Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't talking about this week. I was talking about the last five years. You can't seriously claim that you haven't posted that picture time and time again for the shock value.

You reap what you sow.

At long last, have you no sense of shame? The man indicates he wants to leave the board. Rather than wishing him well, you attack him, perhaps after he has gone and can no longer defend himself?

I don't think this is the sort "conversation" your overlord Ty has mandated as acceptable.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No. I posted for the discussion value. Or in memoriam for the patriots who fell in battle. You dishonour it by your puerile attacks of personal vitriol and hate. Our fallen comrades must be sick in the afterlife at those who would so casually ignore their sacrifice.

But this is not the politics of personal destruction? (Well, not so much this one . . .)

If one comes before the Court in equity, sir, one must come with clean hands.

S_A_M

P.S. "Our" fallen comrades?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Next, the victims of the attacks on 9/11 were not, largely patriots. They were poor individuals who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Exceptions are the firefighters and other first responders who lost their lives trying to rescue the victims. A significant number of them were not even Americans.

I don't think you necessarily meant the first sentence the way it sounds. They may or may not have been patriots, but they were innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Did you mean that most of the dead and injured on 9/11 were not in the process of fighting an enemy on behalf of their country?

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
At long last, have you no sense of shame? .

Like most of the left in America and Weurope, he has none.

Sad. These folk represent the end of America as we know it.

Good luck and G-dspeed Hank!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
At long last, have you no sense of shame? The man indicates he wants to leave the board. Rather than wishing him well, you attack him, perhaps after he has gone and can no longer defend himself?

I don't think this is the sort "conversation" your overlord Ty will enjoy.

Yeah. He's done as many farrewell tours as Cher. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Tables R Us is his sock, so, like Mark Twain, rumors of Penske's death are greatly exagerrated.

Furthermore, he comes back to attack me with his own "politics of personal destruction" - God, that's an asinine phrase - and he expects me to beg him to stay. Fuck that. He knows how to get a hold of me.

If he's genuinely hurt, I'm more than ready to talk it out with him. If this is just more of his theartrics at my expense, then fuck him, too.

And you're one to talk about a sense of shame. You've been dogging me for what, four or five years now, and never once have you had the decency to reach out on a human level. If Penske's really got a problem with me, he has the balls to deal with it.

By the way, haven't you left yet? Or are you not even capable of playing the grand exit as well as Paigow? You didn't last until lunch.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Like most of the left in America and Weurope, he has none.

Sad. These folk represent the end of America as we know it.

Good luck and G-dspeed Hank!

May your journey from here to there be a safe one! surely we must both now recognize it will be a positive change.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't think you necessarily meant the first sentence the way it sounds. They may or may not have been patriots, but they were innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Did you mean that most of the dead and injured on 9/11 were not in the process of fighting an enemy on behalf of their country?

S_A_M

I meant patriot in the way Penske was using it. I was referring to patriot in the sense of someone who knwingly and willingly takes a stand and puts their life on the line to defend freedom or to protect others.

If you or anyone else took it as me in any way belittling or questioning the values or merit of any of the 9/11 victims, I feel ashamed and I apologize.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't think you necessarily meant the first sentence the way it sounds. They may or may not have been patriots, but they were innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time.

you know how angry you guys get when it is implied that you are pro-terrorism and against America? I agree you are justified in being offended- and i have never once made any such accusiation.

But how can you so freely attack anyone who is pro-torture by saying we are unamerican? Hypocriticize much?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In fact, I'm pretty sure that Tables R Us is his sock,

I thought it was Bilmore.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I meant patriot in the way Penske was using it. I was referring to patriot in the sense of someone who knwingly and willingly takes a stand and puts their life on the line to defend freedom or to protect others.

If you or anyone else took it as me in any way belittling or questioning the values or merit of any of the 9/11 victims, I feel ashamed and I apologize.

No, Wonk, I was sure that you did not mean it in that way, my friend. But I was equally sure that your enemies on this Board would jump upon that unfortunate turn of phrase and use it to their advantage in their undending campaign of partisan terror if it were not hastily clarified.

