Police: U.S. hostage shot, tortured; PAD dusts off the tap shoes

[mykevermin]

Police: U.S. hostage shot, tortured
Tom Fox among four peace activists kidnapped in November

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- American hostage Tom Fox -- who was kidnapped with three other Christian peace activists in November -- has been found shot in the head with his body showing signs of torture, Iraqi emergency police told CNN Saturday.

There was no word on the whereabouts of Fox's fellow hostages -- Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, and 74-year-old Briton Norman Kember -- who were last seen in a video broadcast Tuesday on Arab television.

Fox's body was found wrapped in a blanket around 5 p.m. Thursday in the Daoudi neighborhood in western Baghdad -- dumped on the main road near a train station. His hands and feet were bound, police said. He was wearing gray trousers and a gray shirt.

Police discovered the body and then contacted an Iraqi army patrol that was nearby. The Iraqi army also determined that the body appeared to be of a Westerner, and U.S. forces were called to the scene.

A spokesman for the U.S. military confirmed they picked up the body Thursday evening, and it was later determined to be that of Fox.

More than 200 foreigners and thousands of Iraqis have been kidnapped since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Fifty-four foreign hostages are known to have been killed by their captors, Reuters reported.

Fox, 54, a Quaker from Clear Brook, Virginia., had been abducted with three other members of Christian Peacemaker Teams on November 26.

"In grief we tremble before God who wraps us with compassion. The death of our beloved colleague and friend pierces us with pain," a statement from Christian Peacemaker Teams said.

"We mourn the loss of Tom Fox, who combined a lightness of spirit, a firm opposition to all oppression and the recognition of God in everyone.

"We renew our plea for the safe release of Harmeet Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember."

The brief video of those three hostages was aired Tuesday on the Arabic-language TV network Al-Jazeera. Noticeably absent from the video was Fox, and his status was not mentioned.

A group calling itself the Swords of Righteousness Brigade claimed responsibility for the abductions, and had threatened to kill the men if Iraqi prisoners held by the United States and Iraq were not released.

Fox's death was announced by the U.S. State Department on Friday.

"The FBI has verified the identity of a body found in Iraq," said spokesman Noel Clay. "While additional forensic testing will be completed in the United States, we believe this is the body of Tom Fox."

He said Fox's family was notified, and he offered them the department's "heartfelt condolences."

Doug Pritchard, co-director of Christian Peacemaker Teams in Toronto, said the humanitarian organization planned to maintain its presence in Iraq, at least until the fate of the other captives is known. The group has five workers in the country in addition to the remaining captives.

"We know the risks involved. It's very much a part of our training," Pritchard told a news conference late Friday.

He and Chicago co-director Carol Rose blamed the U.S. involvement in Iraq, backed by Britain, for the captives' dilemma, and urged both nations to release detained Iraqis.

Rose said Fox was "a very quiet man, very thoughtful and had a very subtle and quiet sense of humor."

Although Tuesday's 25-second video that aired was silent, an Al-Jazeera anchor said the three men were pleading with their home governments and Gulf Arab leaders to assist with securing their release.

On the tape were Briton Norman Kember and Canadians James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden. The date of February 28, 2006 was superimposed on the tape. In the video, the men were seated, and no hostage-takers were visible. (Full story)

There have been other videotapes of the men, including one released on an Islamist Web site in December that showed the hostages wearing orange jumpsuits and speaking individually to the camera.

In it, Fox and Kember were blindfolded and their hands chained together.

"I'd like to offer my pleas to the people of America, not to the government of America, a plea for my release from captivity and also a plea for a release from captivity of all the people of Iraq," Fox said.

"The only way that we can all be free is for the American and British soldiers to leave Iraq as soon as possible."

Kember, speaking in a tired, raspy voice, said, "I have been opposed to this war, Mr. (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair's war, since the very beginning. I ask of him now, and the British government, to do all that they can to work for my release and the release of the Iraqi people from oppression."

In response, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said his government was open to hearing from the hostage-takers, but that the group's demands were ones "plainly no government could meet."

There have been many international calls for the men's release, including pleas from Muslim clerics.

Pritchard said he was with Fox not long before he was kidnapped, when there was a special group meeting. The day before his abduction, Fox wrote an essay in which he asked, "Why are we here?"

"We are here to root out all aspects of dehumanization that exists within us. We are here to stand with those being dehumanized by oppressors and stand firm against that dehumanization," he wrote.

Fox's friend, John Surr, said Fox felt his calling in Iraq was worth the potential risk.

"He was willing to go in there at all costs," Surr said.

Fox, a 54-year-old Quaker, had two children, according to Christian Peacemaker Teams. He enjoyed cooking and playing music on his recorder and bass clarinet.

A music major, Fox graduated from college in May 1973. Though he was unwilling to participate in U.S. military actions in Vietnam, he auditioned for and earned a spot in the Marine Band, based in Washington, where he played to support his family.

After leaving the military, Fox quit the band to become a grocer, according to Christian Peacemaker Teams.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/11/iraq.hostage/index.html

This will make great internet video. I look forward to their decapitation while they sing Kumbaya.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76024

It's very bothersome how the double standards of those on the right loathe torture when done to certain people, embrace it when done to others, and yet can't seem to figure out how it's a self-perpetuating cycle of idiocy. At any rate, no leftie supports when soldiers die or go missing; what do you think the point of reminding Americans about the numerical sacrifice our soldiers have made thus far is?

Knowing that, it's bad enough for people to fail to discern between sunnis, shiites and kurds, to ignore vastly different cultures and label all brown people either "terrorists" or having no regard for when they are collaterally slain and injured, showing no outrage for the number of brown people who are detained, tortured, and abused for nothing, which is precisely what the case against them *is* after months, if not years, in confinement. It's even worse to blanket them *all* under the banner of "muslim," or "Religion of Peace," which carries with it all the intellectual laziness of those who don't want to see reality for its complexity, but knowingly oversimplify their world, even when it results in greater death and greater war, just so it's a lot easier to think about. But to celebrate the death of people who try to assist the oppressed in these nations? Those who not only aren't soldiers and thus obligated to do nothing, but those who cast aside their horns of plenty in the United States to offer assistance to people. And you CELEBRATE in their deaths? This man's death is no more or less appalling than anyone else out there in the past 3 years, save for the fact that he could have prevented it by sitting on his giant ass like all of us.

THIS is the face of the Republican party; the one that says things are going well in Iraq, except when they aren't; the one that points to the arising of al qaeda organizations in Iraq, well after major combat occupations end ("mission accomplished," right guys?), and use this post hoc explanation to rationalize an Iraqi regime/al qaeda connection that justifies the Iraq war; the one that says it could take a few months and 1 billion of our own money; the one that delights and licks their chops, wishing they could be in Lynndie England's boots, laying into the softened side of some dumb camel jockey, where several minutes ago, his ribs weren't puncturing his lung; those who support everything this president has done, and believe a man with no military experience to be vastly better to a man who earned several purple heats and a silver star (who, according to them, may or may not have been in Vietnam to begin with; maybe he was at home reading "Das Kapital?"); the ones who are willing to give up the freedoms that separate us from other nations with a snap of the finger and the idiotically malignant phrase "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

It is painfully clear that you have no respect for human life; you're happy to "grind sand $$$$ers into Alpo," you want to start a fireside singalong when peaceworkers are slain, and you say "all in a day's work; let's keep on goin'" when soldiers are killed. You and those like you are fucking pitiful embarrassments to the United States; you are the kind of person, FAR more than any liberal lesbian commie $$$$$$ satan worshipping athiest ACLU member, who serves as the tangible enemy for terrorists.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

S.I.T.Y.S.

Like terrorist scum will ever differentiate between anyone trying to help people and a soldier or combatant.

I'm surprised it took this long.

[Sleepkyng]

S.I.T.Y.S.

Like terrorist scum will ever differentiate between anyone trying to help people and a soldier or combatant.

I'm surprised it took this long.

:lol: :applause: you are so fucking stupid.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I turned out to be exactly right.

I fail to see how that makes me fucking stupid.

[evanft]

I love how myke and others are parodying PAD's topic title style. +10 Liberal points for j00!

[Msut77]

I fail to see how that makes me fucking stupid.

That is because you are fucking stupid.

[Three Dollar Hooker]

It is painfully clear that you have no respect for human life; you're happy to "grind sand $$$$ers into Alpo," you want to start a fireside singalong when peaceworkers are slain, and you say "all in a day's work; let's keep on goin'" when soldiers are killed. You and those like you are fucking pitiful embarrassments to the United States; you are the kind of person, FAR more than any liberal lesbian commie $$$$$$ satan worshipping athiest ACLU member, who serves as the tangible enemy for terrorists.

This is so great! You might as well head down to the psychiatrists right now and get a prescription for something, hell, anything.

You really think anyone's politics in this country have anything to do with a terrorists willingness to kill you or anyone else?

If they're going to kill human rights workers there to document Western or American abuses in Iraq, people there to help families with those in custody who won't they kill? They see one thing, white skin, American passport or name. That's all they care about. They're interested in the symbol not the beliefs of a human being.

