MSNBC's Anchor O'Donnell is a Socialist

[|Bunghole|]

Oh yeah, I hate you and screw you guys...I'm going home.

Where's that goddamned relevant link to the Eric Cartman as General Lee video? Fuck!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1289693317' post='940587']
Was Michael Moore the director? Jamie, seriously...I agree with many things you say here and there, but you and Old's disagreements have reached the point of lunacy. Just concede that he will not share your view of things and move on. Yes, this "game" isn't a game because human lives are involved, but at the end of the day...be willing to concede that the two of you (and you too, Old) are just exchanging views and will not agree on an issue. It will make the forum cleaner.
[/quote]

No it wasnt, Michale Moore wishes he could make as honest a movie as this was. I dont have a problem admitting we will never agree, I do have issue with allowing dangerous opinion to stand on its own. And not saying anything about it at all.


[quote]
Not necessarily, it just doesn't jibe with your worldview, and that's fine. How do you reconcile to yourself the fact that you work within the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about and yet have these views? And did you really just spell "righteous" "richeous"?



At least that is still endearing!
[/quote]

No bung it isnt about jibing with my worldview, its about the reality we are now faced with.

I have expressed this before. I am not against a department of defense, I am against a department of imperialism.

[quote]
People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how moronic or ill-informed you as an individual might find them. Perhaps you could be more tolerant and threads such as these could evolve into serious debates rather than partisan bullshit (and that includes you, Oldschooler). AS Old says, and I agree, ATTACK THE POST NOT THE POSTER.

I want this forum to remain lively, especially in light of the fact that the Bengals fucking suck. I don't want to feel like I have to stop coming here or reading posts because its the same old shit every time.
[/quote]


Thats fair, I will attack the post. And from time to time if I enjoy some humor in the snarkiness of people like Jon Stewart, then so be it.

[Homer_Rice]

Don't forget to kick me in the balls, too, Bung! But please understand, the day that I become tolerant or respectful of those who advocate torture will be the day I turn in my "give a shit" card. Why ought I be tolerant of folks who, time and time again, express their intolerance of a whole slew of fundamentally "American" values, such as allowing folks to set up a combo community center/Mosque, for example. You think Ikota or AbuZayd don't know what's up? You think they aren't walking around wishing they had eyes on the back of their heads? Who do you think creates that sort of climate in our society? Just who the fuck was it a few years ago walking around trying to define just who is "American" and who is not? These folks haven't gone away and the next time they gather some real power, well, Lord help the decent folks because it'll be even worse.

So, fuck the noise coming from the cry-babies who want to be respected just for showing up. I refuse to allow folks to set the terms of debate because in situations like that, the brutes always win. They are immune to the pursuit of Reason and in fact treat those who are earnest enough to try to seek it as though it were a pox, some "elitist" disease that is inflicted on their small souls.

I know that some people get upset when I talk in these terms. It's disturbing to the general equilibrium one hopes to have in a healthy society. But guess what? We are far from a healthy society nowadays and if we are not careful and willing to fight when necessary, then the bad ideas will win. And there will always be folks around to make sure that those bad ideas get enforced in very nasty ways.

And if holding these views makes me unpopular, I can live with that.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289691022' post='940579']
No I dont think I run this place, you think I think that, but I dont.

SERE training is not the same thing. This is the kind of comments Im talking about. You know it isnt yet you argue it is. You cant possibly believe that except for the desire to argue. If I'm showing snark its because of comments like this because there is no reasoning with someone who knows the difference but just wants to argue.

My way of thinking is dangerous? Oh good lord. Let me guess you think I'm a socialist too? (this is the augmentative equivalent of "i know you are but what am i" btw)

I swear you want me to turn down the snark, then turn down the absurd.
[/quote]



Well Jamie, you and Homer stay the same, keep thinking the same and keep
treating me the same. I mean, when you think you are superior
and elite, why change, right?

Also, you want my honest opinion? I think the passive pussy stuff
is what helped breed the terrorist. They had numerous attack on
us, yet, we basically did nothing. Not retaliation at all, to really
speak of. It made them think they could do anything. That we're
weak. That is why I support being strong. Taking the fight to them.
Not tolerating attack after attack. You call that a chickenhawk.
I call it kicking ass rather letting your ass get kicked.

You all act like because I didn't serve in the military, that it matters.
I haven't ever been a police officer either, but I expect them to take criminals
off the street and keep my community safe. Does that make me
a coward for not getting out there and fighting crime myself?
Of course not. Because then the same would apply to you
and 99.999% of the Country.

