# Bin Laden is dead



## Twin Fist

reporting Bin Laden is dead, killed by a US bomb


----------



## Archangel M

While I think it's a good propaganda event, I doubt that UBL has been much more than a figurehead lately.

I predict a number of attacks in the NEAR future from Al Queida franchises attempting to show that they are still a threat.


----------



## Carol

So he waits until Trump is on TV to announce that UBL has been dead a week.  MmmHmm.


----------



## Blade96

If its true, I understand why some people like the death penalty (although I still oppose it, I don't believe in an eye for an eye, if I did I'd get my abusive ex.) 

Glad my American friends and neighbors would be able to have some closure now if its true. 9/11 was horrible.


----------



## K-man

How many times can this man die? Here's one of his "death" reports from 2001.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

Then there's this one that says he died in 2002.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/01/10/is-osama-bin-laden-dead-or-aliveo.html

Then he died again in 2003.

http://www.stewwebb.com/osama_bin_laden_dead.htm

Then he might have died again in 2006.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1538569,00.html

Then there are the conspiracy theorists.

http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/

*



If bin Laden was dead, would the U.S. admit it?

Click to expand...

*


> *Rumsfeld admitting signs of Bin Laden after mid December were probably not valid.*


 
Not even Jesus rose from the dead that many times! Sure hope you're right this time. :asian:


----------



## Archangel M

Fox is confirming a DNA match and US possession of the body. White House to comment shortly.


----------



## granfire

Now who's gonna be our enemy?


----------



## Archangel M

Twin Fist said:


> reporting Bin Laden is dead, killed by a US bomb



Other rumors are saying a small arms/ground operation in Islamabad by SpecOps/Spook types. This should be interesting as details clear up.


----------



## Archangel M

granfire said:


> Now who's gonna be our enemy?



The followers who are inevitably going to attack to prove their relevance.


----------



## Blade96

granfire said:


> Now who's gonna be our enemy?



I often thought that the US at times was using him as a reason to continue this 'war' You know, sort of how the us said communists were their enemies for the cold war. I saw lot of similarity between this and the cold war tbh.


----------



## billc

Well, you can run but you can't hide, forever.


----------



## MA-Caver

Seems that rumors about his death are greatly exaggerated http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/osama-bin-laden-dead/ Possible it's one of his sons http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/22/pakistan.bin.laden.son/index.html No confirmation and that's official (oxymoron isn't it?)  http://articles.cnn.com/2006-09-23/...republicain-osama-al-qaeda-leader?_s=PM:WORLD


----------



## Blade96

Like people tend to say on forums

'Proof or it never happened'


----------



## Archangel M

MA-Caver said:


> Seems that rumors about his death are greatly exaggerated http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/osama-bin-laden-dead/




That was from the 28th and was implying that some Pak official was saying that OBL has been dead a while. Not current.

The President has just given confirmation.


----------



## Archangel M

President says it was a ground operation and firefight by US personnel. The details of this op should be fascinating. I wonder what units were involved?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Has Trump seen the death certificate yet?


----------



## Steve

Im watching obama on tv now announcing the death.  Can we all agree that this is a good thing?


----------



## Blade96

Maybe this will help boost Obama's popularity now with the people if Osama really was caught under his administration. It would be cool.

That and the slogan with the similarity of the two names just sounds cool.

OBAMA caught OSAMA


----------



## MA-Caver

stevebjj said:


> Im watching obama on tv now announcing the death.  Can we all agree that this is a good thing?


Only if HE doesn't take responsibility....

Speculation I recall reading one time said that if Bin Laden were killed by U.S. troops then it could lead to more terrorist attacks in retaliation or vendettas... time will tell.


----------



## Blade96

maybe they would cut the 'obama is a muslim/enemy' bs now if the US big enemy was caught under his administration!


----------



## Archangel M

Blade96 said:


> Maybe this will help boost Obama's popularity now with the people if Osama really was caught under his administration. It would be cool.
> 
> That and the slogan with the similarity of the two names just sounds cool.
> 
> OBAMA caught OSAMA



With all respect to the Commander in Chief, he didn't catch anybody. Men and women in uniform found him and killed him at great personal risk.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Blade96 said:


> Maybe this will help boost Obama's popularity now with the people if Osama really was caught under his administration. It would be cool.
> 
> That and the slogan with the similarity of the two names just sounds cool.
> 
> OBAMA caught OSAMA


 
oh give me a break, Obama had nothing to do with this. He will use it to his advantage like any politician would, but this was our troops, and the men on the ground who did this. Its been a long time coming, I congratulate the troops...... the idiots like Obama, and Trump and any other politician who claims they are responsible can go piss off.
Now to start picking off the next in line, and the upcoming replacements, and continue to eliminate any future jackholes like this running around.


----------



## Blade96

Archangel M said:


> With all respect to the Commander in Chief, he didn't catch anybody. Men and women in uniform found him and killed him at great personal risk.



Yeah I know. But he's still the President at this time.


----------



## WC_lun

The only thing Obama did was make it a priority.  Watching his statement he did not claim anything other than that.  In fact he went out of his way to comend the many, many, other people involved in this.

For some reason I seem to recall SEAL forces were involved, but I don't know why I'm thinking that.

Yes, there will probably be increased attacks for a while.  Should we not have brought justice to OBL?


----------



## Blade96

I know he wasnt out there sweating bug juice like the troops were who would have actually risked their lives to do this. But it would still be said in history books he was the president when it happened. Agree or disagree they will still probably give Obama some credit.


----------



## Archangel M

While Im shedding no tears, I don't know how much I like celebrating a death (watching the news coverage in front of the WH). Even OBL's.

I'm grimly satisfied. Proud of our "Operators". Glad that the mastermind of 9/11 has gotten his due. But I wouldn't say I'm "happy".


----------



## MA-Caver

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/#ixzz1LAHVbYuR

Well it says that we have the body... (another article did anyway)... Commendable to the troops that sweated blood and bullets to get the bastard... and a nod to the pres who made it a priority... but didn't Bush make it a priority too? Either way... it ain't over by a long shot. Terrorist organizations aren't just going to sulk off into a hole and do nothing because their revered leader is killed. They're hydras, cut off one head and two more will appear. 
Wanna do something real about terrorism then get the whole damned nest. Otherwise do what we've been doing... keeping an eye out for cells hiding here in the states waiting for activation to protect our citizens. 

Personally... I smell a rat.


----------



## K-man

MA-Caver said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/#ixzz1LAHVbYuR
> 
> Well it says that we have the body... (another article did anyway)... Commendable to the troops that sweated blood and bullets to get the bastard... and a nod to the pres who made it a priority... *but didn't Bush make it a priority too?* Either way... it ain't over by a long shot. Terrorist organizations aren't just going to sulk off into a hole and do nothing because their revered leader is killed. They're hydras, cut off one head and two more will appear.
> Wanna do something real about terrorism then get the whole damned nest. Otherwise do what we've been doing... keeping an eye out for cells hiding here in the states waiting for activation to protect our citizens.
> 
> Personally... I smell a rat.


It has been reported here that Obama called Bush soon after he was informed so it could be seen as a bipartisan effort, taking into account, Bush initiated the hunt.  Good riddance! :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH*


by George W. Bush on Sunday, May 1, 2011 at 11:55pm

May 1, 2011

Earlier  this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces  killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked  America on September 11, 2001.  I congratulated him and the men and  women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their  lives to this mission.  They have our everlasting gratitude.  This  momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek  peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on  September 11, 2001.  The fight against terror goes on, but tonight  America has sent an unmistakable message:  No matter how long it takes,  justice will be done.


----------



## Zoran

Politics aside and if all turns out to be true, I applaud the military and intelligence community for the results. Because bottom line, politicians do not get things done. It always comes down to the great citizens quietly doing their jobs that gets results. Results that are usually hijacked by various political figures to try to harvest more votes. Now if the same great citizen makes an error in judgement then of course they will get full credit for that and then some _(okay, I went a little political, but at least it's bipartisan)_. 

This will be a closure for the friends and family of the 9/11 victims. So folks, stop whining about Obama (for or against). Isn't there enough other threads to whine about him.


----------



## elder999

Archangel M said:


> While Im shedding no tears, I don't know how much I like celebrating a death (watching the news coverage in front of the WH). Even OBL's.
> 
> I'm grimly satisfied. Proud of our "Operators". Glad that the mastermind of 9/11 has gotten his due. But I wouldn't say I'm "happy".





> I have never wished a man dead, but. I have taken great pleasure in reading a few obituaries. * Mark Twain*


.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

stevebjj said:


> Im watching obama on tv now announcing the death. Can we all agree that this is a good thing?


 
For the nation...and the world, in fact...yes, I think we can.  

However, and I'm just going to mention it now, once we inevitably get around to discussing election implications, I fear we'll return to our party flags.  

For now, though, it's definitely good news.  I think I'll remember tonight as clearly as I remember 9/11 itself.


----------



## mook jong man

If at all possible , I think it may have been better to capture him alive.
In the eyes of the extremists and their potential recruits he will seem like more of a martyr because he was killed.


----------



## Sukerkin

I have similar sentiments to Angel on this.  

The fact that the global intelligence community and the miltaries that act on their information, managed to fulfil the Presidential promise made some years ago restores their credability.  

It is no bad thing for an 'evil' to be removed but I wouldn't like to be celebrant about the death of any person.  Relieved is perhaps the right word, if the stature of the evil is that of Hitler or Stalin and happy that they can do no more wrong.


----------



## fangjian

Sukerkin said:


> It is no bad thing for an 'evil' to be removed but I wouldn't like to be celebrant about the death of any person.  Relieved is perhaps the right word, if the stature of the evil is that of Hitler or Stalin and happy that they can do no more wrong.



Yeah. bin Laden was obviously someone who had the ability to lead, orchestrate complex objectives etc. It's sad that he spent his life doing what he did. I wonder what he could have accomplished if only he wasn't blinded by beliefs and such, but instead was driven to use his abilities and his money to do things that would've been beneficial to society, like promote education in the Muslim world, or help in _some_ way, any way.


----------



## Big Don

The bad thing about this, yeah, there is one and it is a doozy:
A lot of people think Osama bin Laden was the be all and end all of global Islamic terrorism. There is a word for such people: Stupid.


----------



## Sukerkin

True enough, Don.  What he was was a figure-head and one that was portrayed as thumbing his nose against those tasked to defend those the terrorists would target.

The longer it went on, the more credible he became and vice versa for the intelligence services.  As soon as it was publically stated that he was going to be brought to book then it had to be done - a matter of "when" rather than "if".


----------



## elder999

When someone joins "al Qaeda," they don't swear allegiance to al Qaeda, but to Osama bin Laden.....imagine that's not going to change, though.......


----------



## CoryKS

It's great news, but it's not the end of the story.  Ayman al-Zawahiri is still wasting oxygen, that needs to be corrected.  And that mansion that bin Laden was found in didn't build itself.  There are still a lot of loose ends to ki- er, tie up.  

I commend the troops who pulled off this mission, and also President Obama.  Despite my opinion of him in every other regard, I have been pleased with the way he has handled the war since he took office.


----------



## WC_lun

Taking out OBL probably won't change much when it comes to terrorism.  However, it is a great phsycological boost to the American public and a notification to the world that if you kill American citizens, it may take a while, but justice will find you.

The Bush administration did not make OBL a priority.  If they had, OBL would not have escaped from the Toro Boro area because the administration did not approve the allocation of more resources to get it done.  I don't think there was any plot or anything like that to keep him free, but it definitley was not something high up on the list of things to get done, like overthrow Saddam Hussien.

I think kudos should go out to everyone involved in this, from the prez on down.

I also think that celebrating OBL's death is a bit much.  It is similiar to putting down a rabid animal.  There shouldn't be any pleasure in death, even if neccesary.


----------



## Bruno@MT

It was surprising news indeed, and gave me many thoughts

1) it's great that he is dead. However, short term the world has just become a bit more dangerous because people will want revenged. I'm curious how this will turn out.
2) Dead or alive: in one way it would have been better to throw him in a cell for the rest of his life. It would have been a worse punishment (after all, dead is dead) and not made him a martyr. Otoh, it would have meant risking him opening a book of details on the CIA involvement in his past, potential haggling over legal niceties, and the risk (ever so small) that he would walk away in umpteen years time. At least now everybody can move on. After all he was slime not worthy of attention.
3) He was living in modest luxury in Pakistan, in an area where there was reportedly a large pakistani army presence. How much did Pakistan know about his whereabouts?
4) Killing / capturing OBL would have been a big boon for the republicans in 2008. Given that the major republican faceplant was written in the stars, I would not expect that Bush did not want OBL to be pwned.
5) I was happy to learn that the US was smart enough not to desecrate the body. I've seen many people (not here) calling out that he should have been sewn into a pigs skin or covered with bacon (waste of bacon) etc. Given that it would have been a PR nightmare, and a sure move to offend the majority of muslims worldwide, it was smart not to do this. Not out of respect for him obviously, but because it paints the Americans in a good light.
6) The seaman's grave was a good find. This way there cannot be a pilgrimage to his body or resting place. He's just gone. Kinda like what the Russians did with Hitler's body.
7) Kudos to the people who did this.
8) Expect a blockbuster movie within 2 years


----------



## Empty Hands

WC_lun said:


> The Bush administration did not make OBL a priority.  If they had, OBL would not have escaped from the Toro Boro area because the administration did not approve the allocation of more resources to get it done.



There are always trade-offs and competing objectives.  Bush was trying to avoid American casualties, with the thought that the US public would not tolerate casualties, like in Somalia.  So they used the Northern Alliance as ground troops and concentrated on air support.  That may have been the wrong decision, but it wasn't the obviously wrong decision at the time.


----------



## Empty Hands

Bruno@MT said:


> 3) He was living in modest luxury in Pakistan, in an area where there was reportedly a large pakistani army presence. How much did Pakistan know about his whereabouts?



US officials have not trusted the Pakistanis for years.  In particular, it is thought that the ISI is compromised.  We seek general cooperation, but we don't give out details, even for the low level drone strikes.  Here the Pakistanis were not informed of the target or timing, and in fact fighter jets were scrambled against our helicopters due to their ignorance.


----------



## WC_lun

Empty Hands said:


> There are always trade-offs and competing objectives. Bush was trying to avoid American casualties, with the thought that the US public would not tolerate casualties, like in Somalia. So they used the Northern Alliance as ground troops and concentrated on air support. That may have been the wrong decision, but it wasn't the obviously wrong decision at the time.


 
I believe this is true.  My post was more to point out that it was not a priority, whatever the reason.


----------



## billc

Congratulations to the men and women at Gitmo, especially the interogators who got the initial intelligence, the C.I.A. who followed the leads, the support personel who put the trigger pullers on the ground and to the men on the ground who did that work, especially the one who double tapped the evil one.  Good Job to all involved.  Thanks from a grateful nation.


----------



## Twin Fist

why no picures?

why dispose of the body at sea?

i am not buying it


----------



## ATACX GYM

I agree with stevebjj,and I absolutely believe that when election time comes around? People will turn to their political affiliations regardless.But this is a good thing for the world.Imho it's beyond pathetic divisive politics,beyond factional ferocity,beyond questions of Right,Left or Center.Beyond OPEC v NATO.For me,it's beyond a bit of grim satisfaction.To me? IT'S JUSTICE.To me? THIS IS PART OF WHAT MAKES AMERICA GREAT.


----------



## elder999

Twin Fist said:


> why no picures?
> 
> why dispose of the body at sea?
> 
> i am not buying it


 
They gave lots of reasons for disposing of him at sea: all good. No accusations of desecrating the body, no burial "Shrine" for the martyr, buried before sunset, in keeping with Islamic law-this last will be questioned by some Islamic scholars, because it was at sea-on the other hand, I'd like to have seen him dessicated, ground up and used  as filler in the porcelain for urinals at the new bldg. at ground zero, but that's me.........

And I imagine the most sanitary of pictures will be forthcoming, along with testimony on the DNA evidence (DHS kept his sister's brain!!)


----------



## Xue Sheng

Twin Fist said:


> why no picures?
> 
> why dispose of the body at sea?
> 
> i am not buying it


 
Apparently there may have been pictures on  Al Jazeera quite early in this but they have been pulled. However I have no proof of this and I am going on what a couple of news casters on local radio reported


----------



## shesulsa

LuckyKBoxer said:


> oh give me a break, Obama had nothing to do with this. He will use it to his advantage like any politician would, but this was our troops, and the men on the ground who did this. Its been a long time coming, I congratulate the troops...... the idiots like Obama, and Trump and any other politician who claims they are responsible can go piss off.
> Now to start picking off the next in line, and the upcoming replacements, and continue to eliminate any future jackholes like this running around.




I've read reports before that said we had OBL (or whom we suspected was OBL) in sniper sights but the strike was not authorized.

Obama authorized this strike.  While he did not risk his hide ... it wasn't his job.  He played his part and, if it proves to be true that OBL is actually dead as a result of his direction, then he, along with many others, should get *some* credit no matter how jagged that little pill is.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I found a picture via an image search that is suppose to be the picture from Al Jazeera but I will not post it. If you want to see it do the image search on google based on name.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Twin Fist said:


> reporting Bin Laden is dead, killed by a US bomb


So tell me... Are you proud of your President for giving the order?:mst:
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Big Don said:


> The bad thing about this, yeah, there is one and it is a doozy:
> A lot of people think Osama bin Laden was the be all and end all of global Islamic terrorism. There is a word for such people: Stupid.


 I think the basic propaganda he received after 9/11 has a lot to do with it.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Twin Fist said:


> why no picures?
> 
> why dispose of the body at sea?
> 
> i am not buying it


Ah... Bin Ladin Truthers! I guess we still need a boogy man; so, more power to ya.
Sean


----------



## Bruno@MT

billcihak said:


> Congratulations to the men and women at Gitmo, especially the interogators who got the initial intelligence, the C.I.A. who followed the leads, the support personel who put the trigger pullers on the ground and to the men on the ground who did that work, especially the one who double tapped the evil one.  Good Job to all involved.  Thanks from a grateful nation.



You have NO basis whatsoever that any of the intelligence was gathered from gitmo prisoners. In fact I highly doubt it, since the majority of them have been there for years, and Osama was only discovered recently.

Then again, why let facts or rational thinking get in the way of a good patriotic post eh?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Personally, I think his body should have been buried in a glass coffin, right in front of the urinals at a 9/11 memorial.  This way every visitor can stand on him and piss on his grave.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Bob Hubbard said:


> Personally, I think his body should have been buried in a glass coffin, right in front of the urinals at a 9/11 memorial.  This way every visitor can stand on him and piss on his grave.