Why?

Because to them you are not a human being. You are an infidel and a political tool meant to be broadcast on Al Jazeera or Al Araabyia for their purposes.

I'm glad people like you don't run the world. However Osama and al-Zarqawi would be thrilled if you did. You'll blame anyone in your own country or their beliefs before them. You're the perfect terrorist chazzerei.

[Msut77]

So what are the odds that PAD and TDH are different people? 100 to 1?

[Metal Boss]

Trolling can be fun


But, this is just stupid.

[Ace-Of-War]

Nobody but sociopathic, sadistic, scum actually embrace torture. That's just some parlor trick the left uses to try and scare people into supporting them. They give the American public this image that our servicemen and women are all evil and shady people who committ illegal acts in the dead of night... what was it John Kerry said about our soldiers?

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, womenIt's a bunch of spin. Does the Democratic party really hate the military as much as they imply? No, not really. They just attack our troops because they work for President Bush. Exact same thing here in this forum, we've got people who hate President Bush so vehmently that they would try to convince you that he likes to grab baseball bats and beat random American muslims while they're praying peacefully and holding babies. Don't fall for it.

If anyone comes up to you with more ridiculous rhetoric like that, you ask them to give you a quote of a Republican politican exclaiming his love for torture. They can't do it because no one likes torture. Don't let the left fool you into hating our servicemen and women by smearing the entire military with the deplorable actions of a few individuals.

[Msut77]

Nobody but sociopathic, sadistic, scum actually embrace torture.

Thats some pretty harsh words for Bush et al, but hey who am I to argue?

[alonzomourning23]

"love of torture" no (though support for it is a different thing). But, thinking killing is funny?

In 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999), during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_presidential_primaries%2C_2000), conservative commentator Tucker Carlson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson) interviewed Bush for Talk Magazine (September 1999, p. 106). Excerpt from this interview is quoted below:
In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin%2C_Texas) to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_King) either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker#Karla_Tucker_and_George_W._Bush

[Metal Boss]

I turned out to be exactly right.

I fail to see how that makes me fucking stupid.

You fail at alot I imagine, like arguing on a video game forum.

But you don't even have to sputter your nonsense anymore, because most of the time we just have to quote things you said in the past too make you shut the hell up.

[Cheese]

"love of torture" no (though support for it is a different thing). But, thinking killing is funny?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker#Karla_Tucker_and_George_W._Bush


That's amazing. Very christian of him.

[Ace-Of-War]

I don't expect you to exactly be thrilled about capital punishment, but the fact that a convicted murderer will never be able to kill again makes me happy too.

It seems like the only time liberals like Christianity is when someone on death row becomes a born-again Christian out of the blue.

[Metal Boss]

Haha, LIBZ

[alonzomourning23]

I don't expect you to exactly be thrilled about capital punishment, but the fact that a convicted murderer will never be able to kill again makes me happy too.

It seems like the only time liberals like Christianity is when someone on death row becomes a born-again Christian out of the blue.

So you're happy when people die?

And would you be happy to have a terrorist suffer before death?

[usickenme]

And you CELEBRATE in their deaths? This man's death is no more or less appalling than anyone else out there in the past 3 years, save for the fact that he could have prevented it by sitting on his giant ass like all of us.



Which is especially true of PAD's giant ass. But herein lies the real issue; not whether someone could have "predicted" that an aid worker would be killed in a conflict-Way to go out on a limb there, by the way. It is the joy in such a death because it "proves" to you how bad muslims are and justifies your hatred.

Bonus points for Three Dolla's so-quasi impassioned post " the terrorists hate all white people" and Ace's "liberal only selectively follow Christianity" w/o any hint of irony. Nice.

[Ace-Of-War]

So you're happy when people die?

And would you be happy to have a terrorist suffer before death?

There's no reason to take what I said out of context. I'm content in knowing the world is a safer place because there is one less convicted murderer living, yes. It makes me happy when justice is served. That's very different than just some random fellow on the street who was ran over.

The second question is no though, there's no reason to torture another human being if you're just going to kill them later. That doesn't apply to any situation I'm aware of though.

[Msut77]

The second question is no though, there's no reason to torture another human being if you're just going to kill them later.

Do you mean to say there are acceptable reasons to torture under other circumstances?

[dennis_t]

Nobody but sociopathic, sadistic, scum actually embrace torture. That's just some parlor trick the left uses to try and scare people into supporting them. They give the American public this image that our servicemen and women are all evil and shady people who committ illegal acts in the dead of night... what was it John Kerry said about our soldiers?

It's a bunch of spin. Does the Democratic party really hate the military as much as they imply? No, not really. They just attack our troops because they work for President Bush. Exact same thing here in this forum, we've got people who hate President Bush so vehmently that they would try to convince you that he likes to grab baseball bats and beat random American muslims while they're praying peacefully and holding babies. Don't fall for it.

If anyone comes up to you with more ridiculous rhetoric like that, you ask them to give you a quote of a Republican politican exclaiming his love for torture. They can't do it because no one likes torture. Don't let the left fool you into hating our servicemen and women by smearing the entire military with the deplorable actions of a few individuals.

This is the kind of Republican spin I find deplorable.

I don't see Democrats demonizing soldiers over torture. In fact, the troops I've spoken with say they've recieved nothing but full-fledged support across the political spectrum. So this crap about the left trying to get people to hate the military is pure bunk, just an opportunity to distract from the true issue.

Democrats want the torture to end. Period. It is morally reprehensible, and eats away at the soul of our country. And the Republicans, who hold all the power in government, are unwilling to do anything concrete to stop the torture. They write legal memos defending the activity; they block any law solid enough to stop the activity. Bush could stop American torture with one command, but that command goes unspoken. I'm not calling the Republicans in power "sociopathic, sadistic scum," but I am saying that torture is being done and they don't seem interested in doing much about it.

And before you repeat the refrain that it was a few bad apples acting illegally -- the activities in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are institutional in nature. That means orders coming down from on high to the lowest soldier demanding results, no matter what. And the soldiers' jobs are to follow orders. Why aren't we seeing scores of higher-ups going to courtmartial? And by condoning this system of justice, where the lowest soldier takes the fall for his commanders, aren't Republicans themselves betraying a lack of support for the American grunt? (Well, I mean beyond cutting medical benefits, being too cheap to buy armor for bodies and Humvees, and the like....)

[Ace-Of-War]

This is the kind of Republican spin I find deplorable.

I don't see Democrats demonizing soldiers over torture. In fact, the troops I've spoken with say they've recieved nothing but full-fledged support across the political spectrum. So this crap about the left trying to get people to hate the military is pure bunk, just an opportunity to distract from the true issue.

Democrats want the torture to end. Period. It is morally reprehensible, and eats away at the soul of our country. And the Republicans, who hold all the power in government, are unwilling to do anything concrete to stop the torture. They write legal memos defending the activity; they block any law solid enough to stop the activity. Bush could stop American torture with one command, but that command goes unspoken. I'm not calling the Republicans in power "sociopathic, sadistic scum," but I am saying that torture is being done and they don't seem interested in doing much about it.

And before you repeat the refrain that it was a few bad apples acting illegally -- the activities in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are institutional in nature. That means orders coming down from on high to the lowest soldier demanding results, no matter what. And the soldiers' jobs are to follow orders. Why aren't we seeing scores of higher-ups going to courtmartial? And by condoning this system of justice, where the lowest soldier takes the fall for his commanders, aren't Republicans themselves betraying a lack of support for the American grunt? (Well, I mean beyond cutting medical benefits, being too cheap to buy armor for bodies and Humvees, and the like....)
I see you specifically left out that John Kerry quote I put up, I guess if you close your eyes it will go away? I specifically said, and I quote from my statement that you're replying too:

Does the Democratic party really hate the military as much as they imply? No, not really.
Obviously you just glossed over that as well just to get your false accusations down my throat.

This isn't about torture at all though, it's about conducting a war and following through with the responsibilites that come with it. Torture is just a red herring the Democrats use to try to get what they want. You can sit there and accuse our entire military of being a bunch of dishonorable thugs that like to beat up on random civilians from privates up the ladder indefinetely, but I see past the politics behind those unprecedented attacks into the real MO here.

You ready for it? No more Bush.

That's all it is and that's all it will ever be until the left becomes a party of real ideas once again (if that will ever happen).

They say they want these solid bills against torturing enemy combatants with the assumption pressed into them that our military must be controlled by Congress and not the executive. These assumptions that the executive is corrupt, the military is just as corrupt, and all that can ever put an end to this reign of autocratic terror is a Democratic powergrab. All a bill like this would do is put our soldiers in court everytime they look at a muslim the wrong way. Judges would have to hear cases upon whether a soldier grabbed his enemy correct or not. During a war soldiers would be on a trial deciding whether the soldier was sensitive enough to his enemy's religion. It's bueraucratic nonsense that would be called out as such by any political party that existed 60, 50, even 40 years ago. The Democratic party isn't instinctively anti-military, and I don't want my post to be portrayed as such. What is wrong with the party is they can no longer be trusted to distinguish a time for politics and a time for unity, they are dangerous because of this and this is a prime example.