Obviously we disagree on almost everything. That's really OK.
Really, it is. My main beef with you and Homer is your tact.
You can disagree with me all you want. I don't take it personal.
It's when you get personal that leaves me no choice but to
take it personal.

But even though you don't see any wrong in it, I do.
And whether or not you want to change how we communicate
here, I do. And I am going to change even if you don't. I will not
be baited by the attacks and condescending crap anymore.
Maybe if I don't, you all will start showing some tact. I think me
going off like I have only makes you all want to do it more.
Because then I look like some irrational asshole and we aren't
talking about anything but me being an irrational asshole.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1289696254' post='940596']
And if holding these views makes me unpopular, I can live with that.
[/quote]


Hey, we agree on something. I feel the exact same way.

Matter of a fact, I'll wear it like a badge of honor.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289696707' post='940598']
Well Jamie, you and Homer stay the same, keep thinking the same and keep
treating me the same. I mean, when you think you are superior
and elite, why change, right?

Also, you want my honest opinion? I think the passive pussy stuff
is what helped breed the terrorist. They had numerous attack on
us, yet, we basically did nothing. Not retaliation at all, to really
speak of. It made them think they could do anything. That we're
weak. That is why I support being strong. Taking the fight to them.
Not tolerating attack after attack. You call that a chickenhawk.
I call it kicking ass rather letting your ass get kicked.

You all act like because I didn't serve in the military, that it matters.
I haven't ever been a police officer either, but I expect them to take criminals
off the street and keep my community safe. Does that make me
a coward for not getting out there and fighting crime myself?
Of course not. Because then the same would apply to you
and 99.999% of the Country.

Obviously we disagree on almost everything. That's really OK.
Really, it is. My main beef with you and Homer is your tact.
You can disagree with me all you want. I don't take it personal.
It's when you get personal that leaves me no choice but to
take it personal.

But even though you don't see any wrong in it, I do.
And whether or not you want to change how we communicate
here, I do. And I am going to change even if you don't. I will not
be baited by the attacks and condescending crap anymore.
Maybe if I don't, you all will start showing some tact. I think me
going off like I have only makes you all want to do it more.
Because then I look like some irrational asshole and we aren't
talking about anything but me being an irrational asshole.
[/quote]

This isnt about thinking I'm superior this is about a moral imperative.

Perhaps if we werent over there meddling we wouldnt have gotten attacked in the first place.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289697052' post='940601']
This isnt about thinking I'm superior this is about a moral imperative.

Perhaps if we werent over there meddling we wouldnt have gotten attacked in the first place.
[/quote]


No, when you can not talk to someone right, it is thinking
you are superior. You have already said as much.
That's OK though. I accept it. I do not agree. But I accept it.



And perhaps if I bought a lotto ticket with the winning numbers,
I wouldn't be on the computer talking about this shit right now.

[Jamie_B]

It's not just that as America we should be the "shining light" that we say we are, but the fact of the matter is that torture does not work.

What a former FBI agent had to say about torture and waterboarding - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1

In it he describes how he was able to get information from a detainee without torture and why it isnt necessary.

3 torture myths - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo&feature=player_embedded

What the Army Field Manual says about it.


[quote]PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.[/quote]


Or here by Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School

Why Torture Doesn't Work - http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/

Forty-three retired generals and admirals sign a letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence stating that they support a requirement for a Single Standard on Interrogation as set forth in the Army Field Guide and their letter makes the statement:

"Employing interrogation methods that violate the Field Manual is not only unnecessary, but poses enormous risks. These methods generate information of dubious value, reliance upon which can lead to disastrous consequences. Moreover, [color="#FF0000"]revelation of the use of such techniques does immense damage to the reputation and moral authority of the United States essential to our efforts to combat terrorism.[/color]"

I don't consider them bureaucrats and I think they have far more credibility than any politician does when it comes to deciding what works and what doesn't...they definitely have more insight than you or I do.

Here's a link to the letter: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2008/080212-letter_ret-mil-ldrs.htm

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289697883' post='940604']
It's not just that as America we should be the "shining light" that we say we are, but the fact of the matter is that torture does not work.

What a former FBI agent had to say about torture and waterboarding - [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1"]http://www.nytimes.c...oufan.html?_r=1[/url]

In it he describes how he was able to get information from a detainee without torture and why it isnt necessary.

3 torture myths - [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo&feature=player_embedded[/media]

What the Army Field Manual says about it.





