Who the hell says they are astonished? -- THE VENT BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

Subject: Who the hell says they are astonished?

Author:
brattyratty

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Friday, May 14 2004, 4:28:54 GMT ( - 8 )
In reply to: Alie 's message, "Why is everybody (at least in the Bush administration) so astonished about the US military torturing prisoners" on Thursday, May 06 2004, 4:15:30 GMT ( - 8 )

Who the hell says they are astonished? It is just a figure of speech, a diplomatic code language�
Hey Alie! Do you want a battle?
Duel!
My point is- Bush didn�t have to apologise for those bastards! He didn�t torture anybody so he is not guilty!
You don�t agree I know but anyway, the ball on your field. Come on!
( be warned! You deal with new wise me )

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Subject: They themselves said so, didn't you read or see the news?

Author:
Alie
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: Monday, May 17 2004, 6:16:00 GMT ( - 8 )

I know it's just rhetorics. I've been involved in policymaking long enough to sort truth from fiction and I've never been naive.

Of course Bush didn't need to apologize. Who on earth wants phony apologies from sanctimonius crooks who give the term "white Trash" a whole new meaning and are worth less than a dogpile? His apologies only add to abuse and insult.

He loves to see himself as a great leader and he ist the commander-in-chief. If you have a dog and cannot keep it from biting the postman, and in fact even ecourage your dog to bite the postman, it's of course neither your responsibility nor that of your dog. The postman is guilty, no doubt.

Sorry Bratty, I don't fight battles over vermin and parasites, I fight battles against them to get rid of the pollution asap.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: It seems I haven�t explained my point clearly.

Author:
brattyratty
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: Sunday, May 23 2004, 19:21:35 GMT ( - 8 )

I mean Bush doesn�t have to apologise because he is not guilty. The dog example is wrong, dog is just an animal and can�t make decisions by itself. Bush is not guilty because he didn�t kill nor torture anybody personally. If even he directly ordered this ( but he didn�t) he wouldn�t be guilty anyway.
Well, I put this in more sharp way. If Hitler was alive and sued for crimes committed by Nazis during WWII, and you was a judge what would your verdict be?
Mine is: not guilty.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]