• Twylarants said on Apr 25, 2009....

  Well, Twyla, I must say this isn’t what we expect when we click on a post from you.  This isn’t funny at all. 

   

  Ah, I see.  So you think I shouldn’t talk about subjects such as this…torture and politics, huh?  Well, it might surprise you to know I do have opinions that may not concur with others’ thoughts and feelings on some matters.  Very strong opinions, as a matter of fact.

   

  Really?  So you’re one of those who think America should use torture to glean information from its enemies to prevent terrorist attacks in the future?

   

  I think America should use whatever tactics it has at its disposal to keep terrorists from slaughtering more of us, yes.

   

  Wow…you’re a cold, heartless bitch, aren’t you?  Let me guess…you’re a Republican, right?

   

  Yes and no.  I am a cold, heartless bitch, but I’m a Libertarian cold, heartless bitch.

   

  And the difference would be….?

   

  Cute, yeah…real cute.  Look, did you even watch the video?  Did you see the plane?  Now, imagine you’re on that plane.  You’re going to visit your parents with your little boy. Let’s say he’s 6 years old, ok?  You’ve known for the last half hour or so that your plane is going to be flown into one of the Twin Towers.  There it is now, up ahead.

  What do you tell your baby?  How about this?  “Don’t worry, baby, when they catch the man who killed you and Mommy they won’t torture him, ok?”

  Here’s a different scenario for you.  You’re at work when your cell phone rings.  It’s your husband. He's sitting in his cubicle at work when the plane hits 10 floors below him. He realizes immediately there is no way out…he knows he is dying. Your picture sits in a frame on his desk. He calls you.  He loves you. He says good-bye. Please tell his Mom and Dad he loves them and not to hate the people who killed him.

   

  Well, I prefer not to think of those things.  I prefer to rise above it, forgive those who commit these acts. We’re not animals, we shouldn’t torture people, and that’s that.

   

  Just can’t get through to you, huh?  Ok. But before you stick your head back in the sand, take a look at this:
  

  
  

  http://avpv.tripod.com/AmericanVictims.html
  
  Then tell me that's not torture.
  
  
  

• pickersplock said on Apr 25, 2009....

  Ah, the age old argument of who is morally superior.
  I love it!
  But the truth is, it's mighty easy for us to sit in judgement when we have nothing to fear in our own back yard and I mean literally in our own back yard.
   
  But I wonder how many of us would take that high moral ground if it was our own loved one who was in jeopardy?
   
  Picture your own child held by an animal who places no value on human life, and then ask if you would step in and stop the "harsh interrogation/torture".
   
  And I'm an Independent btw.

• Twylarants said on Apr 25, 2009....

  I knew I could count on you to read this, P.
  What's the advantage to being morally superior, anyway? I'm as warm and fuzzy as anyone, but at some point logic takes over and logic tells me that tossing Skittles at terrorists and telling them we feel their pain isn't gonna protect this country from another attack.
  

• ALIENated said on Apr 25, 2009....

  
  Right on.
  
  

• Twylarants said on Apr 25, 2009....

  Thanks, Alien.  I didn't expect anyone but Pickers to read this.  I don't comment on political posts because I'm not the type to debate.  I can't talk to people who don't think logically.  I can't talk to people who quote the bible as though their God has a reason for things like this to happen. 
  Terrorists are at war with our way of life and they'll kill us anyway they can manage to.
  That's the reality. 
  I sincerely hope the President's idea of talking to the Taliban brings an end to it, I really do.
  I also sincerely doubt that it will.
  

• stopmediabias said on Apr 25, 2009....

  Wow, it almost sends a chill up your spine when you see that plane disappear into that building, terrible, just terrible.

  Everyone on this blogsite and around this country (especially Liberals) needs to view that.  It seems they have developed amnesia and replaced it with a naive child-like obsession of Right-hating. 

• Twylarants said on Apr 25, 2009....

