REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

It's called "torture" Mr. Bush

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 05:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 18227
PAGE 3 of 3

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think what we have in some of the arguments here is what's called 'cognitive bias'. Basically, it's the mechanism whereby people maintain a double standard.

You do bad things because you're evil and hateful; I do bad things because I have my well-considered 'reasons' ... and I will never consider myself anything other than righteous.

"Man is a rationalizing animal."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:05 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think what we have in some of the arguments here is what's called 'cognitive bias'. In self-evaluation, it's the mechanism whereby people maintain a double standard. In a survey, 1% of those taking College Entrance exams reported themselves to be less friendly than average, while 60% reported they were more friendly than average.

Or: They do evil things because they're evil and loathsome; we do evil things because we have righteous reasons.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:27 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Lies and more lies. It's funny how people constantly parrot what they are told they should think. Thanks CNN.




People with diarrhea of the mouth certainly helps

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


The thing is, Americans have lost thier sense of reality. Why? Because they watch a dog wagging TV that constantly tells them retarded things like 'Torture is acceptable' (actual CNN quote from two weeks BEFORE the torture photos), or 'the Geneva Convention doesn't apply' (Dick Cheney), or anything they can think of. They will say anything. The White House is a liars think tank.




so what will some one so disillusioned as you change the world for the better? Will you get rid of the White House altogether? What is your solution? Because just running off at the mouth is nothing more than a rabid junk yard dog barking - nobody listens and at the end they get the police to put it down.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


America has already lost the conflict in Iraq. This is the first thing Americans need to understand. It's over. You lost. Again. Who will you blame?




Sorry, where's the big red flag that said that US has "lost" this one? What's the deal with winning anyways? Last I checked, US has got a whole bunch of people over there trying to help these folks setup their country again.

A few unruly stupid bastard spoils a part of it and you are ready to toss in the towel - we've got a word for that:

Loser al Grande.

Maybe that's you, it's not the rest of the folks there trying to do a job. Let's get rid of these few rotten apples and Let's keep it going.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


The Chicago University study that showed how the White House revieled over 27 reasons for invading Iraq is incredible. Now, this is said on the news like it's no big thing... well, if I gave my boss 27 reasons for fuckin' up do you think I'd have a job? REALITY! Other countries respect laws because people go to jail, even Presidents. But not in the USA. Not anymore.




eh, if you told your boss 27 reasons why your fucked up - not only did you fucked up, but you were stupid too... But it all depends on whether he likes you or not - come on, someone as brilliantly cynical as you can't still believe in meritocracy - can you? It's all about *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Worse... no one here has stood up for the soldiers at all! SHAME! The spin going around, especially the first week, is that the 'abuse' (it's TORTURE! REALITY!) was caused by a few. But we know that in fact this is POLICY from Intellegence and thus Rumsfeld and thus the President. How do we know this? REALITY... it's thier JOB to know! So why doesn't anyone call the White House on it? Why?




And where's the proof that they Georgy and Rummy knew that Pvt and Spc so and so were beating people up? Oh! We don't need any of that, why don't we just hang them high without a trial.



Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Because the White House runs the War like the Nazis did. That is - dissent is treason (there's even a frickin' book), follow the Pres or loose your job (Clarke), ignore international law (torturing innocent civilians as policy).

I know the old rule on the Net is that the second you call someone a Nazi that ends the debate. But when the White House uses every Nazi trick in the Nazi cook book you gotta wonder. And of course, sicking dogs on prisoners certainly provoked a few memories (and comments) from Holocaust Survivors.

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly . . . it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
-Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda



Funny you should quote him. I thought that's what you were doing. Just keep repeating the same crap over and over and hope that it becomes the truth.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:04 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Talvin:
To GHOULMAN:

Because we are a community, one that you have clearly disparaged and do not consider yourself part of. If you feel this is so important, go start your own. "Browncoats against Bush" if you like, or whatever.

This community has nothing to do with "engine properties" and a great deal to do with support and friendship. Your reply to my post shows that your main interest is in starting a fight, and that means you do not belong here.

Now leave.


"I give up. I admit it. I'm a Browncoat."


I'm sorry you read my post that way. It wasn't my intention. Excuse the glibness... please! Look, I am not some Star Trek geek looking to figure out if Firefly is Faster than Light or not.

Not a huge crime, except to you?

And it's cute you tell me to leave... it's MY THREAD. Jeez!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:06 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Lies and more lies. It's funny how people constantly parrot what they are told they should think. Thanks CNN.




