ClanKiller.com
http://forums.clankiller.com/

Bored and at uni so...
http://forums.clankiller.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=820
Page 2 of 3

Author:  Arathorn [ Fri May 07, 2004 4:39 am ]
Post subject: 

I would choose for president A, except for the dodging the draft, that is more something for George, not really something I want in a president. ;)

Author:  ElevenBravo [ Fri May 07, 2004 5:31 am ]
Post subject: 

Call me crazy but lieing under oath and cheating on your wife is not something that is honorable. Its not something you want to do or should be assosciated with.

Lieing is wrong But im sure you heathens will spin it another way
Cheat on your wife is wrong but Im sure you heathens will squire an excuse out of this one too.

Thats what seperates me from you. I have a clear cut line of what I believe is right and wrong. Yall, have a fuzzy line between right and wrong and depending on how you feel about and issue deteremines how fuzz that line can be.

"Well, he lied under oath, but they should have asked him that question any" That is complete HORSE SHIT. It doesnt matter what question they ask you, you LIED under OATH. How can you have any credibitly after LIEING and CHEATING! You can, only if your a liar and cheater yourself.


Now, 1 of you ask me how do I know the CIA was involed. Do not blame US troops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/polit ... &position=

Author:  Arathorn [ Fri May 07, 2004 5:36 am ]
Post subject: 

Oohh I'm gonna burn in hell!!!
Is there still hope? Where can I convert myself to Christianity? Or should I become a muslim? It's so difficult these days, fanatics from all world religions are tearing me apart. :cry:

Author:  ElevenBravo [ Fri May 07, 2004 5:50 am ]
Post subject: 

Since when is lieing and cheating associated with christianity? Lieing and cheat is a basic moral issue not one of religion. Man your a wacko! Why are you pinning something so simple as a religious issue?


Heres something I found insteresting. Something in referance to the pictures of the Iraq prisoners.

Quote:
CALLER: I just thought I'd try and provide the missing context, and I believe it's the "Don't ask, don't tell," which Bill Clinton institutionalized the flood of deviants that we saw in the military.

HOST: By deviants, you mean "Don't ask, don't tell." You think some homosexuals are in the military now that might be involved in these pictures? Is that what you're saying out there?

CALLER: Right. I retired last year, and in the eighties, in the early eighties, we were --

HOST: You were in the military, you mean?

CALLER: Yes.

HOST: Yes, okay.

CALLER: In the early eighties we aggressively would investigate and discharge, not only homosexual behavior, but deviant behavior as well.

HOST: Uh-huh. All right, now, wait a second. Let's just play a little here, shall we? I hadn't considered this, but can we admit here that we've got some homoeroticism going on in these pictures? Can we admit this? Would you not [Program Observer Interruption] -- wait -- just hang with me here, Mr. Snerdley. Let me finish before you start getting on to alternative lifestyles. I'm not going to be criticizing anything here. Now, just calm down. Just calm down. Everybody gets all worried when I get into this area. Just sit there. I just want to ask a question, a simple little question. And it's hypothetical, and I understand this, but it is illustrative and designed to make you think.

Let us assume -- no, let's pretend -- hypothetically, that some, many, a few, commanders, what have you, of the guards that we are all so outraged at -- let's assume, as Mark says here that some of them happen to be homosexual who got into the military via the "Don't ask, don't tell," and let's say that it is learned. We learn that they're gay, and that they -- some of them are, hypothetical -- folks, will you calm down out there? Just don't overreact here. I just have a question. I just want to know, if that were ever learned, and I don't think it ever would be, because of "Don't ask, don't tell," you can never know this, but just a think piece here. If that were ever learned, do you think there might be a shift in thinking in this country on the part of some people about how outrageous this was?

Because as we know, the left has its various constituencies that they must protect in order to get their votes and get their money and this sort of thing. Let's assume that -- let's pretend that -- it is later learned that some of these people are in fact from the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, it's how they got in, do you think it might be possible that people who are at present really, really critical of this might call for a little bit more understanding and tolerance? I don't know.

By the same token, let's play both sides. Let's say that at that these are fundamentalist children of God. Let's say that these are full-fledged, hundred percent Christian, from the Bible Belt. The ones that the liberals just truly don't like. If it were ever learned that that's who they are, do you think it might change the degree of criticism that is taking place, and do you think maybe that the Christian community would change its attitude about who these people are and what they've done?

I don't know anything. I just didn't even think about it till this guy called. The point is that there's so much more that we don't know, and the reaction here -- one of the -- let me put it this -- as plainly as I can. One of the reasons that I'm sort of standing up, and I feel like I'm doing this sort of alone, and saying, "Hey, wait a minute. Wait a minute, let's not jump off the cliff together," is because the reaction is too predictable to me. The reaction on the left, the reaction in "the media" is just too predictable, and it's just too familiar to me. And I'm not going to fall prey to it just because it may be the smart or right thing to do in terms of what's smart or right in this case.