[alonzomourning23]

The democrats want anti torture legislation because we have abvious torture committed by the u.s., and there is confusion over what the government had allowed, and how close to torture such methods are (such as waterboarding).

But the kerry comment was simply accidental. It was a condemnation of some of the tactics used by u.s. forces, as well as commenting on how the Iraqi's should be in control, not the u.s. Even many conservative commentators realized that, and stated that, when the comment was made. It was often treated like a bushism, something that came out wrong and wasn't intentional.

And when there are issues that need to be resolved, unity for the sake of unity just makes them worse. Uniting behind a plan that won't work will get you nowhere.

[Msut77]

It seems that Ace is pro torture.

[alonzomourning23]

It seems that Ace is pro torture.

He's also full of himself:

but I see past the politics behind those unprecedented attacks into the real MO here.

[Apossum]

well, it's safe to say that PAD doesn't give a shit about politics or this country or anything related to the well being of anyone or any thing. He's just another depraved and attention deprived psycho on the internet. :roll:

[evanft]

well, it's safe to say that PAD doesn't give a shit about politics or this country or anything related to the well being of anyone or any thing. He's just another depraved and attention deprived psycho on the internet. :roll:

http://donrosenberger.150m.com/iuphumor/noshitsherlock.jpg

:D

[elprincipe]

The democrats want anti torture legislation because we have abvious torture committed by the u.s., and there is confusion over what the government had allowed, and how close to torture such methods are (such as waterboarding).

To be fair, was not the law banning torture passed recently authored by a Republican senator, John McCain, and did not most Republicans vote for it? I think you and dennis are equating the entire Republican Party with Bush and his administration. That is like saying all Democrats agree with Howard Dean when he said "I hate all Republicans."

But the kerry comment was simply accidental.

:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: That's right, it was an accident. His mouth opened up on a national news show and out came these words, purely by accident! :roll:

[alonzomourning23]

To be fair, was not the law banning torture passed recently authored by a Republican senator, John McCain, and did not most Republicans vote for it? I think you and dennis are equating the entire Republican Party with Bush and his administration. That is like saying all Democrats agree with Howard Dean when he said "I hate all Republicans."

Find me where I said republicans. I said government. And ace was complaining about democrats, stating what republicans did or didn't do wasn't relevant.

In fact, ace mentioned the bill (I assume it's the anti-torture bill mccain proposed) and suggested it was a partisan thing:

They say they want these solid bills against torturing enemy combatants with the assumption pressed into them that our military must be controlled by Congress and not the executive. These assumptions that the executive is corrupt, the military is just as corrupt, and all that can ever put an end to this reign of autocratic terror is a Democratic powergrab. All a bill like this would do is put our soldiers in court everytime they look at a muslim the wrong way. Judges would have to hear cases upon whether a soldier grabbed his enemy correct or not. During a war soldiers would be on a trial deciding whether the soldier was sensitive enough to his enemy's religion.

I made no such generalizations.


:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: That's right, it was an accident. His mouth opened up on a national news show and out came these words, purely by accident! :roll:

Uhhh.....Did you intentionally ignore the rest?:

It was a condemnation of some of the tactics used by u.s. forces, as well as commenting on how the Iraqi's should be in control, not the u.s. Even many conservative commentators realized that, and stated that, when the comment was made. It was often treated like a bushism, something that came out wrong and wasn't intentional.


It's pretty obvious that I'm saying the phrasing of it was accidental.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

This is the kind of Republican spin I find deplorable.

I don't see Democrats demonizing soldiers over torture. In fact, the troops I've spoken with say they've recieved nothing but full-fledged support across the political spectrum. So this crap about the left trying to get people to hate the military is pure bunk, just an opportunity to distract from the true issue.

Democrats want the torture to end. Period. It is morally reprehensible, and eats away at the soul of our country. And the Republicans, who hold all the power in government, are unwilling to do anything concrete to stop the torture. They write legal memos defending the activity; they block any law solid enough to stop the activity. Bush could stop American torture with one command, but that command goes unspoken. I'm not calling the Republicans in power "sociopathic, sadistic scum," but I am saying that torture is being done and they don't seem interested in doing much about it.

And before you repeat the refrain that it was a few bad apples acting illegally -- the activities in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are institutional in nature. That means orders coming down from on high to the lowest soldier demanding results, no matter what. And the soldiers' jobs are to follow orders. Why aren't we seeing scores of higher-ups going to courtmartial? And by condoning this system of justice, where the lowest soldier takes the fall for his commanders, aren't Republicans themselves betraying a lack of support for the American grunt? (Well, I mean beyond cutting medical benefits, being too cheap to buy armor for bodies and Humvees, and the like....)

dennis_t has proven he's only interested in debating and participating in this forum if it appears his side can win and his opinion will be vindicated by political results. I think someone referred to it as "jumping on the winning bandwagon".

So I believe actually taking his posts seriously, like this one, should be a great reminder that liberal thought and ideals lead to electoral defeat. Typical of this outcome dennis_t runs away for 9 months to lick his wounds, hide in shame and avoid general embarrassment of being made an ass of again.

[Metal Boss]

Yay for redundancy!


You win PAD! You can now retire from the internet.

[Msut77]

That is a repeat right?

I love it how PAD thinks it is somehow noble to be a batshit insane loser.

[alonzomourning23]

He's just mocking dennis, who keeps posting a similar thing.

[bmulligan]

Police: U.S. hostage shot, tortured; PAD dusts off the tap shoes


Love the title, myke. Are you trying to round up a possee or are you just collecting data for analysis on gang behavior? The next time you or any of your ad hominem crybaby associates want to play that card, I'll be sure to remember you and this thread.


you are so fucking stupid.

That is because you are fucking stupid.

You fail at alot I imagine, like arguing on a video game forum.

Which is especially true of PAD's giant ass.

He's just another depraved and attention deprived psycho on the internet.

You win PAD! You can now retire from the internet.

I love it how PAD thinks it is somehow noble to be a batshit insane loser.

It's saying something when Alonzo is the most levelheaded and articulate lib in a thread.

[Apossum]

http://donrosenberger.150m.com/iuphumor/noshitsherlock.jpg

:D

nice ;)

[Metal Boss]

You talk about me being not level headed, yet you cling onto your self-proclaimed conclusion that I am a LIBHURAL, which is pretty telling that you just generalize because I don't share most of the same viewpoints as your side of the fence. I could care less about your partisanship man...


This sub-forum has degenerated into a series of spitball fights, maybe you haven't noticed that MUCH of the discussion just ends up in partisan bickering, you might want to blame the wild pack of liberals you rant about, but you have to admit you stir the pot. This isn't as bad as, say, Yahoo's news forums though, where its PURELY that kind of logic, or lack of logic...


Either way, just read over what that PAD fellow has said about this hostage and just admit too yourself that it's pretty bad. That much is clearly evident...

[Msut77]

He's just mocking dennis, who keeps posting a similar thing.

I know but it is still amazing how someones response to an insult is to call them a winner.

[dennis_t]

I see you specifically left out that John Kerry quote I put up, I guess if you close your eyes it will go away? I specifically said, and I quote from my statement that you're replying too.

I didn't see a John Kerry quote you put up. Put it up and I'll respond. All you did was allude to it without saying what he said, and I really don't know what you're talking about.

Obviously you just glossed over that as well just to get your false accusations down my throat.

This isn't about torture at all though, it's about conducting a war and following through with the responsibilites that come with it. Torture is just a red herring the Democrats use to try to get what they want. You can sit there and accuse our entire military of being a bunch of dishonorable thugs that like to beat up on random civilians from privates up the ladder indefinetely, but I see past the politics behind those unprecedented attacks into the real MO here.

You ready for it? No more Bush.

That's all it is and that's all it will ever be until the left becomes a party of real ideas once again (if that will ever happen).

They say they want these solid bills against torturing enemy combatants with the assumption pressed into them that our military must be controlled by Congress and not the executive. These assumptions that the executive is corrupt, the military is just as corrupt, and all that can ever put an end to this reign of autocratic terror is a Democratic powergrab. All a bill like this would do is put our soldiers in court everytime they look at a muslim the wrong way. Judges would have to hear cases upon whether a soldier grabbed his enemy correct or not. During a war soldiers would be on a trial deciding whether the soldier was sensitive enough to his enemy's religion. It's bueraucratic nonsense that would be called out as such by any political party that existed 60, 50, even 40 years ago. The Democratic party isn't instinctively anti-military, and I don't want my post to be portrayed as such. What is wrong with the party is they can no longer be trusted to distinguish a time for politics and a time for unity, they are dangerous because of this and this is a prime example.

Once again you put words in my mouth. I never said our military were a bunch of dishonorable thugs. I have always supported the military in this forum, and for you to say otherwise is a damned lie.