Or here by Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School

Why Torture Doesn't Work - [url="http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/"]http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/[/url]

Forty-three retired generals and admirals sign a letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence stating that they support a requirement for a Single Standard on Interrogation as set forth in the Army Field Guide and their letter makes the statement:

"Employing interrogation methods that violate the Field Manual is not only unnecessary, but poses enormous risks. These methods generate information of dubious value, reliance upon which can lead to disastrous consequences. Moreover, [color="#ff0000"]revelation of the use of such techniques does immense damage to the reputation and moral authority of the United States essential to our efforts to combat terrorism.[/color]"

I don't consider them bureaucrats and I think they have far more credibility than any politician does when it comes to deciding what works and what doesn't...they definitely have more insight than you or I do.

Here's a link to the letter: [url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2008/080212-letter_ret-mil-ldrs.htm"]http://www.globalsec...et-mil-ldrs.htm[/url]
[/quote]



I am not going to debate this with you now.

A couple of reasons. We don't do it anymore.
So it is irrelevant. And I am talking about how
we interact with each other.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289698357' post='940606']
I am not going to debate this with you now.

A couple of reasons. We don't do it anymore.
So it is irrelevant. And I am talking about how
we interact with each other.
[/quote]


Im attacking the post.

Why do you think we dont do it anymore? There has to be a good reason for that.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289698450' post='940607']
Im attacking the post.

Why do you think we dont do it anymore? There has to be a good reason for that.
[/quote]

OK then. Like I said before, we waterboard our own men.
I know they aren't on the same level. But neither are the stakes.
And I am for anything that keeps us from getting attacked again.

You have some experts say that it makes more terrorists.
I say us being in existence makes more terrorists.

You have some experts say it doesn't work.
I posted a link that says we got info that helped
us thwart attacks.

Anyway, it is irrelevant now. We don't do it. But I am telling
you, if we did, I would not be against it. If I was, I would
be against us doing it to our own men too.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289698912' post='940609']
OK then. Like I said before, we waterboard our own men.
I know they aren't on the same level. But neither are the stakes.
And I am for anything that keeps us from getting attacked again.

You have some experts say that it makes more terrorists.
I say us being in existence makes more terrorists.

You have some experts say it doesn't work.
I posted a link that says we got info that helped
us thwart attacks.

Anyway, it is irrelevant now. We don't do it. But I am telling
you, if we did, I would not be against it. If I was, I would
be against us doing it to our own men too.
[/quote]


We finally agree they are not on the same level.

In fact the SERE and CIA waterboarding were different, seen here.

http://washingtonindependent.com/56237/this-isnt-seres-waterboarding-this-is-cia-waterboarding

[quote]There has been some confusion for years over what exactly “waterboarding” has meant in practice. Does it induce the sensation of drowning? Or does it actually replicate it? The differences between the two may seem academic, but the CIA inspector general report on torture says that the way the agency practiced waterboarding was different from the way U.S. troops were taught to endure it at Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) schools — and different from what the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel thought it was approving in mid-2002.

OIG’s [Office of the Inspector General's] review of the videotapes revealed that the waterboard technique employed at [REDACTED] was different from the technique as described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training. The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed. At the SERE School and in the DoJ opinion, the subject’s airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contest, the Agency interrogator [REDACTED] continuously applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique differed from that used in SERE training and explained that the Agency’s technique is different because it is “for real” and is more poignant and convincing.

As mentioned in the previous post, OIG saw 183 waterboarding applications, “most of which” lasted less than 10 seconds, presumably because when the CIA performed waterboarding, it was “too real” for someone to withstand. One of the detainees to undergo the treatment, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, said he would “make up stories” so the torture would stop, thereby defeating the ostensible intelligence-gathering purpose of the technique.

Also, chances are the “psychologist/interrogator” referred to here is either Bruce Jessen or James Mitchell, two former SERE officials who had contracts with the CIA for its “enhanced interrogation” program.[/quote]

I disagree that our mere existence makes more terrorists, I would agree that our mere existence in their land agitates and may create some, but water boarding goes far beyond that in creating them.

The LA thing.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

[quote]The Library Tower? Is that the best that Bush's torture apologists can do?
On April 16, the Obama administration publicly released four Justice Department memos, now repudiated, in which President George W. Bush's administration defined the parameters of what it termed, euphemistically, "enhanced interrogation techniques." This has enlivened the debate about whether water-boarding, walling, Room 101-ing and whatever other torture methods the Bush-era CIA may have used against al-Qaida captives actually prevented acts of terror. Various journalists (Ron Suskind, the Washington Post's Peter Finn and Joby Warrick, the New York Times' Scott Shane) have looked into Bush administration claims that water-boarding Abu Zubaida, the first "high-value" captive, yielded vitally important information, and concluded it did not. We have since learned that Abu Zubaida was water-boarded 83 times. ABC News reported a couple of years ago that water-boarding 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was what prompted him to confess, "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the American Jew, Daniel Pearl." That same report claimed Sheikh Mohammed had been water-boarded only once, an estimate we now know was off by 182. The confession may have been shaky, too. Bernard-Henri Lévy, among others, doubts Sheikh Mohammed killed Pearl. In any event, confessing to past murder had no obvious bearing on future acts of violence.


Now Mark A. Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter, argues in a Washington Post op-ed ("The CIA's Questioning Worked") that justification for the Bush administration's techniques is there for all to see in a memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel dated May 30, 2005, one of the four made public.
Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.
Ah, the Library Tower. The thwarting of al-Qaida's attack on it was a favorite talking point of President Bush (though he sometimes called it the "Liberty Tower"; for the past six years, its formal name has been the U.S. Bank Tower). Because the Library Tower is in Los Angeles, the al-Qaida plot to bring it down is sometimes confused with the Millennium Plot, a separate plan to attack Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Day 2000—supported but not organized by al-Qaida—that came much closer to fruition. The Library Tower, designed by I.M. Pei's architectural firm, stands 73 stories high and is the tallest skyscraper west of the Mississippi.* Sheikh Mohammed initially planned to crash a jetliner into it on 9/11 as part of a scheme involving not four but 10 passenger planes on both coasts. Osama Bin Laden vetoed that as too ambitious and scaled back the plan to focus on New York and Washington. After 9/11, Sheikh Mohammed still hoped to execute the attack on the Library Tower and, working with a Southeast Asian al-Qaida affiliate (the aforementioned Hambali), recruited four terror cell members to carry it out.
Advertisement

[color="#FF0000"]The first reason to be skeptical that this planned attack could have been carried out successfully is that, as I've noted before, attacking buildings by flying planes into them didn't remain a viable al-Qaida strategy even through Sept. 11, 2001. Thanks to cell phones, passengers on United Flight 93 were able to learn that al-Qaida was using planes as missiles and crashed the plane before it could hit its target. There was no way future passengers on any flight would let a terrorist who killed the pilot and took the controls fly wherever he pleased.
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.[/color]

How could Sheikh Mohammed's water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration "broke up" that attack during the previous year? It couldn't, of course. Conceivably the Bush administration, or at least parts of the Bush administration, didn't realize until Sheikh Mohammed confessed under torture that it had already broken up a plot to blow up the Library Tower about which it knew nothing. Stranger things have happened. But the plot was already a dead letter. If foiling the Library Tower plot was the reason to water-board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then that water-boarding was more than cruel and unjust. It was a waste of water.[/quote]

I'm saying there has to be a reason we ended it.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289696707' post='940598']

Obviously we disagree on almost everything. That's really OK.
Really, it is. My main beef with you and Homer is your tact.
You can disagree with me all you want. I don't take it personal.
It's when you get personal that leaves me no choice but to
take it personal.

But even though you don't see any wrong in it, I do.
And whether or not you want to change how we communicate
here, I do. And I am going to change even if you don't. I will not
be baited by the attacks and condescending crap anymore.
Maybe if I don't, you all will start showing some tact. I think me
going off like I have only makes you all want to do it more.
Because then I look like some irrational asshole and we aren't
talking about anything but me being an irrational asshole.
[/quote]

Your main beef is our tact? That's got to be the funniest and most irrational comment you've made thus far. Coming from a guy who advocates all kinds of nasty in the wider world, and who, just the other day, not only foamed at the mouth threatening me with banning, but apparently actually expended some energy the other day trying to do just that?

The universe is not about you, you churlish little twit.

And put a footnote on your badge of honor: "This badge is made possible by mountains of dead, innocent Iraqis and Afghanis."

I hope I said that in a pleasant way.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1289702947' post='940620']
Your main beef is our tact? That's got to be the funniest and most irrational comment you've made thus far. Coming from a guy who advocates all kinds of nasty in the wider world, and who, just the other day, not only foamed at the mouth threatening me with banning, but apparently actually expended some energy the other day trying to do just that?

The universe is not about you, you churlish little twit.

And put a footnote on your badge of honor: "This badge is made possible by mountains of dead, innocent Iraqis and Afghanis."

I hope I said that in a pleasant way.
[/quote]



Thanks for your response.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "when you make it personal,
I take it personal." And your tact led to my outburst. Did it not? Of course it
did. When you ask someone to show more tact and they refuse, then sometimes
you take it to another level. But my behavior, like your's, was unacceptable and inexcusable.


