Text 10330, 88 rader
Skriven 2009-03-17 11:16:12 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN FITZGERALD
Ärende: WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
==========================
-> On 17 Mar 09  02:09:26, JOHN FITZGERALD got back to DAN CEPPA 
-> Re: WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

 JF>  Interesting numbers.  Too bad there is nothing there that says how
 JF>  they died.  Above you claim prisoners have been tortured to death.
 
 DC>  It says "homicides"  

 JF> Follow the thread back to the part I had to reintroduce in this
 JF> message.  You did in fact say "...prisoners under US control have been
 JF> tortured to death."  You went from 'tortured to death' to the more
 JF> general, and vague, term 'deaths in custody'.

Open your eyes, John.  

 JF> Now, as per your first claim, can you produce one news article
 JF> covering  a story where an individual has been convicted of murder for
 JF> torturing  someone to death?  Or how about an article that just covers

There *have* been convictions, John.  It stated so in the article I copied.  

 DC>   If someone puts a gun to your head to scare you and it 
 DC>   goes off and kills you, is the person inocent because 
 DC>   it was an accident?  

 JF> Under those circumstances the person wouldn't be guilty of murder.  
 JF> Hope this doesn't disappoint you.

Your take on the law disappoints me.  Like it or not, manslaughter is still
murder.  The only difference is in the severity of the, punisment.  

 
 DC>   Get real.  The person waterboarded was put in life 
 DC>   jeopardy and died because of that.  That'd murder. 


 JF> Nope, manslaughter at best.  Again hope this doesn't disappoint you
 JF> as it seems you have your heart set on finding these sorts of things. 

See above and stop trying to alibi by picking nits.  

  
 JF>   Sorry, the real why is why you would defend 
 JF>   someone like Saddam.
 
 DC>   There you go again.  I have never defended him.  
 
 JF>   You haven't gone around and said he was a swell guy, okay, but
 JF>   you do try to dismiss or deny everything this individual was 
 JF>   up to in the years leading up to the '03 invasion.  

Bullshit again.  I never once claimed Saddam to be a saint.  His only real
saving grace is in that his regime acted as a buffer against Iran.  That's 
why the US, that's right, the United States, supported him up until Gulf War
I.  The fact is, John, he was a great ally of the US in that region until that
point in time.  

 JF>   And all the things Clinton's  people reported on about 
 JF>   him and his affairs are dismissed out right buy most Democrats.
 JF>   Heck, Bob Klahn once said Clinton's people, for eight years, 
 JF>   were "all wrong" about Saddam.  Pew!
 
 DC>   So, they were wrong.

 JF> Another sweeping dismissal.  

It really is that simple, John.  They were wrong.  

JF> So I guess the couple of times Saddam
 JF> destroyed some of his WMD it was really just bug spray and fertilizer
 JF> he  was disposing of.  And when Clinton sent cruise missile into

What to you think many chemical weapons are made of?  Wjat do you think
Timothy McVie made his OKC bomb out of?  

 DC>   Where does Bob say that Saddam was a saint? 
 DC>   Because what you did was try to put words
 DC>   in his mouth. 

 JF> "A saint"??  Where did I say he said that?   You accuse me of
 JF> putting  words in ones mouth and in the same breath you come off with
 JF> this?? 

You're the one that has been saying that I've been supporting him.  


--- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
 * Origin: Soundly on the Fault Line (1:138/666.0)