Re: A sorry tale about a weasel named Lionel [Archive]

paul packer

September 21st 04, 02:55 PM

>> This is a good question, and I think you need to be a Muslem male to
>> properly answer it. As I suggested, and as has been documented, the
>> torturers or whoever advised them familiarised themselves with Muslem
>> belief just enough to ensure what they did to the prisoners would
>> shame them in their own and their people's eyes for all time. For
>> instance, I don't think it's acidental that they were led around on a
>> leash by FEMALE guards. To the Muslem mind this is extremely
>> significant. So too is the homosexual element explicit in many of the
>> photos. To properly understand all this one needs to look at it from
>> the Muslem male point of view, and the national and religious pride
>> that that suggests. College hazing just doesn't come into it. Indeed
>> the mere comparison only shows how little the women's lib influenced
>> western mind understands the Arab male.
>>
>
>These guys werre hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.
>I think they acted out of common meanness; they are
>waaaay to unsophisticated to understand anything
>about Muslim culture. I live fairly close to that
>area and have had work assigneetns up there,
>so I know what its like up there in the mountains
>of Western Maryland.

Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
instructed them.

Michael McKelvy

September 21st 04, 04:30 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Michael McKelvy"
>>Date: 9/20/2004 6:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: et>
>>
>>
>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
>>>>Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
>>>>comparison.
>>>
>>> That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
>>> comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
>>> Conventions.
>>
>>It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than
>>a
>>2 on a 10 scale.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> What those prisoners went through was worse than death for most of them.
> So I
> guess that makes death a 1 or 1.5 on that scale. What is a 10?

The Nazi holocaust.
The Khmer Rouge holocaust.
The starving to death of millions under Stalin.

Michael McKelvy

September 21st 04, 04:31 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
>>>>Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
>>>>comparison.
>>>
>>> That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
>>> comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
>>> Conventions.
>>
>>It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than
>>a
>>2 on a 10 scale.
>
> It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
> military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.

Lionel

September 21st 04, 05:20 PM

>>>Hamas, the PLO, and so on do not represent any legitimate government.
>>>
>>>N. Korea Kim Jong very ****ing Ill is a terrorist who heads up a
>>>government.
>>
>>He is a terrorist?
>>
>
> He sells weapons to terrorists.

In the 80s the USA were training and supplying weapons to Bin Laden &
Cie in order he fight against the Afghan communist government and their
allies, the Soviets.
At this time the Soviets were saying "Bin Laden is a terrorist" and USA
were saying "Bin Laden is an ally".
Do you think that at this time USA were a terrotist nation since it was
supporting a "terrorist" ?

At this time Bin Laden wasn't representing any government.
Would you say that he was an illegitimate ally of USA ? :-)

Lionel

September 21st 04, 06:49 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
>>>>>Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
>>>>>comparison.
>>>>
>>>>That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
>>>>comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
>>>>Conventions.
>>>
>>>It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than
>>>a
>>>2 on a 10 scale.
>>
>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>>military.
>
>
> From a historical perspective it was minor.

The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
a minor fact of the WWII".
This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
....You have a friend in France Michael.

Clyde Slick

September 21st 04, 11:14 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> >> This is a good question, and I think you need to be a Muslem male to
> >> properly answer it. As I suggested, and as has been documented, the
> >> torturers or whoever advised them familiarised themselves with Muslem
> >> belief just enough to ensure what they did to the prisoners would
> >> shame them in their own and their people's eyes for all time. For
> >> instance, I don't think it's acidental that they were led around on a
> >> leash by FEMALE guards. To the Muslem mind this is extremely
> >> significant. So too is the homosexual element explicit in many of the
> >> photos. To properly understand all this one needs to look at it from
> >> the Muslem male point of view, and the national and religious pride
> >> that that suggests. College hazing just doesn't come into it. Indeed
> >> the mere comparison only shows how little the women's lib influenced
> >> western mind understands the Arab male.
> >>
> >
> >These guys werre hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.
> >I think they acted out of common meanness; they are
> >waaaay to unsophisticated to understand anything
> >about Muslim culture. I live fairly close to that
> >area and have had work assigneetns up there,
> >so I know what its like up there in the mountains
> >of Western Maryland.
>
>
> Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
> humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
> to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
> for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
> the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
> instructed them.

These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
it a documentary.

Clyde Slick

September 21st 04, 11:15 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
> > >These guys werre hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.
> > >I think they acted out of common meanness; they are
> > >waaaay to unsophisticated to understand anything
> > >about Muslim culture. I live fairly close to that
> > >area and have had work assigneetns up there,
> > >so I know what its like up there in the mountains
> > >of Western Maryland.
> >
> >
> > Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
> > humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
> > to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
> > for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
> > the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
> > instructed them.
>
> I heard something like that... Supposedly the soldiers got the "soften
> them up" orders from "Army intelligence officers". They probably had a
> brand-new handbook with guidelines like "Don't make them dance around
> naked because it's humiliating for them."
>

This problem was confined to one shift, the nighshift.
The other two shifts didn't do this. I don't think
they were directed.

Clyde Slick

September 21st 04, 11:54 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and
what
> >>>>>Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild
by
> >>>>>comparison.
> >>>>
> >>>>That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
> >>>>comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
> >>>>Conventions.
> >>>
> >>>It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more
than
> >>>a
> >>>2 on a 10 scale.
> >>
> >>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
> >>military.
> >
> >
> > From a historical perspective it was minor.
>
> The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
> Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
> has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
> a minor fact of the WWII".
> This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
> ...You have a friend in France Michael.

Meaning exactly what?
Can you clarify your drivel and
demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 04:39 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > I heard something like that... Supposedly the soldiers got the "soften
> > > them up" orders from "Army intelligence officers". They probably had a
> > > brand-new handbook with guidelines like "Don't make them dance around
> > > naked because it's humiliating for them."
>
> > This problem was confined to one shift, the nighshift.
> > The other two shifts didn't do this. I don't think
> > they were directed.
>
> Now explain the murders and torture in Afghanistan, and the torture in
> Guantanamo.
>

Huh?

Lionel

September 22nd 04, 06:50 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and
>
> what
>
>>>>>>>Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild
>
> by
>
>>>>>>>comparison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
>>>>>>comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
>>>>>>Conventions.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more
>
> than
>
>>>>>a
>>>>>2 on a 10 scale.
>>>>
>>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>>>>military.
>>>
>>>
>>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
>>
>>The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
>>Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
>>has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
>>a minor fact of the WWII".
>>This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
>>...You have a friend in France Michael.
>
>
> Meaning exactly what?
> Can you clarify your drivel and
> demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?

It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this
category) are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo
"historic point of view".
I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
coward. In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".

paul packer

September 22nd 04, 07:53 AM

>> It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>> military.
>
>From a historical perspective it was minor.

What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.

paul packer

September 22nd 04, 07:58 AM

>> Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
>> humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
>> to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
>> for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
>> the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
>> instructed them.
>
>These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
>it a documentary.
>

The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
their heads up in their own society ever again.

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 12:56 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Michael McKelvy wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and
> >
> > what
> >
> >>>>>>>Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild
> >
> > by
> >
> >>>>>>>comparison.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
> >>>>>>comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
> >>>>>>Conventions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more
> >
> > than
> >
> >>>>>a
> >>>>>2 on a 10 scale.
> >>>>
> >>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
> >>>>military.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
> >>
> >>The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
> >>Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
> >>has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
> >>a minor fact of the WWII".
> >>This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
> >>...You have a friend in France Michael.
> >
> >
> > Meaning exactly what?
> > Can you clarify your drivel and
> > demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?
>
> It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this
> category) are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo
> "historic point of view".
> I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
> have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
> Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
> coward. In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
> that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
> what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".

Your "minimizing people suffereing" is s trictly limited to
only one side of the equation.

As far as '"the soft side", I'll defer to the
expertise and experience of RAO's favorite French weasel.

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 01:03 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> >> It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
> >> military.
> >
> >From a historical perspective it was minor.
>
>
> What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
> dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
> mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.

It makes me cry.

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 01:05 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> >> Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
> >> humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
> >> to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
> >> for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
> >> the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
> >> instructed them.
> >
> >These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
> >it a documentary.
> >
>
>
> The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
> prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
> that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
> to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
> worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
> their heads up in their own society ever again.

Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
considered a sign of honor?

Lionel

September 22nd 04, 01:39 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>>>>military.
>>>
>>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
>>
>>
>>What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
>>dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
>>mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
>
>
> It makes me cry.

It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)

Lionel

September 22nd 04, 01:44 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and
>>>
>>>what
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild
>>>
>>>by
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>comparison.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
>>>>>>>>comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
>>>>>>>>Conventions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more
>>>
>>>than
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>2 on a 10 scale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>>>>>>military.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
>>>>
>>>>The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
>>>>Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
>>>>has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
>>>>a minor fact of the WWII".
>>>>This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
>>>>...You have a friend in France Michael.
>>>
>>>
>>>Meaning exactly what?
>>>Can you clarify your drivel and
>>>demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?
>>
>>It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this
>>category) are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo
>>"historic point of view".
>>I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
>>have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
>>Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
>>coward. In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
>>that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
>>what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".
>
>
> Your "minimizing people suffereing" is s trictly limited to
> only one side of the equation.
>
> As far as '"the soft side", I'll defer to the
> expertise and experience of RAO's favorite French weasel.

I am the French weasel and you are the RAO's hyena.

paul packer

September 22nd 04, 03:17 PM

>> >From a historical perspective it was minor.
>>
>>
>> What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
>> dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
>> mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
>
>It makes me cry.

No. Lightly squeezing your genitals would make you cry. What we're
talking about would make you wish you'd been a little more sympathetic
to other people's suffering.

Lionel

September 22nd 04, 03:22 PM

Lionel wrote:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable
>>>>>>>>>> of and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong,
>>>>>>>>>> mild
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> by
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> comparison.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
>>>>>>>>> comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
>>>>>>>>> Conventions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> than
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> 2 on a 10 scale.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>>>>>>> military.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a historical perspective it was minor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
>>>>> Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned
>>>>> because he
>>>>> has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps
>>>>> were
>>>>> a minor fact of the WWII".
>>>>> This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
>>>>> ...You have a friend in France Michael.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meaning exactly what?
>>>> Can you clarify your drivel and
>>>> demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this
>>> category) are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo
>>> "historic point of view".
>>> I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
>>> have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
>>> Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
>>> coward. In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
>>> that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
>>> what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".
>>
>>
>>
>> Your "minimizing people suffereing" is s trictly limited to
>> only one side of the equation.
>>
>> As far as '"the soft side", I'll defer to the
>> expertise and experience of RAO's favorite French weasel.
>
>
> I am the French weasel and you are the RAO's hyena.

Oooops, should read the RAO's Jewish hyena.

paul packer

September 22nd 04, 03:27 PM

>> The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>> prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
>> that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>> to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>> worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
>> their heads up in their own society ever again.
>
>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>considered a sign of honor?

That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
for something others did to you?

Sander deWaal

September 22nd 04, 05:06 PM

(S888Wheel) said:

>That is bull****.A punch in the face is mild compared to the torture those
>prisoners endured. Is it OK to punch people in the face?

Depends on who's in front of you :-)

>We also sold weapons to Iran, remember? One need look no further than South
>America to realize we have supplied terrorists with weapons. Does that make us
>terrorists?

You don't want to know the answer to that question.
The old dog "guns don't kill, people do" has lost its merit long ago.

In my humble opinion, that is.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 08:10 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
> >>>>military.
> >>>
> >>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
> >>
> >>
> >>What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
> >>dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
> >>mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
> >
> >
> > It makes me cry.
>
> It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)

These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
of others. You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
is complain about the rights of the perps.

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 08:13 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> >> >From a historical perspective it was minor.
> >>
> >>
> >> What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
> >> dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
> >> mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
> >
> >It makes me cry.
>
> No. Lightly squeezing your genitals would make you cry. What we're
> talking about would make you wish you'd been a little more sympathetic
> to other people's suffering.

oh, you mean the suffering the terrorist perps.
Sorry, I am not overly concerned. Not that they should be tortured,
but we have more important things over which to wring our hands.

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 08:14 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
> > >> What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening
to
> > >> dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
> > >> mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
> > >
> > >It makes me cry.
> >
> > No. Lightly squeezing your genitals would make you cry. What we're
> > talking about would make you wish you'd been a little more sympathetic
> > to other people's suffering.
>
> Sacky has completely swallowed the "conservative" viewpoint about
> justice. That viewpoint boils down to this: "They might have been guilty
> of something, because according to the information we probably had, they
> resembled our best guess about the perpetrators of past or future
> terrorist attacks. So we are fully justified in taking preventive action
> against them, as well as other individuals we assume they are acquainted
> with. This is war!"
>

Right, in that this is war, not an exercise in criminal justice.
Handling this as a matter of criminal justice will not work.

