When all other problems in the world have been solved, maybe I'll care about the comfort of terrorists. But probably not even then.

Roland, torture is torture is torture.

You say they deserve it but I don't think you realize it puts the very lives of soldiers at risk and very likely innocent American civilians. It's unamerican to support torture. It's unamerican to weasel around it and use bureacracy to condone it.

Do you conveniently forget the mamings and deaths that have occurred?

I don't support it because it puts my friends lives in danger. Torture is unamerican. It's not in our values.

But for now I have more important people to worry about.

" But for now I have more important people to worry about."

As if our soldiers and American citizens aren't important? Torture puts their lives in danger.

If you support torture you don't support our troops. If you support torture you don't support your Judeo Christian values. If you support torture you don't support American values.

Torture is unAmerican.

But for now you're too busy equating those who've actually served in the US Armed forces with terrortists. You've apparently got more important people to worry about and crazy/stupid/arrogant idealogies to swim in. That's not American.

wtf?

Just keeping tally of the things you've said.

TORTURE IS UNAMERICAN. GET IT?

not necessarily. I don't see it in the Constitution. Not against US citizens anyway, but against terrorists who may hold valuable information? Whatever. I'm not a big fan but I have more important people to worry about. Maybe ehwn all other problems in the world have been solved, I might waste my time worrying about these scumbags.

T-O-R-T-U-R-E P-U-T-S A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N L-I-V-E-S I-N D-A-N-G-E-R.

That's about the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard from you. Lots of things aren't in the constitution. Lots of things aren't in the bible too.

Don't think for one minute I've forgotten you comparing/equating myself and Danny's brother with "terrorists".

Roland...you really do not get it. Do you really support torture? Or are you just spouting crap in order to piss us off?

I never equated you with terrorists.

As for torture, I don't necessarily support it (although when it comes to defending the country I don't think any option should be off the table). I just don't care enough about terrorist scum to worry about it.

http://www.brendoman.com/hippydave/2005/07/07/london_and_politics#comments

Are you having another memory lapse?

And this one... "I'm curious about your brother's rank and whether he knows more about the situation than his superior officers who make the decisions."

I'm curious about your rank Roland. How long have you served? What exactly do you know that the rest of us don't? Wait, I know you, haven't so much as polished a boot or even slept a night out in the field.

Either you support torture or you don't. You've already said you supported it. And it's obvious that torture goes against American and Judeo Christian values. When you support it, you support the deaths of more civillians and soldiers. That's not what I call patriotism.

I think his actual words were that if you speak out against the war you're on the terrorists' side and unpatriotic.

I see no difference; there is no difference.

There is a huge difference. I simply asked the question if people realize that their rhetoric sounds exactly the same as the terrorist's rhetoric. When Durbin's script is identical to al Qaeda's script....draw your own conclusion.

As for Gringo's brother, I simply scoffed at his presumption to know more about the overall war strategy than his superior officers who have access to a lot more information than he does.

As for torture, I'm not a cheerleader for it unless it helps to save lives. That's patriotism. Saving innocent lives is a good thing. Torturing INNOCENT people....that's another story altogether. I've noticed that the Left often cannot tell the difference between innocent people and terrorists and convicted rapists and murderers. That's a moral flaw I hope I never develop.

A little clarification: You've compared two people to terrorists. Myself and Danny's brother. If you'd like to know my rank, what I do and my experience I'll be more than happy to share with you.

No matter how you word it Roland you've compared us to terrorists. You've compared 'liberals' to terrorists. I support Durbin and his observations. Am I terrorist now? Is my script identical to Al Qaeda's now? Why don't you try drawing a sensible conclusion rather than a right wing nut wind bag's rhetoric.

Torture does not help save lives. In fact it's been proven to be a hinderence due to lack of verifiable information. Guilty or not, it doesn't matter, we are above that. Guilty or not, torture puts soldiers lives in imminent danger. It gives those angered all the more reason and we end up cancelling our own ideology/cause out (i.e. contradiction).

So long as you continue to erect strawman arguments (such as "the Left often cannot tell the difference between innocent people and terrorists and convicted rapists and murderers.") you will think you've got a point.