People with diarrhea of the mouth certainly helps

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


The thing is, Americans have lost thier sense of reality. Why? Because they watch a dog wagging TV that constantly tells them retarded things like 'Torture is acceptable' (actual CNN quote from two weeks BEFORE the torture photos), or 'the Geneva Convention doesn't apply' (Dick Cheney), or anything they can think of. They will say anything. The White House is a liars think tank.




so what will some one so disillusioned as you change the world for the better? Will you get rid of the White House altogether? What is your solution? Because just running off at the mouth is nothing more than a rabid junk yard dog barking - nobody listens and at the end they get the police to put it down.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


America has already lost the conflict in Iraq. This is the first thing Americans need to understand. It's over. You lost. Again. Who will you blame?




Sorry, where's the big red flag that said that US has "lost" this one? What's the deal with winning anyways? Last I checked, US has got a whole bunch of people over there trying to help these folks setup their country again.

A few unruly stupid bastard spoils a part of it and you are ready to toss in the towel - we've got a word for that:

Loser al Grande.

Maybe that's you, it's not the rest of the folks there trying to do a job. Let's get rid of these few rotten apples and Let's keep it going.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


The Chicago University study that showed how the White House revieled over 27 reasons for invading Iraq is incredible. Now, this is said on the news like it's no big thing... well, if I gave my boss 27 reasons for fuckin' up do you think I'd have a job? REALITY! Other countries respect laws because people go to jail, even Presidents. But not in the USA. Not anymore.




eh, if you told your boss 27 reasons why your fucked up - not only did you fucked up, but you were stupid too... But it all depends on whether he likes you or not - come on, someone as brilliantly cynical as you can't still believe in meritocracy - can you? It's all about *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Worse... no one here has stood up for the soldiers at all! SHAME! The spin going around, especially the first week, is that the 'abuse' (it's TORTURE! REALITY!) was caused by a few. But we know that in fact this is POLICY from Intellegence and thus Rumsfeld and thus the President. How do we know this? REALITY... it's thier JOB to know! So why doesn't anyone call the White House on it? Why?




And where's the proof that they Georgy and Rummy knew that Pvt and Spc so and so were beating people up? Oh! We don't need any of that, why don't we just hang them high without a trial.



Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Because the White House runs the War like the Nazis did. That is - dissent is treason (there's even a frickin' book), follow the Pres or loose your job (Clarke), ignore international law (torturing innocent civilians as policy).

I know the old rule on the Net is that the second you call someone a Nazi that ends the debate. But when the White House uses every Nazi trick in the Nazi cook book you gotta wonder. And of course, sicking dogs on prisoners certainly provoked a few memories (and comments) from Holocaust Survivors.

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly . . . it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
-Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda



Funny you should quote him. I thought that's what you were doing. Just keep repeating the same crap over and over and hope that it becomes the truth.


I think that speaks for itself.

And btw, what did I EVER do to you to deserve this treatment?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:53 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I read David Kay's entire report.

As a source of amusement, you might be interested in tallying the 'may's, 'might's, 'could's, and 'possible's, (could possibly, may possibly etc) and similar phrases in the report.

Also tally up the unmodified 'are's, 'did's, 'was's etc (ie 'was possibly' doesn't count).

Point... RUE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 3, 2004 11:45 AM

SPACERABBIT


Thank you ghoulman, thank you, thank you, thank you! I think political discussions belong here! Even if i think it is shocking that there are people like AURaptor among my fellow browncoats. But it is refreshing to see that there are also still some people with a bit of intelligence and backbone out there. There is so much bullshit out there that it makes me so angry!!!! So please keep this up!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2004 11:50 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by spacerabbit:
Thank you ghoulman, thank you, thank you, thank you! I think political discussions belong here! Even if i think it is shocking that there are people like AURaptor among my fellow browncoats. But it is refreshing to see that there are also still some people with a bit of intelligence and backbone out there. There is so much bullshit out there that it makes me so angry!!!! So please keep this up!

Thanx.

What can I tell ya? Here I am, little Ghoulman, pointing out (with help from posters.. er, above) the obvious. A War against terroism is a crock. It can't exist. It's like saying you're warring against the sea.

If you want to see US troops home instead of in a meat grinder thousands of miles away (personally I'd like to see the end of the killing of civilians in Iraq more) then impeach GWB.

Why aren't Americans speaking out? Do Americans realize the ENTIRE world is against this? Are Americans afraid? Ask Micheal Moore? lol!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:24 PM

DORAN


It's called political hatrd Mr Ghoul.

You're ready to accept and spread any vitrolic tidbit you can over your hatrd of Bush.

Your politics of personal destruction is tiring.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 2, 2004 3:17 AM

GHOULMAN


lol! He sounds like a super villian! I'm being trolled by a marvel comic book character!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 2, 2004 4:01 AM

FEMALEJAYNE


Just because our people in Iraq are being beheaded with their deaths on video and mailed to us or shot in a room so dark we can't tell which soilder they killed and sent the video to us, doesn't mean we can torture them. This is war time and people are very angry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 2, 2004 9:22 AM

JASONZZZ




I think the order of events are reversed. The "islamic" extremists are claiming that they are beheading folks b/c of the mal-treatment of the detainees.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:01 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/middleeast/31inte.html
?th


Quote:

A senior leader of Al Qaeda who was captured in Pakistan several months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was the main source for intelligence, since discredited, that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to members of the organization, according to American intelligence officials.