And you can try and read deeper meanings into all this, but for me it is simple: We, as Americans, do not torture. Period. I'd be against it if the president be Republican, Democrat or Independent. It's an issue that is truly non-partisan in my mind.

Torture is morally wrong, the information it gathers is flawed and near-worthless, and it destroys our global reputation. Would you rather us be a shining beacon of freedom, strong enough not to use evil tactics, or have us down in the mud with our enemies?

Regarding the Democrats not being able to distinguish between politics and unity.....I don't think they're the folks accusing anyone who throws out a thought or an idea as being a traitor or anti-American. That's playing politics with something that should be beyond politics, and that's a Republican tactic, my friend.

[Ace-Of-War]

The democrats want anti torture legislation because we have abvious torture committed by the u.s., and there is confusion over what the government had allowed, and how close to torture such methods are (such as waterboarding).

That's the difference between you and me, between Republicans and Democrats in general: when you think of our military you think of a bunch of "obvious torture" or law-breaking servicemen and women that cannot be trusted. I think of wonderful soldiers who risk their lives every day so that I can cherish my freedoms. That's really all there is to say. You've chosen your side and I've chosen mine.

But the kerry comment was simply accidental. It was a condemnation of some of the tactics used by u.s. forces, as well as commenting on how the Iraqi's should be in control, not the u.s. Even many conservative commentators realized that, and stated that, when the comment was made. It was often treated like a bushism, something that came out wrong and wasn't intentional.

And when there are issues that need to be resolved, unity for the sake of unity just makes them worse. Uniting behind a plan that won't work will get you nowhere.

You can apologize for him all you want, but what about that House Resolution 557? The resolution that literally didn't do anything other than ask for the House's unity for our military and for the Iraqi people. The left is always on the wrong side of our soldiers be it either politically or ideologically.

Uniting against the nation's enemies isn't uniting for the sake of unity, it's just simple national security logic. Something that the Democratic party lacks, and something they need to get back if they want to gain any power ever again.

I didn't see a John Kerry quote you put up. Put it up and I'll respond. All you did was allude to it without saying what he said, and I really don't know what you're talking about.


And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women

Once again you put words in my mouth. I never said our military were a bunch of dishonorable thugs. I have always supported the military in this forum, and for you to say otherwise is a damned lie.

And you can try and read deeper meanings into all this, but for me it is simple: We, as Americans, do not torture. Period. I'd be against it if the president be Republican, Democrat or Independent. It's an issue that is truly non-partisan in my mind.

Torture is morally wrong, the information it gathers is flawed and near-worthless, and it destroys our global reputation. Would you rather us be a shining beacon of freedom, strong enough not to use evil tactics, or have us down in the mud with our enemies?

Let's be fair, when you honestly think our military can't be trusted to fight a war, you essientally imply that you don't really support them. I mean, maybe you do, maybe you don't, but you're basically saying we need to put our troops in a courtroom instead of a battlefield because they can't be trusted to act the way you want them to act. Torture is a horrible practice that should never have to be used. Let's put it in perspective though, because when you pass laws that inhibit our soldiers from protecting this nation to the best of their abilities consequences arise. Suppose a bill like this were to pass and the very possible situation occured where there was explosives or weapons inside the United States triggered to harm hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people. The only person that can prevent this disaster is in custody, and a soldier has to make a split-second decision on whether to save the lives of countless American citizens and be found guilty of breaking the law or simply do nothing and let the chips fall where they may so he can protect himself. Is it really fair to put anyone in that sort of situation? I don't think so, but if you tie our soldiers hands together it could very well happen.

Regarding the Democrats not being able to distinguish between politics and unity.....I don't think they're the folks accusing anyone who throws out a thought or an idea as being a traitor or anti-American. That's playing politics with something that should be beyond politics, and that's a Republican tactic, my friend.

When the second most powerful Democratic Senator equates our servicemen and women to Nazis, he is anti-American. The fact of the matter is, it is a term used very sparingly to call out dangerous rhetoric the Democratic party uses all too often. On top of that, I do not know of any instance of Republicans outside of the occasional pundit really using the term to describe their colleagues, although the left has beat that drum quite regularly.

I disagree with the point either way though as forcing our soldiers to have an attorney present when they fight lest they breach some bureaucratic nonsense is much more dangerous than Congressional name calling.

[Msut77]

Its nice that someone else has the logical fallacies memorized.

It is only too bad that Ace wants to see how many he can fit in one post instead of avoid them.

[dennis_t]

Uniting against the nation's enemies isn't uniting for the sake of unity, it's just simple national security logic. Something that the Democratic party lacks, and something they need to get back if they want to gain any power ever again.

Uniting against our enemies doesn't mean unplugging our brains and walking lock-step in line with every dumb or evil idea presented by our President or his administration. True unity means questioning these ideas so that we are all working together in the right direction toward saving our country.


Let's be fair, when you honestly think our military can't be trusted to fight a war, you essientally imply that you don't really support them. I mean, maybe you do, maybe you don't, but you're basically saying we need to put our troops in a courtroom instead of a battlefield because they can't be trusted to act the way you want them to act. Torture is a horrible practice that should never have to be used. Let's put it in perspective though, because when you pass laws that inhibit our soldiers from protecting this nation to the best of their abilities consequences arise. Suppose a bill like this were to pass and the very possible situation occured where there was explosives or weapons inside the United States triggered to harm hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people. The only person that can prevent this disaster is in custody, and a soldier has to make a split-second decision on whether to save the lives of countless American citizens and be found guilty of breaking the law or simply do nothing and let the chips fall where they may so he can protect himself. Is it really fair to put anyone in that sort of situation? I don't think so, but if you tie our soldiers hands together it could very well happen.

Why do you insist on distorting the argument by putting words in my mouth?

I never said our military can't be trusted to fight a war. Never ever. Prove I've said that, or stop fucking repeating this false smear, Ace.

And when you complain about passing laws to regulate the military, fretting it will tie their hands, guess what? There already are books of laws regulating the military. It's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And those laws ensure that our military operates in tune with the goals, ambitions, and morals of the country they are defending. And I would argue that one of our morals, a part of our national ethics, is that you don't torture people.


When the second most powerful Democratic Senator equates our servicemen and women to Nazis, he is anti-American. The fact of the matter is, it is a term used very sparingly to call out dangerous rhetoric the Democratic party uses all too often. On top of that, I do not know of any instance of Republicans outside of the occasional pundit really using the term to describe their colleagues, although the left has beat that drum quite regularly.

I disagree with the point either way though as forcing our soldiers to have an attorney present when they fight lest they breach some bureaucratic nonsense is much more dangerous than Congressional name calling.

Which Senator are you talking about here? It's certainly not Kerry. I don't see the word "Nazi" in that quote you provided.

BTW, thank you for posting his quote. "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women..." Well, yeah, there is no reason. Why should they be busting into the homes of the people we're trying to win over to Democracy? How would that make you feel in your home, Ace?

And that's certainly not an attack on the soldiers, Ace. Only someone desperate to make the argument that Democrats are anti-American would read that into that statement. He's talking about fighting the war in a smart way. I should think you'd support fighting smart.

Finally, regarding your absurd point that soldiers would have to have lawyers next to them while they fight, I again refer you to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There are reams of laws that govern how soldiers behave and fight, and still they seem to manage well, effectively and bravely without a lawyer present.

[Ace-Of-War]

Uniting against our enemies doesn't mean unplugging our brains and walking lock-step in line with every dumb or evil idea presented by our President or his administration. True unity means questioning these ideas so that we are all working together in the right direction toward saving our country.

Of course not, but wouldn't you agree that politics stops at the waters edge? Shouldn't we at least appear to have a united front against an enemy who wants to destroy every American, not just Republicans or Democrats? It's one thing to argue for different ideas and policies, it's quite another to call our soldiers obvious torturers who act like Nazis. I'm not implying that's your personal sentiments, but many people in your party have made it clear that's the way they feel about the issue. That's not right, and that's what I have a problem with.

Why do you insist on distorting the argument by putting words in my mouth?

I never said our military can't be trusted to fight a war. Never ever. Prove I've said that, or stop fucking repeating this false smear, Ace.

And when you complain about passing laws to regulate the military, fretting it will tie their hands, guess what? There already are books of laws regulating the military. It's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And those laws ensure that our military operates in tune with the goals, ambitions, and morals of the country they are defending. And I would argue that one of our morals, a part of our national ethics, is that you don't torture people.

When you assume our soldiers cannot be allowed to touch their enemy without legal counsel, because this is what this bill is essentially creating, then I can only conclude you do not trust them to fight a war. You're right that our soldiers already have rules and regulations, I'm certainly not saying we should throw them a gun and tell them to do whatever they want. To make sure they fight a war effectively, strategically, and judiciously, is hardly the same thing as forcing them to explain their actions in court should they have used an offensive slur against a terrorist. God forbid we use loud music to coerce our enemies into giving up information, the commanding officer should be locked up immediately.

Which Senator are you talking about here? It's certainly not Kerry. I don't see the word "Nazi" in that quote you provided.