  SMB ~ Yes, unfortunately we are a country of people with very short memories.  I remember it every birthday.  I turned 52 on that September 11th.  When my phone rang at ten minutes to nine in the morning I thought it was the first of 4 "Happy Birthday" calls I was looking forward to.
  It wasn't.  It was my oldest son.  He was crying.  My heart stopped.  I thought something had happened to one of his brothers.  He said no, turn on the tv.
  I put on the "Today Show".  I saw the tower burning.  Katie Couric said a plane had flown into the office building and no one knew at that point how it could have happened.
  I saw another plane flying low, disappearing behind the tower.  Couric said, "That's a news helicopter" or something like that.  I thought, "No, that's a plane.  Oh my God."
  The second plane flew into the tower.
  That's the reality.  It's not a movie, it's not a computer animation.
  
  I don't care if you disapprove of the methods of interrogation the CIA uses to get information to prevent this happening again.
  Be as liberal as you want.  Give all your money away, hug a tree, live green...hell, you can turn green for all I care, but stop whining about hurting the feelings of these animals.  You can't put Abu Zubaydah in a small room with caterpillars?  Then put him in an office on the 70th floor of a burning building and tell him the only way out is by jumping through a window.
  You can't put a hood over his head or deprive him of sleep or make him sit in an uncomfortable position for too long.  How well could he see in a smoke filled stairwell?  How would his legs and lungs feel after walking or crawling down 60 flights of stairs?  How much sleep did people lose wondering if their husbands, wives, children were alive?
  Leave the CIA to do what they have been doing since 9/11 to keep us safe.  Shut your mouths, stick your heads back in the sand, and maybe, just maybe, it won't happen in your city.
  Thanks for reading this, SMB.
  

• pickersplock said on Apr 25, 2009....

  I'm just back from BASEBALL AGAIN!
   
  Anyway, Twy, I was just wondering if it would be better to stand by, as others die, knowing you could have done something and say, "Well, even though a hundred people died, at least I didn't compromise my morals" or if it would be better to compromise those morals and maybe save a whole lot of people?
   
  Moral dilema, moral dilema!
  It's really easy to sit and preach, but how many of us would have the guts?
   
  I sometimes wonder if I had lived in Nazi Germany, would I have been one of those who did nothing?
  Could I have joined the resistance and maybe hid some people and saved their lives even if I had to shoot and kill to do it?
   
  I'd like to think so. 
   
  I saw Miep Gies speak a while back. She's my hero.
   
  Not to ramble on, but I'm picturing that scene in Schindler's List where the doctors know the SS is coming to kill all of their patients so they give them some kind of drug so they'll die before the SS gets there.  Now normally I'm against killing people but in that instance I can see myself compromising my high morals for a better cause..................blah blah blah, no one listens except the choir, of course, and what a choir we have!

• Twylarants said on Apr 26, 2009....

  I can't imagine having to make that decision.  Could I torture someone to save hundreds, possibly thousands, of lives?   Yes.  Morally, I wouldn't have a problem doing it.  Could I kill a person to save another?  Yes.  It would haunt me, it would traumatize me, but not morally.  It would affect me in the same way it affects police and the military.
  
  SMB made a great point.  All these years all the atrocities committed against Americans in foreign countries, against our military personnel....the Cole bombing, the young sailor on the hijacked plane shot in the head and thrown out on the runway....horrified us.  We gasped, we moved on.  The first bomb planted in the underground parking lot of the World Trade Center in, when? 1993?
  Oh my God, how terrible...move on.
  
  Then, 9/11.  We rallied around our country. All of a sudden we became patriotic.  We Americans are not going to stand for this.  We are Americans,  not Democrats, not Republicans...Americans.
  
  2009.  We're victims.  Everything done to protect this country up to this point has been wrong.  As a matter of fact, everything about this country is wrong.  We've been just a tad too proud of our country, and we are oh so sorry.  We'll take care of it, don't worry.
   We'll retreat into our respective corners...conservatives over here, liberals over here, no one in the middle, please...you must pick a side. You're either a gun toting, racist, protectionist, hate-mongerer, or you want to save every newt, cicada, weed, pebble, and mosquito in America.
  You either hate being taxed and regulated and governed and socialized...in which case you're a racist, or you feel sorry for everybody and everything...in which case you are morally superior.
  
