The photos America doesn't want seen

[LongVin]

Just checking you're still a racist shit head.

Has nothing to do with race. I don't care where the country is if the people show they can't handle democracy they shouldn't have it. Be it in Africa, The Americas, Asia or Europe.

Alright, since america keeps electing fucking morons we'll come blow up your shit and take away your democracy...how does that sound?

You could try a country can go to war for any reason it pleases until it loses but the United States would win in the end and the losers would be tried for war crimes and sanctioned.

[Batman]

hmmm...and that applies to all prisoners of war in every war they aren't charged for anything unless they committed war crimes.

Small problem-the US isn't currently at war with anybody. Am I to take this that the US is at war with every country that happens to have one of its citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo?

War on Terror. They were operating against Americans thus they are considered part of an organization that is actively working against the United States.

I hate to tell you but you can't be at war with individual people, or even organizations. War is something that happens between nation-states. If you want wartime rules to apply to, say, german citizens, you have to declare war on Germany.

[Keevan_Colton]

Do you have a special handbook on how to be utterly morally bankrupt?

[LongVin]

So you're not going to answer the question LongVin? Let me remind you what it was. It was not rhetorical.
Why don't you give evidence rather than half-assed rationalizations.

Brian

There would probably still be beatings and there probably are still some beatings. Not being there I wouldn't know.

You're a blazing retard. Ignorance is no excuse, if you don't know what happened in Abu Ghraib then you should shut your mouth. There aren't pile ups of naked bodies or threats of electrocution or dogs biting your ass. Without the leak to the media there would have been no incentive at all to change all of this. Had the military been successful in covering them up and doing what you're saying, those 10 convicted soldiers would have got off scott free. It was only the media pressure, the pressure from NGO's and the press that stopped the abuse. The pressure on the United States of America to clean up its act.

Why don't you provide evidence that a military can handle its own internal affairs and bring people to justice without external civilian organizations getting involved.

Brian

I'm not in the military. Just like you all I can do is speculate. I say if the military is capable of having projects that cost billions of dollars staying top secret I assume they would be able to hide the actions of ten soldiers.

[brianeyci]

You could try a country can go to war for any reason it pleases until it loses but the United States would win in the end and the losers would be tried for war crimes and sanctioned.

Translation : Winners write the history books and if Hitler had won WWII killing Jews would have been okay since Hitler would have tried American and British leaders for "war crimes" and he would write the history books. There is no objective morality aside from winning.

You dumbass.

Brian

[Batman]

I'm not in the military. Just like you all I can do is speculate. I say if the military is capable of having projects that cost billions of dollars staying top secret I assume they would be able to hide the actions of ten soldiers.

The stupidity defies comprehension.
Hiding it means they REFUSE to handle it retard!

[LongVin]

Hey LongVin, I am still waiting for you to back up your assertion that the Iraqi's deserved the beating. But then I can't expect too much a little asswipe like yourself.

And you can't say he didn't since none of us were there. I am more inclined to trust the intents of an American Soldier then an Iraqi Prisoner.

Ha ha. Moron boy makes the claim, but he expects us to disprove it. Let me explain this slowly for you. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. Its called the burden of proof. You know, the logical principal which tells us who has to provide the evidence, which coincidentally is one of the rules on this board.

Using your bullshit logic, I can easily argue, how do you know the Iraqi's DIDN'T deserve it. I would rather trust someone who hasn't been convicted as opposed to American Soldiers who have been convicted of abuse.

And no I am not "morally bankrupt" as you put it I just follow the principle that in warfare that sometimes morals must be put aside in order to assure victory.

And you can't see the contradiction in that statement. Tell me, were you always this stupid, or did your mother drop you too many times as a child?

And there is no proof to the contrary that the Iraqis didn't deserve it. All we are doing is stating our opinions on the matter.

Also I am quite intelligent, I just follow a realistic model of politics and believe in America First policies.