Intelligence officials say the detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle, recanted the claims sometime last year, but not before they had become the basis of statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.

Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan in December 2001, is still being held by the Central Intelligence Agency at a secret interrogation center, and American officials say his now-recanted claims raise new questions about the value of the information obtained from such detainees.



Secret locations is sometimes used as code for friendly countries that use torture (Egypt, Pakistan).

The article goes on to recap that no evidence of ANY cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq on any matter has been found by either the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Sept 11 Commission (for those who missed that fact).


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:52 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/middleeast/31inte.html
?th


Quote:

A senior leader of Al Qaeda who was captured in Pakistan several months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was the main source for intelligence, since discredited, that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to members of the organization, according to American intelligence officials.

Intelligence officials say the detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle, recanted the claims sometime last year, but not before they had become the basis of statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.

Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan in December 2001, is still being held by the Central Intelligence Agency at a secret interrogation center, and American officials say his now-recanted claims raise new questions about the value of the information obtained from such detainees.



Secret locations is sometimes used as code for friendly countries that use torture (Egypt, Pakistan).

The article goes on to recap that no evidence of ANY cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq on any matter has been found by either the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Sept 11 Commission (for those who missed that fact).




That would contradict statements made by the Sept 11 Commission that while they did not find any direct evidence of links between alQ and Iraq *for the Sept 11 hubris*, there were such links for other dealings between them, but they didn't look into it since that wasn't their job to look at things outside of the Sept 11 deal.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 1, 2004 1:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


There are 157 references to "Iraq" in the report. These passages refer directly to an Iraq - al Qaeda relationship:
Quote:

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met
with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian
deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75 Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76



On the other hand, there are 311 references to Pakistan. The report details Pakistan's tacit governmental support of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and active support by military officials, religious schools etc.
Quote:

Though Bin Ladin’s destination was Afghanistan, Pakistan was the nation that held the key to his ability to use Afghanistan as a base from which to revive his ambitious enterprise for war against the United States.
It is unlikely that Bin Ladin could have returned to Afghanistan had Pakistan disapproved. The Pakistani military intelligence service probably had advance knowledge of his coming, and its officers may have facilitated his travel.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 2, 2004 7:27 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
There are 157 references to "Iraq" in the report. These passages refer directly to an Iraq - al Qaeda relationship:




I'd agree with you that the Sept 11 commission report findings states that there are no operational relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq for the Sept 11 attack on the US. As both Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (and other commission members) prominently stated over and over again during the last month that the Sept 11 commission studied evidence and facts WRT only the Sept 11 attack on the US - everything else were out of frame.


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:


On the other hand, there are 311 references to Pakistan.




Well, now the media is getting ready our attack on Pakistan and Iran. What do we want from them now?

Thanks Mass Media for not only just reporting the facts "as you see them", but also spinning it the way you like to see them and completely for your own purpose.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 12:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I don't think you've read the report. I don't think you've even read the full quote. So here is an excerpt: "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." In other words no general relation NOR a specific relation.

From the intro to the report: "Our mandate was sweeping."

And they then point to broad conclusions drawn about intelligence, security, al Qaeda etc, not strictly related to 9/11.

But since you are so hung up on this point, please supply a lengthy quote (no highly edited snippets, please) AND a url to back up your ASSERTION.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 27, 2004 5:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 5:53 PM

LTNOWIS


Posted by AURaptor
Quote:

Sorry, but I'd rather strip a prisoner naked and make them BELIEVE something bad was going to happen if they didn't give us information that would save 1 American life. If that's sick , then fine by me. Better harrass 1 prisoner w/ psychology than to allow 10's of civillians / US Soldiers die from a car bomb. I'll make that choice EVERY time.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I dunno about EVERY time, I'd only harass someone if I felt it was likely to actually prevent something. Unfortuneately, the abuse went beyond just psychological pressure and humiliation. There were actual beatings and anal insertions (sorry, couldn't think of a good euphemism) too. What's worse is that some of the abuses weren't even for interrogation purposes, they were just people, to quote a pentagon official, "being weird."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30610-2004Aug25.html
Quote:

The abuse depicted in the Abu Ghraib photographs made public was "a kind of 'Animal House' on the night shift," Schlesinger said - in other words, acts of sadism committed by low-ranking guards for their own entertainment. The report described the abuse as "acts of brutality and purposeless sadism," and said - as have others who reviewed the case - that the soldiers involved were not acting on approved orders or policies.