If what Durbin and his ilk say is the same things that the terrorists say...draw your own conclusions. But what *I* say is nothing like anything the terrorists say. Because I know they are the enemy.

Guilty or not, torture puts soldiers lives in imminent danger.

You keep saying that as if those soldiers' lives weren't already in imminent danger.

So long as you continue to erect strawman arguments (such as "the Left often cannot tell the difference between innocent people and terrorists and convicted rapists and murderers.") you will think you've got a point.

It's simple logic. Look at whose side I'm on (innocent civilians, children, people who have done no wrong) and look at whose side the Left is on (terrorists, rapists, murderers, people who hate America). I'm just pointing out the obvious.

You're not reading a damn thing I'm writing.

Answer my questions.

Draw your own conclusions given the evidence I provided.

Al Qaeda says x
Dick Durbin says x
I say not x, no way

"I support Durbin and his observations. Am I terrorist now?"

Answer the question.

I think a good talk over a few good beers would set things straight.

Saying things without actually saying them... especially something like this is extreme.

"I simply scoffed at his presumption to know more about the overall war strategy than his superior officers who have access to a lot more information than he does."

Can you elaborate on that? I'm curious as to what you know that the rest of us don't. Do you realize the actual percentage of those who go and see real combat? Do you realize that the actual percentage of those in a command decision is a lot slimmer than that?

Do you know something that we don't simply because you think you're on the right side of the fence? Siding with Bush aotumatically gives you secret clearance?

And just for the sake of clarity, I'm giving you two options to answer here. None of this drawing my own conclusion bologna. Am I terrorist or am I not? Yes or no?

You are not a terrorist because you have not intentionally murdered any innocent civilians. Bu the words you use are the same words that the terrorists use and it helps their cause.

There. Get it out. Say what you mean, mean what you say. No bullshit.

According to you, I use the same words as the terrorists and my words help their cause. Well, that's a very extreme and stupid ass statement. I've got more patriotism and sense in my left nut then you'll ever have Roland.

You're sheltered. You say the absolute stupidest things. You repeat exactly what Rush has to say. YOu can't seem to think for yourself.

And you manage to piss off a lot of people by saying really outrageous things. You've absolutely no credibility nor common sense.

I hope you feel better because I sure do.

You best hope we're never in the field together.

All I heard was "blah blah blah I am emoting very loudly because I cannot accept the fact that my words echo and support al Qaeda's so now I am going to bluster in a loud voice to distract from that unfortunate realization".

Try to explain away this:

Al Qaeda says x
Dick Durbin says x
Gringo says "I support Durbin when he says x, which is the same x that al Qaeda says"
Roland says "I will never agree with anything the terrorists say"

That's funny.

You're full of doodoo.

Roland says "I will never agree with anything the terrorists say"

Roland...just because a terrorist says something does not make it true. If a terrorist would say that the sky was blue, would you believe them? Or would they have to be lying, because they are terrorists!

Yes, but that is not what they're saying.

Terrorists advocates torture.
Roland advocates torture.

Draw your own conclusion.

It's nonsense. It's crap logic.


They pulled the same crap on Kerry and McCain, both veterans. Now Roland a battle hardened blogger questions my service.

You're really very lucky we live in different cities right now. I mean that, I really do.

I never once questioned your service. I simply pointed out that some of the things you say are the same things the enemy says and asked you to examine the implications of that.

No need to get all snippy. Unless it's starting to sink in. In that case, I understand the irrational lashing out.

"No need to get all snippy."

No, I'd have to say you're a dick and you need a good whoopin'. That's a fair assumption imho.

Anyone who disagrees with you you deem as a terrorist and that's pretty inane. You must not have very many friends then if you accuse them of such things.

Where you go wrong Roland is setting up a straw man. My arguments are much more complex than that. I'm pro and anti a lot of things, there's a lot of ifs and depends... you attempt to pigeon hole people and end up making yourself look like an ass and making me want to pound the living shite out of you at the same time. Saying the stupid things you've said I have some pity on you. You've disrespected me. There's civil discourse and then there's throwing asshated accusations. You've stepped way over the line and I think you should apologize but you won't; I don't expect you too either.