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 08:18 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sacky said:
>
> > > The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
> > > prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
> > > that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
> > > to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
> > > worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
> > > their heads up in their own society ever again.
> >
> > Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
> > considered a sign of honor?
>
> Congratulations, your journey is complete. You are now a "debating
> trade" master.
>
What I did was destroy Paul's stupid argument.

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 08:21 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> >> The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
> >> prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
> >> that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
> >> to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
> >> worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
> >> their heads up in their own society ever again.
> >
> >Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
> >considered a sign of honor?
>
> That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
> shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
> ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
> than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
> for something others did to you?

The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.

Bruce J. Richman

September 22nd 04, 08:30 PM

Art wrote:

>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>> >>>>military.
>> >>>
>> >>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
>> >>dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
>> >>mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
>> >
>> >
>> > It makes me cry.
>>
>> It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)
>
>These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
>of others. You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
>or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
>is complain about the rights of the perps.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lionel, being an antisemitic Hamas sympathizer, is in denial and lies
constantly about what is really happening.

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

September 22nd 04, 08:59 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>> >>>>military.
>> >>>
>> >>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
>> >>dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
>> >>mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
>> >
>> >
>> > It makes me cry.
>>
>> It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)
>
> These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
> of others.

Can you prove it ? Did they received any judgment ? Do you believe their
jailors now ?

> You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
> or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
> is complain about the rights of the perps.

Wrong, this is coming from your twisted mind of frustrated saddist only.
The discussion is about the torture that those prisonners have received. Not
about the family of their alleged victims.
Anyway do you mean that they desserve torture even if they were terrorists
or murderers ?

Lionel

September 22nd 04, 09:07 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> Art wrote:
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> >>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>>> >>>>military.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
>>> >>dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
>>> >>mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It makes me cry.
>>>
>>> It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)
>>
>>These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
>>of others. You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
>>or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
>>is complain about the rights of the perps.
>>
>
> Lionel, being an antisemitic Hamas sympathizer, is in denial and lies
> constantly about what is really happening.
>

It is interesting to see that our savant, intelligent, music lover
Psychologist jump on every stupidity written by Sackman to insult me.
The prisoners who have been tortured haven't received any judgment so their
culpability hasn't been proved but for richman they desserve the torture
they have received.
Justice doesn't count for the Doctor when he needs to exprime his
hatred. :-(

>
> Bruce J. Richman
> Limited Psychologist (lol)

Sander deWaal

September 22nd 04, 09:09 PM

Art said:

>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.

I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

September 22nd 04, 09:30 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:

>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >> The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>> >> prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
>> >> that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>> >> to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>> >> worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
>> >> their heads up in their own society ever again.
>> >
>> >Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>> >considered a sign of honor?
>>
>> That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>> shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>> ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>> than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>> for something others did to you?
>
> The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.

LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never written.
this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the details
of the Arab culture.
They were specialists of the job they were doing...
Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
M-16 and a AKA-47

Michael McKelvy

September 22nd 04, 10:20 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >> Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
>> >> humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
>> >> to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
>> >> for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
>> >> the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
>> >> instructed them.
>> >
>> >These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
>> >it a documentary.
>> >
>>
>>
>> The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>> prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
>> that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>> to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>> worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
>> their heads up in their own society ever again.
>
> Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
> considered a sign of honor?
>
>
Lionel's?

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 11:57 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> >
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
> >> >>>>military.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening
to
> >> >>dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
> >> >>mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It makes me cry.
> >>
> >> It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)
> >
> > These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
> > of others.
>
> Can you prove it ? Did they received any judgment ? Do you believe their
> jailors now ?
>
> > You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
> > or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
> > is complain about the rights of the perps.
>
> Wrong, this is coming from your twisted mind of frustrated saddist only.
> The discussion is about the torture that those prisonners have received.

It's all you want to talk about. You don't
want to diuscuss the Islamists' terror. And you talk about it as an argument
against the War on Terror.
As far as I care, its a minor point amidst a much
bigger issue, how to eliminate the Islamist terrorists and
stop their terror attacks

> Not
> about the family of their alleged victims.
> Anyway do you mean that they desserve torture even if they were terrorists
> or murderers ?

Whether ot not they deserve it, the US
shouldn't be handing it out. And I'm talking about torture,
not mealy mouth minor incidents. But ist not high
on my list of priorities. I care more about the future victims.

Clyde Slick

September 22nd 04, 11:58 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> Art said:
>
> >The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> >that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> >debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> >would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> >even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>
> I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.
>

I disagree.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 12:06 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> >
> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >> The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
> >> >> prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
things
> >> >> that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
> >> >> to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
> >> >> worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
hold
> >> >> their heads up in their own society ever again.
> >> >
> >> >Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
> >> >considered a sign of honor?
> >>
> >> That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
> >> shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
> >> ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
> >> than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
> >> for something others did to you?
> >
> > The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> > that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> > debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> > would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> > even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>
> LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
written.
> this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
details
> of the Arab culture.
> They were specialists of the job they were doing...
> Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
> M-16 and a AKA-47

No they are not specialists
They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 01:36 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Sacky has completely swallowed the "conservative" viewpoint about
> > > justice. That viewpoint boils down to this: "They might have been
guilty
> > > of something, because according to the information we probably had,
they
> > > resembled our best guess about the perpetrators of past or future
> > > terrorist attacks. So we are fully justified in taking preventive
action
> > > against them, as well as other individuals we assume they are
acquainted
> > > with. This is war!"
>
> > Right, in that this is war, not an exercise in criminal justice.
> > Handling this as a matter of criminal justice will not work.
>

Hello! We are war against Islamist terrorism.

> So because we're at "war" (actually an invasion by a superpower of a
> semi-developed country with antiquated armaments and a disorganized and
> underfunded military), you justify treating every citizen of the victim
> country as an enemy fighter, regardless of the evidence? And you justify
> abusing them in ways that violate human decency and centuries of
> enlightenment, not to mention that would enrage our citizens if it
> happened to our soldiers?
>

Hello! We are war against Islamist terrorism.

> You seem to want America to be a might-makes-right country in all
> circumstances. You also seem incapable of imagining what it would be
> like to be the victim in such a situation. And don't try that duh-Mikey
> copout "Saddam was worse".
>

No, I mean that Islamist terrorism is worse.
Now, if you thnk that is a cop out, you have got problems.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 01:42 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sacky said:
>
> > > >The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> > > >that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> > > >debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> > > >would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> > > >even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>
> > > I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.
>
> > I disagree.
>
> I say it doesn't matter because the conduct was offensive to *our*
> morality. If the guilty are to be punished in proportion to the amount
> of harm the abuses inflicted, the intensity of the humiliation is
> obviously a factor. However, I believe the courts-martial are punishing
> the abusers according to Western values. It's been suggested that to
> Arabs, the kind of treatment they received is virtually unthinkable. A
> similar situation is the prescribed punishment for stealing in certain
> Muslim countries -- chopping off a hand. To us, that's unthinkable. But
> it does happen in Pakistan. And in Singapore, they torture people (by
> caning them) for petty thefts and traffic infractions. Also unthinkable
> -- to us.
>
>

It's offensive to me, too, by my Western values.
Of course Radical Fundamentalist Islamic values may differ.
They might think that being paraded around naked on a leash
is much worse than being a civilian and having your head chopped off,
or being a child, and being shot in the back while escaping
their terror of a brutal school hostage takeover

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 02:38 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Art said:
>>
>> >The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>> >that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>> >debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>> >would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>> >even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>
>> I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.
>>
>
> I disagree.
>
I think you are probably wrong on this one. When troops go overseas they
are given instruction on the culture either before or after they get there.

They may not have been given specific instruction on torture methods, but if
you know some basic things about the culture, you can easily extrapolate
that info into ways to degrade.

Just being in the culture for a while one would pick up info about it that
could be used against the people.

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 02:41 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sacky said:
>
>> > >The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>> > >that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>> > >debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>> > >would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>> > >even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>
>> > I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.
>
>> I disagree.
>
> I say it doesn't matter because the conduct was offensive to *our*
> morality.

Agreed.

If the guilty are to be punished in proportion to the amount
> of harm the abuses inflicted, the intensity of the humiliation is
> obviously a factor. However, I believe the courts-martial are punishing
> the abusers according to Western values.

Because we always apply our stnadards of jurisprudence to crime.

It's been suggested that to
> Arabs, the kind of treatment they received is virtually unthinkable. A
> similar situation is the prescribed punishment for stealing in certain
> Muslim countries -- chopping off a hand. To us, that's unthinkable. But
> it does happen in Pakistan. And in Singapore, they torture people (by
> caning them) for petty thefts and traffic infractions. Also unthinkable
> -- to us.
>

So whenm someone from a Muslim country comes here and steals we should
punish them in accordance with their values?

I don't think you thought this one through.
>
>
>

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 02:46 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >> The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>> >> prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
>>> >> that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>> >> to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>> >> worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
>>> >> their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>> >
>>> >Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>> >considered a sign of honor?
>>>
>>> That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>>> shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>>> ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>> than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>>> for something others did to you?
>>
>> The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>> that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>> debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>> would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>> even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>
> LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
> written.
> this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
> details
> of the Arab culture.
> They were specialists of the job they were doing...
> Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
> M-16 and a AKA-47

Certainly, an M-16 is a rifle that fire a 5.56mm round. An AKA-47 is not
anything I know of. An AK-47 is one of the best military weapons ever
designed and fires a 7.62 mm round and has an illegal bayonet.

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 02:49 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> >> The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>> >> >> prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
> things
>> >> >> that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too
>> >> >> perfect
>> >> >> to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>> >> >> worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
> hold
>> >> >> their heads up in their own society ever again.
>> >> >
>> >> >Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>> >> >considered a sign of honor?
>> >>
>> >> That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>> >> shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>> >> ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>> >> than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>> >> for something others did to you?
>> >
>> > The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>> > that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>> > debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>> > would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>> > even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>
>> LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
> written.
>> this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
> details
>> of the Arab culture.
>> They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>> Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
>> M-16 and a AKA-47
>
> No they are not specialists
> They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
> They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
> economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>
And most likely had some training in the culture they were being sent to.
But no they were not specialists and I'm sure that even a brain dead asshole
like Lionel ( I used to love those trains) knows this.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 03:16 AM

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Art said:
> >>
> >> >The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> >> >that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> >> >debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> >> >would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> >> >even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
> >>
> >> I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.
> >>
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> I think you are probably wrong on this one. When troops go overseas they
> are given instruction on the culture either before or after they get
there.
>
> They may not have been given specific instruction on torture methods, but
if
> you know some basic things about the culture, you can easily extrapolate
> that info into ways to degrade.
>
> Just being in the culture for a while one would pick up info about it that
> could be used against the people.
>
>

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 03:21 AM

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 06:42 AM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>>Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
>>>>>humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
>>>>>to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
>>>>>for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
>>>>>the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
>>>>>instructed them.
>>>>
>>>>These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
>>>>it a documentary.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>
>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>considered a sign of honor?
>>
>>
>
> Lionel's?

I have already told you, McKelvy, coming from a murderer this kind of
judgment sound to me like a compliment.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 06:54 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:

>>>These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
>>>of others.
>>
>>Can you prove it ? Did they received any judgment ? Do you believe their
>>jailors now ?
>>
>>
>>>You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
>>>or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
>>>is complain about the rights of the perps.
>>
>>Wrong, this is coming from your twisted mind of frustrated saddist only.
>>The discussion is about the torture that those prisonners have received.
>
>
> It's all you want to talk about. You don't
> want to diuscuss the Islamists' terror. And you talk about it as an argument
> against the War on Terror.
> As far as I care, its a minor point amidst a much
> bigger issue, how to eliminate the Islamist terrorists and
> stop their terror attacks

I am ready to discuss everything you want immediatly after you will have
retracted the statement and presented public excuses to the tortured
prisonners that you have accused to be guilty before they have been judged.
In other words I don't want to discuss anything with a guy who has the
same definition of the justice than Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 07:01 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:

> So, what are you, a pacifist?
> We have no right to defend ourselves, and others, because
> we did a bunch of nonos in the past, in your
> opinion, regarding WWII and other things?
>
> Sorry Lionel, despite whatever happened in the past, which is
> irrelevant anyway, we have the moral high ground here, not the Islamists.

Sorry Sackman, I don't want to discuss anymore with a guy who declare
guilty some guys before they received a judgment.
Hereabove on more time you are putting a "green star" to the Islamists
in general, before that you have introduce the discussion with me
putting a "blue star" on the French in general saying that they was bad
in majority.
You have the same thinking process than the nazis during the WWII you
classified and distribute stars of different colors.
You are a "shame" for the Jewish people in the same way that the
extremist Muslims for all the world are a shame for the rest of the
Muslims people.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 07:03 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>
> things
>
>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>
> hold
>
>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>
>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>
>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>
>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>
> written.
>
>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>
> details
>
>>of the Arab culture.
>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>
>
> No they are not specialists
> They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
> They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
> economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.

