OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

Lash wrote:

Disrespect of the Koran...

Someone should have told them how we feel about disrespect of human life.

I think we should send some DEA artists to the Middle East, and see how they appreciate works like Mohammad in Urine.

This is quite illogical. Taking the word of war criminals against their captors is like asking the opposing football team to double as line judges. It just won't work.

I'll give it credence when we have an impartial witnes or two.

Hmmm - who might you regard as "impartial" Lash? US guards? Bush?

This seems to boil down to always believe "us" - never them. No matter how many complain. "We" shall always be right and good.

Do you also reject your own government's report of atrocities against prisoners leaked to the NYT?

I think it tragic not to allow the possibility that your country can ever do wrong, which appears the logical result of your position.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I am guessing from what happened earlier today with this thread that you are too delicate for the response I originally gave you, so I'll just say this.

Your response here has absolutely nothing to do with anything we were discussing, and is therefore a childish, worthless attempt to either bait me into attacking you, or derail this thread.

Just for the record.

Carry on...

It was an attempt to get you to actually see what the other side is saying by using words you have actually used. I didn't expect anything from you.

You have remained oblivious to my point which isn't really my fault.

0 Replies

Did you learn that new technique from McG, Lash?

0 Replies

You must have learned that one from Cyclops, OE.

It's just excrutiatingly apparent when something is so predictably one-sided.

parados claimed there were several FBI sources and a cleric that backed the story up.

But, when asked....no sources.

Why does everyone buy this with no proof?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

You must have learned that one from Cyclops, OE.

It's just excrutiatingly apparent when something is so predictably one-sided.

parados claimed there were several FBI sources and a cleric that backed the story up.

But, when asked....no sources.

Why does everyone buy this with no proof?

See, I wouldn't say I'll buy it just because somebody states it. I wouldn't buy it based on a retracted Newsweek story, for example.

An article from the NYT about the investigation (by the Army) into abuses and the deaths of Afghan prisoners on the other hand seem to be a totally different story, though.

In the light of this I have to say that the Koran sounds... well, possible. I think dlowan's question was quite valid. How could you find proof for suchlike allegations? What would you accept as proof? Who could be an 'impartial witness', as there seem to be only two sides here: the detainees and the Army.

So, what do you think, Lash?

0 Replies

Even without evidence, the possibility of abuse and blatant disrespect for the Koran was bound to happen. There are and always have been atrocities commited in these situations. That is the unfortunate truth about the dark side of human nature. There is that little bit of Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini in all of us and it is bound to come out when there is a prisoner,/guard situation.

That our wonderful American men and women have commited atrocities is a fact. That is just one of the horrors of war. Even those on the side of the angels-if there is such a thing-will become monsters if they live in a kill or be killed setting long enough.

It is naive to think otherwise. It is also naive to think this administration wouldn't lie about anything that might make it look bad to the rest of the world. And not just this administration; every government in history had lied. In fact, "History is written by the winner." Wish I could remember who wrote that bit of wisdom.

0 Replies

And I wan't inferring that there wasn't any evidence. There is more than enough to go around.

0 Replies

Sorry to do this to you, Diane, but it was Napoleon Bonapart who said that history is written by the victors, and he happens to be a glaring example which disproves the aphorism.

0 Replies

Well, damn, I was so proud of myself for posting without being angry. Then I botch it. Sigh.

0 Replies

Diane wrote:

Well, damn, I was so proud of myself for posting without being angry. Then I botch it. Sigh.

Actually, Boss, the denial of such a contention serves to prove your thesis. We know of all the massacres and attempted genocides precisely because the victor cannot control history, can not forever suppress the truth. So, in fact, i consider your thesis sound.

0 Replies

Lady Dee, Napoleon also said that history is a set of lies agreed upon. This is very ironic. Before going to the École militaire in Paris, he was sent to the preperatory school in Brienne. There, his strongest subjects were mathmatics (essential to an artillery officer) and history. After he was exiled to St. Helena, he frequently sent instructions that the King of Rome (his son by his Austrian wife) must be thoroughly instructed in history.

I suspect he feared the verdict of history, knowing it as well as he did. Seems to me to suggest that he thought ill of his own career, and how future writers would characterize it. However, just over 180 years after his death, he still remains just about the most written-about person in that period of time. Biographies of the man, and histories of his time are far more likely to be positive or neutral toward him, than negative. Yet he lost--and to the English of his era, he was a monster on the scale of a Hitler--some biographers have reasonably suggsted that the English viewed him with more horror and disgust than their ancestors would feel toward Hitler.

All of which having been said, i consider the thesis you expounded to be sound.

0 Replies

{{{{{Setanta}}}}} Dys says he has more charm that you. I think he's wrong.

Lash, come on over for pizza and beer.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

kickycan wrote:
I am guessing from what happened earlier today with this thread that you are too delicate for the response I originally gave you, so I'll just say this.

Your response here has absolutely nothing to do with anything we were discussing, and is therefore a childish, worthless attempt to either bait me into attacking you, or derail this thread.

Just for the record.

Carry on...

It was an attempt to get you to actually see what the other side is saying by using words you have actually used. I didn't expect anything from you.

You have remained oblivious to my point which isn't really my fault.

You're right. I am still oblivious to your point. And frankly, I am pretty sure that it is your fault. But I'd like to hear more.

What other side is this that you are talking about? Who are you presuming to speak for here? I didn't know there were only two sides, but maybe if you explain it to me real slow, I'll understand...go ahead, please, if you would, explain it to me in simple terms, so that even a dummy like me can understand.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Lash wrote:
You must have learned that one from Cyclops, OE.

It's just excrutiatingly apparent when something is so predictably one-sided.

parados claimed there were several FBI sources and a cleric that backed the story up.

But, when asked....no sources.

Why does everyone buy this with no proof?

See, I wouldn't say I'll buy it just because somebody states it. I wouldn't buy it based on a retracted Newsweek story, for example.

An article from the NYT about the investigation (by the Army) into abuses and the deaths of Afghan prisoners on the other hand seem to be a totally different story, though.

In the light of this I have to say that the Koran sounds... well, possible. I think dlowan's question was quite valid. How could you find proof for suchlike allegations? What would you accept as proof? Who could be an 'impartial witness', as there seem to be only two sides here: the detainees and the Army.

So, what do you think, Lash?

Her question was equally as valid as mine.

There are other people who come in and out. It would have to be corraborated. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a detainee alone.

0 Replies

Who comes in and out?

0 Replies

(of Gitmo, in case that wasn't clear)

0 Replies

Lawyers, the press, the Red Cross, priests, religious types, ...I think consular officials from some of the detainees' countries... likely more I don't know of.

0 Replies

Apart from the fact that press access has been limited and that lawyers and priests belong to the military, do you expect them to witness something in person? And how would that possibly happen? As far as I know there are no lawyers or priests present during the interrogations...

What if a detainee would complain to somebody 'coming in and out', would that be good enough?

0 Replies

Is it good enough to take the word of a detainee alone with no evidence?

0 Replies

Lash, sweetheart, wouldn't that be answered with

old europe wrote:

See, I wouldn't say I'll buy it just because somebody states it. I wouldn't buy it based on a retracted Newsweek story, for example.

???

And it hasn't been one detainee talking about mistreatment, but several. Some reports came from released detainees, some came from the IRC. US authorities even said that action was taken to stop it. Now the question is: why take action to stop something that never happened?

But I see you want to avoid answering the central question: Whom would you accept as an impartial witness, and how could something be actually witnessed?

0 Replies

OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know