Yeah yeah noble thoughts, all. Personally I think for once someone made a really bright decision. OBL is dead. Nothing you do to his body will matter to him in the least. You can't punish him more. Desecrating his body will not bring back the dead. Giving him proper Islamic rituals and then disposing of the body in a clean, anonymous manner was genius.

Desecration would only alienate many moderate muslims, not because they sympathize with OBL, but because the US would show it wipes its *** with Islamic rituals. Kinda like taking a pedophile priest (we have enough of those in Belgium) and displaying him with a crucifix shoved in his ***.

It would also invite more violence, and furthermore give the nuts something to make a pilgrimage to. By doing what they did, noone can really complain, there is no site for pilgrimage, everything is over and done with in a clean manner. Just like Hitler in WW2.

When it comes to making important decisions, it's always best to use the big head, and not the gut or the little head.


----------



## Touch Of Death

LuckyKBoxer said:


> oh give me a break, Obama had nothing to do with this. He will use it to his advantage like any politician would, but this was our troops, and the men on the ground who did this. Its been a long time coming, I congratulate the troops...... the idiots like Obama, and Trump and any other politician who claims they are responsible can go piss off.
> Now to start picking off the next in line, and the upcoming replacements, and continue to eliminate any future jackholes like this running around.


Yeah, but if they accidently killed an innocent man, everyone would blame Obama.:ultracool


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Oh, you're right Bruno.

But sometimes....you just wish you could punish someone a little bit more.

Like taking him alive, and running the pipes through that glass box....


----------



## elder999

Twin Fist said:


> why no picures?
> 
> why dispose of the body at sea?
> 
> i am not buying it


 

_*I* refuse to believe Osama bin Laden is dead until Obama releases his long form death certificate._
 :lfao:


----------



## WC_lun

Twin Fist said:


> why no picures?
> 
> why dispose of the body at sea?
> 
> i am not buying it


 
Already you are pulling out the nutter conspiracy stuff? Why can't you just admitt the prez did a good job in this matter? It doesn't mean you have to agree with him on anything else, but in this it is obvious he got the job done. Or perhaps it is that your political partisianship is more important to you than the truth?


----------



## bushidomartialarts

LuckyKBoxer said:


> oh give me a break, Obama had nothing to do with this. He will use it to his advantage like any politician would, but this was our troops, and the men on the ground who did this. Its been a long time coming, I congratulate the troops...... the idiots like Obama, and Trump and any other politician who claims they are responsible can go piss off.
> Now to start picking off the next in line, and the upcoming replacements, and continue to eliminate any future jackholes like this running around.



Come on now, Obama gets blamed for all bad stuff that happened on his watch. He should get credit for the good stuff. I'm not his biggest fan, but he deserves a "well done" on this.

I especially appreciate his including Bush. He got my vote because he promised to knock the partisan ******** off -- and for the most part hasn't delivered. Reaching out to Bush took some stones in the current atmosphere. It was the right thing to do, and he did it.


----------



## Blade96

Bob Hubbard said:


> Oh, you're right Bruno.
> 
> But sometimes....you just wish you could punish someone a little bit more.
> 
> Like taking him alive, and running the pipes through that glass box....



Oh come on you fan kind of of Vlad the Impaler...surely you of all people could think of something slightly more clever than this


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:


> I refuse to believe Osama bin Laden is dead until Obama releases his long form death certificate.
> :lfao:


 
Well it could be fake&#8230;like the moon landing, Elvis&#8217; death and the whole round earth thing 

Sorry I could not resist, I apologize to those I may have offended


----------



## CoryKS

Bruno@MT said:


> You have NO basis whatsoever that any of the intelligence was gathered from gitmo prisoners. In fact I highly doubt it, since the majority of them have been there for years, and Osama was only discovered recently.
> 
> Then again, why let facts or rational thinking get in the way of a good patriotic post eh?


 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02reconstruct-capture-osama-bin-laden.html



> Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the couriers pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
> 
> American intelligence officials said Sunday night that they finally learned the couriers real name four years ago, but that it took another two years for them to learn the general region where he operated.


 
But don't worry, I'm sure that this information wasn't extracted through torture.  Because everybody knows it's absolutely, positively, 100% unpossible that torture can work, ever.  Not even once.


----------



## MJS

I didn't hear about this until this mornings news.  I have to say that for a few minutes, I thought I was hearing things.  But nonetheless, I'm glad that he's dead.  The man has no decent bone in his body, and while this will not end terrorism, this IMO, dealt a huge blow to his terror group.  I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before someone fills his shoes, but again, its still a huge blow, regardless.

Watching a interview on CNN today, one of the reporters asked if actual photos of his body will be made public.  While the question wasnt, IMO, answered directly, I got the impression that at some point photos will be made public.  

So, that being said, I say good job to the President, the Military and anyone else who played a part in this.


----------



## Big Don

They told me that if I voted for McCain, we'd get a continuation of Bush's wartime policies. AND THEY WERE RIGHT!


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> They told me that if I voted for McCain, we'd get a continuation of Bush's wartime policies. AND THEY WERE RIGHT!


Not sure what you're getting at here.  Could you explain?


----------



## billc

Yeah, Obama kept gitmo open, has increased troops in Afghanistan, sent this raid into Pakistan, has increased drone strikes and has gone back to military tribunals, everything he originally said he wouldn't do.  He has also kept most if not all of the bush anti-terrorism measures, the exact ones he kept and the ones he may have stopped you will have to ask someone else, I just know that he kept some of the important ones.


----------



## billc

From ABC on how they got the intel.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13512344 


In a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe years ago, al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gave authorities the nicknames of several of bin Laden's couriers, four former U.S. intelligence officials said. Those names were among thousands of leads the CIA was pursuing.

*****The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.

"We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day," said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.*****


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> Yeah, Obama kept gitmo open, *has increased troops in Afghanistan, sent this raid into Pakistan, has increased drone strikes* and has gone back to military tribunals, everything he originally said he wouldn't do.  He has also kept most if not all of the bush anti-terrorism measures, the exact ones he kept and the ones he may have stopped you will have to ask someone else, I just know that he kept some of the important ones.



Obama campaigned on doing exactly those things.  In fact, McCain made a special point of criticizing Obama as irresponsible for saying he would strike at bin Laden in Pakistan whether or not the Pakistanis allowed it.

Truly, people have short memories.

True enough about gitmo and tribunals though, all excuses aside.


----------



## billc

That's why I didn't vote for McCain, I voted for Sarah Palin, I will say no more today about this aspect of the situation, in honor of the killing of that monster.  Once again, great job by the good guys.  Nice shooting.


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> From ABC on how they got the intel.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13512344
> 
> 
> In a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe years ago, al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gave authorities the nicknames of several of bin Laden's couriers, four former U.S. intelligence officials said. Those names were among thousands of leads the CIA was pursuing.
> 
> *****The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.
> 
> "We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day," said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.*****


I still don't understand Don's post.  Is he saying that voting for McCain helped get Obama elected... so that Bush's wartime policies would continue?  That's pretty convoluted.  I'll admit, I'm ashamed to say I don't understand... I hate reading bumper stickers and not getting the joke.  

Help me out, Don.


----------



## billc

He voted for McCain, but he lost and we still got the continuation of the bush policies, if that helps.


----------



## elder999

stevebjj said:


> Not sure what you're getting at here. Could you explain?


 

Pretty clear, actually, Steve: he voted McCain, and we *did* get a continuation of Bush's war time policies.....:lfao:


----------



## billc

From the New York Times piece tagged by Corkyks:

Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the couriers pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.


----------



## Twin Fist

So GITMO, Bush's prison, and Bush's interrogation techniques got us the intel that allowed us to kill OBL


thanks President Bush!!


----------



## Big Don

stevebjj said:


> Not sure what you're getting at here.  Could you explain?





billcihak said:


> Yeah, Obama kept gitmo open, has increased  troops in Afghanistan, sent this raid into Pakistan, has increased drone  strikes and has gone back to military tribunals, everything he  originally said he wouldn't do.  He has also kept most if not all of the  bush anti-terrorism measures, the exact ones he kept and the ones he  may have stopped you will have to ask someone else, I just know that he  kept some of the important ones.


You know, fierce, moral urgency for change and all...


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> From ABC on how they got the intel.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13512344
> 
> 
> In a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe years ago, al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gave authorities the nicknames of several of bin Laden's couriers, four former U.S. intelligence officials said. Those names were among thousands of leads the CIA was pursuing.
> 
> *****The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.
> 
> "We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day," said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.*****


 
An old Intelligence Officers trick is to pick up info from different sources and then let it be known that it came from a particular terrorist you were holding. It was especially amusing when you had to let said terrorist go or put them in general population in prison.
Good intelligence gathering done by humans will always be better than any form of torture, blackmail, putting them under pressure as to families safety etc and bribery will also work better than torture. Torture has been used at various times in British history usually to little avail, people tortured in the Tower of London would confess to anything the torturers wanted and the things they did made water boearding look like a mild pastime. Sophisticated and psychological interrogation techniques are also more useful than kicking someone in the balls a few times however satisfied that makes the person doing the kicking feel. 

I'm sure a great many more people now understand why we hunt down Nazi war criminals, would people agreed that Osama should have been allowed to go free if it had taken more years to capture/kill him and he was an old man? People who commit horrendous crimes against humanity should know that they will be hunted down for the rest of their lives if necessary.


----------



## billc

To all and sundry, I am taking a day to not fight over torture, and Obama vs. Bush, not withstanding the short bursts in previous posts.  A full defense and argument over those things  will be embraced by me tomorrow.  It is a day for happy thoughts about the death of a monster.  Thanks.


----------



## K-man

Twin Fist said:


> why no picures?
> 
> why dispose of the body at sea?
> 
> i am not buying it


 We had one of the photos on our TV news. Sure looked like the bastard to me!  Great choice to get rid of him at sea so there is no place for his misguided followers to find a focus.   :asian:


----------



## Twin Fist

if there are pictures, they WILL leak......sure as hell


----------



## Steve

Thanks, guys.  I'm so confused, I voted for Nader in '08.


----------



## aedrasteia

No wonder he was irritated about the 'silly distractions', knowing what was 
at stake.

Yes, I know - the Seal Teams and our intelligence/military teams deserve _every_ 
bit of respect and thanks from a grateful people. They did this astonishing task.

Anyway - this made me smile on a very serious day. If our soldiers executed their mission expertly, so did the Pres and administration planners.  Not one drop of leak on Sunday, when the operation planning was rolling. Not a single leak, not a whisper, in Washington! -  since last August, when the possibility of a serious opportunity to get binLaden emerged. 

His mission was mind-numbingly intense: decide.     Pres. evaluated the intelligence, then gave the 'go'.  If his judgment was lousy, if he had read it wrong... well, you can write that scene. dead and wounded US warriors, international catastrophe, foreign policy implosion, Carter to the 1,000th power and a massive chorus of FAIL, plus a blot he would *never ever* remove from his presidency.  oh, and guaranteed 2012 loss.

And if he gave a No and we missed this chance and someone leaked ? (and you know someone would have).  what would your favorite bloggers call the pres. who failed to even try?

our soldiers/intelligence corp exemplified courage and exceptional expertise. plus unwavering commitment despite no guarantee of outcome.
Like him or no, so did the President.
with respect, A


----------



## granfire

> And if he gave a No and we missed this chance and someone leaked ? (and you know someone would have). what would your favorite bloggers call the pres. who failed to even try?


  Bush?


----------



## Twin Fist

aedrasteia said:


> what would your favorite bloggers call the pres. who failed to even try?



Clinton


----------



## elder999

Twin Fist said:


> Clinton


 

Nah. Clinton tried with a multi-million dollar missile. 

Obama did it with $6 worth of lead. :lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist

Obama didnt do ****, Jeff, except carry on what Bush started. 

But, as it always is, the guy in the big chair gets the blame or the credit, weather they deserve it or not


----------



## billc

Maybe he asked Oprah if he should do the mission or not, or perhaps relaxing out on the links he was able to give the go order.  Or, as he was playing basketball, he gathers all the guys up and asks them "let's say I have a friend, and it's not me, but this friend of mine has a shot to give the go order to kill Osama Bin Laden,  what would you guys do?"  Do you think it happened like that?


----------



## Bushido Spirit

Kind of a funny story...
I walked into my usual morning convenience store, and my buddy who works there, (From Nepal), says, "Hey, my friend...Obama is dead!!  
I said something along the lines of, "Your effing kidding me!!" He showed me the paper and I had to explain to him, the difference.
Guess ya had to be there...


----------



## yorkshirelad

Empty Hands said:


> McCain made a special point of criticizing Obama as irresponsible for saying he would .


 
I'd actually forgotten about that! Good point!


----------



## aedrasteia

that's what the president does - he decides. and then gives an order other people must obey, to put that decision into action.

George Bush gets ridiculed for his style of speaking but he was spot on. 
the president *is* the decider. thats why he gets the big office and all those people to give him information, advice, options, contingencies.

some of GWB's decisions have been almost irrevocable: once made (Iraq, Afghanistan 2.0, bail-outs)   they have such momentum they are virtually unstopable and nearly unchangeable.  Obama has learned this unforgiving lesson.

this decision was the most clearly lethal of any Obama has made so far: if YES, extreme risk of catastrophic failure - not due to our teams but because of the uncontrolable context (aka Obama's judgment is fatally flawed, not up to the job, etc.) ;  if NO, extreme risk of administration failure when people learned he let chance go by, (aka Obama is a chicken-****/weak/wimp/embarasment).  Both failures equal presidential humiliation and loss in 2012.

I have respect for people who make decisions under inconceivable pressure. even presidents i disagree with.
respectfully, A


----------



## Touch Of Death

Twin Fist said:


> Obama didnt do ****, Jeff, except carry on what Bush started.
> 
> But, as it always is, the guy in the big chair gets the blame or the credit, weather they deserve it or not


With that brilliant logic we can all rest knowing Bush didn't do a ****ing thing either.
Sean


----------



## Carol

I'm glad President Obama committed to keeping our troops in theatre.

I'm glad the SEALs had a successful op.  I think I need to borrow Archangel's wording of grimly satisfied.  

I'm disgusted that UBL took a coward's way out.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bin-laden-operation-code-geronimo/story?id=13507836



> Counterterrorism chief John Brennan told reporters that while  bin Laden had vowed to go down fighting, in his last moments alive the master terrorist hid behind a woman.
> The woman who bin Laden tried to use as a human shield was killed in the  U.S. raid, Brennan said. Whether she shielded him willingly is not  known.
> 
> 
> 
> Brennan said the woman was one of bin Laden's wives, but defense  officials said it wasn't clear whether the woman was a bin Laden wife.


 
But its not over.  More are leaving for Afghanistan in just a few days.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Other opportunities had occured in the past. The guy in the hot seat said 'no' those times. The reasons, we will never fully know.  Not certain, too much risk to our troops or civilians, and so on.

This time, it was 'yes'.  The pressure of being in that seat, ages those who sit in it.  I watched as Bush Sr, Clinton, Dubya and Obama all aged 10 years within months of taking office. I watched them get 'younger' after leaving office.

We can hate the politics, we can dislike the people, but that seat, out of all of them, is the hottest in the country.

Right now, everyone in the world wants to know "Howd they do it?"

I don't believe a word of what's coming out now. The head is gone. Everyone in the command structure of Al Quida just got a promotion. The job of our troops, and our allies troops now, is to implement a "rapid promote from within" policy for them.

Because we want to minimize their bringing in 'outside talent'.


----------



## Twin Fist

how much you wanna bet someone tossed a slice or two of bacon into that shroud before they dumped it over the side?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Twin Fist said:


> how much you wanna bet someone tossed a slice or two of bacon into that shroud before they dumped it over the side?


How much do you got? I'll take your money.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Official FBI notice.


----------



## MA-Caver

Bob Hubbard said:


> Other opportunities had occured in the past. The guy in the hot seat said 'no' those times. The reasons, we will never fully know.  Not certain, too much risk to our troops or civilians, and so on.
> 
> This time, it was 'yes'.  The pressure of being in that seat, ages those who sit in it.  I watched as Bush Sr, Clinton, Dubya and Obama all aged 10 years within months of taking office. I watched them get 'younger' after leaving office.
> 
> We can hate the politics, we can dislike the people, but that seat, out of all of them, is the hottest in the country.
> 
> Right now, everyone in the world wants to know "Howd they do it?"
> 
> I don't believe a word of what's coming out now. The head is gone. Everyone in the command structure of Al Quida just got a promotion. The job of our troops, and our allies troops now, is to implement a "rapid promote from within" policy for them.
> 
> Because we want to minimize their bringing in 'outside talent'.


Indeed... there's going to be a lot of made up stuff going around and it'll be hard to sort fact from fancy. I'll just accept the fact that he's dead and we're going to need to be careful in the coming months for possible increased attacks or attempts. 
The rumor about a nuclear bomb being hidden in Europe somewhere ... :idunno: scare-tactic? It would seem to me more logical to plant one in an American city rather than an European... if there was/is one and if it's set off then it'll bring the Euros into the fray and honestly I don't think those terrorists are THAT stupid. 
Everything is I suppose at a wait and see. To now focus on taking advantage of this success and breaking up the Al Queda network before it solidifies around the new head man... something akin to Iolaus burning the stumps after Heracles cut off one of the heads. We can learn a lot from Greek mythology I think.


----------



## ATACX GYM

elder999 said:


> They gave lots of reasons for disposing of him at sea: all good. No accusations of desecrating the body, no burial "Shrine" for the martyr, buried before sunset, in keeping with Islamic law-this last will be questioned by some Islamic scholars, because it was at sea-on the other hand, I'd like to have seen him dessicated, ground up and used as filler in the porcelain for urinals at the new bldg. at ground zero, but that's me.........
> 
> And I imagine the most sanitary of pictures will be forthcoming, along with testimony on the DNA evidence (DHS kept his sister's brain!!)


 

See why I like this guy?


----------



## ATACX GYM

Touch Of Death said:


> With that brilliant logic we can all rest knowing Bush didn't do a ****ing thing either.
> Sean


 

Thanks Touch of Death...you spared me from having to make the same absolutely correct observation.Not to mention that Dubya was sending our troops of war to the wrong country on top of that. But can we put factional divisiveness aside on this occassion to just bask and glory and give thanks to God that that horrible freakin beast is now gone from us? And if he isn't decorating the bottom of the urinals in NYC's Ground Zero as elder999 wished (I'm with you there,brother) I hope he's being sodomized (unlike as the Koranic 70 virgins,or whatever number it is.W/o disrespect,I don't recall the exact number) by the scorching denizens of the netherworld.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ATACX GYM said:


> Thanks Touch of Death...you spared me from having to make the same absolutely correct observation.Not to mention that Dubya was sending our troops of war to the wrong country on top of that. But can we put factional divisiveness aside on this occassion to just bask and glory and give thanks to God that that horrible freakin beast is now gone from us? And if he isn't decorating the bottom of the urinals in NYC's Ground Zero as elder999 wished (I'm with you there,brother) I hope he's being sodomized (unlike as the Koranic 70 virgins,or whatever number it is.W/o disrespect,I don't recall the exact number) by the scorching denizens of the netherworld.