Do you mean that they haven't been trained ?

paul packer

September 23rd 04, 07:30 AM

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:02:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>So, what are you, a pacifist?
>We have no right to defend ourselves, and others, because
>we did a bunch of nonos in the past, in your
>opinion, regarding WWII and other things?
>
>Sorry Lionel, despite whatever happened in the past, which is
>irrelevant anyway, we have the moral high ground here, not the Islamists.

In your mind. In their mind they have the high moral ground. But even
if the US does have it momentarily, how long will it keep it at the
present rate? If you're really interested in moral ground, you'll be
deploring the torure of prisoners as vehemently as I do.

paul packer

September 23rd 04, 07:36 AM

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:21:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>I find that its no coincidence that a unit from
>Allegheny County, Maryland is involved in this.
>I know what a lot of people are like up there,
>cause I have known a number of them, and spent
>some time there. Re,eber, it was this shift,
>and not the two other shifts, that had the problem.
>I don't know what units they were from.

Maybe it was just that the Intelligence guys directing the torture
thought that soldiers from this county would be the most co-operative,
even enthusiastic. If so they were right.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 08:37 AM

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 08:50 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:02:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>So, what are you, a pacifist?
>>We have no right to defend ourselves, and others, because
>>we did a bunch of nonos in the past, in your
>>opinion, regarding WWII and other things?
>>
>>Sorry Lionel, despite whatever happened in the past, which is
>>irrelevant anyway, we have the moral high ground here, not the Islamists.
>
>
> In your mind. In their mind they have the high moral ground. But even
> if the US does have it momentarily, how long will it keep it at the
> present rate? If you're really interested in moral ground, you'll be
> deploring the torure of prisoners as vehemently as I do.

He will never do that. Concerning the Abu Ghraib prisonners he has written :

"These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death of others."

Just ask him when the guys have been judged for their terrorist activities ?

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 09:08 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and
>>
>> what
>>
>>>>>>>>Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild
>>
>> by
>>
>>>>>>>>comparison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
>>>>>>>comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
>>>>>>>Conventions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more
>>
>> than
>>
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>2 on a 10 scale.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
>>>>>military.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From a historical perspective it was minor.
>>>
>>>The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
>>>Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
>>>has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
>>>a minor fact of the WWII".
>>>This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
>>>...You have a friend in France Michael.
>>
>>
>> Meaning exactly what?
>> Can you clarify your drivel and
>> demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?
>
> It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this category)
> are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo "historic point
> of view".
> I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
> have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
> Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
> coward.

NO, the difference is that I won't even try to minimize the Nazi Holocaust.
It was one of the worst examples of inhumanity in the history of the modern
world.

In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
> that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
> what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".

In the context of war with the protection of authority we know that the
French Government sold weapons to Saddam in very large amounts.

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 09:24 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Art said:
>> >>
>> >> >The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>> >> >that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>> >> >debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>> >> >would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>> >> >even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I disagree.
>> >
>> I think you are probably wrong on this one. When troops go overseas they
>> are given instruction on the culture either before or after they get
> there.
>>
>> They may not have been given specific instruction on torture methods, but
> if
>> you know some basic things about the culture, you can easily extrapolate
>> that info into ways to degrade.
>>
>> Just being in the culture for a while one would pick up info about it
>> that
>> could be used against the people.
>>
>>
>
> I find that its no coincidence that a unit from
> Allegheny County, Maryland is involved in this.
> I know what a lot of people are like up there,
> cause I have known a number of them, and spent
> some time there. Re,eber, it was this shift,
> and not the two other shifts, that had the problem.
> I don't know what units they were from.
>
>I'm sure being a from a jerkwater, backwoods idiot environment doesn't
>breed angels of mercy.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 09:58 AM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>
>>things
>>
>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too
>>>>>>>perfect
>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>
>>hold
>>
>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>
>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>
>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>
>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>
>>written.
>>
>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>
>>details
>>
>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>
>>No they are not specialists
>>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>>
>
> And most likely had some training in the culture they were being sent to.
> But no they were not specialists and I'm sure that even a brain dead asshole
> like Lionel ( I used to love those trains) knows this.

There is a misunderstanding here.
I don't want to say that the Abu Ghraib jailors have been trained to
torture.
I am sure that US army is not full of saddists like you and Sackman.

When I am writing "specialists" I want to say that those soldiers have
been trained to manage and take care of prisonners surveillance. They
were belonging to unities who have been especially trained for this job.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 12:44 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> >>>These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
> >>>of others.
> >>
> >>Can you prove it ? Did they received any judgment ? Do you believe their
> >>jailors now ?
> >>
> >>
> >>>You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
> >>>or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
> >>>is complain about the rights of the perps.
> >>
> >>Wrong, this is coming from your twisted mind of frustrated saddist only.
> >>The discussion is about the torture that those prisonners have received.
> >
> >
> > It's all you want to talk about. You don't
> > want to diuscuss the Islamists' terror. And you talk about it as an
argument
> > against the War on Terror.
> > As far as I care, its a minor point amidst a much
> > bigger issue, how to eliminate the Islamist terrorists and
> > stop their terror attacks
>
> I am ready to discuss everything you want immediatly after you will have
> retracted the statement and presented public excuses to the tortured
> prisonners that you have accused to be guilty before they have been
judged.
> In other words I don't want to discuss anything with a guy who has the
> same definition of the justice than Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.
>

Bye bye, sweetie pie.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 12:47 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> > So, what are you, a pacifist?
> > We have no right to defend ourselves, and others, because
> > we did a bunch of nonos in the past, in your
> > opinion, regarding WWII and other things?
> >
> > Sorry Lionel, despite whatever happened in the past, which is
> > irrelevant anyway, we have the moral high ground here, not the
Islamists.
>
> Sorry Sackman, I don't want to discuss anymore with a guy who declare
> guilty some guys before they received a judgment.
> Hereabove on more time you are putting a "green star" to the Islamists
> in general, before that you have introduce the discussion with me
> putting a "blue star" on the French in general saying that they was bad
> in majority.
> You have the same thinking process than the nazis during the WWII you
> classified and distribute stars of different colors.
> You are a "shame" for the Jewish people in the same way that the
> extremist Muslims for all the world are a shame for the rest of the
> Muslims people.

How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 12:49 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
> >>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
> >
> > things
> >
> >>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
> >>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
> >>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
> >
> > hold
> >
> >>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
> >>>>>considered a sign of honor?
> >>>>
> >>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
> >>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
> >>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
> >>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
> >>>>for something others did to you?
> >>>
> >>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> >>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> >>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> >>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> >>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
> >>
> >>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
> >
> > written.
> >
> >>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
> >
> > details
> >
> >>of the Arab culture.
> >>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
> >>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
> >>M-16 and a AKA-47
> >
> >
> > No they are not specialists
> > They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
> > They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
> > economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>
> Do you mean that they haven't been trained ?

To some degree, but there is no indication that they
were trained to walk prisoners around naked, on a leash.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 12:52 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
>>>>>of others.
>>>>
>>>>Can you prove it ? Did they received any judgment ? Do you believe their
>>>>jailors now ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
>>>>>or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
>>>>>is complain about the rights of the perps.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, this is coming from your twisted mind of frustrated saddist only.
>>>>The discussion is about the torture that those prisonners have received.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's all you want to talk about. You don't
>>>want to diuscuss the Islamists' terror. And you talk about it as an
>
> argument
>
>>>against the War on Terror.
>>>As far as I care, its a minor point amidst a much
>>>bigger issue, how to eliminate the Islamist terrorists and
>>>stop their terror attacks
>>
>>I am ready to discuss everything you want immediatly after you will have
>> retracted the statement and presented public excuses to the tortured
>>prisonners that you have accused to be guilty before they have been
>
> judged.
>
>>In other words I don't want to discuss anything with a guy who has the
>>same definition of the justice than Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.
>>
>
>
> Bye bye, sweetie pie.

Thank you to admit that in Sackman's world a guy can be declared guilty
before to be judged.

Bye bye, Adolf.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 01:01 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, what are you, a pacifist?
>>>We have no right to defend ourselves, and others, because
>>>we did a bunch of nonos in the past, in your
>>>opinion, regarding WWII and other things?
>>>
>>>Sorry Lionel, despite whatever happened in the past, which is
>>>irrelevant anyway, we have the moral high ground here, not the
>
> Islamists.
>
>>Sorry Sackman, I don't want to discuss anymore with a guy who declare
>>guilty some guys before they received a judgment.
>>Hereabove on more time you are putting a "green star" to the Islamists
>>in general, before that you have introduce the discussion with me
>>putting a "blue star" on the French in general saying that they was bad
>>in majority.
>>You have the same thinking process than the nazis during the WWII you
>>classified and distribute stars of different colors.
>>You are a "shame" for the Jewish people in the same way that the
>>extremist Muslims for all the world are a shame for the rest of the
>>Muslims people.
>
>
> How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.

What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the reality
of your thoughts.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 01:01 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:02:55 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >So, what are you, a pacifist?
> >We have no right to defend ourselves, and others, because
> >we did a bunch of nonos in the past, in your
> >opinion, regarding WWII and other things?
> >
> >Sorry Lionel, despite whatever happened in the past, which is
> >irrelevant anyway, we have the moral high ground here, not the Islamists.
>
> In your mind. In their mind they have the high moral ground. But even
> if the US does have it momentarily, how long will it keep it at the
> present rate? If you're really interested in moral ground, you'll be
> deploring the torure of prisoners as vehemently as I do.
>

I don't like the torture, but we are in no danger of losing the
moral high ground when we are fighting those that hijack airplanes,
cuase skyscrapers to come crashing to the ground, hold children
nostages in their schools, shoot children in the back, and behead civilians.

I don't see any moral outrage from the libs, each time
another dispicable act occurs. That's because I don't think
there is any moral outrage against terrorism, from the left.
All I see is complaints about prisoner abuse.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 01:02 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>>
>>>things
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>>
>>>hold
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>>
>>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>>
>>>written.
>>>
>>>
>>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>>
>>>details
>>>
>>>
>>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
>>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>>
>>>
>>>No they are not specialists
>>>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>>>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>>>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>>
>>Do you mean that they haven't been trained ?
>
>
> To some degree, but there is no indication that they
> were trained to walk prisoners around naked, on a leash.

I never wrote that they have been trained to torture, this comes from
your insane imagination only.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 01:04 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:21:15 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >I find that its no coincidence that a unit from
> >Allegheny County, Maryland is involved in this.
> >I know what a lot of people are like up there,
> >cause I have known a number of them, and spent
> >some time there. Re,eber, it was this shift,
> >and not the two other shifts, that had the problem.
> >I don't know what units they were from.
>
> Maybe it was just that the Intelligence guys directing the torture
> thought that soldiers from this county would be the most co-operative,
> even enthusiastic. If so they were right.
>

That could be it. It happened in Eastern Europe under the Nazi's
iin WWII. They picked abusive guards from a willing population

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 01:06 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
> >>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
> >
> > things
> >
> >>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
> >>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
> >>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
> >
> > hold
> >
> >>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
> >>>>>considered a sign of honor?
> >>>>
> >>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
> >>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
> >>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
> >>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
> >>>>for something others did to you?
> >>>
> >>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> >>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> >>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> >>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> >>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
> >>
> >>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
> >
> > written.
> >
> >>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
> >
> > details
> >
> >>of the Arab culture.
> >>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
> >>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
> >>M-16 and a AKA-47
> >
> >
> > No they are not specialists
> > They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
> > They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
> > economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>
> Like in the Moore's movie ?

I'm not going to bother to see it, at least not in a venue
where it puts money into his pocket.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 01:11 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
> >>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
> >>
> >>things
> >>
> >>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too
> >>>>>>>perfect
> >>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
> >>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
> >>
> >>hold
> >>
> >>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
> >>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures
being
> >>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes
you
> >>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
> >>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within
it,
> >>>>>for something others did to you?
> >>>>
> >>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> >>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> >>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> >>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> >>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
> >>>
> >>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
> >>
> >>written.
> >>
> >>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
> >>
> >>details
> >>
> >>>of the Arab culture.
> >>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
> >>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between
a
> >>>M-16 and a AKA-47
> >>
> >>No they are not specialists
> >>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
> >>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
> >>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
> >>
> >
> > And most likely had some training in the culture they were being sent
to.
> > But no they were not specialists and I'm sure that even a brain dead
asshole
> > like Lionel ( I used to love those trains) knows this.
>
> There is a misunderstanding here.
> I don't want to say that the Abu Ghraib jailors have been trained to
> torture.
> I am sure that US army is not full of saddists like you and Sackman.
>
> When I am writing "specialists" I want to say that those soldiers have
> been trained to manage and take care of prisonners surveillance. They
> were belonging to unities who have been especially trained for this job.

