CIA had People Raped with Broken Bottles

mise_me_fein

wes wrote: »

I reckon being boiled to death is a hell of a lot more painful and prolonged than being decapitated.

I disagree.

anyway, The USA seems to be the best of whatever evils exist in the world and i'll take them any day ahead of stoning to death moslums.

Dont like Dick Cheney much but he is right about doing whatever is needed to protect US citizens.

Any society that treats their women like sh!t and doesn't allow their people to be educated has itself to blame.

As Europeans were are freeloaders in the world. We let America do all the sh!t and dont get involved but if they didnt exist we'd have to be doing some of this type of stuff.

i'm pretty liberal but in thing like this I guess i'm not into the hippy sh!t of standing up for fundamentalist scum societies.

Have all those BS anti war marches ever achieved anything?
The ppl from within the society have to change it and if they don't people liek the CIA will treat them like Cr'p

OutlawPete

wes wrote: »

I reckon being boiled to death is a hell of a lot more painful and prolonged than being decapitated.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

I disagree

Doesn't matter if you disagree. Decapitation is instant, being boiled to death is prolonged torture.

wasper

CountingCrows wrote: »

He's waited 5 years to speak up about this?

He resigned his commission because he wasn't happy with what he saw. He has been vocal all this years. I heard him in an interview here about 2 years go.

wasper

mise_me_fein wrote: »

I disagree.

anyway, The USA seems to be the best of whatever evils exist in the world and i'll take them any day ahead of stoning to death moslums.

Dont like Dick Cheney much but he is right about doing whatever is needed to protect US citizens.

Any society that treats their women like sh!t and doesn't allow their people to be educated has itself to blame.

As Europeans were are freeloaders in the world. We let America do all the sh!t and dont get involved but if they didnt exist we'd have to be doing some of this type of stuff.

i'm pretty liberal but in thing like this I guess i'm not into the hippy sh!t of standing up for fundamentalist scum societies.

Have all those BS anti war marches ever achieved anything?
The ppl from within the society have to change it and if they don't people liek the CIA will treat them like Cr'p

I love arm chair worriers.

Sleipnir

mise_me_fein wrote: »

anyway, The USA seems to be the best of whatever evils exist in the world and i'll take them any day ahead of stoning to death moslums.
Dont like Dick Cheney much but he is right about doing whatever is needed to protect US citizens.

You mean like Hitler was doing for Germany?
Is death by electrocution not as bad as being stoned to death?

Once again, can you please explain to me how attacking Iraq protected U.S. citizens?
Also explain how Vietnam threatened U.S. citizens?
Also explain how Nicaragua threatened U.S. citizens?
Explain to me how, when there were 19 9/11 hijackers; 15 were Saudi, 3 UAE, 1 Lebanese and 1 Egyptian how they came up with Iraq and Afghanistan as the ones who bore the responsibility?
(Fox News answer: Al Queda!)

Any society that treats their women like sh!t and doesn't allow their people to be educated has itself to blame.

Has itself to blame for what? For a country half away across the world coming over and pillaging, raping and murdering it's citizen's?
So all the men, women and children who have been murdered, maimed or tortured have themselves to blame???

Have a look at this page of dead Iraqi children and tell me it's perfectly acceptable because, you know, when Saddam was around, women weren't allowed to go to school.
Ask the mothers of those dead kids whether they would rather learn to read or have the children back.

As Europeans were are freeloaders in the world. We let America do all the sh!t and dont get involved but if they didnt exist we'd have to be doing some of this type of stuff.

Yeah, Europe is freeloading because we're not getting involved in torturing other human beings along with America. The more the merrier I suppose?
Should every person in the E.U. be willing to step up to the mark and go to Iraq and Afghanistan? When are you signing up?

i'm pretty liberal but in thing like this I guess i'm not into the hippy sh!t of standing up for fundamentalist scum societies.

Have all those BS anti war marches ever achieved anything?
The ppl from within the society have to change it and if they don't people liek the CIA will treat them like Cr'p

You're not liberal, you're walking around with a head full of American PR and spin believing whatever you see on Sky News is the truth.

mise_me_fein

OutlawPete wrote: »

Doesn't matter if you disagree. Decapitation is instant, being boiled to death is prolonged torture.

If it goes right through you'd be right but these guys cut the guys head off slowly using a sword....this is fairly prolonged. So, turns out decapitation is not always instant....glad to be here to educate you friend.

In response to Sleipnir, yes Europe is freeloading. Our economy grows while the US invest heavily in arms, while we don't, not to the extent that the US does anyway. It means people like you can say...damn the US, while the US protects us.

I tend to look at these issues like this. Countries that play the game of the USA and the countries that don't. From what I can see, the citizens of the countries that go along with the US have a better life than those who don't.

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. I totally think that going into Iraq was complete BS, but maybe it had something to do with Bush wanting to end what his Dad started, maybe it was about Oil, who know's. I think that the US wanted to have a foothold in the region ahead of any other country, to keep an eye on Iran. Once Saddam Hussein died we would have seen some sort of civil war in Iraq anyway.....so that situation was gonna happen no matter what. Still a terrible idea to go in there.

I trust Obama on Afghanistan. That's were the war should be fought. Keep the war there and well away from US shores. Also, the people of Afghanistan have a terrible life under the Taliban. Even though US interests are always the primary interest for the US, some nice side effects could see the people of Afghanistan coming out with a better life in 20 to 30 years.

I don't agree with torturing but you always have to put perspective into everything.

And for all the things we know that are happening think about all the things we don't.

If you feel so strong about the issue,,,,,,,,,DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAN BLABBERING ON HERE. WRITE A BOOK AND BRING IT TO CONGRESS. ,)

OutlawPete

mise_me_fein wrote: »

,,,DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAN BLABBERING ON HERE. WRITE A BOOK AND BRING IT TO CONGRESS. ,)

Who are you addressing with this??

mise_me_fein

OutlawPete wrote: »

Who are you addressing with this??

Sleipnir...his post seemed passionate but I guess in reality like everyone else here nothing we read or see on the TV no matter how bad or cruesome is going to change the way we live our day to day lives.

Or have you? Surprise me.

wes

mise_me_fein wrote: »

I disagree.

You have got to be joking. So your saying decapitation, is somehow worse then being boiled to death. Are you serious?

mise_me_fein wrote: »

anyway, The USA seems to be the best of whatever evils exist in the world and i'll take them any day ahead of stoning to death moslums.

So being boiled to death instead is better than being stoned then? I fail to see a appreciable difference.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Dont like Dick Cheney much but he is right about doing whatever is needed to protect US citizens.

