Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers, or LARK Program

Or I was mistaken.

When you mistakenly claimed that I "attributed words to [you]" when I was obviously paraphrasing, a really petty person would say that you lied - I, however, am not such a petty person.

The OP is ridculing the US torturing of prisoners. Is that a fair characterization? You say in your first post to this thread, "The ones complaining of these tools are the same mamby pambies ..." Why did you leave off the more serious "tools" as though those complaining only complained about "underwear on the head", loud music and the specific, limited things on your list? Is that a lie of omission? An exaggeration? A mistake?

When you approvingly spoke of "tools" needed to "stress" the prisoners and "break their spirits" I didn't think you seriously believed that underwear on their heads would actually break anyone's spirit, so I concluded - mistakenly - that you meant all the approved "tools" that were actually used that were called torture by the "mamby pambies".

Does this mean you think that underwear on the head will break their spirits amd "make them fearful"? Please elaborate so I don't again mistake your position.

Not only have I not lied, I have apologized for misunderstanding when you pointed out my mistake, I have asked questions for clarification which you have declined to answer and I have kept a civil tone (neener, neener).

You should know that it is against Board rules to call your fellow poster a liar. I'm sure you would not want to deliberately flout the rules, so please be aware.

 

I see we cannot say a fellow poster has lied when the facts in writing on this board say otherwise. But we can say the President has lied. What a double standard. Its hypocracy.

What I want is for you to acknowledge on each point that you attributed to me that I infact did not say.

Here is the pattern in which I speak.

I acknowledge that rm did not at any time say that he believes (blank) is acceptable. And I have no knowledge, proof, or evidence that he believes this.

 

Hey, thems the rules you agreed to when you signed up. I didn't make them up and I didn't blow the whistle on you. And the facts don't bear out your contention as I have shown several times already.

If you want me to acknowledge that I'm mistaken about something, you'll have to be a heck of a lot more specific than (blank). In good conscience, I cannot say that there was no evidence - insufficient & incomplete, yeah sure very likely, but not no.

You still haven't answered any of my requests for clarification on the points already mentioned. I've explained my reasonning with evidence in some detail for supposing you held the view I supposed you did. Now it's your turn to explain where my supposing went wrong.

Do you think that underwear on the head, etc (<- the etc is shorthand for everything you specifically listed) is really what the "mamby pambies" (<- note the quotation marks denote your actual words") complained was torture (<- lack of quotation marks means not your words)? <- the question mark means that you should state what it is that correct and incorrect in the supposition.

Do you think that underwear on the head, etc will "break their spirits" and "make them fearful"?

When you listed specific acts that your second paragraph apparently referred to as "tools", why did you leave out the other things I mentioned which were also used with the approval of civilian command? Morales' memo said any pain up to the point of major organ failure - do you approve of this? If not, why not since that is our government's position?

Do you think any of them are legitimate "tools" for "breaking...spirits" or do you think the Bush administration is wrong for approving them?

And, for the fourth time, where and how have I defined "hate-mongering?"

 

Revmitchell,

Since you seemed quite angry that I had mistated your position on the USA's use of torture on prisoners, here is your chance to state what your position is.

What do you include and exclude in your definition of stress and deprivation that does not cross the line into torture?

Being deprived of clothes, drenched with water and put into a near freezing room - is that acceptable, necessary s&d or is it torture?

Being shackled to the floor of your cell for 18 hours at a time without bathroom breaks s&d or t?

Is waterboarding s&d or t?

Is there any point that sleep deprivation crosses the line from s&d to t?

How much physical violence is acceptable s&d? Is there any point before death that it crosses over to t? If so, what is that point?

Do you agree or disagree that what Morales allowed went too far?
Since I have gotten your positon wrong before, please set the records straight as to what it is you do believe.

 

Daisy said,

"Sure, they used to be oppressed by an evil dictator, but they had jobs, water, electricity (air conditioning!), healthcare, schools, houses. Now any fool with a gun can kidnap, rape and pillage."

You see not all of them had these amenities hundreds of them only had mass graves. Also not just any fool had guns only those fools who had ties with the militant government. Kidnap,rape and pillage were common place only a very naive person would think other wise.