[The Yosemite Bear]

my dog we finally have someone whose more anti-human then RThurmont.

[Keevan_Colton]

You dont need to prove they didnt deserve it since that's the default assumption...you need to prove they did.

[brianeyci]

I'm not in the military. Just like you all I can do is speculate.

I'm not speculating you retard. Burden of proof is on you to show that the military would have cleaned up its act if the leak had not happened. My proof? What happened in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib. Your proof? Faith.

I say if the military is capable of having projects that cost billions of dollars staying top secret I assume they would be able to hide the actions of ten soldiers.

That's not the point dumbass, if the leak to the media had not happened there would still be innocent people being treated like animals in Abu Ghraib. I can't believe you don't understand that.

Brian

[Batman]

And there is no proof to the contrary that the Iraqis didn't deserve it.

Which is irrelevant. There is NO proof they deserved it, and the law says wether or not they do doesn't matter. Either way you lose.

All we are doing is stating our opinions on the matter.

No, you are. We assume innocent until proven guilty which is the current standard of US law IIRC.

Also I am quite intelligent,

Let me congratulate you then. You hide that very well.

I just follow a realistic model of politics and believe in America First policies.

Regarless of wether or not America's behavior maybe needs an adjustment.
Germans appoximately 65 years ago believed in Germany first policies. One wonders why they were so reviled for it.

[LongVin]

You could try a country can go to war for any reason it pleases until it loses but the United States would win in the end and the losers would be tried for war crimes and sanctioned.

Translation : Winners write the history books and if Hitler had won WWII killing Jews would have been okay since Hitler would have tried American and British leaders for "war crimes" and he would write the history books. There is no objective morality aside from winning.

Brian

There is objective morality but subjective morality in the long run can be more powerful since it can constantly be applied to the populace.

Now the application of morality is based on the culture and society of the country. If Hitler had won we would all be subjects now of the Third Reich founded by our "Glorious Fuhrer Herr Hitler" and would all be indoctrinated into the Reichs school system which would state "The extermination of the Jews has saved the world from oncoming devasation...etc...etc..." And we would be none of the wiser because thats what all the historical records would say.

[LongVin]

I'm not in the military. Just like you all I can do is speculate.

I'm not speculating you retard. Burden of proof is on you to show that the military would have cleaned up its act if the leak had not happened. My proof? What happened in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib. Your proof? Faith.

I say if the military is capable of having projects that cost billions of dollars staying top secret I assume they would be able to hide the actions of ten soldiers.

That's not the point dumbass, if the leak to the media had not happened there would still be innocent people being treated like animals in Abu Ghraib. I can't believe you don't understand that.

Brian

They were prisoners that means someone in the position of authority has stated they are not innocent and needed to be detained.

[Batman]

They were prisoners that means someone in the position of authority has stated they are not innocent and needed to be detained.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing you said in this thread, and that's saying something.

[Keevan_Colton]

They were prisoners that means someone in the position of authority has stated they are not innocent and needed to be detained.

No trials, no judges, hell no need for any evidence...welcome to the freedom we're bringing to the people of iraq! All you need is someone in authority to declare you're guilty of something!

Isnt that kind of shit what we've got a trial going on with Saddam himself for doing?

[LongVin]

They were prisoners that means someone in the position of authority has stated they are not innocent and needed to be detained.

No trials, no judges, hell no need for any evidence...welcome to the freedom we're bringing to the people of iraq! All you need is someone in authority to declare you're guilty of something!

Isnt that kind of shit what we've got a trial going on with Saddam himself for doing?

ok once again I bring up the prisoner of war example. They are detained without trial because they are against your force and need to be detained.

For all intents and purposes the terrorists are prisoners of war with a new name of " detained enemy combatants"

[brianeyci]

There is objective morality but subjective morality in the long run can be more powerful since it can constantly be applied to the populace.

Wow you're not only morally bankrupt, you don't know what subjective means.