If I read this [description] to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

BTW, thank you for posting his quote. "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women..." Well, yeah, there is no reason.

Exactly my point. If you agree you think our soldiers are just a bunch of secret police-like thugs who break into random homes just to terrorize women and children. That's exactly the kind of ideas that the Democrats are responsible for and that's exactly the kind of thing I hate. Until the left fixes this subtle (in this case explicit) hatred it has toward our soldiers, be it political or ideaological, they will, nay they must, continue to lose elections.

[Msut77]

It is always nothing but a race to the bottom with PAD and Ace.

[dennis_t]

Of course not, but wouldn't you agree that politics stops at the waters edge? Shouldn't we at least appear to have a united front against an enemy who wants to destroy every American, not just Republicans or Democrats? It's one thing to argue for different ideas and policies, it's quite another to call our soldiers obvious torturers who act like Nazis. I'm not implying that's your personal sentiments, but many people in your party have made it clear that's the way they feel about the issue. That's not right, and that's what I have a problem with.

Tell me how opposition to torture damages our united front. Tell me how having a political argument about how to conduct the War on Terror in any way sends the message that we do not want to conduct that war. That's the logical fallacy that Republicans have been getting folks to swallow -- that opposition to the way they run the war means ipso facto you are against the war itself.

For example, am I for rooting out terrorists? Yes. Hell yes. Am I for the war in Iraq? Hell no. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. No ties to Osama, no WMDs, no nothing. Iraq has proven a costly diversion from the War on Terror. Imagine how much better our port security, for example, could be with even a fraction of the money that instead has been poured into Iraq.

And am I for torture? Hell no. Because it hurts us in the War on Terror. Because in that war, we need to win the hearts and minds of people who are on the fence regarding whether to support our way of life or support the terrorists. And every time we torture somebody, we make their family and friends and network of acquaintances more inclined to support terrorism. It's the smart way to fight the War on Terror, and the decent way, and if you were thinking with your head instead of with your fear you'd come to the same conclusion.

When you assume our soldiers cannot be allowed to touch their enemy without legal counsel, because this is what this bill is essentially creating, then I can only conclude you do not trust them to fight a war. You're right that our soldiers already have rules and regulations, I'm certainly not saying we should throw them a gun and tell them to do whatever they want. To make sure they fight a war effectively, strategically, and judiciously, is hardly the same thing as forcing them to explain their actions in court should they have used an offensive slur against a terrorist. God forbid we use loud music to coerce our enemies into giving up information, the commanding officer should be locked up immediately.

Exactly my point. If you agree you think our soldiers are just a bunch of secret police-like thugs who break into random homes just to terrorize women and children. That's exactly the kind of ideas that the Democrats are responsible for and that's exactly the kind of thing I hate. Until the left fixes this subtle (in this case explicit) hatred it has toward our soldiers, be it political or ideaological, they will, nay they must, continue to lose elections.

Soldiers are subject to a set of laws that govern how they conduct themselves in war, Ace. Adding torture to the list of forbidden activities is no different that laws already in place preventing rape or murder, or black marketeering or looting, or desertion. Do those activities take place in war without penalty sometimes? Yes. It's war. It's chaotic and bloody and awful. Should we then just say, oh screw it, what happens in war happens, and we should have no laws governing our soldiers' conduct? I would argue not, because we are a nation of laws. That's how we've won global respect over the years. And if we ignore our principles and morals, we will rightly lose that respect.

Regarding Kerry's quote, again you distort to make your point. He didn't say soldiers were breaking into random homes. You have to assume (hopefully) those soldiers had a point breaking into those homes. But every time they break into a home and haul some guy away, scaring his family, our War on Terror is harmed. Are you, as a little kid, liable to grow up to support the country whose soldiers hauled your Dad away in the middle of the night? We need to fight this war smarter than that, Ace.

Thank you for providing the Durbin quote. My response, again, is that in your rush to outrage you brush aside the point, because it's easier to feel that outrage than it is to think about the larger issue. The activities and torture described in reports from Abu Ghraib or Gitmo are NOT the sort of activities one would associate with America, that one would consider American. That's what Durbin is saying in that quote, that's the point he's making. Do you disagree, Ace? Is torture something you consider an American tradition, a part of the American fabric of life, something you would read about and say, 'Well, that's my country, damn that makes me proud!' If so, say so. If not, then take the Durbin quote for what it is saying, not for what you wish it would say.

[dennis_t]

It is always nothing but a race to the bottom with PAD and Ace.

I would disagree, in that Ace is actually making points and cogent arguments and engaging in a dialogue.

I respect that a lot more than PAD's modus operendi, which seems to involve being outrageous and obnoxious solely to get a rise out of those who disagree with him. Ace is debating and discussing like an adult; PAD's more like a youngster who needs attention and will do any annoying childish activity to get it.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I would disagree, in that Ace is actually making points and cogent arguments and engaging in a dialogue.

I respect that a lot more than PAD's modus operendi, which seems to involve being outrageous and obnoxious solely to get a rise out of those who disagree with him. Ace is debating and discussing like an adult; PAD's more like a youngster who needs attention and will do any annoying childish activity to get it.

dennis_t has proven he's only interested in debating and participating in this forum if it appears his side can win and his opinion will be vindicated by political results. I think someone referred to it as "jumping on the winning bandwagon".

So I believe actually taking his posts seriously, like this one, should be a great reminder that liberal thought and ideals lead to electoral defeat. Typical of this outcome dennis_t runs away for 9 months to lick his wounds, hide in shame and avoid general embarrassment of being made an ass of again.

Always worth repeating.

[Msut77]

I would disagree, in that Ace is actually making points and cogent arguments and engaging in a dialogue.

Where?

In case you havent noticed he is using the universal respect of the troops as a political shield.

According to those made famous in the Abu Ghraib photographs they werent acting alone, Bush and his buddies knew what was going on.

[dennis_t]

dennis_t has proven he's only interested in debating and participating in this forum if it appears his side can win and his opinion will be vindicated by political results.

In PAD's world view, speaking up only when you have a valid point is the sign of an irrational mind. One must flap one's gums all the time, anytime, whether or not they have something constructive or informative to say.

For my part, I will continue to participate only when I have something to contribute, rather than to inflame and enrage in a childish pursuit of attention.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86484&page=2

"Actually it's like a field trip for me dennis.

I get to come see all the kooks in one place. I can point and laugh at them or pound on the glass, as it were, to make them crazy, spook them and watch them flail about in the confines of their captivity.

It truly is for my own amusement that I come and laugh at the likes of you.

I'm sure though that you have a far more noble purpose of visiting online message boards such as this. I'm next to certain you're putting together a doctoral dissortation of some sort or another and this is merely the forum in which you are pusuing your academic and world changing work."

[dennis_t]

Where?

In case you havent noticed he is using the universal respect of the troops as a political shield.

According to those made famous in the Abu Ghraib photographs they werent acting alone, Bush and his buddies knew what was going on.

True, Msut, but he's also taking part in the discussion rather than descending to childish name-calling.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Hey dennis, you'd be worth debating in a serious manner if you didn't feel the need to run and hide every time you had your views refuted by the general public through election results. You've earned your scorn from me by your own cowardice.

It's not my fault there's exactly one poster here worth having a discussion with that is a self identified liberal/progressive.

[Ace-Of-War]

I just want to write a brief appreciation for your kind words and professional demeanure. You're one of the few posters here who can disagree without being disagreeable. The respect is certainly mutual, and I just wanted to let you know despite anything I say about your ideas you seem like a really intelligent guy who has sincere beliefs that you stand by instead of... well... someone like Msut.

I can't speak for PAD, or anyone else for that matter, but that's just my take.

Tell me how opposition to torture damages our united front. Tell me how having a political argument about how to conduct the War on Terror in any way sends the message that we do not want to conduct that war. That's the logical fallacy that Republicans have been getting folks to swallow -- that opposition to the way they run the war means ipso facto you are against the war itself.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Arguments over policies and ideas aren't just good, they're infinitely necessary to keep our country stong as a democratic republic. Again, that's very different from using dangerous language to describe our troops and our position. There's a way to disagree without siding with our country's defeat but the Democrats have lost it. Here, I'll give you a hypothetical example to illustrate what I'm trying to say here:

President Bush: I think our troops should use Plan A.
John Kerry: I think our troops should use Plan B, and I'll explain why Plan B is superior to Plan A.

President Bush: I think our troops should use Plan A.
John Kerry: Our troops are breaking in homes and terrorizing women and children. We will lose in Iraq.

I'd also like to point out that ideally someone who disagrees with the President on policy would have a competitive policy to promote. Do you notice the difference? I'll be more than happy to point out actual examples of constructive criticism on the left if you'd like, but it's very hard to find as the left is largely becoming a bloated political attack machine with nothing to offer in 2006 than, "We hate the President."

For example, am I for rooting out terrorists? Yes. Hell yes. Am I for the war in Iraq? Hell no. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. No ties to Osama, no WMDs, no nothing. Iraq has proven a costly diversion from the War on Terror. Imagine how much better our port security, for example, could be with even a fraction of the money that instead has been poured into Iraq.