Also, you obviously missed where I said ...


[i]Yes it is a clash of egos. I admit that. And I admit after having some pretty shitty days in my
real World, that getting on here for an ecscape, and seeing that unacceptable behavior
being directed towards me AGAIN, made me snap. Yes I admit, I overreacted. But I
was infuriated. When I told him to show me the respect I was showing him, and he
(and Jamie) said that I have to EARN their respect. In other words, I have to EARN
the right for them to talk to me acceptably, I snapped even more. [/i][b][i]For that, I apologize.
And I am truly embarrassed.




[/i][/b]That is me saying I overreacted and apologizing That's all I can do. Just like I can not
make you treat me a certain way, I can not make you accept it. I don't care though.
I am human. Sometimes I have bad regrettable days. I guess you do not, Mr Perfect.


If I expended energy in banning you, which would actually have been a suspension,
you would have known it. Obviously I didn't. So you don't know what you are talking
about, AGAIN.

Yes, mountains of dead bodies are my badge, and I wear it proudly.
I also bathe in the blood of innocents and eat their flesh for breakfast.

I also love the hate that I breed in you. Keep it coming.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289699789' post='940612']
We finally agree they are not on the same level. [/quote]


I agreed to that a long time ago. Where have you been?




[quote]The LA thing.

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/"]http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/[/url]
[/quote]



After he was subjected to the waterboarding technique, wrote Conservative News Service's Terence P. Jeffrey,"KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key Al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."


[url="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/la-terror-attack.html"]http://latimesblogs....ror-attack.html[/url]






Planning began in October 2001, but it was derailed in early 2002 "when a South East Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaeda operative", Mr Bush said. The plot was finally thwarted in the summer of 2003, when a man suspected to be a key member of JI, an Indonesian known as Hambali, was arrested in Thailand.

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4697896.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4697896.stm[/url]



[b]List of confessions

[/b]All of these plots can also be referred to as 'Second Oplan Bojinka'.

[list][*]The [color="#0645ad"]February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center[/color] in New York City[*]A failed "shoe bomber" operation[*]The October 2002 attack in [color="#0645ad"]Kuwait[/color][*]The [color="#0645ad"]nightclub[/color] bombing in [color="#0645ad"]Bali[/color], [color="#0645ad"]Indonesia[/color][*]A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks after the 9/11 attacks, including the [color="#0645ad"]Library Tower[/color] in Los Angeles, the [color="#0645ad"]Sears Tower[/color] in Chicago, the Plaza Bank Building in [color="#0645ad"]Seattle[/color] and the [color="#0645ad"]Empire State Building[/color] in New York[*]Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the [color="#0645ad"]Straits of Hormuz[/color], the [color="#0645ad"]Straits of Gibraltar[/color] and in [color="#0645ad"]Singapore[/color][*]A plan to blow up the [color="#0645ad"]Panama Canal[/color][*]Plans to assassinate [color="#0645ad"]Jimmy Carter[/color][*]A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City[*]A plan to destroy the [color="#0645ad"]Sears Tower[/color] in Chicago with burning fuel trucks[*]Plans to "destroy" [color="#0645ad"]Heathrow Airport[/color], [color="#0645ad"]Canary Wharf[/color] and [color="#0645ad"]Big Ben[/color] in London[*]A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in [color="#0645ad"]Thailand[/color][*]A plot targeting the [color="#0645ad"]New York Stock Exchange[/color] and other U.S. financial targets[*]A plan to destroy buildings in [color="#0645ad"]Eilat[/color], [color="#0645ad"]Israel[/color][*]Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.[*]Plots to destroy [color="#0645ad"]Israeli[/color] embassies in India, [color="#0645ad"]Azerbaijan[/color], the [color="#0645ad"]Philippines[/color] and Australia[*]Surveying and financing an attack on an [color="#0645ad"]Israeli[/color] [color="#0645ad"]El-Al[/color] flight from [color="#0645ad"]Bangkok[/color][*]Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them[*]The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in [color="#0645ad"]Mombasa[/color], [color="#0645ad"]Kenya[/color][*]The failed attempt to shoot down an [color="#0645ad"]Israeli[/color] passenger jet leaving [color="#0645ad"]Mombasa airport[/color] in [color="#0645ad"]Kenya[/color][*]Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea[*]Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and [color="#0645ad"]Jewish[/color] targets in [color="#0645ad"]Turkey[/color][*]Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them[*]A plot to attack [color="#0645ad"]NATO[/color]'s headquarters in Europe[*]Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets[*]The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President [color="#0645ad"]Bill Clinton[/color] during a mid-1990s trip to the [color="#0645ad"]Philippines[/color].[*]"Shared responsibility" for a [color="#0645ad"]plot to kill[/color] [color="#0645ad"]Pope[/color] [color="#0645ad"]John Paul II[/color][*]Plans to assassinate Pakistani President [color="#0645ad"]Pervez Musharraf[/color][*]An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in [color="#0645ad"]Sumatra[/color], Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] [color="#0645ad"]Secretary of State[/color] [color="#0645ad"]Henry Kissinger[/color]"[*]The beheading of [i][color="#0645ad"]Wall Street Journal[/color][/i] reporter [color="#0645ad"]Daniel Pearl[/color][/list]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed"]http://en.wikipedia....Sheikh_Mohammed[/url]