Yes, trained to be jailers, in some minimal way, but, in the field, were
given
responsibilies more akin to intelligence. They were not
trained for that.

paul packer

September 23rd 04, 01:33 PM

>> How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
>
>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the reality
>of your thoughts.

Oh, you two.....

paul packer

September 23rd 04, 01:39 PM

>> In your mind. In their mind they have the high moral ground. But even
>> if the US does have it momentarily, how long will it keep it at the
>> present rate? If you're really interested in moral ground, you'll be
>> deploring the torure of prisoners as vehemently as I do.
>>
>
>I don't like the torture, but we are in no danger of losing the
>moral high ground when we are fighting those that hijack airplanes,
>cuase skyscrapers to come crashing to the ground, hold children
>nostages in their schools, shoot children in the back, and behead civilians.
>
>I don't see any moral outrage from the libs, each time
>another dispicable act occurs. That's because I don't think
>there is any moral outrage against terrorism, from the left.
>All I see is complaints about prisoner abuse.

One thing doesn't negate the other. I'm sickened by what the
terrorists have done. No sane person could be other than outraged by
what happened in Russia. And as for beheading prisoners, I have no
words. Even as I write this I'm watching one of the US prisoners
crying and begging for his life. It's inhuman and evil. But does it
justify the torture of prisoners? Hardly.

Jacob Kramer

September 23rd 04, 01:50 PM

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:23:51 +0100, The Devil > wrote:

>redneck

He's not really a redneck, he just pretends to be one to get some
votes from working-class and lower-middle class people resentful of
the wealthy and northeastern urban upper middle-class culture (the
wealthy can't elect a president alone). He went to Andover, Yale and
Harvard, is a third-generation Yale legacy, was a member of Skull and
Bones, Yale's most elite secret society, is the son of a UN ambassador
and congressman, and is a millionaire. He can more accurately be
described as a scion. Moreover, his policies really redound to the
economic benefit of the rich and large corporations, not rednecks.
This kind of faux populism really goes back to William Henry Harrison:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wh9.html

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 02:08 PM

paul packer wrote:
>>>In your mind. In their mind they have the high moral ground. But even
>>>if the US does have it momentarily, how long will it keep it at the
>>>present rate? If you're really interested in moral ground, you'll be
>>>deploring the torure of prisoners as vehemently as I do.
>>>
>>
>>I don't like the torture, but we are in no danger of losing the
>>moral high ground when we are fighting those that hijack airplanes,
>>cuase skyscrapers to come crashing to the ground, hold children
>>nostages in their schools, shoot children in the back, and behead civilians.
>>
>>I don't see any moral outrage from the libs, each time
>>another dispicable act occurs. That's because I don't think
>>there is any moral outrage against terrorism, from the left.
>>All I see is complaints about prisoner abuse.
>
>
> One thing doesn't negate the other. I'm sickened by what the
> terrorists have done. No sane person could be other than outraged by
> what happened in Russia. And as for beheading prisoners, I have no
> words. Even as I write this I'm watching one of the US prisoners
> crying and begging for his life. It's inhuman and evil. But does it
> justify the torture of prisoners? Hardly.

He has already said that all the tortured prisonners were terrorists (an
Arab doesn't need any judgment to be declared terrorist), so why are you
insisting now ?

paul packer

September 23rd 04, 02:41 PM

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:23:51 +0100, The Devil > wrote:
> That Jesus-loving, brain-dead, redneck,
>coked-out, chicken-neck bat-brain

Don't be shy. Tell us what you really think.

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 03:14 PM

paul packer wrote:
>>>How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
>>
>>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the reality
>>of your thoughts.
>
>
> Oh, you two.....

It's not my fault Sir, Sackman began first... :-)

Sander deWaal

September 23rd 04, 03:21 PM

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>> >The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>> >that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>> >debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>> >would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>> >even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.

>> I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.

>I disagree.

I didn't mean trained on torture, but instructed in specific Arab
culture and how to deal with Islam issues.

I also happen to think that what has happened in the Abu ghraib prison
was an exception.
Nevertheless, it *has* occurred and shouldn't be denied or ridiculed,
as some posters seem to do.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Bruce J. Richman

September 23rd 04, 03:28 PM

Paul Packer wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:23:51 +0100, The Devil > wrote:
>> That Jesus-loving, brain-dead, redneck,
>>coked-out, chicken-neck bat-brain
>
>Don't be shy. Tell us what you really think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And those are Bush's *better* qualities. You don't want to know about his
other problems. It's scary to think that this dumbass, who can't say "nuclear"
properly, has his finger on the red button.

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 04:19 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Paul Packer wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:23:51 +0100, The Devil > wrote:
>>
>>>That Jesus-loving, brain-dead, redneck,
>>>coked-out, chicken-neck bat-brain
>>
>>Don't be shy. Tell us what you really think.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> And those are Bush's *better* qualities. You don't want to know about his
> other problems. It's scary to think that this dumbass, who can't say "nuclear"
> properly, has his finger on the red button.

Note that not later than today Richman have implicitly supported
Sackman's statement : "Abu Ghraib prisonners are terrorists".

This is the Richman's common double-discourse.

> Bruce J. Richman
> Limited Psychologist
>
>

paul packer

September 23rd 04, 04:43 PM

>And those are Bush's *better* qualities. You don't want to know about his
>other problems. It's scary to think that this dumbass, who can't say "nuclear"
>properly, has his finger on the red button.

It's not whether he can say it, but whether he understands what it
means.

Bruce J. Richman

September 23rd 04, 05:15 PM

Paul Packer wrote:

>>And those are Bush's *better* qualities. You don't want to know about his
>>other problems. It's scary to think that this dumbass, who can't say
>"nuclear"
>>properly, has his finger on the red button.
>
>
>It's not whether he can say it, but whether he understands what it
>means.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I doubt that he understands much of anything when it comes to military
operations.

Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 07:04 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>Hamas, the PLO, and so on do not represent any legitimate government.
>>>>
>>>>N. Korea Kim Jong very ****ing Ill is a terrorist who heads up a
>>>>government.
>>>
>>>He is a terrorist?
>>>
>>
>> He sells weapons to terrorists.
>
> In the 80s the USA were training and supplying weapons to Bin Laden & Cie
> in order he fight against the Afghan communist government and their
> allies, the Soviets.
> At this time the Soviets were saying "Bin Laden is a terrorist" and USA
> were saying "Bin Laden is an ally".
> Do you think that at this time USA were a terrotist nation since it was
> supporting a "terrorist" ?

I think you need to document this claim. I think it part of what has become
a popular myth.

>
> At this time Bin Laden wasn't representing any government.
> Would you say that he was an illegitimate ally of USA ? :-)

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 07:28 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>>Hamas, the PLO, and so on do not represent any legitimate government.
>>>>>
>>>>>N. Korea Kim Jong very ****ing Ill is a terrorist who heads up a
>>>>>government.
>>>>
>>>>He is a terrorist?
>>>>
>>>
>>>He sells weapons to terrorists.
>>
>>In the 80s the USA were training and supplying weapons to Bin Laden & Cie
>>in order he fight against the Afghan communist government and their
>>allies, the Soviets.
>>At this time the Soviets were saying "Bin Laden is a terrorist" and USA
>>were saying "Bin Laden is an ally".
>>Do you think that at this time USA were a terrotist nation since it was
>>supporting a "terrorist" ?
>
>
> I think you need to document this claim. I think it part of what has become
> a popular myth.

Like the WMDs ? :-)

>>At this time Bin Laden wasn't representing any government.
>>Would you say that he was an illegitimate ally of USA ? :-)
>
>
>

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 08:49 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>>Hamas, the PLO, and so on do not represent any legitimate government.
>>>>>
>>>>>N. Korea Kim Jong very ****ing Ill is a terrorist who heads up a
>>>>>government.
>>>>
>>>>He is a terrorist?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He sells weapons to terrorists.
>>
>> In the 80s the USA were training and supplying weapons to Bin Laden & Cie
>> in order he fight against the Afghan communist government and their
>> allies, the Soviets.
>> At this time the Soviets were saying "Bin Laden is a terrorist" and USA
>> were saying "Bin Laden is an ally".
>> Do you think that at this time USA were a terrotist nation since it was
>> supporting a "terrorist" ?
>
> I think you need to document this claim.

Because you are a funny idiot I will make you a funny answer :
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

> I think it part of what has
> become a popular myth.
>
>>
>> At this time Bin Laden wasn't representing any government.
>> Would you say that he was an illegitimate ally of USA ? :-)

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 08:52 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>>Hamas, the PLO, and so on do not represent any legitimate government.
>>>>>
>>>>>N. Korea Kim Jong very ****ing Ill is a terrorist who heads up a
>>>>>government.
>>>>
>>>>He is a terrorist?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He sells weapons to terrorists.
>>
>> In the 80s the USA were training and supplying weapons to Bin Laden & Cie
>> in order he fight against the Afghan communist government and their
>> allies, the Soviets.
>> At this time the Soviets were saying "Bin Laden is a terrorist" and USA
>> were saying "Bin Laden is an ally".
>> Do you think that at this time USA were a terrotist nation since it was
>> supporting a "terrorist" ?
>
> I think you need to document this claim.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

> I think it part of what has
> become a popular myth.
>
>>
>> At this time Bin Laden wasn't representing any government.
>> Would you say that he was an illegitimate ally of USA ? :-)

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 08:59 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> I think you need to document this claim. I think it part of what has
> become a popular myth.

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Report bin Laden treated at US hospital
-- The Washington Times.htm

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 09:00 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> I think you need to document this claim. I think it part of what has
> become a popular myth.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17114

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 09:46 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>>>Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
>>>>>>humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
>>>>>>to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
>>>>>>for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
>>>>>>the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
>>>>>>instructed them.
>>>>>
>>>>>These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
>>>>>it a documentary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>
>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Lionel's?
>
> I have already told you, McKelvy, coming from a murderer this kind of
> judgment sound to me like a compliment.

What murderer would that be?

Lionel

September 23rd 04, 10:13 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
>>>>>>>humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
>>>>>>>to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
>>>>>>>for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
>>>>>>>the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
>>>>>>>instructed them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
>>>>>>it a documentary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>
>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Lionel's?
>>
>>I have already told you, McKelvy, coming from a murderer this kind of
>>judgment sound to me like a compliment.
>
>
> What murderer would that be?

I let you discuss that with your conscience, veteran. :-(

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 11:00 PM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:j7e5l0lmb7aj10lmd4db804h6gfn8o85u8@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:49:16 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >To some degree, but there is no indication that they
> >were trained to walk prisoners around naked, on a leash.
>
> I have a nasty gash on my left hand. Parts of it have turned septic.
> I'm letting the pus ferment a bit first before I squeeze it out. I've
> had cuts in the past that have become infected, so I know the relief
> of custard-decompression will be immense.
>
> When you're next in the bathroom having a shave or saluting the pile
> of Guns and Ammo magazines stacked on your cistern, why don't you try
> squeezing your head into the basin?
>
> --
> td

After I finish solving all the crossword puzzles.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 11:01 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>So, what are you, a pacifist?
> >>>We have no right to defend ourselves, and others, because
> >>>we did a bunch of nonos in the past, in your
> >>>opinion, regarding WWII and other things?
> >>>
> >>>Sorry Lionel, despite whatever happened in the past, which is
> >>>irrelevant anyway, we have the moral high ground here, not the
> >
> > Islamists.
> >
> >>Sorry Sackman, I don't want to discuss anymore with a guy who declare
> >>guilty some guys before they received a judgment.
> >>Hereabove on more time you are putting a "green star" to the Islamists
> >>in general, before that you have introduce the discussion with me
> >>putting a "blue star" on the French in general saying that they was bad
> >>in majority.
> >>You have the same thinking process than the nazis during the WWII you
> >>classified and distribute stars of different colors.
> >>You are a "shame" for the Jewish people in the same way that the
> >>extremist Muslims for all the world are a shame for the rest of the
> >>Muslims people.
> >
> >
> > How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
>
> What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the reality
> of your thoughts.

After Congess passes the National Be Nice To Terrorists Week

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 11:03 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
> >>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
> >>>
> >>>things
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too
perfect
> >>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
> >>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
> >>>
> >>>hold
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
> >>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures
being
> >>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes
you
> >>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
> >>>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within
it,
> >>>>>>for something others did to you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> >>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> >>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> >>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> >>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
> >>>>
> >>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
> >>>
> >>>written.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
> >>>
> >>>details
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>of the Arab culture.
> >>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
> >>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between
a
> >>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No they are not specialists
> >>>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
> >>>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
> >>>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
> >>
> >>Do you mean that they haven't been trained ?
> >
> >
> > To some degree, but there is no indication that they
> > were trained to walk prisoners around naked, on a leash.
>
> I never wrote that they have been trained to torture, this comes from
> your insane imagination only.

