40 pm »

"Finally" the press see's your point?

That's funny, since the press has been upset over Gore losing the night of that election.

patrickl · « **Reply #48 on:** October 27, 2004, 02:06:38 pm »

Dartful,

Do you suffer from an internet form of Gilles de la Touret syndrom?

patrickl · « **Reply #49 on:** October 27, 2004, 02:08:15 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 27, 2004, 11:01:16 am

If you want your own question answered then start your own thread. It's very impolite to start asking silly questions on other peoples threads.

Whats that?

You dont have the testicualr fortitude to try to supply an answer?

I thought not.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

If your question made sense and if you started your own thread, maybe someone would try to answer it. But then, by that time it could be the hell froze over.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #50 on:** October 27, 2004, 02:13:44 pm »

If your question made sense

Given that you seem to be the only one having truoble understanding the question and how it applies to the subject at hand, I'd have to say that it -does- make sense.

Now, if you have the cognitive ability to answer the question, please do. Else, dont let the door hit you where your boyfriend loves you the most.

patrickl · « **Reply #51 on:** October 27, 2004, 02:34:10 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 27, 2004, 02:13:44 pm

If your question made sense

Given that you seem to be the only one having truoble understanding the question and how it applies to the subject at hand, I'd have to say that it -does- make sense.

WI never said I don;t understand your question, I just say that it is a nonsensical one. Apparently I'm not alone in this. But then, you never make sense to me anyway. I cannot believe anyone can be so stereotypical.

Quote

Now, if you have the cognitive ability to answer the question, please do. Else, dont let the door hit you where your boyfriend loves you the most.

Ah, I see why you are so upset, unfortunately I can't help it you are having love troubles with the mister. Don't project your relational troubles on others.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #52 on:** October 27, 2004, 02:40:19 pm »

WI never said I don;t understand your question, I just say that it is a nonsensical one. Apparently I'm not alone in this. But then, you never make sense to me anyway. I cannot believe anyone can be so stereotypical.

Plainly, if you cant see how a question about national security and the Geneva conventions applies to a thread about national security and the Geneva conventions, then you dont understand the question.

You're doing -everything- you can to avoid actually answering the question. This speaks volumes about the answer you'd actually give, if you were to ever do so.

But plainly, you dont plan to ever actually answer the question. And I am not surprised in the least.

patrickl · « **Reply #53 on:** October 27, 2004, 02:53:04 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 27, 2004, 02:40:19 pm

WI never said I don;t understand your question, I just say that it is a nonsensical one. Apparently I'm not alone in this. But then, you never make sense to me anyway. I cannot believe anyone can be so stereotypical.

Plainly, if you cant see how a question about national security and the Geneva conventions applies to a thread about national security and the Geneva conventions, then you dont understand the question.

You're doing -everything- you can to avoid actually answering the question. This speaks volumes about the answer you'd actually give, if you were to ever do so.

But plainly, you dont plan to ever actually answer the question. And I am not surprised in the least.

Yeah I wonder why I even reply to your drivel. It was much more fun when I used Eliza. Actually Eliza does the same thing as you do. It asks questions, but never answers your original question. I have to admit you are very good at avoiding the real question and hammering on a point to get everyone away from the fact that Bush let a terrorist go because he is ... well I don't know what made him mess this one up, but mess up he did.

Santoro · « **Reply #54 on:** October 27, 2004, 02:56:46 pm »

This exchange is an example of why I choose not to debate my political views very often.

I am pretty sure that no one has ever, by way of a debate, changed another person's perspective on politics, religion, gun control, or abortion. People are wired with a deeply personal philosophy and don't change without a dramatic life event to change thier basic perceptions. (I was waaay more liberal in the 36 years before September 11. Losing 8 good friends in the WTC made me look at the world a lot differently. Reality crashed in.)

IMHO the whole debate thing is a waste of energy. I'd rather spend that energy elsewhere, like helping my kids with homework or building cabs. It is much less frustrating.

edit:spelling

TA Pilot · « **Reply #55 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:03:31 pm »

Yeah I wonder why I even reply to your drivel.