I find it interesting that the systematic brutality and oppression of the Iraqi people did not bother you when those atrocities furthered the demonic reign of Saddam. But under the guise of patriotism you attack America on nearly every front is there any part of conservative government you would agree with? You stand behind the freedoms offered you in America and yet deny and confront the very same powers that enabled your freedoms to start with.

There is a passage of scripture that comes to mind in a paraphrase, how can sweet and bitter water flow from the same fountain?

You seem to me to be very bitter toward America.

thjplgvp

 

Does it bother me more, that the horror in Iraq today is America's doing, more than it did when it was Saddam's doing?

I have to admit that it does.

 

The very fact that some people equate what America is doing in Iraq to what Saddam was doing in Iraq causes me to question why that equation comes to their mind.

Then I realize there cannot be an understanding of such mindsets for they are not open to discussion nor compromise. The view appears to be in a group set, not in individuals working within organizations. I doubt I can even explain my newest epiphany -- and with closed minds, I feel no need to be clearer.

 

Most of them did have these amenities. Yes, hundreds had mass graves, more than that over the decades, but now the mass killings are coming from many directions instead of only one. Is this better to you?

No, many fools had guns, no government ties were needed unlike in NYC, but civil order was maintained enough to discourage the wanton use.

However you define "common" it is far more so now that police are few and far between.

Somehow, I don't find it odd that you would mistate my view so blatently. The Galatian put it very well: "Does it bother me more, that the horror in Iraq today is America's doing, more than it did when it was Saddam's doing?

I have to admit that it does."

Nearly every front? I object to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and to torture, but I believe that there are more fronts than those two. It is not the under "guise of patriotism" that I criticize these, but in all sincerity.

Sure. I would agree with fiscal prudence, but that has not been demonstrated by this adminstration. By implication, you seem to be saying that torture is a part of conservative government since that is what I am opposing in this thread - is that what you mean to say?

Torture is not the same power that enabled my freedoms.

Because I oppose torturing prisoners? Because I believe this was an extremely ill-advised war?

No, I am not bitter at all towards America, but I am against this particular administration. Bush is not America.

Then, too, a Debate Forum tends to make the participants seem more extreme than they probably are by its nature of arguement and opposition.

 

I don't know if it's clever or sad to refuse to discuss the issues by pretending it is the other side which is closed.

It's sad if you're deceiving yourself, but clever in a cynical way if you are trying to deceive others.

 

No deception intended, and nothing to deny. I have found a couple of posters that are consistent in misreading, misunderstand or misjudging.

Rather than debating specifics and sharing viewpoints, I find a lack that has ceased to be of educational value. Instead, dust shaking appears much more appropriate.

I leave you to your own conclusions. I have mine.

 

Grammar

Daisy said, somehow, "I don't find it odd that you would mistate my view so blatently. The Galatian put it very well: "Does it bother me more, that the horror in Iraq today is America's doing, more than it did when it was Saddam's doing?

I have to admit that it does."

Are you and Galatian saying that if the United States pulled out of Iraq the violence would cease? Are you saying that the aforementioned crimes are the fault of the USA instead of the sin nature of man? Is there any way other than allegation that you can prove the so called horror in Iraq is America’s fault? Are we giving lessons on the side of how to hide behind women and children, how to rape, how to pillage or are the people involved doing this on their own?

Daisy said, "Sure. I would agree with fiscal prudence, but that has not been demonstrated by this adminstration. By implication, you seem to be saying that torture is a part of conservative government since that is what I am opposing in this thread - is that what you mean to say?"

I would agree that financial responsibility has not been guarded or overseen as well as it should have been.

Torture in my opinion has not occurred being former military we were taught to expect the very worst captured. I have never spent time in prison or jail or in confinement but I certainly would not expect to be treated fairly and perhaps given the nature of my capture and confinement I would expect to be tortured. I read about Amando Valadares who was a political prisoner in Cuba. There they were killing Christians nearly daily, they would put prisoners in cells under the guards who would use the area as a bathroom, they would deprive them of sleep not for hours but for days, they were fed with whatever could be thrown into the cooking pots, they were denied medical help, had no blankets and had their clothing taken from them. Have you ever tried to sleep on the coast with out a blanket?