Excuse me, its always hard to figure out exactly what you mean.
You said trained, and left it at that.
I clarified the issue, just in case you meant trained in degradation.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 11:20 PM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:q6g5l01jem7t0scd28dutttr9jijv0hlv7@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:13:31 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >I see, the guys taken prisoner were only 'pretending' to be terrorists
>
> Guh, guh, guh! Look--a fly! Guh, guh!
>
> What about the ones that have been released because there was no
> evidence against them? Held for years without legal representation.
> Were they 'pretending' to be terrorists too?
>

I only repeated what Lionel wrote. He said that, go argue with him.

> Why won't the US recognise the World Court? Any ideas?

It is morally corrupt and morally bankrupt.
It would be taking an act against our own
soveriegnty.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 11:28 PM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:fhg5l0tma14p15eonv2768f64c97kjreud@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:01:25 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >I don't like the torture,
>
> **** off. You love it.

I prefer instant death.

> Those 'Islamists' getting what they deserve.

Allah can figure out what they deserve.

> Why, they're nothing but a bunch of suicide bombers and decapitators.

or those that support or assisit suicide bombers and decapitators.

> Just say what you think, redneck.

I can't stand Budweiser.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 11:34 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> In your mind. In their mind they have the high moral ground. But even
> >> if the US does have it momentarily, how long will it keep it at the
> >> present rate? If you're really interested in moral ground, you'll be
> >> deploring the torure of prisoners as vehemently as I do.
> >>
> >
> >I don't like the torture, but we are in no danger of losing the
> >moral high ground when we are fighting those that hijack airplanes,
> >cuase skyscrapers to come crashing to the ground, hold children
> >nostages in their schools, shoot children in the back, and behead
civilians.
> >
> >I don't see any moral outrage from the libs, each time
> >another dispicable act occurs. That's because I don't think
> >there is any moral outrage against terrorism, from the left.
> >All I see is complaints about prisoner abuse.
>
> One thing doesn't negate the other. I'm sickened by what the
> terrorists have done. No sane person could be other than outraged by
> what happened in Russia. And as for beheading prisoners, I have no
> words. Even as I write this I'm watching one of the US prisoners
> crying and begging for his life. It's inhuman and evil. But does it
> justify the torture of prisoners? Hardly.
>

But does the torture of prisoners justify ****canning the
war against the evil monster terrorists? That's the
problem I am having here. Very few people, you being excepted,
are talking at all about these monstrous acts of terrorism.
The complaining is just a venting of hatred toward America, and is
presented as an obstruction to the war on terror. The torture is
all people want to talk about. It doesn't represent
one tenth of one percent of the inhumanity of the
Islamist terrorism.

Clyde Slick

September 23rd 04, 11:39 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> paul packer wrote:
> >>>How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
> >>
> >>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the reality
> >>of your thoughts.
> >
> >
> > Oh, you two.....
>
> It's not my fault Sir, Sackman began first... :-)

Excuse me, you first brought up the subject of clothing isignias.

Michael McKelvy

September 23rd 04, 11:55 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the
>>>>>>>>trouble
>>>>>>>>to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
>>>>>>>>for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
>>>>>>>>instructed them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
>>>>>>>it a documentary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lionel's?
>>>
>>>I have already told you, McKelvy, coming from a murderer this kind of
>>>judgment sound to me like a compliment.
>>
>>
>> What murderer would that be?
>
> I let you discuss that with your conscience, veteran. :-(

Anybody I may have killed was trying to kill me, that's not murder, that's
self defense.

Clyde Slick

September 24th 04, 12:28 AM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > said:
>
> >> >The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
> >> >that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
> >> >debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
> >> >would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
> >> >even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>
> >> I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.
>
> >I disagree.
>
> I didn't mean trained on torture, but instructed in specific Arab
> culture and how to deal with Islam issues.
>
> I also happen to think that what has happened in the Abu ghraib prison
> was an exception.
> Nevertheless, it *has* occurred and shouldn't be denied or ridiculed,
> as some posters seem to do.
>

Well, I am not sure about their training. This is a reserve or National
Guard unit, not regular Army, and I don't think they are extensively
trained,
nor trained in such sociological subtleties. They are weekend warriors, not
full time soldiers.

I also think the torture was an exception, I think it was not
suggested from high levels, and that is is not US policy.
I don't deny that there was abuse, and, if you feel that
I have been ridiculing it, my motivation was to put it in
perspective of the total picture of Islamist terrorism, by
which Abu Ghraib is but a mere speck of lint. Also,
I am disgusted by the complete lack of moral outrage
some people here have exhibited or expressed regarding
the terrorist acts of the Islamists. All I see is a bunch of
moral handwringing over America, which really, other
than Great Britain, is the only nation to step up in a major way.

Michael McKelvy

September 24th 04, 01:13 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>>>Hamas, the PLO, and so on do not represent any legitimate government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>N. Korea Kim Jong very ****ing Ill is a terrorist who heads up a
>>>>>>government.
>>>>>
>>>>>He is a terrorist?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He sells weapons to terrorists.
>>>
>>> In the 80s the USA were training and supplying weapons to Bin Laden &
>>> Cie
>>> in order he fight against the Afghan communist government and their
>>> allies, the Soviets.
>>> At this time the Soviets were saying "Bin Laden is a terrorist" and USA
>>> were saying "Bin Laden is an ally".
>>> Do you think that at this time USA were a terrotist nation since it was
>>> supporting a "terrorist" ?
>>
>> I think you need to document this claim.
>
> Because you are a funny idiot I will make you a funny answer :
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
>
That's not funny,, just stupid and sad.

>> I think it part of what has
>> become a popular myth.
>>
>>>
>>> At this time Bin Laden wasn't representing any government.
>>> Would you say that he was an illegitimate ally of USA ? :-)
>

Michael McKelvy

September 24th 04, 01:15 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>>>Hamas, the PLO, and so on do not represent any legitimate government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>N. Korea Kim Jong very ****ing Ill is a terrorist who heads up a
>>>>>>government.
>>>>>
>>>>>He is a terrorist?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He sells weapons to terrorists.
>>>
>>> In the 80s the USA were training and supplying weapons to Bin Laden &
>>> Cie
>>> in order he fight against the Afghan communist government and their
>>> allies, the Soviets.
>>> At this time the Soviets were saying "Bin Laden is a terrorist" and USA
>>> were saying "Bin Laden is an ally".
>>> Do you think that at this time USA were a terrotist nation since it was
>>> supporting a "terrorist" ?
>>
>> I think you need to document this claim.
>
> http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm
>
>> I think it part of what has
>> become a popular myth.
>>

Show me the part where it says he was trained by the US.
>>>
>>> At this time Bin Laden wasn't representing any government.
>>> Would you say that he was an illegitimate ally of USA ? :-)
>

Michael McKelvy

September 24th 04, 03:12 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>
>> I think you need to document this claim. I think it part of what has
>> become a popular myth.
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17114

Excerpt the part that says we trained him.

Bruce J. Richman

September 24th 04, 05:21 AM

Mr. Slick wrote:

>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> paul packer wrote:
>> >>>How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
>> >>
>> >>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the reality
>> >>of your thoughts.
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh, you two.....
>>
>> It's not my fault Sir, Sackman began first... :-)
>
>Excuse me, you first brought up the subject of clothing isignias.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You are correct, sir. He was also the first person to bring up the religion of
other posters on RAO. His bigotry is quite obvious.

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

September 24th 04, 07:01 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "The Devil" > wrote in message
> news:q6g5l01jem7t0scd28dutttr9jijv0hlv7@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
>
>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:13:31 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I see, the guys taken prisoner were only 'pretending' to be terrorists
>>
>>Guh, guh, guh! Look--a fly! Guh, guh!
>>
>>What about the ones that have been released because there was no
>>evidence against them? Held for years without legal representation.
>>Were they 'pretending' to be terrorists too?
>>
>
>
> I only repeated what Lionel wrote. He said that, go argue with him.

What a coward, this guy is incredibily stinky.
LOL, this ******* is as liar as Bush.

>>Why won't the US recognise the World Court? Any ideas?
>
>
> It is morally corrupt and morally bankrupt.
> It would be taking an act against our own
> soveriegnty.
>
>

Michael McKelvy

September 24th 04, 07:20 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>>
>>>things
>>>
>>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>>
>>>hold
>>>
>>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>>
>>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>>
>>>written.
>>>
>>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>>
>>>details
>>>
>>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
>>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>>
>>>No they are not specialists
>>>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>>>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>>>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>>>
>>
>> And most likely had some training in the culture they were being sent to.
>> But no they were not specialists and I'm sure that even a brain dead
>> asshole like Lionel ( I used to love those trains) knows this.
>
> There is a misunderstanding here.
> I don't want to say that the Abu Ghraib jailors have been trained to
> torture.
> I am sure that US army is not full of saddists like you and Sackman.
>
I'm sure France is not full of idiots like you.

> When I am writing "specialists" I want to say that those soldiers have
> been trained to manage and take care of prisonners surveillance. They were
> belonging to unities who have been especially trained for this job.

There are more prisons than Abu Grahib and nothing appears to be going wrong
with them, so as we have said it was an isolated incident by a few whacked
out fools.

Lionel

September 24th 04, 08:17 AM

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>>>
>>>>things
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>>>
>>>>hold
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>>>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>>>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>>>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>>>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>>>
>>>>written.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>>>
>>>>details
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
>>>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>>>
>>>>No they are not specialists
>>>>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>>>>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>>>>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And most likely had some training in the culture they were being sent to.
>>>But no they were not specialists and I'm sure that even a brain dead
>>>asshole like Lionel ( I used to love those trains) knows this.
>>
>>There is a misunderstanding here.
>>I don't want to say that the Abu Ghraib jailors have been trained to
>>torture.
>>I am sure that US army is not full of saddists like you and Sackman.
>>
>
> I'm sure France is not full of idiots like you.
>
>
>>When I am writing "specialists" I want to say that those soldiers have
>>been trained to manage and take care of prisonners surveillance. They were
>>belonging to unities who have been especially trained for this job.
>
>
> There are more prisons than Abu Grahib and nothing appears to be going wrong
> with them, so as we have said it was an isolated incident by a few whacked
> out fools.

This is not what have reported US some US Superior Officers.
NB : this is an info. that you shouldn't find on FoxNews

Lionel

September 24th 04, 09:21 AM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Mr. Slick wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>paul packer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
>>>>>
>>>>>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the reality
>>>>>of your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, you two.....
>>>
>>>It's not my fault Sir, Sackman began first... :-)
>>
>>Excuse me, you first brought up the subject of clothing isignias.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> You are correct, sir. He was also the first person to bring up the religion of
> other posters on RAO. His bigotry is quite obvious.

LOL the agonizing Zealot Doctor is taking the defense of the guy who
accuse the Abu Ghraib prisonners to be terrorist before they have been
judged.
This give you an idea of the morality and the lack of personality of RAO
incontinent Limited Psychologist.

> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>

Lionel

September 24th 04, 09:48 AM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>>Because you are a funny idiot I will make you a funny answer :
>>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
>>
>
> That's not funny,, just stupid and sad.

It's just at the level of your own garbage.
It's just the mirror of what you use to write here, the same objectivity.

Clyde Slick

September 24th 04, 12:48 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>For Sackman and his nasty zealot supporter Bruce J. Richman it is
really
> >>>>more dangerous to lie about audio or to plaggiarize an audio text than
> >>>>to torture a guy pretending that he is a terrorist.
> >>>>Those 2 guys are really disgusting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I see, the guys taken prisoner were only 'pretending' to be terrorists
> >>
> >>Did they received a judgment ? NO !
> >>You are accusing people and condamning people before they received a
> >>judgment. You are a fascist.
> >
> >
> > I only repeated what 'you' wrote.
>
> Once again you make the demonstration of what you really are :
> - an idiot
> - a liar

Only in that I repeated the writings of the liar and idiot
know as Lionel.

Clyde Slick

September 24th 04, 12:53 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> > Mr. Slick wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>paul packer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the
reality
> >>>>>of your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh, you two.....
> >>>
> >>>It's not my fault Sir, Sackman began first... :-)
> >>
> >>Excuse me, you first brought up the subject of clothing isignias.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > You are correct, sir. He was also the first person to bring up the
religion of
> > other posters on RAO. His bigotry is quite obvious.
>
> LOL the agonizing Zealot Doctor is taking the defense of the guy who
> accuse the Abu Ghraib prisonners to be terrorist before they have been
> judged.
> This give you an idea of the morality and the lack of personality of RAO
> incontinent Limited Psychologist.
>

Bruce supported my statement of the correct facts. Instead of conceding,
or arguing the point, you duck the issue with a bunch of name calling.