Me too, given that you never really add to any conversation you attach yourself to. You simply waste time and bandwidth.

patrickl · « **Reply #56 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:05:31 pm »

But then I'm a nutter for debates (but you knew that

) I suffer no aggrevation over this. Well it is more fun if you have an opponent that can do more than repeat just one clause over and over, but still. I do actually learn a lot from debates like this and I think others do too. You don't have to change someones beliefs to profit from a discussion.

patrickl · « **Reply #57 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:06:53 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 27, 2004, 03:03:31 pm

Yeah I wonder why I even reply to your drivel.

Me too, given that you never really add to any conversation you attach yourself to. You simply waste time and bandwidth.

I try to prevent you from taking yet another a thread off topic. Which seems to be your standard way to diffuse threads like this. This was actually a pretty good discussion before you came in.

fredster · « **Reply #58 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:20:31 pm »

I think he did answer the questions.

You just didn't understand the answers.

You stated "blah blah blah...Bush is bad"

Ta said , no he isn't.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #59 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:21:05 pm »

I try to prevent you from taking yet another a thread off topic.

News for you bub:

In a discussion where the primary complaint is Bush violating the Geneva conventions because of national security reasons, asking someone if THEY would violate the Geneva conventions for national security reasons is NOT off topic.

YOU just dont LIKE the question because you dont want to have to give an honest answer. Too bad.

This was actually a pretty good discussion before you came in

You can leave any time you want.

shmokes · « **Reply #60 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:32:53 pm »

TA,

My liberal cohorts aren't answering your question because it's a ridiculous question that sets a rhetorical trap based on a false dilema logical fallacy.

The answer to your question, of course, is yes.

But allow me to illustrate how absurd and useless your scenario is:

Would you support a rollback of Bush's tax-cuts if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you vote for Kerry if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you support socialized healthcare if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you support a ban on assault weapons if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC? (well...that one's probably a bad example...

)

The thing is, it is entirely likely that Bush's distancing from diplomacy in favor of a shoot-first-ask-questions-later-approach to foreign policy is breeding more animosity and anti-American sentiment which will in all likelihood breed more terrorists.

You seem to have such a juvenile, two-dimensional idea of what it means to be liberal. I get the impression that you believe that conservatives are anti-terrorism while liberals are pro-terrorism. It's absurd.

Imagine the following scenario:

You and I are roommates. We live in a house (don't worry, we're not having gay sex -- we're just roommates). Let's say that the house develops a nasty infestation of black ants. These things are really pissing you off. They're getting into your cereal, crawling up your pants. It's just a bad situation all around, and being the itchy-trigger-finger guy that you are you want to send all those black ---daisies--- to their graves.

So...I get home from work and see you unloading a bunch of jars from your car. I check it out and see that the jars are filled with red ants. You say, "Check it out Shmokes. Our problems are over. I'm going to release all these red ants in our house and, mark my words, within a week every last one of those black ants will be dead!!!"

I, being the liberal (read: thinker) in the household mount a protest. I contend that while you will certainly kill a lot of bad guys, your solution to our current problem could create a bigger problem for us in the future.

You, of course, just decide that I don't have the balls to do what is necessary to rid our house of the black ants. Then, to prove your point you ask me one last question (and then get really obnoxious when I refuse to answer it):

"Shmokes, if letting these red ants go in the house was the only way to keep yourself from getting cancer would you do it?"

TA Pilot · « **Reply #61 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:53:34 pm »

My liberal cohorts aren't answering your question because it's a ridiculous question that sets a rhetorical trap based on a false dilema logical fallacy.

But its not.

Its --entirely-- probable that such a situation will arise.

And there is no rhetorical trap - a rhetorical trap is when you ask someone if they've stopped beating their kids yet.

Thats not anything like what I've asked.

If the answer to my question is yes, that national security can trump the Geneva conventions, then why is it such a bad thing if Bush decides that national security trupms the Geneva Conventions?

