NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/raim123104.shtml

This is something the media would grab and run with. Why hasn't it?

Sounds fishy to me.

You know they'll condenm you because it's an editorial, right? Even though the guy is completely right.

Yeah, what is new there?

well we can can tell he's an anarchist.

over the torture and abuse not only at Abu Ghraib

Bush did not cause Abu Ghraib, he didn't know about it. Why are people so repulsed when bad American soldiers are humiliating people, and blame Bush for it, when bad Iraqi torturers are killing people in appalling ways, when they are ordered to by Saddam and noone cares, and Saddam is not blamed?

Bush did not cause Abu Ghraib, he didn't know about it. Why are people so repulsed when bad American soldiers are humiliating people, and blame Bush for it, when bad Iraqi torturers are killing people in appalling ways, when they are ordered to by Saddam and noone cares, and Saddam is not blamed?
>_> Moron. The person who wrote that editorial proved plenty of proof in the links scattered throughout the article; it's why some of the words have that little blue line under them.

Proof by giving links to other editorials...

Bush did not cause Abu Ghraib, he didn't know about it. Why are people so repulsed when bad American soldiers are humiliating people, and blame Bush for it, when bad Iraqi torturers are killing people in appalling ways, when they are ordered to by Saddam and noone cares, and Saddam is not blamed?
oh yeah if any president could claim ignorance its gotta be bush...

Kerry fans, don't despair! There is a huge movement to make sure that Bushitler is prevented from taking his ill-gotten office on January 20!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/12/29/group_holds_fast_to_kerry_cause_with_beacon_hill_vigil/

Count every vote!! :mad:

You guys are such wimps, so are the traitors who call Bush a nazi for what some punished troops did to those prisoners. Did you guys see the beheadings? Did you guys see 9/11? Did you guys SEE what happened under Saddam?

I have

It makes anything you guys cry about look like childplay, and it is if your calling this nazi or terrorist material. You should be ashamed. Not to mention, those soldiers were indeed condemned for what they did in the prisons very severely and it was never Bush's order to torture.

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/raim123104.shtml
Oh for God's sake! :rolleyes: Did you want us to visit this abominable site just so they could download their spy-ware ( Avenue A, Inc. ) onto our PCs?

That article is a load of bullshit.

That article is a load of bullshit.
No kidding. :(

Elections are OVER. No one wants another flamewar!

Kerry fans, don't despair! There is a huge movement to make sure that Bushitler is prevented from taking his ill-gotten office on January 20!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/12/29/group_holds_fast_to_kerry_cause_with_beacon_hill_vigil/

Count every vote!! :mad:
I guess you'll always have a few quacks out of nearly 300 million people.

On the article :
It dosen't really "prove" anything new, at least from the admittedly short portion I checked out. It uses the fallacy of equivocation from what I saw. Yes, the Bush administration authorized the use of (from the link) "sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." This does not mean, however, that the Bush administration authorized the specific torture that went on in Abu Gharib that almost everyone abhors.

oh yeah if any president could claim ignorance its gotta be bush...
Allow me ...

Dr. Rhine, this is Chess Squares. Chess Squares, this is Dr. Rhine.

You two apparently have lots in common including, but probably not limited to: having nothing good to say about President Bush, having nothing good to say about the Republican Party, having nothing good to say about the American military, having nothing good to say about Americans in general, thinking 9/11 was a plot or a joke or never happened, thinking the US is the worst nation in history, and having, in general, an extremely tenuous grip on reality. :rolleyes:

Allow me ...

Dr. Rhine, this is Chess Squares. Chess Squares, this is Dr. Rhine.

You two apparently have lots in common including, but probably not limited to: having nothing good to say about President Bush, having nothing good to say about the Republican Party, having nothing good to say about the American military, having nothing good to say about Americans in general, thinking 9/11 was a plot or a joke or never happened, thinking the US is the worst nation in history, and having, in general, an extremely tenuous grip on reality. :rolleyes:
Actually Chess has said many good things about Americans just not the Administration.
He has said that Afganistan was good so that involves the military.
US is not worst but we are becoming bad by Bush he said.
Republicvan party is at fault for doing little good in Chess's eyes.
Bush has done no good in Chess's eyes so its easy.

Well anything to do with Bush is full of that so of course it is. Note: Bush is full of it.
Perhaps, but then again, so are you. So what's your point? :D

Kerry fans, don't despair! There is a huge movement to make sure that Bushitler is prevented from taking his ill-gotten office on January 20!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/12/29/group_holds_fast_to_kerry_cause_with_beacon_hill_vigil/

Count every vote!! :mad:
if people knew how many election are fixed people would never vote....