Lionel

September 24th 04, 01:13 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>>Mr. Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>paul packer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the
>
> reality
>
>>>>>>>of your thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, you two.....
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not my fault Sir, Sackman began first... :-)
>>>>
>>>>Excuse me, you first brought up the subject of clothing isignias.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You are correct, sir. He was also the first person to bring up the
>
> religion of
>
>>>other posters on RAO. His bigotry is quite obvious.
>>
>>LOL the agonizing Zealot Doctor is taking the defense of the guy who
>>accuse the Abu Ghraib prisonners to be terrorist before they have been
>>judged.
>>This give you an idea of the morality and the lack of personality of RAO
>>incontinent Limited Psychologist.
>>
>
>
> Bruce supported my statement of the correct facts. Instead of conceding,
> or arguing the point, you duck the issue with a bunch of name calling.

Blah, blah, blah.

Clyde Slick

September 24th 04, 01:15 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:28:28 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Clyde Slick" > said:
>
> >I also think the torture was an exception, I think it was not
> >suggested from high levels, and that is is not US policy.
>
> I think this is wrong. Much evidence has come to light to suggest that
> it WAS directed from higher levels and was in fact part of a new, post
> 9/11 policy of doing whatever it takes to get the information to
> defend the US.
>
> >I don't deny that there was abuse, and, if you feel that
> >I have been ridiculing it, my motivation was to put it in
> >perspective of the total picture of Islamist terrorism, by
> >which Abu Ghraib is but a mere speck of lint.
>
> True. But it's a speck of lint on an otherwise fairly clean uniform.
> It shows out like a beacon.
>

what you have been saying is that the world trashes us because it is not
acceptable for us to be anything less than perfect, no matter how good
we are, no matter how much better we are than anyone else. And in the
meantime, the world excuses the most horrendous excesses of terrorism,
slavery, and genocide from third world backwaters that can't be
expected to behave any better.

Lionel

September 24th 04, 01:18 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>For Sackman and his nasty zealot supporter Bruce J. Richman it is
>
> really
>
>>>>>>more dangerous to lie about audio or to plaggiarize an audio text than
>>>>>>to torture a guy pretending that he is a terrorist.
>>>>>>Those 2 guys are really disgusting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I see, the guys taken prisoner were only 'pretending' to be terrorists
>>>>
>>>>Did they received a judgment ? NO !
>>>>You are accusing people and condamning people before they received a
>>>>judgment. You are a fascist.
>>>
>>>
>>>I only repeated what 'you' wrote.
>>
>>Once again you make the demonstration of what you really are :
>>- an idiot
>>- a liar
>
>
> Only in that I repeated the writings of the liar and idiot
> know as Lionel.

Most of the participants here have found your point of view "disgusting"
this is the word use by one of them.
You are disgusting, deal with it and forget me.

paul packer

September 24th 04, 01:38 PM

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:15:56 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>what you have been saying is that the world trashes us because it is not
>acceptable for us to be anything less than perfect, no matter how good
>we are, no matter how much better we are than anyone else. And in the
>meantime, the world excuses the most horrendous excesses of terrorism,
>slavery, and genocide from third world backwaters that can't be
>expected to behave any better.

No, I'm saying that the US has invaded a country and is now trying to
convince it that the US/western style of government is the best. Do
you think torture is going to convince these people? They already
recognise that kind of government, and it isn't democracy.

Bruce J. Richman

September 24th 04, 05:22 PM

Art wrote:

>Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>> > Mr. Slick wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >>>paul packer wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the
>reality
>> >>>>>of your thoughts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Oh, you two.....
>> >>>
>> >>>It's not my fault Sir, Sackman began first... :-)
>> >>
>> >>Excuse me, you first brought up the subject of clothing isignias.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > You are correct, sir. He was also the first person to bring up the
>religion of
>> > other posters on RAO. His bigotry is quite obvious.
>>
>> LOL the agonizing Zealot Doctor is taking the defense of the guy who
>> accuse the Abu Ghraib prisonners to be terrorist before they have been
>> judged.
>> This give you an idea of the morality and the lack of personality of RAO
>> incontinent Limited Psychologist.
>>
>
>Bruce supported my statement of the correct facts. Instead of conceding,
>or arguing the point, you duck the issue with a bunch of name calling.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Antisemitic Hamas sympathizer Lionel simploy demonstrates his stupidity and
pathologcal lying ad nauseum. Somewhere in France, a village is wondering
about the lack of sanity of their resident idiot.

Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy

September 24th 04, 09:12 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>>>>
>>>>>things
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too
>>>>>>>>>>perfect
>>>>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>>>>
>>>>>hold
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures
>>>>>>>>being
>>>>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>>>>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within
>>>>>>>>it,
>>>>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>>>>
>>>>>written.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>>>>
>>>>>details
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>>>>
>>>>>No they are not specialists
>>>>>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>>>>>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>>>>>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And most likely had some training in the culture they were being sent
>>>>to.
>>>>But no they were not specialists and I'm sure that even a brain dead
>>>>asshole like Lionel ( I used to love those trains) knows this.
>>>
>>>There is a misunderstanding here.
>>>I don't want to say that the Abu Ghraib jailors have been trained to
>>>torture.
>>>I am sure that US army is not full of saddists like you and Sackman.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure France is not full of idiots like you.
>>
>>
>>>When I am writing "specialists" I want to say that those soldiers have
>>>been trained to manage and take care of prisonners surveillance. They
>>>were belonging to unities who have been especially trained for this job.
>>
>>
>> There are more prisons than Abu Grahib and nothing appears to be going
>> wrong with them, so as we have said it was an isolated incident by a few
>> whacked out fools.
>
> This is not what have reported US some US Superior Officers.
> NB : this is an info. that you shouldn't find on FoxNews

I would accept any verification that there are other prisons with the same
problem if you can provide them.

Lionel

September 24th 04, 09:17 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>>>>>
>>>>>>things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too
>>>>>>>>>>>perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>hold
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures
>>>>>>>>>being
>>>>>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes
>>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is
>>>>>>>>>there than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned
>>>>>>>>>within it,
>>>>>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>>>>>
>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>details
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>>>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>>>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference
>>>>>>>between a
>>>>>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No they are not specialists
>>>>>>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>>>>>>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>>>>>>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And most likely had some training in the culture they were being sent
>>>>>to.
>>>>>But no they were not specialists and I'm sure that even a brain dead
>>>>>asshole like Lionel ( I used to love those trains) knows this.
>>>>
>>>>There is a misunderstanding here.
>>>>I don't want to say that the Abu Ghraib jailors have been trained to
>>>>torture.
>>>>I am sure that US army is not full of saddists like you and Sackman.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure France is not full of idiots like you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>When I am writing "specialists" I want to say that those soldiers have
>>>>been trained to manage and take care of prisonners surveillance. They
>>>>were belonging to unities who have been especially trained for this job.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are more prisons than Abu Grahib and nothing appears to be going
>>> wrong with them, so as we have said it was an isolated incident by a few
>>> whacked out fools.
>>
>> This is not what have reported US some US Superior Officers.
>> NB : this is an info. that you shouldn't find on FoxNews
>
> I would accept any verification that there are other prisons with the same
> problem if you can provide them.

I would accept any verification that you aren't a son of bitch. ;-)

Michael McKelvy

September 24th 04, 09:17 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>
>> things
>>
>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>
>> hold
>>
>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>
>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>
>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>
>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>
>> written.
>>
>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>
>> details
>>
>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>
>>
>> No they are not specialists
>> They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>> They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>> economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>
> Like in the Moore's movie ?

Try going to www.spinsanity.org and click on topics and you'll find there
are plenty of problems with anything done by Michael Moore. This is a very
objective web site that clears up falsehoods being perpetrated by both
sides. They take on Bush, Kerry, Daschle, Limbaugh, Robert Scheer and Noam
Chomsky. They don't play favorites.

Lionel

September 24th 04, 09:22 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>>
>>> things
>>>
>>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
>>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
>>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>>
>>> hold
>>>
>>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
>>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
>>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
>>>>>>than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
>>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>>
>>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>>
>>> written.
>>>
>>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>>
>>> details
>>>
>>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
>>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>>
>>>
>>> No they are not specialists
>>> They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>>> They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>>> economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>>
>> Like in the Moore's movie ?
>
> Try going to www.spinsanity.org

Try going on http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/Default.htm
in order to check why your mother hadn't the courage to take the right
decision. ;-)

Clyde Slick

September 24th 04, 10:28 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mr. Slick wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>paul packer wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>How about a baby blue Eiffel Tower on your shirt.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What about a svastika on your cap, this will perfectly fits the
> >
> > reality
> >
> >>>>>>>of your thoughts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Oh, you two.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's not my fault Sir, Sackman began first... :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>Excuse me, you first brought up the subject of clothing isignias.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You are correct, sir. He was also the first person to bring up the
> >
> > religion of
> >
> >>>other posters on RAO. His bigotry is quite obvious.
> >>
> >>LOL the agonizing Zealot Doctor is taking the defense of the guy who
> >>accuse the Abu Ghraib prisonners to be terrorist before they have been
> >>judged.
> >>This give you an idea of the morality and the lack of personality of RAO
> >>incontinent Limited Psychologist.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Bruce supported my statement of the correct facts. Instead of conceding,
> > or arguing the point, you duck the issue with a bunch of name calling.
>
> Blah, blah, blah.

keep quacking, my little duckie.

Clyde Slick

September 24th 04, 10:31 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>For Sackman and his nasty zealot supporter Bruce J. Richman it is
> >
> > really
> >
> >>>>>>more dangerous to lie about audio or to plaggiarize an audio text
than
> >>>>>>to torture a guy pretending that he is a terrorist.
> >>>>>>Those 2 guys are really disgusting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I see, the guys taken prisoner were only 'pretending' to be
terrorists
> >>>>
> >>>>Did they received a judgment ? NO !
> >>>>You are accusing people and condamning people before they received a
> >>>>judgment. You are a fascist.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I only repeated what 'you' wrote.
> >>
> >>Once again you make the demonstration of what you really are :
> >>- an idiot
> >>- a liar
> >
> >
> > Only in that I repeated the writings of the liar and idiot
> > know as Lionel.
>
>
> Most of the participants here have found your point of view "disgusting"
> this is the word use by one of them.
> You are disgusting, deal with it and forget me.

I am sure in your perverted eyes, one who stands
up to your beloved Hamas is disgusting.

Clyde Slick

September 24th 04, 10:39 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:15:56 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >what you have been saying is that the world trashes us because it is not
> >acceptable for us to be anything less than perfect, no matter how good
> >we are, no matter how much better we are than anyone else. And in the
> >meantime, the world excuses the most horrendous excesses of terrorism,
> >slavery, and genocide from third world backwaters that can't be
> >expected to behave any better.
>
> No, I'm saying that the US has invaded a country and is now trying to
> convince it that the US/western style of government is the best. Do
> you think torture is going to convince these people? They already
> recognise that kind of government, and it isn't democracy.

We are beyond that argument, I told you I thought it was
counterproductive. However, my above statement is an
accurate paraphrase of your voicings.

Jacob Kramer

September 25th 04, 12:01 AM

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:55:43 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>A lie would mean he knew there were no WMD.

That would have been one kind of lie. Another kind of lie would have
been to say there were WMD when he did not know there were.

Jacob Kramer

September 25th 04, 12:01 AM

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:55:43 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>Why is it that the left keeps on telling the lie about WMD. Bush did not
>lie about them, the intel was either wrong or they were removed from the
>country. A lie would mean he knew there were no WMD and that is simply not
>the case.

That would have been one kind of lie. Another kind would have been to
say there were WMD when he didn't know if there were.

Jacob Kramer

September 25th 04, 12:04 AM

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:10:56 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>Please list the people here that have said they think it was OK to torture
>the prisoners.

Art Sackman has said that it is insignificant, unavoidable and worth
it. You have said that it is mild by any standard.

Michael McKelvy

September 25th 04, 02:29 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:55:43 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>A lie would mean he knew there were no WMD.
>
> That would have been one kind of lie. Another kind of lie would have
> been to say there were WMD when he did not know there were.

Every indication was that they had them, every intelligence service in the
western world said they had them. Were they all telling a lie? There were
things unaccounted for from the first Gulf War.

Michael McKelvy

September 25th 04, 02:32 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:55:43 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>Why is it that the left keeps on telling the lie about WMD. Bush did not
>>lie about them, the intel was either wrong or they were removed from the
>>country. A lie would mean he knew there were no WMD and that is simply
>>not
>>the case.
>
> That would have been one kind of lie. Another kind would have been to
> say there were WMD when he didn't know if there were.

How many different ****ing ways does it have to be said, everybody, every
government in the western world said he had them, defectors said he had
them. Since we've gone there we've found he was planning on getting more.

3 Separate investigations have cleared Bush on this issue and said there was
no fudging of intel, it was simply bad intel. There was no attempt to
deceive.

Michael McKelvy

September 25th 04, 02:37 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:10:56 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>Please list the people here that have said they think it was OK to torture
>>the prisoners.
>
> Art Sackman has said that it is insignificant, unavoidable and worth
> it. You have said that it is mild by any standard.

