On May 5, 10:45*am, wrote:
On May 5, 11:09*am, wrote:



On Tue, 5 May 2009 05:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis

wrote:
On May 5, 1:00*am, "~ RHF" wrote:

Would "You" Torture A Terrorist To Save The Lives
Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?

Would you cut off your left arm to save the lives of your
family and loved ones? *Do you still have your left arm?
If so then do you have any family and loved ones?

One stupid hypothetical deserves another.
Are your blinders *of your own making?

Would you blow up a nuclear bomb in NYC to save your family?

You beat me to it.

*look what happened as soon as the democrats got in and stopped
torture.

according to rightards everything that has happened to america in the
last 2 years was the fault of the democrats, snicker, only a nut cases
believe that, but, if that is the case the democrats won the war with
islam Says Leading Geopolitical Analyst

*click on the link for the video.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker...-with-Radical-...

West Has Already Won War with Islam, Says Leading Geopolitical Analyst
Posted Apr 30, 2009 07:30am EDT by Aaron Task in Newsmakers
Related: ^DJI, ^GSPC, SPY, DIA, EEM, TUR
With the Taliban on the march in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden still
unaccounted for, attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq rising again and
Afghanistan a quagmire, it would seem the war against jihadist Islam
is only accelerating in intensity.
But what if it's already all over but the shouting?
"It is debatable whether the U.S. has actually won the U.S.-jihadist
war

- but it has certainly achieved its strategic goals,"
- preventing another 9/11 and

Preventing another 9/11 Attack on US Soil is at
best a short-term Strategic Goal that is measured
one day at a time until the next Mega Attack and
these Terrorist Attacks may occur Decades Apart
because for the Islam-O-Fascist Terrorist the
Propaganda Value of these Attacks lasts for Years
and Decades; and they believe that their Jihad is
for their Lifetimes and Generations to come.

The reality is that the Islamists the Jihad Against
'The West' and Christianity is a Hundred Year War
that is renewed each Century.

Only a Fool Thinks that the Jihadists have given-up.

The Jihadist would very much like it for The West
to think that it has given-up and have The West to
Let It Guard Down.

- avoiding jihadist uprising in the Arab world,

Jihadism is still very much alive in the Arab World
and is a significant Faction of Islam in all areas of
the Globe where Islam is a Major Religion.

Only a Fool Thinks that the Jihad is Dead in the
Arab World and across the Globe.

For the Jihadist each Islamic Country is a potential
Afghanistan and only a decade away from becoming
a Religious State Committed to Jihad for all Eternity.

Generally for Muslims living within Predomitly Islamic
Countries the numbers roll-out to be :
* 3%~5% say that they would Do Jihad Against
"The West" : Become Fighters and Wage War.
* 25%~33% say that they Believe Jihad Against
"The West" is a Just Act under Islam; and Justified.
* 17%~22% say that they would Support Jihad Against
"The West" with Money; Aid, Shelter, Food and Supplies.

Clearly Jihad is Alive And Well In Islam -and-
Only Fools Think Otherwise. ~ RHF {ibid}

George
Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, writes in his latest book The Next 100
Years. "The U.S. has succeeded, not so much in winning the war as in
preventing the Islamists from winning and, from a geopolitical
perspective, that is good enough."
Friedman expands up this theory in the accompany video, where we
discuss the following:
* * * * • * * What he calls the "fundamental weakness" of the Muslim world.
* * * * • * * The likely endgame in Afghanistan, where he says the U.S. "cannot
win."
* * * * • * * The potential for a jihadist uprising in Turkey, which Friedman
sees as one of the great regional powers of the 21st Century.
* * * * • * * The likelihood of Pakistan falling into Taliban control, if it
hasn't already.
* * * * • * * The "real" meaning of Iran's rhetorical threats.
* * * * • * * Whether Bin Laden is better captured and put on trial, dead, or
alive and isolated. And whether Al Qaeda is still able to carry out
major terrorist attacks today.

On May 5, 5:28*pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On May 5, 10:45*am, wrote:



On May 5, 11:09*am, wrote:

On Tue, 5 May 2009 05:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis

wrote:
On May 5, 1:00*am, "~ RHF" wrote:

Would "You" Torture A Terrorist To Save The Lives
Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?

Would you cut off your left arm to save the lives of your
family and loved ones? *Do you still have your left arm?
If so then do you have any family and loved ones?

One stupid hypothetical deserves another.
Are your blinders *of your own making?

Would you blow up a nuclear bomb in NYC to save your family?

You beat me to it.

*look what happened as soon as the democrats got in and stopped
torture.

according to rightards everything that has happened to america in the
last 2 years was the fault of the democrats, snicker, only a nut cases
believe that, but, if that is the case the democrats won the war with
islam Says Leading Geopolitical Analyst

*click on the link for the video.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker...-with-Radical-...

West Has Already Won War with Islam, Says Leading Geopolitical Analyst
Posted Apr 30, 2009 07:30am EDT by Aaron Task in Newsmakers
Related: ^DJI, ^GSPC, SPY, DIA, EEM, TUR
With the Taliban on the march in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden still
unaccounted for, attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq rising again and
Afghanistan a quagmire, it would seem the war against jihadist Islam
is only accelerating in intensity.
But what if it's already all over but the shouting?
"It is debatable whether the U.S. has actually won the U.S.-jihadist
war

- but it has certainly achieved its strategic goals,"
- preventing another 9/11 and

Preventing another 9/11 Attack on US Soil is at
best a short-term Strategic Goal that is measured
one day at a time until the next Mega Attack and
these Terrorist Attacks may occur Decades Apart
because for the Islam-O-Fascist Terrorist the
Propaganda Value of these Attacks lasts for Years
and Decades; and they believe that their Jihad is
for their Lifetimes and Generations to come.

The reality is that the Islamists the Jihad Against
'The West' and Christianity is a Hundred Year War
that is renewed each Century.

Only a Fool Thinks that the Jihadists have given-up.

The Jihadist would very much like it for The West
to think that it has given-up and have The West to
Let It Guard Down.

- avoiding jihadist uprising in the Arab world,

Jihadism is still very much alive in the Arab World
and is a significant Faction of Islam in all areas of
the Globe where Islam is a Major Religion.

Only a Fool Thinks that the Jihad is Dead in the
Arab World and across the Globe.

For the Jihadist each Islamic Country is a potential
Afghanistan and only a decade away from becoming
a Religious State Committed to Jihad for all Eternity.

Generally for Muslims living within Predomitly Islamic
Countries the numbers roll-out to be :
* 3%~5% say that they would Do Jihad Against
"The West" : Become Fighters and Wage War.
* 25%~33% say that they Believe Jihad Against
"The West" is a Just Act under Islam; and Justified.
* 17%~22% say that they would Support Jihad Against
"The West" with Money; Aid, Shelter, Food and Supplies.

Clearly Jihad is Alive And Well In Islam -and-
Only Fools Think Otherwise. ~ RHF {ibid}

George
Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, writes in his latest book The Next 100
Years. "The U.S. has succeeded, not so much in winning the war as in
preventing the Islamists from winning and, from a geopolitical
perspective, that is good enough."
Friedman expands up this theory in the accompany video, where we
discuss the following:
* * * * • * * What he calls the "fundamental weakness" of the Muslim world.
* * * * • * * The likely endgame in Afghanistan, where he says the U.S. "cannot
win."
* * * * • * * The potential for a jihadist uprising in Turkey, which Friedman
sees as one of the great regional powers of the 21st Century.
* * * * • * * The likelihood of Pakistan falling into Taliban control, if it
hasn't already.
* * * * • * * The "real" meaning of Iran's rhetorical threats.
* * * * • * * Whether Bin Laden is better captured and put on trial, dead, or
alive and isolated. And whether Al Qaeda is still able to carry out
major terrorist attacks today.

their largest recruiting tool is about to face charges because ronald
reagan understood what torture does to a country that is its
recipient, and the country that is the perp.

man, conservatives are the most god awful stupidest people on the
planet. its a treaty we entered into under the republican party.
federal treaties become the law of the land.
By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention,
the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our
desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture. RONALD
REAGAN
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...88/ai_6742034/
U.S. signs UN convention against torture
US Department of State Bulletin , August, 1988
• 1
Following are the President's message to the Senate and the text of
the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment signed on behalf of the United States by
Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead on April 18, 1988, at the
United Nations. The United States became the 63d nation to sign the
convention, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December
1984 and entered into force on June 26, 198 7, after it was ratified
by 20 nations.
MESSAGE TO THE SENATE, MAY 20, 1988.sup.1
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to
ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and
declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The
Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations
General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June
26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. 1 also
transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the
Department of State on the Convention.
The United States participated actively and effectively in the
negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the
development during this century of international measures against
torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of
the
Convention by the United States will clearly express United States
opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still
prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for
international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers
relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is
required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory
or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible
to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all
respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and
declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of
the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations,
understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no
constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States
ratification,
The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention
will
be submitted to the Congress separately.
Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the
Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States
ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the
United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee
against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations
of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the
United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations,
pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the
competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider
communications from States and individuals alleging that the United
States is violating the Convention. I believe that a final United
States decision as to whether to accept such competence of the
Committee should be withheld until we have had an opportunity to
assess the Committee's work. It would be possible for the United
States in the future to accept the competence of the Committee
pursuant to Articles 20, 21, and 22, should experience with the
Committee prove satisfactory and should the United States consider
this step desirable.
By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention,
the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our
desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.
RONALD REAGAN
TEXT OF CONVENTION2
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
The States Parties to this Convention,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the
Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family in the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the
human person,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular
Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of,
human
rights and fundamental freedoms,
Having regard to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be
subjected
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All
Persons
from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9
December
1975.
Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and
other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the
world.
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 12

On May 5, 4:07*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT), "~ RHF"

- - wrote:
- - RG - Just How Does Committing a Terrorist Act
- - and Killing Tens of Thousands or Millions of
- - Innocent Human Beings =Equate To= "You"
- - Torture A (One) Terrorist To Save The Lives
- - Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?

