By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Two Al Qaeda Leaders Waterboarded 266 Times

akuma587 said:

Innocent before proven guilty?  And even if they are guilty doesn't mean they lose their rights.  Its scary how all of you claim we need to protect this country's values but are willing to throw away the values that actually matter to do so.

Its like Rubang so aptly put it earlier.  You can't secede from the Union to protect the Union.  You can't throw away the Constitution to protect the Constitution.

 

 

We are at war (and so good at it, I guess you forgot).

During war, it’s legal, and preferred, for a 19 year old man with an M16, to kill a man from an invading country. Our constitution says every man has the right to life, so how can it be ok to kill a man to protect our country?

There are acceptable forms of behavior, and unacceptable forms of behavior. In my eyes, weatherboarding known terrorists captured during war time is acceptable.

Innocent until proven guilty… you telling me those 2 were innocent?



Around the Network
akuma587 said:
Rpruett said:
akuma587 said:

"Terrorism" has been around for centuries. What do you think a lot of the revolutionaries did to the British? What do you think Guy Fawkes day is about? What do you think coup d'etats essentially were when ever the government is overthrown? We just freak out about it much more today than they did, and justifiably so to some degree if nukes are involved.

Well correct me if I'm wrong...But what did the British and those Revolutionaries end up having?  The acts of those revolutionaries led to a war.

 

 

But look at it this way. About 3000 people died during 9/11. In that same year, 42,611 people died in car accidents. Yet we waged a multi-trillion dollar war about one and don't even bat an eye at the other. Isn't that kind of ludicrous if you step back and think about it?

Lets say a plane crashes and everyone on board dies. If it was the fault of the pilot, people will forget about the story next week. If a terrorist caused it, people would be shitting themselves for months and maybe years. I think in terms of the actual risk terrorists pose that we worry far too much about them. We allow them to change our way of life when the risk they pose in even a lot of the most extreme circumstances is not that great if you quantify it in terms of the loss of human life.

Car accident numbers:

http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html

 

 

You are comparing apples and oranges.  Accidental deaths versus Murder of innocent people?  Great points.   Accidental deaths are sad stories.  Cold blooded murder?   That's an entirely different issue that sparks totally different responses and rightfully so.

 

 

 

Why is one worth trillions of dollars and the other is not?

 

Well let's see here ...  One is accidental deaths (Which is pretty impossible to prevent).  The other is an angry murderer generally who seeks out innocent people to kill and property to destroy.  How much money did the acts of 9/11 cost this country?  In terms of lost business, clean up, payment to victims families, etc?   

 

By the nature of accidents you can't prevent them.  You can prevent terrorism though.

 



TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

Innocent before proven guilty?  And even if they are guilty doesn't mean they lose their rights.  Its scary how all of you claim we need to protect this country's values but are willing to throw away the values that actually matter to do so.

Its like Rubang so aptly put it earlier.  You can't secede from the Union to protect the Union.  You can't throw away the Constitution to protect the Constitution.

 


Innocent until proven guilty… you telling me those 2 were innocent?

It goes right in line with their other motto.  Kill Babies, Save Whales.

 



akuma587 said:
Rpruett said:

You can worm your way around war.

You can't worm your way around .....  (or public danger).

With people trying to take bombs onto airplanes.  Killing thousands of innocent civilians and attempting to take an entire industry down in the process.  I would say there is great public danger in terrorists doing what they please.  Perceived threats?  There are plenty of 'real threats' against us every single day.

 

Edit : I wonder why there was more terrorist attacks on US soil in the 90s than in the 2000s? 

 

 

Yeah, Bush did such a great job stopping terrorism (if you don't count the largest attack on the American mainland in the past century).  He certainly didn't have any memos on his desk or other warnings that a terrorist attack was imminent.

 

He was just operating under the previous way of life.  (You know the time when there were more Terrorist attacks on US soil?).   One thing is for sure,  it didn't happen again.  The public was largely kept safe.

 



I think a War on Starvation would be more effective than a War on Terror, as well as cheaper, better for humanity, the environment, the economy, and way better for the safety of Americans.

I'm not advocating violence or terrorism or ignoring terrorism or letting it slide or not trying to stop it.

But acting like terrorism is the greatest threat in the world and requires us to blow all our money, throw away our Constitutional values, and destroy our international credibility is illogical and harmful.