I am still not sure why some want to protect these terrorists, they are not US citizens and are not protected by the constitution.
And they are not soldiers that are protected by the Geneva Convention. Waterboarding may be torture, but it is also something
that is done to our own men. Why aren't you against it being done to them too? And it pales in comparison to chopping someones
head off.



Anyway, excuse me while I go bathe and eat some breakfast now.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289740963' post='940650']
I agreed to that a long time ago. Where have you been?








After he was subjected to the waterboarding technique, wrote Conservative News Service's Terence P. Jeffrey,"KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key Al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."


[url="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/la-terror-attack.html"]http://latimesblogs....ror-attack.html[/url]






Planning began in October 2001, but it was derailed in early 2002 "when a South East Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaeda operative", Mr Bush said. The plot was finally thwarted in the summer of 2003, when a man suspected to be a key member of JI, an Indonesian known as Hambali, was arrested in Thailand.

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4697896.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4697896.stm[/url]



[b]List of confessions

[/b]All of these plots can also be referred to as 'Second Oplan Bojinka'.

[list][*]The [color="#0645ad"]February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center[/color] in New York City[*]A failed "shoe bomber" operation[*]The October 2002 attack in [color="#0645ad"]Kuwait[/color][*]The [color="#0645ad"]nightclub[/color] bombing in [color="#0645ad"]Bali[/color], [color="#0645ad"]Indonesia[/color][*]A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks after the 9/11 attacks, including the [color="#0645ad"]Library Tower[/color] in Los Angeles, the [color="#0645ad"]Sears Tower[/color] in Chicago, the Plaza Bank Building in [color="#0645ad"]Seattle[/color] and the [color="#0645ad"]Empire State Building[/color] in New York[*]Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the [color="#0645ad"]Straits of Hormuz[/color], the [color="#0645ad"]Straits of Gibraltar[/color] and in [color="#0645ad"]Singapore[/color][*]A plan to blow up the [color="#0645ad"]Panama Canal[/color][*]Plans to assassinate [color="#0645ad"]Jimmy Carter[/color][*]A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City[*]A plan to destroy the [color="#0645ad"]Sears Tower[/color] in Chicago with burning fuel trucks[*]Plans to "destroy" [color="#0645ad"]Heathrow Airport[/color], [color="#0645ad"]Canary Wharf[/color] and [color="#0645ad"]Big Ben[/color] in London[*]A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in [color="#0645ad"]Thailand[/color][*]A plot targeting the [color="#0645ad"]New York Stock Exchange[/color] and other U.S. financial targets[*]A plan to destroy buildings in [color="#0645ad"]Eilat[/color], [color="#0645ad"]Israel[/color][*]Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.[*]Plots to destroy [color="#0645ad"]Israeli[/color] embassies in India, [color="#0645ad"]Azerbaijan[/color], the [color="#0645ad"]Philippines[/color] and Australia[*]Surveying and financing an attack on an [color="#0645ad"]Israeli[/color] [color="#0645ad"]El-Al[/color] flight from [color="#0645ad"]Bangkok[/color][*]Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them[*]The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in [color="#0645ad"]Mombasa[/color], [color="#0645ad"]Kenya[/color][*]The failed attempt to shoot down an [color="#0645ad"]Israeli[/color] passenger jet leaving [color="#0645ad"]Mombasa airport[/color] in [color="#0645ad"]Kenya[/color][*]Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea[*]Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and [color="#0645ad"]Jewish[/color] targets in [color="#0645ad"]Turkey[/color][*]Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them[*]A plot to attack [color="#0645ad"]NATO[/color]'s headquarters in Europe[*]Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets[*]The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President [color="#0645ad"]Bill Clinton[/color] during a mid-1990s trip to the [color="#0645ad"]Philippines[/color].[*]"Shared responsibility" for a [color="#0645ad"]plot to kill[/color] [color="#0645ad"]Pope[/color] [color="#0645ad"]John Paul II[/color][*]Plans to assassinate Pakistani President [color="#0645ad"]Pervez Musharraf[/color][*]An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in [color="#0645ad"]Sumatra[/color], Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] [color="#0645ad"]Secretary of State[/color] [color="#0645ad"]Henry Kissinger[/color]"[*]The beheading of [i][color="#0645ad"]Wall Street Journal[/color][/i] reporter [color="#0645ad"]Daniel Pearl[/color][/list]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed"]http://en.wikipedia....Sheikh_Mohammed[/url]


