Czuch: Not what the guy said or meant. You know.. like the CIA.. everything is ok for them, including drug and gun running, etc, etc.

Czuch: Um The Geneva convention which the USA signed and practised during WWII and even were part of courts to which Axis military, etc were held to account for killing POW's.... was wrong?

(V): Not a government within the government... a government with 3 separate branches none beholden to the others

Czuch: Exactly. And we know that happens but clearly it's not a policy of the US military.

(V): I like the idea! Something that temporarily disables everyone long enough to restrain them....

but I can tell you that one reason it hasnt been developed yet is the extra headaches live people are compared to dead people.... talk about POWs

Czuch: A goverment within the government that the President has no control over, reports to no-one and by that is seemingly above the law is honesty?

Czuch: Some cases I think an army can go OTT to get the few. Eg... When the Russians used that gas to rescue hostages.

Surely after all this time instead of making things that kill, why hasn't a non-lethal (or as low as possible eg 99% safe) gas or chemical been developed for use in the field?

Artful Dodger: Well, a soldier can always murder someone, just like any other person, but that does not constitute the military or the government....

(V): Is that honest government?

That is the way our government is divided, it shouldnt be much of a surprise to anyone, really? It helps it be a more honest government, and is one reason why such a large scale conspiracy like 9/11 could not have taken place

Czuch: Or indicting themselves for some evil they've done.

(V): No, not always with a civilian killed in war, depends on the circumstances.


well, except if the civilian is the specific target....

Czuch: According to a retired Canadian defence minister, your government is not run in many parts by your President. And has been this way for some while!!

Is that honest government?

Artful Dodger: According to him, the only time the government is honest and above board is when they are talking about the catastrophic dangers of global warming

Czuch: No, not always with a civilian killed in war, depends on the circumstances.

And as for abortion.... it depends on your views. I can accept that there are some reasons for abortion, but not always. As for it being murder... That depends on your view on when the unborn child becomes 'alive' as in 'alive' in soul and spirit. It's a tricky field as there are so many opinions.

Artful Dodger: They can't do everything, and like any org (or Gov) they get it wrong probably from time to time. We had a case here where several people involved in the welfare of children messed up and a baby died because of it.. Several heads rolled.

They say they fight for...

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities. .

**********

So sure they don't hold to some conservative values, but some values are based on tradition rather then being right. eg.. votes for women, segregation.

Czuch: Usurper used the word "murder" incorrectly. He's also inflated his numbers.

(V): Then that is state sanctioned execution.

Then so it is when a civilian is killed in a war too... and when an unborn child is aborted, right?

Czuch: Not murder, the government cannot legally murder someone. If you are talking that your country in some states has the death penalty.... Then that is state sanctioned execution.

To say the government of the USA can murder people is to say that the USA government is above the law... or the government within the government.

The Usurper: Explain to us ( the ignorant ones with our heads in the sand) how your theory about the government causing tragedies on purpose to gain control through fear and intimidation for some evil agenda against the good of the common people fits with the military targeting civilians for murder?

(V): "They protect many rights, including those of Christians and other religious groups."

Yes but they also do a lot of harm IMO. And many issues where they should be active, they are silent. They love liberal issues. Not so much conservative.

The Usurper:First of all, your 750,000 figure is extremely inflated.  According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the figure is under 100,000.

Secondly, a large percentage of these deaths are due to suicide bombers, roadside bombs, and other terrorist acts. 

I'm not saying that it's ok to kill any civilian.  And I'm not saying collateral damage "happens."  Even though it does.  But if the US went in to liberate Iraq, then killing any of their citizens, even accidently, is a very unfortunate thing and should be prevented at all costs.  But where ever you get those figures, it's wrong. 

According the Boston Globe the total figure will never accurately be known.  Even if your figure were correct, a majority of deaths come from within. 

The following is an example and can be found on Michael Moore's website: "The deadliest single incident in February was a suicide bombing carried out by a woman on February 13 among a crowd of mostly women and children on the way to a religious festival. She killed at least 38 people and wounded at least 50."

That's murder and the person or persons responsible are the terrorists and NOT the US. 

The Usurper:First of all, your 750,000 figure is extremely inflated.  According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the figure is under 100,000.

Secondly, a large percentage of these deaths are due to suicide bombers, roadside bombs, and other terrorist acts. 

I'm not saying that it's ok to kill any civilian.  And I'm not saying collateral damage "happens."  Even though it does.  But if the US went in to liberate Iraq, then killing any of their citizens, even accidently, is a very unfortunate thing and should be prevented at all costs.  But where ever you get those figures, it's wrong. 

According the Boston Globe the total figure will never accurately be known.  Even if your figure were correct, a majority of deaths come from within. 

The following is an example and can be found on Michael Moore's website: "The deadliest single incident in February was a suicide bombing carried out by a woman on February 13 among a crowd of mostly women and children on the way to a religious festival. She killed at least 38 people and wounded at least 50."

That's murder and the person or persons responsible are the terrorists and NOT the US. 

The Usurper: Okay, so get yourself elected and look into it for us?

Can you give me somewhere to find where the FBI says they have confiscated video that they do not want to release?

The Usurper: A coule of things that dont seem right just doesnt cut it, really.

For your version of 9/11 to work, it must work in all facets and in all and every instance..... The whole thing must be a government plan, and try all you like, but it just will never hold up to scrutiny... and I know that is all you ask for, more official scrutiny, and subpoenas etc.... but you can have all that until the cows come home, and it will never go where you want it to go

The Usurper: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government, in the form of a law, but you have zero proof that the US military ever specifically targeted civilians in Iraq!

The Usurper: Reminds me of a certain passage...

9 What does the worker gain from his toil? 10 I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. 12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God. 14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.

15 Whatever is has already been,
and what will be has been before;
and God will call the past to account. [a]

16 And I saw something else under the sun:
In the place of judgment—wickedness was there,
in the place of justice—wickedness was there.

17 I thought in my heart,
"God will bring to judgment
both the righteous and the wicked,
for there will be a time for every activity,
a time for every deed."

18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal [c] goes down into the earth?"

****************************
And from a certain thinker..

Battle not with monsters
lest ye become a monster
and if you gaze into the abyss
the abyss gazes into you.

The Usurper: I guess, one would want to know about our make up, I guess the real shock is that there is aliens to those they abduct. Plus I imagine that in the past they were a little shaky on what to drug us with so we wouldn't remember. As you said, they ain't killing anyone.

Considering our early years in medicine, and how we use to treat those with mental health issues... and other problems or 'phobias' (to put it nicely)... and still do in some areas of the world... We can't really comment much. But yes we can... we kill, they don't.

Seemingly at the mo, it's more 1st encounters then anything else. I think they want us to lift the lid off all the secrecy, even though it might be quite a shock.

(V): That's a good argument and may be correct, unless....they have other less-than-pleasant reasons NOT to make us dead.

Perhaps not likely, but a possibility. I suppose I am inclined to think, looking at the abduction phenomena, either a lot of people are hallucinating or it is really happening. And if the latter, the aliens don't seem too respectful of the rights of self-conscious beings, at least other than themselves.

Of course, if they aren't actually killing people they abduct, I guess that can be considered a plus. I sure hope you're right. lol

The Usurper: They have to be friendly, if they were not we'd be dead.

It speaks that a race in space has gotten over many of the infighting problems that young cultures such as us still experience.

Bernice: The UK government through it's military sanctioned the killing of IRA supporters and activists during the Northern Ireland war.

The British invented the concentration camp, during I believe the Boer war.

I find it interesting that in the past the USA considered waterboarding as a war crime and has prosecuted people (eg Yukio Asano, a Japanese officer from WWII).

In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record.

Today, the USA are supposed to have banned it's use by the military.... but no such rules cover the CIA!!!

Rather disgusting as you say.

(V): Maybe I didn't follow your conversation with Emma closely enough. I was assuming you were arguing the aliens would most likely be friendly types, and she was arguing the contrary. Did I miss the point? Up until the last few years, I believe I would have argued in favor of the aliens. Now I'm not so sure. lol

(V): The abyss they've fallen into is called The Bottomless Pit.

Of course no confession is valid if forced by these means. How could it be? Common sense tells us no confession gotten by these means can be trustworthy. And of course it has been against U.S. law since the founding of our Republic. Only under the Bush administration, and our fall into a bona fide dictatorship (for such we are), was such a thing even considered. A lot of people (the intelligent ones) are numb at the changes our country has undergone during the past 8 years.

The Usurper: Well if they have developed the tech for making anti-matter relatively cheaply... one bomb would do the job.

And when I say cheaply I say it because at our current level of tech it would bankrupt the USA to make one teaspoon full of the stuff.

The Usurper: Isn't it true that in certain cases that have gone up to court that when it has been shown sleep deprivation has been used to gain a 'confession' the case has been thrown out of court.

As for water boarding... "is a form of torture[1][2] consisting of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die."

I would have thought with all the drugs and lie detectors, etc to hand.. (maybe a psychic or two) that such old methods dating back to the Spanish Inquisition would no longer be needed or morally justifiable, especially as the effects of such torture can last years psychologically.

The effects (extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints)....... are ... well, if any gov thinks these are legal then they really need to look at how far in to the abyss they have fallen.

(V): Amen to that.

The Usurper: The CIA needs disbanding, I swear that they are half at least of the reasons many hate America. Their interference, underhand dirty deals and plain old interference with a country's and it's peoples right to find themselves.... examples are plentiful.

...government within government under no control is never a good idea.

Artful Dodger: They protect many rights, including those of Christians and other religious groups.

Artful Dodger: "I was referring to the 750,000 Iraqi civilians you say we murdered."

The way I see it is this. Bombs are intended to kill. When we knowingly drop them on civilian targets (and we do), we know we are killing civilians. I think that meets the definition of murder-with-intent.

Some might say, this is war. Sure it is. And death in war has several causes, including acts of self-defense, accidents, and even temporary insanity (like acts of rage, 2nd degree murder). But war doesn't change the fact that the pre-meditated killing of innocents is murder. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, as in Hiroshima, etc., it is mass murder, i.e., genocide.

You're right, I don't spend much time pointing the finger at the atrocities committed by other peoples and nations. My first responsibility, as I see it, is to point the finger at myself (i.e., the U.S.), before pointing it at others. And unfortunately, the U.S. commits many astounding atrocities.

I know the U.S.S.R. murdered millions. I know there are Muslims who murder people. I know about the Khmer Rouge, and many genocides the world over. Most, unfortunatedly, we don't use our power to try to stop. And in some cases, we've actually instigated them, by supplying arms, etc.

I know you want to focus on the one issue for now, and as I said, I completely understand that. But in answer to your point about calling the deaths of Iraqi civilians murder, I wanted to clarify my position.

Artful Dodger: Sleep well but may your dreams disturb you. That's a contradiction. lol

Nite :o)

The Usurper:  And with that, it's Spring Ahead so I'm no 1 hour late getting to bed.  You'll have to set me straight tomorrow!       

The Usurper:  If indeed the military called it a homicide, then that's murder.  I should have been more specific.  I was referring to the 750,000 Iraqi civilians you say we murdered.

Artful Dodger: Yes, it's the one with the woman talking. The internet is awesome. I mention the Veterans DVD site because there's no point in paying top dollar (or even discount price) for a particular DVD if you can get it for a buck.

I used "murder" because the released military autopsy reports stated cause of death as "homicide." The terms are synonymous, so for that reason I don't see my statement as propaganda; although, for emotional impact, I agree that "murder" is the stronger term. That is a rhetorical use of synonyms in order to, hopefully, cause readers to recognize the seriousness of the charge....i.e., to hit them in the gut, not just the head.

The Usurper:  Using words like "murder" isn't simply rhetoric, it's propaganda.  How about instead of saying murder, just give the details and let people conclude from there?  

The Usurper:  I've seen 911 mysteries if that's the one with the woman commentator.  Think I have the other one too.  I have about a dozen.  I love the INTERNET.  You can find anything on it. 

I mean specifically here:

http://www.v911t.org/21_DVDs_Truth.php

Brought to you by Veterans for 9/11 Truth (I'm a proud member) in our ongoing Operation Vigilant Truth.

Artful Dodger: "You also pack your posts with emotional wording that qualifies as propaganda."

What can I say? I can't deny it, I get emotional about these issues. :o)

A better word than "propaganda," though, might be "rhetoric." The first term means to indoctrinate by subterfuge, the second means to attempt to persuade by convincing argument (which might include emotional appeal).

Artful Dodger: "It is enough for me that I want to explore just ONE THING for now."

Sure, I can understand that.

A very good DVD specifically on the fall of the towers & wtc7 is "9/11 Mysteries." At One Dollar DVDs, you can get that and whatever else might interest you.

As for my sources for news.  They are multiple.  But let's look at Fox first.  I rarely miss The O'Reilly Factor.  But he's not "the news."  He raises awareness on issues and yes does some news analysis (so you do get some news).

I don't watch much else news wise on Fox (on a regular basis).  I don't have time to watch it all.  But when I can, I try to catch the hard news on Fox here and there.  Mostly it's just tidbits.

We also watch the mainstream media (cuz the wife wants to) and the local news (the majority source for us as far as cable goes).  Then there's the various blogs I read and favorite websites.  I peruse other sources too (The American Thinker; Dr Sanity; Heritage.org; Townhall;  and probably a few others (can't think of em at the moment).

Oh and I'm just getting into Glen Beck.  But he's on while I'm working so I have to watch what I've taped and usually don't have time for that either. 

While I'm not convinced that some mass conspiracy exists with regard to 911, but there are things that don't add up (on both sides).  In particular, they way the towers fell and the way wt7 fell.  I watched a documentary and they scored some good points.  In particular, they raised questions as to why the core fell.  There were a couple of other questions that popped into my head that the documentary didn't cover.  Frankly, I can't handle the CIA being bad, the US murdering 750000 civilians and all the other stuff you throw into the ring.  It is enough for me that I want to explore just ONE THING for now.  

Suggested reading for Usurper

So you don't miss out on any of em  ;)