I believe there were only two bombs on Aug. 5 - Big Boy and Little Boy. The Allied Powers were so insane - as the Axis was - that they threw both at Japan before it knew what hit them. The Allies, being insane from years of horrific wars that intentionally killed noncombatants on both sides, were deceived into believing Hirohito would fight down to his last 10-year old. The emperor had already asked for peace under terms Truman would soon accept. Truman exploded both bombs, killing innocents. And nation-states are still aiming far more powerful bombs that violate all rules of moral warfare, because we never meant to follow those rules,

OK, everybody.

PB "believes" both bombs were dropped on the same day. Start re-writing all those incorrect history books scattered around the world.

And the conservatives among us are criticized for not providing proof? This is turning into a joke.

People make mistakes....

There were two bombs.... Called Little Boy & Fat Man....dropped Little Boy on Monday, August 6, 1945 & Fat Man dropped on August 9th. As for conservatives? providing proof you could have easily done so. But again it was just an error of dates not intent of what was being discussed eh?

chuckd, you don't read well. On August 5 - day before Hiroshima - I understand the entire arsenal of the world's nuclear weapons amounted to 2. One bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6 and the other on August 9 at Nagasaki. The nicknames of the bombs don't matter. The nature of the bomb was secret, of a type and magnitude unknown. Japan couldn't have known what hit them in 5 days. I met hibakushua; one was a neighbor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha

I was at Amarillo when the Army chaplain knelt to ask forgiveness that he had blessed that bomb on 8/6/1945 that wounded hibakusha.

I don't point out simple mistakes in my opponent's arguments. Nor do I blatantly misstate what they said. You need to read more carefully.

God bless you.

I believe there were only two bombs on Aug. 5 - Big Boy and Little Boy. The Allied Powers were so insane - as the Axis was - that they threw both at Japan before it knew what hit them. The Allies, being insane from years of horrific wars that intentionally killed noncombatants on both sides, were deceived into believing Hirohito would fight down to his last 10-year old. The emperor had already asked for peace under terms Truman would soon accept. Truman exploded both bombs, killing innocents. And nation-states are still aiming far more powerful bombs that violate all rules of moral warfare, because we never meant to follow those rules,

OK, everybody.

PB "believes" both bombs were dropped on the same day. Start re-writing all those incorrect history books scattered around the world.

And the conservatives among us are criticized for not providing proof? This is turning into a joke.

People make mistakes....

There were two bombs.... Called Little Boy & Fat Man....dropped Little Boy on Monday, August 6, 1945 & Fat Man dropped on August 9th. As for conservatives? providing proof you could have easily done so. But again it was just an error of dates not intent of what was being discussed eh?

A mistake? I posted the correct dates in post #480. PB chose not to take my word for it in #483. So it wasn't just an "error of dates".

People make mistakes....

I don't point out simple mistakes in my opponent's arguments. Nor do I blatantly misstate what they said. You need to read more carefully.

God bless you.

They just don't get that, PB. It's all part of the agression.

People make mistakes....

I don't point out simple mistakes in my opponent's arguments. Nor do I blatantly misstate what they said. You need to read more carefully.

God bless you.

They just don't get that, PB. It's all part of the agression.

Blatant kissing up to the mod now, eh?

I believe there were only two bombs on Aug. 5 - Big Boy and Little Boy. The Allied Powers were so insane - as the Axis was - that they threw both at Japan before it knew what hit them. The Allies, being insane from years of horrific wars that intentionally killed noncombatants on both sides, were deceived into believing Hirohito would fight down to his last 10-year old. The emperor had already asked for peace under terms Truman would soon accept. Truman exploded both bombs, killing innocents. And nation-states are still aiming far more powerful bombs that violate all rules of moral warfare, because we never meant to follow those rules,

OK, everybody.

PB "believes" both bombs were dropped on the same day. Start re-writing all those incorrect history books scattered around the world.

And the conservatives among us are criticized for not providing proof? This is turning into a joke.

People make mistakes....

There were two bombs.... Called Little Boy & Fat Man....dropped Little Boy on Monday, August 6, 1945 & Fat Man dropped on August 9th. As for conservatives? providing proof you could have easily done so. But again it was just an error of dates not intent of what was being discussed eh?

And here's a man who saw both:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

One third of all humans live in countries that got their independence non-violently since 1945.

Can you name five?

India, Pakistan. Philipines, Russia, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Czech-Slovakia, Indonesia, Nigeria, E. Germany, Argentina, Malaysia, Tunisia,,,,,,,,,,,,

Indian and Pakistan might have got their independence from Britain non-violently but there was a huge amount of violence during Partition. Estimates of deaths range from 250,000 to 1 million.

Yes, you're on the jeace and justice side.

No he isn't. He's just on the side that you agree with. You have proved that you have no more insight than the rest of us.

Snipe snipe snipe. Never mind.

You quite rightly admit to having no insight...good on you. It's a first step to admitting your own fallibilty.

Keep up the good work. One day you may even be able to concede that Bush et al are not worthy of your idolising.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed killed over 3,000 innocent people. Frankly, I don't care how often they waterboard him.

how often should the texan village idiot be waterboarded?

Bush and Gore should get the treatment together.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed killed over 3,000 innocent people. Frankly, I don't care how often they waterboard him.

how often should the texan village idiot be waterboarded?

Waterboarding is supposed to be to extract important information.....I don't think waterboarding the Texan village idiot would be very fruitfull....

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed killed over 3,000 innocent people. Frankly, I don't care how often they waterboard him.

how often should the texan village idiot be waterboarded?

Waterboarding is supposed to be to extract important information.....I don't think waterboarding the Texan village idiot would be very fruitfull....

:D

Thanks that did make me laugh out loud

I would say throw shoes at him but he is pretty good at dodging those

UG, or Kohee can you please direct us to some source that proves KSM was responsible for planning the actions of the 9/11 attacks before he was tortured?

Again I ask, what other evidence the US have other then his confession after being tortured?

Interestingly it's now being claimed that detainees released from Gitmo are responsible for current terrorist attacks.

So torturing obviously never made them confess to being terrorists or they would never have been released.

The possibility that the torture turned them into terrorists is too ludicrous to contemplate of course.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed killed over 3,000 innocent people. Frankly, I don't care how often they waterboard him.

how often should the texan village idiot be waterboarded?

Waterboarding is supposed to be to extract important information.....I don't think waterboarding the Texan village idiot would be very fruitfull....

touché!

Interestingly it's now being claimed that detainees released from Gitmo are responsible for current terrorist attacks.

So torturing obviously never made them confess to being terrorists or they would never have been released.

The possibility that the torture turned them into terrorists is too ludicrous to contemplate of course.

They weren't tortured. Maybe they should have been. Even if you include water-boarding it was only used on a few individuals.

Interestingly it's now being claimed that detainees released from Gitmo are responsible for current terrorist attacks.

So torturing obviously never made them confess to being terrorists or they would never have been released.

The possibility that the torture turned them into terrorists is too ludicrous to contemplate of course.

They weren't tortured. Maybe they should have been. Even if you include water-boarding it was only used on a few individuals.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

I'm also curious to know why you seem reluctant to include waterboarding in the torturer's toolkit.

Interestingly it's now being claimed that detainees released from Gitmo are responsible for current terrorist attacks.

So torturing obviously never made them confess to being terrorists or they would never have been released.

The possibility that the torture turned them into terrorists is too ludicrous to contemplate of course.

They weren't tortured. Maybe they should have been. Even if you include water-boarding it was only used on a few individuals.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

I'm also curious to know why you seem reluctant to include waterboarding in the torturer's toolkit.

There's bound to be some technicality in the relevant statutes. I believe Bush deliberately narrowed the legal definition of torture so as to specifically allow it....despite most legal experts agreeing that it is indeed torture....and despite Japanese convicted for performiing it on US prisoners.

The stroke of a pen...and it's all ok now. Forget about the spirit of the law, follow the letter of the law now we have rewritten it.

Or a semantic argument....."enhanced interrogation techniques", not "torture".

Interestingly it's now being claimed that detainees released from Gitmo are responsible for current terrorist attacks.

So torturing obviously never made them confess to being terrorists or they would never have been released.

The possibility that the torture turned them into terrorists is too ludicrous to contemplate of course.

They weren't tortured. Maybe they should have been. Even if you include water-boarding it was only used on a few individuals.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

I'm also curious to know why you seem reluctant to include waterboarding in the torturer's toolkit.

I didn't expect you to believe it. You guys don't believe anything the US gov't or military says. While on the other hand you believe every accusation made by the guys locked up in Gitmo, the Taliban, or al Qaeda. That's just your nature.

People have different ideas of torture. Before I had even heard of waterboarding, if you had asked me to list ten ways I would expect to be tortured the list might have looked like this (in no particular order);

1. electric shock to genitals

2. electric shock to anywhere else

3. bamboo shoots under the finger nails

4. beaten with a stick of some kind

5. chained/tied up and left hanging for long periods of time (like done to McCain)

6. fingernails pulled off with pliers

7. fingers/toes cut off

8. painful things done to an eye

9. bones broken

10. burned with fire

Somehow, no matter how unpleasant it might be, the temporary sensation of drowning and gagging doesn't fit on that list. I'd take waterboarding before anything on that list every time. How about you? Which ones do you consider not as bad as waterboarding?

Interestingly it's now being claimed that detainees released from Gitmo are responsible for current terrorist attacks.

So torturing obviously never made them confess to being terrorists or they would never have been released.

The possibility that the torture turned them into terrorists is too ludicrous to contemplate of course.

They weren't tortured. Maybe they should have been. Even if you include water-boarding it was only used on a few individuals.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

I'm also curious to know why you seem reluctant to include waterboarding in the torturer's toolkit.

There's bound to be some technicality in the relevant statutes. I believe Bush deliberately narrowed the legal definition of torture so as to specifically allow it....despite most legal experts agreeing that it is indeed torture....and despite Japanese convicted for performiing it on US prisoners.

The stroke of a pen...and it's all ok now. Forget about the spirit of the law, follow the letter of the law now we have rewritten it.

Or a semantic argument....."enhanced interrogation techniques", not "torture".

Very different methods. Google it.

People have different ideas of torture. Before I had even heard of waterboarding, if you had asked me to list ten ways I would expect to be tortured the list might have looked like this (in no particular order);

1. electric shock to genitals

2. electric shock to anywhere else

3. bamboo shoots under the finger nails

4. beaten with a stick of some kind

5. chained/tied up and left hanging for long periods of time (like done to McCain)

6. fingernails pulled off with pliers

7. fingers/toes cut off

8. painful things done to an eye

9. bones broken

10. burned with fire

Somehow, no matter how unpleasant it might be, the temporary sensation of drowning and gagging doesn't fit on that list. I'd take waterboarding before anything on that list every time. How about you? Which ones do you consider not as bad as waterboarding?

Have you been waterboarded? It is very simple & I'm sure you can find someone to assist you.

You should send your list over for them although they do not lack ideas...

Although the electrical shock to the genitals has been done there already.

Other than that just the mild stuff you know...nothing like your list....

Instead they only....

Smear feces in their faces

Beatings yes with & without sticks.... But they use rubber gloves..

Sensory deprivation...Ever notice all the black hoods & ear muffs?

Dislocating Limbs

Pepper spray in closed cells

Even pepper spray on toilet paper....Those kids...eh?

The list goes on...and on but Im sure your list is probably worse in your mind.

Then again torture is torture isn't it?

Number 5, as done to McCain. I would certainly choose that over waterboarding.

But does a person's preference define if it is torture or not if all options are nasty and debilitating and act upon the victims will to resist?

This article sums it all up.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/military-...ruining-economy

Plenty of embedded links and I strongly advice to look at the excellent BBC docu: The century of the self.

After watching that one, you have a much clearer idea how the people are manipulated and if after reading the article and check the links (also from the comments) you still keep ignorant, then I guess there is no hope left....

Edit: Add this link to the torture archive: http://www.aladin.wrlc.org/gsdl/cgi-bin/li...qf=DT,KEY,WR,DT

And yes people have died as a result of whatever they did to them while being detained.

Interestingly it's now being claimed that detainees released from Gitmo are responsible for current terrorist attacks.

So torturing obviously never made them confess to being terrorists or they would never have been released.

The possibility that the torture turned them into terrorists is too ludicrous to contemplate of course.

They weren't tortured. Maybe they should have been. Even if you include water-boarding it was only used on a few individuals.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

I'm also curious to know why you seem reluctant to include waterboarding in the torturer's toolkit.

I didn't expect you to believe it. You guys don't believe anything the US gov't or military says. While on the other hand you believe every accusation made by the guys locked up in Gitmo, the Taliban, or al Qaeda. That's just your nature.

People have different ideas of torture. Before I had even heard of waterboarding, if you had asked me to list ten ways I would expect to be tortured the list might have looked like this (in no particular order);

1. electric shock to genitals

2. electric shock to anywhere else

3. bamboo shoots under the finger nails

4. beaten with a stick of some kind

5. chained/tied up and left hanging for long periods of time (like done to McCain)

6. fingernails pulled off with pliers

7. fingers/toes cut off

8. painful things done to an eye

9. bones broken

10. burned with fire

Somehow, no matter how unpleasant it might be, the temporary sensation of drowning and gagging doesn't fit on that list. I'd take waterboarding before anything on that list every time. How about you? Which ones do you consider not as bad as waterboarding?

Sorry koheesi, it's got nothing to do with the US.

I happen to believe that if you have to become like your enemies to win, then you don't win at all.

You keep running back to the "you hate America" defence.

I hate criminals of all nations. I hate some of America's foreign and economic policies. This is political not personal.

I prefer US world domination to the possibility of Chinese or Russian.

If you provided some links to what you call facts you'd have a lot more credibility.

But I suppose if you can't find them it only proves to you how much the WWW and Wikipedia hate America.

Any treatment that puts you in fear of your life is bad, torturers, many of them Communists, have stated that psychological cruelty can produce a confession from brave men far quicker than pain, and of course, leaves a lot less physical evidence.

I have a very good friend that was kidnapped during the early days of the Iraq war. He was held captive for 331 days until he was rescued by the US Marines.

He was kept in a cellar with his hands and feet tied for virtually the entire period. His solitary confinement was extreme in that the cellar was sealed up each time his captors left. He said he never knew if he would come out of the ordeal alive, but the sheer isolation is what bothered him the most.

Our Islamic friends are not very good jail keepers either.

His book will be coming out next month. I believe the title is "Buried Alive".

I didn't expect you to believe it. You guys don't believe anything the US gov't or military says. While on the other hand you believe every accusation made by the guys locked up in Gitmo, the Taliban, or al Qaeda. That's just your nature....

Well koheesti, it was nice to have agreed with a couple of your posts. That, however, is a damnable lie.

And if you want to see and hear what the real issues are there and why this occupation is only destructive I suggest looking at this short docu.

Part five and six specially for our pro war on terror friends.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/videos.php

If you don't love your enemies, God does not claim you as His. LOVE YOUR ENEMIES.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

I'm also curious to know why you seem reluctant to include waterboarding in the torturer's toolkit.

I didn't expect you to believe it. You guys don't believe anything the US gov't or military says. While on the other hand you believe every accusation made by the guys locked up in Gitmo, the Taliban, or al Qaeda. That's just your nature.

People have different ideas of torture. Before I had even heard of waterboarding, if you had asked me to list ten ways I would expect to be tortured the list might have looked like this (in no particular order);

1. electric shock to genitals

2. electric shock to anywhere else

3. bamboo shoots under the finger nails

4. beaten with a stick of some kind

5. chained/tied up and left hanging for long periods of time (like done to McCain)

6. fingernails pulled off with pliers

7. fingers/toes cut off

8. painful things done to an eye

9. bones broken

10. burned with fire

Somehow, no matter how unpleasant it might be, the temporary sensation of drowning and gagging doesn't fit on that list. I'd take waterboarding before anything on that list every time. How about you? Which ones do you consider not as bad as waterboarding?

Sorry koheesi, it's got nothing to do with the US.

I happen to believe that if you have to become like your enemies to win, then you don't win at all.

You keep running back to the "you hate America" defence.

I hate criminals of all nations. I hate some of America's foreign and economic policies. This is political not personal.

I prefer US world domination to the possibility of Chinese or Russian.

If you provided some links to what you call facts you'd have a lot more credibility.

But I suppose if you can't find them it only proves to you how much the WWW and Wikipedia hate America.

Any treatment that puts you in fear of your life is bad, torturers, many of them Communists, have stated that psychological cruelty can produce a confession from brave men far quicker than pain, and of course, leaves a lot less physical evidence.

"hate America defense"? If that's what you want to call it, go ahead.

What facts are it you want links provided to? Just let me know.

I don't buy into that "if you have to become like your enemies, they win!" line either. Although, Al Qaeda's idea of victory would be us converting to Islam, taking away most rights from women and stoning homosexuals to death. But I don't think that's what you meant, right?

BTW - "Which ones do you consider not as bad as waterboarding?"

p.s. - props to Harcourt for answering that.

I didn't expect you to believe it. You guys don't believe anything the US gov't or military says. While on the other hand you believe every accusation made by the guys locked up in Gitmo, the Taliban, or al Qaeda. That's just your nature....

Well koheesti, it was nice to have agreed with a couple of your posts. That, however, is a damnable lie.

It wasn't even directed to you so how would you know if it weren't true? Does it hit too close to home for you or something? Hmmm.

According to General Patreas (sorry if name spelled wrong) there are no Al Quida warriors in Afghanistan!

(In some article it is mentioned that there are maybe about a hundred but not sure)

Watch part 6 of the rethink Afghanistan docu he says it right there.

What is it that you do not understand Kohee and some others.

NO AL QUIDA IN AFGHANISTAN

The insurgents are angry Afghans who's houses have been bombed to pieces, who's family members are killed by such actions, have little or no food, have seen no improvement in their living conditions, hoped for a better future after the international coalition made such promises but did not do much to keep them. They ask us if we could please leave their country but instead more troops are send in causing more death and destruction, hunger and misery. Can you imagine that these people are very angry as they have lost everything in live?

Hopefully you have a look at the docu and you have a bit of an understanding as to why those angry Afghans are resisting an (unlawful) occupation. And the installment of a puppet extremist regime (by we all know who) which says the only two rights women have is to obey their husband and not to pray in the local mosque.

The Taliban are not Al Quida.

What we are doing there is a wrong approach to try to stabilize a country. Let alone poisoning the people with nuclear waste, that is an act of terror on it's own.

Watch the docu if you are interested in the real issues there.