My Thinker Don't Work So Good

[Snow]

FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - A former inmate at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison forced by U.S. guards to masturbate in public and piled onto a pyramid of naked men said on Tuesday even Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not do such things.

The inmate testified at the court martial of reservist soldier Charles Graner, accused ringleader of guards who engaged in the abuse, which prompted outrage when pictures of the sexual humiliation were published around the world.

"I couldn't believe in the beginning that this could happen, but I wished I could kill myself because no one was there to stop it," Hussein Mutar, who was sent to Abu Ghraib accused of car theft, said in videotaped testimony.

"They were torturing us as though it was theater for them," he said, as the prosecution wound up its case against Graner on assault, dereliction of duty and other charges that could bring him up to 17 1/2 years in prison.

An obviously ill-at ease Mutar added: "I was extremely emotional because (even) Saddam didn't do this to us."

Let's see:

Sytematic suppression, wide-spread mass murder, fraticide, posion chemical weapon murder, genocide, torture, theft, ect.... vs nude pyramid building.

Okay, whatever.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 11 2005, 06:53 PM

FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - A former inmate at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison forced by U.S. guards to masturbate in public and piled onto a pyramid of naked men said on Tuesday even Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not do such things.

The inmate testified at the court martial of reservist soldier Charles Graner, accused ringleader of guards who engaged in the abuse, which prompted outrage when pictures of the sexual humiliation were published around the world.

"I couldn't believe in the beginning that this could happen, but I wished I could kill myself because no one was there to stop it," Hussein Mutar, who was sent to Abu Ghraib accused of car theft, said in videotaped testimony.

"They were torturing us as though it was theater for them," he said, as the prosecution wound up its case against Graner on assault, dereliction of duty and other charges that could bring him up to 17 1/2 years in prison.

An obviously ill-at ease Mutar added: "I was extremely emotional because (even) Saddam didn't do this to us."

Let's see:

Sytematic suppression, wide-spread mass murder, fraticide, posion chemical weapon murder, genocide, torture, theft, ect.... vs nude pyramid building.

Okay, whatever.

Snow, if I ever had any respect for your sense of feeling for other human beings it just disappeared. Your CHOICE of response to this report was disgusting.

Your first response should have been outrage at the acts of these "patriotic" american soldiers; but no, all you can think of to say is, in essence, "Saddam did worse". Defending this outrage by saying "Saddam did worse" lends NOTHING to the discussion, and is the kind of response, if shared by our leaders, would lead me to believe we are being led by barbarians.

Your posting didn't really merit a response but I couldn't help myself. Please reexamin your sense of values.

[Snow]

For heaven sake, have you gone so far over the left edge that you don't understand the difference between genocide and mistreatment of prisoners of war?

Sure, sure the American solidier/guards were bad and should be tried for their sins, however the sin of nude pyramid building is about 7000 steps below gassing the Kurds.

Whatever punishment the justice system deals out will be fine with me, but anyone who PRETENDS to be disgusted that I correct observe that comparing prisoner abuse with the sytematic murder of over a million innocents is so screwy that it is simply laughable. Laughable.

Tell me about the kind of values that equated the murder of 1,000,000 with what happend to the POWs.

Go on, tell me. Use references and a graph if it will help. (only from a liberal, sheeze)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal, that kind of thinking just doesn't surprise me anymore. Two things are obvious about the Abu Ghraib affair: (1) It was disgusting and humiliating; and (2) worse things can happen to a prisoner, and routinely did under Saddam.

The problem is that anyone who points out (2) is immediately accused, by people who either have no sense of proportion or a political axe to grind, of being insufficiently appalled by (1) -- this despite the fact that both points are unquestionably true.

So when a prisoner makes an absurd statement like the one Snow quoted, I can't point out its absurdity without being called insensitive, excusing of torture, etc. Note that Snow didn't, in any sense, "defend" the Abu Ghraib outrage. You inferred that. He just pointed out that the comparison was absurd -- which it is.

Try this thought experiment, Cal. Let's say a man drives five miles per hour over the speed limit. The judge bellows, "This contempt for the law exceeds anything I've ever seen, up to and including Al Capone's!" If you point out that the comparison is absurd, by your logic, you're "defending" speeding. You're not -- you're only defending rationality and opposing hysterial idiocy. Which is a good thing.

Each violation of standards ought to receive its proper measure of condemnation and outrage: no more, and no less. Your (widely shared) fallacy that refusing to be equally outraged by a day of prisoners being sexually humiliated and years of their being tortured to death amounts to a defense of the former, is just silly.

"Please reexamin our values" comes across as a bit sanctimonious.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 12 2005, 01:15 PM

Cal, that kind of thinking just doesn't surprise me anymore. Two things are obvious about the Abu Ghraib affair: (1) It was disgusting and humiliating; and (2) worse things can happen to a prisoner, and routinely did under Saddam.

You forgot number three: the soldiers who abused the prisoners are being tried on criminal charges, and some are already in prison.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Outshined+Jan 12 2005, 12:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Jan 12 2005, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 12 2005, 01:15 PM

Cal, that kind of thinking just doesn't surprise me anymore.  Two things are obvious about the Abu Ghraib affair:  (1) It was disgusting and humiliating; and (2) worse things can happen to a prisoner, and routinely did under Saddam.

You forgot number three: the soldiers who abused the prisoners are being tried on criminal charges, and some are already in prison.

I suppose I could also add (4) that the guards weren't exactly the flower of American soldiery (which is why they got stuck with the crap job of guarding ordinary criminals -- not even insurgents to be interrogated), and (5) the commanding officer of the prison inexcusably allowed multiple breakdowns of military discipline, the abuse of prisoners being only one of many factors (there was also insubordination, casual wearing of the uniform, and improper fraternization, with hillbilly princess Lyndie England being, in the immortal words of "Liar Liar," ridden more often than Seattle Slew.) But (1) and (2) suffice to make my argument.

[Traveler]

There are really three problems here.

First and most important is that the government of the USA did not declare war according to our law and constitution. All things like law and rights change when war has been legally declared. We should not expect our patriotic young men to be subjected to the horrors of combat without protecting them legally by declaring war. It is congress that hold the responsibility of what is war and should be held accountable not the military

Second: The prisoners at Abu Ghraib were part of the repressive government of Saddam. Of course he treated them better – they were his buds. What do you expect them to say? It is not a matter of what Saddam did to them but what they were doing along with Saddam to their countrymen. How do these people treat their prisoners – some of whom are not military? Have their been any violations of international law? Does Abu Ghraib justify the beheadings?

Third: The handling of prisoners should be understood in relationship to the dangers encountered in combat. In other words if there is a question of saving American lives (especially non-military) our armed forces are under obligation to risk their lives and disregard the life and dignity of the enemy. War is not a game nor is it nice by design. Churchill said that there are things worse than war and all the bad things that occur during war – and they all come from losing one. Anyone that is not willing to pick up a weapon and take a place in combat should not criticize those that do. These men should be tried before fellow solders not politicians looking better their position of power.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 11 2005, 09:35 PM

For heaven sake, have you gone so far over the left edge that you don't understand the difference between genocide and mistreatment of prisoners of war?

Sure, sure the American solidier/guards were bad and should be tried for their sins, however the sin of nude pyramid building is about 7000 steps below gassing the Kurds.

Whatever punishment the justice system deals out will be fine with me, but anyone who PRETENDS to be disgusted that I correct observe that comparing prisoner abuse with the sytematic murder of over a million innocents is so screwy that it is simply laughable. Laughable.

Tell me about the kind of values that equated the murder of 1,000,000 with what happend to the POWs.

Go on, tell me. Use references and a graph if it will help. (only from a liberal, sheeze)

You missed my point. Again! No surprise. In your first posting you expressed ZERO disapproval of the treatment of prisoners. After I called you on it you caught yourself and admitted it was bad. But that wasn't your first reaction.

Do I equate prisoner mistreatment with genocide? Get a life.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 12 2005, 12:15 PM

Cal, that kind of thinking just doesn't surprise me anymore. Two things are obvious about the Abu Ghraib affair: (1) It was disgusting and humiliating; and (2) worse things can happen to a prisoner, and routinely did under Saddam.

The problem is that anyone who points out (2) is immediately accused, by people who either have no sense of proportion or a political axe to grind, of being insufficiently appalled by (1) -- this despite the fact that both points are unquestionably true.

So when a prisoner makes an absurd statement like the one Snow quoted, I can't point out its absurdity without being called insensitive, excusing of torture, etc. Note that Snow didn't, in any sense, "defend" the Abu Ghraib outrage. You inferred that. He just pointed out that the comparison was absurd -- which it is.