The POINT is that if you're going to admit that its OK to do so, then why express shock and disdain when its done?

The thing is, it is entirely likely that Bush's distancing from diplomacy in favor of a shoot-first-ask-questions-later-approach to foreign policy is breeding more animosity and anti-American sentiment which will in all likelihood breed more terrorists.

This is a false argument.
People that become terrorists dont give a hoot in hell for international agreements - in fact, the huge number of them dont know what the Geneva convention is. Therefore, the US, in her own defense, ignoring international agreements isnt going to cause them to become terrorists.

And to argue that people will hate us because we're acting in our own defense? You're kidding, right?

You seem to have such a juvenile, two-dimensional idea of what it means to be liberal.

Hmm.
When have I espoused by beliefs as to what it is to be liberal? Isnt it pretty juvenile of you to comment on something that I've never discussed?

And as for your analogy:

YOUR assertion that liberals are "thinkers" and the necessary implication that conservatives arent is entirely false -- especially if the given lines of 'thought' concerning terrorism are considered.

In fact, your assertion that "while you will certainly kill a lot of bad guys, your solution to our current problem could create a bigger problem for us in the future" is proof positive of same. Your're arguing against the use of force against those that use force against those that only understand force. This is utterly irrational, and it denote a clear lack of understanding of the threat we face.

That the enemy might fight back is not an argument against fighting the enemy.

patrickl · « **Reply #62 on:** October 27, 2004, 03:56:56 pm »

Amazing, he still doesn't understand. Or maybe he does and just doesn't want to admit so in public.

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #63 on:** October 27, 2004, 04:00:31 pm »

TA, the difference is this:

Bush IS breaking Geneva Conventions. He has offered NO explanation. Is it due to security reasons? I don't know, he hasn't said. If it was, why couldn't he offer up a written sworn statement? It could be edited with those black lines the government is so fond of. Instead, he tied the hands of the German court system. It's got nothing to do with hypothetical scenarios.

My arguement is this:
Bush is a war criminal. Why aren't we asking him to explain what's up?

And what happened to the link? And why is this thread popping up my "secure server page" warnings? Who's knocking on my door...

TA Pilot · « **Reply #64 on:** October 27, 2004, 04:13:54 pm »

Bush IS breaking Geneva Conventions.

Which is OK, as you admit, for security reasons.

Now, why is it so hard for you to accept the very real possibility that a decision such as his concerning terrorist detainees is based on security?

And that any lack of explanation is for the same reason?

Fact is, you dont WANT to give him the benefit of the doubt, because your argument starts with "I hate Bush" and works backwards.

Bush is a war criminal.

If breaking the Geneva conventions makes you a war criminal, and that breaking the Geneva conventions for security pruposes is OK... then it can indeed be Ok to be a war criminal.

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #65 on:** October 27, 2004, 05:06:45 pm »

"Which is OK, as you admit, for security reasons."

I did? I think you need to reread my responses because I don't think it is ok. I think that the Geneva Conventions served a purpose and that they should be respected.

My arguement started with Bush violating the Geneva Conventions. Whether you support that action is your own decision. I don't. I want Bush to stand up and tell me why he is doing this. If you accept it with no explanation, so be it.

fredster · « **Reply #66 on:** October 27, 2004, 05:21:26 pm »

Cooter,

What specific article of the Geneva conventions was violated?

Stand up and tell me what you are accusing your country of?

shmokes · « **Reply #67 on:** October 27, 2004, 07:16:01 pm »

TA.....lighten up a little. The "thinker" bit was a light-hearted jab, hence the smiley face. I am fully aware that conservatives can think**

At any rate, that's your rhetorical trap. I say that the answer is yes to your specific hypothetical scenario, and you then extend that to mean that I suddenly approve of breaking Geneva Conventions any time some vague appeal can be made to national security.

You present a scenario like: There's a bomb in central New York City and there's no time to evacuate. We have a man in custody who knows the location of the bomb but is uncooperative. In one hour there will be a brilliant flash and 10 million people will be dead. Do we worry about international treaties?