So AQ can do whatever they like to protect themselves too then, right? As long as they say its in self defense they can excuse any atrocity, right?

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Any society that treats their women like sh!t and doesn't allow their people to be educated has itself to blame.

So the US can then murder innocent people due to this. Good to know.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

As Europeans were are freeloaders in the world. We let America do all the sh!t and dont get involved but if they didnt exist we'd have to be doing some of this type of stuff.

Didn't several European states join in on the US's Iraq mis-adventure? Hardly seems like free loading to me.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

i'm pretty liberal but in thing like this I guess i'm not into the hippy sh!t of standing up for fundamentalist scum societies.

So the people being tortured are all fundamentalist scum? Any proof for this? You know real proof, not fantasies from the US government.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Have all those BS anti war marches ever achieved anything?
The ppl from within the society have to change it and if they don't people liek the CIA will treat them like Cr'p

What has the Iraq war for example achieved, you know beyond being a Casus Belli for AQ and causing the deaths of thousands?

Sleipnir

mise_me_fein wrote: »

If it goes right through you'd be right but these guys cut the guys head off slowly using a sword....this is fairly prolonged. So, turns out decapitation is not always instant....glad to be here to educate you friend.

That's just nonsense.

In response to Sleipnir, yes Europe is freeloading. Our economy grows while the US invest heavily in arms, while we don't, not to the extent that the US does anyway. It means people like you can say...damn the US, while the US protects us.

Europe does not "invest" in arms? What are you talking about? Have you ever heard of BAE, the world's second-largest defence contractor and the largest in Europe? Built Britain's nuclear submarines, the Eurofighter, the Lightning F35 and the new Queen Elizebeth aircraft carriers? As well as owning a large part of a company that makes France's nuclear missiles?

Nobody, not even China comes anywhere near the U.S. in terms of defense spending. The U.S. spent some 607bn and China, the next highest only spent 84.9bn in comparison. However, if you add up what The Big Four spend in Europe, it's around 218bn.

And "they protect us"? From who are they protecting us when they kill Iraqi civilians?

I tend to look at these issues like this. Countries that play the game of the USA and the countries that don't. From what I can see, the citizens of the countries that go along with the US have a better life than those who don't.

Stay quiet, don't rock the boat and don't disagree.

THAT'S A BLOODY DICTATORSHIP!

I trust Obama on Afghanistan. That's were the war should be fought. Keep the war there and well away from US shores. Also, the people of Afghanistan have a terrible life under the Taliban. Even though US interests are always the primary interest for the US, some nice side effects could see the people of Afghanistan coming out with a better life in 20 to 30 years.

Ignore the current side affects of murder and torture and if it happens to you just remember that it might not happen to people at some vague time in the future. Or it might still happeN but fingers crossed! (assuming they haven't been removed with a pliers)

I don't agree with torturing but you always have to put perspective into everything.
And for all the things we know that are happening think about all the things we don't.

Donald Rumsfeld:
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know."

Genius.

If you feel so strong about the issue,,,,,,,,,DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAN BLABBERING ON HERE. WRITE A BOOK AND BRING IT TO CONGRESS. ,)

We don't have a Congress. Also, people can voice their views without writing a book. Not everyone has a publisher.

wes

Sleipnir wrote: »

Have a look at this page of dead Iraqi children and tell me it's perfectly acceptable because, you know, when Saddam was around, women weren't allowed to go to school.
Ask the mothers of those dead kids whether they would rather learn to read or have the children back.

Just a quick correction, Saddam was a secular dictator, and Women in Iraq had full access to education, which they lack now, after the US "liberation". So even that excuse presented by mise_me_fein doesn't work.

Sleipnir

mise_me_fein wrote: »

You ignored all my direct questions.
Surprise me.

Once again,
can you please explain to me how attacking Iraq protected U.S. citizens?
Also explain how Vietnam threatened U.S. citizens?
Also explain how Nicaragua threatened U.S. citizens?
Explain to me how, when there were 19 9/11 hijackers; 15 were Saudi, 3 UAE, 1 Lebanese and 1 Egyptian how they came up with Iraq and Afghanistan as the ones who bore the responsibility?
(Fox News answer: Al Queda!)

Manic Moran

Please, don't get the environment people started on his refusal to sign the Kyoto Agreement!

Oh, please do.

It wasn't Bush's decision to sign or not sign. In fact, it was signed by his predecessor, who recommended that Congress not ratify it. Bush continued that policy. For what it's worth, Obama has not submitted it to Congress for ratification either, though his argument that it's a bit pointless at this stage does have some merit.

I am not aware of states having entry controls , once a person has been allowed in by the federal government.

There's a difference between housing them, and just letting them roam around. Housing them implies that they become the States' responsibility.

Probably wildly off topic, but if someone was extradited from one country to another with a more lax judicial system where they could be freely tortured, if they somehow escaped and made it back to their country, could their home country charge the people who carried out the extraordinary rendition with kidnapping?

Is that not what the Italians did? Cost of doing business.

Yeah, Europe is freeloading because we're not getting involved in torturing other human beings along with America.

The inability for Europe to deal with its own problems without American military support (Yugoslavia, anyone?) has not gone un-noticed, particularly in the US. It was also noticed in Europe, hence the European Rapid Reaction force was formed. In theory, at any rate. Its more nominal than actual, as far as I can tell. Ireland is a part of the Nordic Battlegroup and to my knowledge has participated in no exercises.

NTM

McArmalite

I remember watching a programme about Central America and human rights violations. On the programme an American woman who was a nun told of how she was raped several times in custody in a dark cell. She told how one of the rapists had an American accent.

Overheal

McArmalite wrote: »

I remember watching a programme about Central America and human rights violations. On the programme an American woman who was a nun told of how she was raped several times in custody in a dark cell. She told how one of the rapists had an American accent.

Cool story bro.

Overheal

Sleipnir wrote: »

You mean like Hitler was doing for Germany?
Is death by electrocution not as bad as being stoned to death?

Electrocution? How uncivilized! Fortunately We've been doing Lethal Injection since it was first proposed the 70s. Though that was long after Mr. Jingles' childhood. Hollywood much?

Have a look at this <snip> and tell me it's perfectly acceptable because, you know, when Saddam was around, women weren't allowed to go to school.
Ask the mothers of those dead kids whether they would rather learn to read or have the children back.