  You are a Republican or a Democrat in this country.  And, as President Pelosi says, "We won...get over it."
  

• pickersplock said on Apr 26, 2009....

  LOL, President Pelosi! Haha again!
   
  She's in it deep up to her eyeballs!  She was at the so called CIA tell all.
  Said they told her they could do it, not that they would do it.
  Could would might will, so like the definition of "is" doesn't it?
   
  Ha!  They aren't going to prosecute anyone, just trying to take everyone's mind of the economy and the inevitable raising of all our credit card interest rates.
   
  People, if you have a balance pay it off now.
  We're about to get taken to the cleaners!

• Twylarants said on Apr 26, 2009....

  Did you hear Glen Beck Friday?  He said, "If I tell you I'm going to your Mom's house and I might kill her, would you think 'Well, he didn't say he would kill her, he say he might kill her, so I don't have to do anything' ".

• javadewd said on Apr 27, 2009....

  9/11... Lest we forget... And have to experience such a tragedy on American soil yet again... Under the leadership of a group of people who covered their ears, covered their eyes, and yet can't seem to covered their rotten pie-holes while they slander this beautiful country and for which it stands in order for them to be considered "right" when they should be "left" to their own devices. Make no mistake, if our enemies have even a single breath left in their bodies, they will strike again. If not today, soon.
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Apr 27, 2009....

  This is one time that I hope and pray I am completely flat out wrong about our President and his foreign policy.

• pickersplock said on Apr 29, 2009....

  Ah, you know I was just upstairs doing the dishes when it hit me like a ton of bricks!
  We've been going about this thing all wrong.
  Now, waterboarding administered by GI Joe or CI Andy dressed in head to toe olive green is torture BUUUUUUUT, waterboarding administered by Madame De Sade in a sexy corset and thong is just harmless S and M and would be ever so much more accepted by the left.
  Pictures of those torture sessions wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
  Am I right?

• javadewd said on Apr 29, 2009....

  Oh, I could just kiss your face pickerslock... But I'm straight, so I'll just have to shake your hand, buddy. That's just awesome!
  
  

• Twylarants said on Apr 29, 2009....

  Oh, go ahead and kiss her, J'Dewd... she'll love it.

• javadewd said on Apr 29, 2009....

  Very well, twist my arm!

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  LOL, do I sound male?  I didn't mean to!

  I'm all female JD!

  Twyl and I just have that sick sense of humor!

• Twylarants said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Sick and twisted...don't forget twisted.

• javadewd said on Apr 30, 2009....

  You're sick and twisted? I like that in a person... :-D

• Twylarants said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Who keeps tagging this "bed-wetters"?

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Don't look at me!

• javadewd said on Apr 30, 2009....

  PS - Maybe they should have blue and pink ID tags by the user names or something...Oh, well. Duh on me.
  
  Twyl - That would be me. I do that every time I see the tag "liberals" or when they are whining in a thread. A "bed wetter" blames everybody but themselves, because nothing is their fault, not even the golden stain in their sleeping quarters. So far, I haven't seen much of that on this thread and I'm actually surprised they have that much respect!
  
  

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

   I think they're afraid of Twyl, she's a rebel!
  They're probably avoiding me because of the high fiber diet!

• javadewd said on Apr 30, 2009....

  If most of our politicians would go on a high fiber diet, they'd be at least a foot shorter...

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Hahaha!
  It took me a minute, but I processed! LOL

• javadewd said on Apr 30, 2009....

  So I guess everything came out okay in the end?

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Shall we send a few cases of Metamucil to our illustrious Senators and Congress persons?

• javadewd said on Apr 30, 2009....