Which has also included both of us saying it was wrong and should be
punished. How about some grief over the innocents that are being
slaughtered by the terrorists? Or is it only when we **** up that you get
****ed. By comparison to what the terrorists are doing and have done the
prison guards are small potatoes. That doesn't excuse it or make it OK, it
just puts it into some kind of perspective. Frankly I doubt that you care
all they much about it it's just something for you to point a finger at and
blame Bush for.

Clyde Slick

September 25th 04, 03:19 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:10:56 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >Please list the people here that have said they think it was OK to
torture
> >the prisoners.
>
> Art Sackman has said that it is insignificant, unavoidable and worth
> it. You have said that it is mild by any standard.

That is NOT what I said. I said it was insignificant in comparison
to the record of Islamist terror. And that in a war it is inevitible
that there would be some such event(s) that would occur,
as an undertaking of such a large extent cannot be accompished
with absolute perfection. This particular event, or any particular
negative event, could have been avoided, if there were a confluence
of perfection in all of the details pertaining to the event. But sometimes,
the screw ups are only seen in hind sight. And I did not say it was ok
to abuse the prisoners.

You seem overly obsessed by this. You seriously
need to put things in perspective.

MINe 109

September 25th 04, 03:39 AM

In article >,
"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:55:43 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>A lie would mean he knew there were no WMD.
> >
> > That would have been one kind of lie. Another kind of lie would have
> > been to say there were WMD when he did not know there were.
>
> Every indication was that they had them, every intelligence service in the
> western world said they had them. Were they all telling a lie? There were
> things unaccounted for from the first Gulf War.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/'

Obligatory audio reference: does anyone know how to program the presets
on my Magnum Dynalab FT-11?

Stephen

Jacob Kramer

September 25th 04, 04:21 AM

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:35:41 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...

>> I don't know where they are obviously, but it is known that much of
>> the 9/11 report's recounting of the events of 9/11 came from
>> interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and other detainees using
>> torture at secret locations. Do a search for his name in this
>> article: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17430.
>
>now, I note that the activity in the citation is a good bit different from
>Abu Gharib.

The article doesn't make that distinction.

Clyde Slick

September 25th 04, 05:05 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...

>
> The article doesn't make that distinction.

Another deficiency in the article

paul packer

September 25th 04, 11:18 AM

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:24:45 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>As you well know, Saddam's cruel despotism was always a subtext. Bush
>may not have stressed it directly in his speeches, but the point was
>made indirectly. I think even 60 Minutes did a story on the barbarism of
>Saddam and his monstrous sons.

I just think there were so many good reasons to go in it was
irresistable. To finish a job started in '91. To take revenge for
Saddam supposedly trying to assasinate Bush Snr. To get rid of a
ruthless tyrant and his unspeakably sadistic sons and liberate 20 odd
millions people. To establish a democracy in the region that might act
as a bulwark against the radicalism of Iran etc and be a model for
western culture. Hell, it's sounding like such a good idea I'm
surprised they didn't go sooner! Pity they've buggered it up.

Clyde Slick

September 25th 04, 02:48 PM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:h3ral01f2mnisrqr1f3vu8l1snljcqpgbt@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:49:37 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >They like to live the twelfth century lifestyle.
>
> Is it so hard to accept that some people might not at all be enticed
> by our corporate democracy?
>

Sure, Sharia is a much better choice.

Michael McKelvy

September 25th 04, 11:52 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>things
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too
>>>>>>>>>>>>perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>>to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>>>worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>hold
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>their heads up in their own society ever again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
>>>>>>>>>>>considered a sign of honor?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures
>>>>>>>>>>being
>>>>>>>>>>shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes
>>>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>>>ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is
>>>>>>>>>>there than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned
>>>>>>>>>>within it,
>>>>>>>>>>for something others did to you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
>>>>>>>>>that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
>>>>>>>>>debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
>>>>>>>>>would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
>>>>>>>>>even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>details
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>of the Arab culture.
>>>>>>>>They were specialists of the job they were doing...
>>>>>>>>Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference
>>>>>>>>between a
>>>>>>>>M-16 and a AKA-47
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No they are not specialists
>>>>>>>They are a part time guard unit from Cumberland, Maryland
>>>>>>>They are a bunch of unworldly people from an underdeveloped,
>>>>>>>economically depressed, underpopulated mountain area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And most likely had some training in the culture they were being sent
>>>>>>to.
>>>>>>But no they were not specialists and I'm sure that even a brain dead
>>>>>>asshole like Lionel ( I used to love those trains) knows this.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is a misunderstanding here.
>>>>>I don't want to say that the Abu Ghraib jailors have been trained to
>>>>>torture.
>>>>>I am sure that US army is not full of saddists like you and Sackman.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure France is not full of idiots like you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When I am writing "specialists" I want to say that those soldiers have
>>>>>been trained to manage and take care of prisonners surveillance. They
>>>>>were belonging to unities who have been especially trained for this
>>>>>job.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are more prisons than Abu Grahib and nothing appears to be going
>>>> wrong with them, so as we have said it was an isolated incident by a
>>>> few
>>>> whacked out fools.
>>>
>>> This is not what have reported US some US Superior Officers.
>>> NB : this is an info. that you shouldn't find on FoxNews
>>
>> I would accept any verification that there are other prisons with the
>> same
>> problem if you can provide them.
>
> I would accept any verification that you aren't a son of bitch. ;-)

Thanks for admitting you have nothing.

Proof that I'm not an SOB?

We have different mothers.

paul packer

September 26th 04, 02:15 AM

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:42:25 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>Then there's the one about all governments necessarily being awful, but
>democracy is the least awful. Not sure who said that, maybe Churchill? He
>was certainly no ostrich type.

Isn't that chiselled over the entrance to the US Senate House or
somewhere? But I think the attribution goes back to long before
Churchill. (Actually I think it's something more like, "All forms of
government are imperfect, but Democracy is the least imperfect").

paul packer

September 26th 04, 02:52 PM

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:57:46 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>I think you're right. It goes back at least to the 18th century. Maybe it
>was Ben Franklin or de Tocqueville.
>
>I doubt it's graven over the portals to our House or Senate. Another joke?

No joke. I'm sure it's chiselled somewhere in a US government
building.

paul packer

September 26th 04, 03:04 PM

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:48:18 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> Part of the problem may be that what Muslem Arabs see pouring out of
>> democratic societies isn't particularly attractive to them. I'm
>> talking of course about films, TV shows, rock music etc full of
>> swearing, sex, violence...you get my drift. If you wonder why the
>> Arabs call US 'the great Satan' and shy off democracy you might start
>> there.
>
>Sad to say, this is true to some extent. People in other countries who see
>our escapist TV shows -- but not documentaries -- can misinterpret both
>the shows and what it's like to live in America. They sometimes mistake
>escapist fantasy for idealization.

I recall that during the time in the 80s when a lot of westerners were
being abducted and held around the Beirut area, one reported after his
release that a captor had removed one of his teeth with a pair of
pliers because he believed it contained a miniature
transmitter--something he'd seen in a James Bond movie and which he
seriously tought was typical of western practise--that is, many
westerners carried miniature transmitters in their teeth. I don't
think we're wrong to assume that much of what is portrayed in western
entertainment is taken quite literally in other countries by less
sophisticated viewers.

>
>Swallowing their own governments' propaganda is a different issue, isn't
>it? Many Americans are all too willing to eat up Bush's jingoism, and we
>easy access to as much information as any citizenry. It's all too easy to
>blame domestic problems on a far-away enemy.

There's another problem: that of being too cynical of what the
government says and rejecting all of it, which is as silly as
accepting all of it. People like Michael Moore believe they have a
monopoly on the truth, but there's as much untruth in Moore's latest
film (documented on several websites) as in most Bush speeches. If one
is going to be skeptical, one needs to be skeptical of both sides.

paul packer

September 27th 04, 02:08 AM

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:45:52 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >I doubt it's graven over the portals to our House or Senate. Another joke?
>>
>> No joke. I'm sure it's chiselled somewhere in a US government
>> building.
>
>That must be the Alfred E. Newman wing of something.

Alfred E. Newman? Didn't he compose the music to "Song of Bernadette"?
:-)

paul packer

September 27th 04, 02:17 AM

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:39:02 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>> There's another problem: that of being too cynical of what the
>> government says and rejecting all of it, which is as silly as
>> accepting all of it. People like Michael Moore believe they have a
>> monopoly on the truth, but there's as much untruth in Moore's latest
>> film (documented on several websites) as in most Bush speeches. If one
>> is going to be skeptical, one needs to be skeptical of both sides.
>
>This might be true in the context of two opposing candidates for office.
>But comparing the message of a commentator, like your sole example of
>Michael Moore, to that of a sitting President, gives unwarranted stature
>to the former. The press in general, insofar as they have an obligation to
>contribute to the public good, seek to expose what is wrong or dishonest
>or criminal about the government. Their freedom to publish partially
>offsets the tremendous power held by the government. I therefore disagree
>that skepticism is warranted for the press, simply because all they can do
>is bring accusations. Compare that with the power of the government.
>
>Be equally skeptical of rightist and leftist commentators, by all means.

Sorry, but I find this a bit naive. The press may have an obligation
to contribute to the public good, to expose what's wrong or dishonest
etc, but in reality they often have an agenda like the government. I
won't cite the obvious example of Foxnews, but there are certainly
others less blatant. And even if a reporter reports the facts, there
are many, many ways to slant those facts, to put particular spins on
things. It's going on all the time. Even omitting an item from a news
broadcast is a form of comment. As for Michael Moore, you honestly
don't think he has as much power to influence as the President? Count
how many people go to the movies as opposed to listen to presidential
speeches. I'd put my money on an entertainer over a politician when it
comes to influencing people any day.

paul packer

September 27th 04, 02:31 AM

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:03:14 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>> Part of the problem may be that what Muslem Arabs see pouring out of
>> democratic societies isn't particularly attractive to them. I'm
>> talking of course about films, TV shows, rock music etc full of
>> swearing, sex, violence...you get my drift. If you wonder why the
>> Arabs call US 'the great Satan' and shy off democracy you might start
>> there.
>
>But there are ultra conservative Christians who are just as disgusted by
>such things and manage to keep their souls intact.

Well, I'm not ultra-conservative by any means though I'm certainly a
believer and I'm disgusted by much of what I see on TV and at the
movies. And I've talked with many people who aren't religious at all
who are equally disgusted. It's a mistake to assume that everyone
who's offended by all this stuff is offended on religious grounds.
Many people just have higher standards, or prefer beauty to ugliness,
or an uplifting story to a dark, depressing one. Not so difficult to
understand, surely.

>
>There are also varying degrees of Muslims, not all of whom are as
>conservative as say the Taliban. It's the same story as with our
>conservative Christians, they don't want to allow their people to have
>access to the same stimuli. They want THEIR view to be the only view of the
>world, forgetting that is because of the multiplicity of cultural influences
>that we get the kind of prosperity that exists here.

Maybe Christians don't want their children to have access to certain
stimuli because they believe it damaging, not because they want their
view to be the only view. Yes, a multiplicity of cultural influences
is good, but why does that have to include the unremitting negativity
of so much contemporary entertainment? None of this was (generally)
available years ago, and were teenagers the worse for it?

>
>Maybe the person who is likely to come up with cure for cancer or the next
>big breakthrough in computer technology would be stifled under ultra
>conservative religious oppression.

And maybe they wouldn't. I know of no evidence that Christians are
opposed to finding a cure for cancer. Some of them even use computers,
heaven forbid! And anyway, why does religious influence have to be
"ultra conservative religious oppression". You were just talking about
liberal Muslems. Well, there are far more liberal Christians than
ultra-conservative.

Michael McKelvy

September 27th 04, 08:22 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:03:14 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Part of the problem may be that what Muslem Arabs see pouring out of
>>> democratic societies isn't particularly attractive to them. I'm
>>> talking of course about films, TV shows, rock music etc full of
>>> swearing, sex, violence...you get my drift. If you wonder why the
>>> Arabs call US 'the great Satan' and shy off democracy you might start
>>> there.
>>
>>But there are ultra conservative Christians who are just as disgusted by
>>such things and manage to keep their souls intact.
>
> Well, I'm not ultra-conservative by any means though I'm certainly a
> believer and I'm disgusted by much of what I see on TV and at the
> movies.

As am I, but I don't try to get teh government to ban them the way some ultr
religious people do.

And I've talked with many people who aren't religious at all
> who are equally disgusted. It's a mistake to assume that everyone
> who's offended by all this stuff is offended on religious grounds.

I don't make that assumption, it's just that they make up the biggest bloc
of those people and they have political clout.

> Many people just have higher standards, or prefer beauty to ugliness,
> or an uplifting story to a dark, depressing one.