I am still not sure why some want to protect these terrorists, they are not US citizens and are not protected by the constitution.
And they are not soldiers that are protected by the Geneva Convention. Waterboarding may be torture, but it is also something
that is done to our own men. Why aren't you against it being done to them too? And it pales in comparison to chopping someones
head off.



Anyway, excuse me while I go bathe and eat some breakfast now.
[/quote]

Being against water boarding is not being in favor of protecting terrorists, it is being in favor of what is supposed to be our moral authority and rule of law.

Just because we water boarded and got info form someone doesnt mean that info couldnt have been gotten without it.

And saying they arent protected by the Geniva conventions (assuming because they arent a country) is walking a moral fine line.

I'm not against it because we both agree it isnt the same thing. So because they chop heads off our people its ok to water board? This is a slippery slope to justifying anything and everything regardless of the morality of it because we are at war. It's a stain on what we are supposed to be representing as a country.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289735321' post='940638']
Thanks for your response.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "when you make it personal,
I take it personal." And your tact led to my outburst. Did it not? Of course it
did. When you ask someone to show more tact and they refuse, then sometimes
you take it to another level. But my behavior, like your's, was unacceptable and inexcusable.


Also, you obviously missed where I said ...


[i]Yes it is a clash of egos. I admit that. And I admit after having some pretty shitty days in my
real World, that getting on here for an ecscape, and seeing that unacceptable behavior
being directed towards me AGAIN, made me snap. Yes I admit, I overreacted. But I
was infuriated. When I told him to show me the respect I was showing him, and he
(and Jamie) said that I have to EARN their respect. In other words, I have to EARN
the right for them to talk to me acceptably, I snapped even more. [/i][b][i]For that, I apologize.
And I am truly embarrassed.




[/i][/b]That is me saying I overreacted and apologizing That's all I can do. Just like I can not
make you treat me a certain way, I can not make you accept it. I don't care though.
I am human. Sometimes I have bad regrettable days. I guess you do not, Mr Perfect.


If I expended energy in banning you, which would actually have been a suspension,
you would have known it. Obviously I didn't. So you don't know what you are talking
about, AGAIN.

[b]Yes, mountains of dead bodies are my badge, and I wear it proudly.
I also bathe in the blood of innocents and eat their flesh for breakfast.[/b]

I also love the hate that I breed in you. Keep it coming.
[/quote]
Even though you seem to be joking, you've finally hit the heart of the matter. There's a real stink at the core of your onion that overrides all your namby-pamby attempts to make this about etiquette and playing nice. Poor oldschooler, I guess even you and Lt. Calley can have a bad day. What you fail to understand, despite my many attempts to make the point, is that I feel no moral obligation to be nice to a person who holds the kind of views you promote. In fact, I should thank you for your display over the past few days. Some folks now have a better sense of just what the psyche of a jackboot is like.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1289828813' post='941570']
Even though you seem to be joking, you've finally hit the heart of the matter. There's a real stink at the core of your onion that overrides all your namby-pamby attempts to make this about etiquette and playing nice. Poor oldschooler, I guess even you and Lt. Calley can have a bad day. What you fail to understand, despite my many attempts to make the point, is that I feel no moral obligation to be nice to a person who holds the kind of views you promote. In fact, I should thank you for your display over the past few days. Some folks now have a better sense of just what the psyche of a jackboot is like.
[/quote]



Great, again, thanks for sharing.

And even more insults.That never gets old.

And you're welcome. I'll be sure to promote even more of my views in the future.

I [i]seem[/i] to be joking? LOL


Oh and I understand, that you are pretensious, self absorbed
all around fucktard, dickweed, assrat bastard, that can easily be
mistaken for a boner-biting dick-fart fuckface.

And that was putting it nicely.

Just giving what I am getting.