  I almost sent a case of Irish Spring labeled "Swine Flu Prevention Kit," but my wife says she doesn't want to be on the DHS no-fly list...
  
  

• Twylarants said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Oh, that's ok then, J'Dewd.  Bed-wetters can stay.  As a tag, I mean...ewww.
  
  No, I doubt liberals are afraid of me.  I think they just don't take me seriously because my usual posts tend to fall into the category of humor.  And why shouldn't they?  Capitalists are funnier than Socialists, right?  I mean, really...when was the last time anyone heard Castro make a joke?
  
  Like I said, I'm not a debater.  PETA renaming fish "Sea Kittens" is just too stupid to me. How can you debate that without cracking up? 
  Air Force One buzzing Ground Zero, Napolitano implying returning veterans are potentially dangerous, Michelle Obama expressing her feeling of finally being proud of this country now that her husband is President....stupid, stupid, stupid.
  Who said "You can't cure stupid"?  Jeff Foxworthy?  Whoever...that's a great line. You can't debate it, either.
   
  

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Sea kittens?  SEA KITTENS?
  Does that make a whale a Sea Lion?
  What would that make sea lions then?
  Sea Cougars?
   
  I would like to know what would a Sea Hamster be?
   
  I thought it would be hilarious going to the local airport and oinking after every sneeze.  That would probably get me on the list too though.

• javadewd said on Apr 30, 2009....

  I find this picture more than ironic. Here's Pamela Anderson at a PETA event. This is an animal activist who has been abusing her own beaver for decades! Yes, sometimes liberals are funny, but at times it's just sad...
  
  

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Whoa, she doesn't look so good up close.

• Twylarants said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Honest to God, P....sea kittens.  Take a look:
  
  http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/
  

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  I did.
  They aren't really going to dress them up like little kitties are they?
  Because that would be torture!

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  PS- I just made my own Sea Kitten with a pink tutu and a tiara! LOLOLLOLLOOLLOOLLOL

• Twylarants said on Apr 30, 2009....

  I have some flounder in the freezer. Have you got any extra glitter or tulle?

• pickersplock said on Apr 30, 2009....

  The wigs are absolutely fabulous!
  I think there was a yellow bikini too.
   
  Funny....every time I see Sea Kitten, it looks like Sex Kitten.
  Those PETA girls, it's all about sex with them.
  Naked in cages, cuddling up to brocolli and cucumbers.
  Thye are warped.

• bloc said on Apr 30, 2009....

  "I'm as warm and fuzzy as anyone, but at some point logic takes over and logic tells me that tossing Skittles at terrorists and telling them we feel their pain isn't gonna protect this country from another attack."
  
  this is a strawman. Most interrogators have made it clear that torture gets unreliable information while the tried and true techniques work. Here is a first hand account of an FBI interrogator on this issue.
  
  I also don't believe for a second that torture makes us safer. I'll give one example. The nazis tortured in WWII and we didn't. We won that war.
  
  Also, who decides who gets torture and under what circumstances is it ok? We know that we waterboarded one person 183 times in a one month. Did that person give us additional information after the first time, the tenth time, or the hundredth time? How do we know if someone actually has information or do we simply torture people that we think may maybe possibly know something? Who makes this decision? Can they do it to americans too? What if it maybe might save lives? Should we start torturing regular criminals to save lives? Where does it end once we go down this path?
  
  Last question. Are we a nation of laws or not? Are you, twal, asserting that laws do not apply to the President? If not then this is clearly illegal so what next?
  

• Twylarants said on Apr 30, 2009....

