Did Terrorists Win The War???

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
I just wanted to point out that the idea of
using religion to sanctify the brutalities of
the al queda does not sit well with me.

Well, like it or or not, religion has been used throughout history to justify some of mankind's worst excesses. The Crusades, witchburnings, the Inquisition...even the the atrocities committed under monsters like Stalin and Pol Pot were done in the service of a cult like idealogy that replaced god with "The State".

"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
We beat the Axis Powers because it was mainly, if not completely, a conventional war. The citizens of the Allies were behind the war, ...........We beat the Soviets because we outspent them. In a sense we were at war financially and they couldn't keep up. We call it "giving up civil liberties" but your life doesn't really change. You don't become a slave.

Excuse me Big Arrow but I think you left out one very important element here. In both Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union, American Foreign Policy was very instrumental in creating both entities. America also was very instrumental in Saddam maintaining power for many years in Iraq and thanks to your aforementioned Soviet Union and Afghanistan, we armed and trained Osama Bin Laden via our CIA backing of the Afghan Mujahideen during the late 70's and early 80's. Even once the dust settled, we good ole' Americans backed the Taliban over the Northern Alliance to govern the now Soviet free Afghanistan.

You also mentioned that our lives "don't really change" and then go on to say "you don't become a slave." As to our lives changing, on the surface, that's a pretty true statement but looking deeper I disagree. Our gov't operates off of 2 important principes and they are:

1) Cause and Effect

2) Legal Precedence

In both cases, these operating principles work hand in hand and build upon one another. Most work in the halls of power in Washington DC today are really not about solving problems to their complete but rather reacting to repair what the powers that be have legislated and it failed, didn't work, etc. or in some case was never intended to work. Take some time and watch C-Span but look through the political hype, spin and party cheerleading and observe the simple fact that what they are doing is nothing more than repairing or modifying previous legislation that failed to work in the first place and in most cases the modification will make the problem, issue, cause even bigger thus expanding the bureaucracy, increasing the size and scope of gov't and having the fed. level perform in areas it was never intended to be involved in.

Lastly, on not being slaves I could not more disagree but where we may differ is to define what a slave is. There are so many areas that you could scope in on but I will only highlight one because I do think it is one all can see if they use honest eyes. In the years and course of our gov't addressing these type issues that you brought up they have also engaged in a process that is nothing more than enslavement and that is the ever expanding of the National Debt. This debt grows by leaps and bounds by the second and neither political party has the guts to stand up and take the heat to begin the repair process. In fact, for some years now their solution around this has been to write IOU's from future generations and then surplant them for the current revenues of the Federal Employement Excise Tax. What the heck is Federal Employment Excise Tax you ask? We simpletons call it Social Security but in the legal books and the IRS Code this is the proper name and it spells out exactly what it is. You see, you once had a right to labor and the fruits from such endeavors but that is no more. That right is now a priviledge doled out by the gov't and thus taxed at a specified rate and failure to pay will lead to imprisonment and confiscation of ones lands and property. Sound fuedal like doesn't it? That's because it is!

So in the end they look upon us as the surfs we are and to make matters worse, the very thing told to us to help take care of us in our old age is being wasted on Empire Building and our children and children's children must now slave to support us when the time comes. It's funny how many scream here of the inequity of the Teamster's Pension Funds but are gutless wonders to offer any criticism of an even far sinister system IMO.

Had Clinton done what Bush has done or Gore having been elected and done the same I seriously doubt the same folks doing the flag waving today would be doing so if the roles were reversed. Man, would I love to find that doorway to our parallel universe and hangout with a video camera for a time just so we could see just how inconsistant as a society we have become!

Well, like it or or not, religion has been used throughout history to justify some of mankind's worst excesses. The Crusades, witchburnings, the Inquisition...even the the atrocities committed under monsters like Stalin and Pol Pot were done in the service of a cult like idealogy that replaced god with "The State".

"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Jones,

A Big AMEN there Brother! I know those comments won't get you invited to the next cookout or other hi-end affair among this bunch but dinner and a few beers are on me.
:thumbup1:
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Excuse me Big Arrow but I think you left out one very important element here. In both Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union, American Foreign Policy was very instrumental in creating both entities. America also was very instrumental in Saddam maintaining power for many years in Iraq and thanks to your aforementioned Soviet Union and Afghanistan, we armed and trained Osama Bin Laden via our CIA backing of the Afghan Mujahideen during the late 70's and early 80's. Even once the dust settled, we good ole' Americans backed the Taliban over the Northern Alliance to govern the now Soviet free Afghanistan.

OK that made no sense. We did not create the Nazis, nor help them rise, in any way. And of course we armed the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Why wouldn't we. How were we supposed to know they later would end up wanting to kill us too? We did not want the Taligan to rule Afghanistan. Actually the U.S. was very concerned about them.

You also mentioned that our lives "don't really change" and then go on to say "you don't become a slave." As to our lives changing, on the surface, that's a pretty true statement but looking deeper I disagree. Our gov't operates off of 2 important principes and they are:

1) Cause and Effect

2) Legal Precedence

In both cases, these operating principles work hand in hand and build upon one another. Most work in the halls of power in Washington DC today are really not about solving problems to their complete but rather reacting to repair what the powers that be have legislated and it failed, didn't work, etc. or in some case was never intended to work. Take some time and watch C-Span but look through the political hype, spin and party cheerleading and observe the simple fact that what they are doing is nothing more than repairing or modifying previous legislation that failed to work in the first place and in most cases the modification will make the problem, issue, cause even bigger thus expanding the bureaucracy, increasing the size and scope of gov't and having the fed. level perform in areas it was never intended to be involved in.

Lastly, on not being slaves I could not more disagree but where we may differ is to define what a slave is. There are so many areas that you could scope in on but I will only highlight one because I do think it is one all can see if they use honest eyes. In the years and course of our gov't addressing these type issues that you brought up they have also engaged in a process that is nothing more than enslavement and that is the ever expanding of the National Debt. This debt grows by leaps and bounds by the second and neither political party has the guts to stand up and take the heat to begin the repair process. In fact, for some years now their solution around this has been to write IOU's from future generations and then surplant them for the current revenues of the Federal Employement Excise Tax. What the heck is Federal Employment Excise Tax you ask? We simpletons call it Social Security but in the legal books and the IRS Code this is the proper name and it spells out exactly what it is. You see, you once had a right to labor and the fruits from such endeavors but that is no more. That right is now a priviledge doled out by the gov't and thus taxed at a specified rate and failure to pay will lead to imprisonment and confiscation of ones lands and property. Sound fuedal like doesn't it? That's because it is!

So in the end they look upon us as the surfs we are and to make matters worse, the very thing told to us to help take care of us in our old age is being wasted on Empire Building and our children and children's children must now slave to support us when the time comes. It's funny how many scream here of the inequity of the Teamster's Pension Funds but are gutless wonders to offer any criticism of an even far sinister system IMO.

Had Clinton done what Bush has done or Gore having been elected and done the same I seriously doubt the same folks doing the flag waving today would be doing so if the roles were reversed. Man, would I love to find that doorway to our parallel universe and hangout with a video camera for a time just so we could see just how inconsistant as a society we have become!


Jones,

A Big AMEN there Brother! I know those comments won't get you invited to the next cookout or other hi-end affair among this bunch but dinner and a few beers are on me.
:thumbup1:

Not one single person living in the country is a slave. NOT ONE. If someone feels like they are slave, or pawns of the govt., or doesn't like the way the govt. opperates, then they should try and vote people out of office or just get the hell out of dodge. Go live in a communist country or Islamist country and the rest of us will see you in line begging to get back in the U.S. in a few years. Probably less.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Do you read the news much?
Canadian was falsely accused, panel says

Sure, we let him go after nothing could be proved. Too bad it took 10 months of torture in a Syrian jail to figure that out. This case also highlights the major drawback of torturing people to get information, namely that people being tortured will say anything just to get the torture to stop. This poor guy confessed to recieving terrorist training in Afghanistan despite the fact that, according to both the US and Canadian governments, he's never even been there.

I'm sure he would agree with you that giving up his civil liberties (right to fair trial and all that silly stuff) was a small price to pay.

I seriously doubt he was "tortured". If you ask people what church they go to or ask them to take off their turban during the interogation (and thats what it is...interogation and not torture) they cry "torture" and the civil rights groups come to the rescue. Its liberal thinking in a nutshell and that thinking is opening the door to the terrorists. Torture and interogations are completely two different things. Comparing night and day. Vietnam POWs were tortured. WW2 POWs were tortured. We've had Americans tortured and mutilated and thrown in the street in Iraq. The bastards are doing it to their own people as well. To even compare that to the interogations the U.S. uses is just plain responsible. But then again...whoever asked liberals to be responsible. Liberalism is why we jail our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines for letting a dog bark at a prisoner and do next to nothing to a man that runs college students over in his SUV in the name of Islam.
 

tieguy

Banned
Well, like it or or not, religion has been used throughout history to justify some of mankind's worst excesses. The Crusades, witchburnings, the Inquisition...even the the atrocities committed under monsters like Stalin and Pol Pot were done in the service of a cult like idealogy that replaced god with "The State".

"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I would think a credible argument could be made that more atrocities have been committed by godless leadership then by those who claimed religion gave them a license to kill.

This is to me a wasted argument equal to arguing as to whether killers are more likely to have freckles or not.
 

tieguy

Banned
I seriously doubt he was "tortured". If you ask people what church they go to or ask them to take off their turban during the interogation (and thats what it is...interogation and not torture) they cry "torture" and the civil rights groups come to the rescue. [/quote]

In my humble opinion the issue of torture has been overdone. There is no such thing as torture for someone who advocates blowing up innocent women and children in public. In fact when we find such a person who believes in such cowardice we should immediately apply that person the most brutal torture available and do so in front of his house so his entire family can enjoy the show. Lets stop fooling ourselves into believing we should somehow live up to some higher example (translate schumck here) No terrorist organization has signed onto the geneva accords, nor will they abide by geneva conventions when they capture our people. Therefore they deserve the most brutal torture available. They have richly earned such special treatment far be it from us to deny them their just rewards.

At the same time we should still work to win the hearts and minds of the arab people so while we torture the terrorist in front of his family we should buy the neighbor across the street a new refrigerator and mercedes. Then ask the question of that neighbor what kind of relationship would you like to have with the US one where I bring you presents or one where I slowly torture you to death?
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
This is to me a wasted argument equal to arguing as to whether killers are more likely to have freckles or not.

Since you brought it up, the latest findings of scientific research on freckles show...........

:tongue_sm :lol: Couldn't resist Tie.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
I would think a credible argument could be made that more atrocities have been committed by godless leadership then by those who claimed religion gave them a license to kill.

Well, make that argument then. If you can make it AND support it, I'll certainly give you credit for it.
Here's a quote to get you started:
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
 
Last edited:

Slothrop

Well-Known Member
The Blog | RJ Eskow: Death of a Torture Victim | The Huffington Post
The citizens of the homeland didn't hear about it when he died, and many of them wouldn't have cared. They should be grateful we're occupying their country, some said. We're building new roads and bringing them our civilization. And didn't we let them elect their own leaders?
The Senators spoke fine words, but when push came to shove they yielded authority to their leader to do whatever he wanted to do.
And so it came to pass that one more body was broken and one more life was taken.
You didn't need to "profile" him to know he was suspicious - more suspicious than most of the prisoners that were seized and taken to that infamous prison.
His religion, his ethnicity, and his Middle Eastern name made him suspect from the start. Worse, he was an ardent follower of his desert religion, with its holy book full of blood crimes and beheadings. And he was an outspoken street speaker, part of a radical fringe that wanted the interlopers out of his country now.

Then there was the matter of the guy who turned him in to the authorities. A lot of the folks being carted off to prison had been caught the same way, with a denunciation from a neighbor, a family member, or a business rival. Many of them had never been fingered at all. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And this guy looked suspicious, with his crazy desert clothing and his long fanatic's beard. He didn't just challenge the foreign occupiers, either. He denounced leaders in his own religion who he felt had become too comfortable with those who wielded power.
Make no mistake: there were those among his people who would do bloody things, who would kill as many occupiers as they could. He wasn't one of them. But the torturers weren't very discriminating. They all look pretty much alike underneath a hood, anyway.
They seized him one night and took him to a secret prison, where they beat and tortured him. They posed him in humiliating positions. The only reason they didn't videotape and photograph the ritualized pain was that there weren't any cameras around.
But they made sure that lots of the locals saw him being tortured. They thought it would have a discouraging effect on the violent ones.
He was innocent. He had no intention of hurting anyone. He was more concerned with the well-being of his fellow detainees than he was with himself. That's the kind of guy he was.
There were others who were violent, who wanted to slaughter the invaders. But torturing him didn't help the occupiers find the ones planning to kill. It never has. It added converts to the rebellion.
The torturers didn't know that, though. They hadn't learned from those who had come before them. That's the thing about torturers: they never learn.

Finally they killed him. It was a pre-emptive and public assassination. They assumed that he would be scorned, ridiculed, and then forgotten. But he wasn't. His words may have been forgotten among the powerful, but some of the powerless whisper them still.
"Whatever you do to the least of these," He said, "you do to Me."
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Interesting article from NewsWeek:
Does torture really work? Most intelligence experts say no.

Some excerpts:

U.S. intelligence officers say they have little—if any—evidence that useful intelligence has been obtained using techniques generally understood to be torture.

The very first high-ranking Al Qaeda operative captured—Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libbi-was first interrogated by the FBI. But when the FBI wanted to use its normal, go-slow methods, the prisoner was turned over to the CIA—who promptly turned him over to the Egyptians. Under the no-doubt rough care of the Egyptians, al-Libbi talked of plots and agents. The information was used to make the case for war against Iraq. As recounted in "Hubris," a new book by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff and David Corn, there was only one problem: al-Libbi later recanted, saying that he had lied to stop the torture.

There really is no good case for torture, assuming your goal is to gain useful information. If your only goal is to torture people who "deserve it" because they are "Islamo-fascists" who don't share our high values, I think it says more about you than it does about the people you want to torture, and you have more in common with them than you realize.
 

tonyexpress

Whac-A-Troll Patrol
Staff member
Who said anything about torture??:confused:1

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]This is not about "torture" or even "abuse," as some Administration critics dishonestly charge, but about being able to make life uncomfortable for al Qaeda prisoners who have been trained to resist milder forms of interrogation.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]The CIA program was thrown into legal limbo by the Supreme Court's June ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to our conflict with al Qaeda. It was a bad ruling, since Article 3 is intended to apply to civil wars. But its vague prohibitions against "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment nonetheless became the law of the land, exposing CIA interrogators to potential legal jeopardy for conduct as benign as using women to question Muslim detainees.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]The White House went to Congress asking, among other things, for help in clarifying what terms like "humiliating" and "degrading" actually mean. Senator McCain and his allies objected that this would be tantamount to "rewriting" the Geneva Conventions. But their objection wasn't very convincing, since every country in the world already interprets Article 3 and somebody in the U.S. has to do so in real-world situations; legal clarity is better than leaving that job to activist judges and lawyers. In the end, the Senators came most of the way toward the White House position.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]Soon it will be up to the White House to follow through and figuer out the legal details. This won't be a politically easy task because the ACLU and media liberals are already attacking the deal and will look for ways to block it. But President Bush understands the need for legal clarity, and we can trust he'll see that the job gets done. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]This will be a service to the American public and to future Presidents of both parties--perhaps even to Mr. McCain. No matter their rhetoric now, they will surely be glad to have aggressive interrogations as one antiterror tool. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Who said anything about torture??:confused:1

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]This is not about "torture" or even "abuse," as some Administration critics dishonestly charge, but about being able to make life uncomfortable for al Qaeda prisoners who have been trained to resist milder forms of interrogation.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]The CIA program was thrown into legal limbo by the Supreme Court's June ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to our conflict with al Qaeda. It was a bad ruling, since Article 3 is intended to apply to civil wars. But its vague prohibitions against "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment nonetheless became the law of the land, exposing CIA interrogators to potential legal jeopardy for conduct as benign as using women to question Muslim detainees.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]The White House went to Congress asking, among other things, for help in clarifying what terms like "humiliating" and "degrading" actually mean. Senator McCain and his allies objected that this would be tantamount to "rewriting" the Geneva Conventions. But their objection wasn't very convincing, since every country in the world already interprets Article 3 and somebody in the U.S. has to do so in real-world situations; legal clarity is better than leaving that job to activist judges and lawyers. In the end, the Senators came most of the way toward the White House position.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]Soon it will be up to the White House to follow through and figuer out the legal details. This won't be a politically easy task because the ACLU and media liberals are already attacking the deal and will look for ways to block it. But President Bush understands the need for legal clarity, and we can trust he'll see that the job gets done. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]This will be a service to the American public and to future Presidents of both parties--perhaps even to Mr. McCain. No matter their rhetoric now, they will surely be glad to have aggressive interrogations as one antiterror tool. [/FONT][/FONT]

Liberalism and the ACLU are the United State's worst enemy. How are we supposed to keep our country safe when those idiots are throwing up every obstical they can to get in the way?!?! I don't like the idea of torture but these throat cutters, much like the NAZIs that ran the concentration camps, are an exception and deserve a little more because they have no desire to follow "the rules" so why should we? Screw all that "we'd be stooping to their level" BS. I'd rather be on that level than be dead. Our enemys respect our military but since our military is held back by our policys of political correctness we might as well have the French army out there.
 

Slothrop

Well-Known Member
tonyexpress said:
This is not about "torture" or even "abuse," as some Administration critics dishonestly charge, but about being able to make life uncomfortable for al Qaeda prisoners who have been trained to resist milder forms of interrogation.

Okay, you got my curiosity, what would be considered 'uncomfortable' in your opinion? Would sleep deprevation, cold celling, forced feeding and waterboarding be allowed? Any of those? Or would you go by the Gonzales rule, that anything short of organ failure or death is allowed?

Because some consider the Supreme Court ruling incorrect in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld does that give them the right to ignore the law?

Do you feel that the Congress can legally pass a law that contradicts the Constitution?

Do you think that the NIC put forth a flawed NIE on Iraq?

Anxiously awaiting your reply.
 

Slothrop

Well-Known Member
Who said anything about torture??:confused:1

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]This is not about "torture" or even "abuse," as some Administration critics dishonestly charge, but about being able to make life uncomfortable for al Qaeda prisoners who have been trained to resist milder forms of interrogation.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]The CIA program was thrown into legal limbo by the Supreme Court's June ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to our conflict with al Qaeda. It was a bad ruling, since Article 3 is intended to apply to civil wars. But its vague prohibitions against "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment nonetheless became the law of the land, exposing CIA interrogators to potential legal jeopardy for conduct as benign as using women to question Muslim detainees.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]The White House went to Congress asking, among other things, for help in clarifying what terms like "humiliating" and "degrading" actually mean. Senator McCain and his allies objected that this would be tantamount to "rewriting" the Geneva Conventions. But their objection wasn't very convincing, since every country in the world already interprets Article 3 and somebody in the U.S. has to do so in real-world situations; legal clarity is better than leaving that job to activist judges and lawyers. In the end, the Senators came most of the way toward the White House position.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]Soon it will be up to the White House to follow through and figuer out the legal details. This won't be a politically easy task because the ACLU and media liberals are already attacking the deal and will look for ways to block it. But President Bush understands the need for legal clarity, and we can trust he'll see that the job gets done. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]This will be a service to the American public and to future Presidents of both parties--perhaps even to Mr. McCain. No matter their rhetoric now, they will surely be glad to have aggressive interrogations as one antiterror tool. [/FONT][/FONT]

Tony, are these words yours, or are you [-]plagerizing[/-] borrowing someone elses opinions?
 

hoser

Industrial Slob
Liberalism and the ACLU are the United State's worst enemy. How are we supposed to keep our country safe when those idiots are throwing up every obstical they can to get in the way?!?! I don't like the idea of torture but these throat cutters, much like the NAZIs that ran the concentration camps, are an exception and deserve a little more because they have no desire to follow "the rules" so why should we? Screw all that "we'd be stooping to their level" BS. I'd rather be on that level than be dead. Our enemys respect our military but since our military is held back by our policys of political correctness we might as well have the French army out there.
You're saying dissent and difference of opinion is what's killing this nation state, yet you detest Nazis as well....