No, those are just silly assertions perpetrated by partisan Democrats with little breadth in their arguments.


Bruce Tefft, the retired CIA official, described the documents as "accurate." He cited as particularly significant the Iraq link to al-Jihad al Tajdeed. Tajdeed is allied with Mr. al-Zarqawi. Its website currently posts Mr. al-Zarqawi's speeches, messages, and videos—including images portraying the Jordanian terrorist actively participating in the beheading of American Nicholas Berg and, just last month, the beheading of U.S. engineer Eugene Armstrong. At 37, Mr. al-Zarqawi is considered the main instigator behind suicide bombings, assassination attempts, and beheadings in Iraq. The connections "are too close to be accidental," Mr. Tefft told CNS, suggesting "one of the first operational contacts between an al-Qaeda group and Iraq."


Mr. al-Zarqawi is often portrayed as a lone ranger, a cult figure running a nascent uprising in response to so-called U.S. imperialism. Yet these latest documents, along with other emerging reports, reveal Mr. al-Zarqawi's "authority stemmed from specific instructions and guidance" received from Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. According to terror expert Yossef Bodansky in his new book, The Secret History of the Iraq War, intelligence data shows Mr. al-Zarqawi entered northern Iraq from Iran shortly before the war to oversee a sophisticated guerrilla-war plan crafted in conjunction with Iraqi intelligence agents and Saddam himself.


In addition to the terror-group connections, several pages of the leaked documents also demonstrate that Saddam possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction. They describe Iraq's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas in August 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, a term for anthrax, the following month—all at a time when Saddam prohibited UN weapons inspectors from working in Iraq. The purchase orders include gas masks, filters, sterilization, and decontamination equipment.

If you'd like I can also find numerous Syrian journalists describing with shocking detail the rush of weapons from Iraq to Syria. I could find you big wigs in the Iraqi military pre-war who insist the weapons were all taken out of the country into Syria. To say Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction is foolish as there is just as much cooberating evidence of mass transportations of weapons into Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.

And am I for torture? Hell no. Because it hurts us in the War on Terror. Because in that war, we need to win the hearts and minds of people who are on the fence regarding whether to support our way of life or support the terrorists. And every time we torture somebody, we make their family and friends and network of acquaintances more inclined to support terrorism. It's the smart way to fight the War on Terror, and the decent way, and if you were thinking with your head instead of with your fear you'd come to the same conclusion.

Soldiers are subject to a set of laws that govern how they conduct themselves in war, Ace. Adding torture to the list of forbidden activities is no different that laws already in place preventing rape or murder, or black marketeering or looting, or desertion. Do those activities take place in war without penalty sometimes? Yes. It's war. It's chaotic and bloody and awful. Should we then just say, oh screw it, what happens in war happens, and we should have no laws governing our soldiers' conduct? I would argue not, because we are a nation of laws. That's how we've won global respect over the years. And if we ignore our principles and morals, we will rightly lose that respect.

Like I said, no one is for torture. I'm sure you're not for abortion either, you just support it as an option. That's the same idea here.

Since you ignored my last hypothetical, what about atomic warheads? Again, we have the same issue. No one in this world wants to use atomic warfare, but does that mean we should destroy ours? Absolutely not. It would be ridiculous to paint ourselves in a corner by removing our most powerful defensive manuver.

You have to assume (hopefully) those soldiers had a point breaking into those homes. But every time they break into a home and haul some guy away, scaring his family, our War on Terror is harmed. Are you, as a little kid, liable to grow up to support the country whose soldiers hauled your Dad away in the middle of the night? We need to fight this war smarter than that, Ace.

No, your completely missing the point. You just take for granted that what Sen. Kerry said was one hundred percent accurate without even doing so much as a search for the comment he made. You just take for granted that our soldiers are a bunch of terrorizing thugs who break into homes under the cover of darkness. [i]That's how the left views our military as a whole[/b].

Is torture something you consider an American tradition, a part of the American fabric of life, something you would read about and say, 'Well, that's my country, damn that makes me proud!' If so, say so. If not, then take the Durbin quote for what it is saying, not for what you wish it would say.

The same principle applies here. You just assume without question that our soldiers are doing nothing but torturing and breaking the law. That's what Sen. Durbin did, expect he took it a step further and equated our soldiers to some of the most evil, disgusting, and vile people in human history. Do you think John Kennedy would have ever said something like that? Absolutely not, I bet that man is rolling over his grave everytime he hears what a travesty this political party has turned into.

[bmulligan]

You talk about me being not level headed, yet you cling onto your self-proclaimed conclusion that I am a LIBHURAL, which is pretty telling that you just generalize because I don't share most of the same viewpoints as your side of the fence. I could care less about your partisanship man...

Either way, just read over what that PAD fellow has said about this hostage and just admit too yourself that it's pretty bad. That much is clearly evident...

Actually I think of you as a one sentence stiffened finger, jabbing at anyone who will give you a attention, in the same catagory as mslut. Sorry if my broad sweeping generalization about liberals wasn't specific enough to single you out and give you the attention you require.

So, the fact that PAD has said something derrogatory to someone else gives you license to be an idiot also. I understand now. Cultural debauchery is your chosen behavior only becuase someone else started it, absolving you of accountability. I'm sure playing the victim will get you far in life.

[usickenme]

blah blah whining whining...


It's saying something when Alonzo is the most levelheaded and articulate lib in a thread.

have you seen they guy? PAD is tubby. That's a fact not a slam.

[Metal Boss]

Sorry if my broad sweeping generalization about liberals wasn't specific enough to single you out and give you the attention you require.

Apology accepted

[alonzomourning23]

That's the difference between you and me, between Republicans and Democrats in general: when you think of our military you think of a bunch of "obvious torture" or law-breaking servicemen and women that cannot be trusted. I think of wonderful soldiers who risk their lives every day so that I can cherish my freedoms. That's really all there is to say. You've chosen your side and I've chosen mine.

You're not a realist. Torture did occur, there is photographic evidence that shows that. Like it or not americans did torture detainees. You can cover your eyes as much as you want, but ignoring such things will do nothing but create more enemies, with stronger reasons to fight us. By ignoring such events took place, and not taking steps to prevent or stop such events, you are doing nothing but giving ammo to terrorist propaganda machines. Ensuring these things do not take place not only saves detainees lives, they save soldiers lives.



You can apologize for him all you want,

Do you even understand what the term "accidental" means? When that quote was made no one thought it came out the way he intended. It's like taking a bushism at face value.

but what about that House Resolution 557? The resolution that literally didn't do anything other than ask for the House's unity for our military and for the Iraqi people. The left is always on the wrong side of our soldiers be it either politically or ideologically.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Uniting against the nation's enemies isn't uniting for the sake of unity, it's just simple national security logic. Something that the Democratic party lacks, and something they need to get back if they want to gain any power ever again.

Funny, I thought democrats opposed terrorists to? Don't blame them because they don't want to follow an ultra-nationalistic foreign policy that will do little but create more enemies. There are more than one way to do things, some work, some don't and some make things worse. It is unity for the sake of unity if they unite behind plans that don't work or make things worse.

When the second most powerful Democratic Senator equates our servicemen and women to Nazis, he is anti-American.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

Where is he saying our soldiers and nazi's are the essentially the same? As far as I can tell he's complaining about particular actions, or particular individuals, not all soldiers.

I disagree with the point either way though as forcing our soldiers to have an attorney present when they fight lest they breach some bureaucratic nonsense is much more dangerous than Congressional name calling.[/quote]

[Msut77]

Like I said, no one is for torture. I'm sure you're not for abortion either, you just support it as an option. That's the same idea here.

Apparently you and much of the right does support torture..

[Ace-Of-War]

You're not a realist. Torture did occur, there is photographic evidence that shows that. Like it or not americans did torture detainees. You can cover your eyes as much as you want, but ignoring such things will do nothing but create more enemies, with stronger reasons to fight us. By ignoring such events took place, and not taking steps to prevent or stop such events, you are doing nothing but giving ammo to terrorist propaganda machines. Ensuring these things do not take place not only saves detainees lives, they save soldiers lives.

I'm not denying the fact it happened, but just because a handful of soldiers broke the law doesn't mean I will side against our military by assuming they are all bad people. Besides, no matter what laws we pass our enemies are still going to kill us. The reason were at war in the first place is because people like these cannot be reasoned with. Don't you forget that instead of engaging in diplomacy they blow up civilian structures and cheer.

Do you even understand what the term "accidental" means? When that quote was made no one thought it came out the way he intended. It's like taking a bushism at face value.

Let's see it then, show me where Sen. Kerry publicly announced that his comment was indeed "accidental" as you claim so vigorously and I'll concede the point. Until you can do so one can only conclude you are an apologist for a man who believes that American soldiers are in Iraq to "terrorize women and children."

