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.

 

Bush: Critics Of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Rendition are 'Slandering America'

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Bush: Critics Of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Rendition are 'Slandering America'


thinkprogress.org

During an interview with President Bush on Britain’s Sky News yesterday, Sky political editor Adam Boulton noted that while Bush talks “a lot about freedom,” there are many who say that some of the Bush administration’s torture and detention policies represent “the complete opposite of freedom.” But Bush quickly snapped back, saying those criticizing his policies are slandering America:

BOULTON: There are those who would say look, lets take Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, and rendition and all those things and to them that is the complete opposite of freedom.

BUSH: Of course, if you want to slander America.

(visit the link for the full news article)



It's not slandering America because America (we the people...) don't agree with Bush. So only Bush and Darth Cheney are being insulted. I can't say they are being slandered as slander implies something that isn't true


Besides who really believes what the worst president in American history is saying in the first place ?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by just great
 


Oh behave yourself!!!!!

Nobody has the right to kill another. If your a christian, then you would believe that.


You need a shovel.. big enough for your crap.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by proteus33
 



Originally posted by proteus33
how is it easier because of bush because he didn';t go after the terroist.
911 was done by saudi arabians i don't recall the first marine to land boot in sausi arabia. this whole crappy thing was orchistrated to make pile upon piles of money for bush and his friends if you haven't realized this than i pity you.


What you, and most others here, do not realize, is the fact that the NATION of SA didn't attack us. It was some outcasts from Saudi Arabia.

As for those who say the laws were always there, sorry you are wrong. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that defines or outlines the steps to take when engaged in war with another nation, much less a bunch of islamo-fascist terrorists who wear no uniform or carry no flag.


Amen, Burn all them Arabiacans... So what if Bush is rich, he deserves it, Pat Roberts was right as usual, Jesus wanted Bush to be our president, you can check it, there is even a passage in the bible... Jesus is the lord and Bush is our king.. . Eight more years!



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
reply to post by sos37
 


Your question is dumb thats why noone wants to "play along"

Offer proof and i might go along with it ..
But it seems the proof is only coming after the torture..

Also . Can you cite a few cases that we have stopped using torture?
That could help your cause too.. If such a case exists..


Hypothetically: If the earth is flat . Are the stars green?

Yes of course in a hypothetical world this could be the case.. But alas . This is the real world and we like facts..
Too bad nothing you have stated shows facts that this saved lives at all .

So in my hypothetical world .
You support torturing possibly innocent people . Well atleast enough torture to make them look guilty.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]


The question is dumb? It's a top rhetorical question among many media outlets and scholars, bud. Want proof?

The Economist
www.economist.com...

Newsweek
newsweek.washingtonpost.com...

CNN
edition.cnn.com...

PBS
www.pbs.org...

Your hypothetical paralells aren't even in the same ballpark, their just childish. The question I asked is a situation that could easily be real. Yours on the other hand are just plain idiocy. Seriously, don't reply if you don't plan to reply as an adult. The Disney forums are elsewhere.

I suspect the reason people don't want to answer or skirt the question is because some of them DO believe that torture is justifiable if it meant saving thousands of lives, which proves to be a moral conundrum for their beliefs, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to post by just great
 


Nobody has the right to kill another. If your a christian, then you would believe that.


Not true. I'm Christian and I believe lethal force is justified in cases of self defense or to prevent another person from being killed.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
"Their" level??? We're talking about saving thousands of innocent lives versus a prisoner of war's personal discomfort. Are you saying that you wouldn't waterboard based on not wanting to stoop to "their" level?


Whos the bad guy?? whos saving thousands of people??? those or them??



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I'm not religious or any means, I posed the point.

If your christian, and you kill, then you are breaking one of the commandments.


Now you can sing and dance if you like. huff and puff about it. thats the fact. How does you shoot me and I'll shoot you work? explain to me how killling each other works.

I'm listening................

[edit on 17-6-2008 by mind is the universe]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


By using "terror" like tactics you are only just as good as the guy you are torturing. I don't understand how one guy is better than the other when they are both doing the same thing?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Just logged backed on...., my what a horrible lambasting I took while I commuted!


You're hypothetical is in fact tremendously important, in my opinion. Because it is neither impossible, not unlikely that such a scenario might come to pass. So, you'll get no prevarication from me.

Assume as you suggest that such a scenario has passed. A human (man.woman, or child - it makes no difference) who was suspected of having this information - vital to the survival of thousands (or hundreds, or dozens - it makes no difference) was subjected to brutality for the purpose of coercing a revelation that led to the rescue of innocents.