There is an old joke about a misprint in the Koran, Osama Wakes up, sees George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and 68 other people holding weapons, and suddenly realizes that its 70 Virginians he will be presented with in the Kingdom of Heaven.:angel:
Sean


----------



## Cryozombie

The thing you guys who say Obama did nothing have to understand:

He could very easily have said "You know, we just don't have the Authority to carry our Conflict into Pakistan without the approval of their government, so we are going to let him go for now" and he didn't.  He had the balls to give the order to go into a "Friendly" nation and do what needed to be done.

As much as I disagree with most of what he does, I tip my hat to that decision.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Touch Of Death said:


> There is an old joke about a misprint in the Koran, Osama Wakes up, sees George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and 68 other people holding weapons, and suddenly realizes that its 70 Virginians he will be presented with in the Kingdom of Heaven.:angel:
> Sean



I've heard once that the word for virgin is near identical to the word for a special type of fig that was a delicacy back in the day the koran was written.

Just imagine getting in heaven with a boner and the expectation of a bed full of hot, willing women... and then the servant hands you a plate of figs and says 'here, enjoy'...

:roflmao::rofl:


----------



## Bruno@MT

Twin Fist said:


> how much you wanna bet someone tossed a slice or two of bacon into that shroud before they dumped it over the side?



Depends. If they filmed it with the purpose of having the option of releasing the entire handling of the body, I'm pretty sure it will be clean.

Of course it is not impossible someone did it, but if noone is to know it, then why bother? It won't matter to him since he is already dead. And if he is a martyr (which is what he believed) he will go to paradise no matter the desecration. If he isn't a martyr he will pretty much be suffering eternally and likewise, the desecration will not matter.

Now, in case they did something, I would expect somethign more subtle, like using bacon grease instead of hair gel (not that they would use gel but you get my drift).


----------



## Tez3

I hope they didn't desecrate the body, there is a satisfaction in doing the right thing, of being morally right. We can say then to all who threaten us 'See, you can act like barbarians, you can commit inhumane acts but we will do what is right and just. We don't make empty threats, we act with right on our side. We aren't criminals like you'
If the body has been treated according to Islamic custom it means we haven't descended to their level and that will rile them a lot. It will say alot about us too.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> I hope they didn't desecrate the body, there is a satisfaction in doing the right thing, of being morally right. We can say then to all who threaten us 'See, you can act like barbarians, you can commit inhumane acts but we will do what is right and just. We don't make empty threats, we act with right on our side. We aren't criminals like you'
> If the body has been treated according to Islamic custom it means we haven't descended to their level and that will rile them a lot. It will say alot about us too.


 
Who says there's even a body? maybe we captured him, and now, _to the world_, he's dead.


----------



## Sukerkin

I was going to post much the same thing myself, *Tez*.


----------



## Bruno@MT

elder999 said:


> Who says there's even a body? maybe we captured him, and now, _to the world_, he's dead.



I considered it for a moment, but I don't think it is likely.
Too many people would know to keep it secret, and if it would leak out, the consequences would not be good.


----------



## elder999

Bruno@MT said:


> I considered it for a moment, but I don't think it is likely.
> Too many people would know to keep it secret, and if it would leak out, the consequences would not be good.


 

No worse than when al Qaeda releases his "to be played in the event of my reported death" tape. People keep secrets, in spite of what you've said-sometimes lots of them.


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> Who says there's even a body? maybe we captured him, and now, _to the world_, he's dead.


 
Makes no difference. The point is that how we act and behave is important, we know we are in the right and we have to behave morally. It's not about being weak or even forgiving but behaving with gravitas. President Obama behaved well, no punching the air shouting 'gotcha'  and boasting about killing Bin Laden. Sounds old fashioned but behaving honourably even towards these people (or especially towards these people) will mean we are the better people. That's important to many of us, we need to know that we acting honourably, that we are morally right, that our troops are dying for a reason, not for nothing. We need to separate ourselves from Bin Laden and his terrorists, we must not act in the same way. There was an interview on tv yesterday with a lady who had lost her husband in the Twin Towers, she was an inspiration, dignified and sombre. she was satisfied with the death of Bin Laden but not gloating. She knew more deaths wouldn't bring back her husband but knew too that it was right that Bin Laden should die. What shone from her was strength and honour.


----------



## CoryKS

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54151.html

The special ops guys found computers and zip drives at bin Laden's compound.  This is very good news.  I'm hopeful that the data contained therein will lead them to Zawahiri and others.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> No worse than when al Qaeda releases his "to be played in the event of my reported death" tape. People keep secrets, in spite of what you've said-sometimes lots of them.



I'm sure the made for TV movie will straighten out all of the details for us.


----------



## billc

Obama gets credit for giving the go order but almost everthing else goes back to George Bush and not to Obama. Had Obama been in office on 9/11, it would have been treated as a law enforcement issue. All these guys would have been Mirandized and then Lawyered up. There would have been no secret prisons in Europe, and there would be no Gitmo. there would not have been Harsh interrogation techniques, including the apparent most important one, waterboarding. There would have been no invasion of afghanistan, which would mean that the raid if it happened at alll, would have been a lot more difficult and dangerous. How do we know these things, because Obama said all these things in the senate in Illiinois, in the senate in washington D.C. and as he was running for president.

Really, he doesn't get credit for leaving almost all of bush's policies in place because leaving something in place, especially really difficult things that Bush paid a huge political price to put in place, is easier than setting it up under the pressure of political opposition.

We had the intel. because of bush, we had the assets in place, because of bush, all obama had to do was greenlight the operation. Everyone says he took a really big risk, not really. If it had fallen apart, the media would have covered for him in a way that they never would have for Bush. The only people who would have suffered would have been the soldiers and support personel involved in the operation. So please, it wasn't that big of a risk for Obama.


----------



## CoryKS

billcihak said:


> Obama gets credit for giving the go order but almost everthing else goes back to George Bush and not to Obama. Had Obama been in office on 9/11, it would have been treated as a law enforcement issue. All these guys would have been Mirandized and then Lawyered up. There would have been no secret prisons in Europe, and there would be no Gitmo. there would not have been Harsh interrogation techniques, including the apparent most important one, waterboarding. There would have been no invasion of afghanistan, which would mean that the raid if it happened at alll, would have been a lot more difficult and dangerous. How do we know these things, because Obama said all these things in the senate in Illiinois, in the senate in washington D.C. and as he was running for president.
> 
> Really, he doesn't get credit for leaving almost all of bush's policies in place because leaving something in place, especially really difficult things that Bush paid a huge political price to put in place, is easier than setting it up under the pressure of political opposition.
> 
> We had the intel. because of bush, we had the assets in place, because of bush, all obama had to do was greenlight the operation. Everyone says he took a really big risk, not really. If it had fallen apart, the media would have covered for him in a way that they never would have for Bush. The only people who would have suffered would have been the soldiers and support personel involved in the operation. So please, it wasn't that big of a risk for Obama.


 
It was a risk to send in a team instead of dropping a JDAM, which was the first option. Given all the other comparisons to Carter, a repeat of the Iran Hostage Rescue would have been very risky indeed. And if the data retrieved from bin Laden's computers leads to other high-value targets, it will have been a risk that paid huge rewards. 

Look I don't like the guy's politics either, but _come on dude._ This was a good decision. Concede that he can make one from time to time.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Obama gets credit for giving the go order but almost everthing else goes back to George Bush and not to Obama. Had Obama been in office on 9/11, it would have been treated as a law enforcement issue. *All these guys* would have been Mirandized and then Lawyered up. There would have been no secret prisons in Europe, and there would be no Gitmo. there would not have been Harsh interrogation techniques, including the apparent most important one, waterboarding. There would have been no invasion of afghanistan, which would mean that the raid if it happened at alll, would have been a lot more difficult and dangerous. How do we know these things, because Obama said all these things in the senate in Illiinois, in the senate in washington D.C. and as he was running for president.
> 
> Really, he doesn't get credit for leaving almost all of bush's policies in place because leaving something in place, especially really difficult things that Bush paid a huge political price to put in place, is easier than setting it up under the pressure of political opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> We had the intel. because of bush, we had the assets in place, because of bush, all obama had to do was greenlight the operation. Everyone says he took a really big risk, not really. If it had fallen apart, the media would have covered for him in a way that they never would have for Bush. The only people who would have suffered would have been the soldiers and support personel involved in the operation. So please, it wasn't that big of a risk for Obama.


 
What guys?

There should be no secret prisons in Europe and dear lord there should have been no invasion of Afghanistan especially as it seems Bin Laden and cronies have been living in Pakistan for the past 5/6 years. 

You may wish to spread the credit for the intel a little further than Bush, your country hasn't got the only intel officers seeking info.

Let's face it though, Obama could fix every single problem in the world and you'd still carp because you are in love with fascism


----------



## WC_lun

billcihak said:


> Obama gets credit for giving the go order but almost everthing else goes back to George Bush and not to Obama. Had Obama been in office on 9/11, it would have been treated as a law enforcement issue. All these guys would have been Mirandized and then Lawyered up. There would have been no secret prisons in Europe, and there would be no Gitmo. there would not have been Harsh interrogation techniques, including the apparent most important one, waterboarding. There would have been no invasion of afghanistan, which would mean that the raid if it happened at alll, would have been a lot more difficult and dangerous. How do we know these things, because Obama said all these things in the senate in Illiinois, in the senate in washington D.C. and as he was running for president.
> 
> Really, he doesn't get credit for leaving almost all of bush's policies in place because leaving something in place, especially really difficult things that Bush paid a huge political price to put in place, is easier than setting it up under the pressure of political opposition.
> 
> We had the intel. because of bush, we had the assets in place, because of bush, all obama had to do was greenlight the operation. Everyone says he took a really big risk, not really. If it had fallen apart, the media would have covered for him in a way that they never would have for Bush. The only people who would have suffered would have been the soldiers and support personel involved in the operation. So please, it wasn't that big of a risk for Obama.


 

You just ca't give the guy credit where credit is due can you?  He made it a priority to get bin Laden where Bush did not.  So let's talk about your boy Bush and his thoughts on Bin Laden;

In March 2002, just six months after 9/11, President Bush said of bin Laden, "I truly am not that concerned about him.... You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

In July 2006, we learned that the Bush administration closed the unit that had been hunting bin Laden.

In September 2006, President Bush told Fred Banes, that an "emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism."

Then there is the fiasco o letting Osama bin Laden escape from the Toro Boro area because the Bush admiistration would not authorize the man power to get him.

Compare this to then canidate Obama's words;
_"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."_


Yeah, sounds like Bush made it a priority, huh?  You are trying to preach revisionist history now.  The fact is Obama did what he said he was gonna do in regards to Osama bin Laden. Give him credit for it.  When you can't even do that because of your political leanings, it says a lot.


----------



## shesulsa

This argument is completely pointless, guys.  

[slight sarcasm]If Jesus Christ were himself a Democrat the GOP, Teabaggers and other RWRs (Right Wing Republicans) would all be seeking to make Judaism the state religion. [/slight sarcasm]

All that harping about finding and killing the enemy. Now he is and ... well, we all knew this would be the reaction, right?

I have no desire to argue with people who let others think for them; who spout party ******** because they swallow divisiveness for the sake of superiority complex hook, line and sinker.

Ignore feature.  It's a wonderful thing.


----------



## Big Don

*Team Six: From Cheneys Secret Assassination Squad to Obamas Super-Awesome Cleanup Crew*
  8:23 AM  05/03/2011     Daily Caller Excerpt:         
     As if it werent ironic enough that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning,  staunchly anti-war President Obama is taking personal credit for  killing Osama Bin Laden, he actually sent the Naval Special Warfare  Development Group, AKA DevGru, AKA Team Six to do it.
 Want to know more about Team Six? 
END EXCERPT
Bwahaha


----------



## Bruno@MT

Tez3 said:


> there should have been no invasion of Afghanistan especially as it seems Bin Laden and cronies have been living in Pakistan for the past 5/6 years.



My memory is a bit hazy on this subject, but IIRC, At the time of the invasion, OBL was in Afghanistan, courtesy of his friend Mullah Omar who told the US to get bent when they asked to hand him over. And at that point OBL had already already pointed his finger at the WTC and yelled 'PWNED!'

The invasion of Afghanistan was warranted imo.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Big Don said:


> *Team Six: From Cheneys Secret Assassination Squad to Obamas Super-Awesome Cleanup Crew*
> 8:23 AM  05/03/2011     Daily Caller Excerpt:
> As if it werent ironic enough that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning,  staunchly anti-war President Obama is taking personal credit for  killing Osama Bin Laden, he actually sent the Naval Special Warfare  Development Group, AKA DevGru, AKA Team Six to do it.
> Want to know more about Team Six?
> END EXCERPT
> Bwahaha



Who should he have have sent otherwise?
The cub scouts with cookies?


----------



## granfire

Bruno@MT said:


> My memory is a bit hazy on this subject, but IIRC, At the time of the invasion, OBL was in Afghanistan, courtesy of his friend Mullah Omar who told the US to get bent when they asked to hand him over. And at that point OBL had already already pointed his finger at the WTC and yelled 'PWNED!'
> 
> *The invasion of Afghanistan was warranted imo.*




I guess we all agree on that one.

But where the quagmire starts is that that effort was half a$$ed at best, the 'forgotten war' compared the poster child of unwarranted warfare in Iraq. 
And yeah, not following through....But I guess you do a lot of things when you need a boogieman to keep your justifications up and running.


----------



## crushing

Bruno@MT said:


> The invasion of Afghanistan was warranted imo.


 
The last thing we want is bad guys controlling the poppy fields.


----------



## Empty Hands

Big Don said:


> *Team Six: From Cheneys Secret Assassination Squad to Obamas Super-Awesome Cleanup Crew*
> 8:23 AM  05/03/2011     Daily Caller Excerpt:
> As if it werent ironic enough that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning,  *staunchly anti-war *President Obama is taking personal credit for  killing Osama Bin Laden, he actually sent the Naval Special Warfare  Development Group, AKA DevGru, AKA Team Six to do it.
> Want to know more about Team Six?
> END EXCERPT
> Bwahaha



Another lie.  Obama specifically campaigned on ramping up the war in Afghanistan, and in performing strikes on Pakistani soil whether or not the Pakistanis wanted it.  McCain even criticized him for it, as did Obama's base and Hillary Clinton during the primary.

That doesn't fit the narrative though, so Obama becomes "staunchly anti-war" and desires nothing more than to surrender to our enemies, when both his words and his actions contradict the narrative.


----------



## CoryKS

*Dick Cheney Says 'Obama Deserves Credit' for Osama Bin Laden's Death*


----------



## granfire

CoryKS said:


> *Dick Cheney Says 'Obama Deserves Credit' for Osama Bin Laden's Death*




(They are just pointing fingers at him, in case of retaliation)


----------



## shesulsa

Watch for it ... watch for it ....


----------



## WC_lun

granfire said:


> (They are just pointing fingers at him, in case of retaliation)


 

Funny   Oh wait...there is probably more that a grain of truth to what you say


----------



## Sukerkin

Aye, sure as eggs is eggs that will no doubt be all Obama's fault - lordy bi-partisan politics suck big time.  Worse than being childish and annoying, it distracts people from what they should be focussing on i.e. we should look at the issues in politics rather than play the Party Politics game.


----------



## elder999

> "President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off.You see, the military wanted to go in there and bomb as they always do. They wanted to drop missiles and drop bombs and a number of totally destructive techniques here. But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces. No one else thought of that. President Obama. Not a single intelligence adviser, not a single national security adviser, not a single military adviser came up with the idea of using SEAL Team 6 or any Special Forces."-*Rush Limbaugh,*yesterday
> 
> "First of all, congratulations to President Obama. He got him. Thank you, President Obama, thank you"*Glenn Beck,* yesterday


 
.


----------



## Empty Hands

I know El Rushbo was being sarcastic, but this Breitbart-style quote should be on every Obama campaign advertisement come 2012:

"Thank God for President Obama" - Rush Limbaugh


----------



## yorkshirelad

Cryozombie said:


> The thing you guys who say Obama did nothing have to understand:
> 
> He could very easily have said "You know, we just don't have the Authority to carry our Conflict into Pakistan without the approval of their government, so we are going to let him go for now" and he didn't. He had the balls to give the order to go into a "Friendly" nation and do what needed to be done.
> 
> As much as I disagree with most of what he does, *I tip my hat to that decision*.


 
QTF! I was impressed when he gave authorization for that SEAL Team to slot the Somali pirates, saving the captain of the freight ship last year. It was a difficult op and could've resulted in a PR nightmare, but he made the right call. This  bin Laden op was something else altogether. He could've just let the moment slip as Clinton did. If this op had gone awry it could 've resulted in the end of his Presidential aspirations in 2012. Instead he did as he promised in 2008 and sent the lads into Pakistan to do the business. Job well done!!


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> Let's face it though, Obama could fix every single problem in the world and you'd still carp because you are in love with fascism


More name calling Tez. Remember what your Mum used to say "If you can't say anything nice....."


----------



## Touch Of Death

yorkshirelad said:


> More name calling Tez. Remember what your Mum used to say "If you can't say anything nice....."


Lets look at this and someone tell me where he called someone a name.:mst:


----------



## yorkshirelad

Touch Of Death said:


> Lets look at this and someone tell me where he called someone a name.:mst:


Mentioning his love of fascism is just a friendly quip! Right mate?


----------



## billc

So, as so many here have preached, if we water board 3 hardened terrorists, we  become no better than they are.  So, if that is the theory, than Obama should not have used the intelligence gathered, as Representative Peter King said on O'reilly, through waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed, in a secret prison in Europe.   This entire operation was immoral because it was a result of what many here on the study have said is wrong and lowers us to their level.  So, to resolve this, Navy divers should retrieve Osama's body and use the most advanced science we have to bring him back to life.  We should then explain to him that we are better than Bush and his torturers, apologize and release him back into the wild.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> So, as so many here have preached, if we water board 3 hardened terrorists, we become no better than they are. So, if that is the theory, than Obama should not have used the intelligence gathered, as Representative Peter King said on O'reilly, through waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed, in a secret prison in Europe. This entire operation was immoral because it was a result of what many here on the study have said is wrong and lowers us to their level. So, to resolve this, Navy divers should retrieve Osama's body and use the most advanced science we have to bring him back to life. We should then explain to him that we are better than Bush and his torturers, apologize and release him back into the wild.