We don't like to think about this, but when people are given complete control over each other, they can become sadists. It's been proven by various studys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:34 AM

LEXIBLOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by Astriana:
Normally I don't get involved in these conversations, and y'all know I love ya more'n my luggage, but I'd just like to point out to Ghoulman that there are CHILDREN on this board, reading the same posts we are. Please do us all a favor (but especially Haken), and refrain from the kind of nonsense in your latest post.



This is typically of the retardation going on in the US. OOh, the children. So WHAT THE FUCK if they read a few words? Its not going to harm anyone. If Kids use those words against your wish its because you failed as a parent. You can't censor the world.

As for Haken getting in trouble, is this country run by Saddam? (Besides people have been seeling pirate copies, and he did nothing about that)

--
In a free country you can write fuck, shit, cunt, dick, without getting censored/arrested/tortured.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:42 AM

LEXIBLOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by Doran:

Our enemies are using this incident to it's full advantage... to fan hatrd both here and in the middle east. It doesn't matter if Bush had taken personal responsiblity and offered to compensate these "victims"; Bush could have lay protrate at their feet and apologized and it would do no good.


Yes it would, but both he and you have little humanity.

Quote:


They hate, they hate, they hate.. just like the liberals.



And just like you.

Quote:


And they do look at the USA as their "great satan" which has nothing to do with president Bush.. That's just they way they have been raised... they were raised like KKK children.. kids being taught "who do we hate?" "we hate the USA!" Long before George Bush was a public figure the USA was hated by Muslims..


And here you just prove yourself to be a stupid redneck, of the kind who'd just torture people because "hey, i'm righteous!"

There are some people who hate the USA because it has always interefered in their region of the world. And some of the are muslims. But all Muslims do not hate the USA - that's just loony talk.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:47 AM

LEXIBLOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

It is important to note the following. We are the good guys. Hence the rule of law and transparency of process will govern all aspects of this investigation.

Bad guys don't play by these rules.



Sure they do. They exactly the same. They say "We are the good guys - so rules do not apply to us. (Even if signed any)"

Hypocrite.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 29, 2004 10:07 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by LexiBlock:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

It is important to note the following. We are the good guys. Hence the rule of law and transparency of process will govern all aspects of this investigation.

Bad guys don't play by these rules.



Sure they do. They exactly the same. They say "We are the good guys - so rules do not apply to us. (Even if signed any)"

Hypocrite.



You need to reread my post. I said we are the good guys so the rules DO apply. The bad guys may claim 'good guy' status, but they still don't play by the rules.

Let me put it another way. If a terrorist chops a guy's head off they face no sanction from within the terrorist's governing body. If an American soldier were to chop off somebody's head in a similar fashion (ie for the cameras and to make a terroristic message) then that soldier will be prosecuted and punished. The rule of law and application of justice is among that which seperates us from them.

I know many people see the US as the bad guys in all this, that's what happens when you let you politics get in the way of common sense. The US has been the most positive force for political and social change in the history of civilization. But you hate Bush so who cares about history and civilization.

We can always play by your rules and eliminate America from its place in the modern world...give me your name and address and one of the hit squads will come by and explain to you and your family and your neighbors the value of American civilization.

Or we can play by my rules and embrace America...in which case I invite you to respond to this message and enjoy this political dialogue for all its worth and without fear.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 29, 2004 10:56 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I said we are the good guys so the rules DO apply. The bad guys may claim 'good guy' status, but they still don't play by the rules.


Just to enter here. The US may say it plays by the rules but it only does so if it suits itself. Two examples from just a little while back:

1) US tarrifs Canadian Softwood which is against our free trade agreement (ie illegal) which resulted in 10's of thousands of layoffs in BC and hurting US businesses because of the higher price of US Softwood.

2) US bans Canadian beef, they say because of BSE, but really for all the wrong reasons. About a week later the US finds a BSE infected cow in it's own hurd, then another...

I am unsure as to the exact status of these issues as I've been living in a world of Math for the past while. But, it does seem that these are both still a point of contention as the issues are still there and the "victories" mixed among the two. Final decisions *should* be coming up "soon".


As a side note that is quite descriptive of current (and the years past) mentality of the US. The US is the perfect example of an id. This quote is from http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego.html:
"
The id doesn't care about reality, about the needs of anyone else, only its own satisfaction. If you think about it, babies are not real considerate of their parents' wishes. They have no care for time, whether their parents are sleeping, relaxing, eating dinner, or bathing. When the id wants something, nothing else is important.
"

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 30, 2004 4:57 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

1) US tarrifs Canadian Softwood which is against our free trade agreement (ie illegal) which resulted in 10's of thousands of layoffs in BC and hurting US businesses because of the higher price of US Softwood.



Without comment on the merits of the case, the US position is this: Canada is unfairly subsidizing the logging industry by allowing extensive logging operations on Govt controlled land. This allows the Canada to export its wood at prices signifigantly lower then world market value. A NAFTA panel reviewed the allegations and seem to have found them valid, however the caluclations used to determine the unfair benefit (and thus the amount of the duty) was not done correctly. The US has since revised its Duty on Candian wood, reducing it by almost half. Final dispostion will come next year.

Quote:


2) US bans Canadian beef, they say because of BSE, but really for all the wrong reasons. About a week later the US finds a BSE infected cow in it's own hurd, then another...



Turns out the infection is traced to cows imported from Canada just before the ban went into place. So far the incident remains isolated but many countries have banned or limited US beef imports as a precaution. The result is lots of low priced, high quality beef in American stores, so I'm not complaining.

Quote:


The id doesn't care about reality, about the needs of anyone else, only its own satisfaction....When the id wants something, nothing else is important.



The Id wants oil. Good thing for the world that the W is in charge. Otherwise we could simply annex what we want and exterminate those who live there, except those we keep as slaves. I always thought the liberal 'feel gooders' were the ones ruled by Id. Id-iotic ideas like stopping global warming by shutting down industry, throwing fake blood on fur wearers, having extra-marital sex in the oval office, etc.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 30, 2004 8:46 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

Without comment on the merits of the case, the US position is this: Canada is unfairly subsidizing the logging industry by allowing extensive logging operations on Govt controlled land. This allows the Canada to export its wood at prices signifigantly lower then world market value. A NAFTA panel reviewed the allegations and seem to have found them valid, however the caluclations used to determine the unfair benefit (and thus the amount of the duty) was not done correctly. The US has since revised its Duty on Candian wood, reducing it by almost half. Final dispostion will come next year.


These things are still a point of contention so saying what is and what isn't is quite pre-mature.

And I find it funny that you didn't comment on the fact that this move has hurt US business... interesting. Not to mention that fact that the smart proper move is to submit the complaint to the proper authority *before* doing anything. But then again, if the Id wants...


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

Turns out the infection is traced to cows imported from Canada just before the ban went into place. So far the incident remains isolated but many countries have banned or limited US beef imports as a precaution. The result is lots of low priced, high quality beef in American stores, so I'm not complaining.


All of them? I find that pretty hard to believe. This was clearly a baseless knee-jerk reaction.


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

The Id wants oil. Good thing for the world that the W is in charge. Otherwise we could simply annex what we want and exterminate those who live there, except those we keep as slaves.



What do you mean? Like Iraq? Then this *is* happening. Id wants...


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

I always thought the liberal 'feel gooders' were the ones ruled by Id. Id-iotic ideas like stopping global warming by shutting down industry, throwing fake blood on fur wearers, having extra-marital sex in the oval office, etc.


Thank you for saying these things as you just made yourself look like a half-wit. You cannot judge an entire movment by the actions of a few.

People don't want to shut down industry to stop global warming. They want industry to be *responsible* with regards to the bioshpere of this planet. But the implication that can be made from your statment just above is that this shouldn't be done, fuck the future generations and this planet because we won't be here then, right?

Throwing blood or fake blood on fur wearers hasn't been in vogue for some time and I haven't been aware of an incedent of this type for years. This type of behavour is also something that no organization worth it's salt in the fight against animal cruelty would support nor have I hear of one doing so. These people are just extremists

And you're going to have to tell me just how having extra-marital sex has anything to do with a "liberal 'feel gooder'". So what, he's an asshole. The only question is, did he do his job right and did this sex "scandal" interfer with his job? The former is debatable, but I believe that he has been the best president for a *long* time and the latter is a resounding no. That is unless you can magically create some proof to say otherwise.


The fact remains is that no matter what you say this *is* the mentality of the US in general, as a country. It doesn't matter what the individuals behave like as I'm sure there are many good people down there. But, *as* *a* *whole*, the mentality of the US is quite Id like. In fact to the point of nearing the literal definition in my previous post (I'd hazard to say in the limit as well).


----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 2, 2004 10:04 AM

GHOULMAN


... some things that have become apparent to even the most conservative ...

The White House created the policy and authorized the torture of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq.

How they did this is still being discovered though so called "contracters" may have been the main perpetrators in prisons anywhere a so called "enemy combatant" is held. Revealed in the recent trial - When a US. Army corporal asked a Sgt. what "those guys are doing" he was told to drop it and "let them do thier job". Them being these mysterious contractors.

Will Americans be embarrassed and demand a corrupt government step down?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 2, 2004 12:10 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Army corporal asked a Sgt. what "those guys are doing" he was told to drop it and "let them do thier job". Them being these mysterious contractors.



Id want info...

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Will Americans be embarrassed and demand a corrupt government step down?



I have the distinct feeling that this will all be justified somehow and swept under the rug. The media will tire of it and stop reporting, moving onto the next new shiny thing. I mean, how many "average joes" are actually still paying attention to this even now (or even care)? Onto the next rating getting story.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 2, 2004 12:41 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Id want info...



And what the id wants... (excellent Freudian slip there!)

Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


I have the distinct feeling that this will all be justified somehow and swept under the rug.



Only if Bush were re-elected. When he loses the election in November, this stuff will be front page news by January. Just watch.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 2, 2004 3:28 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Id want info...



And what the id wants... (excellent Freudian slip there!)



Forgive me, I'm quite tired right now. But, how is this a Freudian slip?

Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


I have the distinct feeling that this will all be justified somehow and swept under the rug.



Only if Bush were re-elected. When he loses the election in November, this stuff will be front page news by January. Just watch.



I sincerely hope that this is true, I just have doubts about it happening. My fingers are crossed though.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 5:55 AM

GHOULMAN


... And the Ghoulman is proven right once again. The current White House is a criminal organization that should be drummed out of office. Why they aren't says a lot about America.

Doesn't it.

Rumsfeld's dirty war on terror

In an explosive extract from his new book, Seymour Hersh reveals how, in a fateful decision that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, the US defence secretary gave the green light to a secret unit authorised to torture terrorist suspects
Read part two - click here
http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1303429,00.html


Monday September 13, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1303294,00.html
In the late summer of 2002, a CIA analyst made a quiet visit to the detention centre at the US Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where an estimated 600 prisoners were being held, many, at first, in steel-mesh cages that provided little protection from the brutally hot sun. Most had been captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan during the campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

The Bush administration had determined, however, that they were not prisoners of war but "enemy combatants", and that their stay at Guantánamo could be indefinite, as teams of CIA, FBI, and military interrogators sought to prise intelligence from them. In a series of secret memorandums written earlier in the year, lawyers for the White House, the Pentagon and the justice department had agreed that the prisoners had no rights under federal law or the Geneva convention. President Bush endorsed the finding, while declaring that the al-Qaida and Taliban detainees were nevertheless to be treated in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva convention - as long as such treatment was also "consistent with military necessity".

But the interrogations at Guantánamo were a bust. Very little useful intelligence had been gathered, while prisoners from around the world continued to flow into the base, and the facility constantly expanded. The CIA analyst had been sent there to find out what was going wrong. He was fluent in Arabic and familiar with the Islamic world. He was held in high respect within the agency, and was capable of reporting directly, if he chose, to George Tenet, the CIA director. The analyst did more than just visit and inspect. He interviewed at least 30 prisoners to find out who they were and how they ended up in Guantánamo. Some of his findings, he later confided to a former CIA colleague, were devastating.

"He came back convinced that we were committing war crimes in Guantánamo," the colleague told me. "Based on his sample, more than half the people there didn't belong there. He found people lying in their own faeces," including two captives, perhaps in their 80s, who were clearly suffering from dementia. "He thought what was going on was an outrage," the CIA colleague added. There was no rational system for determining who was important.

Two former administration officials who read the analyst's highly classified report told me that its message was grim. According to a former White House official, the analyst's disturbing conclusion was that "if we captured some people who weren't terrorists when we got them, they are now".

That autumn, the document rattled aimlessly around the upper reaches of the Bush administration until it got into the hands of General John A Gordon, the deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, who reported directly to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser and the president's confidante. Gordon, who had retired from the military as a four-star general in 2000 had served as a deputy director of the CIA for three years. He was deeply troubled and distressed by the report, and by its implications for the treatment, in retaliation, of captured American soldiers. Gordon, according to a former administration official, told colleagues that he thought "it was totally out of character with the American value system", and "that if the actions at Guantánamo ever became public, it'd be damaging to the president".

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, there had been much debate inside the administration about what was permissible in the treatment of prisoners and what was not. The most suggestive document, in terms of what was really going on inside military prisons and detention centres, was written in early August 2002 by Jay S Bybee, head of the justice department's office of legal counsel. "Certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within [a legal] proscription against torture," Bybee wrote to Alberto R Gonzales, the White House counsel. "We conclude that for an act to constitute torture, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." (Bush later nominated Bybee to be a federal judge.)

"We face an enemy that targets innocent civilians," Gonzales, in turn, would tell journalists two years later, at the height of the furore over the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. "We face an enemy that lies in the shadows, an enemy that doesn't sign treaties."

Gonzales added that Bush bore no responsibility for the wrongdoing. "The president has not authorised, ordered or directed in any way any activity that would transgress the standards of the torture conventions or the torture statute, or other applicable laws," Gonzales said. In fact, a secret statement of the president's views, which he signed on February 7, 2002 contained a loophole that applied worldwide: "I determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world," the president asserted.

John Gordon had to know what he was up against in seeking a high-level review of prison policies at Guantánamo, but he persevered. Finally, the former White House official recalled, "We got it up to Condi."

As the CIA analyst's report was making its way to Rice, in late 2002 there were a series of heated complaints about the interrogation tactics at Guantánamo from within the FBI, whose agents had been questioning detainees in Cuba since the prison opened. A few of the agents began telling their superiors what they had witnessed, which, they believed, had little to do with getting good information.

"I was told," a senior intelligence official recalled, "that the military guards were slapping prisoners, stripping them, pouring cold water over them, and making them stand until they got hypothermia. The agents were outraged. It was wrong and also dysfunctional." The agents put their specific complaints in writing, the official told me, and they were relayed, in emails and phone calls, to officials at the department of defence, including William J Haynes II, the general counsel of the Pentagon. As far as day-to-day life for prisoners at Guantánamo was concerned, nothing came of it.

The unifying issue for General Gordon and his supporters inside the administration was not the abuse of prisoners at Guantánamo, the former White House official told me: "It was about how many more people are being held there that shouldn't be. Have we really got the right people?" The briefing for Condoleezza Rice about problems at Guantánamo took place in the autumn of 2002. It did not dwell on the question of torture or mistreatment. The main issue, the former White House official told me, was simply, "Are we getting any intelligence? What is the process for sorting these people?"

Rice agreed to call a high-level meeting in the White House situation room. Most significantly, she asked Secretary Rumsfeld to attend. Rums feld, who was by then publicly and privately encouraging his soldiers in the field to get tough with captured prisoners, duly showed up, but he had surprisingly little to say. One participant in the meeting recalled that at one point Rice asked Rumsfeld "what the issues were, and he said he hadn't looked into it". Rice urged Rumsfeld to do so, and added, "Let's get the story right." Rumsfeld seemed to be in agreement, and Gordon and his supporters left the meeting convinced, the former administration official told me, that the Pentagon was going to deal with the issue.

Nothing changed. "The Pentagon went into a full-court stall," the former White House official recalled. "I trusted in the goodness of man and thought we got something to happen. I was naive enough to believe that when a cabinet member" - he was referring to Rumsfeld - "says he's going to take action, he will."

Over the next few months, as the White House began planning for the coming war in Iraq, there were many more discussions about the continuing problems at Guantánamo and the lack of useful intelligence. No one in the Bush administration would get far, however, if he was viewed as soft on suspected al-Qaida terrorism. "Why didn't Condi do more?" the official asked. "She made the same mistake I made. She got the secretary of defence to say he's going to take care of it."

There was, obviously, a difference between the reality of prison life in Guantánamo and how it was depicted to the public in carefully stage-managed news conferences and statements released by the administration. American prison authorities have repeatedly assured the press and the public, for example, that the al-Qaida and Taliban detainees were provided with a minimum of three hours of recreation every week. For the tough cases, however, according to a Pentagon adviser familiar with detainee conditions in mid-2002, at recreation time some prisoners would be strapped into heavy jackets, similar to straitjackets, with their arms locked behind them and their legs straddled by straps. Goggles were placed over their eyes, and their heads were covered with a hood. The prisoner was then led at midday into what looked like a narrow fenced-in dog run - the adviser told me that there were photographs of the procedure - and given his hour of recreation. The restraints forced him to move, if he chose to move, on his knees, bent over at a 45-degree angle. Most prisoners just sat and suffered in the heat.

One of the marines assigned to guard duty at Guantánamo in 2003, who has since left the military, told me, after being promised anonymity, that he and his enlisted colleagues at the base were encouraged by their squad leaders to "give the prisoners a visit" once or twice a month, when there were no television crews, journalists, or other outside visitors at the prison.

"We tried to fuck with them as much as we could - inflict a little bit of pain. We couldn't do much," for fear of exposure, the former marine, who also served in Afghanistan, told me.

"There were always newspeople there," he said. "That's why you couldn't send them back with a broken leg or so. And if somebody died, I'd get court-martialled."

The roughing up of prisoners was sometimes spur-of-the-moment, the former marine said: "A squad leader would say, 'Let's go - all the cameras on lunch break.'" One pastime was to put hoods on the prisoners and "drive them around the camp in a Humvee, making turns so they didn't know where they were. [...] I wasn't trying to get information. I was just having a little fun - playing mind control." When I asked a senior FBI official about the former marine's account, he told me that agents assigned to interrogation duties at Guantánamo had described similar activities to their superiors.

In November 2002, army Major General Geoffrey Miller had relieved Generals Dunlavey and Baccus, unifying the command at Guantánamo. Baccus was seen by the Pentagon as soft - too worried about the prisoners' well-being. In Senate hearings after Abu Ghraib, it became known that Miller was permitted to use legally questionable interrogation techniques at Guantánamo, which could include, with approval, sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in "stress positions" for agonising lengths of time.

In May 2004, the New York Times reported that the FBI had instructed its agents to avoid being present at interrogation sessions with suspected al-Qaida members. The newspaper said the severe methods used to extract information would be prohibited in criminal cases, and therefore could compromise the agents in future legal proceedings against the suspects. "We don't believe in coercion," a senior FBI official subsequently told me. "Our goal is to get information and we try to gain the prisoners' trust. We have strong feelings about it." The FBI official added, "I thought Rumsfeld should have been fired long ago."

"They did it the wrong way," a Pentagon adviser on the war on terror told me, "and took a heavy-handed approach based on coercion, instead of persuasion - which actually has a much better track record. It's about rage and the need to strike back. It's evil, but it's also stupid. It's not torture but acts of kindness that lead to concessions. The persuasive approach takes longer but gets far better results."

There was, we now know, a fantastical quality to the earnest discussions inside the White House in 2002 about the good and bad of the interrogation process at Guantánamo. Rice and Rumsfeld knew what many others involved in the prisoner discussions did not - that sometime in late 2001 or early 2002, the president had signed a top-secret finding, as required by law, authorising the defence department to set up a specially recruited clandestine team of special forces operatives and others who would defy diplomatic niceties and international law and snatch - or assassinate, if necessary - identified "high-value" al-Qaida operatives anywhere in the world.

Equally secret interrogation centres would be set up in allied countries where harsh treatments were meted out, unconstrained by legal limits or public disclosure. The programme was hidden inside the defence department as an "unacknowledged" special-access programme (SAP), whose operational details were known only to a few in the Pentagon, the CIA and the White House.

The SAP owed its existence to Rumsfeld's desire to get the US special forces community into the business of what he called, in public and internal communications, "manhunts", and to his disdain for the Pentagon's senior generals. In the privacy of his office, Rumsfeld chafed over what he saw as the reluctance of the generals and admirals to act aggressively. Soon after September 11, he repeatedly made public his disdain for the Geneva convention. Complaints about the United States' treatment of prisoners, Rumsfeld said, in early 2002, amounted to "isolated pockets of international hyperventilation".

One of Rumsfeld's goals was bureaucratic: to give the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, and not the CIA, the lead in fighting terrorism. Throughout the existence of the SAP, which eventually came to Abu Ghraib prison, a former senior intelligence official told me, "There was a periodic briefing to the National Security Council [NSC] giving updates on results, but not on the methods." Did the White House ask about the process? The former officer said that he believed that they did, and that "they got the answers".

By the time of Rumsfeld's meeting with Rice, his SAP was in its third year of snatching or strong-arming suspected terrorists and questioning them in secret prison facilities in Singapore, Thailand and Pakistan, among other sites. The White House was fighting terror with terror.

On December 18 2001, American operatives participated in what amounted to the kidnapping of two Egyptians, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed al-Zery, who had sought asylum in Sweden. The Egyptians, believed by American intelligence to be linked to Islamic militant groups, were abruptly seized in the late afternoon and flown out of Sweden a few hours later on a US government-leased Gulfstream private jet to Cairo, where they underwent extensive and brutal interrogation. "Both were dirty," a former senior intelligence official, who has extensive knowledge of special-access programmes, told me, "but it was pretty blatant."

The seizure of Agiza and Zery attracted little attention outside of Sweden, despite repeated complaints by human-rights groups, until May 2004 when a Swedish television news magazine revealed that the Swedish government had cooperated after being assured that the exiles would not be tortured or otherwise harmed once they were sent to Egypt. Instead, according to a television report, entitled The Broken Promise, Agiza and Zery, in handcuffs and shackles, were driven to the airport by Swedish and, according to one witness, American agents and turned over at plane-side to a group of Americans wearing plain clothes whose faces were concealed. Once in Egypt, Agiza and Zery have reported through Swedish diplomats, family members and attorneys, that they were subjected to repeated torture by electrical shocks distributed by electrodes that were attached to the most sensitive parts of their bodies. Egyptian authorities eventually concluded, according to the documentary, that Zery had few ties to ongoing terrorism, and he was released from jail in October 2003, although he is still under surveillance. Agiza was acknowledged by his attorneys to have been a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group outlawed in Egypt, and also was once close to Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is outranked in al-Qaida only by Osama bin Laden. In April 2004, he was sentenced to 25 years in an Egyptian prison.

· This is an edited extract from Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, by Seymour M Hersh, published today by Penguin Press. To order a copy for £15.99 plus UK p&p (rrp £17.99), call the Guardian Book Service on 0870 836 0875

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL