The torture tape fingering Bush as a war criminal

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Dec 26, 2007.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    FULL ARTICLE....

    Sometimes...it's just ridiculous isn't it?

    Two questions;

    Who are we supposed to believe and qui bono?
     
  2. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll be the first to say that I'm not a Bush fan (though I voted for him twice.) But this is kinda far fetched.

    But interesting to think about!

    But kinda far fetched...

    But interesting to think about!

    But kinda far fetched...

    Anywho, thanks for another interesting conversation, poncho. IF one day we wake up to global fascism via the two party system I'll kick myself for not having listened to you, assuming that is, I'm not already being beaten by statists. :)
     
    #2 Ivon Denosovich, Dec 26, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2007
  3. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want to go just a little bit further out, here's my theory. I don't think the CIA cover-up is about torture at all. I believe they destroyed the tapes to cover-up what the prisoners said under torture about 9/11.
     
  4. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds plausible. Probably true.

    ETA: But then again, why make the tapes to begin with?
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Innuendo notwithstanding,

    The torture tape fingering Bush as a war criminal...

    doesn't exist and never has.
     
  6. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Granted, you're probably right. But I maintain the same reservation with most anti-conspiracists that I do with most conspiracists themselves. Why the dogmatism? It's not as if there's a logical difference between poncho's blind faith and that of your own.
     
    #6 Ivon Denosovich, Dec 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2007
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Blind faith? Isn't that like when you take the "authorities" at their word and do as yer told while blasting away endlessly at others who don't, or in the case of most Americans today intimidated into doing as they're told and conditioned into repeating the "party" talking points and smear tactics into the ground...to prove they're right?

    Blind faith...me? Not by a long shot. :type:
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What's so farfetched? Seriously. Can ya spell it out in a little more detail?
     
  9. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    poncho, I didn't mean to imply your faith was unintelligent in the least. I simply meant that we all put faith in something and carpro's chosing a different source to believe isn't more logical than yours, just different.

    And your source may be right for all I know!
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The answer is right under your fingertips...:smilewinkgrin:
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    It's not a matter of faith.

    It's a matter of evidence. There is none.
     
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    But what are the odds?

    The evidence if any was probably destroyed (we'll see). Destruction of evidence more times than not means someone was guilty and afraid of being caught not that they were innocent and just "cleaning up" the office..
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    The odds are excellent that, if there is any evidence that the President committed a crime, it will eventually come to light.

    Until it does, you'll have to be satisfied with innuendo and dissatisfied with those that recognize it for what it is.
     
  14. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look, carpro, there's plenty of stuff out there that people such as poncho DO consider evidence. Stop bickering semantics. If you don't want to believe it, fine. But get over yourself-- you're no more logical than he is. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, I'll bite. What, precisely, Mr. Logical, are the odds? A numerical ratio please.
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    You said it.
     
  17. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Just remember...

    CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

    Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

    E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

    SOURCE

    You're going to have to be dissatified with people who keep putting all the circumstantial evidence this administration has given us together and coming to a different conclusion than all the star spangled bannered "patriots" giving government a pass whenever their party is questioned.
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Not at all.

    The hate pool for the Bush Administration is quite large. It's a pity that all they have to go on after 7 years is "circumstantial" evidence. 7 Years. What are the odds?;)

    Makes Bush look like a genius. After being charactized by his political enemies as a Texas rube of substandard intelligence.:laugh:
     
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    One would have to believe Bush actually is the decider to write something like this. :laugh:

    The only thing he's decided was to listen to the people his own father called the "crazies" and kept at arms length. You know the "world domination by military intimidation and force people". :laugh:

    It was a crazy idea then and it's a crazy idea now. Blowback sandwich anyone?
     
    #19 poncho, Dec 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...