I just want you to know from the deepest part of my colon and heart, be glad we're miles apart. I sincerely mean that. =) Really, I'm not joking. =)

It's not about agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I disagree with Dave about a great many things but he never turns into a drama queen about it nor do his positions on labor or homosexuality put him in the company of al Qaeda.

But on this one particular issue, one has to examine oneself and consider who one is helping. In the case of Dick Durbin, he is acting as the public relations firm for al Qaeda. He saves them a lot of trouble by doing their work for them. I don't think he even knows what a gulag IS. Now if it makes you uncomfortable to have your words mirror what Zarqawi says, that's a good thing. Don't take it out on me. Examine yourself.

"Now if it makes you uncomfortable to have your words mirror what Zarqawi says, that's a good thing. Don't take it out on me. Examine yourself."

Nonsense.

"It's not about agreeing with me or disagreeing with me."

It has everything to do with this.

"I disagree with Dave about a great many things but he never turns into a drama queen about it nor do his positions on labor or homosexuality put him in the company of al Qaeda."

You've incriminated every single one of us here who disagrees with the freaking war Roland. Yeah it bothers me that an asshat would say such a thing when I'm obviously doing more and personally know of the sacrifices and costs of serving my country.

Tell me what you've done. What's your rank? What do you know that the rest of us don't? What makes you so much important? You never even touched these questions because you know nothing about it. Instead you want to compare anybody who disagrees with you to Al Qaeda. Think about that. Think about how stupid that is because it is. Think about how extreme that is. Anybody in their right mind would say so.

You keep throwing your extreme accusations around and erecting your straw mans. Keep telling yourself that you make sense. Keep telling yourself all these things. You're more concerned about winning or something than actually looking at where the facts fall.

How can anyone of us actually have a dialog with you when you repeatedly do these things? And you dare to wonder why "don't get all snippy"? "It's not my fault." That's utter bullshit. You say stupid shit. Take responsibility for that.

Keep offending. Keep pigeon holing. See where that gets you. You're a knuckle head and a waste of my time. I've no respect for you nor time.

=)

I want to go back to this:

Roland:

Al Qaeda says x
Dick Durbin says x
Gringo says "I support Durbin when he says x, which is the same x that al Qaeda says"
Roland says "I will never agree with anything the terrorists say"

Dave:

Roland...just because a terrorist says something does not make it true. If a terrorist would say that the sky was blue, would you believe them? Or would they have to be lying, because they are terrorists!

Roland:

Yes, but that is not what they're saying.

I don't want this to get overlooked, because it's a very important point. Even more important than the fact that Gringo is glad that Roland is not within asskicking distance. Roland, your original inclination is to say that anything the terrorists say must be a lie and something that hurts America. But Dave pointed out the problem with that rather easily. He said that the terrorists could say something true, then you would be compelled to agree with them, as unpatriotic as that might sound. Your response to Dave shows that it's what is being said, not who is saying it that is really important. We should all remember that. The truth of a statement doesn't depend wholly on whether Bush or Rush or bin Laden or Durbin or Kerry or Clinton says it. The facts are what matter.

Now, many people, including me, Gringo and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are saying that the US was wrong to invade Iraq and wrong in the way we've treated detainees. The fact that a terrorists agrees with this statement doesn't make it false. In fact, to persist in bringing that up tells me that you're the one who wants to cloud the issue with emotion. Why don't we leave psychos like Zarqawi out of this and just discuss whether or not the US is in the wrong. You must admit that examining our nation has the potential to ferret out wrongdoing and make us stronger. That's what people like Gringo want. Do you think he would really bother serving in the military if he didn't want the nation to be stronger?

I had an interesting email forwarded to me by the peace community here in TX. It was written in response to a column and I felt it applied to our discussion.