Which is no less than you can expect from those G-dless right-wingers, who hide in their smug cocoon of Federalist Society meetings and GOP fund-raisers, adhere to a faux reverse-elitism, wrap themselves in the cloak of others' sacrifice, and practise the politics of personal destruction while shrieking like a small child whenever they feel the smallest sting of the wrath of an aroused liberal patriot. STS, NPI, NTTAWWT.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Tax Wonk said that it is immoral to abuse prisoners. From my point of view, sometimes it is immoral not to abuse prisoners. These guys hide among the population; they kill woman and children, and want to completely destroy western civilization. What the Taliban did to Afghanistan was obscene. Beyond all bounds of decency. They don't care about western civilization, so they should not be entitled to reap its benefits.

Spies break the rules of warfare and therefore are not accorded any protection under the Geneva Convention. As far as I am concerned Al Queda (and the Taliban) is one big spy ring that does not get any protections.

If there is a reasonable chance that torturing one of these guys will save one life the moral thing to do is torture them.It would be immoral not to torture them. One innocent life is worth a thousand terrorists lives.

I have many differences with the Bush administration, but I think they are sincere in their desire to fight the war on terrorism effectively. I don't think they are doing this to "show off" or "show they are tough". The idea that they are evil or sinister is just people buying their own propaganda, just like many conservatives did during the Clinton administration. In their fight on the war on terror I don't want to make their job any more difficult than it has to be. They are standing on the wall trying to protect me. Why would I tie one had behind their back?

So if the Bush administration asks for something in this war as far as dealing with these detainees then I have no problem with that. In addition, the bulk of the fighters of the war on terror have nothing to do with the Bush administration. These are permanent civil servants. If they feel something is necessary, then great.

I don't think the Geneva Convention applies to these idiots. If it does it should be amended. The idea behind the Geneva Convention is that if we play by the rules other countries will treat our prisoners well. There is absolutely no chance our prisoners will be treated well, so that goal is nullified. Treating them well when captured will not help us. In addition, none of these guys have signed it, so screw them.

When it comes to the Domestic front and dealing with US citizens and legal residents, then the full weight of the constitution applies. But if a US citizen goes overseas and works with Al Queda or a similar group, their citizenship is forfeit.

The slippery slope argument was criticized by the Greeks as a fallacy and it is always a stupid argument that produces bad policy. "We can't outlaw machine guns because that will eventually lead to us outlawing rifles" "if we allow abortions eventually people will start killing babies after they are born". If we don't give these guys any legal protections that won't eventually lead to the loss of our rights. Our rights are fine and the minute the government crosses that line I will be one of the first to complain.

Sure I don't want sadists running our camps. That is why I have no problem with congressional oversight. But if the Bush administration thinks that pissing on Korans or water boarding these guys might give us some useful information, then go to it and God speed.

If torture does not help get information, then don't use it. But if there is a chance it will save innocent lives, then by all means, go crazy. The administration will get the benefit of the doubt as long as they are not infringing on my rights or other US citizens rights.

These guys are not soldiers simply following orders, or doing their patriotic duty to their country. None of these guys were drafted. They all volunteered to join an evil organization to do evil things. Many members of the SS didn't know what they were getting into. Many members of the KGB thought they were fighting for a workers paradise and didn't realize the terrible thing they were going to be asked to do. Every single member of Al Queda knows what evil goals the organization has, and knows that they will be asked to commit unspeakable crime.

There are no innocent members of Al Queda or the Taliban. There is no moral need to give them any rights or legal protections.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you know how angry you guys get when it is implied that you are pro-terrorism and against America? I agree you are justified in being offended- and i have never once made any such accusiation.

But how can you so freely attack anyone who is pro-torture by saying we are unamerican? Hypocriticize much?

That wasn't me.

But, I do think that advocates of such a policy are advocating a policy that is profoundly immoral, and is "unAmerican" in the sense that it contradicts the values we were raised to believe that our nation was founded upon and still stands for.

Hate the sin, love the Republican.

S_A_M

[eta: P.S. Spanky's post is too long for me to reply to now. I'll try to reply tonight.]

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Not according to the Supreme Court in Quirin:

• The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war

I'm not sure of the exact number of "belligerents who have come through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property," but I know that most of them are dead.

ETA incidentally, Quirin came before the Court on a petition for a writ of habeus corpus.

I guess I should have said an enemy combatant is someone who is not part of a nation's army. This quote seems to confirm that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I posted for the discussion value.

So much of what you post is antithetical to any sort of discussion. It's very nice when you do engage in discussion, though.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk


I meant patriot in the way Penske......was (sic).....

I feel ashamed and I apologize.

You damn well should. It's about time.

With that I can leave with a clear conscience. Keep fighting the good fight Hank!