  No, that was sarcasm.  Nobody's throwing Skittles at anyone, I'm pretty sure of that. You say you don't believe that torture keeps America safer.  I'm saying putting a hood over someone's face or locking them in a room with bugs or slamming them into a wall isn't torture.  Waterboarding...yeah, that's torture.  It would kill me, so they wouldn't be able to get information from me, I'd be dead.  But they wouldn't have to use that torture on me. I don't have a death wish, and I'm not going to strap explosives to my body and blow myself and everyone within a hundred yards of me to kingdom come.
  How many Americans or regular criminals in American jails have been waterboarded for information?  Has this country started down that path already?
  Ok, no more waterboarding.  How far do they go after that? No more what?  Interrogating?  Detaining?  Where does it end?
  Of course America is a nation of laws.  But this administration is bound and determined to prove that George Bush broke the law, and to prosecute all the parties involved for being given bad legal advice.  George Bush was, in my opinion, a stupid man. Most politicians are, again in my opinion, either idiots, or liars, and worse.  But to undermine the security on this country by releasing these memos and pictures, and by vowing to never torture, is taking transparency too far.
  I really hope Obama's plan works.  Then both political parties can find something else to argue about, and you know they will.  This crap will be going on long after we're gone.  For my part, torturing the enemy for information doesn't bother me morally or ethically.  I don't care. 
  

• javadewd said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Oh, give it up bloc. Go beat off or something... Unless you consider that torture, too?

• bloc said on Apr 30, 2009....

  "Ok, no more waterboarding.  How far do they go after that? No more what?  Interrogating?  Detaining?  Where does it end?"
  
  Is this a serious question? Let's reverse it. If waterboarding someone 183 times in a month is ok to keep us safe where does it end?
  
  Here's what happened. We kept people from sleeping for over a week, naked, often times locked in a small box or hung by their wrists with their arms behind there back. We would keep it freezing cold in the cell so they would get to the edge of hypothermia and then we'd waterboard  them over and over and over again. After than we'd attach a leash to their necks and slam them against a plywood board then put them back in the little box or their stress position. We'd let them defecate on themselves and eventually put them in diapers so we wouldn't have to take them down from their stress positions. I could go on, but you get the point.
  
  This is literally what happened. Cherry picking something like putting a bug near someone and claiming "that's not torture" either means that you aren't aware of the full breadth of what happened, or you want to avoid the brutality of it.  What makes this even more dangerous is that it was authorized and codified the Bush Admin. It is clearly torture and clearly illegal. Do you really believe that being opposed to this is a slippery slope? That we can't say no to this because it will lead to warm baths and flowers for the terrorists?
  
  Did you read the link I put in my previous comment? It was an op-ed by one of the actual interrogators. He says that one of them was giving good information before the torture began yet we decided to torture him anyway. I believe you said you are a libertarian which makes me a little confused. Libertarianism is about individual liberty and torture is the absolute and brutal destruction of individual liberty.
  

• Twylarants said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Yeah, I read the article.  I guess you and the FBI agent and I can't agree.  I can't make something bother me if it doesn't bother me, and no amount of torture inflicted to get information that may prevent the agonizing torture that thousands of Americans suffered in the Twin Towers and on those planes, and the never ending torture their families suffer, offends me.
  Why do you ask if my question was serious?  Do you think I'm playing around simply because I don't share your opinion?  I'm not.  You could go on and on describing the torture, yes, but yet, they're not dead.  Are you absolutely sure no vital information was collected from these methods?   I mean totally, unequivocally, sure? None, nothing helpful in the least?

• Twylarants said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Wait, don't answer that.  I have to go to sleep.

• javadewd said on May 01, 2009....

  He won't answer that, nor speculate that point because he knows that it blows his whole argument.

• Twylarants said on May 01, 2009....

  J'Dewd ~  Bloc's just very passionate about his position, but so am I.  That's the thing about debating an issue .  I see no reason for it unless I can make the other party see some logic behind my opinion.
  
  If you present logic in an argument, I'm willing to concede points here and there.  For instance, I can agree with Bloc that waterboarding is torture. What I can't agree with is the moral outrage.  If this method is proven to be ineffective beyond any doubt, any doubt, then I say drop it.  But that begs the question as to why it was used in the first place.  If the argument is over the legality of waterboarding, then I say grow up, this is war. 
  If the protest is based on the morality of waterboarding, sorry... I don't lose sleep over it.  Exposing CIA operatives' names and endangering their lives pisses me off, yeah, so does dragging the bodies of American servicemen through the street while the American flag is burning, so does shooting sailors in the head and throwing their bodies on the tarmac, so does cutting off the heads of journalists on tv.
  So you see, I'm not completely morally bankrupt, in spite of what anyone thinks. When the Islamic terrorist groups agree to abide by every article of the Geneva Convention, America can afford to take the high road.
  