Should I counter that with the images of Saddam's corpse piles or the images of office workers jumping out of the highest floors of the world trade center?
You seem to be allowing yourself to be just as gulled as the other people you've been attacking on this thread for their affiliations.

mise_me_fein

McArmalite wrote: »

I remember watching a programme about Central America and human rights violations. On the programme an American woman who was a nun told of how she was raped several times in custody in a dark cell. She told how one of the rapists had an American accent.

Maybe he was Canadian...WTF has this got to do with anything if ONE of the rapist had an American accent....should we expect from those that don't?

Has anyone seen the amount the US spends on it's military? Really has anyone? Take a look at it and come back to me with the Europe is arming itself debate.

Most of the troops are US and a few Brits, they isn't too many from other countries in comparision to the country`s populations.

Ok Sleipnir, or should I call you Mr Chamberlain, your questions:

can you please explain to me how attacking Iraq protected U.S. citizens?

Who knows if it has or hasn't but they're hasn't been another attack on US soil since they did attack.

It's like peole disagreeing with what Israel did against the Gaza strip. Very heavy handed but it seemed to work from their point of view.

Iraq is a mess that was going to happen regardless of whether the US invaded or not because of the population, but now the US has a foothold in the area and can keep an eye on Iran. Do you believe that Iran isn't up to something? Seems now like the French are with the Brits and the US on this. Maybe we wouldn't have this info if the US could not have troops stationed in Iraq, maybe we could who knows. I don't know all the ins and outs of the US plan but there has been no attacks since they did what they did in Iraq.


Also explain how Vietnam threatened U.S. citizens?

The US was worried about the domino affect of communism at the time. If one country fell, all would fall. They were doing the same thing as the USSR at the time. Trying to gain control in whatever areas possible. You could probably say the same thing about Korea but we didn't have the TV images to sway people like you perhaps. Maybe it was the movies made about the war. Everyone knows it was a disaster but beforehand the US was so anti communism, did not have experience of a failure like this that and had not previously seen images via TV that most people would have supported "attacking communism" on a battleground in whatever country.


Also explain how Nicaragua threatened U.S. citizens?
Are you talking about the issue of the Canal? They wanted to keep control of what influence that had/have in Latin America I guess, which would make citizens of the US better off. It's not nice but this is the world we live in.
Think of it like this, would you prefer the US against you or with you if you were Latin American? Compare the people and Puerto Rico and Cuba and come back to me with your opinion.


Explain to me how, when there were 19 9/11 hijackers; 15 were Saudi, 3 UAE, 1 Lebanese and 1 Egyptian how they came up with Iraq and Afghanistan as the ones who bore the responsibility?

Iraq, like I said before I don't know. Many reason could have prompted this.

Afghanistan....the Taliban were sheltering and supporting terrorists like Bin Laden. He kept releasing those videos. Maybe if he didnt do that it would have been somewhere else. Afghanistan is a very hard place to control so whatever the reason I think it would have been justified. Most people of the world gave complete backing to this at the time.

I dont know if any of the other countries were helping anti US terrorists as much as Afghanistan.

I don't want to get into the debate about the boiling and head cutting too much but does anyone know who they "cut" people's heads in Iraq.

It was a quick chop and off with it. It was a slow process over many minutes of pain.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

McArmalite wrote: »

I remember watching a programme about Central America and human rights violations. On the programme an American woman who was a nun told of how she was raped several times in custody in a dark cell. She told how one of the rapists had an American accent.

I have American accent, a German one and a British one, I am Irish.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

I disagree.

anyway, The USA seems to be the best of whatever evils exist in the world and i'll take them any day ahead of stoning to death moslums.

Of course you do, because you are conditioned to think that muslim (islam) is a bad religion, it's evil and needs to be destroyed. You see, Islam is gaining in popularity, while christianity is not. Some Jesus freaks in power are a little scared of this

Dont like Dick Cheney much but he is right about doing whatever is needed to protect US citizens.

How many "pre-emptive" strikes have the USA made on foreign nations? Defend yourselves by all means, but not by attacking other nations "just in case"... I suppose you believe the 9/11 attacks were 100% the work of the evil mooslums. Same for the bombings in london... :rolleyes:

Any society that treats their women like sh!t and doesn't allow their people to be educated has itself to blame.

I suppose genocide is so much better than womens rights :rolleyes:

There are more ways to deal with their leaders, there are laws and conventions to deal with it. They don't need to be bombed, considering that so many civilians get killed and maimed, it's clear to see that the USA couldn't give two fcuks about the innocent people (I mean the leaders of the USA when I say the USA)

As Europeans were are freeloaders in the world. We let America do all the sh!t and dont get involved but if they didnt exist we'd have to be doing some of this type of stuff.

IF they didn't exist, we wouldn't have as much of a mess to deal with. Considering the CIA trained what is now their biggest problem.

i'm pretty liberal but in thing like this I guess i'm not into the hippy sh!t of standing up for fundamentalist scum societies.

You are not liberal, not at all. Supporting a country and it's leaders, who, on a regular basis, invade other countries and get involved in their business. Which is 100% against the geneva convention, but the USA has changed the laws, and set up attacks to make it look like terrorism, and that's ok.

If you were liberal, you wouldn't be interested in the dealings of other countries. Where is the USA when all the genocide and mass murders are happening in Africa? Nowhere, why? Because they truely don't give a flying fcuk about it. There main interests are in the middle east, Russia and China. They can operate freely in the middle east because they have conditioned billions of people around the world to believe that the middle east is some sort of terrorist haven, but the truth is, the middle east is a mass of under developed, and very volatile countries who have a lot of oil Oh and their muslim.

Have all those BS anti war marches ever achieved anything?
The ppl from within the society have to change it and if they don't people liek the CIA will treat them like Cr'p

Wow... are you serious? You now display your lack of knowledge in this area. It's ok to torture and murder if people within "society" don't like what America does? We have to put up with it, because if we don't I will get a bottle stuck up my ass?

mise_me_fein wrote: »

If it goes right through you'd be right but these guys cut the guys head off slowly using a sword....this is fairly prolonged. So, turns out decapitation is not always instant....glad to be here to educate you friend.

Educate yourself. You are mixing up the differant types of beheadings. Lawful beheadings are quick and in most cases they use one action, with a very sharp sword. What you see on TV from Al Queda, are not true beheadings. They don't do it the proper way. Investigate it and know the differance.

In response to Sleipnir, yes Europe is freeloading. Our economy grows while the US invest heavily in arms, while we don't, not to the extent that the US does anyway. It means people like you can say...damn the US, while the US protects us.