As do I, I prefer art to show how things ought to be as opposed to how
others think they are. If I want to see "reality" I go outside.

Not so difficult to
> understand, surely.
>
>>
>>There are also varying degrees of Muslims, not all of whom are as
>>conservative as say the Taliban. It's the same story as with our
>>conservative Christians, they don't want to allow their people to have
>>access to the same stimuli. They want THEIR view to be the only view of
>>the
>>world, forgetting that is because of the multiplicity of cultural
>>influences
>>that we get the kind of prosperity that exists here.
>
> Maybe Christians don't want their children to have access to certain
> stimuli because they believe it damaging, not because they want their
> view to be the only view.

Certainly there is some of that, but there are still those ultra religious
people who think that God's law (as they interpret it) should be the only
law.

Yes, a multiplicity of cultural influences
> is good, but why does that have to include the unremitting negativity
> of so much contemporary entertainment? None of this was (generally)
> available years ago, and were teenagers the worse for it?
>
Mostly they are worse for the fact that their parents let them see it.With
the number of choices available in entertainment it is possible to find the
uplifting and that which praises human endeavor rather then present a
malevolent universe point of view or the viewpoint of the most uneducated,
the most evil, the most amoral of our culture.

>>
>>Maybe the person who is likely to come up with cure for cancer or the next
>>big breakthrough in computer technology would be stifled under ultra
>>conservative religious oppression.
>
> And maybe they wouldn't. I know of no evidence that Christians are
> opposed to finding a cure for cancer.

Not anymore, but it was once the view of the Catholic Church for example,
that suffering was the lot for humans and that things like pain killers were
wrong.

I didn't say anything about them being being opposed to it only that strict
adherence to religious viewpoints tend to stifle original thought.

Some of them even use computers,
> heaven forbid! And anyway, why does religious influence have to be
> "ultra conservative religious oppression".

Not all of it is, nor did I imply it was.

You were just talking about
> liberal Muslems. Well, there are far more liberal Christians than
> ultra-conservative.

Primarily because we don't have government that enforces religious law.

paul packer

September 28th 04, 02:32 AM

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:22:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

> Well, I'm not ultra-conservative by any means though I'm certainly a
>> believer and I'm disgusted by much of what I see on TV and at the
>> movies.
>
>As am I, but I don't try to get teh government to ban them the way some ultr
>religious people do.

I think you'll find such ultra-religious people are less numerous than
you imagine. They just make more noise than the other type. Ever heard
of the "silent majority"?

>
> And I've talked with many people who aren't religious at all
>> who are equally disgusted. It's a mistake to assume that everyone
>> who's offended by all this stuff is offended on religious grounds.
>
>I don't make that assumption, it's just that they make up the biggest bloc
>of those people and they have political clout.

I'm not sure they make up the bigest bloc. Indeed I believe there's a
huge block of people offended by the products of Hollywood who have no
affiliation with religion at all. I know many of them.

>
>> Many people just have higher standards, or prefer beauty to ugliness,
>> or an uplifting story to a dark, depressing one.
>
>As do I, I prefer art to show how things ought to be as opposed to how
>others think they are. If I want to see "reality" I go outside.

Actually I'm all for 'reality' in entertainment. I just don't happen
to believe it's as dark and hopeless as film and TV makers seem to
believe.

>
> Not so difficult to
>> understand, surely.
>>
>>>
>>>There are also varying degrees of Muslims, not all of whom are as
>>>conservative as say the Taliban. It's the same story as with our
>>>conservative Christians, they don't want to allow their people to have
>>>access to the same stimuli. They want THEIR view to be the only view of
>>>the
>>>world, forgetting that is because of the multiplicity of cultural
>>>influences
>>>that we get the kind of prosperity that exists here.
>>
>> Maybe Christians don't want their children to have access to certain
>> stimuli because they believe it damaging, not because they want their
>> view to be the only view.
>
>Certainly there is some of that, but there are still those ultra religious
>people who think that God's law (as they interpret it) should be the only
>law.

It's good to keep in mind that 'empty vessels make the most sound'.
Also, the most extreme are those who invariably get interviewed by the
media. The voice of moderation and considered reason rarely gets heard
above the din of extremism.

>
>Yes, a multiplicity of cultural influences
>> is good, but why does that have to include the unremitting negativity
>> of so much contemporary entertainment? None of this was (generally)
>> available years ago, and were teenagers the worse for it?
>>
>Mostly they are worse for the fact that their parents let them see it.With
>the number of choices available in entertainment it is possible to find the
>uplifting and that which praises human endeavor rather then present a
>malevolent universe point of view or the viewpoint of the most uneducated,
>the most evil, the most amoral of our culture.

Though we live in different countries, I'd be grateful if you could
point me to those programs which uplift and praise human endeavour. I
may need to get a new aerial, as I don't seem to be receiving them at
the moment. All I'm getting now is Sopranos, Six Feet Under and The
Shield. Oh, and Sex & the City of course.
>
>>>
>>>Maybe the person who is likely to come up with cure for cancer or the next
>>>big breakthrough in computer technology would be stifled under ultra
>>>conservative religious oppression.
>>
>> And maybe they wouldn't. I know of no evidence that Christians are
>> opposed to finding a cure for cancer.
>
>Not anymore, but it was once the view of the Catholic Church for example,
>that suffering was the lot for humans and that things like pain killers were
>wrong.
>
>I didn't say anything about them being being opposed to it only that strict
>adherence to religious viewpoints tend to stifle original thought.

You've been mixing with too many Baptist pastors from the backwoods.
There was a time when the church was chief sponsor of both art and
original thought. Ask Michaelangelo and Leonardo (not the Ninja
Turtle!).

> Some of them even use computers,
>> heaven forbid! And anyway, why does religious influence have to be
>> "ultra conservative religious oppression".
>
>Not all of it is, nor did I imply it was.

Yep, I kind of think you did. Sort of.
>
>You were just talking about
>> liberal Muslems. Well, there are far more liberal Christians than
>> ultra-conservative.
>
>Primarily because we don't have government that enforces religious law.

We do actually, since much of common law is founded on religious law.
But that's another story, and shall be told at another time.....

paul packer

September 29th 04, 02:46 AM

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:13:45 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>> >This is what happens when a certified moron (the Bug Eater) exchanges
>> >views with somebody who aspires to be a brain-dead retard (paulie).
>
>> You shouldn't say such nice things, George--it's embarassing. And what
>> specifically is your objection?
>
><sigh>
>
>Well, paulie, there is no Santa Claus. It's all make-believe. Hollywood
>is run by businesspeople who are after money. They don't have time to
>calibrate their sensibilities as to what constitutes "reality". They
>want to sell subscriptions, tickets, and commercials. They produce what
>they hope people will pay to see. When they hear a pitch, they don't
>care how closely the script hews to reality; they care whether they can
>make money by producing it.

There is no reality, George--it's all perception. And if I can
convince you that my perception is more accurate than yours, then I
might get you to see things the way I do. When a Hollywood director
makes a film, he invariably presents his perception--it'd be
impossible not to. And in some small way, however gradually, however
imperceptibly, he influences the perception of those who watch his
film. If the influence is persistely dark and hopeless, that
perception will spread and become common, and it spreads most easily
among the impressionable young. I have no doubt that Hollywood
influences the world, and not in a positive way. I think the Arabs and
others understand that, and rightly reject the influence. The problem
is that they see "Hollywood" as the US, so Hollywood is doing no
favours in that area to the country it otherwise enriches so
efficiently.
Also, if you don't believe some Hollywood producers and directors
have an "agenda" when they make a film then you're naive. Many have
admitted they have ideas to sell, not just tickets.

>
>If you want realism, watch a documentary. Oh, except you can't watch
>documentaries that offend your religious beliefs, or your religious
>political beliefs, or your religious cultural beliefs, because they
>might not portray *your* reality. Pluralism is such a bitch.

Documentaries aren't 'realism' either; they too have the filmmaker's
slant. As for the rest of your rant, it's a typical atheist's/cynic's
take on anyone who professes to hold any kind of standards whether
based on religious beliefs or not.

>
>And as to all the programs and movies that offend you, have you
>considered not watching them and thereby avoiding the unpleasant
>feelings? That works for me.

An old argument which unfortunately doesn't work. Even if I choose not
to watch what offends me, that same program is influencing others, and
sooner or later that influence will reach me. We don't live in a world
where it's possible to stick one's head in the sand and pretend it's
not happening; we live tightly-packed in a world of global
communication, and it's necessary to care and be concerned about what
kind of ideas are being spread, what perception is dominant in the
world. Besides, I care about the influences on people. When I hear
about a teenager shooting himself in the head while under the
influence of some rap 'suicide' song it bothers and angers me. I
couldn't be a cynic even if I tried. Frankly, I don't want to be.

paul packer

September 29th 04, 08:37 AM

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:41:44 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>poor paulie pack-it-up said:
>
>> >Well, paulie, there is no Santa Claus. It's all make-believe. Hollywood
>> >is run by businesspeople who are after money. They don't have time to
>> >calibrate their sensibilities as to what constitutes "reality". They
>> >want to sell subscriptions, tickets, and commercials. They produce what
>> >they hope people will pay to see. When they hear a pitch, they don't
>> >care how closely the script hews to reality; they care whether they can
>> >make money by producing it.
>>
>> There is no reality, George--it's all perception. And if I can
>> convince you that my perception is more accurate than yours, then I
>> might get you to see things the way I do. When a Hollywood director
>> makes a film, he invariably presents his perception--it'd be
>> impossible not to. And in some small way, however gradually, however
>> imperceptibly, he influences the perception of those who watch his
>> film. If the influence is persistely dark and hopeless, that
>> perception will spread and become common, and it spreads most easily
>> among the impressionable young. I have no doubt that Hollywood
>> influences the world, and not in a positive way. I think the Arabs and
>> others understand that, and rightly reject the influence. The problem
>> is that they see "Hollywood" as the US, so Hollywood is doing no
>> favours in that area to the country it otherwise enriches so
>> efficiently.
>
>Ain't that just too bad. You're infantilizing "the Arabs", you know.
>"They" can't figure out Western civilization, so your solution is that
>"we" have to stop making movies.

No, just make decent ones. The kind that don't offend every human
sensibility all at the same time.

>
>> Also, if you don't believe some Hollywood producers and directors
>> have an "agenda" when they make a film then you're naive. Many have
>> admitted they have ideas to sell, not just tickets.
>
>That is flatly not true of the mass-market films you decry. "Message"
>pictures are low-budget, limited-distribution affairs.

Rubbish. There are messages in everything. You don't think a coke
bottle turned label toward the camera is a 'message'. You don't need
to be working on a shoestring budget to be able to impart your
perception of things.

>Or maybe you're wailing about the offensiveness of "American Beauty" and
>"Three Kings", hmmm? Is that it? Portraying forbidden lust and
>unprincipled greed casts all Americans in a bad light?

I thought American Beauty was pointless crap and Three Kings rather
interesting. Was it about unprincipled greed? I thought it was about
forgetting about your own lusts in favour of the needs of others. Or
did I misinterpret the ending?

>> >If you want realism, watch a documentary. Oh, except you can't watch
>> >documentaries that offend your religious beliefs, or your religious
>> >political beliefs, or your religious cultural beliefs, because they
>> >might not portray *your* reality. Pluralism is such a bitch.
>>
>> Documentaries aren't 'realism' either; they too have the filmmaker's
>> slant.
>
>I'll bet people tell you to shut your stinking gob several times a week.
>Allow me to join the chorus, you ****ing idiot.

You're the only one who's ever told me that George. And allow me to
tell you to shut yours, you great steaming turd.

>> As for the rest of your rant, it's a typical atheist's/cynic's
>> take on anyone who professes to hold any kind of standards whether
>> based on religious beliefs or not.
>
>Ooh! Atheism! Horrors!
>
>All I can say to that, paulie, is when you're right, you're right. (And
>it's not you who's right.)

That makes a lot of sense. Typical of you.

>
>> >And as to all the programs and movies that offend you, have you
>> >considered not watching them and thereby avoiding the unpleasant
>> >feelings? That works for me.
>>
>> An old argument which unfortunately doesn't work.
>
>So you can't avoid being offended by not participating. How dreary.

Again, typical Middius non-logic.

>> Even if I choose not
>> to watch what offends me, that same program is influencing others, and
>> sooner or later that influence will reach me. We don't live in a world
>> where it's possible to stick one's head in the sand and pretend it's
>> not happening; we live tightly-packed in a world of global
>> communication, and it's necessary to care and be concerned about what
>> kind of ideas are being spread, what perception is dominant in the
>> world. Besides, I care about the influences on people. When I hear
>> about a teenager shooting himself in the head while under the
>> influence of some rap 'suicide' song it bothers and angers me. I
>> couldn't be a cynic even if I tried. Frankly, I don't want to be.
>
>Shut up, you simpering jackass.

And right back at you, you pontificating, peurile potty-mouth.