|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 21, 2009 16:53:47 GMT -4
I think "What should be considered torture?" might be a productive thread topicIt sounds self fulfilling to me. Just the thought of reading a thread with that topic is painful. Let's skip it altogether. It'll last 40 pages and go absolutely nowhere. It's like asking, what is pain? Or what is God? You know how those threads go...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 21, 2009 17:47:21 GMT -4
I think "What should be considered torture?" might be a productive thread topic, by the way. Appearently you don't keep up with current events. Even the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo concedes that detainees were tortured, so your suggestion is pointless and a distraction. I not surprised that you would choose not to participate in said discussion. Apparently even you realize how flawed your "pro-Bush" reasoning is.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 21, 2009 18:03:18 GMT -4
Let's skip it altogether. It'll last 40 pages and go absolutely nowhere. It's like asking, what is pain? Or what is God? You know how those threads go... "Productive" in the sense that it would probably get some posts. Not productive in the sense that it would resolve anything. I mean, after all, it's a debate on the Internet.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 22, 2009 0:40:23 GMT -4
No, delusional would be bringing back Rumsfeld, the real criminal. Obama's keeping Robert Gates, the man hired to clean up Rumsfeld's mess. Gates is a quiet professional, and continuity is the right choice.
Gates will be tasked with getting us the rest of the way out of Iraq, and escalating Afghanistan.
For once, I have no argument with you, Jason!
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jan 22, 2009 12:58:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 22, 2009 14:35:48 GMT -4
Today, President Obama (Man I like the sound of that) signed an executive order formally banning torture. Seems he has conceeded that there was torture (contrary to what Jason "postulated") and he is telling the world that the United States won't be doing that anymore. Imagine that... Edited to remove yesterday and add today, because it happened today...DOH!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 16:06:28 GMT -4
If he believes Presdient Bush was a war criminal for ordering torture, however, he certainly hasn't acted on it. Maybe he's delusional.
And no, signing an executive order forbidding torture is not a conscession that torture has been carried out in the past. It is merely a conscession that accusations of torture have been made. President Bush signed a bill in 2006 that also forbid torture of detainees.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 22, 2009 16:43:10 GMT -4
If he believes Presdient Bush was a war criminal for ordering torture, however, he certainly hasn't acted on it. As I posted, I don't think he will act on it. That doesn't mean that there was no crime. Snarky ness noted. ...oh please. I'll attempt not to insult your intelligence if you'll allow me the same "luxury". You need to realize that there is no question that detainees WERE TORTURED. I'm sorry if you don't "like" that...it's just the way it is. The BIG DIFFERENCE being that Bush is a proven liar.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 16:50:55 GMT -4
If you tell your wife that you will never beat her, is that a conscession that you have beaten her in the past? When did you stop beating your wife?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 22, 2009 17:00:32 GMT -4
If you tell your wife that you will never beat her, is that a conscession that you have beaten her in the past? When a medical professional confirms that your wife has IN FACT been beaten, then saying you'll never beat her IS A CONCESSION. Sheesh...I can't believe you used such a lame analogy. edit to change crappy to lame...hey, I'm trying to be nice.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 17:31:02 GMT -4
When a medical professional confirms that your wife has IN FACT been beaten, then saying you'll never beat her IS A CONCESSION. No it isn't. In such a case the individual is still not admitting that they have done wrong, only that they do not intend to do wrong in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 22, 2009 17:34:02 GMT -4
If you tell your wife that you will never beat her, is that a conscession that you have beaten her in the past? When a medical professional confirms that your wife has IN FACT been beaten, then saying you'll never beat her IS A CONCESSION. Sheesh...I can't believe you used such a lame analogy. edit to change crappy to lame...hey, I'm trying to be nice. Someday before I day I'm going to find all of Jason's analogy's and publish them. Would make a very funny book. ;D Even Jason would probably agree to that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 17:58:53 GMT -4
Someday before I day I'm going to find all of Jason's analogy's and publish them. Would make a very funny book. ;D Even Jason would probably agree to that. Some of them work, some don't. There was a nuance to this particular one that was apparently missed, at least by RAF. To sum up, my feelings on Obama's Executive order is that it's a sop to the anti-Bush crowd, so it might in fact be viewed as a concession by them without having any real effect on anything or anyone, since torture of the Gitmo detainees, as I have pointed out, was already illegal.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 22, 2009 18:32:16 GMT -4
When a medical professional confirms that your wife has IN FACT been beaten, then saying you'll never beat her IS A CONCESSION. No it isn't. In such a case the individual is still not admitting that they have done wrong, only that they do not intend to do wrong in the future. I blame it on your religious upbringing...that is your inate ability to only see things as you "want" to see them. It's not your fault... ...torture of the Gitmo detainees, as I have pointed out, was already illegal. See...it wasn't that hard for you to admit that Bush is a war criminal.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 19:06:09 GMT -4
I blame it on your religious upbringing...that is your inate ability to only see things as you "want" to see them. It's not your fault... You don't think that there might be the tiniest possibility that you might be seeing things only as you want to see them, and that there might be some miniscule measure of validity to my point of view?
|
|