Are you 13?
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
You're saying dissent and difference of opinion is what's killing this nation state, yet you detest Nazis as well....

Are you 13?


Dissent and difference of opinion are two different things. If you liberals were just expressing your opinions but still supporting your govt. and military (who are trying to protect you) then there wouldn't be so much hostility between liberals and conservatives. What you nuts are doing is taking it beyond opinions. You undermine the military so much that they can't even do their jobs. A "Politically Correct War" is not winnable. Only expreme force and using the military to it's full capability will keep this country safe. As long as you liberals have your say we will never be able to put people in their place after they attack us. Maybe you still haven't figured it out yet but "us" includes you!
 

tonyexpress

Whac-A-Troll Patrol
Staff member
Bush, McCain and 'torture'


No torture! Only coercive methods of interrogation. These include sleep deprivation, stress positions, light and sound manipulation, temperature controls and mild forms of physical intimidation.

The one technique whose legal status was left unresolved was water-boarding, some regard this as torture. However, as the article says, after using the water-boarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed he began talking after 2 ½ minutes. These coercive interrogations have revealed other terrorists and plots to harm Americans.
 

Slothrop

Well-Known Member
No torture! Only coercive methods of interrogation. These include sleep deprivation, stress positions, light and sound manipulation, temperature controls and mild forms of physical intimidation.

The one technique whose legal status was left unresolved was water-boarding, some regard this as torture. However, as the article says, after using the water-boarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed he began talking after 2 ½ minutes. These coercive interrogations have revealed other terrorist and plots to harm Americans.

So tony, these 'coercive' methods you mention, you don't think they would fall under the definition of torture? Shall I provide evidence that they are torture, as defined in the Geneva Conventions?

I'll be happy to provide scientific proof as soon as you answer the rest of the questions I asked of you.

I take it by your use of the word 'some' above, you don't believe water boarding is torture.

I know the administration has said that they were able to stop terrorist attacks on the homeland by the confessions they 'extracted' from KSM, but they haven't pointed to any incident in particular. Excuse me if I doubt their veracity.

I do know for a fact, that other 'confessions' they have extracted through 'coercive' methods of interrogation have led to extremely flawed intelligence (WMDs in Iraq, for one).

Anxiously awaiting your reply,

Tyrone.
 

tonyexpress

Whac-A-Troll Patrol
Staff member
Tony, are these words yours, or are you [-]plagerizing[/-] borrowing someone elses opinions?
Are you saying that my opinion is invalid because I paraphrased an idea from an article I read?

At least you're consistent. I know that you like to make [wiki]ad hominem[/wiki] attacks on everyone that doesn't share your opinion. Why don't we just discuss the topic instead of trying to make my opinion less valid than yours?
 
G

gop

Guest
So tony, these 'coercive' methods you mention, you don't think they would fall under the definition of torture? Shall I provide evidence that they are torture, as defined in the Geneva Conventions?

I'll be happy to provide scientific proof as soon as you answer the rest of the questions I asked of you.

I take it by your use of the word 'some' above, you don't believe water boarding is torture.

I know the administration has said that they were able to stop terrorist attacks on the homeland by the confessions they 'extracted' from KSM, but they haven't pointed to any incident in particular. Excuse me if I doubt their veracity.

I do know for a fact, that other 'confessions' they have extracted through 'coercive' methods of interrogation have led to extremely flawed intelligence (WMDs in Iraq, for one).

Anxiously awaiting your reply,

Tyrone.
terrorist are not entitled to Geneva laws.Why should terrorist be treated better than the way they treat are troops.Terrorist don't torture no they just behead you.Keep defending there rights soon enough they will be in your back yard blowing your family and friends up.
 
Top