END TRANSCRIPT

Author:  Arathorn [ Fri May 07, 2004 6:00 am ]
Post subject: 

Hm.. what does this have to do with it?

Author:  J [ Fri May 07, 2004 6:31 am ]
Post subject: 

ElevenBravo The Great wrote:
Call me crazy but lieing under oath and cheating on your wife is not something that is honorable. Its not something you want to do or should be assosciated with.


True. Especially if you have a function in which you're supposed to be an example to a city or even a whole nation. Cheating and lying is never okay, but if you're the president of the USA you defenitely should know better. Clinton went totally out of line on this. Let that be clear.

Indeed it has nothing to do with religion, i draw my line very clear on this. I also draw the line on homosexuality and abortion somewhere else than you do, i think that has to do with religion, maybe only for a part but it has to do with it. In an age of AIDS and other stuff, i just don't believe in any institution that forbids the use of condoms. In africa this just means murder.

About this CIA stuff: I think there's much we don't know or hear from and those things often can't stand the daylight. I'm not talking vampires here, but illegal operations, torturing and/or killing prisoners, .. . Anyone in Guantanamo Bay that already knows what will become of him? Mindgames, maybe, sick games, defenitely.

Author:  ElevenBravo [ Fri May 07, 2004 8:19 am ]
Post subject: 

Arathorn wrote:
Hm.. what does this have to do with it?


Its suggested by the caller than the military personel taking the pictures are homosexual's that got in the military by the "Dont ask, Dont tell" policy Clinton made. Its does bring up a point.

I mean if these men where heterosexual they would probably be beating the crap out of them and farting in their faces, not stripping them nude and putting them in a pile and taking pictures of them.


Just a thought.

Author:  Satis [ Fri May 07, 2004 11:24 am ]
Post subject: 

I don't think sexual orientation has anything to do with it. Hell, from what I understand, these guys were reservists anyway. That's probably the problem. heh. Err, anyway, I still haven't even had a chance to see these pictures (except little tiny versions). Someone wanna drop a link or ten?

Author:  Arathorn [ Fri May 07, 2004 11:35 am ]
Post subject: 

I agree with Satis, it has nothing to do with being gay. Espescially since the most prominent soldier on those pictures is a woman (at least, it looks like it). :roll:
Haven't seen big images yet either.

Author:  J [ Fri May 07, 2004 11:38 am ]
Post subject: 

Don't wanna see big images, only seen some on the news. And yeah there's one female soldier involved that's for sure.

Author:  ElevenBravo [ Fri May 07, 2004 7:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Welcome to the Iraq Prisoner Abuse Club! Beer is on the left, restrooms down the hall. The buffet line is open!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... tions_dc_6

Quote:
The Mirror last week printed pictures apparently showing British soldiers urinating on a hooded prisoner and beating him with a rifle butt but their authenticity has been questioned.



See, this is what a heterosexual would do to a prisoner.

Im not saying its my theroy, Im just saying its an interesting point. And now given what these British soldiers did seems more hetrosexual than takeing nude pictures of arbaian men.

Author:  derf [ Sat May 08, 2004 3:23 am ]
Post subject: 

11b: There is no indication in that text that the CIA had asked the soldiers to soften them up. To presume this, is based on opinion not on fact.

11b: What separates me from you is that you are a stereotypical right wing citizen with right wing ideology, whereas I am much more liberal.

11b: Your point on homos and the photos is rubbish.

11b: Oh and those British army pictures are FAKE. Ill say it again. FAKE. No point binging it up anymore.

Author:  ElevenBravo [ Sun May 09, 2004 10:29 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Im not saying its my theroy, Im just saying its an interesting point.


Quote:
11b: Oh and those British army pictures are FAKE. Ill say it again. FAKE. No point binging it up anymore.


Says who?

Quote:
11b: What separates me from you is that you are a stereotypical right wing citizen with right wing ideology, whereas I am much more liberal.


And your not a stereotypical liberal? ha

Author:  J [ Sun May 09, 2004 12:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

The british ones are fake because the uniforms don't match those that the british actually wear in Iraq. That's what i've been told anyway.

Btw, i heard these american soldiers will end up in court (or military court dunno). But a lot of sources point to the CIA telling them to make the prisoners life a hell. I think it's a bit strange they get punished and the people who gave the orders don't. Suppose they had refused to obey commands, wouldn't that have resulted in military court as well? Dunno but it sounds a bit hypocrite to me.

Author:  Satis [ Sun May 09, 2004 2:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Were the orders to make them naked any pile them on top of each other (or whatever), or just to make it hell. Because you can make a prisoner's life hell without violating the Geneva convention. :)

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/