Hag - you aren't a liberal. You're just young.
Senior Member
Hag - you aren't a liberal. You're just young.
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
Registered Conservative
Oh my badd, you're just a liberal abortion supporter.Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
"Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
You can't spell Liberals without Lies.
Banned
Of course I have an IDEA, I just don't have any PROOF. But if my idea is correct, that makes my suggestion that the the supreme court case and the destruction of the tapes are related more plausible.
And PLEASE, lay off the "appease terrorists" bullshit. It is so Limbaugh-esque and really, beneath you. Nobody wants to "appease" any of our enemies. I, for one, want to stomp all over western Afghanistan and find them and QUIT fucking around babysitting a sectarian squabble in Iraq that has an inevitable conclusion.
.
CIA are not politicians
.
so true
.
tell me again which country those terrorists that were interrogated on the video tape are from?
i'll give you a hint, it doesn't rhyme with Iraq...
God is with Us
No, but they cover for them.
Immie
For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9
Senior Member
Not nearly often enough.
.
and that has what to do with this thread and your comment about CIA being political?
Banned
and this is a justification for the war in Iraq, how????
God is with Us
Everything.
The point is that the CIA appears to be covering up some sort of wrong-doing and I highly doubt it is the wrong-doing of a couple of operatives who just so happened got a little carried away with torturing "suspected" terrorists. If it were only a couple of operatives, they would have been thrown under the bus a long time ago. Torture is a hot bed issue right now that may just blow up in the Administration's face. The administration cannot afford too much more bad publicity on the issue.
Who knows what they are covering up? Believe me, I don't have the faintest idea, but I don't buy the, "we did it to protect a couple of operatives" excuse.
FYI: they were "suspected" terrorists. That is a big part of the issue here. Calling these people terrorists without proof is like calling me Jewish if I was seen walking down the streets of Jerusalem. I am sure this will get me in trouble with a lot of the right-wingers on this board, but I have a problem with torturing people period. We are supposed to be a civilized nation. At least, I thought we were. We don't know for certain that these guys were terrorists or that they had any information to give and believe it or not, I've got a problem with torturing people that might just be innocent. I can't justify in my mind the torture of any individual let alone one who may be innocent and the fact that George W. Bush tells us that these people are terrorists makes me feel even less confident that they are in fact terrorists.tell me again which country those terrorists that were interrogated on the video tape are from?
Immie
Last edited by Immanuel; 12-07-2007 at 11:51 PM.
For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9
.
For context:
and that has what to do with this thread and your comment about CIA being political?
A very bold statement. Are you sure?Immanuel;164995]Everything.
Again, you fail to address your post where you called CIA "politicians"The point is that the CIA appears to be covering up some sort of wrong-doing and I highly doubt it is the wrong-doing of a couple of operatives who just so happened got a little carried away with torturing "suspected" terrorists. If it were only a couple of operatives, they would have been thrown under the bus a long time ago. Torture is a hot bed issue right now that may just blow up in the Administration's face. The administration cannot afford too much more bad publicity on the issue.
Appears? Do you want me to start a thread on what appears to be your logic? I don't think so, because, it is only conjecture.
So far, you have added nothing about your CIA = Politician post. Are you ever?
You actually took time to ask this?Who knows what they are covering up? Believe me, I don't have the faintest idea, but I don't buy the, "we did it to protect a couple of operatives" excuse.
.FYI: they were "suspected" terrorists. That is a big part of the issue here. Calling these people terrorists without proof is like calling me Jewish if I was seen walking down the streets of Jerusalem. I am sure this will get me in trouble with a lot of the right-wingers on this board, but I have a problem with torturing people period. We are supposed to be a civilized nation. At least, I thought we were. We don't know for certain that these guys were terrorists or that they had any information to give and believe it or not, I've got a problem with torturing people that might just be innocent. I can't justify in my mind the torture of any individual let alone one who may be innocent and the fact that George W. Bush tells us that these people are terrorists makes me feel even less confident that they are in fact terrorists
Do you know of anyone who was hung over a bridge in Iraq?