((I hope that satisfies the supposition))

Is this the scenario you describe - adequately represented? Or do you care to qualify it further. I anticipate resistance to the idea that 'we' the 'torturer' somehow 'knew' this information was, in fact, available for 'extraction'.

Please respond at your convenience.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by sos37
 


By using "terror" like tactics you are only just as good as the guy you are torturing. I don't understand how one guy is better than the other when they are both doing the same thing?


Better than the other? That's not the question I asked. The question is - is torture justified in a case where thousands of lives are at stake?

An ethical debate on the civility of torture is another issue.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
[edit on 17-6-2008 by sos37]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to post by sos37
 


I'm not religious or any means, I posed the point.

If your christian, and you kill, then you are breaking one of the commandments.


Now you can sing and dance if you like. huff and puff about it. thats the fact. How does you shoot me and I'll shoot you work? explain to me how killling each other works.

I'm listening................

[edit on 17-6-2008 by mind is the universe]


Well that explains it all... You need to find Jesus our savior! George W Bush is a christian and he Preys and speaks to the lord everyday and I bet you that Jesus tell our president to kill them Arabicans. SO if Jesus tells him to do it, its okay! Find Jesus Honey! Find Jesus !



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to post by sos37
 


I'm not religious or any means, I posed the point.

If your christian, and you kill, then you are breaking one of the commandments.


Now you can sing and dance if you like. huff and puff about it. thats the fact. How does you shoot me and I'll shoot you work? explain to me how killling each other works.

I'm listening................

[edit on 17-6-2008 by mind is the universe]


If you've entered my home with the intent to kill me or my family then I have no other choice than to defend them or myself. Yes, technically it's still breaking one of the commandments, but I believe that's an issue between ME and God. Personally, I believe God would forgive me because I did not seek you out with the intention to kill, just as the law would not charge me for murder.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to post by just great
 


Nobody has the right to kill another. If your a christian, then you would believe that.


Not true. I'm Christian and I believe lethal force is justified in cases of self defense or to prevent another person from being killed.


Yes my brother, if they don't believe in the lord then they will suffer the sword!



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


okay who is being tortured here?? Forgive me but I don't see what your trying to point out?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by sos37
 


Just logged backed on...., my what a horrible lambasting I took while I commuted!


You're hypothetical is in fact tremendously important, in my opinion. Because it is neither impossible, not unlikely that such a scenario might come to pass. So, you'll get no prevarication from me.

Assume as you suggest that such a scenario has passed. A human (man.woman, or child - it makes no difference) who was suspected of having this information - vital to the survival of thousands (or hundreds, or dozens - it makes no difference) was subjected to brutality for the purpose of coercing a revelation that led to the rescue of innocents.

((I hope that satisfies the supposition))

Is this the scenario you describe - adequately represented? Or do you care to qualify it further. I anticipate resistance to the idea that 'we' the 'torturer' somehow 'knew' this information was, in fact, available for 'extraction'.

Please respond at your convenience.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Maxmars]


Yes, Maxmars, that is the scenario I am describing. I'm not looking to make examples of anyone here. I simply posted a hypothetical question and to date no one has answered the question straight on. Everyone is insistent on bashing the question or the hypothetical situation itself.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to post by sos37
 



[edit on 17-6-2008 by mind is the universe]


If you've entered my home with the intent to kill me or my family then I have no other choice than to defend them or myself. Yes, technically it's still breaking one of the commandments, but I believe that's an issue between ME and God. Personally, I believe God would forgive me because I did not seek you out with the intention to kill, just as the law would not charge me for murder.


You see People this is a man who makes sense. If we have to kill Ten thousand of um to save one of our soldiers then so be it!!!



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to post by sos37
 


okay who is being tortured here?? Forgive me but I don't see what your trying to point out?


Remember this is a hypothetical situation!

Say the U.S. caught a terrorist. Intelligence believes there is a dirty bomb somewhere in a major city and this man confirms there is but refuses to talk about it further. The U.S. believes that waterboarding the man stands a good chance of getting him to crack and reveal the location of the dirty bomb before it goes off.

The question is - is waterboarding the man justified if the U.S. can get info and disarm the bomb and save thousands of lives?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by just great
 


I found this post to strike a nerve. God uses both righteious and evil leaders. Our republic is turning more and more evil so we are getting evil leaders. God has done this all throughout the past, look it up if you don't believe me. So in essence, God is our terrorist but it's our own fault. I hope this is just a 'cyle' and not a 'trend'. If we are indeed on a close trend than I suggest everyone here make sure they are right with God on an individual bases because this country is heading to hell in a handbasket. (Do it either way)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join