 
That's funny....but what, exactly, leads you to believe that the information was received from torture-or even waterboarding? The way I heard it, they mentioned this guy to KSM, and knew from his reaction that the guy was important, and he was trying to evade him-and it sounds as though they then left KSM alone about it and went through other channels to determine who he was-all they got from KSM was the guy's nickname.Whole thing took years, and was probably, according to KSM's chief interrogator, more due to dates, tea, and quiet conversation than to torture.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> So, as so many here have preached, if we water board 3 hardened terrorists, we become no better than they are. So, if that is the theory, than Obama should not have used the intelligence gathered, as Representative Peter King said on O'reilly, through waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed, in a secret prison in Europe. This entire operation was immoral because it was a result of what many here on the study have said is wrong and lowers us to their level. So, to resolve this, Navy divers should retrieve Osama's body and use the most advanced science we have to bring him back to life. We should then explain to him that we are better than Bush and his torturers, apologize and release him back into the wild.


 
Sigh, you don't get Ethics do you? 

Nor do you understand the best way to gather reliable intel.


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> Sigh, you don't get Ethics do you?
> 
> Nor do you understand the best way to gather reliable intel.



Sadly, no.


----------



## billc

Rep. Peter King on O'reilly said that we got the codename from waterboarding Khalid.  If that is the case, should Obama have used that intel. to go after the house in Pakistan?


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Rep. Peter King on O'reilly said that we got the codename from waterboarding Khalid. If that is the case, should Obama have used that intel. to go after the house in Pakistan?


 

And it doesn't worry you that someone in a position of trust as presumably this man is, can't keep his country's security secrets?


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> And it doesn't worry you that someone in a position of trust as presumably this man is, can't keep his country's security secrets?



If he is even in the know...

Then again, a blow hard like that can light a brush fire...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

You folks really think that the US gov. is now using the "Comic Book Villians" play book and outing all their info?


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> You folks really think that the US gov. is now using the "Comic Book Villians" play book and outing all their info?



Yes,  yes we :supcool: do


----------



## Tez3

Bob Hubbard said:


> You folks really think that the US gov. is now using the "Comic Book Villians" play book and outing all their info?


 
Sometimes a small unimportant politician gets hold of some info and has to make it public to show what a big person they really are even if they have to make the info up!


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Rep. Peter King on O'reilly said that we got the codename from waterboarding Khalid. If that is the case, should Obama have used that intel. to go after the house in Pakistan?


 

Well, he's yet another liar about the intel obtained from KSM. Deuce Martinez was the principle interrogator of this man, and frowned on torture.

We covered all of this two years ago, here. And the year before that. And the year before that.

Waterboarding doesn't work. Kind words, figs and tea do. So simple. Here's an interview with Deuce Martinez.


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> Sometimes a small unimportant politician gets hold of some info and has to make it public to show what a big person they really are even if they have to make the info up!



LOL, what some people think can pass for 'the truth' does sometimes astonish me. 
I mean, you ever played that game when you whisper something in a person's ear and by the time it makes the round it more often than not doesn't resemble the original word anymore? 
It's a small jump for a well trained conclusion to go from 'gained from interrogation' to 'we used water boarding'....

And even if it was true, I'd be damned (and ashamed) if I were to repeat that on record, on air...


----------



## billc

Tez, Facism is the name Mussolini gave to his brand of socialism, and it was embraced by the international socialists to distinguish themselves from the national socialists like Mussolini and Hitler.  So, really, I, of all people am not a fan of Fascism or any other type of socialism.  I am an American conservative who votes republican, which means I believe in individual rights, limited government, a government hedged in by substantial checks and balances, and I believe in free market capitalism.  So, you would be more accurate if you said that, for example, Obama is closer to fascism than say Rush Limbaugh is.  Nationalizing healthcare, student loans, the car companies are all more fascist/socialist than not doing those things.

If you are going to accuse me of something try to be a little more accurate.  Thanks.  Glad you're back, by the way.:angel:


----------



## Tez3

granfire said:


> LOL, what some people think can pass for 'the truth' does sometimes astonish me.
> I mean, you ever played that game when you whisper something in a person's ear and by the time it makes the round it more often than not doesn't resemble the original word anymore?
> It's a small jump for a well trained conclusion to go from 'gained from interrogation' to 'we used water boarding'....
> 
> And even if it was true, I'd be damned (and ashamed) if I were to repeat that on record, on air...


 
Yep. Military joke from First World War.

Officer at the front sends the message to HQ by messengers, it starts as 'send reinforcements we are going to advance' by the time it reaches HQ it's 'send three and fourpence we are going to a dance'.

Torture, waterboarding etc is not only unacceptable it's useless for gaining reliable info but people who are happy with torture ( unless it's them on the receiving end) need to justify their beliefs and seek to shout down those who know it's immoral and doesn't work!

Allowing torture 'by law' can be a thin end of the wedge, you can have a government bring in more and more stringent liberty reducing laws for the 'people's safety' and before you know it, well Nazi Germany comes to mind. It's like the old science story/experiment of when you put a frog into hot water he will jump out but if you place him in cold water and gradually heat it to boiling he dies because he hasn't realised what was happening. We always need to be on our guard that our governments aren't putting us into cold water with a heater underneath!


----------



## billc

Peter King on O'reilly:

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2011/05/video-peter-king-tells-bill-oreilly.html


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Tez, Facism is the name Mussolini gave to his brand of socialism, and it was embraced by the international socialists to distinguish themselves from the national socialists like Mussolini and Hitler. So, really, I, of all people am not a fan of Fascism or any other type of socialism. I am an American conservative who votes republican, which means I believe in individual rights, limited government, a government hedged in by substantial checks and balances, and I believe in free market capitalism. So, you would be more accurate if you said that, for example, Obama is closer to fascism than say Rush Limbaugh is. Nationalizing healthcare, student loans, the car companies are all more fascist/socialist than not doing those things.
> 
> If you are going to accuse me of something try to be a little more accurate. Thanks. Glad you're back, by the way.:angel:


 
Don't start all that again, your views on 'socialism' are off kilter. It was all this right wing hate the left nonsense that made me stay away mostly. It spoils the site if you can't have a discussion without everything being the fault of socialists who you deem are everybody who isn't you with your views. For crying out loud you thought 'True Blue to the right of Genghis Khan' Maggie Thatcher was a socialist! The constant repetition of something doesn't make it true.


----------



## billc

I don't remember saying thatcher was a socialist, besides, you said I supported fascism, simply setting the record straight.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> and I believe in free market capitalism.


 

It's the lack of regulation of free market capitalism that is leading this country into fascism:



> a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
> 2
> *:* a tendency toward


 
Which is neither right, nor left, for the last time, and has-in its incarnations so far-had elements of both.

Very soon Chevron, GM, GE and others will buy our debt from China, and we'll be under a fascist regime.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> I don't remember saying thatcher was a socialist, besides, you said I supported fascism, simply setting the record straight.


 
No I said you were in love with it. What you write is a love letter to fascism, look at the torture issue, you think it's fine to torture people. Your country could be in danger of becoming a fascist state if you don't keep a close watch on your rights which you seem keen to give away such as the right not to be tortured, rights concerning being held prisoner without a trial etc. These things grow and can encompass everyone, before you know it the laws that were meant to protect you from terrorists mean you are the one being woken at four in the morning by the police to be taken for interrogation.

and many many posts ago you said our Maggie was a socialist, I remember because it still makes me laugh.


----------



## crushing

Tez3 said:


> and many many posts ago you said our Maggie was a socialist, I remember because it still makes me laugh.


 
Was that claim because she put air in ice cream?


----------



## billc

Actually, I don't support torture, I do support waterboarding specific radical islamic terrorists if it is possible the information could save lives or perhaps, lead us to killing Bin Laden.  I would not water board american citizens, american criminals or legitimate prisoners of war.  I would not even water board the average run of the mill murdering terrorist.  We waterboarded 3 guys, all high ranking leaders, they were not physically harmed and were fine after the water boarding.  It gave us bin laden and stopped other innocent people from being killed.  Hardly a supporting of torture.  However, by not waterboarding these guys, one could say you are able to live with the innocents not being saved because that would be the actual result.  It would keep you concience clear though.

the definition is off Elder, do I need to bring out my economists again?


----------



## billc

HOw we killed bin laden from Human Events:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43296

from the article:

U.S. intelligence first learned of the &#8220;trusted courier&#8221; who led us to bin Laden in 2003.  Guantanamo Bay inmates provided key information under the influence of both regular and &#8220;enhanced&#8221; interrogation.

In other words, the information that led to bin Laden&#8217;s death was developed in direct contradiction to the way liberals think terrorist detainees should have been treated all along.


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> Actually, I don't support torture, I do support waterboarding specific radical islamic terrorists if it is possible the information could save lives or perhaps, lead us to killing Bin Laden.  I would not water board american citizens, american criminals or legitimate prisoners of war.  I would not even water board the average run of the mill murdering terrorist.  We waterboarded 3 guys, all high ranking leaders, they were not physically harmed and were fine after the water boarding.  It gave us bin laden and stopped other innocent people from being killed.  Hardly a supporting of torture.  However, by not waterboarding these guys, one could say you are able to live with the innocents not being saved because that would be the actual result.  It would keep you concience clear though.
> 
> the definition is off Elder, do I need to bring out my economists again?





Considering that we have lost a considerable amount of protection thanks to 'The Patriot Act' in terms of our civil liberties and protection from undue intrusion of government into our lives, it does not take much to fall on the side of 'questionable' in terms of perceived ideals against the nation and land you in hot water.

being against torture, but for water boarding....that's like being a little pregnant, or a little dead...


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> the definition is off Elder, do I need to bring out my economists again?


 
_*Something's off*_, alright. 

BTW, like how you conveniently ignored that I've presented reliable, first-hand evidence that intel was obtained from KSM using tea and dates....:lfao:


----------



## billc

Yeah, if you read the book, "Courting Disaster," the author discusses that once they had waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and he reached his level of resistance, he started singing like a bird.  He started giving lectures to C.I.A. personel on the complete structure of al queda.  It took the waterboarding to get to the tea and bicuits point.  Before that, he didn't say anything.  Apparently, I think this was from the author or from an interview I heard with the andrew sullivan, the attorney who prosecuted the blind Sheik, not the guy who attacks Palin all the time, he said that these guys are only required to resist to the point where they believe they have done their utmost in resisting.  Once that point is reached, they can spill their gut.  They believe that at that point, even if they do tell their secrets, it won't matter because allah is going to give them victory anyway.

So, they broke him with the water boarding, and then he was able to go on and have tea and dates, some torture.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Yeah, if you read the book, "Courting Disaster," the author discusses that once they had waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and he reached his level of resistance, he started singing like a bird. He started giving lectures to C.I.A. personel on the complete structure of al queda. It


 
The author, Marc Thiessen, was George W. Bush's _speechwriter._


----------



## billc

Who had real access to the C.I.A. interogators who were involved with interrogating the three terrorists.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Who had real access to the C.I.A. interogators who were involved with interrogating the three terrorists.


 

Actually, no. What he had was locked room access to their notes for a speech he was preparing for Bush to justify "harsh-interrogation techniques." On the other hand, the primary interrogator of KSM has publicly and repeatedly stated that he didn't need "harsh interrogation techniques." More to the point, there's a great deal of evidence that the "harsh interrogation techniques" were used elsewhere, on more than just "the three terrorists."


----------



## billc

Yeah, for the speech, I'm talking about the book.


----------



## billc

the prosecuter of the blind sheik was andrew McCarthy, not andrew sullivan, I always get their names mixed up.  McCarthy is one of the guys who is really against civillian trials, having conducted the one against the blind sheik.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> the prosecuter of the blind sheik was andrew McCarthy, not andrew sullivan, I always get their names mixed up. McCarthy is one of the guys who is really against civillian trials, having conducted the one against the blind sheik.


 

_Racist._ :lfao:


----------



## Flea

:deadhorse :tantrum:  :slapfight:  :hb:   

:hammer:_*!!!!*_


----------



## WC_lun

Either you are against torture or you are for it.  Either we as a country do torture or we don't.  If even one person is tortured then we are now in the wrong and committed a crime.  One for which we have prosecuted both our own citizens and other countries citizens for doing the EXACT SAME THING.  Given that tons of intilegence experts, including those that teach our own troops to resist torture, say torture is not effective as an itilegence gathering tool, perhaps it is time to let go of the myth torture is anything othe than a crime.  By the way, if you look at how they found bin Laden, you wil see that torture was not used.  Yes, information was gained from prisoners in Guantonomo, but it was not given under torture.  More BS from the blow hards that can't give credit where credit is due.


----------



## crushing

WC_lun said:


> More BS from the blow hards that can't give credit where credit is due.



Has anyone not given credit to the intelligence agencies that gathered the location              last year and the teams that planned and executed the raid?


----------



## WC_lun

crushing said:


> Has anyone not given credit to the intelligence agencies that gathered the location last year and the teams that planned and executed the raid?


 
In a word, yes.


----------



## crushing

wc_lun said:


> in a word, yes.



tmi


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> According to a U.S. official, the U.S. first  learned of the nickname in 2003. The information came out of the CIA's  interrogation program, though *officials insist it did not come from  waterboarding. *
> The following year, a detainee said bin  Laden trusted the courier to carry his messages. The claim was run by  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, key architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror  attacks, and he downplayed the courier's importance, claiming he was  retired and out of the business. Another detainee also claimed not to  know him.
> However, the strength of the denials was  seen as a red flag by the CIA since other detainees were consistently  claiming the courier had a close relationship with bin Laden.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/03/official-guards-bin-laden-compound-time-raid/


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> Sigh, you don't get Ethics do you?
> 
> Nor do you understand the best way to gather reliable intel.


 

Ha, British....ethics...ha ha!!! Bloody Sunday mean anything to you? The Guildford four mean anything to you? I know of too many women beaten by British paras in the North, some even pregnent for you to preach ethics. Oh, I'm sorry, the Brits don't do anythng like that, do they Irene?


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> Which is neither right, nor left, for the last time, and has-in its incarnations so far-had elements of both.
> .


Please make Irene aware of this. Irene is upset that there are right wingers and conservatives on this forum, but she doesn't mind the leftys. Me thinks she slants to the left!


----------



## billc

I have a rep., Peter king, on the Homeland security committe who says he was waterboarded, and you have nameless obamaites who are against gitmo and waterboarding and military tribunals who say he wasn't.  Who is telling the truth?


----------



## yorkshirelad

billcihak said:


> Yeah, if you read the book, "Courting Disaster," the author discusses that once they had waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and he reached his level of resistance, he started singing like a bird. He started giving lectures to C.I.A. personel on the complete structure of al queda. It took the waterboarding to get to the tea and bicuits point. Before that, he didn't say anything. Apparently, I think this was from the author or from an interview I heard with the andrew sullivan, the attorney who prosecuted the blind Sheik, not the guy who attacks Palin all the time, he said that these guys are only required to resist to the point where they believe they have done their utmost in resisting. Once that point is reached, they can spill their gut. They believe that at that point, even if they do tell their secrets, it won't matter because allah is going to give them victory anyway.
> 
> So, they broke him with the water boarding, and then he was able to go on and have tea and dates, some torture.


 
You're speaking to an extremely ideological crowd Bill! The former head of the bi Laden unit, michael Schuer also advocated waterboarding, but because Jeff doesn't agree with him, so he just dismisses him as crazy.
If you mention anyone, ANYONE with any credibility who advocates waterboarding, they'l be lambasted as partisan or crazy.


----------



## elder999

yorkshirelad said:


> You're speaking to an extremely ideological crowd Bill! The former head of the bi Laden unit, michael Schuer also advocated waterboarding, but because Jeff doesn't agree with him, so he just dismisses him as crazy.
> If you mention anyone, ANYONE with any credibility who advocates waterboarding, they'l be lambasted as partisan or crazy.



Odd. In that same thread, I mentioned that I'd met Mr. Schuer, called him brilliant, but crazy, and proved him to be a liar. To which you acceded, and called him a sad man

Odd, that you call that "dismissal."


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Keep the personal shots out, or you're going to see a growing number of locked threads, and a series of moratoriums on topics issued.
*


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> Odd. In that same thread, I mentioned that I'd met Mr. Schuer, called him brilliant, but crazy, and proved him to be a liar. To which you acceded, and called him a sad man
> 
> Odd, that you call that "dismissal."


I did indeed, and I had to go back to that threadm in order to remember Michael Schuer's name. I just think that sometimes you discredit some in order to just prove an ideological point. Panetta was in an interview with Brian Willians today and admitted that advanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding gave the uS valuable intel which ultimately lead to the death of Bin Laden. I'm sure you're going to try to discredit him.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Keep the personal shots out, or you're going to see a growing number of locked threads, and a series of moratoriums on topics issued.*


What personal shots?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

yorkshirelad said:


> What personal shots?


The ones that are obvious to anyone who's been here more then 30 days.


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> I have a rep., Peter king, on the Homeland security committe who says he was waterboarded, and you have nameless obamaites who are against gitmo and waterboarding and military tribunals who say he wasn't.  Who is telling the truth?



How about Donald Rumsfeld?

"Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role  in obtaining intelligence on bin Ladens whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares:  First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. Thats a myth  thats been perpetrated around the country by critics.

The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for  interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that  came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to  information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh  treatment and it was not waterboarding. LINK


----------



## billc

they were waterboarded in the secret European sites, the other intel came from other harsh interogation techniques at Guantanamo bay.  ON NBC Brian Williams got the director of the Central Intelligence Committee, Leon Panetta to admit that water boarding was one of the sources of the intel.  He however has gotten the orders from the white house, he called it one part of the mosaic that got the intel.  THe central intelligence agency did the waterboarding, not the soldiers at gitmo, that was to make sure the military was not involved in the technique.


----------



## billc

******Rumsfeld said on Hannity's show that he was misquoted about waterboarding*****
*****It did lead to useful intelligence, Rumsfeld Says*****

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.c...aterboarding-led-us-to-osama-bin-laden-video/

So you were saying about Rumsfeld?

From the article:

&#8220;CIA Director Panetta indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded&#8230; There was some confusion today on some programs, even one on FOX I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo provided any information on this. It&#8217;s not true. No one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the US military. In fact no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA away from Guantanamo and then later were brought to Guantanamo. And, in fact, as you pointed out the information from these individuals was critically important.&#8221;

And another view of the video that discusses Olberman being wrong on the water boarding issue:

http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvator...-olbermann-meme-on-waterboarding/#more-190876


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I just liked the "catch and release" program where the subjects were 'released' somewhere between take off at Guantanamo and the landing at "undisclosed".  
But, last I mentioned that I was called a nut, despite my source being directly involved with one of those '3 letter orgs'.
Ah, the joys of official announcements, changing stories, and few realizing that in the middle of a war one rarely tells the enemy the truth.