Something that's subjective can't be constantly applied to anything you loon. That's the definition of subjective.

Now the application of morality is based on the culture and society of the country. If Hitler had won we would all be subjects now of the Third Reich founded by our "Glorious Fuhrer Herr Hitler" and would all be indoctrinated into the Reichs school system which would state "The extermination of the Jews has saved the world from oncoming devasation...etc...etc..." And we would be none of the wiser because thats what all the historical records would say.

So if you manage to hide it, it's morally okay? Like if the Army had hidden the abuses at Abu Ghraib, they'd be morally in the right? You retard.

Brian

[LongVin]

There is objective morality but subjective morality in the long run can be more powerful since it can constantly be applied to the populace.

Wow you're not only morally bankrupt, you don't know what subjective means.

Something that's subjective can't be constantly applied to anything you loon. That's the definition of subjective.

Now the application of morality is based on the culture and society of the country. If Hitler had won we would all be subjects now of the Third Reich founded by our "Glorious Fuhrer Herr Hitler" and would all be indoctrinated into the Reichs school system which would state "The extermination of the Jews has saved the world from oncoming devasation...etc...etc..." And we would be none of the wiser because thats what all the historical records would say.

So if you manage to hide it, it's morally okay? Like if the Army had hidden the abuses at Abu Ghraib, they'd be morally in the right? You retard.

Brian

Subjective Morality is morality that someone can come up with. It does not exist indepedently from the mind but is a creation of the mind.


And the Nazis wouldn't of needed to hide it if they won. They would of indoctrinated the people into believing it was the right thing to do.

[Batman]

For all intents and purposes the terrorists are prisoners of war with a new name of " detained enemy combatants"

Which is patently illegal unless they are actually prisoners of war.
Which, I might add, have certain rights that have also been violated rather thoroughly.

[brianeyci]

Subjective Morality is morality that someone can come up with. It does not exist indepedently from the mind but is a creation of the mind.

You're a snivelling little snot LongVin. Rather than debating the points you throw out completely irrelevant details. Like defining subjective morality after I already nailed you that you didn't know what subjective meant, sort of like how Darkstar accuses people of saying SW humans have metal bones after he was outed for thinking the same. I wonder where they breed you retards, shifting responsibility for their stupid words onto other people once they realize they've been cornered.

And the Nazis wouldn't of needed to hide it if they won. They would of indoctrinated the people into believing it was the right thing to do.

No shit Sherlock, now get to the crux of it and don't dodge the question by throwing out red herrings. By your rationale Hitler's massacre of the Jews would have been okay if Hitler had won.

Brian

[Batman]

Subjective Morality is morality that someone can come up with. It does not exist indepedently from the mind but is a creation of the mind.
And the Nazis wouldn't of needed to hide it if they won. They would of indoctrinated the people into believing it was the right thing to do.

Did LongVin just admit that the US is aping the Nazis in their dealing with those prisoners?

[LongVin]

Subjective Morality is morality that someone can come up with. It does not exist indepedently from the mind but is a creation of the mind.

You're a snivelling little snot LongVin. Rather than debating the points you throw out completely irrelevant details. Like defining subjective morality after I already nailed you that you didn't know what subjective meant, sort of like how Darkstar accuses people of saying SW humans have metal bones after he was outed for thinking the same. I wonder where they breed you retards, shifting responsibility for their stupid words onto other people once they realize they've been cornered.

And the Nazis wouldn't of needed to hide it if they won. They would of indoctrinated the people into believing it was the right thing to do.

No shit Sherlock, now get to the crux of it and don't dodge the question by throwing out red herrings. By your rationale Hitler's massacre of the Jews would have been okay if Hitler had won.

Brian

You made a statement about Objective Morality and I countered it by stating that a subjective morality created by the state could be more powerful. And since that morality would be created by propaganda agents it would be SUBJECTIVE Morality.

