Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by N-the-Sticks:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by N-the-Sticks:
Beternu and Worsenclap,
Try to hold off the grammar lesson because you cannot argue my point without exposing yourself for what you are:a terrorist sympathiser and American apologist.So leave off the grammar and spelling lessens and it will hopefully moderate the impression that your posts generally generate:namely that you are a pompous,liberal,terrorist loving,capitalism hating,spellchecking pain in the butt.


I will try, but given your predictable outpourings of multiple grammatical gaffes, it will indeed be difficult.


Given your predictable outpouring of bovine scatiology,I will try to remember that you have no argument that won't expose you for the lily livered lib that you are.That is why you have made posts on my grammar.So why don't you make yourself useful and go rid Florence of political signs?


No such word as "scatiology." If you are determined to employ terms of art, you should at least look up the correct spelling for them. Otherwise, you appear all the more obviously the dullard you are!
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
AQ does not want information? That makes no sense to me. I don't care what their agenda is most any group, country that is waging war (and they say they are waging war on America) would want all the intelligence info they could get.


My wife makes the same comment...it doesn't make any sense. It would if you were viewing it through the lens of a terrorist. We want information so we can focus our attacks on high-value targets. It's important to identify where the bad guys are so we can go in and kill them very precisely. Regardless of what the left says, we don't want to hurt the innocent. Unfortunately, sometimes "stuff" happens in war. The insurgents, on the other hand, don't really care. They go after the soft targets...schools, shopping areas, office buildings. Any intelligence they need can be obtained from Google. All they are interested in is body count. They care little about anything else.

But you can be sure there are people who will sell them any information they need to pull off some terrorist spectacular. But journalists like Daniel Pearl...he didn't really know anything. They murdered him because he was American and he was Jewish.

Sixties terrorists wanted to act so violently that the government, whom they had claimed was so repressive, would have to use repressive measures to stop them. AQ's goals are fuzzy, but they know that by killing indiscriminately they can encourage the softer members of our society to want to make nice with them so they'll leave us alone. They have not laid aside their goal of global hegemony...a worldwide islamic state.

quote:
What about the drug route?
Drugs are typically unreliable.
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:

You obviously haven't seen the video of the man having his throat sawn at with a dull knife for about five minutes while he bleeds out. An AQ father was teaching his 12 year old son how to kill. I assure you it was torturous, as the victim did not stop screaming until he bled out. After that, the youngster was given a sharper knife to decapitate the corpse.


Nor do I want to. I really don't know why I should see that? I do understand that their are really sick individuals in this world, so I don't really need to see them in action.

I don't even know how this topic took this turn.
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:


So what do you think the terrorist thought right before they cut off Daniel Pearl's head?

You have to play at their level if you want to win.


Well I don't rightly know what they were thinking chow...but that would be murder not torture.

I personally hope we do not get down to the level of terrorist. Surely we are better and brighter than that.


So it's better for our citizens to die "better and brighter," instead of taking the necessary steps to stop terrorism? Boy we won't be around much longer with THAT attitude. Roll Eyes


Well if getting down to their level means doing the things Sassy posted about then....yeah I am going to have to stick to better and brighter and take my chances.

What are you thinking the necessary steps would be? Maybe I would agree with you. I never said I was against torturing terrorist. I was merely asking if the methods that were being used were still the best. I thought maybe there were better ways to get accurate information.
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:

You obviously haven't seen the video of the man having his throat sawn at with a dull knife for about five minutes while he bleeds out. An AQ father was teaching his 12 year old son how to kill. I assure you it was torturous, as the victim did not stop screaming until he bled out. After that, the youngster was given a sharper knife to decapitate the corpse.


Nor do I want to. I really don't know why I should see that? I do understand that their are really sick individuals in this world, so I don't really need to see them in action.

I don't even know how this topic took this turn.


I'm really glad that you haven't, and that you don't have to. But please be aware that it does happen, that the individuals who do such are not "sick" but evil, and that someone have to be prepared to do what is necessary to end such evil, and to prevent it from visiting us at home.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
AQ does not want information? That makes no sense to me. I don't care what their agenda is most any group, country that is waging war (and they say they are waging war on America) would want all the intelligence info they could get.


My wife makes the same comment...it doesn't make any sense. It would if you were viewing it through the lens of a terrorist. We want information so we can focus our attacks on high-value targets. It's important to identify where the bad guys are so we can go in and kill them very precisely. Regardless of what the left says, we don't want to hurt the innocent. Unfortunately, sometimes "stuff" happens in war. The insurgents, on the other hand, don't really care. They go after the soft targets...schools, shopping areas, office buildings. Any intelligence they need can be obtained from Google. All they are interested in is body count. They care little about anything else.

But you can be sure there are people who will sell them any information they need to pull off some terrorist spectacular. But journalists like Daniel Pearl...he didn't really know anything. They murdered him because he was American and he was Jewish.

Sixties terrorists wanted to act so violently that the government, whom they had claimed was so repressive, would have to use repressive measures to stop them. AQ's goals are fuzzy, but they know that by killing indiscriminately they can encourage the softer members of our society to want to make nice with them so they'll leave us alone. They have not laid aside their goal of global hegemony...a worldwide islamic state.

quote:
What about the drug route?
Drugs are typically unreliable.


I see what your saying. I really didn't think about it that way. However is there not any time they would want to get information from a prisoner? Maybe they don't take prisoners...but if they caught an American Solider would they try to find out information or just kill him?

I probably shouldn't dwell on that too much. I have some loved ones there and sometimes I try to figure out what could happen or what IS happening and its probably not the best thing to do at this point. Confused

It just seems like there is no answer to this war. How do we fight these people who just don't care? As you said their agenda is fuzzy. It seems like were just putting our thumb in the a crack at the Hoover Dam hoping it will hold back the burst.
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
AQ does not want information? That makes no sense to me. I don't care what their agenda is most any group, country that is waging war (and they say they are waging war on America) would want all the intelligence info they could get.


My wife makes the same comment...it doesn't make any sense. It would if you were viewing it through the lens of a terrorist. We want information so we can focus our attacks on high-value targets. It's important to identify where the bad guys are so we can go in and kill them very precisely. Regardless of what the left says, we don't want to hurt the innocent. Unfortunately, sometimes "stuff" happens in war. The insurgents, on the other hand, don't really care. They go after the soft targets...schools, shopping areas, office buildings. Any intelligence they need can be obtained from Google. All they are interested in is body count. They care little about anything else.

But you can be sure there are people who will sell them any information they need to pull off some terrorist spectacular. But journalists like Daniel Pearl...he didn't really know anything. They murdered him because he was American and he was Jewish.

Sixties terrorists wanted to act so violently that the government, whom they had claimed was so repressive, would have to use repressive measures to stop them. AQ's goals are fuzzy, but they know that by killing indiscriminately they can encourage the softer members of our society to want to make nice with them so they'll leave us alone. They have not laid aside their goal of global hegemony...a worldwide islamic state.

quote:
What about the drug route?
Drugs are typically unreliable.


I see what your saying. I really didn't think about it that way. However is there not any time they would want to get information from a prisoner? Maybe they don't take prisoners...but if they caught an American Solider would they try to find out information or just kill him?

I probably shouldn't dwell on that too much. I have some loved ones there and sometimes I try to figure out what could happen or what IS happening and its probably not the best thing to do at this point. Confused

It just seems like there is no answer to this war. How do we fight these people who just don't care? As you said their agenda is fuzzy. It seems like were just putting our thumb in the a crack at the Hoover Dam hoping it will hold back the burst.


Their agenda IS NOT fuzzy. They win by dying. their reward will come with a horrendous end to this world. They are literally bend on destroying the world to rid it of infidels and fulfill their prophesy.

All of you posting on here that hold such pacificist positions on something as simple and harmless as this "torture" need to thank God every day that there are men and women with the conviction, back bone, strength and courage to defend you.
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
AQ does not want information? That makes no sense to me. I don't care what their agenda is most any group, country that is waging war (and they say they are waging war on America) would want all the intelligence info they could get.


My wife makes the same comment...it doesn't make any sense. It would if you were viewing it through the lens of a terrorist. We want information so we can focus our attacks on high-value targets. It's important to identify where the bad guys are so we can go in and kill them very precisely. Regardless of what the left says, we don't want to hurt the innocent. Unfortunately, sometimes "stuff" happens in war. The insurgents, on the other hand, don't really care. They go after the soft targets...schools, shopping areas, office buildings. Any intelligence they need can be obtained from Google. All they are interested in is body count. They care little about anything else.

But you can be sure there are people who will sell them any information they need to pull off some terrorist spectacular. But journalists like Daniel Pearl...he didn't really know anything. They murdered him because he was American and he was Jewish.

Sixties terrorists wanted to act so violently that the government, whom they had claimed was so repressive, would have to use repressive measures to stop them. AQ's goals are fuzzy, but they know that by killing indiscriminately they can encourage the softer members of our society to want to make nice with them so they'll leave us alone. They have not laid aside their goal of global hegemony...a worldwide islamic state.

quote:
What about the drug route?
Drugs are typically unreliable.


I see what your saying. I really didn't think about it that way. However is there not any time they would want to get information from a prisoner? Maybe they don't take prisoners...but if they caught an American Solider would they try to find out information or just kill him?

I probably shouldn't dwell on that too much. I have some loved ones there and sometimes I try to figure out what could happen or what IS happening and its probably not the best thing to do at this point. Confused

It just seems like there is no answer to this war. How do we fight these people who just don't care? As you said their agenda is fuzzy. It seems like were just putting our thumb in the a crack at the Hoover Dam hoping it will hold back the burst.


Their agenda IS NOT fuzzy. They win by dying. their reward will come with a horrendous end to this world. They are literally bent on destroying the world to rid it of infidels and fulfill their prophesy.

All of you posting on here that hold such pacificist positions on something as simple and harmless as this "torture" need to thank God every day that there are men and women with the conviction, back bone, strength and courage to defend you.
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
quote:
Originally posted by beth:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:


So what do you think the terrorist thought right before they cut off Daniel Pearl's head?

You have to play at their level if you want to win.


Well I don't rightly know what they were thinking chow...but that would be murder not torture.

I personally hope we do not get down to the level of terrorist. Surely we are better and brighter than that.


So it's better for our citizens to die "better and brighter," instead of taking the necessary steps to stop terrorism? Boy we won't be around much longer with THAT attitude. Roll Eyes


Well if getting down to their level means doing the things Sassy posted about then....yeah I am going to have to stick to better and brighter and take my chances.

What are you thinking the necessary steps would be? Maybe I would agree with you. I never said I was against torturing terrorist. I was merely asking if the methods that were being used were still the best. I thought maybe there were better ways to get accurate information.


You have to remember. These people want YOU DEAD! They don't play by our rules. They hide behind their women and children, depending on the fact that we won't go after them because of that. If they want to wipe us off the face of the earth, they will if we let them. I'm for doing whatever necessary to those murderous cowards before they can kill you or me or my kids.
I read an intersting article where an Indian general compared Al Qaeda to the Scythians who revolutionized warfare against the Romans. Fortunately, the Romans, after many defeats, changed their strategy, developed better armor and increased their cavalry arm to defeat the Scythians. Sounds rather familiar! Hope the US and its allies can do the same.
There are 3 questions we must ask here.

1) Is torture morally wrong?
2) Is torture effective?
3) What constitutes torture?

My opinion is irrelevant, but I will attempt to provide some answers from a recently discovered memo. The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, in July of 2002, sent a document to the Pentagon regarding "enhanced interrogation techniques." The document included the following:

"The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible — in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life — has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption."

"A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop."

"The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information."
quote:
Originally posted by Nobluedog:
The army, marines, air force and the FBI objected to Donald Rumsfeld's Torture policies. As a moral matter, ever since the founding of our nation the American people have stood squarely in opposition to the power of government officials to torture people. Less government or more?


It's dumb to compare past enemies with current terrorists. Do you really think they would come to admire us if we didn't torture them? Oh wait, you probably do. Roll Eyes
Obviously, someone knows nothing about interrogation verification techniques, which even the police use.

Ask the prisoner questions including some for which you already know the answer. If he answers the known questions correctly, most likely, he's giving truthful information.

Ask two prisoners the same question. If they both give similar answers, there's a good chance the answers are correct.

Ask a question, then verify the answer. This might include plots, supporters and ID of heads of operations.

The last technique worked in all three instances as narratives of the results have proven.
"If it's the wrong answer, we will find out. If it's the RIGHT answer, it's invaluable and might just save your and your family's life."

If torture doesn't produce good information, should we continue on the chance it will produce good information down the line? Is there a point at which torture's inability to consistently produce reliable information makes its use futile?
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
"If it's the wrong answer, we will find out. If it's the RIGHT answer, it's invaluable and might just save your and your family's life."

If torture doesn't produce good information, should we continue on the chance it will produce good information down the line? Is there a point at which torture's inability to consistently produce reliable information makes its use futile?


There is substantial evidence that it has worked and did so right up until someone thought we could get more from the murderous terrorists by giving them a kiss on the butt. We'll see how quickly that changes the game.

On another note, why are you guys so concerned with the well-being of scum who's only goal is to kill your family? It's never made sense to me and never will. If it were to happen, would you respond by saying, "Well at least we treated them civilly."?
"There is substantial evidence that it has worked and did so right up until someone thought we could get more from the murderous terrorists by giving them a kiss on the butt."

Such as? I'm seriously asking because I'm unaware of such evidence. On the contrary, most of what I have seen is the opposite, such as this recent article from the Miami Herald-

"The CIA inspector general in 2004 found no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any ''specific imminent attacks,'' according to recently declassified Justice Department memos."

"On another note, why are you guys so concerned with the well-being of scum who's only goal is to kill your family?"

I'm not. Torture is immoral and illegal. If we discovered that torture was more effective than conventional interrogation methods, and was effectively giving us information that directly improved national security, then it might be justifiable. Otherwise, there is no reason to committ an illegal and immoral act. And no, I don't care how evil those we torture are. Their sins don't somehow make torture okay.
quote:
Originally posted by Nobluedog:
The army, marines, air force and the FBI objected to Donald Rumsfeld's Torture policies. As a moral matter, ever since the founding of our nation the American people have stood squarely in opposition to the power of government officials to torture people. Less government or more?


Do you even know what you are saying?Just keep dreaming;Obama will get nekked for you!CHANGE BLEW DREAMS ABOUT!
“There is substantial evidence that it has worked and did so right up until someone thought we could get more from the murderous terrorists by giving them a kiss on the butt."

Such as? I'm seriously asking because I'm unaware of such evidence. On the contrary, most of what I have seen is the opposite, such as this recent article from the Miami Herald-
"The CIA inspector general in 2004 found no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any ''specific imminent attacks,'' according to recently declassified Justice Department memos."

You shouldn’t quote from reports that didn’t cover interrogation in depth and shortened their scope.
From the Office of National Intelligence:
“In the last five years, reporting from terrorist detainees has become a crucial
pillar of US counterterrorism efforts, representing the single largest source of
insight into al-Qa'ida for the US and its CT partners.

Detainees have confirmed that al-Qa'ida continues to work on operations
against the US and its CT allies; a fact underscored by the recent foiled plot in
the United Kingdom. Detainee reporting will remain a critical tool if ve and
our allies are to continue to protect ourselves against these terrorists
During initial interrogation, Abu
Zubaydah gave some information that he probably viewed as nominal. Some was
important, however, including that Khalid Shaykh Mohammad (KSM) was the 9/11
mastermind and used the moniker "Mukhlar." This identification allowed us to comb
previously collected intelligence for both names, opening up new leads to this terrorist
plotter—leads that eventually resulted in his capture.
In 2003. a senior al-Qa'ida plotter described an Ohio based truck driver who had taken operational tasking from al- Qa'ida and who the FBI identified be Tyman Fans. Fans was located and acknowledged discussing the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge in New York.
Faris ultimately pled guilty to providing material support lo ai-Qa"ida and is now
in a federal corrections facility.

Financial Institutions: KSM and other detainees provided key leads to an
elusive operative who had been tasked prior to 9111 to case financial buildings in
major cities along the East Coast. He is in the custody of a foreign state.
Other Operatives for Attacks Against the US and Its Allies. Detainees have provided
names approximately 6 individuals—many of whom we had never heard of before—
thai al-Qa'ida lias deemed suitable for Western operations. We have shared these names
broadly within the US intelligence and law enforcement communities and with key
partners overseas. Nearly half these individuals have been removed from the battlefield
by the US and its allies.

Jafar al-Tayyar was described by Abu Zubaydah who named him as one of the
most likely individuals to be used by al-Qa'ida for operations in the United States
or Europe. Other detainees added more details, helping us confirm that he is an
al-Qa'ida operative and uncover his true name. As a result, a $5 million reward
has been posted for information leading to the capture of Adnan El Shukrijumah.
who remains at large.

The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002, thanks to leads from a variety of
detainees, the US disrupted a plot by 9/11 mastermind KSM to attack targets on
the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes.

The 2004 UK Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004, the US and its
countertenor is m paaners di s ruote J a plot thai involved attacking urban targets in
the United Kingdom with explosive devices. Some of the key ¡eads to these
plotters came troni detainees.

The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the spring of 2003, the US and a partner detained key
al-Qa'ida operatives who were in the advanced stages of plotting an attack against
several targets in Karachi, Pakistan that would have killed hundreds of innocent
men, women, and children.

The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 200.1. the US and several partners—acting on
information from several detainees—disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport
using hijacked commercial airliners. KSM and his network were behind the
planning for this attack.

The 2002 Arabian Gull'Shipping Pio!: In late 2002 and early 2003. the work of
the US and panner nations lo detain two senior al-Qa'ida operatives thwarted
these operatives' plot to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.

TheStrailsof Hormuz Plot: One of the Arabian Gulf shipping plotters was also
working on a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz. His detention
disrupted this plot.

The Tall Buildings Plot. Working with information from detainees, the US
disrupted a plot to blow up tall buildings in the United States. KSM later
described how he had directed operatives to ensure the buildings were high
enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out of the windows,
thus ensuring their deaths from smoke inhalation.
Camp Lemonier Plot: In early 2004, shortly after his capture. al-Qa'ida
facilitator Gouled Hassan Dourad revealed that in mid-2003 al-Qa'ida East Africa
cell leader Abu rallia ai-Siidain sent him in from Mogadishu to Djibouti to case the
US Marine base at Camp Lemonier, as part of a plot to send suicide bombers with
a truck bomb into the base. His information—including identifying operatives
associated with the plot—helped us to enhance the security at the camp.”

Link

These plots and more were thwarted. The information was reported even in the MSM. Read more than the alternate universe blogs.

“If we discovered that torture was more effective than conventional interrogation methods, and was effectively giving us information that directly improved national security, then it might be justifiable.”

So, dolemitejb, can I sign you up for a short course in administering waterboarding or advanced thumb screw and racking?
KSM was given up without torture, according to your link. Additionally, your link does not specify whether specific pieces of information were obtained through waterboarding, or other methods. I have never disputed that detainees can provide valuable information. I only question the effectiveness of the methods used to attain it.

Also, I don't read blogs, and I don't wish to participate in any course on waterboarding.
dolomite,

"KSM was given up without torture, according to your link. Additionally, your link does not specify whether specific pieces of information were obtained through waterboarding, or other methods. I have never disputed that detainees can provide valuable information. I only question the effectiveness of the methods used to attain it."

On the first page of the report, it states that in March 2002, the CIA sought and obtained legal guidance from DOJ. Using the approved procedures, Abu Zubaydah provided accurate and timely actionable intelligence. , including intel that lead to the capture of 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

The report goes on to list the plots and intel I mentioned earlier, using the approved interrogation methods. I suggest a deep intensive course in reading comprehension.
"On the first page of the report, it states that in March 2002, the CIA sought and obtained legal guidance from DOJ. Using the approved procedures, Abu Zubaydah provided accurate and timely actionable intelligence. , including intel that lead to the capture of 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh."

The Justice Department didn't conclude that waterboarding was legal, and authorize its use, until late July of 2002.

"You shouldn’t quote from reports that didn’t cover interrogation in depth and shortened their scope."

So are you saying the CIA's inspector general was lying? You personally disagree with him? What?

"Presented with facts, the left will place their fingers in their ears, screw their eyes shut, hum loudly, while denying they ever read the nasty thing."

"I suggest a deep intensive course in reading comprehension."

Insulting me changes nothing. If the question at hand relates to the Bush administration and its policies, a document issued by that administration is not exactly the best thing to exonerate them.
I meant what I said. You quoted from a report that was incomplete and of limited scope.

"So are you saying the CIA's inspector general was lying? You personally disagree with him? What?"

No, see above.

"If the question at hand relates to the Bush administration and its policies, a document issued by that administration is not exactly the best thing to exonerate them."

The IG report you've quoted was written during the Bush administration.

My point is that you stated the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite news to the contrary.

When presented with the fact the techniques worked, you ignored them -- facts on the first page.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
I meant what I said. You quoted from a report that was incomplete and of limited scope.

"So are you saying the CIA's inspector general was lying? You personally disagree with him? What?"

No, see above.

Interven

This is like preaching to and baptising your cat, your intentions might be good but your not getting your message through.

"If the question at hand relates to the Bush administration and its policies, a document issued by that administration is not exactly the best thing to exonerate them."

The IG report you've quoted was written during the Bush administration.

My point is that you stated the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite news to the contrary.

When presented with the fact the techniques worked, you ignored them -- facts on the first page.


Interventnor1, I appreciate your efforts but you must realize that what you are doing is like preaching to and baptising your cat. Your intentions might be just but your audience is not getting the message and they never will.
Last edited by SHELDIVR
"My point is that you stated the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite news to the contrary."

I stated nothing. I cited things I read. There is a difference. Additionally, you have only cited one memo. I cannot vouch for whether or not the memo contains accurate information. For all I know, it very well may. However, there are other documents that contradict your source. As I have said before, what I believe does not matter. Only the truth matters.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
"My point is that you stated the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite news to the contrary."

I stated nothing. I cited things I read. There is a difference. Additionally, you have only cited one memo. I cannot vouch for whether or not the memo contains accurate information. For all I know, it very well may. However, there are other documents that contradict your source. As I have said before, what I believe does not matter. Only the truth matters.



Nah, you know the methods weren't effective. Just look at all the terrorist attacks we've suffered since 9/11. You should ALWAYS believe what you read, not what you see. Roll Eyes
You've quoted extracts from a memorandum from an unreleased IG report for which most of the data was from 2002 to 2003. I provided actual copies of a 2006 memorandum with cites of intel.

I must assume, either none of the respondants are familiar with government structured reports, or, that if they are, are dissembling (a gentlemens term for lieing thru their teeth).
quote:
Originally posted by Nobluedog:
"We don't torture people in America and people who say we do simply know nothing about our country." - George W. Bush [Interview with Australian TV - October 18, 2003


What's wrong with that statement, blewdog? It's the truth unless you consider refusing to use deodorant around the terrorists to be torture. If that's the case, half the defacrat base would be guilty. Big Grin
quote:
I must assume, either none of the respondants are familiar with government structured reports


True, I am not failiar with such reports. I will fully admit that I do not know the whole truth here. All I know is that, from what I have seen, there is no consensus as to what constitutes torture or how effective such methods were at producing reliable information. I am not disputing your source per se, but I am never comfortable accepting one single government issued report as truth, especially on a matter where people in the know are so divided.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
I must assume, either none of the respondants are familiar with government structured reports


True, I am not failiar with such reports. I will fully admit that I do not know the whole truth here. All I know is that, from what I have seen, there is no consensus as to what constitutes torture or how effective such methods were at producing reliable information. I am not disputing your source per se, but I am never comfortable accepting one single government issued report as truth, especially on a matter where people in the know are so divided.


But many people are quick to accept the words of people who have a definite destructive agenda. Unfortunately, those people and the rest of America will probably learn the hard way about the effectiveness of tough treatment for blood-thirsty islamic terrorists.
quote:
Originally posted by Nobluedog:
"We don't torture people in America and people who say we do simply know nothing about our country." - George W. Bush [Interview with Australian TV - October 18, 2003


Contrary to left wing bleeding heart liberals propagandizing, the methods we used do not rise to the level of TORTURE.. NOW, consider carefully what you are about to read, interrogation methods that have been utilized thus far are INTIMIDATION, MENTAL ANGUISH, DISTRESS....on the other hand, torture involves inflicting physical, often times irreversible PAIN, such as cutting off the subject's finger, one joint at a time, deliberately blinding him, permanently altering genetalia, fingernail removal, etc...

Sleep deprivation, loud music, water boarding, et. al., constitute INTIMIDATION. STOP drinking the Koolaid and try to understand the different levels of intensity between INTIMIDATION and torture..
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
quote:
Originally posted by Nobluedog:
"We don't torture people in America and people who say we do simply know nothing about our country." - George W. Bush [Interview with Australian TV - October 18, 2003


Contrary to left wing bleeding heart liberals propagandizing, the methods we used do not rise to the level of TORTURE.. NOW, consider carefully what you are about to read, interrogation methods that have been utilized thus far are INTIMIDATION, MENTAL ANGUISH, DISTRESS....on the other hand, torture involves inflicting physical, often times irreversible PAIN, such as cutting off the subject's finger, one joint at a time, deliberately blinding him, permanently altering genetalia, fingernail removal, etc...

Sleep deprivation, loud music, water boarding, et. al., constitute INTIMIDATION. STOP drinking the Koolaid and try to understand the different levels of intensity between INTIMIDATION and torture..


Heck if our national security officials had known the commie libs were going to respond like this to those relatively harmless methods, we should have accidentally killed them after extracting all the information we could from them. What good are they to anyone except to kill more innocent people? We wouldn't be facing the specter of releasing these murderous terrorists into our country.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×