You are dilusional if you think this is the truth. Picture Europe as a buffer nation for the USA, you think the USA get attacked much? No they don't. It's europe that gets the bombings and the likes. Europe is a pawn for america. They US don't give a sh!t about us, they are in "it" for themselves.

I tend to look at these issues like this. Countries that play the game of the USA and the countries that don't. From what I can see, the citizens of the countries that go along with the US have a better life than those who don't.

So just go along with the USA because you will have a better life? What in the FCUK?

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. I totally think that going into Iraq was complete BS, but maybe it had something to do with Bush wanting to end what his Dad started, maybe it was about Oil, who know's. I think that the US wanted to have a foothold in the region ahead of any other country, to keep an eye on Iran. Once Saddam Hussein died we would have seen some sort of civil war in Iraq anyway.....so that situation was gonna happen no matter what. Still a terrible idea to go in there.

Terrible idea for them to go most places really.

I trust Obama on Afghanistan. That's were the war should be fought.

Why should there be any fcuking war? WHY???

Keep the war there and well away from US shores.

With ideas and thinking like yours, you could well become a leader in the USA

Also, the people of Afghanistan have a terrible life under the Taliban. Even though US interests are always the primary interest for the US, some nice side effects could see the people of Afghanistan coming out with a better life in 20 to 30 years.

It's all relative, you look at their lives and you think "I need to change their lives" think of fcuking asking them first? How do you know their lives will be better... They have been rebuilding Afghanistan since the 60's. It's still fcuked. When the USA finished up there, they just left it to rot. Thinking they actually give a sh!t, is the wrong way to think.

I don't agree with torturing but you always have to put perspective into everything.

Let me get one thing straight. Torturing people, is never ok.

And for all the things we know that are happening think about all the things we don't.

If you feel so strong about the issue,,,,,,,,,DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAN BLABBERING ON HERE. WRITE A BOOK AND BRING IT TO CONGRESS. ,)

You know how many books there are out there about all this crap?

Nodin

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Who knows if it has or hasn't but they're hasn't been another attack on US soil since they did attack. .

...but, as Iraq had nothing to do with the first attack, thats rather irrelevant.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

It's like peole disagreeing with what Israel did against the Gaza strip. Very heavy handed but it seemed to work from their point of view..

....which again is rather irrelevant, because Iraq hadn't attacked America.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Iraq is a mess that was going to happen regardless of whether the US invaded or not because of the population,..

A non-sequitur.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

but now the US has a foothold in the area and can keep an eye on Iran. ,..

America overthrew the only democracy in Iran and replaced it with the Shah. The Shahs oppression of his own people is the reason Iran has the Government it has today. Why then, is America interfering with Iran a good thing?

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Do you believe that Iran isn't up to something? ,..

Given Iran's history with America, do you think them being next door is going to make them more or less likely to want a large bomb?

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Seems now like the French are with the Brits and the US on this. ,..

Which is hardly suprising, as the Brits were the ones that put the Americans up to overthrowing Mossadergh in the first place. The french were also involved and got a cut of Irans oil revenue after the Shah was installed. You can look it up.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

The US was worried about the domino affect of communism at the time.
,..

O, and that makes it all ok then?

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Are you talking about the issue of the Canal?
,..

Yes, the World Famous 'Nicaraguan Canal'.....

I salute your bravery in commenting without a clue about what your commenting on.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

They wanted to keep control of what influence that had/have in Latin America I guess, which would make citizens of the US better off. It's not nice but this is the world we live in.
,..

So if you have stuff I want, and I just take it because I can, thats ok?

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Think of it like this, would you prefer the US against you or with you if you were Latin American? Compare the people and Puerto Rico and Cuba and come back to me with your opinion.
,..

So we should side with the US because its big and nasty. Why not pick China, its big and nasty too.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Explain to me how, when there were 19 9/11 hijackers; 15 were Saudi, 3 UAE, 1 Lebanese and 1 Egyptian how they came up with Iraq and Afghanistan as the ones who bore the responsibility?
,..

The congressional committee on the subject found no Iraqi involvment. It was claimed only by the Bush administration in the lead up to the Iraq war, despite a complete lack of evidence. All claims were dropped subsequently.

McArmalite

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Maybe he was Canadian...WTF has this got to do with anything if ONE of the rapist had an American accent....should we expect from those that don't?

Wind your neck in their kid. I would have thought it obvious that with an American participating in the rape of the nun in the custody of a police/army cell that it was pointing out the direct invovlement of the USA in torture and murder in central America.

Luna Greasy Rust wrote: »

I have American accent, a German one and a British one, I am Irish.

So you conclude that the rapist of the nun might have put on an American accent as he was raping her for some bizarre reason ? :rolleyes:

Nodin

McArmalite wrote: »

I remember watching a programme about Central America and human rights violations. On the programme an American woman who was a nun told of how she was raped several times in custody in a dark cell. She told how one of the rapists had an American accent.

In fairness he could have gotten an American accent while being trained in the school for nun rapers Fort Benning ('The school of the Americas'). All the best torturers and mass murderers security personnell went there....

consultech

Raped with bottles?...Too good for em. Serves em right for bein foreigners.

Overheal

McArmalite wrote: »

Wind your neck in their kid. I would have thought it obvious that with an American participating in the rape of the nun in the custody of a police/army cell that it was pointing out the direct invovlement of the USA in torture and murder in central America.

So you conclude that the rapist of the nun might have put on an American accent as he was raping her for some bizarre reason ? :rolleyes:

Easily the most illogical post I've read in some time here on Boards.

Rapist? American Accent? By Jehovah it must have been ordered by Dick Cheney! Just as all sexual assaults worldwide are ordered by Dick Cheney! Just like my cousin was gang raped by a bunch of Dick Cheney's cohorts - I know because they all had American Accents.

We should put a stop to this intermediately!

/This is AH after all.

And god forbid an American tourist should ever misplace an accent. How many times have you been called Scottish?

do you think them being next door is going to make them more or less likely to want a large bomb?

Oh i dont think it matters much to Iran at all. However you have to recognize that having a (probably unprecedented, but thats another story) huge US force standing in the middle of Israel and Iran, it makes it infinitely less likely that they would be able to wipe the strip off the map?

Letting them do it of course, would be mass genocide, resulting in the deaths of 7.5 Million Jews of 13.2 Million Jews worldwide.

and that makes it all ok then?

That means "It Happened."

Why not pick China, its big and nasty too.

I'd be happy to fund your educational one way trip to the People's Republic of China

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

McArmalite wrote: »

Wind your neck in their kid. I would have thought it obvious that with an American participating in the rape of the nun in the custody of a police/army cell that it was pointing out the direct invovlement of the USA in torture and murder in central America.