But again, thanks for sharing.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1289782255' post='941382']
Being against water boarding is not being in favor of protecting terrorists, it is being in favor of what is supposed to be our moral authority and rule of law.

Just because we water boarded and got info form someone doesnt mean that info couldnt have been gotten without it.

And saying they arent protected by the Geniva conventions (assuming because they arent a country) is walking a moral fine line.

I'm not against it because we both agree it isnt the same thing. So because they chop heads off our people its ok to water board? This is a slippery slope to justifying anything and everything regardless of the morality of it because we are at war. It's a stain on what we are supposed to be representing as a country.
[/quote]


Sorry Jamie. I just put a lot more value on the lives and comfort of innocent
people than I do deranged assholes that want to kill everyone that does
not share their views. It's that simple. And that's what it all boils down to.

You obviously do not agree. And that is fine by me. I do not feel the need
to talk down, degrade or even kill those that do not share my views. I just
feel the need to talk down and degrade those that talk down and degrade me.

I do not have a [url="http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx36.htm"]Narcissistic Personality Disorder[/url] like some here.
(That finger is pointing at you Homer)

[oldschooler]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289696707' post='940598']
But even though you don't see any wrong in it, I do.
And whether or not you want to change how we communicate
here, I do. And I am going to change even if you don't.[b] I will not
be baited by the attacks and condescending crap anymore.
[/b]Maybe if I don't, you all will start showing some tact. I think me
going off like I have only makes you all want to do it more.
Because then I look like some irrational asshole and we aren't
talking about anything but me being an irrational asshole.
[/quote]


Oh well, that didn't last very long.

I guess I need to put more effort into it.

Maybe tomorrow.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289829704' post='941577']
Oh and I understand, that you are pretensious, self absorbed
all around fucktard, dickweed, assrat bastard, that can easily be
mistaken for a boner-biting dick-fart fuckface.
[/quote]
You forgot to add that I like turtles.

[mullichicken25]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1289526943' post='940103']
The difference between unemployment and Healthcare is you have to work and qualify for
unemployment. You have to do nothing to qualify for Health Care.

[/quote]

in getting away from the multi-page pissing match, however entertaining it may have been, im curious about this statement. I've heard it said many times in a few different ways

but theres something i just cant grasp about it

why should you need to be employed in order to have access to healthcare?

the employer-based healthcare system makes 0 sense, outside of the fact that its the status quo in this country

we're not talking about extra spending money for an ipod...or even elective plastic surgery...why should an unemployed, poor, or lower-middleclass man have to go bankrupt because his wife or kid has cancer?

now for the quasi-related rant:
it seems like the general attitude i'm seeing/hearing/reading from a lot of people is that the vast majority of unemployed or less-than-wealthy people are lazy free loaders who dont bother getting a job because the gov' will take care of them

obviouslly free loaders exist, and always will....but i cant accept the idea that they make up a majority of those who benefit from the programs in question

think of how you would feel/act/behave if you lost your job tomorrow, i'd imagine most wouldn't just say "fuck it, big O is gonna take care of me, im good"....what reason is there to assume that the average american would act so dramatically different?

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1289836611' post='941625']
You forgot to add that I like turtles.
[/quote]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y[/media]

[Jamie_B]

I prefer that we do things according to the rule of law and the moral imperative, years from now we will all be gone, but our ideals re our democracy and how history looks upon us will be telling.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='mullichicken25' timestamp='1289855936' post='941727']
in getting away from the multi-page pissing match, however entertaining it may have been, im curious about this statement. I've heard it said many times in a few different ways

but theres something i just cant grasp about it

[b]why should you need to be employed in order to have access to healthcare?[/b]

the employer-based healthcare system makes 0 sense, outside of the fact that its the status quo in this country

we're not talking about extra spending money for an ipod...or even elective plastic surgery...why should an unemployed, poor, or lower-middleclass man have to go bankrupt because his wife or kid has cancer?

now for the quasi-related rant:
it seems like the general attitude i'm seeing/hearing/reading from a lot of people is that the vast majority of unemployed or less-than-wealthy people are lazy free loaders who dont bother getting a job because the gov' will take care of them

obviouslly free loaders exist, and always will....but i cant accept the idea that they make up a majority of those who benefit from the programs in question

think of how you would feel/act/behave if you lost your job tomorrow, i'd imagine most wouldn't just say "fuck it, big O is gonna take care of me, im good"....what reason is there to assume that the average american would act so dramatically different?
[/quote]

Why stop there? I mean how many millions don't have access to food and clean drinking water in our country alone? Why should a 40 hour work week be a pre-requisite for living?