To which the answer is obviously, no, we do not.

Then you say, "Ah Ha!!!!! I have you. You have admitted that you don't care about international treaties as long as national security at stake!

Of course, there is no ticking bomb and the only association you can make with the current Geneva Convention violations and a nuclear bomb being detonated in NYC is a vague, "you never know. he's bad. it could happen. the guy does hate america," kind of thing.

But your trap was painfully transparent, hence people's refusal to answer your question.

By the way, you never answered any of my questions. I can make wild claims about how some future bomb is going to explode in NYC too. How can you get mad at others for not answering your question when you ignored all four of mine in spite of their similarity to yours.

**They just aren't very good at it.

shmokes · « **Reply #68 on:** October 27, 2004, 07:19:41 pm »

Quote from: fredster on October 27, 2004, 05:21:26 pm

Cooter,

What specific article of the Geneva conventions was violated?

Stand up and tell me what you are accusing your country of?

I love your passion Fredster.

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #69 on:** October 27, 2004, 07:19:44 pm »

In summary: The Geneva Conventions require that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to all detainees and that information on them be provided to their relatives. It's spread out through several Articles on the 3rd Convention.

You can view the Conventions here:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions
Under "key issues" - "essential rules" scroll down and you'll see:
"They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees." - Neither of which we are doing.

As a side note:
-International treaties ratified by the US prohibit holding prisoners incommunicado and in secret locations .
-Under international human rights law, detainees must be held in recognised places of detention and be able to communicate with lawyers and family members.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #70 on:** October 27, 2004, 07:25:52 pm »

I did? I think you need to reread my responses because I don't think it is ok. I think that the Geneva Conventions served a purpose and that they should be respected.

So... would you or would you not violate the GC to keep a nuke from going off in NYC?

My arguement started with Bush violating the Geneva Conventions. Whether you support that action is your own decision. I don't. I want Bush to stand up and tell me why he is doing this. If you accept it with no explanation, so be it.

Sounds like a cession of a point. I'm interested to see your response to my question, above.

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #71 on:** October 27, 2004, 10:53:01 pm »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 27, 2004, 07:25:52 pm

So... would you or would you not violate the GC to keep a nuke from going off in NYC?

Too vague of a question. I'll address it like this:
- If, for some nutty reason, I had a prisoner in the same room as "the button" and he lunged for it, I'd punch him out. No matter where it was aimed. Then I'd tell everyone what was up. People would understand why I knocked him out.
- If Bush has an explanation along those lines, I'd love to hear it. If Bush has any explanation I'd love to hear it. Instead he isn't saying anything. To me, if you're violating Geneva Conventions, you need an inarguable reason. Otherwise everything we fight for is a sham.

DrewKaree · « **Reply #72 on:** October 28, 2004, 01:11:44 am »

Quote from: patrickl on October 27, 2004, 03:05:31 pm

I do actually learn a lot from debates like this and I think others do too. You don't have to change someones beliefs to profit from a discussion.

Who are you and what have you done with patrick? You've obviously stolen him and replaced him with someone who periodically says something sane

DrewKaree · « **Reply #73 on:** October 28, 2004, 01:17:13 am »

Quote from: shmokes on October 27, 2004, 03:32:53 pm

Imagine the following scenario:

You and I are roommates. We live in a house (don't worry, we're not having gay sex -- we're just roommates). Let's say that the house develops a nasty infestation of black ants. These things are really pissing you off. They're getting into your cereal, crawling up your pants. It's just a bad situation all around, and being the itchy-trigger-finger guy that you are you want to send all those black ---daisies--- to their graves.

So...I get home from work and see you unloading a bunch of jars from your car. I check it out and see that the jars are filled with red ants. You say, "Check it out Shmokes. Our problems are over. I'm going to release all these red ants in our house and, mark my words, within a week every last one of those black ants will be dead!!!"

I, being the liberal (read: thinker) in the household mount a protest. I contend that while you will certainly kill a lot of bad guys, your solution to our current problem could create a bigger problem for us in the future.

You, of course, just decide that I don't have the balls to do what is necessary to rid our house of the black ants. Then, to prove your point you ask me one last question (and then get really obnoxious when I refuse to answer it):

"Shmokes, if letting these red ants go in the house was the only way to keep yourself from getting cancer would you do it?"

First off, I KNEW you secretly loved TA! You're hoping to make him your angry luvah!

Secondly, I thought you were the thinker. It's simply ridiculous to bring more ants to wipe out the original colony of ants when we could simply pull out our assault weapons and have a little target practice while ridding ourselves of the problem If that didn't work, we'd just go up the ladder...grenades, land mines, armored tank, Black Hawk helicopter, Harrier jet, Stealth bomber, finally, failing all those, we'd simply drop a soon-to-be-created bunker buster. Nice hot-white flash....no more ants. Course we'd need these

DrewKaree · « **Reply #74 on:** October 28, 2004, 01:24:42 am »

Quote from: danny_galaga on October 28, 2004, 01:20:12 am

here, here. i wish it were that i could articulate my arguments as succinctly and as frequently such that they don't result merely in polemics.

Maybe if you got a vaccination for it, that wouldn't happen...if it did, I bet you could get a balm / salve/ ointment for it.

Hey, how do you break it to your special lady friends that you've got the "polemics"?

danny_galaga · « **Reply #75 on:** October 28, 2004, 04:12:14 am »

i don't. i wait until their doctor tells them

patrickl · « **Reply #76 on:** October 28, 2004, 05:34:27 am »

Quote from: danny_galaga on October 28, 2004, 01:20:12 am

Quote from: shmokes on October 27, 2004, 03:32:53 pm
TA,
<owning snipped>

here, here. i wish it were that i could articulate my arguments as succinctly and as frequently such that they don't result merely in polemics.

Yeah, shmokes is realy smokin'. Amazing how he can put the simple facts into words so that even TA and Drew understand it.

Mameotron · « **Reply #77 on:** October 28, 2004, 06:02:26 am »

And yet another thread degenerates into nothing more than name calling and endless flaming.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #78 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:07:36 am »

Too vague of a question. I'll address it like this:

No its not - and its a question that requires only a yes or a no for an answer.

You have responded with a "yes".

So, you're complaining that Bush is doing something that you agree is OK to do, if necessary - and that Bush wont tell you why its necessary.

Did it cross your mind that if its necessary to do, then perhaps the reasons behind it are too sensitive to make public?

TA Pilot · « **Reply #79 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:35:35 am »

At any rate, that's your rhetorical trap. I say that the answer is yes to your specific hypothetical scenario, and you then extend that to mean that I suddenly approve of breaking Geneva Conventions any time some vague appeal can be made to national security.

You agree that the GC isnt invoilable.

Therefore, you cannot make a blanket condemnation about a perceived violation of the GC - unless you know the details.

And that the President hasnt made you aware of the details doesnt supprt your position - because its MORE that likely that if there was a need to violate the GC, its also MORE than likely that the reason for it is something that cant be openly discussed.

Santoro · « **Reply #80 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:56:01 am »

Crap, you guys have dragged me back in.

Quote from: shmokes on October 27, 2004, 03:32:53 pm

But allow me to illustrate how absurd and useless your scenario is:

Would you support a rollback of Bush's tax-cuts if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you vote for Kerry if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you support socialized healthcare if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you support a ban on assault weapons if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC? (well...that one's probably a bad example... )

I don't understand your logic at all. These examples are all fantasy.

In contrast there have been numerous press reports (one is here) that there are probably more than several Russian Tactical Nulear devices (Suitcase Nukes) out there unaccounted for. Bin Laden could easily afford a few of these puppies on the arms black market for his use. TA's question is completely valid.

The 'black ant' thing is an adorable little ditty, but certainly not analagous. The point it makes is that a nuclear detonation in NYC is on the same scale of atrocity as violating the Geneva Convention for a few particularly hard-core bad guys. Is that really what you meant to say? The world just isn't that black-and-white. Think 256 shades of gray.

I believe any reasonable Commander-In-Chief would violate the conventions for non-military threats far less than the probability of a tactical nuke detionation. Sarin gas, truck bombs, etc all are large enough threats to US Security. I go back to my previous point. We are not fighting men who are soldiers fighting for an Army that adheres to the conventions, rather, these people have openly made it thier mission to destroy us NO MATTER WHAT it takes.

Why in God's name would we provide them any protection whatsoever? We are taking a knife to a gunfight if we do.

patrickl · « **Reply #81 on:** October 28, 2004, 09:26:57 am »

The Geneva conventions themselves don't stand in the way of getting the information. This "nuke or conventions" example is so far fetched that it is nonsense. You don't prevent a nuke from detonating by not living up to the geneva conventions. The only thing you get from violating proper conduct rules is that you become a barbarian yourselves.

Crazy Cooter · « **Reply #82 on:** October 28, 2004, 09:30:35 am »

Quote from: TA Pilot on October 28, 2004, 08:07:36 am

No its not - and its a question that requires only a yes or a no for an answer.
You have responded with a "yes".

Life must be real simple in your world where everything is "yes" or "no".

Would you snuff your mom if she was holding the nuke in a suitcase? Oh, then you hate your mom.

You read, but you don't comprehend.

It's not a valid question. And to say that since someone did this, now we can do that, is saying it's alright to stoop to that level. I guess I just hold the President, and the actions of the United States as a whole, to a higher set of morals than others do.

Two wrongs don't make a right & the end doesn't justify the means.

TA Pilot · « **Reply #83 on:** October 28, 2004, 09:39:04 am »

Life must be real simple in your world where everything is "yes" or "no".

Life must be real difficult in your world, where nothing is yes/no and everything is nuanced.

Would you snuff your mom if she was holding the nuke in a suitcase? Oh, then you hate your mom.

And going to detonate it in an American city? Without hesitattion. Wouldnt you?

Oh... and while I hate my mom, I love yours - she gives a discount.

It's not a valid question.

Absolutely it is. It directly addresses the issue of whether or not its acceptable to violate the GC for security reasons.

I guess I just hold the President, and the actions of the United States as a whole, to a higher set of morals than others do.

Only because he's a Republican.

Santoro · « **Reply #84 on:** October 28, 2004, 10:21:13 am »

Quote from: patrickl on October 28, 2004, 09:26:57 am

The Geneva conventions themselves don't stand in the way of getting the information. This "nuke or conventions" example is so far fetched that it is nonsense. You don't prevent a nuke from detonating by not living up to the geneva conventions. The only thing you get from violating proper conduct rules is that you become a barbarian yourselves.

Again with the black and white. You are assuming that breaking the GC is as barbaric as Nuking Manhattan. It just isn't. I would shoot mother Theresa in cold blood if it meant that I could prevent 500 innocents from dying. Would I be a barbarian? There is a sliding scale here. The other end of the scale is denying every detainee GC rights. That would be barbaric. See my point? Somewhere in the gray middle, the truth lies.

It is unconscionable to risk bad things happening to innocent people in the name of being 'proper.' And while nukes may be the least likely scenario, Sarin gas is not. We surely have a lot of people in custody who know of planned gas attacks. Those people should get exacltly squat in terms of rights.

And, yes I realize that on occasion someone who isn't really a threat will be detained, mistaken for someone who does. (Contrary to most here, I recognize that even the even the CIA is made up of humans.) This is awful. Oh, but for the better good of the country as a whole, necessary.

saint · « **Reply #85 on:** October 28, 2004, 10:51:57 am »

Took me a while to catch up but this thread is officially dead due to nastiness.


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news

Author Topic: Finally. The press see's my point: Bush's administration = War Criminals (Read 9494 times)

Mameotron