And yes to the vast vast majority of people the killing of the Jews would of been right because thats all they would know. Of course there would probably be some people who would take a more objective view and say "If its wrong to kill non jews why was it ok to kill Jews" but in a Nazi society those people would probably disappear or get into an accident.

[brianeyci]

You made a statement about Objective Morality and I countered it by stating that a subjective morality created by the state could be more powerful. And since that morality would be created by propaganda agents it would be SUBJECTIVE Morality.

If a kind of morality is created by the state that says that all Jews are evil, then guess what, it is objective because it is qualifiable. Why don't you look up the definitions of subjective and objective before you talk yourself into a corner. You said this,

It does not exist indepedently from the mind but is a creation of the mind.

In other words it is subjective, existing only in the individual mind.

Then you said this,

And since that morality would be created by propaganda agents

In other words it is objective since the propaganda agents can communicate it. Why don't you make up your mind.

And yes to the vast vast majority of people the killing of the Jews would of been right because thats all they would know. Of course there would probably be some people who would take a more objective view and say "If its wrong to kill non jews why was it ok to kill Jews" but in a Nazi society those people would probably disappear or get into an accident.

In other words, if the atrocities in Abu Ghraib were kept secret, to the vast majority of Americans Abu Ghraib would have been right.

Now why don't you just say it outright rather than being a sidestepping coward--you think that if Abu Ghraib had been kept secret, there would have been nothing wrong with the continued beatings and inhumane treatment.

Brian

[mr friendly guy]

And there is no proof to the contrary that the Iraqis didn't deserve it. All we are doing is stating our opinions on the matter..

You obvious missed the part where I stated I was using your bullshit logic against you. I don't need to provide proof to the contrary since the default states assumes innocence until proven guilty, and its on you to back up your claim.
But I accept your concession that you have an opinion and NO FUCKING EVIDENCE to back up your assertion.

Also I am quite intelligent, I just follow a realistic model of politics and believe in America First policies.

You sir, are a moron who cannot grasp basic logic or realise a self contradictory statement even it hit you in the face. If by intelligent you mean from the George W Bush definition of intelligence, congratulations.

[LongVin]

You made a statement about Objective Morality and I countered it by stating that a subjective morality created by the state could be more powerful. And since that morality would be created by propaganda agents it would be SUBJECTIVE Morality.

If a kind of morality is created by the state that says that all Jews are evil, then guess what, it is objective because it is qualifiable. Why don't you look up the definitions of subjective and objective before you talk yourself into a corner. You said this,

It does not exist indepedently from the mind but is a creation of the mind.

In other words it is subjective, existing only in the individual mind.

Then you said this,

And since that morality would be created by propaganda agents

In other words it is objective since the propaganda agents can communicate it. Why don't you make up your mind.

And yes to the vast vast majority of people the killing of the Jews would of been right because thats all they would know. Of course there would probably be some people who would take a more objective view and say "If its wrong to kill non jews why was it ok to kill Jews" but in a Nazi society those people would probably disappear or get into an accident.

In other words, if the atrocities in Abu Ghraib were kept secret, to the vast majority of Americans Abu Ghraib would have been right.

Now why don't you just say it outright rather than being a sidestepping coward--you think that if Abu Ghraib had been kept secret, there would have been nothing wrong with the continued beatings and inhumane treatment.

Brian

no Objective Morality is something that is completely independent of human thought. In light of a better term it would be like a morality put down by God "Thou shall not kill"

Subjective Morality would be changing that and going "Thou shall not kill except groups XYZ." Now even if everyone believes "Thou shall not kill except groups XYZ" it is still subjective because its a product of a human mind that is just applied on a large scale. Objective Morality is something that cant be changed basic human instinct says its wrong to kill people but by a way a person is brought up it can be tweaked and changed though the fundamental stays the same.

And I never said it was morally right for them to beat the prisoners. I just said it should be excused.