So you conclude that the rapist of the nun might have put on an American accent as he was raping her for some bizarre reason ? :rolleyes:

Yea, I do "conclude" that the rapist MAY have put on an accent in order to throw off the the people investigating it. How is that difficult to understand? Funny thing is, you think it's an american, which excludes most of the world from the case immediately. You just proved that it is worthwhile to pretend to be another while commiting a crime. Well done

Sleipnir

Overheal wrote: »

Electrocution? How uncivilized! Fortunately We've been doing Lethal Injection since it was first proposed the 70s. Though that was long after Mr. Jingles' childhood. Hollywood much?

Should I counter that with the images of Saddam's corpse piles or the images of office workers jumping out of the highest floors of the world trade center?
You seem to be allowing yourself to be just as gulled as the other people you've been attacking on this thread for their affiliations.

Sorry, who mentioned Hollywood?

No, there's no need to counter images of Saddam's corpse piles because we all knew that he was an evil dictator. America knew he was when he gassed the Kurds but what did they do? At the time, nothing. Why? because back then Saddam was America's friend!
Oh, and let's not forget what Bush said after he had been told that Saddam has gassed 15,000 Kurds

"Saddam is still a man we can do business with."

and where did he get his weapons? The Land of the Free and The Home of the Brave!
Freedom, Democracy and Justice.

Saddam never claimed to be doing the things he did in the name of Democracy, Freedom and Justice. America does and that to me, is far, far more dangerous.
They've made kidnap legal. They just call in extraordinary rendition now.

I've seen the people jump from the twin towers. Terrible, terrible thing to happen. Really, an absolute atrocity but no more an atrocity than what America does repeatedly across the world.

Also, if I can just remind you again IRAQ HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE ATTACKS ON THE TWIN TOWERS AND NEITHER DID AFGHANISTAN!
So tell me, please, why was Iraq attacked?

mise_me_fein

Nodin wrote: »

...but, as Iraq had nothing to do with the first attack, thats rather irrelevant.

Maybe it was a chance to finish what Bush's Dad started in 1991. Some would argue that bringing the fight to Iraq kept it away from the USA so depending on how you look at it, it can be seen as relevant. I do believe some Moslims travelled to both Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against Western forces. I guess this verifies what I'm saying.

Nodin wrote: »

....which again is rather irrelevant, because Iraq hadn't attacked America.

I'm comparing it in relation to the fact that it was an attack on the moslim world in some sense. As you have stated no country attacked America, but they were all moslim extremists.

Nodin wrote: »

A non-sequitur.

What happened when Yugoslavia lost Tito? Extremists moved in and did exteme things. From the point of view of the USA, they'd prefer to be Iraq ahead of, well maybe some extreme group from the moslim world or another country that would be anti Israel like Iran and Syria. Don't you think?

Nodin wrote: »

America overthrew the only democracy in Iran and replaced it with the Shah. The Shahs oppression of his own people is the reason Iran has the Government it has today. Why then, is America interfering with Iran a good thing?

True, but if you were asked whether to keep the currently "elected" government of Iran or to change it to something more pro Western, which would you choose. The US are just keeping an eye the Iranian government, hoping the people wise rise against them. After all, they are calling for the destruction of Israel. Mistakes have been made in the past but. I don't agree with the setting up Israel in the middle east, but it's there and you have to deal with things in todays world, not in the world of the past. Please answer me on my question on the two options of government in Iran.

Nodin wrote: »

Given Iran's history with America, do you think them being next door is going to make them more or less likely to want a large bomb?

Less likely...the less countries that supply weapons to anti Israel groups, the better. Israel is very strong at the moment and this means it would be crazy for the Moslim countries to attack them again. Do you prefer the democratic style of government that the US is trying to set up in Iraq or are you more interested in the Islamic extremist government in Iran? Just wondering. I'm not talking about 50 years ago. I'm talking about today.

Nodin wrote: »

Which is hardly suprising, as the Brits were the ones that put the Americans up to overthrowing Mossadergh in the first place. The french were also involved and got a cut of Irans oil revenue after the Shah was installed. You can look it up.

Ah ok, so it's shady when the French do go along with the US and the UK, let's ignore the fact that they were very critical of what the UK and US were doing for a long time.

Nodin wrote: »

O, and that makes it all ok then?

Nope, not at all. Just explaining why I think it happened.

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, the World Famous 'Nicaraguan Canal'.....

I salute your bravery in commenting without a clue about what your commenting on.

I salute your arrogant response sir. The US have been p!ssing all over Latin America for a long time, but I think you should consider the situation being with them or being against them. Have you seen the current growth in Columbia. Compare that to the situation in Venezuela. I've spoken to people from both countries and the situation in Columbia is a lot better now than it was some years ago according to them. A lot of people have left Venezuela. Crime is out of control and getting worse.

Nodin wrote: »

So if you have stuff I want, and I just take it because I can, thats ok?



So we should side with the US because its big and nasty. Why not pick China, its big and nasty too.



The congressional committee on the subject found no Iraqi involvment. It was claimed only by the Bush administration in the lead up to the Iraq war, despite a complete lack of evidence. All claims were dropped subsequently.

What kind of world do you think we live in? They're are still empires and this is how they act. Pushing for their influence in whatever way they can. That has always been the way. The situation in Zimbabwe would be a lot better if Mugabe played the west's game, but he's not and they're fcuking him up worse that it would be otherwise.

You can go along with China, Russia, the moslim world or the USA(who basically make all the hard decisions like confronting N Korea and moslim extremists this is where Europe freeloads), /Western Europe.

So, who's your pick? The Chinese...not a bad system if you don't like free speech.

If or maybe when the dollar collapses and the US can't bankroll their wars through Asia maybe Europe will have to stand up on it's own again, then we would not be freeloading, but as it is we are.

Instant Karma

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Maybe it was a chance to finish what Bush's Dad started in 1991. Some would argue that bringing the fight to Iraq kept it away from the USA so depending on how you look at it, it can be seen as relevant. I do believe some Moslims travelled to both Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against Western forces. I guess this verifies what I'm saying.




I'm comparing it in relation to the fact that it was an attack on the moslim world in some sense. As you have stated no country attacked America, but they were all moslim extremists.



What happened when Yugoslavia lost Tito? Extremists moved in and did exteme things. From the point of view of the USA, they'd prefer to be Iraq ahead of, well maybe some extreme group from the moslim world or another country that would be anti Israel like Iran and Syria. Don't you think?



