Survivors reveal the chilling truth about the world's most horrific torture camps
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
This is enjoyable. Just like with Carter & Zimmerman - you cannot answer. Because all you do is carry water for Democrats, and apologize for them - even when their behavior is the same as the Republicans you classify as evil.
Cornered yourself again, desh. No quarter for you.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I'm asking if YOU do. How can you compare the actions of even one Republican to what he did? I hated Iraq, but it was nothing compared to the scale of what Truman did with regard to innocent life.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
evince
Truthmatters
Nope asshole just claiming you are using mine and the dictionaries definition of the sociopath to come up with your claim is utter horse shit
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Why? I already can't stand Bush. I won't defend anything he did.
You, however, supported & condoned the intentional, willful murder of 10's of thousands of innocent civilians - women & children.
evince
Truthmatters
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Oh is that what women have to do to gain your stamp of approval? Sing in a church choir and bake?
I'd love to bake you a pie alright.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
How?
Where?
These are the lies I'm tired of. You are a pathological, lying liar. You don't know how to do anything BUT lie.
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah#Use_of_white_phosphorus
White phosphorus use in Iraq
An American M-109A6 self-propelled howitzer fires at insurgent positions during the Second Battle of Fallujah.
On 10 November 2004, the Washington Post reported that some U.S. artillery guns fired white phosphorus rounds that created a screen of fire.[46] Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorus burns.[46] On 26 November 2004, Dahr Jamail also reported that white phosphorus had been used in the battle.[47][dead link]
On 9 November 2005 the Italian state-run broadcaster Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. aired a documentary titled "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre", alleging that the United States' used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah causing insurgents and civilians to be killed or injured by chemical burns. The filmmakers further claimed that the United States used incendiary MK-77 bombs in violation of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, quoted in the documentary, white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties.[48][49]
On 16 November 2005, BBC News reported that an article published in the March–April 2005 issue of Field Artillery, a U.S. Army magazine, noted that white phosphorus had been used during the battle. According to the article written by a captain, a first lieutenant, and a sergeant, "WP [White Phosphorous] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosives]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."[48] BBC News noted that the article had been discovered by bloggers after the US ambassador in London, Robert Holmes Tuttle, stated that US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.[48] The United States continues to maintain that white phosphorus was not used against civilians, but has since confirmed its use as an offensive heat weapon against enemy combatants.[50]
White phosphorus use in Iraq
An American M-109A6 self-propelled howitzer fires at insurgent positions during the Second Battle of Fallujah.
On 10 November 2004, the Washington Post reported that some U.S. artillery guns fired white phosphorus rounds that created a screen of fire.[46] Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorus burns.[46] On 26 November 2004, Dahr Jamail also reported that white phosphorus had been used in the battle.[47][dead link]
On 9 November 2005 the Italian state-run broadcaster Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. aired a documentary titled "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre", alleging that the United States' used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah causing insurgents and civilians to be killed or injured by chemical burns. The filmmakers further claimed that the United States used incendiary MK-77 bombs in violation of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, quoted in the documentary, white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties.[48][49]
On 16 November 2005, BBC News reported that an article published in the March–April 2005 issue of Field Artillery, a U.S. Army magazine, noted that white phosphorus had been used during the battle. According to the article written by a captain, a first lieutenant, and a sergeant, "WP [White Phosphorous] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosives]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."[48] BBC News noted that the article had been discovered by bloggers after the US ambassador in London, Robert Holmes Tuttle, stated that US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.[48] The United States continues to maintain that white phosphorus was not used against civilians, but has since confirmed its use as an offensive heat weapon against enemy combatants.[50]
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Well, that I disagree with.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Find me a post. I don't think I did that, desh.
You just tend to lump everyone in together. It's tiring. But at least we know you're a sociopath now.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's a rather poorly defined disorder with a lot of mythology around it. We can't say for certain that a sociopath has a "broken brain", science has not pinpointed any precise physiological cause, nor have they determined either that it's present at birth or the result of abuse of some kind. I feel that people in the popular media like to reiterate its supposed presence at birth, sign of a "broken brain", and supposed incurability because they want to guard against any suggestion of rehabilitation or release. But that's not something that's been proven, it's just something people want to be true and thus accept without question. They do not have a complete inability to feel any emotions. That's another myth. They show a reduced diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, according to the person who diagnosed them (this is inherently a subjective exercise, which is one reason the DSM-IV did away with the diagnoses of sociopathy).
If I were to try and describe it, I'd say it's a description of a set of symptoms considered to be a single disorder, including antisocial behavior, reduced capacity for empathy, poor impulse culture, and glibness/superficial charm, which is generally diagnosed by a trained psychologist filling out the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. The criminal justice system likes this checklist because it tends to be a good predictor of recidivism. But I'd like to point out that half of the checklist is dedicated to determining a history of criminal behavior and juvenile delinquency, rather than the sexier, utterly subjective stuff like lack of empathy that the popular media likes to latch on to. It is not exactly surprising, in my mind, that a checklist that heavily weights past criminal behavior in scoring tends to be a good predictor of future recidivism; of course, if someone's done something once, they can be considered more likely to do it again. As well, there are problems with the checklist even when filled out by someone qualified, the same person can get vastly different scores differing by 20 points or so depending on who filled out their checklist (I'd like to point out that the maximum score is 40 points, and a score of 20 or more is enough to define someone as a sociopath; so, 20 points of variability in this case is pretty fucking huge).
I feel like people love sociopathy because the popular version of it seems to have so much explanatory power. All the evil in the world, caused by a small minority with an incurable genetic brain condition that we can clearly and certainly identify, so if we just took all of those people and put a bullet in the back of their head, poof! No more evil. But basically all of that is either myth or exaggeration, there's not been any determined physiological cause and our diagnostic tools are shoddy at best. Personally, I don't like it, because I think it's leading to a witch hunt, people just make up crap about it they'd like to be true and reiterate their invention with no apparent need to back it up with evidence. Furthermore, I mean, really, just listen to yourself, "how the fuck can you claim sociopathy has nothing to do with a country operating like this?" Well, I dunno, has anyone even set Kim Jong Un down with a trained psychologist and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist? If you think about it, what you and others are defining sociopathy as is basically "Having done something horrible". No diagnosis necessary or investigation necessary beyond that, they're just a different species, the only cure is a bullet. And, you know, I think it's really cute, it's like humanity is giving itself a pat on the back, "There's never any worry we'd do such a thing, with our awesome capacity for empathy and all!"
evince
Truthmatters
Yes I understand many do.
The culture of the Japanese was such at the time that they would have done exactly what the emperer would have told them to do.
They would have stood in the streets with sticks and fought the invasion.
These people would have been slaughtered.
Truman knew many many would die not matter what he did.
He decided that as the American president that the people who would die would include no Americans.
That was his job