  

• bloc said on May 01, 2009....

  "You could go on and on describing the torture, yes, but yet, they're not dead."
  
  
  Actually, a number of people have died while being interrogated.
  
  "Are you absolutely sure no vital information was collected from these methods?   I mean totally, unequivocally, sure? None, nothing helpful in the least?"
  
  I think the scope of this question is too narrow. Here are some other factors that need to be taken into account. Could the information have been obtained without torture? Did the torture produce so much bad information that it outweighed any good information that may have been obtained? Is it then OK for countries we are at war with to torture americans to save their own lives? For example, we prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding americans during WWII. Surely, by your logic they had more reason than us to torture since it may have saved them from haivng two atomic bombs dropped on their cities.
  
  We're picking at the details here, but I don't know what your high level opinion is. Do you believe that torture is OK of it saves lives? If so, is that a two way street when another country could save their lives by torturing Americans? Also, where does it end? When is torture not acceptable to you?
  
  

• Twylarants said on May 01, 2009....

  I guess it does come down to the details, doesn't it?  It will in a courtroom if it comes to that.
  Whether or not info could have been obtained without torture..hmmm.  You mean any kind of torture, right?  But what are other ways, what are the alternatives?
   
  Who ordered the bombing of Japan?  FDR or Truman?  Wait, it was Truman, a Democrat, right?  I was born just after the war so I obviously don't remember it, but I know it ended WWII.  It was an unimaginably horrible remedy, and one I'm sure the administration took no joy in agreeing to.  I doubt the Bush administration did in agreeing to waterboarding, as well.
  
  What forms of interrogation does the Army Field Guide propose?
  

• Twylarants said on May 01, 2009....

  I just heard Obama say he will be judged, ultimately, on how safe America is during his presidency.  I'm glad that's important to him.  Normally, it would piss me off that a president cares more about his legacy than his country, and face it, most politicians do, but in this case, thumbs up, Barack.  Now, how you gonna do that?
  
   What happens if he has to back-peddle at some point, as he must realize could happen?  See, I don't think he knows.  I don't think his background has prepared him for such possibilities.
  
  What about my other question...why is waterboarding used in the first place? 
  According to CIA employees involved in interrogating suspected plotters, mild methods are used first.  If they fail stronger methods are used.  And while no method works every time, enhanced techniques did result in the prevention of a second 9/11 type attack and other attacks.
  
  
  

• bloc said on May 01, 2009....

  "enhanced techniques did result in the prevention of a second 9/11 type attack and other attacks."
  
  I haven't seen any credible source for this claim.
  
  "If they fail stronger methods are used. "
  
  We have one of the interrogators on the record contradicting this. It's in my link above.
  
  I'm still not sure of your position on this. When do you believe torture is ok and is it also ok for other countries to do it to americans?
  

• Twylarants said on May 01, 2009....

  Torture should be used when all less intense methods fail.  The alternative is what?  Give up?  Seriously, what happens if the other techniques don't work?
  
  http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=47003
  
  That's the only site I can remember off the top of my head.  I'll look in my bookmarks for others.
  
  When do I believe torture is ok?
  Obama says he will do whatever is required to keep America safe.
  That's my position.  Do whatever is required. Maybe his requirements differ from mine, but if it comes down to it, I bet they don't.
  
  Is it also ok for other countries to do it to Americans?
  No.  Sorry, but I'm selfish that way.  Of course, that's not reality, is it?  Can we be sure their "enhanced techniques" are in line with ours?  Are they torturing for information or simply to torture?  If they need info to keep their country safe, then all's fair, etc.
  