"Dear Mr. Friedman:

I am one of those who believes that the war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, and I am not alone. A majority of the American people believe it, too. Or you can read the statements of the terrorists themselves, who say that their criminal, inexcusable acts are partly protests against our invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as other heedless aggression. (That doesn't mean I believe the terrorists are justified in their murderous actions.) Or you can ask suffering civilians in Iraq what they think will help slow the terrorism in their own country, and their answer would be, "Get the U.S. troops out of here." Add to that the recent academic study of the backgrounds of recent suicide terrorists which showed that a huge majority are from countries that resent U.S. military presence within their borders.

Out of your own fear, you can call us names like "one notch below the terrorists," but you can't change the facts, and you won't stop the peaceful dissent through dialogue. Many of us are committed to peaceful principles of dialogue and conflict resolution. Did the U.S. become the strongest nation in the world in order to dominate the world or to lead it to peaceful coexistence? This stage of our national life will determine the answer.

Kate Parks Hutson
Tyler, TX"

I agree with Kate Hutson in TX: The Iraq war is only fueling terrorism.

And I thought Smiles was the master of too far.

I would get involved but it looks like things are too mishmashed here. There are good point on each side, and really stupid point on both side. I would hate to join in a bit and get pidgeon holed.

As always, I'm elated that you can add to the conversation Henry.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a great debater.

Again, thanks for the input... it really helped clarify things.

Again, thanks for the input... it really helped clarify things.

For you Gringo - anytime.

When you attack the country in a time of war, you are helping the enemy. Dick Durbin's senseless accusations brought a smile to bin Laden's face and further divided the country. I can't imagine this happening in World War Two when we knew who the enemies were and we knew better than to help them. "Loose lips sink ships" was a phrase that was coined back then.

Terrorism existed before Iraq and it will continue when we're gone. Those people aren't rational. They're terrorists!

So the 47% who voted for the other guy... what aboot them?

voting is different. You're supposed to vote, although I personally don't think it's a good idea to switch horses midstream. We're not talking about who we voted for, we're talking about stuff like Durbin's irresponsible statements.

Voting is an expression for the 47% who cast their lot for the other guy. In other words, they didn't support Bush. You've more or less said that we need to support this administration... I'm saying that there's a good chance 47% disagree with you. And those who disagree with you are helping the terrorists, those 47% who voted for the other guy (according to you) were ultimately helping the terrorists. That's about how your logic goes.

November 4 was their chance to disagree with the President. Ack, this isn't about disagreeing witht he President. You can disagree with the President. I'm talking about reckless irresponsible attacks on the country like what Durbin did. Undermining the country in a time of war.

Disagreeing is undermining according to you Roland, that is exactly what it's about. Voicing our dissenting opinions is undermining the country according to you. This is your logic.

Does anyone else find it funny that Roland quoted the campaign slogan from Wag the Dog?

Roland, true or false:

If the US is doing something wrong and immoral, then pointing it out and working to change it will make the nation stronger.

Since we are at an impass here, I am wondering what the lines are for different people. Where is the line between honest civil dissent and irresponsible statements?

I mean surely if a person where to say on the senate floor that we need more troops, then that would be ok. If that same person were to get up and say that the troops on the ground were going thru and raping and piliaging like 13 centruy barbarians (when in fact they were not), most people would say that person was acting irresponsily and that he should stop.

Where are the lines?

The line goes right between what's true and what's false. If someone says something that's true, even if it's not flattering to the nation, then it's ok. If they say something that's false (as I think Durbin did with some of the things he said) then they've crossed the line.

I agree with Danny, the line is drawn at the truth.

But lets be honest, society has drawn the line at comparing anything to Nazis.

And I still think that Durbin did nothing wrong in his comments. Should he have said them? Probably not. Was he wrong? No.

The US is NOTHING like the Nazis. It is NOTHING Like the gulags. Such contempt for one's own country, spoken from the floor of the Senate where it was broadcast on al Jazeera much to the delight of the terrorists is crossing a huge line. Not only is it just petty, it shows a shocking ignorance of history (what the Nazis and gulags were REALLY like) and a short-sightedness about the repercussions of those words that re unbefitting a member of the Senate.

If you look up hypocrisy in the dictionary, you'll see a picture of George W. Bush. He's got a whole different set of rules for the rest of the world that he has for the U.S.