American Public to the White House: "We want you to tell us how you did it. In detail. Name names, time frames, who was where, what they had for lunch, everything. We have a right to know!"

White House to American Public: "You want us to tell you everything? On CNN? On the radio, in your newspapers, and via email?  Everything?"

American Public: "YES! We have a right to know!"

White House: "Are you ****ing stupid? The enemy is still out there, and they can read too. You want us to tell you everything so that they know it too? Piss Off!"

American Public: "See it's a cover up! Stop treating us like we're dumb. Just tell us. We won't tell them. Make it illegal for the enemy to read CNN."

White House: "Idiots."


I think that summarizes the next 3 months in arguments.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

As to waterboarding, it's torture. Any sane person agrees. US law declares it so. International law declares it so. Dead horse debate, been gone over a while back, a few times.


----------



## billc

If this white house is being so careful about telling us things we shouldn't know, why do they keep shouting from the rooftops about the huge amounts of intel they got from bin ladens computers.  It may have been wiser to either say nothing about what they found or say it was destroyed by bin ladens people or damaged in the raid.  The keep them guessing strategy is probably too complex for the amatuers running this white house.


----------



## billc

As to torture or not, Mark Levin head of the landmark legal foundation and constitutional lawyer and scholar would disagree with that.  His show tonight went through the reason bush put gitmo off shore and in past shows he discussed the legalities of waterboarding.  previous supreme court rulings have stated that their jurisdiction doesn't apply in foreign countries, which is where the waterboarding was done.


----------



## billc

This article by Ron Radosh goes through the complex mental gymnastics the left has to go through to claim victory in killin Bin Laden while denying all the techniques, that they hate, which actually made it possible.

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2...-hypocrisy-over-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden/

From the article:

As the front-page New York Times report by Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper points out, intelligence agencies had been trying for close to a decade to identify the man. They learned of him, however, when &#8220;detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier&#8217;s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of  Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.&#8221; They learned his real name four years ago &#8212; when the government was led by the very men liberals despised the most, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney...

...Moreover, it is also clear that much of the information that led to the courier&#8217;s identity came from the so-called &#8220;enhanced interrogation techniques,&#8221; the very mechanism that regularly led to charges of torture, abuse of power, illegal U.S. spying techniques, waterboarding,  rendition, and questioning in secret facilities abroad where those interrogating the detainees did not have to abide by methods forbidden to be used within the United States.

In another Times story by Mazzetti, Cooper, and Peter Baker, the journalists put it this way:

The raid was the culmination of years of painstaking intelligence work, including the  interrogation of C.I.A. detainees in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, where sometimes what was not said was as useful as what was. Intelligence agencies eavesdropped on telephone calls and e-mails of the courier&#8217;s Arab family in a Persian Gulf state and pored over satellite images of the compound in Abbottabad to determine a &#8220;pattern of life&#8221; that might decide whether the operation would be worth the risk...

ndeed, as the intelligence reporter Michael Isikoff, now with NBC News, reported yesterday:

The trail that led to the doorstep of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan began years earlier with aggressive interrogations of al-Qaida detainees at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and CIA &#8216;black site&#8217; prisons overseas, according to U.S. officials.

It was those sometimes controversial interrogations that first produced descriptions of members of bin Laden&#8217;s courier network, including one critical Middle Eastern courier who along with his brother was protecting bin Laden at his heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad on Sunday...

****According to Isikoff, early information about the courier for Bin Laden came from none other than &#8220;Mohammed al-Qahtani, who was subjected to some of the most humiliating interrogations at Guantanamo. Among the enhanced interrogation techniques used on him were being forced to wear a woman&#8217;s bra, being led around on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks and being subjected to cold temperatures that twice required his hospitalization, according to a later U.S. military report.&#8221;

But in essence, that the SEAL team killed him means that they were indeed engaging in targeted assassination, precisely the kind that Israel is regularly criticized for by &#8220;human rights&#8221; groups when it eliminates anti-Israel terrorists in foreign countries by Mossad hit teams.


----------



## billc

The dailycaller.com has the Leon Panetta dance around the waterboarding issue.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/03/torturous-evasions/

from the article:

CIA Director Leon Panetta stomped on the White House&#8217;s political script when he told Tuesday night&#8217;s broadcast of NBC Nightly News that the waterboarding of jihadi detainees contributed information that led to the location and killing of Osama bin Laden.

&#8220;We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation&#8230; clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees,&#8221; he told NBC anchor Brian Williams.

When asked by Williams if water-boarding was part of the &#8220;enhanced interrogation techniques,&#8221; Panetta simply said &#8220;that&#8217;s correct.&#8221;



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/03/torturous-evasions/#ixzz1LM3RjrUl


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> As to torture or not, Mark Levin head of the landmark legal foundation and constitutional lawyer and scholar would disagree with that.  His show tonight went through the reason bush put gitmo off shore and in past shows he discussed the legalities of waterboarding.  previous supreme court rulings have stated that their jurisdiction doesn't apply in foreign countries, which is where the waterboarding was done.


Well, yes Bill, see, in the US it's torture, but in say Syria, it's a party game, so that makes it all ok.  Eh, I don't buy it. But, that's a different argument, one I'm not interested in really rehashing.

As to why they say what they say, it's to serve 3 purposes.
1- satisfy some of the people demanding information.
People want to know. They can't separate fact from fiction. They weren't there. So you tell them what they want to hear, you make it sound good, you make it sound real, and maybe, just maybe, it is real. But, not being there, you have to take it at face value, or not.

2- create confusion and doubt amongst our enemies.
Dropping names, makes life difficult for the ones named. The ones not in custody, now wonder, what else might have been let slip. What else is known. Not knowing what is known, you are now forced to make the call, change plans or continue and hope they aren't known.  This disorganizes the enemy, forces them to waste time and resources, and possibly expose themselves as they move.  You let them know you know where they are, then you watch the 10 spots you think they're at, and wait to see if there is any movement. Etc.

3- Embarrass our enemies and some of our allies.
"O*s*ama died hiding like a coward behind a woman." 
"We purposefully didn't tell our good Pakistani allies about the raid....."
etc.

It's propaganda. It's tactics. It's strategy.
It's a game of chess being played at a much bigger level than most folks discussing it can comprehend.


----------



## billc

4)  they are inexperienced and so need to exaggerate even when there is no need to.  They killed bin laden and raided his home, the people who think they might be compromised will already be altering behavior, it is the dumb ones who might take the bait and think they are safe if "everything was destroyed," during the raid.  But I agree with the first three as well.  You really stay up late, unless you are in californiaand it's earlier than here.  Goodnight, happy shooting.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I'm in NY, I never sleep. LOL 

As to inexperienced, some are. But, there are experienced veterans on all sides of this conflict.   George Bush looked to me during his presidency to be every bit as thick and inexperienced as Obama's been portrayed. In hindsight, some of those moments look different.  Both also have significant staffs who are trained and focus on things to a level of detail the CiC doesn't need. I mean, the guy who makes the call on how many rounds each SEAL carried wasn't sitting in DC that night.  As to the terrorists, while the average grunt might be an uneducated shmuck, the guys doing logistics tend to be well educated, well connected and experts. Osama remember was a veteran guerrilla fighter who went toe to toe against the Soviets. Many of his 'core' are well trained as well.  

Chess.  Move here, watch there, listen there.  Diversion, misinform, make a 'mistake', see what happens next. See who stops showing up at that cafe, who are the new faces at the other place, etc.


----------



## WC_lun

billcihak said:


> As to torture or not, Mark Levin head of the landmark legal foundation and constitutional lawyer and scholar would disagree with that. His show tonight went through the reason bush put gitmo off shore and in past shows he discussed the legalities of waterboarding. previous supreme court rulings have stated that their jurisdiction doesn't apply in foreign countries, which is where the waterboarding was done.


 
The US prosecuted both US soldiers for waterboarding in the past and foreign nationals for water boarding as torture and a war crime.  Per our law and our past prosecutions it is torture.  Period.


----------



## K-man

WC_lun said:


> Either you are against torture or you are for it. Either we as a country do torture or we don't. If even one person is tortured then we are now in the wrong and committed a crime. One for which we have prosecuted both our own citizens and other countries citizens for doing the EXACT SAME THING. Given that tons of intilegence experts, including those that teach our own troops to resist torture, say torture is not effective as an itilegence gathering tool, perhaps it is time to let go of the myth torture is anything othe than a crime. By the way, if you look at how they found bin Laden, you wil see that torture was not used. Yes, information was gained from prisoners in Guantonomo, but it was not given under torture. More BS from the blow hards that can't give credit where credit is due.


There is a fairy tale about an Emperor who was dressed, according to his acolytes, in clothing made from wonderful fabric with magical properties, so fine that it couldn't be seen, except by those who were completely pure in heart and spirit.

A lot of people on this forum are obviously 'completely pure in heart and spirit' because they can see the purity of the Western Nations including the US and Australia, among others, and they can see that such advanced cultures would *never* resort to torture to obtain information that may prevent catastrophies caused by terrorism.

Personally I am obviously not 'pure in heart and spirit' because it is apparent to me that Gitmo is not located on US soil for the reason that events taking place there are not only illegal on US soil but that much of the information obtained cannot even be used in a court of law because it is obtained under duress.

Now, I am not suggesting that torture like suspending prisoners by their wrists and delivering electric shock from electrodes attached to certain sensitive areas takes place in Gitmo. I mean, that's pretty crude. That takes place in other places like Egypt, a process termed 'rendition'. http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/04/26/3200746.htm

Or another example:


> Within days, Mr. Mohammed was flown to Afghanistan and then on to Poland, where the most important of the C.I.A.s black sites had been established. The secret base near Szymany Airport, about 100 miles north of Warsaw, would become a second home to Mr. Martinez during the dozens of hours he spent with Mr. Mohammed. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?pagewanted=4


 
The US, Poland, Egypt and Australia are signatories to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Isn't it strange that they are involved in these situations if they profess to be against torture?

One of the Australians released from Guantanamo has been compensated by the Australian Government for his time in captivity and is currently taking legal action against the Egyptian authorities for compensation for the torture he suffered at their hands prior to transfer.

Despite torture being illegal:


> from Wiki ...
> Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries in the 21st century. It is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 147 states.
> National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical. Despite these international conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human rights (e.g. Amnesty International, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims) report widespread use condoned by states in many regions of the world. Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.


Now I realise that those 81 governments couldn't possibly include the US ..... or could it? 

Come on guys, let's at least agree that torture, justified or not, effective or not, *is* taking place in the 'War on Terror'. :asian:


----------



## Tez3

It's because of what Britain has done in the past that we can see what should be done, I've never said we haven't done things we should be deeply ashamed of. However some of those things we have done have proved that torture doesn't work, I'm not saying it because I think it doesn't work, I've see it and know it doesn't.
What I and others are saying that we should be in the moral right, that we should try to act honourably, it's not an ideal world but the lord knows we can still try to make it better and not worse. or are we saying all those fine martial arts tenets are only for Dojos/dojangs and not to be taken into real life?


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> It's because of what Britain has done in the past that we can see what should be done, I've never said we haven't done things we should be deeply ashamed of. However some of those things we have done have proved that torture doesn't work, I'm not saying it because I think it doesn't work, I've see it and know it doesn't.
> What I and others are saying that we should be in the moral right, that we should try to act honourably, it's not an ideal world but the lord knows we can still try to make it better and not worse. or are we saying all those fine martial arts tenets are only for Dojos/dojangs and not to be taken into real life?


I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. It's just that some folk are just not up to admitting that torture is still currently being utilised, or at the very least, sanctioned, by the Coalition forces, in places such as Poland, Egypt and even Gitmo. 

Here is an excellent article on torture. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#DefTor Apologies in advance for its length. :asian:


----------



## WC_lun

I'm not argueing at all that torture isn't being done in "the war on terror."  I'm saying there has to be a line drawn on what you will and will not do.  Our laws says torture is not to be done.  No exceptions.  if you torture, you are a criminal.  It also doesn't take a perfect individual to not torture.  it takes someone with a base knowledge of the difference between wrong and right and just a modecum of human decency.  Stop pretending that torture is anything other than what it is.

Bob, per your quote in your point number 3, Obama was not killed, hiding behind a woman or otherwise.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Initial comments indicated he was. They've since changed the details, at least 2-3 times by my count.


As to treaties, since when does the US let a little thing like a treaty get in it's way? Just ask the Seneca, Sioux, Lakota and Apache what value the US puts on treaties.


----------



## granfire

As the discussion goes on, I can clearly see why President O*b*ama has made it a priority to hunt down O*s*ama bin Laden.....I think he just got plain tired of getting mistaken for the guy....


----------



## Xue Sheng

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to the terrorists, while the average grunt might be an uneducated shmuck, the guys doing logistics tend to be well educated, well connected and experts. Osama remember was a veteran guerrilla fighter who went toe to toe against the Soviets. Many of his 'core' are well trained as well.
> 
> Chess. Move here, watch there, listen there. Diversion, misinform, make a 'mistake', see what happens next. See who stops showing up at that cafe, who are the new faces at the other place, etc.


 
It has been reported that Osama Bin Laden had degrees in Civil Engineering and Public Administration, either way he was not uneducated


----------



## granfire

Xue Sheng said:


> It has been reported that Osama Bin Laden had degrees in Civil Engineering and Public Administration, either way he was not uneducated



Leaders seldom are (I think he was also pretty rich)


----------



## Xue Sheng

granfire said:


> (I think he was also pretty rich)


 
That would be an understatement 


As to the heads of terrorist organizations and those who work under them.
If you were to look at an organizational chart of most terrorist groups you would see it as pretty compartmentalized. Terrorist cells generally have no idea as to the existence of any other cell and have little or no idea as to who is a member outside of their cell other than the head of the organization and the guy that gives them there orders who may or may not be over more than one cell. They have no idea who provides funding either. All this leads to making it very VERY difficult to shut down a terrorist organization.


----------



## WC_lun

Bob Hubbard said:


> Initial comments indicated he was. They've since changed the details, at least 2-3 times by my count.
> 
> 
> As to treaties, since when does the US let a little thing like a treaty get in it's way? Just ask the Seneca, Sioux, Lakota and Apache what value the US puts on treaties.


 
Obama was not killed.  Osama bin Laden was killed 

Treaties are upheld when they are useful.  If they are no longer considered useful, less than honorable men will decide they are also worthless.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

WC_lun said:


> Obama was not killed.  Osama bin Laden was killed
> 
> Treaties are upheld when they are useful.  If they are no longer considered useful, less than honorable men will decide they are also worthless.


I'd never wish harm on the President, no matter what he's done to my health care or tax bill.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The story of course, continues to change
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/03/bin.laden.evolving.story/index.html?hpt=T1


----------



## Tez3

K-man said:


> I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. It's just that some folk are just not up to admitting that torture is still currently being utilised, or at the very least, sanctioned, by the Coalition forces, in places such as Poland, Egypt and even Gitmo.
> 
> Here is an excellent article on torture. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#DefTor Apologies in advance for its length. :asian:


 

My comments weren't aimed at you but Yorkshirelad. I now know why he holds such antipathy to the UK and myself. The Troubles have cause much heartache and division over a long time, guess it will carry on for many years yet. Muslim terrorism is in it's infancy compared to Northern Ireland.


----------



## billc

So, President Obama sent  his own roving band of assassins to invade a foreign country, without telling that country, they broke into a private home, without a search warrent, an arrest warrant, without the countries permits to carry pistols let alone assault rifles, destroyed private property, stole private property,  shot one man to death, shot an unarmed woman to death, shot another unarmed woman in the leg, kidnapped over 20 people, and the guy they did this for, did not recieve his miranda rights or was allowed to consult with an attorney and had a bullet put through his brain.  That is what happened, right?  But thank god we didn't waterboard anyone.  That would have been beyond the pale, and a strict violation of his human rights and our belief in our moral superiority.

With all the mental gymnastics some people go through, it must be difficult to really be happy that Osama was brough to justice.


----------



## ganglian

WC_lun said:


> I'm not argueing at all that torture isn't being done in "the war on terror." I'm saying there has to be a line drawn on what you will and will not do. Our laws says torture is not to be done. No exceptions. if you torture, you are a criminal. It also doesn't take a perfect individual to not torture. it takes someone with a base knowledge of the difference between wrong and right and just a modecum of human decency. Stop pretending that torture is anything other than what it is.
> 
> Bob, per your quote in your point number 3, Obama was not killed, hiding behind a woman or otherwise.


 

he ordered the deaths of over 3000, it really doesnt matter  how, it just matters that we got him. Done.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

and...I fixed my typo.  LOL!


----------



## shesulsa

K-man said:


> I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. It's just that some folk are just not up to admitting that torture is still currently being utilised, or at the very least, sanctioned, by the Coalition forces, in places such as Poland, Egypt and even Gitmo.
> 
> Here is an excellent article on torture. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#DefTor Apologies in advance for its length. :asian:



This has also been extensively revised since its initial publication in 2006 - and it's worth the time to read.

Since *some* of us weren't here when it was posted before ....

Mancow gets waterboarded - admits it's torture. (video included)

Christopher Hitchens gets waterboarded - admits it's torture (article). And here's the video:

[yt]4LPubUCJv58[/yt]

Oliver Hardy gets waterboarded - admits it's torture. (video included)

The very last sentence of Oliver Hardy's account of his experience says everything about torture:



> I would have told my interrogator anything they wanted to hear to make it  stop.
> ​



There are more, but ... well, it's pointless.  Crap, why am I posting even this??


----------



## billc

Now you see why the three terrorists gave up all that valuable intelligence, including the code name of the courier who led us to Osama.  Is it bad, sure it is, is it permanent, not even close.  It gets info. without leaving the terrorist with permanent injury or even short term injury.  After being waterboarded they can go and have tea and dates as they spill all their secrets.  The C.I.A. can then go ahead and save innocent people from real torture that will leave permanent damage, if not lead to death, and prevent the deaths of many more innocent people.  You know, after a terrorist attack, people are left maimed and mentally damaged by the event, no to mention the actual dead people.  I have to think that that is the equivalent of real torture as well, wouldn't you?


----------



## Empty Hands

So the ends justify the means?