  
  
  
  

• javadewd said on May 01, 2009....

  Yes, we're picking at the details, bloc. We're picking your argument apart! Just let us know when you're done being tortured...

• bloc said on May 01, 2009....

  @twyl
  "That's my position.  Do whatever is required. "
  
  I'm not sure what this means. Cutting off fingers? Rape? Are there any lines you won't cross?
  
  Having asked that, I don't think that is the heart of the issue. There are a lot of assumptions in your statement that I'm unsure of. Who decides when it's necessary? you are assuming that it works, but actual interrogators overwhelming agree that it doesn't. Do we have to be certain that the person is guilty before we torture them? Who decides this? Do we have to be certain that they actually know something before we torture them? Again, who decides this? I find little defense of waterboarding someone 183 times in one month. That's about 6 times a day!
  
  Also, there is another giant issue that isn't being talked about. Torture is clearly illegal. Do you believe the President has to follow the law or should have the power to break it at will? If the President believed it was necessary wasn't it his duty to change the laws first and withdraw ourselves from teh Geneva Conventions? Otherwise what can't a President do?
  
  These are odd things to defend for a libertarian. I never thought libertarians would defend absolute power in a President :/
  
  
  
  
  
  

• bloc said on May 01, 2009....

  Reading your link now. First this statement.
  
  "the CIA would only resort to waterboarding a top al-Qaida leader when the agency had “credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent,” “substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack” and “(o)ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.”
    "
  
  We know for a fact that this is not true and not what happened from the Bush memos. When people assert such things that are clearly untrue it's hard to take them seriously.
  
  Here's the kicker though. The assertion here has been discredited.
  
  

• Twylarants said on May 01, 2009....

  So, what's the alternative?

• bloc said on May 01, 2009....

  The alternative is the way we've always done it which was successful in both defeating the Russians (who were far more dangerous than terrorists) and the Nazis (who were just as crazy).
  
  I also believe that torture fundamentally undermines our ability to win a war which is boils down to our culture vs their culture. Making our culture more brutal is a sure way to lose if you ask me.
  

• pickersplock said on May 01, 2009....

  When Mississippi's burning, you have to ask yourself; are you Gene Hackman or Wilhem Defoe?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpSid5YRzOw

• javadewd said on May 01, 2009....

  "The alternative is the way we've always done it..."
  
  So the answer is kill them all or at least enough of them that they finally say "stop"... Thank you, bloc, now sit down and shut up, because that was my point all along. Thank you, and congratulations! You're a tool...
  
  

• Twylarants said on May 02, 2009....

  I don't know how information was obtained from POWs during those wars, I was a mere child with more important things on my mind...lol.
  I do, however, remember the Bay of Pigs incident.  I remember how terrified everyone was during the drills, hiding under the desks or huddling against the wall in the hallway.
  We prayed for the Russians every morning in Catholic school, and even as a kid I didn't understand why.  Why were we praying for God to forgive the people who had missiles aimed directly at my town?  They wanted to kill us, for crying out loud!
  And I still don't get it, 50 years later.
  

• Twylarants said on May 02, 2009....

  Hackman.

• stopmediabias said on May 02, 2009....

  This is what makes my head want to explode.  Sorry longwinded, but point needs to be made that was missed. 

  Step one:Click on bloc's link- "Here's the kicker though. The assertion here has been discredited."

  Andrew Sullivan!  A nutcase who broadcasts his bias with every word, this is a source?  But lets look at it:

  "We will not know for sure how much garbage or non-garbage the CIA gleaned from torturing captives until a Truth Commission sorts it all out, but we do have a great deal of evidence that torturing KSM was, pace Thiessen, not responsible for foiling the LA Tower plot. As Tim Noah notes, there is a matter of chronology:

              In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003."

  First of all Sullivan immediatly says we torture people and he hasn't a shred of substantiated evidence to prove it, no-one in our country has been charged or convicted of torture, and nearly every bit of accusations of torture come from the actual enemy.  This in my book discredits Sullivan and makes him a big scumbag.  But lets look at it.