True, but if you were asked whether to keep the currently "elected" government of Iran or to change it to something more pro Western, which would you choose. The US are just keeping an eye the Iranian government, hoping the people wise rise against them. After all, they are calling for the destruction of Israel. Mistakes have been made in the past but. I don't agree with the setting up Israel in the middle east, but it's there and you have to deal with things in todays world, not in the world of the past. Please answer me on my question on the two options of government in Iran.



Less likely...the less countries that supply weapons to anti Israel groups, the better. Israel is very strong at the moment and this means it would be crazy for the Moslim countries to attack them again. Do you prefer the democratic style of government that the US is trying to set up in Iraq or are you more interested in the Islamic extremist government in Iran? Just wondering. I'm not talking about 50 years ago. I'm talking about today.



Ah ok, so it's shady when the French do go along with the US and the UK, let's ignore the fact that they were very critical of what the UK and US were doing for a long time.




Nope, not at all. Just explaining why I think it happened.



I salute your arrogant response sir. The US have been p!ssing all over Latin America for a long time, but I think you should consider the situation being with them or being against them. Have you seen the current growth in Columbia. Compare that to the situation in Venezuela. I've spoken to people from both countries and the situation in Columbia is a lot better now than it was some years ago according to them. A lot of people have left Venezuela. Crime is out of control and getting worse.




What kind of world do you think we live in? They're are still empires and this is how they act. Pushing for their influence in whatever way they can. That has always been the way. The situation in Zimbabwe would be a lot better if Mugabe played the west's game, but he's not and they're fcuking him up worse that it would be otherwise.

You can go along with China, Russia, the moslim world or the USA(who basically make all the hard decisions like confronting N Korea and moslim extremists this is where Europe freeloads), /Western Europe.

So, who's your pick? The Chinese...not a bad system if you don't like free speech.

If or maybe when the dollar collapses and the US can't bankroll their wars through Asia maybe Europe will have to stand up on it's own again, then we would not be freeloading, but as it is we are.

Phew... reading your posts is like watching FOX news, but without the comedy value.

Noffles

Hey.. if it gets the job done and the results we like... who give s f*ck how they do it... I don't.

Instant Karma

Noffles wrote: »

Hey.. if it gets the job done and the results we like... who give s f*ck how they do it... I don't.

because it's immoral?

or because it's been proven that anyone will say what you want them to say under torture, true or not.

My name is URL

Noffles wrote: »

Hey.. if it gets the job done and the results we like... who give s f*ck how they do it... I don't.

If it really is getting the job done then why is there no transparency in it, why are the US outsourcing it to other countries instead of carrying out themselves?

What job is it supposed to be doing anyway?

All it does is marginalize a certain demographic and turn them against the west, thus perpetuating the problem it's supposedly meant to be solving.

Sleipnir

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Maybe it was a chance to finish what Bush's Dad started in 1991. Some would argue that bringing the fight to Iraq kept it away from the USA so depending on how you look at it, it can be seen as relevant. I do believe some Moslims travelled to both Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against Western forces. I guess this verifies what I'm saying.

A chance to finish what my daddy started. Sort, of like the way I might want to finish a chess set that my dad started making, but on a grander scale with death and murder? How marvelous!

Some Muslims traveled to Iraq to fight against the Americans who were already an occupying force. They didn't go there before the Americans invaded.
Less than verifying what you said, it makes a complete non-sequiter of what you said.

And bringing the fight away from American soil to an innocent country, just so their innocents die and not your own is okay is it? That's a legitimate and fair thing for the leader of the free world to do yeah?

I'm comparing it in relation to the fact that it was an attack on the moslim world in some sense. As you have stated no country attacked America, but they were all moslim extremists.

Ah, useful for America that they can then operate without borders. It was the Muslims so America can invade any Muslim country on the premise of "the fight against terror"
Nice.

What happened when Yugoslavia lost Tito? Extremists moved in and did exteme things. From the point of view of the USA, they'd prefer to be Iraq ahead of, well maybe some extreme group from the moslim world or another country that would be anti Israel like Iran and Syria. Don't you think?

What happened when America toppled the democratically elected government of Iran and put the Shah in place instead?
That didn't work out too well no did it?

True, but if you were asked whether to keep the currently "elected" government of Iran or to change it to something more pro Western, which would you choose. The US are just keeping an eye the Iranian government, hoping the people wise rise against them. After all, they are calling for the destruction of Israel. Mistakes have been made in the past but. I don't agree with the setting up Israel in the middle east, but it's there and you have to deal with things in todays world, not in the world of the past. Please answer me on my question on the two options of government in Iran.

As above, Iran had a democratically elected government but they weren't too friendly with the U.S. so the U.S. did away with it.
"Democracy - our way or the high-way"

Less likely...the less countries that supply weapons to anti Israel groups, the better. Israel is very strong at the moment and this means it would be crazy for the Moslim countries to attack them again. Do you prefer the democratic style of government that the US is trying to set up in Iraq or are you more interested in the Islamic extremist government in Iran? Just wondering. I'm not talking about 50 years ago. I'm talking about today.

Israel is for a whole other thread so I'm not going to discuss it here. See above references to past democracy in Iran.

So, who's your pick? The Chinese...not a bad system if you don't like free speech.

Ah, good old American Free Speech.

To quote Ari Fleischer after someone had critised Bush's comment that the 9/11 hijackers were "cowards" basically saying the U.S. could be accused to the same when sending cruise missiles against a target;
[QUOTE[ "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." [/QUOTE]

Translation? "You can't say whatever you want"

Similarly, the city editor of the Texas City Sun, Tom Gutting, was fired after writing a column critical of Bush's actions the day of the attacks. His column was also the subject of an apology from the paper's publisher who wrote an accompanying op-ed headlined "Bush's Leadership Has Been Superb"

Anyone remember when the U.S. wanted the Al Aljazeera television network shutdown because they could be transmitting coded messages to Al Queda?
They never provided evidence that this had ever occurred in the past. Probably because it never had.

Search for more examples of America promoting free speech. You'll find plenty.

mise_me_fein

Instant Karma wrote: »

Phew... reading your posts is like watching FOX news, but without the comedy value.

haha, cool, didn't answer any of my questions but still cool.
Show's you know about Fox News existing as a over the top conservative channel. Still didnt answer the questions though, but you're alright in my book.
For your interest(or perhaps not) I am mostly liberal and agree with most of the opinions of for example, the views expressed on the young turks and Michael Moore, but on this I prefer to be Churchill instead of Chamberlain.

mise_me_fein

Clearly Sleipnir, our opinions are worlds apart.

