• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on confessathon

Steve

Well-known member
Good to see you both could Chime in..

Now back on to the topic of the Thread..and my Question,...you know the one that you both ignored, and the one that started NeoCon's latest fit..

for Kola,......but Econ,..you can pipe in again if you would like...Just like you did last time...

KolanuRaven:
Guess I'd claim everything I could also to stop the water-boarding!
Steve politely asked:
Okey I'll simplify it again...and ask my Question again...Maybe this time you can comprehend what I asked...

I even bolded your offensive comment..and underlined my questions..

As for the Water boarding comment,

Why denigrate our side constantly with out any proof?

Why would you falsely accuse our own over this scum?

and for Econ:
Econ101
I do think Kol and Rosie have a point. The point is not that these guys should be treated better,


Steve politely asked:
Then why bring up "treatment"....if your point is that you doubt the amount of his confessions?


the only reason to bring up treatment and water-boarding is to attack the credibility of the governments' case,..


If you want to attack this scum bag then call him a braggart and a lier.....not say he was coerced into claiming he was Osamas' goat by torture....

NO one has Proof of this bastard getting tortured or water boarded but there is plenty of Proof he was directly involved in the Killing of thousands of Americans....

"Then why bring up "treatment"....if your point is that you doubt the amount of his confessions?


I just want to know why liberals seem inclined to denigrate our troops and those fighting for our security?

you see the whole debate about this scum didn't have to be about denergrateing those who serve to protect our security...

Nor the barage of Insults, and rabid behavior, I received because I asked straight forward questions...but for some reason some people feel the need to insult and denigrate others whom they have never met....nor have any proof that the person acted in the way they claim.....

it is a question worth repeating.

and I am sure that both of you are incapable of intellectuality answering the straight forward polite question I asked...care to prove me wrong?

I just want to know why you two seem inclined to denigrate our troops, and those fighting for our security?
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Steve said:
Good to see you both could Chime in..

Now back on to the topic of the Thread..and my Question,...you know the one that you both ignored, and the one that started NeoCon's latest fit..

for Kola,......but Econ,..you can pipe in again if you would like...Just like you did last time...

KolanuRaven:
Guess I'd claim everything I could also to stop the water-boarding!
Steve politely asked:
Okey I'll simplify it again...and ask my Question again...Maybe this time you can comprehend what I asked...

I even bolded your offensive comment..and underlined my questions..

As for the Water boarding comment,

Why denigrate our side constantly with out any proof?

Why would you falsely accuse our own over this scum?

and for Econ:
Econ101
I do think Kol and Rosie have a point. The point is not that these guys should be treated better,


Steve politely asked:
Then why bring up "treatment"....if your point is that you doubt the amount of his confessions?


the only reason to bring up treatment and water-boarding is to attack the credibility of the governments' case,..


If you want to attack this scum bag then call him a braggart and a lier.....not say he was coerced into claiming he was Osamas' goat by torture....

NO one has Proof of this bastard getting tortured or water boarded but there is plenty of Proof he was directly involved in the Killing of thousands of Americans....

"Then why bring up "treatment"....if your point is that you doubt the amount of his confessions?


I just want to know why liberals seem inclined to denigrate our troops and those fighting for our security?

you see the whole debate about this scum didn't have to be about denergrateing those who serve to protect our security...

Nor the barage of Insults, and rabid behavior, I received because I asked straight forward questions...but for some reason some people feel the need to insult and denigrate others whom they have never met....nor have any proof that the person acted in the way they claim.....

it is a question worth repeating.

and I am sure that both of you are incapable of intellectuality answering the straight forward polite question I asked...care to prove me wrong?

I just want to know why you two seem inclined to denigrate our troops, and those fighting for our security?

you expect an answer from two of the best runners on the board?
probabally half way to the border by now
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
Good to see you both could Chime in..

Now back on to the topic of the Thread..and my Question,...you know the one that you both ignored, and the one that started NeoCon's latest fit..

for Kola,......but Econ,..you can pipe in again if you would like...Just like you did last time...

KolanuRaven:
Guess I'd claim everything I could also to stop the water-boarding!
Steve politely asked:
Okey I'll simplify it again...and ask my Question again...Maybe this time you can comprehend what I asked...

I even bolded your offensive comment..and underlined my questions..