Actually Chess has said many good things about Americans just not the Administration.
He has said that Afganistan was good so that involves the military.
US is not worst but we are becoming bad by Bush he said.
Republicvan party is at fault for doing little good in Chess's eyes.
Bush has done no good in Chess's eyes so its easy.
bah dont answer him, he gets a kick out of it, its much easier to ignore the crackpot than try to explain things to him

bah dont answer him, he gets a kick out of it, its much easier to ignore the crackpot than try to explain things to him
ROFLMAO!!!! Awwww! Wassamatta, CS? Don't luv me no mo? :D

ROFLMAO!!!! Awwww! Wassamatta, CS? Don't luv me no mo? :D
Well, you've shown yourself to mostly be a jerk, and considering you're one of the few people on here older than thirty, you'd think you could at least be a little more respectful.

Well, you've shown yourself to mostly be a jerk, and considering you're one of the few people on here older than thirty, you'd think you could at least be a little more respectful.
Oh, you mean kinda like Chess Squares was so respectful of me that he wouldn't believe I was even who I said I was? So I should be all sober and cynical like him? Hmmm. Nahh! FTS! :D

Bush did not cause Abu Ghraib, he didn't know about it. Why are people so repulsed when bad American soldiers are humiliating people, and blame Bush for it, when bad Iraqi torturers are killing people in appalling ways, when they are ordered to by Saddam and noone cares, and Saddam is not blamed?
Ok, first of all, he DID know about it. Or at least Donald Rumsfeld did. Rumsfeld was told in JANUARY of "last" year that there were serious cases of abuse in Abu Ghraib.

"The abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed on January 13th, when Joseph Darby, a young military policeman assigned to Abu Ghraib, reported the wrongdoing to the Army’s Criminal Investigations Division. He also turned over a CD full of photographs. Within three days, a report made its way to Donald Rumsfeld, who informed President Bush."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

And secondly, don't you hold American soldiers to a higher standard then Saddam? Whenever Saddam tortured prisoners, people were disgusted. Just not SURPRISED!

I'm afraid I can't really agree very well with such an article when the word chocies used by Mr. Riamondo made it evident to any but the easily swayed eye that he was very aggressivly stating his opinion, not giving out facts.

The best way to TOTALLY wreck an editorial is to bash. Better by far is to use calm, concise, precise wording that shows logical evidence, rather than making the author seem like he was merely blowing off steam.

I'm afraid I can't really agree very well with such an article when the word chocies used by Mr. Riamondo made it evident to any but the easily swayed eye that he was very aggressivly stating his opinion, not giving out facts.

The best way to TOTALLY wreck an editorial is to bash. Better by far is to use calm, concise, precise wording that shows logical evidence, rather than making the author seem like he was merely blowing off steam.
Then go to:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact
But more importantly, read the quote I have in my previous post.

Oh, you mean kinda like Chess Squares was so respectful of me that he wouldn't believe I was even who I said I was? So I should be all sober and cynical like him? Hmmm. Nahh! FTS! :D
Actually, you should be respectful and continue to argue your point in a clear and intelligent manner regardless of insults. Two wrongs do not make a right; the fact that I must utter such a cliche to you proves that age is not always conducive to knowledge and intelligence.

You guys are such wimps, so are the traitors who call Bush a nazi for what some punished troops did to those prisoners. Did you guys see the beheadings? Did you guys see 9/11? Did you guys SEE what happened under Saddam?

apparently someone has a link between 9/11 and saddam
how the hell did that happen i wonder?

Ok, first of all, he DID know about it. Or at least Donald Rumsfeld did. Rumsfeld was told in JANUARY of "last" year that there were serious cases of abuse in Abu Ghraib.

Ok, look, your guy, Kerry fought in the Vietnam war right? That must mean HE was in the military once, right? In the military, once something goes wrong, and someone reports it, It has to be passed on to his superior, following me? He must pass it onto his superior and onto the next guy's superior and so on and so on, we're on the same page here, right? It eventually makes it's way to the president, and he decides whether to give it to the media, that is, if the Kerry spies don't already take it and show the public, making good people like YOU the victim of their propaganda. Here is a chart in case you did'nt understand.

President Bush--------------media---------the people
/
/
Cheif of military
/
/
That guy's superior
/
/
Superior
/
/
reporter--------news

In this diagram, you clearly see that news must first go through the ranks before it gets to Bush. Kerry must have known of this system because he was in the military long time ago. Yet, he still said that if he was Bush, he would be the 1st to know. So then, he would have to build a whole new system. like this.

President Kerry------media-----the people
/
/
reporter-------news

long post :p

Actually, you should be respectful and continue to argue your point in a clear and intelligent manner regardless of insults. Two wrongs do not make a right; the fact that I must utter such a cliche to you proves that age is not always conducive to knowledge and intelligence.
Aieeee! Nooo! The incisiveness and clarity of your words have wounded me to the quick! Out, out, this dim light; and shrink not from dark of night! THUD! :D