Common as it is used in everyday conversation here in America, does it surprise you that someone is raped, there is another gangland shooting, there is another drive by shooting or another home is broken into etc?

Daisy wrote, "No, I am not bitter at all towards America, but I am against this particular administration. Bush is not America."

In my mind I find it hard to equate Iraq and the struggles going on there with the decisions of the administration on the home front. I am not happy with all the decisions at home as outlined by this administration on the other hand I could not in my wildest imagination say that our president is not acting to the best of his ability in the best interests of the American people. Since America has not come under attack since 9-11 it would seem that that the offensive has been the best defense.

Daisy wrote, "Then, too, a Debate Forum tends to make the participants seem more extreme than they probably are by its nature of argument and opposition."

I agree wholeheartedly the above statement.

thjplgvp

 

Barbarian observes:
Does it bother me more, that the horror in Iraq today is America's doing, more than it did when it was Saddam's doing?

I have to admit that it does.

I read my statement several times over, and I can't see how your interpretation could have been taken from it. In fact, we messed up and caused a huge amount of violence and suffering in Iraq. But just pulling out might make it even worse now. Like many other disasters, it was easier to do it than fixing it will be.

Sin nature is universal. And yet most societies are not afflicted as Iraq is. We have made things worse. More Iraqis are now dying than died under Saddam.

We invaded and set things up as they are now. It could easily have been avoided if Bush hadn't listened to his neocon fools with their post-marxist theories about the perfectability of man.

What we should have done was depose Saddam, remove the top layer of the Baath party, call in the mid-level Baathists, and explain what they wouild have to do to avoid us coming back.

Even Bush now admits disbanding the Iraqi army was a huge mistake. They were the group that kept the radicals from taking over. And we disbanded them.

According to Army investigators, yes, in at least one case.

That's like saying there was a bit of rain in Noah's time.

 

I have never said that. What I said it that the Coalition of the Willing destroyed civil order in Iraq and gave the brigands a free hand.

Do I need to prove to you that destroying civil order and removing police presence in a country will inevitably lead to a dramatic rise in crime? Disbanding the Iraqi army & government which suddenly threw 400,000 men out of work seems not to have led to peace and docility.

We removed the contraints. What did you think would happen?

So when Cubans deprive prisoners of sleep for days it is torture, but when we do it, it is not? When they deprived prisoners of blankets, it is torture, but when we shackle prisoners naked to their cells, douse them with water and keep the temperature near freezing, it is not.

You've heard of waterboarding - is it torture or is it not? If not, why not?

Does it surprise you that rapes and kidnapping have increased in Iraq now that there are almost no police? There had been civil order - some may have found it oppressive - before the invasion, but now there is virtually none. The thugs were kept in check, now they are not. Sure I blame the thugs, but I also blame those who removed the check.

This was not unforeseen, but the Bush administration disregarded Powell and replaced Garner by Bremer.

To my mind, they are cut from the same cloth of incompetence.

It does not seem that way to me.

At last! We agree on something.

 

So, Revmitchell, what is your position on torture so that you are not yet again misunderstood?

 

Rev

I pray that it will be understood.

 

Saddam released his entire jail system . . . the mafia took over the control of the country . . .

. . . But an American attempt to restore order after a hitlarian operation plan was used (successfully) . . . has been blamed.

Saddam started the fight, he fought dirtier, and he has continued the fight.

Keep supporting saddam's methods and condemn america.

:wavey:

 

So Rev, have you figured out your position yet?

 

Daisy,

Have you?

Been asking for awhile . . . why do you support all of the enemies of Jesus?

I would bet (if I was a bettin' man) that Rev can explain his position better than you can explain yours.

If you have just made a couple of hyoperboles that went too far say, "Ya' know, in hindsight adolf and osama and mohamed were (are) evil. Anyone like them is an enemy of Jesus, and I mighta gone too far. I would like to reaffirm my trust in Jesus as the only way to Heaven - even if it sounds like I am for the opposition at times."

 

I wasnt misunderstood the first time. But you can characterize it how ever you want. Its your story.