I thought you considered yourself a moral person?  You would think so the way you go on and on about how immoral and awful the people who don't share your political views are.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Now you see why the three terrorists gave up all that valuable intelligence, including the code name of the courier who led us to Osama. Is it bad, sure it is, is it permanent, not even close. It gets info. without leaving the terrorist with permanent injury or even short term injury. After being waterboarded they can go and have tea and dates as they spill all their secrets. The C.I.A. can then go ahead and save innocent people from real torture that will leave permanent damage, if not lead to death, and prevent the deaths of many more innocent people. You know, after a terrorist attack, people are left maimed and mentally damaged by the event, no to mention the actual dead people. I have to think that that is the equivalent of real torture as well, wouldn't you?


 

Taking any moral views out of the torture argument and making it a purely practical argument instead. I'm a member of the RAF Association, we have old members who were aircrew duing the last war who came down over enemy territory. Many were tortured by the Gestapo and they have said they would come out with anything and everything that came into their minds, often though the truth didn't come out. It was a matter of pride to them they they gave reams and reams of info to the Germans, none of it worth a penny. It actually helped them withstand the pain thinking up feasible sounding lies to tell, if they did say anything that was true it was mixed in with so much other stuff it was like hiding a tree in a forest.
There are much better ways to prise infomation out of people, I'm sure if you are of a mind too you can find accounts of very effective interrogators, none of whom used torture because of it's sheer clumsiness in revealing the truth.
Good intel is gathered snippet by snippet and then fitted like a jigsaw into a picture, you have good.. no superb analysts who know their subject inside out. You have informers, you have 'moles' you have bugging, you have surveillance etc etc all of this gives better intel than any tortured person.

We seem to have lost the knack of 'spying' effectively after the end of the Cold War and the satellite kids took over. We couldn't torture the Soviets but we certainly got good info on everything that went on.


----------



## WC_lun

I saw an interview with a gentleman once who was partially responsible for creating the program used by special ops units to resist torture if capured.  I apologize, but I cannot remember his name.  The information used to create the program was largely based upon the experiences of US and allied personel in WW II, Korea, and Vietnam.  The overwhelming thing that was needed for accurate inteligence to be gathered was a basis of trust to be built between the interogator and the subject.  He said that torture destroyed any such trust forever and therefor destroyed any chance of reliable information being garnered through such methods.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Bob Hubbard said:


> The ones that are obvious to anyone who's been here more then 30 days.


 
Again, what personal attacks?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Apparently denial is not just a river in Egypt


----------



## billc

let's see, three guys, the top leaders in al queda, were waterboarded.  They were not permanently harmed, they were fine immediately after being water boarded, and they gave up vast amounts of intelligence, some of which led to the capture of Osama.  Yeah, I'm okay with that.  I wouldn't do it to american citizens or the regular citizens of foreign countries, I wouldn't do it to criminals captured in the states, or regular criminals in foreign countries.  I would not do it to actual prisoners of war, or even the regular average nut job terrorist.  The leaders, the guys in charge with intimate knowlege of the plans to kill thousands of innocent people, yeah, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was water boarded for three reasons, all of which were needed to submit him.  One, he was a leader in Al Queda, two he was not cooperating at all, and three, when asked about upcoming terror plots his response was "you will know when they happen," implying an imminent threat potential.  He was not permanently harmed and did not suffer after the 3 sessions of waterboarding.  He went on to give details on the leadership of al queda, their operational structure, how they moved around the world, and how the moved their money.  He also gave up info. that led to bin laden.

Which is more moral, waterboarding or allowing innocent people to die or be maimed for life.  No flesh was cut, no eyes put out, no electrodes were used.  You might be able to think that allowing innocent people to die is a noble act, I don't.  Not when the alternative is as mild and easy on the terrorist as waterboarding.

You really need to read two books, "Courting Disaster," and now a new one I just heard about on Dennis Miller when he interviewed the author, "Mastermind," a book about Khalid Sheik Mohammed from his days fighting in Afghanistan and Bosnia to his capture and interrogation.


----------



## billc

this is an article about Colonel Bud Day, a roommate of John McCains at the hanoi hilton who was also tortured by the north vietnamese.  He disagrees with the opinion that waterboarding is torture, he is also one who would know.

From wikipedia:

Bud Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George E. Day
Born February 24, 1925 (age 86)

Col. Day in dress uniform.
Nickname	Bud
Place of birth	Sioux City, Iowa
Allegiance	 United States of America
Service/branch	 United States Air Force
 United States Army
 United States Marine Corps
Years of service	1942 - 1945 (Marine Corps)
1945 - 1950 (Army)
1950 - 1977 (Air Force)
Rank	 Colonel
Battles/wars	World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Awards	Medal of Honor
Air Force Cross
Air Force Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star
Legion of Merit
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star (4) with Combat "V"
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Purple Heart (4)
Air Medal (10)
Prisoner of War Medal
Other work	Author, Return with Honor
Partner, Day and Meade Law Firm
George Everette "Bud" Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War, to include five years and seven months as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam. He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. service member since General Douglas MacArthur, having received some seventy decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of the Medal of Honor, and is the only person ever awarded both the Medal of Honor and the Air Force Cross.

http://kewaunee.wisgop.info/2009/05/28/letter-from-bud-day/

The words of an American Hero:

 Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared to the world that we (U.S.) are a bunch of torturers.  Thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they catch us&#8230;.because that is what the U.S. does.

 Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that pouring a little water on some one&#8217;s face, or hanging a pair of womens pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE.  He is a meathead.

 I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness who was also in my sq in jail, as was John McCain, and we agree that McCain does not speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture, or that &#8220;water boarding&#8221; is torture.

 Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing our great country are a disgrace to the United States.  Please pass this info on to Sean Hannity.  He is free to use it to point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding, which has no after effect, is torture.  If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC&#8230;hurrah for the guy who poured the water.

 BUD DAY, MOH


----------



## billc

From Leo Thorsness, another medal of honor winner and vietnam P.O.W. who was also a room mate of John McCains who also has no problem with waterboarding terrorists.

http://www.looktruenorth.com/securi...orsness-torture-thoughts-on-memorial-day.html


Leo Thorsness is the Minnesota native who was awarded the Medal of Honor for unbelievable heroics in aerial combat over North Vietnam in April 1967. Within a few days of his heroics on his Medal of Honor mission, Col. Thorsness was shot down over North Vietnam and taken into captivity. In captivity he was tortured by the North Vietnamese for 18 straight days and periodically thereafter until his release in 1973...

If someone surveyed the surviving Vietnam POWs, we would likely not agree on one definition of torture. In fact, we wouldn't agree if waterboarding is torture. For example, John McCain, Bud Day and I were recently together. Bud is one of the toughest and most tortured Vietnam POWs. John thinks waterboarding is torture; Bud and I believe it is harsh treatment, but not torture. Other POWs would have varying opinions. I don't claim to be right; we just disagree. But as someone who has been severely tortured over an extended time, my first hand view on torture is this:

Torture, when used by an expert, can produce useful, truthful information. I base that on my experience. I believe that during torture, there is a narrow "window of truth" as pain (often multiple kinds) is increased. Beyond that point, if torture increases, the person breaks, or dies if he continues to resist...

Our world is not completely good or evil. To proclaim we will never use any form of enhanced interrogations causes our friends to think we are naïve and eases our enemies' recruitment of radical terrorists to plot attacks on innocent kids, men and women - or any infidel. If I were to catch a "mad bomber" running away from an explosive I would not hesitate a second to use "enhanced interrogation," including waterboarding, if it would save lives of innocent people.

Our naïveté does not impress radical terrorists like those who slit the throat of Daniel Pearl in 2002 simply because he was Jewish, and broadcast the sight and sound of his dying gurgling. Publicizing our enhanced interrogation techniques only emboldens those who will hurt us.

****I'll stand on the same moral plane as Bud Day and Leo Thorsness.****


----------



## billc

I'll see your british writer and shock jock and raise you two medal of honor winning former P.O.W.'s who actually experienced torture.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

yorkshirelad said:


> Again, what personal attacks?


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Some people, are too stupid to get it.
You can't bloody well fix stupid, you just hope it doesn't reproduce.


----------



## billc

Actually, the cartoon is not accurate.  The U.S. Soldier is a prisoner of war covered by the geneva convention.  The two terrorists are in violation of the convention since they are unlawful combatants and should stand trial for war crimes.  So no, George bush did not say what they were doing would be acceptable.  Some people are too stupid to get it, get it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

To engage in torture is to violate United States law, International Law, and common decency. 

US law prohibits using evidence obtained illegally or under duress in US courts.

The use of torture IS allowing our enemies to go free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#United_States


----------



## billc

that's why military tribunals were set up and why Obama almost lost the first terrorist case that he put into civillian court.  None of the captured terrorists were mirandized on capture so right there, they all need to be released if you use United States criminal law to prosecute them.  they were not captured in the united states so they could make a claim, in U.S. courts that they were kidnapped, in civillian court.  If they were not given immediate access to lawyers, once they recieved their miranda warning, which they once again did not recieve in the first place, then once again, they need to be freed, in civillian criminal law.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> Actually, the cartoon is not accurate.  The U.S. Soldier is a prisoner of war covered by the geneva convention.  The two terrorists are in violation of the convention since they are unlawful combatants and should stand trial for war crimes.  So no, George bush did not say what they were doing would be acceptable.  Some people are too stupid to get it, get it.


If the terrorists are "unlawful combatants" and their treatment does not fall under International Law & Treaty, then their actions also do not fall under those laws.
Hence, there are no laws that apply to them therefore they cannot be tried under non-applicable laws.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard said:


> If the terrorists are "unlawful combatants" and their treatment does not fall under International Law & Treaty, then their actions also do not fall under those laws.
> Hence, there are no laws that apply to them therefore they cannot be tried under non-applicable laws.


We cannot be a nation of laws, if we change the enforcement to suit our whims.

If torture is ok when dealing with POW's, it's legal when dealing with shoplifters.

Lets go waterboard a few highschoolers. It being safe and all.


----------



## billc

If you'll note, I state that you cannot waterboard P.O.W's, and terrorists and other unlawful combatants were not traditionally covered by the geneva convention, specifically to give actual soldiers, who behaved in accordance with the laws of war, protection at the time of their surrender or capture.  By allowing unlawful combatants under the geneva convention, you are giving protection to people who commit criminal acts during wartime.

The terrorists in the cartoon are not lawful combatants in any way and so they are war criminals.  War criminals are going to do whatever they want, regardless of the geneva convention.

This would be as close as you can get to understanding the Ronin in japanese culture.  these terrorists are masterless in that they do not fight for a recognized nation.  Our soldiers do.


----------



## billc

the geneva conventions are also supposed to protect civillian populations by rewarding soldiers who behave properly toward civillian populations and not protecting those who don't.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Not everyone is a signer of the Geneva Convention.  It doesn't apply to non-signatory nations.  The US btw, has ignored it on a number of occasions.  The US has also NOT ratified protocol I or II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
There's more, long separate topic IMO though.

Regardless of the GC's, there are international laws the US HAS signed on to that make torture a crime, and Bush, Cheney and several other high level members of that administration have warrants out for their arrest in at least 2 European nations, by my last check oh, 2 years ago.


----------



## billc

I take that as seriously as I do the idea that we shouldn't have waterboarded KSM.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Because the law should only apply when it is convenient right?


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> the geneva conventions are also supposed to protect civillian populations by rewarding soldiers who behave properly toward civillian populations and not protecting those who don't.



Define that!

Are those the civilians who cheerfully buy US brand sneakers ans soda pop, or are those included that do see their country threatened and want to defend it?

Bear in mind the US has in it's history depended on the latter many times...


----------



## Blade96

Bruno@MT said:


> Who should he have have sent otherwise?
> The cub scouts with cookies?



hehe


Billcihak you still make me laugh.


----------



## Tez3

Blade96 said:


> hehe
> 
> 
> Billcihak you still make me laugh.


 
He actually makes me want to throw up.

You wouldn't think him quite so harmless if you realised his type of talk and justifications were and are still being used to keep people bound up in dictatorships. Look at Nazi Germany, Argentina under Pinochet, Spain under Franco etc etc. It may seem amusing but the reality is that if too many people think his way and get into power you can say goodbye to your freedom.


----------



## crushing

I'd like to find out more about more about the new stealthy helicopters that made this mission possible.  It's not like the OBL villa was in a cave in the middle of nowhere, it is in a military town and near the Pakistan Army Academy, that I would presume would have some sort of air defenses and monitoring; or, at the very least, an increased level vigilence.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Back in the 40's a group of rather evil individuals did all sort of experiments on people. Froze them to death, gasses them, shot them and watched them die, and worse.
In the mid 40's those people were rightfully taken out, and their notes and research captured.
There's been an ethical debate ever since on the use of that data to develop new treatments and procedures.
I see this the same way.
You might be able to get intel by torturing someone. It might even be reliable.
But like setting someone on fire to see how tissue burns, it's not right.
You also run the risk that despite all the efforts and expense you put into it, they send you off to Dantoonie.

There are better methods, legal methods, methods that don't drag us into the darkness too.  

Because, once you start justifying that 'this is an exception', you start the slide to more exceptions. And not everyone is as honorable as Torquemada.


----------



## billc

once again, as an American who is a conservative who votes for the republicans as the lesser of two bad political parties, I believe in individual human rights, the U.S. constitution, the Bill of rights, I believe in freedom of speech and of the press, I believe that the central government should be small and hedged in by strict checks and balances on its power, that taxes should be low, spending by the government should be low.  

I am still curious that individuals who believe in a massive central government that controls your health care, your retirement, with fewer checks and balances, individuals who believe in high taxes, especially on the rich, and massive spending programs by the strong central government thinks that I believe in anything close to the socialism that one saw in the national socialism in Germany or in the right wing governtments in spain and chile.  

Tez, you were out when I found some great new information on why the facists in Italy, and the National socialists in Germany were closer to the communists in Soviet russia than the people on the left want to admit.  I will post them again when I get home.  there is also an explanation of the military dictatorships in Chile and spain that also explains where you are once again mistaken.  

Sadly, it is big government that endangers and enslaves people, and those governments always get their starts by saying the rich are bad people, let's take what they have and give it to everyone else.  What the people who believe in that philosphy fail to realize, is that once the government has the powere to take everything the wealthy have, they have exactly what they need to take everything that everyone else has as well.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

So is it Big Government or Small Government that can suspend the rule of law at whim? You know, for 'important things'?


----------



## WC_lun

I find it interesting that you claim t believe in individuals rights etc, yet you make exceptions for the use of torture.  Something doesn't equate here.


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> once again, as an American who is a conservative who votes for the republicans as the lesser of two bad political parties, I believe in individual human rights, the U.S. constitution, the Bill of rights, I believe in freedom of speech and of the press, I believe that the central government should be small and hedged in by strict checks and balances on its power, that taxes should be low, spending by the government should be low.



yes, we know, as long as you like the people, you like them to have rights...when you don't like them you think water boarding is ok...



> I am still curious that individuals who believe in a massive central government that controls your health care, your retirement, with fewer checks and balances, individuals who believe in high taxes, especially on the rich, and massive spending programs by the strong central government thinks that I believe in anything close to the socialism that one saw in the national socialism in Germany or in the right wing governtments in spain and chile.



Ah, I see you got a new blender...mixing all kinds of things up.
Oh, yes, the news that exempting the rich folks from taxes has done nothing for the common good has eluded you. And for the love of me, I cannot fathom why anybody who is likely not rich by any stretch of imagination supports the ongoing cuts. They buy Paris Hilton a couple of new handbags to add to her collection, each worth more than the average American brings home every month, having to pay bills and feeding their family from.
And as usual you have no clue about the history behind a strong central government, good, bad, ugly or indifferent. You just love to throw all kinds of things into one pot and give it a whirl...that works only in the kitchen, and only to some extend....



> Tez, you were out when I found some great new information on why the facists in Italy, and the National socialists in Germany were closer to the communists in Soviet russia than the people on the left want to admit.  I will post them again when I get home.  there is also an explanation of the military dictatorships in Chile and spain that also explains where you are once again mistaken.


You found similarities in dictatorships around the world....big whoop. Newsflash - and Tez has been telling you this since the First Thanksgiving - dictatorships are run on the same premise. Always have, always will: Cut right f the individual...you know, those things you wnt for yourself, but love to deny those who don't think like you...



> Sadly, it is big government that endangers and enslaves people, and those governments always get their starts by saying the rich are bad people, let's take what they have and give it to everyone else.  What the people who believe in that philosphy fail to realize, is that once the government has the powere to take everything the wealthy have, they have exactly what they need to take everything that everyone else has as well.



Hey Chicken Little, the sky is falling on you! Why are you worried about the rich getting billed? When did that brainwash start to gain a foothold? 

Then again... trying to convince you otherwise it an exercise in futility. You are like those folks you can see in the news reels of the early 1940s: Happily signing away personal freedom for the illusion of pride, because a snippet of the message stuck a cord with them. Those people were not leftists, they were conservative to the core. Suck on that for a minute and let the image sink in.

But Breitbard and stoessel say different...what the hell do the real historians know, after sifting through tons of documents and analysing miles and miles of documentary footage....


----------



## granfire

WC_lun said:


> I find it interesting that you claim t believe in individuals rights etc, yet you make exceptions for the use of torture.  Something doesn't equate here.




He is comfortable with the double standard, as long as you don't touch his rights, screw everybody else...


----------



## Empty Hands

crushing said:


> I'd like to find out more about more about the new stealthy helicopters that made this mission possible.  It's not like the OBL villa was in a cave in the middle of nowhere, it is in a military town and near the Pakistan Army Academy, that I would presume would have some sort of air defenses and monitoring; or, at the very least, an increased level vigilence.



Disclaimer: I am no expert.  My understanding though is that "stealth" helicopters had more to do with being quiet, to avoid giving warning of an approach, rather than being harder to detect by radar.  Since helicopters can fly extremely low, I thought they were already difficult if not impossible to find by radar if the pilot wants it that way.


----------



## billc

Actually, I make limited exceptions for waterboarding non-citizens who are unlawful enemy combatant terrorist leaders who refuse to cooperate and prevent the maiming, and murder of innocent people around the world.  You could actually site what I have said instead of misleading people about what I actually believe.

I would not water board U.S. Citizens or foreign nationals.
I would not water board regular criminals who fall under the civillian criminal system.
I would not water board regular terrorists captured on the battlefield.
I would not waterboard terrorists captured in the continental united states, even a leader unless it could be shown he had information of an imminent attack.

***I would water board  leaders of terrorist groups, who refuse to cooperate, are captured in foriegn countries, fighting as unlawful enemy combatants, who are determined to have information pertaining to up coming terrorist attacks.

