The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:A few points here:
1. A person being tortured will tell their torturer anything they think the torturer wants them to say, not necessarily the truth.

We have the resources to check out each statement. It is a fact that attacks were disrupted, and other terrorists have been caught as a result.

It's also a fact that some were tortured who did not have information that helped thwart attacks, and others were killed during the act of torture where no useful info was gleaned.

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:2. Who decides that this person has the knowledge in their head that needs to be extracted?

There are those who can, and are willing to make that judgement... I'm available...

Somehow I'm not persuaded by your argument.

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:3. If you don't get the information you want, do you continue the torture until you do, apologize, or torture someone else to try and get the info?

Again, this denies the reality of what appears to have happened. Individuals DID talk, DID provide valid info, and HAVE been turned over to more traditional holding situations. Again, it appears to have been a very targeted technique used on individuals who very clearly had info of value... and, by the way, appear to have provided valid data that disrupted the plans of al Q.

See my response to your answer to #1.

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:4. Who would you have tortured to get the information about the WTC attack ahead of time? Sounds to me like you are talking about revenge, not prevention.

Non responsive. You know perfectly well that September 11 changed everything. It is the reason to be aggressive... Revenge? Challenge my veracity by challenging my motivation? Whatever. I certainly don't object to the bastards dying in a humiliating and painful manner... but I'm mostly interested in 1 Preventing more of my countrymen and women from dying at the hands of these sadistic bastards, and , 2 in catching and cutting off the head. You want to consider that revenge, fine. I know what I'm thinking.

You can believe what you want, but I don't take the 911 story at face value.

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:5. So when the Vietcong tortured American soldiers to get information to prevent further attacks on their comrades, you support that action?

I realize how harsh #5 is, but from their perspective they were only doing what you are advocating.

Actually, that's not why the Vietcong tortured American soldiers... and I suspect you know that.

OK, so substitute any "enemy" you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you feel differently when it is Americans on the receiving end of the torture.

OK, so substitute any "enemy" you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you feel differently when it is Americans on the receiving end of the torture.

Dude... Leon Klinghoffer... Robert Dean Stethem... William Buckley... COL William Higgins... Guillermo Sobero... I could go on extensively. These bastards torture Americans regardless, have since the 70's. There is no valid "quid pro quo" here. Red herring. American soldiers who are caught know that they are in deep trouble... and have since the death of PO Stethem.

I don't take the 911 story at face value.

I have no idea what you are saying... why don't you spell it out for me?

Countertrey wrote:

OK, so substitute any "enemy" you want, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you feel differently when it is Americans on the receiving end of the torture.

Dude... Leon Klinghoffer... Robert Dean Stethem... William Buckley... COL William Higgins... Guillermo Sobero... I could go on extensively. These bastards torture Americans regardless, have since the 70's. There is no valid "quid pro quo" here. Red herring. American soldiers who are caught know that they are in deep trouble... and have since the death of PO Stethem.

I don't take the 911 story at face value.

I have no idea what you are saying... why don't you spell it out for me?

Are we supposed to stoop down to the level of our enemy? If we are a greater bunch of people then we need to act like it by not torturing our enemies (Geneva Convention anyone?).

And have you ever given any thought to why we were attacked on 9/11? Could it be that we have forced our culture and ideologies on people who do not want them? Our "leaders" and some American citizens have this superiority complex like the way we operate is the "best in the world" so we must force other people to adopt our way of life. Imagine of another culture was force feeding you telling you that your culture is wrong and it needs to change. I am sure you would be willing to fight for your beliefs too.

One thing I noticed about the Tea Party members, they have plenty of hate in their bloods. When I was there in '09, they had signs that said "kill", and "death to.." If that's their overall attitude, I don't want them in the office, it'll be a big step backwards and I don't even mean with the current admistration.. I mean it'll even be a bigger step back than the Bush administration (if that's even possible). I have problems with Democrats and Republicans with their thinking sometimes but I'd vote for them over these Tea Party people ANYDAY.

I'll be there this weekend if I have the opportunity because I really am curious as to what the hate mongers have to say this year. If you support them, that's fine for you I really don't care but these people are flippin nuts!

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I don't take the 911 story at face value.

I have no idea what you are saying... why don't you spell it out for me?

I don't believe that all the culprits behind 911 were members of Al Q. Let's leave it at that.

langleyparkjoe wrote:One thing I noticed about the Tea Party members, they have plenty of hate in their bloods. When I was there in '09, they had signs that said "kill", and "death to.." If that's their overall attitude, I don't want them in the office, it'll be a big step backwards and I don't even mean with the current admistration.. I mean it'll even be a bigger step back than the Bush administration (if that's even possible). I have problems with Democrats and Republicans with their thinking sometimes but I'd vote for them over these Tea Party people ANYDAY.

I'll be there this weekend if I have the opportunity because I really am curious as to what the hate mongers have to say this year. If you support them, that's fine for you I really don't care but these people are flippin nuts!

The tea party is about small government. It has nothing to do with race. What do you mean "when I was there?"

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I don't take the 911 story at face value.

I have no idea what you are saying... why don't you spell it out for me?

I don't believe that all the culprits behind 911 were members of Al Q. Let's leave it at that.

You opened this door... please tell me more.

langleyparkjoe wrote:I'll be there this weekend if I have the opportunity because I really am curious as to what the hate mongers have to say this year. If you support them, that's fine for you I really don't care but these people are flippin nuts!

Make sure you bring your video camera... because, some how, despite all the claims such as yours... the vast majority of hate that is caught at these events has been SEIU members assaulting attendees and vendors...

How odd... all these claims... but no video.

So... am I a hater, Joe?

All I want is the Federal government to stop wasting my money... and my children's money... and my grand children's money. Heck, I even want them to stop wasting YOUR money.

... and, of course, to do those things that it is Constitutionally obligated to do... such as protect our borders, and protect the sanctity of the voting booth (which, at the moment, it seems unwilling to do).

I was there last year when they had their get together.. first I believe?

No no Trey.. I was simply speaking about the people I saw with the signs.. you can't judge everyone based on a few things. I don't believe I said anything about race either bro.

langleyparkjoe wrote:I don't believe I said anything about race either bro.

No, you didn't. I guess I'm used to that being brought up by their critics, but I re-read what you said and you didn't say race. But the national movement is just about being sick of politicians stealing our money and using it to destroy our country for their own selfish interest. It's the politicians I personally hate.

Deadskins wrote:

kazoo wrote:

Deadskins wrote:since you asked, no, I won't vote for a politician that I know to hold a position that I feel is immoral

I think every politician in DC has voted for endless things that are immoral. I'd be interested in someone you think hasn't

{silence}

That's what I thought. If you want to talk immoral, let's start with earmarks. Every politician should be indicted one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery for every earmark they've ever voted for. Earmarks aren't the worst thing they do, but it's the one without even any ability to provide the thinnest of excuses. It's just a flat out criminal armed theft to take money from one citizen and give it to another for the benefit of the politician

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

kazoo wrote:

Deadskins wrote:since you asked, no, I won't vote for a politician that I know to hold a position that I feel is immoral

I think every politician in DC has voted for endless things that are immoral. I'd be interested in someone you think hasn't

{silence}

That's what I thought. If you want to talk immoral, let's start with earmarks. Every politician should be indicted one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery for every earmark they've ever voted for. Earmarks aren't the worst thing they do, but it's the one without even any ability to provide the thinnest of excuses. It's just a flat out criminal armed theft to take money from one citizen and give it to another for the benefit of the politician

and to that point - I remember telling people that most politicians will promise and do anything that gets them elected - I wondered why so many thought that Obama would really be able to effect any change - the only change we have had is just a different buch of politicians

I'm sure that Obama, like other Presidents, would like to be different but unfortunately they are surrounded by others that will not let that happen. Obama has Pelosi and Frank and they must be 2 of the most stupid non-helpful people to get elected - how come these guys keep getting sent to do something when they have so royally screwed everything up

"Change that we can believe in" just did not happen - different bunch of crooks if you ask me

I'll be voting because I think it's very important but I will not vote for guys that I don't think can do the job

Deadskins wrote:That's why making a moral stand is often so hard. But ultimately, how can you justify being immoral, to prevent someone else from acting immorally? We're not talking about defense of home or family here, but acting proactively to prevent having to make that future defense.

That makes no sense by the way. If I commit an "immoral" act to protect my home and family from a current threat that's "ok" but to do it to prevent a "future" one isn't? How is that supposed to even make sense? Protecting our homes and families are men's job. No way I wait until the treat is in front of me as you demand. Proactive when possible is our job. If we had that chance and let them be harmed when we could have prevented it by being proactive, that's what's immoral.

LPJ:

I don't believe I said anything about race either bro.

Huh???

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:That's why making a moral stand is often so hard. But ultimately, how can you justify being immoral, to prevent someone else from acting immorally? We're not talking about defense of home or family here, but acting proactively to prevent having to make that future defense.

That makes no sense by the way. If I commit an "immoral" act to protect my home and family from a current threat that's "ok" but to do it to prevent a "future" one isn't? How is that supposed to even make sense? Protecting our homes and families are men's job. No way I wait until the treat is in front of me as you demand. Proactive when possible is our job. If we had that chance and let them be harmed when we could have prevented it by being proactive, that's what's immoral.

So you don't understand the difference between shooting someone who's invaded your home and going out and murdering someone you think might invade your house in the future? Really?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

kazoo wrote:

Deadskins wrote:since you asked, no, I won't vote for a politician that I know to hold a position that I feel is immoral

I think every politician in DC has voted for endless things that are immoral. I'd be interested in someone you think hasn't

{silence}

That's what I thought. If you want to talk immoral, let's start with earmarks. Every politician should be indicted one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery for every earmark they've ever voted for. Earmarks aren't the worst thing they do, but it's the one without even any ability to provide the thinnest of excuses. It's just a flat out criminal armed theft to take money from one citizen and give it to another for the benefit of the politician

First, I never saw your previous post, that is why I didn't respond. But just because I didn't answer doesn't mean I was silent because you had stumped me or something. Get over yourself!

Second, I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with? I guess you're insinuating that I've voted for every politician in DC, or agree with whatever legislation they pass. Or maybe you're trying to say that I love taxes. Could it be that we consider different things to be immoral? When Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," what do you think he meant? Either way, I said that I had undoubtedly voted for immoral people in the past, but that I didn't do so knowingly, and that if I do find someone to be immoral, in my eyes, then I would never vote for them in the future.

Finally, let me say again, I was only trying to make sense of the argument Irn-Bru had presented and with which I had concurred. I did this because I could tell by your responses that you were struggling to comprehend it. I was not calling you immoral, or saying that I am more moral than you.

Deadskins wrote:So you don't understand the difference between shooting someone who's invaded your home and going out and murdering someone you think might invade your house in the future? Really?

It's an irrelevant question. I didn't say they are the same, I said they both fall under the category of protecting your home and family. I think you should lock the doors at night and you shouldn't let little kids walk across busy streets alone. Does that mean you can't do both because they aren't the same? I like this how after you tossed out cause and effect completely on the last part of the discussion to make so called "torture" the same as voting for a politician who has a position I disagree with. I quote torture because we're not really talking about torture anyway, it's a label game.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

kazoo wrote:

Deadskins wrote:since you asked, no, I won't vote for a politician that I know to hold a position that I feel is immoral

I think every politician in DC has voted for endless things that are immoral. I'd be interested in someone you think hasn't

{silence}

That's what I thought. If you want to talk immoral, let's start with earmarks. Every politician should be indicted one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery for every earmark they've ever voted for. Earmarks aren't the worst thing they do, but it's the one without even any ability to provide the thinnest of excuses. It's just a flat out criminal armed theft to take money from one citizen and give it to another for the benefit of the politician

First, I never saw your previous post, that is why I didn't respond. But just because I didn't answer doesn't mean I was silent because you had stumped me or something. Get over yourself!

It was in this discussion you were all over, and I note you still don't answer the question. Name some people you voted for because they haven't voted for anything immoral...

Deadskins wrote:Finally, let me say again, I was only trying to make sense of the argument Irn-Bru had presented and with which I had concurred. I did this because I could tell by your responses that you were struggling to comprehend it

I comprehend it fine. I just don't agree you can toss out cause and effect like he did. You just repeated you can toss out cause and effect. That you repeated it doesn't make it make more sense. Cause and effect is one of the most basic logical constructs. Tossing it out isn't confusing, it's wrong.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I just don't agree you can toss out cause and effect like he did.

Not sure where you'll pulling that one from . . . although I have my suspicions.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

kazoo wrote:

Deadskins wrote:since you asked, no, I won't vote for a politician that I know to hold a position that I feel is immoral

I think every politician in DC has voted for endless things that are immoral. I'd be interested in someone you think hasn't

{silence}

That's what I thought. If you want to talk immoral, let's start with earmarks. Every politician should be indicted one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery for every earmark they've ever voted for. Earmarks aren't the worst thing they do, but it's the one without even any ability to provide the thinnest of excuses. It's just a flat out criminal armed theft to take money from one citizen and give it to another for the benefit of the politician

First, I never saw your previous post, that is why I didn't respond. But just because I didn't answer doesn't mean I was silent because you had stumped me or something. Get over yourself!

It was in this discussion you were all over, and I note you still don't answer the question. Name some people you voted for because they haven't voted for anything immoral...

Deadskins wrote:Finally, let me say again, I was only trying to make sense of the argument Irn-Bru had presented and with which I had concurred. I did this because I could tell by your responses that you were struggling to comprehend it

I comprehend it fine. I just don't agree you can toss out cause and effect like he did. You just repeated you can toss out cause and effect. That you repeated it doesn't make it make more sense. Cause and effect is one of the most basic logical constructs. Tossing it out isn't confusing, it's wrong.

How am I supposed to answer when you daon't even ask a valid question, or understand my responses? I said I have voted for people who HAVE voted for immoral things, not that I have voted for people who haven't voted for immoral things. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

I addressed that point at least 3 or four posts ago. And no, you obviously don't comprehend it. I didn't toss out C & E. I said the voting act IS the cause to your effect. Again, RC 101.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:So you don't understand the difference between shooting someone who's invaded your home and going out and murdering someone you think might invade your house in the future? Really?

It's an irrelevant question. I didn't say they are the same, I said they both fall under the category of protecting your home and family. I think you should lock the doors at night and you shouldn't let little kids walk across busy streets alone. Does that mean you can't do both because they aren't the same? I like this how after you tossed out cause and effect completely on the last part of the discussion to make so called "torture" the same as voting for a politician who has a position I disagree with. I quote torture because we're not really talking about torture anyway, it's a label game.

Not irrelevant. You said you should be proactive in protecting your family, akin to torturing being proactive to protecting your country.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:So you don't understand the difference between shooting someone who's invaded your home and going out and murdering someone you think might invade your house in the future? Really?

It's an irrelevant question. I didn't say they are the same, I said they both fall under the category of protecting your home and family. I think you should lock the doors at night and you shouldn't let little kids walk across busy streets alone. Does that mean you can't do both because they aren't the same? I like this how after you tossed out cause and effect completely on the last part of the discussion to make so called "torture" the same as voting for a politician who has a position I disagree with. I quote torture because we're not really talking about torture anyway, it's a label game.

Not irrelevant. You said you should be proactive in protecting your family, akin to torturing being proactive to protecting your country.

Not at all equivalent. You are equating killing a thug whom you think, without any additional knowledge on your part, "may" enter your home... with forcing an admitted, high ranking terrorist member of an organization with a proclivity for, and an announced desire to, commit additional unprovoked murders, and who additionally claim to currently have active plans to do so, to give it up.

In one, you are commiting murder...

In the other, you are clearly protecting yourself and other innocents from someone who has already announced intent, and with a clear history of following through. It's a false comparison. Of course, you already know that. There is no equivalent comparison in American society today...

I should not have to wait for people to die in order to act, if I have access to a means to prevent it.

It is the failure to act that is immoral.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I just don't agree you can toss out cause and effect like he did.

Not sure where you'll pulling that one from . . . although I have my suspicions.

Voting for the Tea Party is not voting for the war, there is no cause and effect relationship. I'm not arguing your view on the war, just your making that assertion.

Countertrey wrote:

deadskins wrote:Not irrelevant. You said you should be proactive in protecting your family, akin to torturing being proactive to protecting your country.

Not at all equivalent. You are equating killing a thug whom you think, without any additional knowledge on your part, "may" enter your home... with forcing an admitted, high ranking terrorist member of an organization with a proclivity for, and an announced desire to, commit additional unprovoked murders, and who additionally claim to currently have active plans to do so, to give it up.

In one, you are commiting murder...

In the other, you are clearly protecting yourself and other innocents from someone who has already announced intent, and with a clear history of following through. It's a false comparison. Of course, you already know that. There is no equivalent comparison in American society today...

I should not have to wait for people to die in order to act, if I have access to a means to prevent it.

It is the failure to act that is immoral.

Well put. I oppose the war, but the troops were sent there and are doing their jobs and deserve our support. Waterboarding a terrorist captured in a war zone in exchange for saving the lives of civilians, Iraqi/Afghani troops and American soldiers falls under the category of "no brainer." Then again "no brains" would be a good term for calling waterboarding torture then equating using it to save lives with terrorists cutting heads off. It's just a label game. Here are two ridiculously different circumstances which I'll refer to with the same label then equate them...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I just don't agree you can toss out cause and effect like he did.

Not sure where you'll pulling that one from . . . although I have my suspicions.

Voting for the Tea Party is not voting for the war, there is no cause and effect relationship. I'm not arguing your view on the war, just your making that assertion.

That's question-begging. My primary argument is that voting for the Tea Party is voting pro-war. So I wasn't "tossing out" cause and effect, you simply disagree with me on what the causes and effects are.