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

When 90 Democrats vote against a formal measure that basically says the House is united in their support of American troops and Iraqi civilians, you've got a large portion of House Democrats who's interests conflict with supporting our military.

Funny, I thought democrats opposed terrorists to? Don't blame them because they don't want to follow an ultra-nationalistic foreign policy that will do little but create more enemies. There are more than one way to do things, some work, some don't and some make things worse. It is unity for the sake of unity if they unite behind plans that don't work or make things worse.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Sometimes I really have to wonder.

There's a right and a dangerous way to disagree. Refer to my previous post for an example of the difference between the two.

Where is he saying our soldiers and nazi's are the essentially the same? As far as I can tell he's complaining about particular actions, or particular individuals, not all soldiers.

He says our soldiers use the same tactics as Nazis or Soviets in some gulags. Either you are immensely ignorant of the unspeakable atrocities committed by these violent regimes or you are dangerously partisan in your defense of politicians in the same party as yourself. Sen. Durbin had to apologize a week later because of the firestorm he recieved from these comments and he admitted they were way out of line. With good reason as they were, and if there was ever a need for a Congressional censure then was the time.

[Msut77]

Ace is shameless.

[alonzomourning23]

I'm not denying the fact it happened, but just because a handful of soldiers broke the law doesn't mean I will side against our military by assuming they are all bad people. Besides, no matter what laws we pass our enemies are still going to kill us. The reason were at war in the first place is because people like these cannot be reasoned with. Don't you forget that instead of engaging in diplomacy they blow up civilian structures and cheer.

But the level of terrorism has not remained consisten, it has increased. Anger at our policies has increased. Support for terrorism has increased. Support for forces fighting against the u.s. military (non terrorist) has increased. Actions influence peoples opinions and our actions often result in terrorists or militants gaining support and/or recruits.

And not one democratic congressman, not one, has said all members of our military are bad people. Your actions will not do anything to protect anyone against the few bad soldiers. They won't protect detainees, and they won't protect our image.

Let's see it then, show me where Sen. Kerry publicly announced that his comment was indeed "accidental" as you claim so vigorously and I'll concede the point. Until you can do so one can only conclude you are an apologist for a man who believes that American soldiers are in Iraq to "terrorize women and children."

How many times has bush publicly corrected a bushism?

When 90 Democrats vote against a formal measure that basically says the House is united in their support of American troops and Iraqi civilians, you've got a large portion of House Democrats who's interests conflict with supporting our military.

It was? Maybe you missed the part where it was supporting the invasion itself:



Whereas with the Iraqi regime failing to comply with 16 previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions, the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, declaring that Iraq `has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors'; and

Whereas on October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and on March 19, 2003, the United States initiated military operations in Iraq: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;.....

(4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

The resolution suggested approval of the invasion itself. And since many disapproved, and many feel that the world is more dangerous now, it wasn't so simple.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Sometimes I really have to wonder.

There's a right and a dangerous way to disagree. Refer to my previous post for an example of the difference between the two.

Well, if there are dangerous ways to disagree, this isn't one. Showing unity that is weak on crimes committed when the world is disgusted at the behavior of some of our forces will do nothing but create more anger and hostility against us. There are some things that clearly are wrong and need to be fixed, and practically everyone will agree on that.



He says our soldiers use the same tactics as Nazis or Soviets in some gulags. Either you are immensely ignorant of the unspeakable atrocities committed by these violent regimes or you are dangerously partisan in your defense of politicians in the same party as yourself. Sen. Durbin had to apologize a week later because of the firestorm he recieved from these comments and he admitted they were way out of line. With good reason as they were, and if there was ever a need for a Congressional censure then was the time.


No, he's not saying our soldiers, as all our soldiers. It's particular to a particular place and particular soldiers and particular u.s. policy. He's saying that the practices seem completely unamerican.

Out of line or not, it's a far cry from calling u.s. soldiers nazi's.

[Msut77]

No, he's not saying our soldiers, as all our soldiers. It's particular to a particular place and particular soldiers and particular u.s. policy.

Alonzo, dunno if you understand this, but Ace knows what he is doing and that he is being shamefully dishonest.

[alonzomourning23]

Eh, people still argue pad and others who argue just to argue.

[Ace-Of-War]

But the level of terrorism has not remained consisten, it has increased. Anger at our policies has increased. Support for terrorism has increased. Support for forces fighting against the u.s. military (non terrorist) has increased. Actions influence peoples opinions and our actions often result in terrorists or militants gaining support and/or recruits.

That's pure speculation unless you can prove to me that more American civilians have died after Septemeber 11th, 2001 than before. I know it's fun for you guys to tout that fallacy around about how terrorism is worse when we do something about it than when we close our eyes to it, but in the real world you have to prove that that's the case. President Clinton didn't preside over a terrorism-free term in office, if we had wonderful relations with Al-Qaeda then you might have a stronger point.

And not one democratic congressman, not one, has said all members of our military are bad people. Your actions will not do anything to protect anyone against the few bad soldiers. They won't protect detainees, and they won't protect our image.

No, but they will call their actions "terrorizing" or equal to those of "Nazis" in a sorry attempt to trash the President they also trash the moral of our soldiers. I wouldn't consider it very supportive if politicans alleged that I was breaking into homes in the middle of the night and terrorizing women and children. I would want Democratic politicans to say, "Look, we applaud your bravery and your courage. While we do not agree with this or that, we will stand united in the defense of the nation from an enemy who wants to kill us all no matter our political stance. I will promote different foreign policies that may or may not involve active military action, but I will do so knowing that ya'll are overseas right now. I will fight for my cause but I will also respect our military so as not to hurt this nation."

If a Democrat where to say something like that I would applaud him even though I'd most likely disagree with whatever he put on the table. In general however, they do not do that. You can't seem to understand how much different that is. They go out of their way to attack the administration and the military overseas for political reasons. They want to divide this country even further by calling for idiotic censures and impeachments that will not pass and will only waste Congressional time that could be better spent dealing with real issues. It's sick, dangerous, and wrong.

How many times has bush publicly corrected a bushism?

A "bushism" is when President Bush misspeaks, stumbles, stutters, or say words in the wrong order. Obviously missunderestimate isn't a word, but if you want to go fight the President to make him admit that he didn't use perfect grammar, then go right ahead. I'm not going to defend simple mistakes because everyone makes them, but I'm not going to let something pass that was as atrocious as what Sen. Kerry said.

In other words, he didn't say something like, "Our military is attacks too much strongly" which could be let slide as a simple speaking mistake.

It was? Maybe you missed the part where it was supporting the invasion itself

The resolution suggested approval of the invasion itself. And since many disapproved, and many feel that the world is more dangerous now, it wasn't so simple.

It did no such thing. It did suggest that the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein out of power, is that what you're contesting? You support a brutal, autocratic totalitarian over an democratically elected republic?

Well, if there are dangerous ways to disagree, this isn't one. Showing unity that is weak on crimes committed when the world is disgusted at the behavior of some of our forces will do nothing but create more anger and hostility against us. There are some things that clearly are wrong and need to be fixed, and practically everyone will agree on that.

Calling our troops terrorists is indeed dangerous. Only terrorists terrorize, Sen. Kerry needs to be told that. Only evil acts in the way Nazis did, Sen. Durbin needs to be told that. I'll tell you what's wrong. There are large masses of people plotting to kill as many innocent American civilians as they can and one political party in American wishes to face this evil in our time while the other wishes to close their collective eyes to them while they grow more advanced and achieve more horrific weapons technologies because if you don't ignore them you're afraid they'll be mad at us. That's what's wrong my friend.

No, he's not saying our soldiers, as all our soldiers. It's particular to a particular place and particular soldiers and particular u.s. policy. He's saying that the practices seem completely unamerican.

Out of line or not, it's a far cry from calling u.s. soldiers nazi's.

What do you want me to say then? He thinks some soldiers are Nazi's and some aren't? What are the one's that aren't? Co-conspirators?

Face it man, the guy straight up equated what our military does to the mass-genocide of millions, to lining up thousands upon thousands of innocent people to be incenerated, gassed, or starved, to performing fatal, immoral scientific experiments on thousands of people. Do not protect him. Even he admitted what he said was way out of line, so your making yourself look silly when you try to defend it. Look, it's simple, it was a statement he probably didn't think about that was very wrong and grossly inaccurate. You may defend the person, but at least admit that statement was deplorable.

[alonzomourning23]

That's pure speculation unless you can prove to me that more American civilians have died after Septemeber 11th, 2001 than before. I know it's fun for you guys to tout that fallacy around about how terrorism is worse when we do something about it than when we close our eyes to it, but in the real world you have to prove that that's the case. President Clinton didn't preside over a terrorism-free term in office, if we had wonderful relations with Al-Qaeda then you might have a stronger point.

Last I checked americans weren't the only ones who are victims of terror. Terrorism is terrorism, no matter where it occurs.