I just want to ask you this. Would you prefer to be under a US sphere of influence or another one?

Technically we're under Europe's but Europe and the US, well check out the forces in Afghanistand and tell me the difference.

Maybe you prefer the Chinese style of government? I dunno.

Nodin

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Maybe it was a chance to finish what Bush's Dad started in 1991. Some would argue that bringing the fight to Iraq kept it away from the USA so depending on how you look at it, it can be seen as relevant..

As originally reported in the The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours,....

Nope, irrelevant.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

I'm comparing it in relation to the fact that it was an attack on the moslim world in some sense. As you have stated no country attacked America, but they were all moslim extremists.

Iraq was a secular state.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

From the point of view of the USA, ....

The interests of the USA are not my moral barometer.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

True, but if you were asked whether to keep the currently "elected" government of Iran or to change it to something more pro Western, which would you choose.

I'd choose a government that had the best interests of the iranian people at heart.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Less likely...the less countries that supply weapons to anti Israel groups, the better..

....so they can get on with the job of grinding those nasty palestinians into the ground and building colonies on their land. Yay.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Ah ok, so it's shady when the French do go along with the US and the UK, let's ignore the fact that they were very critical of what the UK and US were doing for a long time. ..

I was unaware that a particular state had to be "right" all of the time.....

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Clearly Sleipnir, our opinions are worlds apart.

I just want to ask you this. Would you prefer to be under a US sphere of influence or another one?

Technically we're under Europe's but Europe and the US, well check out the forces in Afghanistand and tell me the difference.

Maybe you prefer the Chinese style of government? I dunno.

Why do we have to follow another countries government? You think we have to pick one or the other? Democracy works for us (well for some), you cannot force another country to be a democratic state because "we believe it MIGHT improve their lives". It's bullcrap.

mise_me_fein wrote: »

haha, cool, didn't answer any of my questions but still cool.
Show's you know about Fox News existing as a over the top conservative channel. Still didnt answer the questions though, but you're alright in my book.
For your interest(or perhaps not) I am mostly liberal and agree with most of the opinions of for example, the views expressed on the young turks and Michael Moore, but on this I prefer to be Churchill instead of Chamberlain.

Stop saying you are liberal, you cannot be liberal with those kind of views. Thinking that invading another country and changing THEIR way of governing because you think they will have a "better life" is not being liberal. You are confused.

Sleipnir

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Clearly Sleipnir, our opinions are worlds apart.

I just want to ask you this. Would you prefer to be under a US sphere of influence or another one?

Technically we're under Europe's but Europe and the US, well check out the forces in Afghanistand and tell me the difference.

Maybe you prefer the Chinese style of government? I dunno.

Uh, where you said to Instant Karma;

haha, cool, didn't answer any of my questions but still cool.

I've asked many direct questions that you have refused to answer.

It's not just a question of opinion; it's also a question of historical fact and history repeating itself. Historical facts that you chose to ignore because they do not fit with your beliefs.

If I had to chose a sphere of influence? I certainly wouldn't chose American influence.
Why? As I've said before, while the atrocities of various dictators have been notorious, they've always been just that; the actions of crazy dictators.
America though, commits equally atrocious crimes but because they are done to protect Democracy, Freedom and Justice, they are acceptable.
Again, I believe that is far more dangerous than any one dictator.

Why should Iraq be under the American sphere of influence? While they didn't choose Saddam Hussein, they didn't chose democracy either. America's version of democracy was imposed upon them.

I really do not want to be under any sphere of influence if that means that innocents will be murdered, human rights ignored, people suppressed because of their religious beliefs, governments overthrown and countries raped and pillaged of their natural resources. Why should I?

You say you trust Obama, many Americans trusted GWB. What this has lead to in America is an unquestioning following of their leadership. Is that democracy? Is that freedom?
Even though it has been proved that Americans were lied to by their leaders about the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and Iraq's involvement in 9/11, the American citizen still trusts them.

That is the true abandonment of Freedom, Democracy and Justice.

mise_me_fein

Luna Greasy Rust wrote: »

Why do we have to follow another countries government? You think we have to pick one or the other? Democracy works for us (well for some), you cannot force another country to be a democratic state because "we believe it MIGHT improve their lives". It's bullcrap.



Stop saying you are liberal, you cannot be liberal with those kind of views. Thinking that invading another country and changing THEIR way of governing because you think they will have a "better life" is not being liberal. You are confused.

Why? Because we have to trade with other countries and they could fcuk us over like the Brits did in the past(economically).

I am liberal on most issues but not this one. I believe in a hard handed. I haven't mentioned anything else so you can believe what you want for all I care.

Everyone seems to have very passionate views on this issue, while for me I prefer to say that I expect this stuff goes on and worse.

Most of view and naive and full of it. So much passion but basically if you gave a sh!t about the issue you'd do more than blabber on about it on boards.ie, right?

Why not get onto to the US equiv of boards.ie and start telling them what they should demand from their government.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Why? Because we have to trade with other countries and they could fcuk us over like the Brits did in the past(economically).

Bullcrap. You don't have to be GOVERNED by another country to florish economically. You must have good RELATIONS with said country in order to trade. Actually, they don't need to be that good at all, you might have something they want. Enemies do trade with eachother too. Embargo's are bully tactics. "If you don't do this, we will stop trading"...

I am liberal on most issues but not this one. I believe in a hard handed. I haven't mentioned anything else so you can believe what you want for all I care

You can't exactly pick and chose when you want to be liberal really, you either liberal or you're not.

Everyone seems to have very passionate views on this issue, while for me I prefer to say that I expect this stuff goes on and worse.

Well I know it goes on, I don't expect it to go on, and it doesn't need to go on either.

Most of view and naive and full of it.

I have no idea what this sentence means or is supposed to mean.

So much passion but basically if you gave a sh!t about the issue you'd do more than blabber on about it on boards.ie, right?

Wrong. I am entitled to voice my opinion. It is my right. I also believe there is very very little anybody can do about it. Especially when I don't have the skills or resources to investigate the CIA myself. Your logic suggest that if one does not do something, that person does not care. This is not correct at all. I disagree with a lot of what America does, I also have the intelligence to reaslise that it is impossible for me or anybody else to stop them.

What you have engaged in here, is a debate on an internet forums. Do not expect a rally or picket about this. We can discuss what we wish, within reason, without having to physically do anything about it.

Why not get onto to the US equiv of boards.ie and start telling them what they should demand from their government.