As for the Water boarding comment,

Why denigrate our side constantly with out any proof?

Why would you falsely accuse our own over this scum?

and for Econ:
Econ101
I do think Kol and Rosie have a point. The point is not that these guys should be treated better,


Steve politely asked:
Then why bring up "treatment"....if your point is that you doubt the amount of his confessions?


the only reason to bring up treatment and water-boarding is to attack the credibility of the governments' case,..


If you want to attack this scum bag then call him a braggart and a lier.....not say he was coerced into claiming he was Osamas' goat by torture....

NO one has Proof of this bastard getting tortured or water boarded but there is plenty of Proof he was directly involved in the Killing of thousands of Americans....

"Then why bring up "treatment"....if your point is that you doubt the amount of his confessions?

Econ: Steve, I don't feel constrained to say what you think I should say. I can bring up anything any way I want. Does that answer your question?

Treatment can be an issue because you can coerce a confession out of anyone; a confession that contains elements that could not possibly have been true. We have knowledge that other governments outside the U.S. have allowed the US to use their country to use more coercive methods than the U.S. allows. It has happened and is an established fact. I don't know about waterboarding in particular with this fellow, but I am sure they used whatever method they could, even if it meant some form of torture.
Even in Abu Graib, in Iraq, there is evidence of torture. I don't think for one minute that they wouldn't employ any method they thought they could to get information out of this top guy. You may have a different opinion, but so does Rosie.

I just want to know why liberals seem inclined to denigrate our troops and those fighting for our security?

you see the whole debate about this scum didn't have to be about denergrateing those who serve to protect our security...

Nor the barage of Insults, and rabid behavior, I received because I asked straight forward questions...but for some reason some people feel the need to insult and denigrate others whom they have never met....nor have any proof that the person acted in the way they claim.....

it is a question worth repeating.

and I am sure that both of you are incapable of intellectuality answering the straight forward polite question I asked...care to prove me wrong?

I just want to know why you two seem inclined to denigrate our troops, and those fighting for our security?

Econ: Nobody denigrated our troops. You just have your panties in a wad. The coercion in abu graib came from untrained U.S. troops. I find that more of a problem with management than the soldiers themselves. I think the soldiers in that case took the brunt of the outrage. It was a case of not enough training, and not enough leadership. Both things should have been paramount in preparing for the prison duties. Instead, the military allowed a former U.S. prison guard with no MP experience to basically run the prison at night. The problem was compounded by the CIA coming in and telling these soldiers what they wanted before they were interrogated. The soldiers took their ques from the leadership they had. When you are a lowly soldier, your job is to follow orders, not think about them. The whole moral thing for the soldiers at the abu graib level is just ridiculous. They didn't have an opportunity to be "moral" in their duties. They just had to follow the lead of the management they found themselves under--both military and CIA. They took a bum rap for a screwed up policy that came directly from the vice president's desk which was handed over to the CIA.

As far as the sheik--the probable torture didn't come from our troops or our soldiers as you seem to want me to say. That is you assumption in the question you asked. It never came from me, but from your "Captain Jack" mentality. If anywhere, the torture came first from the Paks, then after the U.S. obtained custody, the CIA or some other special task force probably within the department working expressly under the orders of someone high up: probably Cheny himself.

You seem to want to simplify things to a point where you can argue everyone is picking on our troops and that just can't be tolerated. I never said in either of these instances it was largely the troop's fault, although had it been the troops, your little implications in your question would not have deterred me from saying so. No one is perfect, not even all the soldiers in our military. There needs to be accountability there too, instead of some wierd kind of "you can't talk bad about the troops or you are unpatriotic" mentality.

I do think that the troops need to be judged by very different standards than what we have in civilian life. If you can understand my post, you will see this. Troops are trained, more so at the lower levels, to not think very much but to do what they are told. Their culpability, in my opinion, is therefore reduced. The culpability goes up the chain of command as does the authority given to individuals. Add to this the extreme circumstances in war---you have to be able to follow orders and kill people--and the troops should be given more latitude when being judged. They can not be judged by civilian standards.

Your question and the judgment that is implied in it is just too simple. It assumes a lot of stuff that just isn't said, but implied by you.

If you want to stick to the slanted, incorrect sound bites and lose qualitative discourse, don't expect it from me. Live in your own limited world.