Regardless, what do you seriously propose is the the "bestest" way for YOUR country to defend itself from a group that has declared war on the entire world?
Oh yes, Islam's goal is the entire world. If you don't think so, grow up and google it. go to some islamic site.
God is with Us
Your whole post verges on idiotic and is almost a waste of time to reply to.
I have already addressed your question. It appears that they are covering something up and yes, as I said very early in the thread, IT is only conjecture. Maybe you should go back and start at the beginning of the thread? Here let me point out some of the quotes:
Post #5
Post #7No doubt, but trusting everything a politician says is foolhardy. Sure, there is no proof [meaning this is conjecture] that they destroyed evidence of wrongdoing, but to believe they only did this for the safety of the agents is... well... foolhardy.
and post #9I realize the announcement is about the CIA and technically not a political announcement, but this will all eventually point at the political heads of our government.
I have nothing more than conjecture. Without proof it means nothing except for the fact that I don't trust them anymore.That is kind of what I was going over with TM yesterday regarding the rapist released by Gov. Huckabee. It looks fishy. No doubt about it, but there is no proof. I used the word speculation. You said conjecture. That is all it is speculation and/or conjecture. I think there is a coverup here, but that can't, at this point, be proven.
If you even bothered to read the entire thread, you would see that I never said the CIA were politicians, but rather that they were covering up for politicians which I even clarified to JD because we all know she can't read. You may not believe that the CIA would do such a thing, but then you seem to think that President Bush is your friend and cares about you.
As for defending this country, well, Mr. Bush wants us all to believe that if we don't murder them all first, they will kill us. Then again, he wanted us to believe that Saddam himself plotted the 9/11 attacks, that Saddam had WMD's, that we had to give up our civil liberties or die, that wiretapping our neighbor's (and remember you are someone's neighbor) phone was the best thing for our safety, that his buddies at Halliburton were the only ones that could rebuild Iraq, that the mission was accomplished (hmm, I wonder why our bravest are still dying years later) and that he was our best buddy.
He also wants us to believe that corralling up our soldiers in the middle of Baghdad, painting targets on their backs and saying "support the troops" will win the war against terrorism when all it is really accomplishing is getting more of America's bravest home in body bags. This is no way to win a war against an enemy that doesn't have the courage to show itself, hides behind woman's skirts and in places of worship. We can't defeat the terrorist by acting like sheep headed for the slaughterhouse. What's the best way? Well, I'm sure there are people more quailfied to answer that question than I, but they will never convince me that this is the best way.
As for Islam's goal, how does this make them any different than you Neocons? Are you holier than they? Does the fact that you have bigger guns and more men make you right? Do you have any more right to conquer the world than they? Defending ourselves does not require entering a sovereign land and occupying it for God knows how many centuries or killing and torturing innocent people simply because they are muslim. Do I want to live under muslim law? Hell no, but I don't want to live under Neocon dictatorships either.
Do I believe there is a cover-up here? Hell yes. Can I prove it? Nope, but that doesn't mean it is not there. Is it conjecture for me to believe there is a cover up? Hell yes, but no more of a conjecture than for you to believe that the men that were tortured in these tapes were actually terrorists or that a single one of the men (and believe it or not they are men) held captive in Guantanamo is a terrorist. There has been no proof given that they were guilty of anything. The article says they were suspected of terrorism. That is a far cry from actually being proven guilty. Unlike most of this country, I still like to live by, "innocent until proven guilty" even though I realize that this is not the way we live.
Immie
For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9
Senior Member
Of course there is a cover-up. The CIA openly admits they are covering up. Your mission now is to prove their motivation. It is NOT conjecture that Abu Zabudayah, one of only TWO men in these tapes, is DEFINATELY a terrorist and his interrogation led him to spilling the beans on MORE proven and now captured terrorists.
Registered Conservative
I really don't see what the big deal is. The CIA already admitted that they waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and of course 30 seconds into it he spilled the beans which led to the capture of several other to AQ terrorists.
Waterboarding works, and should be 100% legal for the CIA to use on terrorists.
PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
"Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
You can't spell Liberals without Lies.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote