Originally posted by KazetNagorraofcourse not personally.just as bush did not personally.but under his command. some 372 german men and 44 woman. thumb screws,shin screws,drugging,severe beatings,etc. And Obama must know this because his family has stated publicly that his grandfather was imprisoned and tortured severely for years by the brits
Maybe he did not personally torture anyone, but it seems highly unlikely to me that the UK army did never at any point torture anyone.
Originally posted by utherpendragon372 Seems a little low to me, that's probably the figure for which there is any historical evidence.
ofcourse not personally.just as bush did not personally.but under his command. some 372 german men and 44 woman. thumb screws,shin screws,drugging,severe beatings,etc. And Obama must know this because his family has stated publicly that his grandfather was imprisoned and tortured severely for years by the brits
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathose figures are concerning one,once secret prison. Bad Nendorf.set up in germany 1945-1947. there was a investigation about this,etc , etc.thats where the figures come from. no doubt there was much more. point being this is common knowledge. atleast enough for a commoner like me to know about it . surely our heads of state know
372 Seems a little low to me, that's probably the figure for which there is any historical evidence.
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat does what happened in 1945-47 have to do with the 200 German prisoners held during the Blitz, who were the subject of Obama's comments?
those figures are concerning one,once secret prison. Bad Nendorf.set up in germany 1945-1947. there was a investigation about this,etc , etc.thats where the figures come from. no doubt there was much more. point being this is common knowledge. atleast enough for a commoner like me to know about it . surely our heads of state know
He was countering the argument that torture was necessary because the post-9/11 period was dangerous by pointing out that the British were in far more danger during the Blitz but didn't authorize torture at that time. Is there some refutation of that point lurking somewhere?
Originally posted by no1marauderyes -- hello folks
What does what happened in 1945-47 have to do with the 200 German prisoners held during the Blitz, who were the subject of Obama's comments?
He was countering the argument that torture was necessary because the post-9/11 period was dangerous by pointing out that the British were in far more danger during the Blitz but didn't authorize torture at that time. Is there some refutation of that point lurking somewhere?
stay on point
Originally posted by no1marauderok maybe i got off point. my point is he implied churchill and the brits did not use these tactics. also,this article he says he read the other day where he qoutes churchill is never identified,nor these 200 detainees. Im serious I can find it nowhere.if any one can.direct me to it.bottom line is, this administration continues to feed us a bunch of bolonie . Obama bows to a foreign leader,"no he did,nt" "we r making america safer" no your not. "the economy is already showing signs of getting better" no its not "im gonna cut the deficit in half" by triple-ing it?.....so the question at the begining of this thread was: is he/they on drugs, liars, or just out of touch ?
What does what happened in 1945-47 have to do with the 200 German prisoners held during the Blitz, who were the subject of Obama's comments?
He was countering the argument that torture was necessary because the post-9/11 period was dangerous by pointing out that the British were in far more danger during the Blitz but didn't authorize torture at that time. Is there some refutation of that point lurking somewhere?