Around the Network
Rpruett said:

Well let's see here ...  One is accidental deaths (Which is pretty impossible to prevent).  The other is an angry murderer generally who seeks out innocent people to kill and property to destroy.  How much money did the acts of 9/11 cost this country?  In terms of lost business, clean up, payment to victims families, etc?   

 

By the nature of accidents you can't prevent them.  You can prevent terrorism though.

 

That's just plain false that car accidents aren't preventable.  Over 30-40% of them are due to driver inadvertence alone and are caused by people who probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place.  You could easily reduce the number of car accident fatalities by imposing stricter tests on people to get and keep their licenses, take away people's licenses easier, and make older people take driving tests more frequently. 

Are you really telling me that 3000 of those 42,000 deaths are in no way shape or form preventable?  It would also be cheaper to prevent those deaths than to spend trillions of dollars abroad on a war that many people believe has made us less safe.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
Rpruett said:

Well let's see here ...  One is accidental deaths (Which is pretty impossible to prevent).  The other is an angry murderer generally who seeks out innocent people to kill and property to destroy.  How much money did the acts of 9/11 cost this country?  In terms of lost business, clean up, payment to victims families, etc?   

 

By the nature of accidents you can't prevent them.  You can prevent terrorism though.

 

That's just plain false that car accidents aren't preventable.  Over 30-40% of them are due to driver inadvertence alone and are caused by people who probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place.  You could easily reduce the number of car accident fatalities by imposing stricter tests on people to get and keep their licenses, take away people's licenses easier, and make older people take driving tests more frequently. 

Are you really telling me that 3000 of those 42,000 deaths are in no way shape or form preventable?  It would also be cheaper to prevent those deaths than to spend trillions of dollars abroad on a war that many people believe has made us less safe.

 

Hey, we could save 42,000 + lives a year if we allowed no one to drive.     What about accidents don't you get?  You could be a wonderful driver, pass tons of tests and be too tired driving home one night and veer off into mini-van filled with 6 people and kill them all.   Happens all the time.   

Without significantly removing/limiting freedom of our citizens you aren't going to stop accidents from occurring. Humans all make mistakes.  Even still you will have people who drive despite regulations or stricter testing.

 

Regardless,  you are still avoiding the initial point that the nature of death is the cause for concern.  Accidents happen. People crash into trees while skiing or driving.  People cut their hands off working in machine shops.  People lose eyeballs.   People die.  Accidents happen.  

Allowing Terrorists to come into this country and just bomb buildings and innocent people for no reason is not the same thing.  No matter how you try and slice it.

It's not about the pure numbers of lives lost.  It's about the assault on our lifestyle, our ideals and the general way our country is run that makes terrorism even worse.  I'm sorry but I don't want to live like Israel does.  Always under threat of some new terrorist attack. 

 

Sure it would be cheaper to sit back and store all of our money in the bank and not spend a dime too.  The fact is,  America feels like it has an obligation to sticking it's nose into where it does or doesn't belong.  (I'll leave that argument for another time).   Iraq wasn't exactly stable.  Neither is Iran and several other nations around there.  By gaining more of a presence in the Middle East we are more likely to have a stable Middle East and possibly reduce the breeding grounds for terrorism and the hatred for anything and everything Western.

 



akuma587 said:
MrBubbles said:
Killzowned said:
Why would I respect a country that uses torture? The U.S is so quick to shout about Iran and its ways of dealing with criminals, yet it does this itself?


iran hangs gay people.  the US waterboards terrorists.

Well that says a lot about us...we are beating Iran in the human rights department.  That's like winning the Special Olympics.  You may have won, but you are still retarded.

 

 

Ooo man so much win.



Rpruett said:
akuma587 said:
Rpruett said:

Well let's see here ...  One is accidental deaths (Which is pretty impossible to prevent).  The other is an angry murderer generally who seeks out innocent people to kill and property to destroy.  How much money did the acts of 9/11 cost this country?  In terms of lost business, clean up, payment to victims families, etc?   

 

By the nature of accidents you can't prevent them.  You can prevent terrorism though.

 

That's just plain false that car accidents aren't preventable.  Over 30-40% of them are due to driver inadvertence alone and are caused by people who probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place.  You could easily reduce the number of car accident fatalities by imposing stricter tests on people to get and keep their licenses, take away people's licenses easier, and make older people take driving tests more frequently. 

Are you really telling me that 3000 of those 42,000 deaths are in no way shape or form preventable?  It would also be cheaper to prevent those deaths than to spend trillions of dollars abroad on a war that many people believe has made us less safe.

 

Hey, we could save 42,000 + lives a year if we allowed no one to drive.     What about accidents don't you get?  You could be a wonderful driver, pass tons of tests and be too tired driving home one night and veer off into mini-van filled with 6 people and kill them all.   Happens all the time.   

Without significantly removing/limiting freedom of our citizens you aren't going to stop accidents from occurring. Humans all make mistakes.  Even still you will have people who drive despite regulations or stricter testing.

 

Regardless,  you are still avoiding the initial point that the nature of death is the cause for concern.  Accidents happen. People crash into trees while skiing or driving.  People cut their hands off working in machine shops.  People lose eyeballs.   People die.  Accidents happen.  

Allowing Terrorists to come into this country and just bomb buildings and innocent people for no reason is not the same thing.  No matter how you try and slice it.

It's not about the pure numbers of lives lost.  It's about the assault on our lifestyle, our ideals and the general way our country is run that makes terrorism even worse.  I'm sorry but I don't want to live like Israel does.  Always under threat of some new terrorist attack. 

 

Sure it would be cheaper to sit back and store all of our money in the bank and not spend a dime too.  The fact is,  America feels like it has an obligation to sticking it's nose into where it does or doesn't belong.  (I'll leave that argument for another time).   Iraq wasn't exactly stable.  Neither is Iran and several other nations around there.  By gaining more of a presence in the Middle East we are more likely to have a stable Middle East and possibly reduce the breeding grounds for terrorism and the hatred for anything and everything Western.

 

So you are telling me that suspending constitutional rights is not a greater assault on our lifestyle than making people take more strict driving tests?  The government has negatively infringed upon our way of life as well, not just terrorists.  Is that not significant?  Is the government changing our way of life not relevant at all?  I know a lot of my friends are more cautious about what they put online and even what they say on their cell phones sometimes because of the intensive invasions of privacy that have occurred within the last few years.

Are you really saying that 42,000 lives a year are not worth imposing slightly more restrictive rules on driving that would cost little or nothing to the taxpayer but spending trillions of dollars on wars abroad against countries that may or may not pose a threat all the while invoking the wrath of the rest of the world is worth it?  One life is more precious than another?

Allowing terrorists to affect us and change our behavior is what they want.  They are happy that we reacted like a drunken baboon and barged into the Middle East thinking we could accomplish anything.  They are scared that we have a leader like Obama now who has lived in a Muslim nation and doesn't solve problems like a drunken cowboy would. 

The War on Terror has acheived questionable results at best while wasting trillions of dollars.  And Obama has already kept the country safer than Bush while maintaining civil liberties. 

Terrorist attacks under Bush's watch: 1 - 3000 lives lost.  Civil liberties sacrificed under Bush's watch - substantial.  Damage to America's reputation done under Bush's watch - substantial.

Terrorist attacks under Obama's watch: 0 - 0 lives lost.  Civil liberties sacrificed under Obama's watch - some, but significant improvement over Bush.  Benefit to America's reputation under Obama's watch - substantial.

So by Bush's ultimate measure of his success as a President (I didn't allow any terrorist attack to happen - well...except for 9/11), Obama is winning.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
Rpruett said:

You can worm your way around war.

You can't worm your way around .....  (or public danger).

With people trying to take bombs onto airplanes.  Killing thousands of innocent civilians and attempting to take an entire industry down in the process.  I would say there is great public danger in terrorists doing what they please.  Perceived threats?  There are plenty of 'real threats' against us every single day.

 

Edit : I wonder why there was more terrorist attacks on US soil in the 90s than in the 2000s? 

 

 

Yeah, Bush did such a great job stopping terrorism (if you don't count the largest attack on the American mainland in the past century).  He certainly didn't have any memos on his desk or other warnings that a terrorist attack was imminent.

 

Akuma, I am afraid he did.  We gained intel at the agency of the Heathrow Airport attacks, the second wave on LA via hijacked airplanes, the Sears Tower attack, Brooklyn Bridge attacks, and more that were stopped.  This was not officially reported on because it is still classified but was well known.