At this point that is a total of 3 people.  So yes, I guess one who is unrealistic could pretend that my stance on individual rights is hypocritical.  I'll live with that silly belief.****


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> Actually, I make limited exceptions for waterboarding non-citizens who are unlawful enemy combatant terrorist leaders who refuse to cooperate and prevent the maiming, and murder of innocent people around the world.  You could actually site what I have said instead of misleading people about what I actually believe.
> 
> I would not water board U.S. Citizens or foreign nationals.
> I would not water board regular criminals who fall under the civillian criminal system.
> I would not water board regular terrorists captured on the battlefield.
> I would not waterboard terrorists captured in the continental united states, even a leader unless it could be shown he had information of an imminent attack.
> 
> ***I would water board  leaders of terrorist groups, who refuse to cooperate, are captured in foriegn countries, fighting as unlawful enemy combatants, who are determined to have information pertaining to up coming terrorist attacks.
> 
> At this point that is a total of 3 people.  So yes, I guess one who is unrealistic could pretend that my stance on individual rights is hypocritical.  I'll live with that silly belief.****




Are you making up these rules as you go?
your first 3 points set the rules you break at your leasure a couple of lines below...

Who gets to decide if a person is a 'top three' on the list. Do you figure that out before you torture, or after?

Alone that fact of capturing people 'in foreign countries' is a big red flag. 
I mean...how is your stand of people being captured on US soil by foreign powers?

You are always making excuse so you can continue torture.

This is not a video game! You can't turn it off for a cup of coffee! Things you do have consequences and ripple effects.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

"At this point" means "In the future I will make additional exceptions as I see fit to meet a sliding series of definitions, again as I see fit."

But remember, "The Constitution is just a God Damned piece of paper". - GW Bush.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> I mean...how is your stand of people being captured on US soil by foreign powers?



Good question.  Obviously if it's ok (read legal) for the US to send in a covert team to capture/kill an enemy on foreign soil, it's just as legal for say, Iran to send in a covert team to the US to kill/capture one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff maybe?  All they have to do is declare them 'unlawful combatants'.

I wonder what the US response would have been to the Iraqi Republican Guard "liberating" us from the totalitarian Bush administration?

Though I do enjoy the idea of waterboarding Dick Cheney.


----------



## crushing




----------



## WC_lun

It really amazes me that someone can make a case for the use of torture, at all.  It is like rape.  There really is no case where it is acceptable. Given the right wing's epenchant for using the slippery slope arguement, I find it even more amazing that they would think the torture of anyone would be okay.  

So it is okay to torture only really evil men.  Who decides?  So if there is a really evil American out there, like the US soldiers who raped the Iraqi teenager and killed her family, is it okay for the Iraqi government to torture them to find out how far the cover up went? what about a serial killer?  Would it be okay to torture a convicted serial killer in order to find all the bodies?  What about a pedophile in order to help his victims? We have law that says we do not torture at all.  It doesn't say, well we don't torture unless we think you are a bad man. It doesn't ay we make up rules to justify it.  It says we don't torture, peeriod.


----------



## MA-Caver

WC_lun said:


> It really amazes me that someone can make a case for the use of torture, at all.  It is like rape.  There really is no case where it is acceptable. Given the right wing's epenchant for using the slippery slope arguement, I find it even more amazing that they would think the torture of anyone would be okay.
> 
> So it is okay to torture only really evil men.  Who decides?  So if there is a really evil American out there, like the US soldiers who raped the Iraqi teenager and killed her family, is it okay for the Iraqi government to torture them to find out how far the cover up went? what about a serial killer?  Would it be okay to torture a convicted serial killer in order to find all the bodies?  What about a pedophile in order to help his victims? We have law that says we do not torture at all.  It doesn't say, well we don't torture unless we think you are a bad man. It doesn't ay we make up rules to justify it.  It says we don't torture, peeriod.



It probably only applies to not torturing U.S. citizens... anyone beyond that, that is out to hurt the American people ... is fair game.


----------



## Empty Hands

MA-Caver said:


> It probably only applies to not torturing U.S. citizens... anyone beyond that, that is out to hurt the American people ... is fair game.



The law prohibits acts, generally speaking, not targets.  It's not OK to murder someone because they aren't a US citizen.  It isn't OK to travel to Thailand to have sex with children, they will bust your *** on the way back in.  It isn't OK to cheat someone who isn't a citizen, etc.  The law is binding under all who are in its jurisdiction, citizen or not, and that jurisdiction includes members of the military or the intelligence services.


----------



## Big Don

WC_lun said:


> It really amazes me that someone can make a case for the use of torture, at all.  It is like rape.  There really is no case where it is acceptable. .


Really? I mean there aren't cultural norms we need to consider? I've seen that used to excuse murder and child molestation...


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> My comments weren't aimed at you but Yorkshirelad. I now know why he holds such antipathy to the UK and myself. The Troubles have cause much heartache and division over a long time, guess it will carry on for many years yet. Muslim terrorism is in it's infancy compared to Northern Ireland.


 
Not so fast Irene, my father is a staunt Irish Republican and my stepfather, who was far more a father to me was a British soldier and former copper. I have great admiration for Her Majesty. As far as the treatment of Irish Republican terrorists go, I couldn't care less if they get a boot in the face by a para, or even if they get slotted in their beds by an SAS trooper. I just don't like Blighty pure and simple.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bush, Cheney and several other high level members of that administration have warrants out for their arrest in at least 2 European nations, by my last check oh, 2 years ago.


Like this means anything! Even if Bush went to Spain on a Thomas Cook package holiday, they wouldn't have the balls to arrest him. It's a joke!


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> He actually makes me want to throw up.
> 
> You wouldn't think him quite so harmless if you realised his type of talk and justifications were and are still being used to keep people bound up in dictatorships. Look at Nazi Germany, Argentina under Pinochet, Spain under Franco etc etc. It may seem amusing but the reality is that if too many people think his way and get into power you can say goodbye to your freedom.


The above countries are not the US. We have three branches of government as a means of checks and balances There cannot be a dictatrial government here because of the system. If all else fails, we have a constitutional right to arm and defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. This right is at the moment being undermined by Democrats who think the only armed citizens should be employed by the government....scary!!


----------



## billc

You guys might want to e-mail Colonel Bud Day and explain to him how waterboarding is on the same scale as what he endured:

http://olotliny.wordpress.com/2009/...-of-honor-recipient-prisoner-of-war-survivor/

Once again: Waterboarding is the one of the least harmful of all the types of physical harsh interrogation techniques.  After someone is water boarded, they dry off, put on dry clothes and they are fine, no short or long term physical harm.  Their sinuses might be a little raw, but probably no more than a bad alergy attack.  And they even get over that.  Their skin is not broken, no bones are broken, no short or long lasting harm is done.

I would not do it to American citizens or foreign nationals here in the states.
I would not do it to criminals covered by the civillian justice system.
I forgot in the previous post, I would not do it to regular Prisoners of war who deserve to be covered by the geneva conventions.
I would not even water board the regular, run of the mill terrorist captured on the battlefield, unless it could be shown he knew of an imminent attack.
I would not waterboard terrorists captured on U.S. soil.

I would, without hesitation, waterboard a known terrorist leader, who was an unlawful enemy combatant, not fighting for a nation state, who will not cooperate, who is determined to know of possible attacks on innocent civillians.  Their status to be determined by our intelligence agencies and intelligence gathered on the battlefield.  AT this point that means 3 individuals were waterboarded.

It is easy to say that you would never waterboard anyone.  By not doing it,you will never know what you failed to prevent.  so as bodies are dragged out of the rubble of another building bombed, with widows, widowers and orphans looking on as their maimed or killed loved ones are pulled out, you can be comfortable knowing that you did not stoop to waterboarding 3 people.  It is an easy position to defend, nothing will ever be connected back to your decision.  Waterboarding is the least harmful of the techniques of physical interrogation, as Bud Day and Leo Thornson put it, it is harsh treatment, not torture.  They should both know, look them up.


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> It is easy to say that you would never waterboard anyone.  By not doing it,you will never know what you failed to prevent.  so as bodies are dragged out of the rubble of another building bombed, with widows, widowers and orphans looking on as their maimed or killed loved ones are pulled out, you can be comfortable knowing that you did not stoop to waterboarding 3 people.



That reasoning can be used to justify _anything_.  Why not rape, maim, murder innocent family members, nuke a city of residence?  After all, the alternative _could _be worse.

For a "small, non-tyrannical government" kind of guy, you sure want to give the government wide latitude to torture based on hypothetical alternatives.

Hell, let's go all the way with this reasoning.  The Holocaust was completely justified.  Why?  The Jews _might _have actually been planning worldwide domination.  Can't be too careful, the hypothetical alternatives sure are terrible!


----------



## Blade96

Tez3 said:


> He actually makes me want to throw up.
> 
> You wouldn't think him quite so harmless if you realised his type of talk and justifications were and are still being used to keep people bound up in dictatorships. Look at Nazi Germany, Argentina under Pinochet, Spain under Franco etc etc. It may seem amusing but the reality is that if too many people think his way and get into power you can say goodbye to your freedom.



I never said his beliefs are, I said he is. He's a guy posting on a message board. 

Now if he was getting close to being able to decide rules and policy of a country and waterboarding and stuff, that would be another litter of kittens.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

US law defines waterboarding as torture.
US law defines torture as illegal.
Both waterboarding and torture are denied as means for law enforcement in the US to extract information.
Did I mention, both waterboarding and torture are illegal under US, as well as international law???

http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
(This is by the way, a link to an in depth review of the legal argument, by people who know these laws, case law, treaties, etc more completely than I ever will. I differ to their experience in the matter.)



> Waterboarding and the other forms of torture approved by the Bush administration for use in the War on Terror are inconsistent with our Nation&#8217;s deepest values and traditions.[57]  Our grandparents defeated the Germans and the Japanese in World War II, and our parents overcame the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War.  They did so without using torture, even though our enemies did.[58] In fact, this is a principal factor that distinguished us from our enemies.  Alexander Solzhenitzen&#8217;s Gulag Archipelago, Arthur Koester&#8217;s Darkness at Noon, and William Shirer&#8217;s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich  told us the nature of our enemies, whom we justifiably considered to be evil because of how they treated their prisoners.  But through all of these military and political struggles, we did not torture captured soldiers or political prisoners.  Instead, America led the world community against the use of torture.[59]
> 
> Furthermore, there are instrumental arguments against the use of waterboarding.  First, torture is neither an efficient nor an effective means of gathering intelligence.[60] Second, waterboarding prisoners violates our treaty obligations, thus offending our allies in the War on Terror.[61] Third, by engaging in this practice ourselves, we invite our enemies to treat our captured soldiers likewise,[62] and if our government adopts the position that waterboarding is legal, then we will have given up the right to prosecute our enemies for subjecting our soldiers to this treatment.[63] Finally, in the event that we were to obtain useful information from a prisoner by means of waterboarding, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute the prisoner because coerced confessions[64] and any evidence obtained by means of a coerced confession[65] are constitutionally inadmissible, despite provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act which purport to preserve the admissibility of coerced confessions.[66]
> 
> The policy considerations which militate against the use of waterboarding are compelling, but they are not relevant to assessing the legality of the practice.  Regardless of its utility or lack of utility as a method of interrogation, waterboarding violates both the letter and the spirit of the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act, and the Prohibition against Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment.  Accordingly, waterboarding is illegal.



So I repeat, it's ok to break the law if you deem it acceptable?


----------



## billc

Okay, let's see where you guys live.  Should the president of the united states have ordered the raid that killed bin laden, knowing that the intel. was gathered using gitmo, black site prisons, waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques?   What is your answer?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> Okay, let's see where you guys live.  Should the president of the united states have ordered the raid that killed bin laden, knowing that the intel. was gathered using gitmo, black site prisons, waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques?   What is your answer?



I'll answer that with this:
In the 1940's the Nazi's did horrible things, evil thing.
We have their notes.
Should we use those notes in our current research?

Does the fact that a US soldier now can sprinkle magic dust on a wound and rapid-stop bleeding forgive the fact that the base research for that magic dust came out of WW2 German R&D that was tested on Jewish prisoners in the camps, many of whom were children?

I'm not arguing that using the intel was wrong.
I'm arguing that torture IS illegal, and that a nation that prides itself on being a leader can not at whim excuse itself from being held to those same laws.

So I repeat, it's ok to break the law if you deem it acceptable?


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Okay, let's see where you guys live. Should the president of the united states have ordered the raid that killed bin laden, *knowing that the intel. was gathered using gitmo, black site prisons, waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques?* What is your answer?


 
We don't know that the intel. was gathered using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. However, we have used data from Nazi experimentation on concentration camp prisoners. Our knowledge of how humans react to freezing is based almost entirely upon Nazi experimentation data where human beings were actually frozen-_data that was obtained in an unethical, and brutal fashion. _

_There's still a great deal of controversy over its use. Intel obtained from *torture* should be no different. _

So, in answer to that, yes, having obtained the data-_however it was *actually* obta_ined-Obama, _and those tasked with finding, capturing or killing OBL_]-had an obligation to act upon it.


----------



## billc

Actually, I would say we need to change the law.  I believe in following the law, but I disagree with banning waterboarding so I say we need to change that law.


----------



## Twin Fist

WC_lun said:


> It really amazes me that someone can make a case for the use of torture, at all.  It is like rape.  There really is no case where it is acceptable.




in your opinion

i will be sure to NOT save your life or the lives of your children with information gained from making someone listen to rosie o'donnel tapes 24/7


----------



## Twin Fist

hell, boil those ****ers in pig fat, i dont give a damn about them or thier rights. They pick up a gun and shoot at americans on the field of battle?

some people have no grasp of the concept of "war"


----------



## Twin Fist

elder999 said:


> We don't know that the intel. was gathered using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques.




panetta said it was, Jeff


----------



## billc

Apparently our friends in Europe are thinking that the attack on Bin Laden broke international law, quite a few times over. Hmmmmm, will you guys go up to the white house to make international citizen's arrests of the officials responsible for breaking international law. Since, all through this thread the international law on waterboarding was sacrosanct, it would seem to me you would be even more outraged over the invasion of a sovereign nation, the killing of unarmed civillians and the execution of a wanted criminal. Hmmmmm, what say you now young jedis....the article:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-european-media-reacts-to-death-of-osama-bin-laden/

from the article:

European media, almost without exception, have focused particular attention on the news that bin Laden was not armed when he was killed by American operatives. Many Europeans have criticized what they describe as America&#8217;s &#8220;wild-west&#8221; concept of justice. Dozens of European newspapers have published lengthy philosophical essays by sundry intellectuals that examine the morality of bin Laden&#8217;s killing. Many argue that bin Laden should have been tried in a court of law.

. Many German analysts say the American action was illegal under international law and some Germans have called for an international commission (similar to the Goldstone Commission in Israel) to investigate the U.S. foray into Pakistan. Unanswered remains the question of whether European activists will accuse U.S. President Barack Obama of war crimes and seek a warrant for his arrest as they did for George W. Bush, who recently was forced to cancel a trip to Switzerland.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Waterboarding & torture violate BOTH US and International Law.


As to the sovereign nation argument, they are in fact probably correct, however there may be treaty or other clauses that would allow such.

But, the US doesn't worry much about treaties. 

But, let me ask this:
Should an Israeli commando team be allowed to stage a rapid insertion, seek and capture, extract mission on oh, say Tulsa OK to capture a former SS commander or PLO general?
Without advance notice to our government, permission, etc?


----------



## billc

If they can get out of the country before we catch them sure.  If we catch them they are subject to our laws and would have to suffer the consequences, I would wish them good hunting though.


----------



## billc

Well, I am pretty sure that shooting unarmed civillians and executing an unarmed wanted criminal suspect is also against U.S. law and international law, and a lot more serious than waterboarding a terrorist.  Hmmmmm?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> If they can get out of the country before we catch them sure.  If we catch them they are subject to our laws and would have to suffer the consequences, I would wish them good hunting though.


Not asking if you approve.

I'm asking if the US should accept foreign military operating -without permission- on it's soil against targets that include US citizens.

Better yet, should the US accept foreign military operating -with permission- on it's soil against targets that include US citizens.

Hell, should I have to worry about some French Commando knocking my door in because he got the address to the Surrender Plaze wrong?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> Well, I am pretty sure that shooting unarmed civillians and executing an unarmed wanted criminal suspect is also against U.S. law and international law, and a lot more serious than waterboarding a terrorist.  Hmmmmm?


You're ok with waterboarding.

How about rape?  Thumb screws?  Honey and fire ants?  Muzak Metallica?

Where's the line?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard said:


> You're ok with waterboarding.
> 
> How about rape?  Thumb screws?  Honey and fire ants?  Muzak Metallica?
> 
> Where's the line?


I get it though.  You're fine with the US breaking the law at whim if they feel it's necessary.

I wonder if my local PD will buy that as an excuse.  "Sorry officer, I know the speed limit was 55, but I didn't feel I should be bound by it because I had a triple bean burrito and it's barking bad!"


----------



## elder999

Bob Hubbard said:


> I wonder if my local PD will buy that as an excuse. "Sorry officer, I know the speed limit was 55, but I didn't feel I should be bound by it because I had a triple bean burrito and it's barking bad!"


 

Now, Bob- a variant of that has actually worked for me, when I was going close to 95......_Why were you going so fast?...*I gotta pee!*_ :lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

In summary:

US/International law outlaws torture. 
Evidence collected by it is inadmissible in court.
No nation can at whim ignore international law and treaty when dealing with other nations.
Violators are subject to prosecution.

The rest, is simple people trying to justify a 'the results justify the means' argument...one I can not agree with.


----------



## billc

I need to sleep...but, no rape and thumb screws are not right.  Waterboarding is not harmful in either the short or long term, requires no violation of the body, other than a little water up the nose, which is non lethal, does not break the skin or bones, and does not create intense pain or psychological damage.  Also, it has the added benefit of ending as soon as the murdering dirt bag decides to cooperate.

On a side note, Richard Miniter, in his book "Master mind," says that Khalid's favorite food, which he received after he was waterboarded and started cooperating, was the McDonald's Filet of fish sandwich.  During his time with al queda, his nickname was kfc because he loved to eat kentucky fried chicken.


----------



## billc

Yeah, I am pretty sure that U.S. and internatinal law does not condone putting bullets into unarmed civillians and unarmed criminal suspects either.  Would you give the "go" order on this op. knowing the info. was from gitmo, black sites and waterboarding as well as other harsh interrogation techniques, as well as knowing that killing unarmed civillians in another soveriegn nation was against both U.S. and international law.  Please, let's try not to spin that moral compass around too much.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

"The ends justify the means"
Sith Lord Wannabe Dick Cheney.