By the way, I had one brother as an MP in the army (who had a medical discharge) and one brother in the navy intelligence gathering.

I myself did not serve as I had a medical disqualification. I had radial keratotomy before it was accepted by the armed services (it is now) but I went to a military school and was in the corps. My uncle was a full bird in the air force and a lot of my cousins served as officers.

Stop painting everyone by the broad stroke of liberal or democrat and you might just learn something.

By the way again, Tony Blair is a LIBERAL. The Conservatives in Great Brittain largely against the war, are CONSERVATIVES.

The terms liberal and conservative are relative terms. Great for jokes, but not great for discourse, especially if you are going to take it on yourself to approve the definitions.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Econ wrote:
Nobody denigrated our troops.

Directly from his latest response:
When you are a lowly soldier, your job is to follow orders, not think about them.

so Lowly in not denigrating?

They didn't have an opportunity to be "moral" in their duties.

Troops have no time for morals?

more so at the lower levels, to not think very much but to do what they are told.

By your own words....troops are lowly..have no time for morals,...and can't think....is that not denigrating

den·i·grate (dĕn'ĭ-grāt') pronunciation
tr.v., -grat·ed, -grat·ing, -grates.

1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
2. To disparage; belittle:

Econ
You seem to want to simplify things to a point where you can argue everyone is picking on our troops and that just can't be tolerated.

No what I will not tolerate is any one like your self degenerating our troops and those that protect US.

You have no facts....just accusations..(and insults) and some sort of Bias against the Military...

and still can't answer my question. if it is so simple why not answer it?

I just want to know why you seem inclined to denigrate our troops, and those fighting for our security?
 

Steve

Well-known member
By the way again, Tony Blair is a LIBERAL.

and because of your insults,..you again lost out...you see I lived for two years in the UK and have wonderful local insight into the politics in the country.....I fully understand the changes in Tony Blair, from Socialist,...to moderate liberal...and even his war stance....in fact "when" he changes over, and claims to be a conservative,... he will be a Ideal example of a Neo-Conservative".....just as Joe Lieberman will.

You see I can look at the facts...and see the truth.,..and not have to call people crazy....or insult them...

Deny that the factual definition is correct,..it seems to be another liberal trait....that and sticking expensive shoes in their mouth...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Econ
I myself did not serve as I had a medical disqualification.

I am sorry that you couldn't have actually served,..then you would have seen the "real" military and not your cadet view, that never matured and is still looking at real world views like a pouty child all dressed up as a man.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
Econ wrote:
Nobody denigrated our troops.

Directly from his latest response:
When you are a lowly soldier, your job is to follow orders, not think about them.

so Lowly in not denigrating?

Econ: No. The lowest soldiers in rank have it the roughest. They are the lowest in rank. The lower you go, the more you have to obey orders. The higher you go in rank, the more responsibility you are given. Had you read the rest of the sentences around the point, and were smart enough, you would have seen this is what I meant. Of course you probably did but just wanted to be onry. I don't mind you being onry, just don't act like it is my fault.

They didn't have an opportunity to be "moral" in their duties.

Troops have no time for morals?

Econ: See above response. Everyone has time for morals. When soldiers have orders, those orders supersede many of the moral dilemmas they may confront. They have much different rules of engagement because of the situations they are in. Many have post traumatic stress because of some of these situations. They can be overwhelming. We send these men and women out to do the "dirty work" of war. You have to give them latitude for some of their actions, especially if they are not properly trained.

more so at the lower levels, to not think very much but to do what they are told.

By your own words....troops are lowly..have no time for morals,...and can't think....is that not denigrating

Econ: Poor me victim mentality again, stevie. Turn everything around so it sounds as if people are overly criticizing the military. You are about as bad as some of those welfare moms. The men and women I know in the military are far from that attitude. But then again, it is a matter of character.

den·i·grate (dĕn'ĭ-grāt') pronunciation
tr.v., -grat·ed, -grat·ing, -grates.

1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
2. To disparage; belittle:


Econ: If you can't take the battle, next time don't engage me disrespectfully. You might be better off.

Econ
You seem to want to simplify things to a point where you can argue everyone is picking on our troops and that just can't be tolerated.