Why would anybody do that? Tell somebody, what to damand from their government? Do exactly what they do? I see how you think now :rolleyes:

mise_me_fein

BLA BLA BLA......YOU CARE SO MUCH THAT YOU DO NOTHING.

I CARE TOO ABOUT ISSUES. I DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

OF COURSE YOU CAN BE LIBERAL ON SOME ISSUES AND CONSERVATIVE ON OTHERS YOU GOON.

I SUPPORT WHAT OBAMA IS DOING IN THE US ON HEALTH.

ENOUGH OF THIS.

OutlawPete

Jaybus!!!! Someone turn down that thread!! My nerves are shot .. wasn't expecting that ..

Overheal

mise_me_fein wrote: »

BLA BLA BLA......YOU CARE SO MUCH THAT YOU DO NOTHING.

I CARE TOO ABOUT ISSUES. I DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

OF COURSE YOU CAN BE LIBERAL ON SOME ISSUES AND CONSERVATIVE ON OTHERS YOU GOON.

I SUPPORT WHAT OBAMA IS DOING IN THE US ON HEALTH.

ENOUGH OF THIS.

Rageahol.

Quit labeling yourself. FFS. You arent even labeling yourself right, if you bother to look up terms like Liberal and Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Episcopalian, etc.

Just making sure youre paying attention.

Im an Independent if anything. Party affiliations are so backward.

Sleipnir wrote: »

It's not just a question of opinion; it's also a question of historical fact and history repeating itself. Historical facts that you chose to ignore because they do not fit with your beliefs.

Right. Because Europe is SO justified. I mean. Britain - they dont have a tarred History? The Germans? The French?

Maybe those are just Bad Examples.

By your whole line of reasoning in this thread, Britain is secretly plotting to restore its Empire. Ill even leave Godwin out of it.

If I had to chose a sphere of influence? I certainly wouldn't chose American influence.
Why? As I've said before, while the atrocities of various dictators have been notorious, they've always been just that; the actions of crazy dictators.
America though, commits equally atrocious crimes but because they are done to protect Democracy, Freedom and Justice, they are acceptable.
Again, I believe that is far more dangerous than any one dictator.

Look if you want to live under the sphere of influence of a crazy dictator I can always change your itinerary for The Democratic (pfft) People's Republic of Korea. After all, those folks actually love their bat**** psycho crazy Dictator Overlord.

I'd buy you a return ticket (so you could come back and apologize to me in person) but something tells me that ticket would just go to waste. Hmm.

Why should Iraq be under the American sphere of influence? While they didn't choose Saddam Hussein, they didn't chose democracy either. America's version of democracy was imposed upon them.

I really do not want to be under any sphere of influence if that means that innocents will be murdered, human rights ignored, people suppressed because of their religious beliefs, governments overthrown and countries raped and pillaged of their natural resources. Why should I?

Well you shouldn't. And you dont have to! The housing market out in The Burren is booming. You could be miles from your nearest neighbor and never have to worry about those Tyrannical Yanks ever again. Its not like those muck savages have internet. Let alone running water and television

You say you trust Obama, many Americans trusted GWB. What this has lead to in America is an unquestioning following of their leadership. Is that democracy? Is that freedom?
Even though it has been proved that Americans were lied to by their leaders about the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and Iraq's involvement in 9/11, the American citizen still trusts them.

That is the true abandonment of Freedom, Democracy and Justice.

Well maybe Boba Fett up there is on the Hope Mobile but while I voted for the guy I've been keeping my eye on him: Something about the whole acceptance speech and the way it felt eerily similar to the last scene of Episode IV: A New Hope.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Overheal wrote: »

Im an Independent if anything. Party affiliations are so backward.

Right. Because Europe is SO justified. I mean. Britain - they dont have a tarred History? The Germans? The French?

You left out Holland, Belgium, Spain and italy :P

Overheal

Luna Greasy Rust wrote: »

You left out Holland, Belgium, Spain and italy :P

I wanted to leave the Eyetalians out of it. Only because Im biased to their poor excuse for a diving soccer team.

powerzjim

the people involved should get arrested for war crimes however high up they are especially that bastard dick cheney, disgusting!

SLUSK

powerzjim wrote: »

the people involved should get arrested for war crimes however high up they are especially that bastard dick cheney, disgusting!

They should let Jesse Ventura waterboard Dick Cheney.

McArmalite

Overheal wrote: »

Easily the most illogical post I've read in some time here on Boards.

Rapist? American Accent? By Jehovah it must have been ordered by Dick Cheney! Just as all sexual assaults worldwide are ordered by Dick Cheney! Just like my cousin was gang raped by a bunch of Dick Cheney's cohorts - I know because they all had American Accents.

Well if a woman was raped and reported to the police that the rapist had an Irish accent, to anyone with normal logic they would suspect that the rapist was an Irishman - though you'd suspect he was from China or somewhere else ? Brillant logic Einstein.

And god forbid an American tourist should ever misplace an accent. How many times have you been called Scottish?

Well since I stated on post #166 that the nun was American, I think she should know an American accent now shouldn't she :rolleyes: Easily the most illogical post I've read in some time here on Boards. :rolleyes:

McArmalite

Luna Greasy Rust wrote: »

Yea, I do "conclude" that the rapist MAY have put on an accent in order to throw off the the people investigating it. How is that difficult to understand? Funny thing is, you think it's an american, which excludes most of the world from the case immediately. You just proved that it is worthwhile to pretend to be another while commiting a crime. Well done

" Yea, I do "conclude" that the rapist MAY have put on an accent " Obviously we've got a leading member of the biggest crakpot conspiracy theorys club here :pac:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

McArmalite wrote: »

" Yea, I do "conclude" that the rapist MAY have put on an accent " Obviously we've got a leading member of the biggest crakpot conspiracy theorys club here :pac:

What's with the insults? Learn to understand the world "possibility".

McArmalite wrote: »

Well if a woman was raped and reported to the police that the rapist had an Irish accent, to anyone with normal logic they would suspect that the rapist was an Irishman - though you'd suspect he was from China or somewhere else ? Brillant logic Einstein.

Well since I stated on post #166 that the nun was American, I think she should know an American accent now shouldn't she :rolleyes: Easily the most illogical post I've read in some time here on Boards. :rolleyes:

Refering to your own posts? I agree.

I have been called scottish, english and welsh etc etc. Saying somebody is from a nationality based entirely on the way they speak, is pretty silly really. I would check their passport etc etc It's quite obvious you don't understand.

TheZohanS

This thread is being closed due to its pure awesomeness and the fact that we're going around in circles.

Thankfully no keyboards were injured.