- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,570
- Reaction score
- 31,185
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
How about Americans dying for some other country that isn't even their own. Called on for help due to those not being able to handle whatever problem they have.
Is that good enough?
Wrapping yourself in the cloak of 'ethics' and 'morals' doesn't help your argument. In fact it is immoral to attack those who have successfully prevented any further terror attacks on US soil, and you should be thanking them.
This says otherwise. Where does it go wrong?The Democrats' 'reckless and irresponsible' terror report
Do you know whose side you are on? Do you know who you support? Or are you confused by all the claims coming from the different political and ideological combatants? Sometimes you have to make a decision based on logic and available evidence.
]Everyone is being paid so that point doesn't make much sense unless your idea is simply to taint one side. The fact is that no one in the actual decision making process was interviewed during the five years of questioning. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
The GOP wants everyone to be interviewed regarding Benghazi but the Dems seemingly wanted no one interviewed with direct involvement in keeping America safe. That's the difference.
What a complete load of crap.
Americans overwhelmingly believe that "torture" is sometimes justified. In fact it was not even defined as 'torture', though the leftists prefer that word. The majority of the American people, bless 'em, are correct.Disgrace: Senate Democrats' Flawed, Reckless CIA Interrogation Report.....What did this accomplish? It may fire up the lefty base and sate ideologues' political bloodlust after a brutal election, but this issue isn't a major advantage to posturing Democrats.Why?
So if enough terrorists tell you the same thing you eventually believe it?
I was more referring to the conservative reaction here on DP, but whatever.
That survey counts everyone who didn't say "never." Rather misleading.
Why not man up sometime and dare to debate?Wrapping yourself in the cloak of 'ethics' and 'morals' doesn't help your argument. In fact it is immoral to attack those who have successfully prevented any further terror attacks on US soil, and you should be thanking them.
This says otherwise. Where does it go wrong?The Democrats' 'reckless and irresponsible' terror reportWhat a complete load of crap.
So if enough terrorists tell you the same thing you eventually believe it?
You have some exclusive inside information here?Except they weren't all terrorists. Many were and are innocent. Like the six released this week after years.
Well, you can say "Liberty and justice for all,"
or you can say "Liberty and justice for just a few."
Pick one.
I should make a note that if it's just for a few, I would
guess the few to be the top .01%, because when justice
is select that is what happens. Wait, didn't a bunch of the
top .01% banks just get caught breaking laws and got
fined billions of dollars without any criminal prosecutions.
Maybe it already is "Liberty and justice for a few" already.
You have some exclusive inside information here?
Millions of Americans died for European freedoms but is the Western Europeans who are always the first to criticize America, along with American leftists. Many apparently believe their constant criticism of the USA is 'constructive'.
Not feeling enough love?
Well, that's due to no one putting a lil smack talk down on them. Most are worried about the thrown PC and the change up. Not anymore.
That doesn't relate to the previous claim.Please Google Mahar Arar, renditioned by the CIA to be sodomized and tortured for 2 years by America's buddies in Syria. His crime was having a name similar to a Palestinian.
You can see.....Right? :roll:
That doesn't relate to the previous claim.
I did Wiki and it says one year in Syria, no mention of sodomy, and the Syrians said he was innocent. The US courts felt differently.
Is he a citizen of the USA?
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that says POWs need to be treated with any sort of rights/humanity/what-have-you is the geneva convention and the USA clearly can give two craps about the Geneva convention.
IOW, does the USA even have to convict enemies of war? Can it not simply just do whatever to the enemy of the state? Unlike them, we have rights, but they don't, they're not part of the USA in any way.
Your comment made no sense. Neither did this one.
Oh you mean not to you. Well.....you have explained several times how you have trouble with English. Would you like me to get someone so that you could be assisted?
You're not a psychopath, that comment was definitely out of line. But I am kinda curious as to what you were thinking when you made that post. The OP outlines a dozen gruesome and inhumane torture tactics, pornography only being one of them. Not to mention that it wasn't just simple pornography, it was weird and designed to **** with the brain.
I have no trouble with English. I do not, however, speak MMC.
Are you sure.....Now I know those 5 lil dots can throw you for a loop. Do you want me to get someone to show why you do? I know a couple that are real good with pointing out words and meanings while explaining out the construct.
...
Anybody?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?