CIA had People Raped with Broken Bottles

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.