- Torture is terrorism.

After the 9/11 Attacks Terrorism has taken on
a new dimension that goes way beyond an
Individual inflecting Pain-and-Suffering on an
Individual. Terrorism is now expanded to the
Mass Murder of Thousands / Milllions; that was
only previously thought possible in War or a
Natural Disaster.

- If you want to create hypothetically that allow
- it for you, have at it.

- All it shows is *a vivid imagination and a lack of morals.

So Liberal & Democrats Believe that it is OK
"Moral" to let your Family and Friends and
Loved Ones Die : When you could have 'possibly'
prevented it from happening to them.

RG - The Logic and Justification is always :
The Pain and Suffering {One Life} of a Terrorist
for the Lives of Thousands, Tens of Thousands
or Millions of Innocent Human Beings.

The 'basic' Question Remains Would "You"
Torture A (One) Terrorist To Save The Lives
Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?

The 'base' Human "Gut" Answer is either a
simple : Yes -or- No ~ RHF

On May 5, 6:07*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT), "~ RHF"

wrote:
RG - Just How Does Commiting a Terrorist Act
and Killing Tens of Thousands or Millions of
Innocent Human Beings =Equate To= "You"
Torture A (One) Terrorist To Save The Lives
Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?

Torture is terrorism. If you want to create hypothetically that allow
it for you, have at it. All it shows is *a vivid imagination and a
lack of morals.

the idiot gets that crap from 24, he is incapable of understanding
what he is parroting. he has no thoughts of his own, let alone any
morals.

~ RHF wrote:


So Liberal & Democrats Believe that it is OK
"Moral" to let your Family and Friends and
Loved Ones Die : When you could have 'possibly'
prevented it from happening to them.


What profits a man who gains the world but loses his soul?

- wrote:
- Desiring to make more effective the struggle
- against torture and other cruel, inhuman or
- degrading treatment or punishment throughout
- the world.

VIDE - So 'You' are clearly against Torture
and therefore naturally you are also against :
The Death Penalty & Abortion & Partial Birth
Abortion & Life In Prison . . .

nah would be to consistent and morally logical ~ RHF

wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT), "~ RHF"
wrote:

RG - Just How Does Commiting a Terrorist Act
and Killing Tens of Thousands or Millions of
Innocent Human Beings =Equate To= "You"
Torture A (One) Terrorist To Save The Lives
Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?


Torture is terrorism. If you want to create hypothetically that allow
it for you, have at it. All it shows is a vivid imagination and a
lack of morals.
(D)Harry Truman - Terrorist - ??????????????????

wrote in message
...
On May 5, 7:39 pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
- wrote:

- Desiring to make more effective the struggle
- against torture and other cruel, inhuman or
- degrading treatment or punishment throughout
- the world.

VIDE - So 'You' are clearly against Torture
and therefore naturally you are also against :
The Death Penalty & Abortion & Partial Birth
Abortion & Life In Prison . . .

nah would be to consistent and morally logical ~ RHF
.
.
i am not for right wing demagoguery.

I, personally, am against torture, the death penalty, abortion for any
purpose other than saving the life of the mother. I am for life
imprisonment. I feel that is a just punishment for murder, rape, etc.

Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT), "~ RHF"
wrote:

RG - Just How Does Commiting a Terrorist Act
and Killing Tens of Thousands or Millions of
Innocent Human Beings =Equate To= "You"
Torture A (One) Terrorist To Save The Lives
Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?


Torture is terrorism. If you want to create hypothetically that allow
it for you, have at it. All it shows is a vivid imagination and a
lack of morals.
(D)Harry Truman - Terrorist - ??????????????????

Nagasaki????????????????????

On May 5, 5:54*pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On May 5, 9:09*am, wrote: On Tue, 5 May 2009 05:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis

wrote:
On May 5, 1:00*am, "~ RHF" wrote:

Would "You" Torture A Terrorist To Save The Lives
Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?

Would you cut off your left arm to save the lives of your
family and loved ones? *Do you still have your left arm?
If so then do you have any family and loved ones?

One stupid hypothetical deserves another.
Are your blinders *of your own making?

- Would you blow up a nuclear bomb in NYC to save your family?
-
- You beat me to it.

RG - Just How Does Commiting a Terrorist Act
and Killing Tens of Thousands or Millions of
Innocent Human Beings =Equate To= "You"
Torture A (One) Terrorist To Save The Lives
Of Your Family and Loved Ones ?
*.
OH YEAH TORTURED LIBERAL LOGIC !
*.
The Answer is either a simple : Yes -or- No
*.

The answer is that torture doesn't work. The answer is that you,
personally, want to watch. You get your rocks off by hearing about
torture. You are a coward.

But so what, you want to watch other people being tortured. Not that
torture ever reveals anything, how many witches got burned do you
think? How many satanists?

The fact is that all the persons involved in torture are criminally
culpable. The fact that they won't be brought to trial shows what
prosecutorial discretion is.