Thread: Bush JR get's his Day in court

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Who is it that you think you are fooling by misrepresenting my position? Certainly you aren't fooling me. Surely you are intelligent enough that you don't really believe the things you say, and yet I can't come up with any motivation you might have to be purposely misleading. Tell me,are you dumb enough to believe the things you say or are you putting on a show for some third party that I am unaware of? Please don't take this as me calling you dumb since that is obviously not the answer I am expecting. If I had really said the things you say I have, I know you would have quoted it. Where have I displayed passionate anger? Where have I said "fuck bush" or "I hate bush"? Where have I put words in your mouth?

You know that those are not supposed to be direct quotes. They are representations of your mentality, which is illustrated by how your anger is one-sided. I am not talking about just in this thread. For years, you have complained about how terrorists are treated without ever once complaining about the terrorists.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you think that these three that you speak of are the only ones, or the only ones that have been named? I know you have made your decision, but do you think it reasonable for someone who mistrusts the government (which is closer to what this thread is actually about) to also not trust the accusations made by that government?

Accusations should always be questioned, but there is very strong evidence against Khallid Sheik Muhammad. As far as we know, those three waterboardings have been the only ones. To say otherwise would be to make stuff up without being able to back it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd also be interested to know if you are aware of the other incidents at Guantanamo that have been made public. Did you here about the supposed triple 'suicide'?



The rest of the article is quite interesting. I hope you realize now that waterboarding is merely one officially accepted example of what has been going on.

Like I said, there are no easy answers, and anybody working at Guantanamo who has broken the law should be charged with it.

What do you think should be done with prisoners of war who are in very high leadership positions and clearly can give details of their organizations' plans? If you've got some breakthrough proposal, I would love to know about it and consider it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You know that those are not supposed to be direct quotes. They are representations of your mentality, which is illustrated by how your anger is one-sided. I am not talking about just in this thread. For years, you have complained about how terrorists are treated without ever once complaining about the terrorists.

Show me. I honestly do not know of a single instance in which I have complained about how terrorists are treated.

I, personally am done with this tangent, although I do look forward to the quotes of mine that you will present.

That sounds like a major hunting expedition, but I'll tell you what. Make the claim that this is the only thread where you have bitched about Bush and waterboarding and/or that you have bitched about Al Qaeda on this site. If you claim that, I will go on the hunting expedition. Deal?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That sounds like a major hunting expedition, but I'll tell you what. Make the claim that this is the only thread where you have bitched about Bush and waterboarding and/or that you have bitched about Al Qaeda on this site. If you claim that, I will go on the hunting expedition. Deal?

Huh?

A. I don't consider anything I post to be bitching.

B. You creating some contrived statement for me in order to refute it is not the same as actually backing up the claims you have already made.

C. I have posted in many threads about my distrust for the Bush administration (as well as the United States government in general regardless of which administration) so I can't make that claim, nor does it have anything to do with me complaining about how terrorists are treated.

Can I take this as you admitting you are either dumb or purposely misleading?

Now I am going to put words in your mouth, just because its hilarious;

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Alright, you say this thing that is obviously wrong and I'll show you why it is wrong, k?

Oh, so you have "posted in many threads about..." your "distrust for the Bush administration" (as opposed to bitching about them ). Exactly. Now, have you ever been critical of the poor little darling terrorsts? Bias. I rest my case on that.

Now answer my other question this time. How should terrorist leaders who of course know about their organizations' workings and plans be interrogated? What is your alternative suggestion? How could it have been done without Bush being a war criminal and a bad person?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, so you have "posted in many threads about..." your "distrust for the Bush administration" (as opposed to bitching about them ). Exactly. Now, have you ever been critical of the poor little darling terrorsts? Bias. I rest my case on that.

Now answer my other question this time. How should terrorist leaders who of course know about their organizations' workings and plans be interrogated? What is your alternative suggestion? How could it have been done without Bush being a war criminal and a bad person?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

For years, you have complained about how terrorists are treated without ever once complaining about the terrorists.

Nope, this is the thing you are supposedly proving. Unimpressive dodge, UM.

You always present different versions of this particular argument UM. People disagree with terrorism, they passionately disagree with terrorism. The key difference between people's disagreement with random Middle Eastern terrorists and the Bush Administration is twofold; firstly, there is no debate raging around the morality of terrorism; people, in general aren't arguing that terrorism is good, or necessary so why would anybody be arguing against it; whereas the opposite is obviously true for the Bush administration. To argue against terrorism on these boards for most people is the same as arguing against mass murder; it goes without saying, however, a lot of people see arguing against the Bush administration as the same, arguing against mass murder, the difference lies in the accepted view and the amount of opposition.

The second difference lies in the fact that many American and British people see the problem of our foreign policy as much more personal. These particular mass murderers represent us internationally, that in itself disgusts some of us.

Imran, hatred for terrorists does not go without saying. People who concentrate only on how terrorists are treated without ever once speaking out against the terrorists and showing at least a trace of understanding of the reasons for U.S. actions are biased enough as it is, but they are obviously extremely biased if they are challenged to express passionate contempt for terrorists and won't do it. That is what really tipped me off about Xaqaria. (I challenged you on it a while back, and you did go off about what a pain in the ass for the world terrorists are, so I am not talking about you when I talk about the bias.) Also, he repeatedly dodged my question about how terrorists should be interrogated. He is not concerned with it. However, he is very concerned with what he doesn't like about how terrorists have been treated. It is really odd.

Xaqaria, try not to dodge this time. How should Khallid Sheik Muhammad and others who have had major information on pending terrorist attacks have been interrogated? I know you hate what they had to go through, but if you really are anti-terrorist, what do you propose? Have you even thought about it? Tell me what you propose, if you give enough of a shit to have even thought about a proposal.

I thought I was supposed to be proving your "fuck Bush" perspective, which you just admitted to. But here's one thread where you expressed opposition to how terrorists have been treated.

Post # 17: http://dreamviews.com/community/show...errorists+bush

So, you think the Bush Administration was a bunch of snakes and don't like U.S. interrogation of terrorists methods. You have made that clear. Now, if you have a problem with terrorists, tell me how they should be interrogated.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You know that those are not supposed to be direct quotes. They are representations of your mentality, which is illustrated by how your anger is one-sided. I am not talking about just in this thread. For years, you have complained about how terrorists are treated without ever once complaining about the terrorists.

[/irony]

Since we're in the mood for ultimatums on this thread, I dare UM to admit there's anything remotely bad about Bush or the right wing whatsoever. Really, go on. Show us how "middle of the road" and unbiased you are. If you deflect onto me, you have failed ultimately.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

[/irony]

Since we're in the mood for ultimatums on this thread, I dare UM to admit there's anything remotely bad about Bush or the right wing whatsoever. Really, go on. Show us how "middle of the road" and unbiased you are. If you deflect onto me, you have failed ultimately.

This is pointless. UM has expressed distaste for the right's position on drugs and other topics in the past, and this line of discussion has nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread, which we should be getting back to.

...any minute now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How should Khallid Sheik Muhammad and others who have had major information on pending terrorist attacks have been interrogated? I know you hate what they had to go through, but if you really are anti-terrorist, what do you propose?

George Bush knew about the plans for 9/11 before it happened. in the beginning of September he had plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq but no excuse. Him and the Bin Laden family are business partners. Bin Laden is on the CIA payroll.
He had Bin Laden cornered but let him escape (it may have been the deal they worked out).Osama's brother Bin Laden was here in the U.S. when 9/11 happened but instead of waterboarding him, Bush let him fly back to Saudi Arabia; the only airplane allowed to fly. Bin Laden is still out there. the term Al Qaeda was the name the CIA gave them for the people who were on their payroll in Afghanistan. There is no group called Al Qaeda. They are unaffiliated people that the CIA has in a file.
SO, Dick Cheney and George Bush have both endorsed torture (or as they call it enhanced interrogation methods) and secret rendition, which is illegal and should be illegal.

Instead of preaching to the choir about how we hate terrorists, we should demand justice and demand accountability of Dubya. He stole the election, he didn't win the popular vote OR the electoral college vote, he had something to do with 9/11 (we should find out what), he lied in order to go to War with Iraq who posed no threat to us and had no connection with Al Qaeda, and authorized torture. He was a dictator and we was our dictator and we should be happy if he gets arrested.

As a disclaimer: I am against any terrorist or people who direct violence against innocent people. I am especially against state sponsored terrorism especially especially if the only motive is greed and profit and power.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is pointless. UM has expressed distaste for the right's position on drugs and other topics in the past

Hey hey, thank you for the honesty.

Deery, we've talked about this before. Did you really forget that quickly? I despise the war on drugs, which the right embraces (as do Democrats). It is anti-freedom, it makes the drugs themselves more dangerous, it results in a ton of robbery since the drugs are many times more expensive than they would be if they were legal, and it presents a very dangerous gangster climate. People are not evil just for doing or selling drugs, so they don't belong in prison! WTF???????!!!!!!!! I also can't stand the mixing of church and state. Homosexuals should be able to get married, first and second trimester abortions should be legal because a fetus without consciousness is not a person, government employee led prayers in government schools is insane and puts us too far in the direction of theocracy, and no religion should ever have its tenets on government courthouse walls. It is baffling that anybody would support any of that. Religion makes the right fucking crazy.

There we have it. How do you feel about Islamoterrorists?

Dannon, I have come across those claims before, but I have not seen the proof. Also, Bin Laden's family is innocent.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

George Bush knew about the plans for 9/11 before it happened. in the beginning of September he had plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq but no excuse. Him and the Bin Laden family are business partners. Bin Laden is on the CIA payroll.
He had Bin Laden cornered but let him escape (it may have been the deal they worked out).Osama's brother Bin Laden was here in the U.S. when 9/11 happened but instead of waterboarding him, Bush let him fly back to Saudi Arabia; the only airplane allowed to fly. Bin Laden is still out there. the term Al Qaeda was the name the CIA gave them for the people who were on their payroll in Afghanistan. There is no group called Al Qaeda. They are unaffiliated people that the CIA has in a file.
SO, Dick Cheney and George Bush have both endorsed torture (or as they call it enhanced interrogation methods) and secret rendition, which is illegal and should be illegal.

Instead of preaching to the choir about how we hate terrorists, we should demand justice and demand accountability of Dubya. He stole the election, he didn't win the popular vote OR the electoral college vote, he had something to do with 9/11 (we should find out what), he lied in order to go to War with Iraq who posed no threat to us and had no connection with Al Qaeda, and authorized torture. He was a dictator and we was our dictator and we should be happy if he gets arrested.

As a disclaimer: I am against any terrorist or people who direct violence against innocent people. I am especially against state sponsored terrorism especially especially if the only motive is greed and profit and power.

The false statements and unproven statements have been crossed out.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The false statements and unproven statements have been crossed out.

I figured someone would do that. Anyway, I don't want to argue too much about it.
just let me say that Bush did get a memo that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the World Trade center and probably with airplanes in the beginning of September. That is a fact. it was in the 9/11 report. Bin Laden did work for the cia. Also a fact.
And he definately for a fact lied in order to go to War with Iraq, which posed no threat to us. That is a fact. At first he said that Iraq had WMDs. Remember that? He even said that it was a fact that they had WMDs. Hussain let in investigators to look for them, he complied and they found no WMDs. Bush and Tony Blair came up with forged documents saying there was WMDs. Remember that? Of course now we know that there was no WMDs. So then he said the reason for invading was to liberate the people of Iraq. Not really the reason he invaded. (Fact) And then he had Hussain beheaded in public! What is this, the Medieval Times? No trial for War Crimes. No trial for crimes against humanity. They caught him, and then killed him in public.
So why did he invade Iraq? Let's speculate. 1. Oil 2. Contracts for companies to rebuild. 3. Contracts for Blackwater. 4. Wanting to be a Bully

Remember his Dad even was against the invasion of iraq?

So I noticed that you crossed off that he authorized torture but you didn't cross out that he authorized enhanced interrogation techniques. In case you don't know what these enhanced interrogation techniques are: Electric shocks to the genitals. Sleep deprivation. Exposure to the elements naked and wet. Attacked by dogs. Anal rape using clubs and guns to penetrate. Telling them that we will kill their family. And waterboarding, among others. I don't know how many people were waterboarded. Maybe it waas only three, but I doubt it. But these other things happened to many people, even many innocent people. And extraordinary rendition happened to many many innocent people. There were court cases involving American Citizens who had no connection with Terrorists who were kidnapped and wound up being let go in some Eastern European country with no money, no identification or passport when the government realized they got the wrong person. One guy it even happened to him twice. He was interviewed in Rolling Stone magazine. Did you know that there are people in jail still that have never had a trial and the only thing they did was donate money to a muslim charity? Imagine if you could go to jail for donating to a Christian charity! These Muslim charities did not fund terrorism. I know because I lived in Oregon where one guy was arrested for that. He lived in the same small town as me. As far as Bush having anything to do with 9/11, I guess that we don't know for sure that it is a fact. It is not proven yet, not that there isn't evidence to investigate, but because an investigation is not happening. We do know for a fact that the official report is not accurate. Bush and Cheney even made it a condition that they would only testify as long as they weren't under oath. Can you believe the balls? Imagine if you had to go to court for murder and you said "I will only go and testify as long as I'm allowed to lie."
Anyway, let's hope that the worst is behind us and that we can move on. But I would like for the truth to come out and everyone to get what they deserve.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I figured someone would do that. Anyway, I don't want to argue too much about it.
just let me say that Bush did get a memo that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the World Trade center and probably with airplanes in the beginning of September. That is a fact. it was in the 9/11 report. Bin Laden did work for the cia. Also a fact.
And he definately for a fact lied in order to go to War with Iraq, which posed no threat to us. That is a fact. At first he said that Iraq had WMDs. Remember that? He even said that it was a fact that they had WMDs. Hussain let in investigators to look for them, he complied and they found no WMDs. Bush and Tony Blair came up with forged documents saying there was WMDs. Remember that? Of course now we know that there was no WMDs. So then he said the reason for invading was to liberate the people of Iraq. Not really the reason he invaded. (Fact) And then he had Hussain beheaded in public! What is this, the Medieval Times? No trial for War Crimes. No trial for crimes against humanity. They caught him, and then killed him in public.
So why did he invade Iraq? Let's speculate. 1. Oil 2. Contracts for companies to rebuild. 3. Contracts for Blackwater. 4. Wanting to be a Bully

Remember his Dad even was against the invasion of iraq?

So I noticed that you crossed off that he authorized torture but you didn't cross out that he authorized enhanced interrogation techniques. In case you don't know what these enhanced interrogation techniques are: Electric shocks to the genitals. Sleep deprivation. Exposure to the elements naked and wet. Attacked by dogs. Anal rape using clubs and guns to penetrate. Telling them that we will kill their family. And waterboarding, among others. I don't know how many people were waterboarded. Maybe it waas only three, but I doubt it. But these other things happened to many people, even many innocent people. And extraordinary rendition happened to many many innocent people. There were court cases involving American Citizens who had no connection with Terrorists who were kidnapped and wound up being let go in some Eastern European country with no money, no identification or passport when the government realized they got the wrong person. One guy it even happened to him twice. He was interviewed in Rolling Stone magazine. Did you know that there are people in jail still that have never had a trial and the only thing they did was donate money to a muslim charity? Imagine if you could go to jail for donating to a Christian charity! These Muslim charities did not fund terrorism. I know because I lived in Oregon where one guy was arrested for that. He lived in the same small town as me. As far as Bush having anything to do with 9/11, I guess that we don't know for sure that it is a fact. It is not proven yet, not that there isn't evidence to investigate, but because an investigation is not happening. We do know for a fact that the official report is not accurate. Bush and Cheney even made it a condition that they would only testify as long as they weren't under oath. Can you believe the balls? Imagine if you had to go to court for murder and you said "I will only go and testify as long as I'm allowed to lie."
Anyway, let's hope that the worst is behind us and that we can move on. But I would like for the truth to come out and everyone to get what they deserve.

Wow, that's a lot of arguing for not wanting to argue.

"Bush did get a memo that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the World Trade center and probably with airplanes in the beginning of September."

If he knew what was going to happen on 9/11, he would have done something about it. So obviously the memo in question was not all that worrisome. Threats are made by terrorists all the time, it is sometimes difficult to judge the legitimacy of these threats. That is NOT evidence that Bush had something to do with 9/11.

"Bin Laden did work for the cia"

Maybe indirectly in the 1980's during the Soviet invasion, before Islamic terrorism was a national security concern. You act like he was an agent or something, he was not employed by the CIA.