Try this thought experiment, Cal. Let's say a man drives five miles per hour over the speed limit. The judge bellows, "This contempt for the law exceeds anything I've ever seen, up to and including Al Capone's!" If you point out that the comparison is absurd, by your logic, you're "defending" speeding. You're not -- you're only defending rationality and opposing hysterial idiocy. Which is a good thing.

Each violation of standards ought to receive its proper measure of condemnation and outrage: no more, and no less. Your (widely shared) fallacy that refusing to be equally outraged by a day of prisoners being sexually humiliated and years of their being tortured to death amounts to a defense of the former, is just silly.

"Please reexamin our values" comes across as a bit sanctimonious.

The analogy of the speeding ticket falls short. You have chosen an example that clearly no one cares much about--speeding tickets for going at a relatively slow speed. The inhumane treatment of POWs by american soldiers is a BIG deal by ANY measure.

When you reference an atrocity like that commited by the american soldiers by saying "Saddam did worse" is a joke. I would think we hold our soldiers to a little higher standard than Saddam----and far higher than apparently we did in this case.

It's like saying, don't be so mad at me for pushing down a little old lady, Hitler killed lots of little old ladies. What a ridiculous comparison. Pushing down little old ladies is bad period. No need to point out that someone else has done worse.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 12 2005, 04:46 PM

There are really three problems here.

First and most important is that the government of the USA did not declare war according to our law and constitution. All things like law and rights change when war has been legally declared. We should not expect our patriotic young men to be subjected to the horrors of combat without protecting them legally by declaring war. It is congress that hold the responsibility of what is war and should be held accountable not the military

Second: The prisoners at Abu Ghraib were part of the repressive government of Saddam. Of course he treated them better – they were his buds. What do you expect them to say? It is not a matter of what Saddam did to them but what they were doing along with Saddam to their countrymen. How do these people treat their prisoners – some of whom are not military? Have their been any violations of international law? Does Abu Ghraib justify the beheadings?

Third: The handling of prisoners should be understood in relationship to the dangers encountered in combat. In other words if there is a question of saving American lives (especially non-military) our armed forces are under obligation to risk their lives and disregard the life and dignity of the enemy. War is not a game nor is it nice by design. Churchill said that there are things worse than war and all the bad things that occur during war – and they all come from losing one. Anyone that is not willing to pick up a weapon and take a place in combat should not criticize those that do. These men should be tried before fellow solders not politicians looking better their position of power.

The Traveler

So, let me summarize your statement: Don't hold our soldiers to such a high standard, after all they were not very good soldiers? Let's not try them in civil courts, lets let the military deal with them? ( Sounds like the wolf guarding the hen-house to me) . And, war is hell, so don't worry about war crimes?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

I have numerous problems with the way the political left has approached the Abu Ghraib abuses. The first is the dry Aristotelian in me that wants everything to receive its proper measure of respect or condemnation -- nothing more, nothing less. My analogy was a reduction to absurdity, so of course it's exaggerated. The principle it illustrates remains true -- that crimes of one degree ought not to be claimed to be the equal of crimes of a greater degree. Rape is less atrocious a crime than murder. Saying that doesn't diminish the seriousness of rape below its true level; it only states a fact.

would think we hold our soldiers to a little higher standard than Saddam

Absolutely. American soldiers are to be held to a higher standard than Arab soldiers, because American civilization is better than Arab civilization. Where much is given, much is expected. Holding someone to a higher standard than another is a measure of respect -- up to a point. (There's that phrase again!) But when you hold someone to such a high standard that it's virtually impossible to meet (i.e., the Iraq campaign must be completely free from any abuses at all if it's not to lose its moral authority), then it's not a mark of respect -- it's a mark that you're not criticizing in good faith.

And that's my other peeve about the Abu Ghraib coverage. I get the impression that many, if not most, of the biggest critics of it are people who opposed the Iraq war in the first place. The Abu Ghraib abuses gave them support for their position, and they're using it. Again, it makes me question whether they would offer the same criticism if it didn't give them a perceived political advantage. UN peacekeepers have been found to have raped 13-year-old refugee girls in camps they were supposed to be guarding, in Sudan, Congo and elsewhere. Nobody gives a damn, because, I suspect, there isn't a slam-George-Bush angle to the story. (Also, because in the minds of many, the UN can do no wrong.)

There was all kinds of nastiness in World War II, including murders by American troops of German prisoners on multiple occasions. (SS prison guards who tried to surrender as concentration camps were liberated generally got no mercy.) That didn't stop Tom Brokaw from writing "The Greatest Generation."

Let's not try them in civil courts, lets let the military deal with them? ( Sounds like the wolf guarding the hen-house to me)

If you actually knew some servicemen well, I suspect you wouldn't be so cavalier about how seriously they take stains on its honor like Abu Ghraib. Several large books are being thrown at the guilty parties.

Finally, I think people who harp on the Abu Ghraib affair more than is necessary to ensure that the guilty get punished ought to consider whether, by making the abuses seem worse than they are (which was bad enough), they are enabling propaganda campaigns by enemies of their country.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 13 2005, 04:02 PM

Let's not try them in civil courts, lets let the military deal with them? ( Sounds like the wolf guarding the hen-house to me) . And, war is hell, so don't worry about war crimes?

Have you not seen the reports of these people being tried for their crimes? Last I heard even Lyndie England (with a newborn baby) was looking at a maximum of 38 years in prison.

One soldier already got eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge; the Army is hardly letting them get away with it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 13 2005, 03:25 PM

Cal,

I have numerous problems with the way the political left has approached the Abu Ghraib abuses. The first is the dry Aristotelian in me that wants everything to receive its proper measure of respect or condemnation -- nothing more, nothing less. My analogy was a reduction to absurdity, so of course it's exaggerated. The principle it illustrates remains true -- that crimes of one degree ought not to be claimed to be the equal of crimes of a greater degree. Rape is less atrocious a crime than murder. Saying that doesn't diminish the seriousness of rape below its true level; it only states a fact.

would think we hold our soldiers to a little higher standard than Saddam

Absolutely. American soldiers are to be held to a higher standard than Arab soldiers, because American civilization is better than Arab civilization. Where much is given, much is expected. Holding someone to a higher standard than another is a measure of respect -- up to a point. (There's that phrase again!) But when you hold someone to such a high standard that it's virtually impossible to meet (i.e., the Iraq campaign must be completely free from any abuses at all if it's not to lose its moral authority), then it's not a mark of respect -- it's a mark that you're not criticizing in good faith.

And that's my other peeve about the Abu Ghraib coverage. I get the impression that many, if not most, of the biggest critics of it are people who opposed the Iraq war in the first place. The Abu Ghraib abuses gave them support for their position, and they're using it. Again, it makes me question whether they would offer the same criticism if it didn't give them a perceived political advantage. UN peacekeepers have been found to have raped 13-year-old refugee girls in camps they were supposed to be guarding, in Sudan, Congo and elsewhere. Nobody gives a damn, because, I suspect, there isn't a slam-George-Bush angle to the story. (Also, because in the minds of many, the UN can do no wrong.)

There was all kinds of nastiness in World War II, including murders by American troops of German prisoners on multiple occasions. (SS prison guards who tried to surrender as concentration camps were liberated generally got no mercy.) That didn't stop Tom Brokaw from writing "The Greatest Generation."

Let's not try them in civil courts, lets let the military deal with them? ( Sounds like the wolf guarding the hen-house to me)

If you actually knew some servicemen well, I suspect you wouldn't be so cavalier about how seriously they take stains on its honor like Abu Ghraib. Several large books are being thrown at the guilty parties.

Finally, I think people who harp on the Abu Ghraib affair more than is necessary to ensure that the guilty get punished ought to consider whether, by making the abuses seem worse than they are (which was bad enough), they are enabling propaganda campaigns by enemies of their country.

PD,

the Iraq campaign must be completely free from any abuses at all if it's not to lose its moral authority),

If you are implying that is my position, it is not.

I also do not disagree that many who were against the invasion of Iraq in the first place would use any excuse to find fault with it. However, if Liberals are guilty of making too much of the abuses, then lets agree that the Conservatives are just as likely to make to little of them, and leave it at that.

No one disagrees, I hope, that 1) some abuses are worse than others and 2) no wrongful abuse should go overlooked.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Jan 13 2005, 03:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Jan 13 2005, 03:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 13 2005, 04:02 PM

Let's not try them in civil courts, lets let the military deal with them? ( Sounds like the wolf guarding the hen-house to me) . And, war is hell, so don't worry about war crimes?

Have you not seen the reports of these people being tried for their crimes? Last I heard even Lyndie England (with a newborn baby) was looking at a maximum of 38 years in prison.

One soldier already got eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge; the Army is hardly letting them get away with it.

I didn't say the soldiers were getting away with anything. I was paraphasing and disagreeing with what I thought I heard Traveler saying.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

I also do not disagree that many who were against the invasion of Iraq in the first place would use any excuse to find fault with it. However, if Liberals are guilty of making too much of the abuses, then lets agree that the Conservatives are just as likely to make to little of them, and leave it at that.

I will almost agree with that. I'll grant that some conservatives have minimized prisoner abuses too much. Rush Limbaugh's comparison of them to fraternity hazing would be an example. The problem is that those misguided conservatives have had very little effect on any concrete policy; the abusers are still going up the river, while the liberals who make too much of the abuses have had very concrete, and very dangerous, effects on how the military now limits itself in interrogating terrorist captives. See, for example, this article at http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 13 2005, 01:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 13 2005, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jan 11 2005, 09:35 PM

For heaven sake, have you gone so far over the left edge that you don't understand the difference between genocide and mistreatment of prisoners of war?

Sure, sure the American solidier/guards were bad and should be tried for their sins, however the sin of nude pyramid building is about 7000 steps below gassing the Kurds.

Whatever punishment the justice system deals out will be fine with me, but anyone who PRETENDS to be disgusted that I correct observe that comparing prisoner abuse with the sytematic murder of over a million innocents is so screwy that it is simply laughable. Laughable.

Tell me about the kind of values that equated the murder of 1,000,000 with what happend to the POWs.

Go on, tell me. Use references and a graph if it will  help. (only from a liberal, sheeze)

You missed my point. Again! No surprise. In your first posting you expressed ZERO disapproval of the treatment of prisoners. After I called you on it you caught yourself and admitted it was bad. But that wasn't your first reaction.

Do I equate prisoner mistreatment with genocide? Get a life.

Cal,

Are you a professionally trained pufftah? You certainly have the inclination and training for it.

Far from missing your rudimentary point, I got it immediately and you are a far far left liberal puppet performs on cue.

Just because I don't cry like a stuck liberal pig about evil American brutality in every single post I make, doesn't mean I have expressed concern for the abuses in prior thread. This post wasn't about the abuse, this thread was about the inability of certain types to think clearly and put things in perspective and you like a liberal puppet did you liberal jig just like the doctor ordered.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 13 2005, 06:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 13 2005, 06:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 13 2005, 01:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jan 11 2005, 09:35 PM

For heaven sake, have you gone so far over the left edge that you don't understand the difference between genocide and mistreatment of prisoners of war?

Sure, sure the American solidier/guards were bad and should be tried for their sins, however the sin of nude pyramid building is about 7000 steps below gassing the Kurds.

Whatever punishment the justice system deals out will be fine with me, but anyone who PRETENDS to be disgusted that I correct observe that comparing prisoner abuse with the sytematic murder of over a million innocents is so screwy that it is simply laughable. Laughable.

Tell me about the kind of values that equated the murder of 1,000,000 with what happend to the POWs.

Go on, tell me. Use references and a graph if it will  help. (only from a liberal, sheeze)

You missed my point. Again! No surprise. In your first posting you expressed ZERO disapproval of the treatment of prisoners. After I called you on it you caught yourself and admitted it was bad. But that wasn't your first reaction.

Do I equate prisoner mistreatment with genocide? Get a life.

Cal,

Are you a professionally trained pufftah? You certainly have the inclination and training for it.

Far from missing your rudimentary point, I got it immediately and you are a far far left liberal puppet performs on cue.

Just because I don't cry like a stuck liberal pig about evil American brutality in every single post I make, doesn't mean I have expressed concern for the abuses in prior thread. This post wasn't about the abuse, this thread was about the inability of certain types to think clearly and put things in perspective and you like a liberal puppet did you liberal jig just like the doctor ordered.

--Must have really struck a nerve again, huh, with all the epithets and name calling--stuck pig, pufftah ?, liberal puppet, liberal jig. BTW, never heard of a pufftah. I guess it is supposed to offend me, but nothing does any more, so you will have to try harder.

[Snow]

Your a bit to obvious for me to not notice that you got all worked up. First you through a fit about me not equating prisoner humiliation with genocide and then when I responded you blurted out, what was that? "Get a life" like somehow if I don't buy your liberal agenda I don't have one.

I have pretty much pinned down your typical response to any topic, irrational, anti-logic, liberal, liberal, liberal to the point of absurdity. By the way, a pufftah is a stuck-up stickybeet.

[john doe]

Well, I'm glad we got that settled finally. Now we can get on with the discussion at hand. Are there any valid points anyone would like to add to this subject?

[Snow]

Originally posted by john doe@Jan 14 2005, 07:56 PM

Well, I'm glad we got that settled finally. Now we can get on with the discussion at hand. Are there any valid points anyone would like to add to this subject?

Yes and that is if we can judge by their reaction then both Cal and the Saddam Hussein supporter belong to the same political party.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 14 2005, 11:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 14 2005, 11:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--john doe@Jan 14 2005, 07:56 PM

Well, I'm glad we got that settled finally. Now we can get on with the discussion at hand. Are there any valid points anyone would like to add to this subject?

Yes and that is if we can judge by their reaction then both Cal and the Saddam Hussein supporter belong to the same political party.

Why does Jenda close the other thread because of verbal abuse and doesn't shut Snow up and Cal up? I am beginning to see a bigotry here.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 14 2005, 11:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 14 2005, 11:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--john doe@Jan 14 2005, 07:56 PM

Well, I'm glad we got that settled finally. Now we can get on with the discussion at hand. Are there any valid points anyone would like to add to this subject?

Yes and that is if we can judge by their reaction then both Cal and the Saddam Hussein supporter belong to the same political party.

Why aren't you on mod status? You are so nasty!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 14 2005, 07:54 PM

Your a bit to obvious for me to not notice that you got all worked up. First you through a fit about me not equating prisoner humiliation with genocide and then when I responded you blurted out, what was that? "Get a life" like somehow if I don't buy your liberal agenda I don't have one.

I have pretty much pinned down your typical response to any topic, irrational, anti-logic, liberal, liberal, liberal to the point of absurdity. By the way, a pufftah is a stuck-up stickybeet.

Pure strawman, Snow. YOU are the one that said I 'equated' humiliation with genocide. I never said any such thing. You decided for yourself that my objection contained that content. What I DID say was that you downplayd the humiliation of prizoners by saying that Saddam did worse things. Try to do a little straight thinking of your own and we will all have a more civilized discussion. However, if you are just interesting is exchanging insults, I can play that game too.

Let me help you: I am a Saddam-loving, tree hugging, bleeding heart, liberal commie-pinko.

And you are: A Hitler-loving, environment trashing, cold hearted, right wing Nazi.

Ok, now that we know eachother, let's try to stay on the topic.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 16 2005, 12:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 16 2005, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jan 14 2005, 07:54 PM

Your a bit to obvious for me to not notice that you got all worked up. First you through a fit about me not equating prisoner humiliation with genocide and then when I responded you blurted out, what was that? "Get a life" like somehow if I don't buy your liberal agenda I don't have one.

I have pretty much pinned down your typical response to any topic, irrational, anti-logic, liberal, liberal, liberal to the point of absurdity. By the way, a pufftah is a stuck-up stickybeet.

Pure strawman, Snow. YOU are the one that said I 'equated' humiliation with genocide. I never said any such thing. You decided for yourself that my objection contained that content. What I DID say was that you downplayd the humiliation of prizoners by saying that Saddam did worse things. Try to do a little straight thinking of your own and we will all have a more civilized discussion. However, if you are just interesting is exchanging insults, I can play that game too.

Let me help you: I am a Saddam-loving, tree hugging, bleeding heart, liberal commie-pinko.

And you are: A Hitler-loving, environment trashing, cold hearted, right wing Nazi.

Ok, now that we know eachother, let's try to stay on the topic.

Well please to meet you then.

I agree that I strawdogged you but take a look at your own charge in the very same breath. You say that I downplayed the prisoner abuses by saying Saddam did worse. Note that wasn't my point (though it is true and necessary to my conclusion). My point is that some people, in this case liberals and Saddam supporters, have no sense of porportion when it comes to American faults and the evil of others.

[Jenda]

Mod Hat On.

Snow and Cal, please post to the topic, ONLY, or I will start editing or deleting posts