No, but they will call their actions "terrorizing" or equal to those of "Nazis" in a sorry attempt to trash the President they also trash the moral of our soldiers. I wouldn't consider it very supportive if politicans alleged that I was breaking into homes in the middle of the night and terrorizing women and children. I would want Democratic politicans to say, "Look, we applaud your bravery and your courage. While we do not agree with this or that, we will stand united in the defense of the nation from an enemy who wants to kill us all no matter our political stance. I will promote different foreign policies that may or may not involve active military action, but I will do so knowing that ya'll are overseas right now. I will fight for my cause but I will also respect our military so as not to hurt this nation."

How in the world does standing behind crimes do anything to help our soldiers overseas? Expose the criminals, remove them, put them in jail, and take measures to ensure that future crimes do not occur. That's the first step you need to take to start rebuilding our reputation and reducing anti-american sentiment. Making people support us with a gun only works temporarily, but in the end we'll end up with a knife in our backs. The goal is to reduce anti-american sentiment, reduce anger, thereby marginalizing terrorists and limiting the pool of recruits and supporters. Any harm to their image comes from their own screw ups, America's foreign policy has become a billboard for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist, as well as militant, groups.

But, u.s. soldier do break into iraqi homes and engage in house to house searches. Aggressive tactics and language issues often result in terrified residents. These tactics have been heavily criticized.

Terrorize is something terrorists do, but anyone can terrorize someone in the right situation, you don't have to be a terrorist to do that.

They go out of their way to attack the administration and the military overseas for political reasons. They want to divide this country even further by calling for idiotic censures and impeachments that will not pass and will only waste Congressional time that could be better spent dealing with real issues. It's sick, dangerous, and wrong.

Politics is the only way to get anything done in this country. Without differentiating themselves they're setting themselves up for future failures. Though I oppose impeachment unless you could get both bush and cheney out (cheney scares me more than bush), and censur is pointless since it won't pass and will likely backfire.

A "bushism" is when President Bush misspeaks, stumbles, stutters, or say words in the wrong order. Obviously missunderestimate isn't a word, but if you want to go fight the President to make him admit that he didn't use perfect grammar, then go right ahead. I'm not going to defend simple mistakes because everyone makes them, but I'm not going to let something pass that was as atrocious as what Sen. Kerry said.

In other words, he didn't say something like, "Our military is attacks too much strongly" which could be let slide as a simple speaking mistake.


It did no such thing. It did suggest that the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein out of power, is that what you're contesting? You support a brutal, autocratic totalitarian over an democratically elected republic?

An I assume that Iraq effected nothing else? It hasn't served to gain support for radicalism, it hasn't lead to increase anti-us sentiment? It hasn't increased support for terrorism? No one is suggesting that Iraq may enter into civil war?

Calling our troops terrorists is indeed dangerous. Only terrorists terrorize, Sen. Kerry needs to be told that.

That's completely and utterly false. Fear terrorizes. Whatever can produce great fear can terrorize.

Only evil acts in the way Nazis did, Sen. Durbin needs to be told that. I'll tell you what's wrong. There are large masses of people plotting to kill as many innocent American civilians as they can and one political party in American wishes to face this evil in our time while the other wishes to close their collective eyes to them while they grow more advanced and achieve more horrific weapons technologies because if you don't ignore them you're afraid they'll be mad at us. That's what's wrong my friend.

No, some advocate the use of force as the main weapon, other advocate it as only one of many weapons. You can't kill everyone, even if such an act was desirable. We simply cannot afford to have every death be a rallying cry that results in 2 replacing the one. The use of force as the only significant weapon will produce an endless war on an ideology that will never end, since our acts will only serve to reinforce the ideology we are fighting.

What do you want me to say then? He thinks some soldiers are Nazi's and some aren't? What are the one's that aren't? Co-conspirators?

Face it man, the guy straight up equated what our military does to the mass-genocide of millions, to lining up thousands upon thousands of innocent people to be incenerated, gassed, or starved, to performing fatal, immoral scientific experiments on thousands of people. Do not protect him. Even he admitted what he said was way out of line, so your making yourself look silly when you try to defend it. Look, it's simple, it was a statement he probably didn't think about that was very wrong and grossly inaccurate. You may defend the person, but at least admit that statement was deplorable.

I want you to show me where he said they were nazis. Out of line and calling u.s. soldiers nazi's are different things. He said the behaviors and actions are more indicative of regimes like the nazi's, soviets etc. not americans. You're making a leap when you say he called u.s. soldiers nazi's. I'm not saying his comment wasn't out of line, but I am saying he didn't call u.s. soldiers nazi's.

[Ace-Of-War]

Last I checked americans weren't the only ones who are victims of terror. Terrorism is terrorism, no matter where it occurs.
Of course, but we're not talking about a global government, we're talking about America. France does it your way, ignoring and/or appeasing, and look what happened to Paris for about a month.

How in the world does standing behind crimes do anything to help our soldiers overseas? Expose the criminals, remove them, put them in jail, and take measures to ensure that future crimes do not occur. That's the first step you need to take to start rebuilding our reputation and reducing anti-american sentiment. Making people support us with a gun only works temporarily, but in the end we'll end up with a knife in our backs. The goal is to reduce anti-american sentiment, reduce anger, thereby marginalizing terrorists and limiting the pool of recruits and supporters. Any harm to their image comes from their own screw ups, America's foreign policy has become a billboard for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist, as well as militant, groups.
Crimes? Again, bullshit speculation based on political leaning and natural hatred of conflict I would guess. Soldiers aren't criminals. Some soldiers may commit crimes, just as some citizens in any nation on the planet may commit crimes, but to just equate a U.S. soldier automatically as a criminal is dead wrong and very offensive. England is being tried, and with good reason. I'm not going to sit here and defend the entire military because a few individuals did horrible things. I might as well defend the entire human race because we have a minority of bad people who brake whatever laws they live under from time to time if that were the case.

I did see a very fundamental difference between us in that statement, between how we view foreign affairs. You see the war on terror as largely a political movement to improve our image in the world, which I think couldn't be any more wrong. I have a quote here that I think fits beautifully to what we're talking about here. It was written and spoke by the great one himself, former President Ronald Reagan,

. . . peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever.Not to Islamic facism, not to communism, not to facist Germany, to no one. That includes bowing before terrorist organizations in an attempt to make ourselves popular with everyone. Let's face it, they've been attacking us during the past 5 administrations. Five very different and very diverse foreign policy structures, from the most (I would say naive and blind) human rights protections to all out military engagement, they will continue to attack us no matter how many times you cry out surrender or appease or ignore.
But, u.s. soldier do break into iraqi homes and engage in house to house searches. Aggressive tactics and language issues often result in terrified residents. These tactics have been heavily criticized.

Terrorize is something terrorists do, but anyone can terrorize someone in the right situation, you don't have to be a terrorist to do that.
Okay, then you agree with me. You think of our soldiers, like Sen. Kerry or Sen. Durbin, as terrorizing, despicable people who use Nazi-like tactics to instill fear among the Iraqi civilian population. I disagree with those assessments one hundred percent, and I could cite you several articles of Iraqi's praising and cheering our soldiers for their courageous efforts.

Politics is the only way to get anything done in this country. Without differentiating themselves they're setting themselves up for future failures. Though I oppose impeachment unless you could get both bush and cheney out (cheney scares me more than bush), and censur is pointless since it won't pass and will likely backfire.
You don't need to attack our soldiers to make a political point... to differenciate yourself. You can do so without making personal, hateful, vile, and most of all ignorant attacks against not just the administration but the soldiers that protect our nation everyday.

That's beside the point anyways because they're already setting themselves up for future failures with their disgusting approach to national security. Any Democrat who's even remotely pro-military is vilified in the party (i.e. Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, Paul Hackett) and until this changes I doubt you'll have to worry about any differentiating at all.

An I assume that Iraq effected nothing else? It hasn't served to gain support for radicalism, it hasn't lead to increase anti-us sentiment? It hasn't increased support for terrorism? No one is suggesting that Iraq may enter into civil war?
That's beside the point, the resolution doesn't state those things. Those are assumptions just made by you right now.

No, some advocate the use of force as the main weapon, other advocate it as only one of many weapons. You can't kill everyone, even if such an act was desirable. We simply cannot afford to have every death be a rallying cry that results in 2 replacing the one. The use of force as the only significant weapon will produce an endless war on an ideology that will never end, since our acts will only serve to reinforce the ideology we are fighting.
In otherwords defending yourself is too difficult. It's better to have ten to a thousand innocent Americans die a year on average than to actually take a real stand against terrorism.

I want you to show me where he said they were nazis. Out of line and calling u.s. soldiers nazi's are different things. He said the behaviors and actions are more indicative of regimes like the nazi's, soviets etc. not americans. You're making a leap when you say he called u.s. soldiers nazi's. I'm not saying his comment wasn't out of line, but I am saying he didn't call u.s. soldiers nazi's.
So I guess I can say you act like an idiot without actually calling you an idiot? Give me a break man, do you even hear what you're saying?

[Msut77]

Ace the quote you pulled out about not bowing to anyone?

That includes W's piggish thuggish tendencies you tool.