"And he definately for a fact lied in order to go to War with Iraq, which posed no threat to us. That is a fact. At first he said that Iraq had WMDs. Remember that? He even said that it was a fact that they had WMDs."

This is a misconception. George Bush had intelligence from the CIA that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George Tenet, then director of CIA, swore by the accuracy of those documents when confronted by Bush. George Bush didn't lie, the CIA gave him bad information. Now, there is evidence that the CIA deliberately fudged on the details of said information, but none of it was fabricated, more like certain details were left out.

"Bush and Tony Blair came up with forged documents saying there was WMDs. Remember that? Of course now we know that there was no WMDs."

Nothing was forged, and we still don't know for certain what capabilities Iraq had, not that I believe they were a legitimate threat. There could be weapons buried 30 feet under the sand in the middle of the desert for all we know, and don't forget he gased his own people. But again, I am not saying it was a legitimate threat to America.

"So then he said the reason for invading was to liberate the people of Iraq. Not really the reason he invaded."

That's one of the reasons I support the war, whether that was his intention or not doesn't matter. And you don't know his true intentions because you can't read his mind.

"And then he had Hussain beheaded in public! What is this, the Medieval Times? No trial for War Crimes. No trial for crimes against humanity. They caught him, and then killed him in public."

Either you're joking, you're insane, or you live under a rock. Which is it? There were months of VERY highly publicized trials during which Saddam was found guilty of so many damning crimes that they didn't even bother to charge him with the whole list of atrocities since only a fraction of the list was enough to sentence him to death. He was hung, not beheaded, in a private location. A sneaky soldier with a camera phone is the only reason any pictures of the execution were leaked.

"So why did he invade Iraq? Let's speculate. 1. Oil 2. Contracts for companies to rebuild. 3. Contracts for Blackwater. 4. Wanting to be a Bully"

No offense but every one of those reasons are completely ridiculous. Not one is a legitimate cause for war, and no country in its right mind would invade a country for one of those reasons alone or even the collection of them. I was especially perplexed by number four.

"Remember his Dad even was against the invasion of iraq?"

No I don't, I do remember when his dad invaded the country himself though. I don't get what that would prove anyway.

"So I noticed that you crossed off that he authorized torture but you didn't cross out that he authorized enhanced interrogation techniques. In case you don't know what these enhanced interrogation techniques are: Electric shocks to the genitals. Sleep deprivation. Exposure to the elements naked and wet. Attacked by dogs. Anal rape using clubs and guns to penetrate. Telling them that we will kill their family. And waterboarding, among others. I don't know how many people were waterboarded. Maybe it waas only three, but I doubt it. But these other things happened to many people, even many innocent people. And extraordinary rendition happened to many many innocent people. There were court cases involving American Citizens who had no connection with Terrorists who were kidnapped and wound up being let go in some Eastern European country with no money, no identification or passport when the government realized they got the wrong person. One guy it even happened to him twice. He was interviewed in Rolling Stone magazine. Did you know that there are people in jail still that have never had a trial and the only thing they did was donate money to a muslim charity? Imagine if you could go to jail for donating to a Christian charity! These Muslim charities did not fund terrorism. I know because I lived in Oregon where one guy was arrested for that. He lived in the same small town as me. As far as Bush having anything to do with 9/11, I guess that we don't know for sure that it is a fact. It is not proven yet, not that there isn't evidence to investigate, but because an investigation is not happening. We do know for a fact that the official report is not accurate. Bush and Cheney even made it a condition that they would only testify as long as they weren't under oath. Can you believe the balls? Imagine if you had to go to court for murder and you said "I will only go and testify as long as I'm allowed to lie."
Anyway, let's hope that the worst is behind us and that we can move on. But I would like for the truth to come out and everyone to get what they deserve."

That all sounds a lot more like gossip and heresay rather than evidence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

There are several towns here in Vermont that passed legislation to arrest GW Bush on the spot if he ever stepped foot within their jurisdiction. Vermont is the only state Bush never visited during his 8 years in office. Go us.

This just cements my utter contempt for the United State's News media. Not a single word about this in any of the major media outlets. This should be everywhere, and it is no where.

amen