It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The Iconoclast
They don't have to play by our rules. We are in their country. We should be abiding by their rules and adopting their culture and customs. We have no right to go into their home and dictate to them how they are to do things.
Jessie Jackson
Those are the actions of someone who is either a brownshirt or has nothing to backup their argument. I respect the people and their culture and don't lump in the extremeist in with the average person.
Originally posted by The Iconoclast
Again, your ignorance and arrogance is showing. They don't have to play by our rules.
They have given up "trying" to play by our rules and are striking back in the only way they know.
We are in their country. We should be abiding by their rules and adopting their culture and customs.
And it is very disingenuous of you to lump all African-Americans under the same umbrella. Who are you to act as their spokesman?
Yet it's okay for YOU to lump in all of Islam under one umbrella. Nice double standard. Always a bench mark of the uniformed
And please don't put words in my mouth. Those are the actions of someone who is either a brownshirt or has nothing to backup their argument.
Originally posted by jsobecky
The last refuge of the loser...resort to personal attacks. You are sad.:shk:
Then why do you make ridiculous statements such as....
Your ignorance is showing, your argument is weak, and you cannot defend it.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Then it is OK to sit by and watch as hundreds of thousands of innocent people are butchered as long as they stay inside their border. Is that not what you are saying?
A man who steals money from his own charity to support his mistress as he cheats on his wife is a reliable source?
What is a brownshirt.
Don't you think people who are being terrorized and slaughtered by extremists in their society would welcome help in removing these evil vile thugs from their lives?
Is it "moral" to sit by and watch as your neighbors are slaughtered just because they are doing it inside of their own borders? Is it right to let a group of local thugs to rule a society by force and intimidation and justify it by claiming they are acting under the authority of some bastardised religion?
Again, your ignorance and arrogance is showing.
Those are the actions of someone who is either a brownshirt or has nothing to backup their argument.
Always a bench mark of the uniformed.
If you anticipated it, why make the ignorant statement then?
Originally posted by Carseller4
What really needs to be cleared up is the definition of humiliating and degrading practices.
Being interrogated by a women is humiliating and degrading to Muslims. Should this practice be banned?
What about sleep deprivation? I went through Special Forces Assessment and had a dose of sleep deprivation, it was part of the training. If it is good enough for our troops during training, why isn't it good enough for the enemy?
Suggesting to a suspected insurgent that he is "not man enough" to have set an improvised explosive device sometimes elicits a full description of how they emplaced the bomb, soldiers say.
The Pentagon worries that if Article 3 were incorporated in the directive, detainees could use it to argue in U.S. courts that such techniques violate their personal dignity.
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
So let me see if I understand what your saying. Just because someone is not part of a regular armed forces they are not worthy to have international protection from torture or dehumanization?
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that argument. If two or more groups are taking part in a conflict the prisoners from all groups should have rights no matter how inconvenient it is.
Remember we are at war with an evil force, you don't defeat evil by becoming evil.
peace
Mr Mx
Well thank you for coming in and showing that you know nothing about history. Bush I stopped the operation desert storm because the objective had been met, and a little thing called “The High-way of Death”. Not because of a UN decision to halt.
Originally posted by zappafan1
".... why did Bush41 not take out Hussein when he had the chance in 1991?
REPLY: Because he mistakenly decided to go along with the wishes of the most corrupt and inept organization in the world; the United Nations. They called for a cease fire, which we went along with. In that light, the war we are now in is not a 'new' war, it is merely the continuation of the first.
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Well thank you for coming in and showing that you know nothing about history. Bush I stopped the operation desert storm because the objective had been met, and a little thing called “The High-way of Death”. Not because of a UN decision to halt.
Originally posted by zappafan1
".... why did Bush41 not take out Hussein when he had the chance in 1991?
REPLY: Because he mistakenly decided to go along with the wishes of the most corrupt and inept organization in the world; the United Nations. They called for a cease fire, which we went along with. In that light, the war we are now in is not a 'new' war, it is merely the continuation of the first.
Look into it. Here a page to start.
deoxy.org...