  Second-link "matter of chronology" first link leads to another far left garbage site called Slate and an article by their senior writer Timothy Noah, a blogger who tags the words "gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics."  Once again, we are talking about Americans torturing people, matters of national security where the wrong decision could lead to thousands of deaths and his tags are gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics?   

  Third-link"briefing"-This is the White House briefing, and here is the exact quote put into context with what was said(emphasis of Sullivan quote):

  "Khalid Shaykh Muhammad was the individual who led this effort. He initiated the planning for the West Coast plot after September 11th, in October of 2001. KSM, working with Hambali in Asia, recruited the members of the cell. There was a total of four members of the cell. When they -- KSM, himself, trained the leader of the cell in late 2001 or early 2002 in the shoe bomb technique. You all will recall that there was the arrest of the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, in December of 2001, and he was instructing the cell leader on the use of the same technique.

  After the cell -- the additional members of the cell, in addition to the leader, were recruited, they all went -- the cell leader and the three other operatives went to Afghanistan where they met with bin Laden and swore biat -- that is an oath of loyalty to him -- before returning to Asia, where they continued to work under Hambali. The cell leader was arrested in February of 2002, and as we begin -- at that point, the other members of the cell believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward. You'll recall that KSM was then arrested in April of 2003 -- or was it March -- I'm sorry, March of 2003."

  Just a little bit different than the point that Sullivan is trying to make isn't it? 

  Fourth-link"The Fact Sheet"  The entire quote in context(Sullivan quote highlighted):

  "We Also Broke Up Other Post-9/11 Aviation Plots. 

  • In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.  During a hearing at Guantanamo Bay two months ago, KSM stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles. 
  • In 2003, we uncovered and stopped a plot led by another suspected senior al Qaeda operative named Abu Bakr al-Azdi.  Our intelligence community believes this plot was to be another East Coast aviation attack – hijacking multiple airplanes and then crashing them into targets in the United States. "

  Once again slightly different than what Sullivan is saying and there very next sentence contradicts the point he is trying to make.

  Fifth-link"would later tell"  The whole quote:

  "Federal counter-terrorism officials on Friday disclosed for the first time that during his interrogations, Mohammed said he hadn’t completely abandoned the prospect of a second wave of attacks, but had turned the idea over to a trusted aide named Hambali, the chief of operations for an Al Qaeda affiliate group in South Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah.

  Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, in turn is believed to have chosen several men to launch the attacks, including a pilot, and had set aside some money to pay for them, according to one senior counter-terrorism official.  Those men were soon captured, however, and the plot never progressed past the planning stages, according to several counter-terrorism officials.  “To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,” said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines."

  When you actually go and read all this shit you have to ask yourself, why is Sullivan so blatantly misleading?  He posts these links to substantiate his argument but the links hurt his argument when put into context.

  His post was meant to show we didn't get valuable information from KSM and this somehow proves we torture people.  Grasping as straws and accusing our own people of torture, it is beyond sickening.

   

   

  
   

• Twylarants said on May 02, 2009....

  Wow.
  You be as long winded as you need to be, SMB.  I try to read as many sources as I can, on both liberal and conservative sights, but after a while it all runs together and I can't keep it straight. 
  The links everyone has provided here make it much easier to separate the truth, as I see it, from the trash.
  Thanks.
  Thanks to you, too, Bloc. Btw, rape?  Is that an interrogation method? 
  
  

• javadewd said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Hey, perhaps bloc can account for this moon bat?

• bloc said on Sep 08, 2009....

  world net daily isn't trustworthy. For example they are currently running a story saying that Obama is building concentration camps to put politcal opponents in. It's a lie of the worst kind and says everything anyone needs to know about wolrd net daily. 

Comment on "This is torture"

Currently tagged	politics scary liberals bed-wetters 9/11 terrorism (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment