STOP
TERROR
STOP
TORTURE
OUT
OF IRAQ
Saturday, September 16, 2006
That's The First Rule Of Politics, Isn't It? The Man Who Orders The Execution Never Drops The Blade
If you have to ask....
Pope Benedict "is very upset" that Muslims took offense by his invoking a 14th-century speech calling the works of Mohammed "evil and inhuman".
The Only President We've Got finds comments against torture "unacceptable" and wants "clarity" regarding the Geneva Conventions' ban against "outrages against human dignity".
With all of the works of Catholicism to pull from, Emperor Popetine grabs one insulting a billion people and then sends out a spokesflunky to tell everyone how the Pontiff is "very upset that some parts of his speech could have sounded offensive to the sensibility of the Muslim faithful and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond at all to his intentions". In what other way, I'm curious, were those remarks supposed to be interpreted?
Chimpy McShithead wants to find the "acceptable" legal limits to his torture program.
Answer to both question: There is none.
And this pushing of the limits, this utter willingness to tear down the boundaries of civilization we've spent thousands of years putting up so we don't spend all our time trying to slaughter each other in righteous rage, is something which the "leaders" of the world do with increasing frequency.
News flash to Pope Bennie: The world communicates instantly these days. If you say something stupid, everybody knows really fast. And, given the religious tensions in the world since, oh, say, the 14th century, going back literally hundreds of years to demonize one-sixth of the earth's population may not be the brightest move. Following up by saying how upset you are about it is just a smack in the face. Having an underling deliver that message is worse than cowardice.
This is what comes from playing My God's Bigger Than Your God. Earlier this week I saw a comment at Eschaton I agree with strongly, the gist of which is Religious tension is a fight over who's got the better imaginary friend.
And, hey, Chimpy: I suspect that you're having such a difficult time with that provision of Geneva because, well, you have no human dignity. None. You were a spoiled silver-spoon brat who made it on your family name and connections, a binge drinker twenty years past your frat days, an inept CEO who ran an oil company and a baseball team into the ground (but managed to make tidy profits for yourself), a clumsy and mean governor who messed up your educational system and economy and enjoyed putting people to death, and now you've been sharing that magic touch with the whole country for six years, with predictable results.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the idea of "outrages upon human dignity". I am slightly surprised that Darth Cheney and Karl let you say it out loud.
Torture is wrong on every level. It's the wrong thing to do morally and ethically. It doesn't work -- tortured people will tell you what you want to hear, rather than, y'know, the truth. Torture endangers our troops -- if we torture the bad guys, they'll be more inclined to torture our guys, because, hey, what have they got to lose?
And you can't find the "clarity" in that.
Impeachment is too good for you, Dubya. I won't be happy until you take up permanent residence in the Hague.
The Only President We've Got finds comments against torture "unacceptable" and wants "clarity" regarding the Geneva Conventions' ban against "outrages against human dignity".
What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.You evil, sanctimonious motherfuckers.
With all of the works of Catholicism to pull from, Emperor Popetine grabs one insulting a billion people and then sends out a spokesflunky to tell everyone how the Pontiff is "very upset that some parts of his speech could have sounded offensive to the sensibility of the Muslim faithful and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond at all to his intentions". In what other way, I'm curious, were those remarks supposed to be interpreted?
Chimpy McShithead wants to find the "acceptable" legal limits to his torture program.
Answer to both question: There is none.
And this pushing of the limits, this utter willingness to tear down the boundaries of civilization we've spent thousands of years putting up so we don't spend all our time trying to slaughter each other in righteous rage, is something which the "leaders" of the world do with increasing frequency.
News flash to Pope Bennie: The world communicates instantly these days. If you say something stupid, everybody knows really fast. And, given the religious tensions in the world since, oh, say, the 14th century, going back literally hundreds of years to demonize one-sixth of the earth's population may not be the brightest move. Following up by saying how upset you are about it is just a smack in the face. Having an underling deliver that message is worse than cowardice.
This is what comes from playing My God's Bigger Than Your God. Earlier this week I saw a comment at Eschaton I agree with strongly, the gist of which is Religious tension is a fight over who's got the better imaginary friend.
And, hey, Chimpy: I suspect that you're having such a difficult time with that provision of Geneva because, well, you have no human dignity. None. You were a spoiled silver-spoon brat who made it on your family name and connections, a binge drinker twenty years past your frat days, an inept CEO who ran an oil company and a baseball team into the ground (but managed to make tidy profits for yourself), a clumsy and mean governor who messed up your educational system and economy and enjoyed putting people to death, and now you've been sharing that magic touch with the whole country for six years, with predictable results.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the idea of "outrages upon human dignity". I am slightly surprised that Darth Cheney and Karl let you say it out loud.
Torture is wrong on every level. It's the wrong thing to do morally and ethically. It doesn't work -- tortured people will tell you what you want to hear, rather than, y'know, the truth. Torture endangers our troops -- if we torture the bad guys, they'll be more inclined to torture our guys, because, hey, what have they got to lose?
And you can't find the "clarity" in that.
Impeachment is too good for you, Dubya. I won't be happy until you take up permanent residence in the Hague.
Comments:
<< Home
What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.
One time, I was at a friend's house just before Christmas. His son was three at the time, so the new house rule was "Daniel, don't touch the Christmas tree".
Daniel, being three, needed to test the limits of this rule, so the new rule became "Daniel, don't even look as though you're touching the Christmas tree".
Mr. President, here's the new rule: Don't even look as though you're committing outrages upon human dignity. Is that clearer?
Post a Comment
One time, I was at a friend's house just before Christmas. His son was three at the time, so the new house rule was "Daniel, don't touch the Christmas tree".
Daniel, being three, needed to test the limits of this rule, so the new rule became "Daniel, don't even look as though you're touching the Christmas tree".
Mr. President, here's the new rule: Don't even look as though you're committing outrages upon human dignity. Is that clearer?
# posted by 
: 2:39 PM
: 2:39 PM<< Home