No what I will not tolerate is any one like your self degenerating our troops and those that protect US.

You have no facts....just accusations..(and insults) and some sort of Bias against the Military...

and still can't answer my question. if it is so simple why not answer it?

I just want to know why you seem inclined to denigrate our troops, and those fighting for our security?

You mistake the troops for you again, Steve. I am denigrating you. What I can't tolerate is people like you (Captain Jack mentality) who thinks they are above everyone else, can label them, call them names, try to denigrate them, and then try to play victim or better yet, claim that they are doing something they aren't because you have NOTHING on them.

Grow up stevie girl. By the way, if I am a girl, it makes you look all the worse.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
By the way again, Tony Blair is a LIBERAL.

and because of your insults,..you again lost out...you see I lived for two years in the UK and have wonderful local insight into the politics in the country.....I fully understand the changes in Tony Blair, from Socialist,...to moderate liberal...and even his war stance....in fact "when" he changes over, and claims to be a conservative,... he will be a Ideal example of a Neo-Conservative".....just as Joe Lieberman will.

You see I can look at the facts...and see the truth.,..and not have to call people crazy....or insult them...

Deny that the factual definition is correct,..it seems to be another liberal trait....that and sticking expensive shoes in their mouth...

It was you who decided not to share it, not I. Since you didn't share anything, I really didn't miss anything. Anyone can look at the facts and interpret the truth. You don't have a corner on that market. I didn't start calling you crazy or insulting you until you started if first. Talk about playing the victim to a T.

I deny that your interpretation is correct. Another person who thinks they have the corner on the truth and no one esle. Very conceited.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon:_1
Anyone can look at the facts and interpret the truth.

except for you apparently....

I guess the military agrees with me about some of the troops. The soldiers at abu graib were court-martialed,and a general had to resign for not enough oversight and management. Same thing happened with Walter Reed. You are out there alone, stevie girl.

It is hard to deal with the fact that you can't interpret facts and have to resort to cut and pasting while mischaracterizing what someone says to slander them.

Stevie girl, you will do anything to justify your bias. You can continue to fool yourself if you like. I don't care.
 

Steve

Well-known member
NeoCon-1
I guess the military agrees with me about some of the troops. The soldiers at abu graib were court-martialed,

Either You melted down and went schizophrenic,..or your desperate to find some-one to debate with,..even if it has to be yourself.....

I never said anything about the Court Martialing the soldiers....


NeoCon-1
I do think that the troops need to be judged by very different standards than what we have in civilian life. If you can understand my post, you will see this. Troops are trained, more so at the lower levels, to not think very much but to do what they are told. Their culpability, in my opinion, is therefore reduced. The culpability goes up the chain of command as does the authority given to individuals. Add to this the extreme circumstances in war---you have to be able to follow orders and kill people--and the troops should be given more latitude when being judged.

I should have seen it sooner...the irrational behavior,.. paranoia,.. difficulty for a person to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences,.. inability to think logically,.. and to behave normally in social situations. There is medication that can help..
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon-1
I guess the military agrees with me about some of the troops. The soldiers at abu graib were court-martialed,

Either You melted down and went schizophrenic,..or your desperate to find some-one to debate with,..even if it has to be yourself.....

I never said anything about the Court Martialing the soldiers....

Econ: So what? I didn't need your permission to bring up the example of the military needing a little criticism. Even the military did it in this instance.

Please don't call me schizo when it is you who thinks I have to be limited to what comes out of your posts.

NeoCon-1
I do think that the troops need to be judged by very different standards than what we have in civilian life. If you can understand my post, you will see this. Troops are trained, more so at the lower levels, to not think very much but to do what they are told. Their culpability, in my opinion, is therefore reduced. The culpability goes up the chain of command as does the authority given to individuals. Add to this the extreme circumstances in war---you have to be able to follow orders and kill people--and the troops should be given more latitude when being judged.

I should have seen it sooner...the irrational behavior,.. paranoia,.. difficulty for a person to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences,.. inability to think logically,.. and to behave normally in social situations. There is medication that can help..

Econ: If I don't agree with you the judgments begin. Irrational behavior, paranoia, difficulty to tell between real and unreal, illogical thinking, and how to behave in social situations are all traits that can be attributed to you, not me. I don't really know if there is a medication that can help you stevie girl. God gave you free will to be this way.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Don"t worry I would never tell you what to post, and what to do,...thats Rosie's job...



Don't bother responding, as I am done with you, your dismissed cadet go scrub some floors...
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Steve said:
Don"t worry I would never tell you what to post, and what to do,...thats Rosie's job...



Don't bother responding, as I am done with you, your dismissed cadet go scrub some floors...

:clap: :clap: :clap:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
Don"t worry I would never tell you what to post, and what to do,...thats Rosie's job...



Don't bother responding, as I am done with you, your dismissed cadet go scrub some floors...

Thanks, Steve. I am glad you will not tell me what to post or what to do. It isn't rosie's either although I do wonder why what she does riles you up so much.

Oh, no, steve, you just tried to tell me what to do--scrub floors. Why don't you go lick all the dirty floors at Walter Reed. You can take meman pa with you. Your wagging tongues may have at least some value there. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Steve said:
Don"t worry I would never tell you what to post, and what to do,...thats Rosie's job...



Don't bother responding, as I am done with you, your dismissed cadet go scrub some floors...

Thanks, Steve. I am glad you will not tell me what to post or what to do. It isn't rosie's either although I do wonder why what she does riles you up so much.

Oh, no, steve, you just tried to tell me what to do--scrub floors. Why don't you go lick all the dirty floors at Walter Reed. You can take meman pa with you. Your wagging tongues may have at least some value there. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

now that is a real intelligent post from a supposed intelligent mind!
if that is the best you can do you better go back to school with the other libs that have better insults to offer :D :D :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
memanpa said:
Econ101 said:
Steve said:
Don"t worry I would never tell you what to post, and what to do,...thats Rosie's job...



Don't bother responding, as I am done with you, your dismissed cadet go scrub some floors...

Thanks, Steve. I am glad you will not tell me what to post or what to do. It isn't rosie's either although I do wonder why what she does riles you up so much.

Oh, no, steve, you just tried to tell me what to do--scrub floors. Why don't you go lick all the dirty floors at Walter Reed. You can take meman pa with you. Your wagging tongues may have at least some value there. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

now that is a real intelligent post from a supposed intelligent mind!
if that is the best you can do you better go back to school with the other libs that have better insults to offer :D :D :D

Memenpa, that isn't the best I can do and if you want more, I can oblige just as I did with steve when he wanted to fight. I do not think people with intelligence give any weight to those who obviously are not. Go back to your limited intellect.

There is nothing worse than a stupid "conservative" At least liberals have an excuse.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
memanpa said:
Econ101 said:
Thanks, Steve. I am glad you will not tell me what to post or what to do. It isn't rosie's either although I do wonder why what she does riles you up so much.

Oh, no, steve, you just tried to tell me what to do--scrub floors. Why don't you go lick all the dirty floors at Walter Reed. You can take meman pa with you. Your wagging tongues may have at least some value there. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

now that is a real intelligent post from a supposed intelligent mind!
if that is the best you can do you better go back to school with the other libs that have better insults to offer :D :D :D

Memenpa, that isn't the best I can do and if you want more, I can oblige just as I did with steve when he wanted to fight. I do not think people with intelligence give any weight to those who obviously are not. Go back to your limited intellect.

There is nothing worse than a stupid "conservative" At least liberals have an excuse.


yep and for a libbie you have used yours up!!
you lose every time you argue with steve only problem is YOU are the only one who does not see that you lose! you are too busy looking for a way out to really argue any given point!
and even my limited intellect can see that :D :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
memanpa said:
Econ101 said:
memanpa said:
now that is a real intelligent post from a supposed intelligent mind!
if that is the best you can do you better go back to school with the other libs that have better insults to offer :D :D :D

Memenpa, that isn't the best I can do and if you want more, I can oblige just as I did with steve when he wanted to fight. I do not think people with intelligence give any weight to those who obviously are not. Go back to your limited intellect.

There is nothing worse than a stupid "conservative" At least liberals have an excuse.


yep and for a libbie you have used yours up!!
you lose every time you argue with steve only problem is YOU are the only one who does not see that you lose! you are too busy looking for a way out to really argue any given point!
and even my limited intellect can see that :D :D

"even my limited intellect ".....
 

Latest posts

Top