> What we are witnessing is an attempt to rewrite history to justify the unjustifiable. Defense of the Bush administration's decision to sanction torture as U.S. policy all boils down to a single argument: torture works. The ends justify the means. Former Vice President Cheney, with unequivocal support from Bush, made this exact argument in several interviews while he was in office.
> 
> The Bush administration's line of reasoning was then and is now deeply flawed for three critical reasons:
> 1) abundant evidence, which we will examine, suggests that torture is not an effective means of gathering actionable intelligence,
> 2) defining if something "works" is arbitrary and therefore subject to abuse and manipulation as a metric to measure viability, and
> 3) torture is immoral, even if the technique were proven to be effective.
> 
> Any one of the three points would undermine the argument supporting torture, but all three are true and, combined, provide overwhelming support for those opposed to the practice.
> 
> To claim that torture led to information that eventually led to bin Laden is not supported by the facts. Such a claim is nothing but a desperate attempt to cover up past criminality. The primary source from which we learned the name of bin Laden's most important courier (eventually leading to bin Laden himself) came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But not when he was waterboarded repeatedly in 2003, during which he claimed consistently he did not know the name of the courier. No, Khalid gave up the name sometime between 2004-2005 long after his enhanced interrogation sessions ended. Jose Rodriguez, who was in charge of the Counterterrorism Center, makes a contorted effort to claim torture led to useful information from Khalid. But listening to his tortured justification is itself torture, a cringe-worthy explanation that reeks of desperation.


The Twisted Logic of Torture Envy


----------



## billc

A simple question:  "go" or "no go" break U.S. law and international law or not,  it is your decision now president (fill in the blank).  I am closely watching your moral compass on this decision.


----------



## billc

America doesn't have to accept foreigners coming here and kidnapping people, we just have to catch them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> Yeah, I am pretty sure that U.S. and internatinal law does not condone putting bullets into unarmed civillians and unarmed criminal suspects either.  Would you give the "go" order on this op. knowing the info. was from gitmo, black sites and waterboarding as well as other harsh interrogation techniques, as well as knowing that killing unarmed civillians in another soveriegn nation was against both U.S. and international law.  Please, let's try not to spin that moral compass around too much.


Well, since the ends justify the means, we should use any means possible then.
Including secret prisons, disappearing people, torture, rape, intimidation, maybe even killing their puppies or removing their childrens fingers and toes with olive forks.
As long as it's done by one of our 'partners', in 'sekret', we can *wink* *wink* at the information, then call in a rocket strike.  Just have to hope we hit the bad guys, and not yet another childrens birthday party, right?

Because, we should do whatever it takes, break whatever laws, violate whatever things that make us different than our enemies, right?

If that's America, then please, here is my citizenship, you can shove it.  Just give me a couple days to pack and head to Canada where they still have a rule of law in effect.


----------



## billc

The reasoning above that KSM didn't give up info. because of waterboarding is like the cop saying the criminal stopped beating the victim when I asked him to, of course, I did have my service revolver pointed at his chest at the same time, but he only reacted to my polite request to stop.


----------



## billc

I don't seem to have said do whatever it takes, I did say I have no problem with waterboarding.  Also, I would give the "go" order on the raid.  Would you?


----------



## billc

Hmmmm, canada, do you really want to turn over their rock and see what crawls out from under it.


----------



## billc

the helicopters are ready to leave Mr. President.  "go," or "no go?"


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> A simple question:  "go" or "no go" break U.S. law and international law or not,  it is your decision now president (fill in the blank).  I am closely watching your moral compass on this decision.



First, your question is overly simplistic.
Act on illegal information?  It depends.  
Since the majority of the USEFUL information in this situation was collected by Legal means (and not through the illegal torture you want to justify) yes.

Break international law?  It depends.
Would I have given the order to send in the strike team? Given the limited information I have, probably.

You confuse my disagreement with the means with disagreement with the end.
No disagreement in the ending, just some of the getting there.

But if you were spying on a neighbor (illegal) and heard a plan to rob the bank, you should still report it, and the cops act on it, despite the illegal nature of the information gathering. It doesn't excuse it, but wasting good intel is also stupid, and makes the illegal act meaningless.

This is why I have no problem with the magic clot powder our troops use, which originated in unethical NAZI experiments in WW2.



billcihak said:


> America doesn't have to accept foreigners coming here and kidnapping people, we just have to catch them.



So, if our SEAL team had been intercepted by the Pakistani's, you're ok with them being treated as hostile?  A US soldier captured by a foriegn power is of course to be treated under international law and treaty.  But maybe that government thinks our guys are 'unlawful combatants' and should enjoy a little 'enhanced interrogation' too.  You're ok with that?  If the international community decides that the US acted illegally here, should we turn our boys over for trial and punishment?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> Hmmmm, canada, do you really want to turn over their rock and see what crawls out from under it.


Canada's less scared of gays and **** than the US. My only complaint with Canada is it's cold much of the time there, keeping said **** covered.


----------



## billc

They are in uniforms and part of a national military force.  They are covered by Geneva, of course, can you name one country other than our allies like Britain or France, canada, who have ever observed the geneva conventions in regards to our troops.  The socialists in germany, italy, Japan, vietnam, and korea, iraq, and just about any other nation never adhere to the conventions.  We still should for actual P.O.W.s but not unlawful enemy combatants, they should be treated humanely, but they should be exposed to harsh interrogation techniques, not torture, if there is a threat to innocent life.

It is kind of funny when some people say that we need to treat prisoners according to the conventions because we want our guys treated according to the conventions.  I agree that we need to treat p.o.w.s  according to the conventions, but again, no matter how we treat their pow's they never, ever treat our guys the way they are supposed to, so the "do it so they do it," rationale is funny, cause it doesn't matter to the bad guys.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Melchett (very drunk): "You twist and turn like a ... twisty-turny thing. I say you are a weedy pigeon and you can call me Susan if it isn't so. "


----------



## billc

I have heard of the Black adder series but never saw more than a snippet from one episode.  Is it really good, and does net flix have it?


----------



## CanuckMA

Whether the op violated international is dependent on whether Pakistan gave approval or not. And we may never know for sure.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> I have heard of the Black adder series but never saw more than a snippet from one episode.  Is it really good, and does net flix have it?


Yup. Streaming and dvd it looks like.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

CanuckMA said:


> Whether the op violated international is dependent on whether Pakistan gave approval or not. And we may never know for sure.


Pretty much.  There's the public complaint, but is it legit or just for show. That 'plausible deniability' thing intended to hopefully keep a few car bombs from detonating there.


----------



## elder999

.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Lest anyone think I'm sorry to see Osama go....nope.

I question some legal aspects of the matter, but he and anyone else engaged in terrorist acts, chose their own exits long ago. I won't celebrate, but...I don't mourn him either.

I also wouldn't mind access to his credit card for an hour.


----------



## Blade96

billcihak said:


> I need to sleep...but, no rape and thumb screws are not right.  Waterboarding is not harmful in either the short or long term, requires no violation of the body, other than a little water up the nose, which is non lethal, does not break the skin or bones, and does not create intense pain or psychological damage.  Also, it has the added benefit of ending as soon as the murdering dirt bag decides to cooperate.



I'd say, having survived two near drownings myself in my life, that getting water poured over your face so that you feel like you're gonna drown, cause thats what waterboarding does, would cause psychological anguish, wouldnt you?

and naw tez i don't believe in saying Oh billcihak makes me wanna vomit. Sure he has some unusual beliefs to say the least.  but he's a nice guy i find him amusing, and I'd oppose him like i'd  say Voting for him, not a good idea  if he was in a position as i said to change policies, like some of my good friends in university were the most conservative catholics i have ever met. They were involved in student politics, but not in a position to change laws  but they also were nice to me so meh.


----------



## Tez3

Blade96 said:


> I'd say, having survived two near drownings myself in my life, that getting water poured over your face so that you feel like you're gonna drown, cause thats what waterboarding does, would cause psychological anguish, wouldnt you?
> 
> and naw tez i don't believe in saying Oh billcihak makes me wanna vomit. Sure he has some unusual beliefs to say the least.  but he's a nice guy i find him amusing, and I'd oppose him like i'd say Voting for him, not a good idea  if he was in a position as i said to change policies, like some of my good friends in university were the most conservative catholics i have ever met. They were involved in student politics, but not in a position to change laws  but they also were nice to me so meh.


 

It's naive to think that because someone is nice to you they therefore must be nice people. On the news the other day a small Pakistani child was interviewed about his going to the house where Bin Laden was killed, he said they were nice people in there they gave him two rabbits.
 Whether you believe he wants to make me throw up is up to you, I'm not lying, he does. My family have been on the suffering end of such 'conservative'' politics before, he _is_ in the position to change politics, it only takes the rest of us to do nothing for 'his' politicains to take over, ignoring it, laughing it off is dangerous. Not to mention he can be very insutling to those he considrs 'lefties', he's accused 'lefties' of murdrs, violence, ruining the world etc and has decided who on this site is a 'leftie' and who isn't going only by his standards. I don't believe stirring, trolling and twisting peoples words is indicative of a 'nice' person more of someone out to make mischief.


----------



## Blade96

Tez3 said:


> It's naive to think that because someone is nice to you they therefore must be nice people. On the news the other day a small Pakistani child was interviewed about his going to the house where Bin Laden was killed, he said they were nice people in there they gave him two rabbits.
> Whether you believe he wants to make me throw up is up to you, I'm not lying, he does. My family have been on the suffering end of such 'conservative'' politics before, he _is_ in the position to change politics, it only takes the rest of us to do nothing for 'his' politicains to take over, ignoring it, laughing it off is dangerous. Not to mention he can be very insutling to those he considrs 'lefties', he's accused 'lefties' of murdrs, violence, ruining the world etc and has decided who on this site is a 'leftie' and who isn't going only by his standards. I don't believe stirring, trolling and twisting peoples words is indicative of a 'nice' person more of someone out to make mischief.



Oh I know that. The Catholics I spoke about were very nice to me, but if they ever got into power and authority they would be very dangerous. I also don't agree with twisting words. But i wasnt inclined to criticize somebody because they believed hitler was a socialist.

Besides, if he got banned who else am i gonna tease about closet socialism?


----------



## Tez3

Blade96 said:


> Oh I know that. The Catholics I spoke about were very nice to me, but if they ever got into power and authority they would be very dangerous. I also don't agree with twisting words. But i wasnt inclined to criticize *somebody because they* *believed hitler was a socialist*.
> 
> Besides, if he got banned who else am i gonna tease about closet socialism?


 
Thin edge of the wedge there. If people believe Hitler was a socialist how can they recognse the dangers of fascism?


----------



## crushing

elder999 said:


> .


 
This assassination brought to you by Pepsi. When the heat is on and you want to stay cool, reach for a Pepsi. Softdrink choice of the Best of the Best and good people everywhere.


----------



## crushing

Empty Hands said:


> Disclaimer: I am no expert. My understanding though is that "stealth" helicopters had more to do with being quiet, to avoid giving warning of an approach, rather than being harder to detect by radar. Since helicopters can fly extremely low, I thought they were already difficult if not impossible to find by radar if the pilot wants it that way.


 
Some opinions on the technology that may have been used in the helicopter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06helicopter.html?_r=1



> The commandos blew up one of the helicopters after it was damaged in a hard landing, but news photographs of the surviving tail section reveal modifications to muffle noise and reduce the chances of detection by radar.
> 
> The stealth features, similar to those used on advanced fighter jets and bombers, help explain how two of the helicopters sped undetected through Pakistani air defenses before reaching the Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad.


----------



## Makalakumu

crushing said:


> Some opinions on the technology that may have been used in the helicopter.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06helicopter.html?_r=1



So, the black helicopters really do exist.  LOL!


----------



## billc

I still think that coca cola has better assasination teams.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> It's naive to think that because someone is nice to you they therefore must be nice people. On the news the other day a small Pakistani child was interviewed about his going to the house where Bin Laden was killed, he said they were nice people in there they gave him two rabbits.
> Whether you believe he wants to make me throw up is up to you, I'm not lying, he does. My family have been on the suffering end of such 'conservative'' politics before, he _is_ in the position to change politics, it only takes the rest of us to do nothing for 'his' politicains to take over, ignoring it, laughing it off is dangerous. Not to mention he can be very insutling to those he considrs 'lefties', he's accused 'lefties' of murdrs, violence, ruining the world etc and has decided who on this site is a 'leftie' and who isn't going only by his standards. I don't believe stirring, trolling and twisting peoples words is indicative of a 'nice' person more of someone out to make mischief.


 

So, basically if people don't believe what you believe, they're not nice people? Got it!


----------



## Tez3

yorkshirelad said:


> So, basically if people don't believe what you believe, they're not nice people? Got it!


 
Well as you are a Provo supporter I don't expect you ever to agree with me or stop twisting my words or to stop attacking me. You made your position quite clear when you accused the Paras of beating up pregnant women. A Provo lie. 
Warrenpoint
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/27/newsid_3891000/3891055.stm

and this http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/4/newsid_4148000/4148933.stm


----------



## shesulsa

This is seriously the most disgusting damn thread I've read in a long *** time.

It is also extremely revealing.

Public Enemy number one is dead.  A Democrat authorized the strike.  

So because a Democrat did it, everything is bad and wrong. 

Torture, which is designed to incite terror, is okay, but terrorism is evil.

I don't think it's funny.  I think it's disgusting and dangerous and I think to treat it any other way is to hand off the country to greedy people who are carelessly misguided and misguiding.

Make no mistake - this is not harmless stupidity.  Don't treat it as such.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> Well as you are a Provo supporter I don't expect you ever to agree with me or stop twisting my words or to stop attacking me. You made your position quite clear when you accused the Paras of beating up pregnant women. A Provo lie.
> Warrenpoint
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/27/newsid_3891000/3891055.stm
> 
> and this http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/4/newsid_4148000/4148933.stm


 
Um........... I'm not a Provo supporter!


----------



## yorkshirelad

shesulsa said:


> This is seriously the most disgusting damn thread I've read in a long *** time.
> 
> It is also extremely revealing.
> 
> Public Enemy number one is dead.  A Democrat authorized the strike.
> 
> So because a Democrat did it, everything is bad and wrong.
> 
> Torture, which is designed to incite terror, is okay, but terrorism is evil.
> 
> I don't think it's funny.  I think it's disgusting and dangerous and I think to treat it any other way is to hand off the country to greedy people who are carelessly misguided and misguiding.
> 
> Make no mistake - this is not harmless stupidity.  Don't treat it as such.


 
What the President did was great! It was balsy! It was courageous! If anyone says otherwise, it's because their ideology has blinded them! Obama as one of his campaign promises vowed to hunt bin Laden where-ever he may be and he came through. I am by no means an Obama fan in general, but the moment I heard the initial press conference, I was immensley proud of him.Waterboarding worked and it worked as it is intended to work. No-one gave up valuable information when being waterboarded, that's not how it works. The individual is asked questions that the interrogator already knows the answers to when the individual in question is being waterboarded. When the idividual eventually breaks, they begin to give the truthful answers to these questions. After the coersed interrogations are stopped the interrogator will continue to aske questions that he already knows the answers to, until he is satified that he can then gain valuable previously unknown intel. The method worked.In short, I am proud of President Obama for going into a foreign country's  souvreign territory, without authorization (suppossedly), to execute a piece of **** who ordered thousands of US citizens dead. I am also proud of the previous administration's tactics that lead to the intel that lead to the location of UBL. Good job lads!!


----------



## yorkshirelad

For some reason, I still an not able to separate paragraphs!


----------



## Tez3

yorkshirelad said:


> Um........... I'm not a Provo supporter!


 
We're done, you've shown your true colours.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> We're done, you've shown your true colours.


 
Why, because I don't support the provos? You're confusing me Irene!


----------



## KELLYG

I am relieved that osama is dead, but I am more concerned about the future ramifications of his death.  I am not well versed with all of the legalities, politics, and party lines that have been discussed her.  This is my personal simple view on this.  There have been laws treaties, conventions written and supported by the united nations and other states as well since WWII that states, specifically, not to torture people.  There are also presidential directives against assassination. 

I understand that osama has been in the cross hairs for year with the "wanted dead or alive thing"  My major concern is, that if we as a country do not uphold our word, with all the treaties and other legal instruments concerning assassination and torture,  then we loose credibility in the world.  My personal belief is that a man is only good as his word, and this should apply to the country as well.  <<Simplistic I know>>

This assassination, in my opinion has opened Pandora's box.  Everyone is now fair game anywhere any time and in any country.  Sorry guys you can not twist and change what is right and what is wrong, according to the change of winds, before someone calls you out on it.


----------



## Tez3

It's being reported on the BBC news as well as in newspapers that Bin Laden wasn't killed in a firefight, the troops weren't shot at as only one man was armed.  It seems this was an execution after all. this is one of the reports, Many other news agencies seem to be carrying the same story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change

The problem I think is going to be more all the contradictions by American officials rather than the actual operation. It seems to have turned from an heroic 'battle' to a cold blooded killing. The hype and publicity around this could and should of been handled much better than this. 'Fog of war' doesn't cover it, the President and others were shown to have been watching it all happen live so why the 'confusion'?


----------



## yorkshirelad

KELLYG said:


> I am relieved that osama is dead, but I am more concerned about the future ramifications of his death. I am not well versed with all of the legalities, politics, and party lines that have been discussed her. This is my personal simple view on this. There have been laws treaties, conventions written and supported by the united nations and other states as well since WWII that states, specifically, not to torture people. There are also presidential directives against assassination.
> 
> I understand that osama has been in the cross hairs for year with the "wanted dead or alive thing" My major concern is, that if we as a country do not uphold our word, with all the treaties and other legal instruments concerning assassination and torture, then we loose credibility in the world. My personal belief is that a man is only good as his word, and this should apply to the country as well. <<Simplistic I know>>
> 
> This assassination, in my opinion has opened Pandora's box. Everyone is now fair game anywhere any time and in any country. Sorry guys you can not twist and change what is right and what is wrong, according to the change of winds, before someone calls you out on it.


 
The killing of UBL has actually been good for the US. It sends a message! The President told the word that he would hunt these people and find them wherever they were. He's done as he promised! Let's hope the world takes notice!


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> It's being reported on the BBC news as well as in newspapers that Bin Laden wasn't killed in a firefight, the troops weren't shot at as only one man was armed. It seems this was an execution after all. this is one of the reports, Many other news agencies seem to be carrying the same story.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change
> 
> The problem I think is going to be more all the contradictions by American officials rather than the actual operation. It seems to have turned from an heroic 'battle' to a cold blooded killing. The hype and publicity around this could and should of been handled much better than this. 'Fog of war' doesn't cover it, the President and others were shown to have been watching it all happen live so why the 'confusion'?


 

Here we go again!! 

The bastard's dead! He had it coming! I'm just bummed that Zawahiri wasn't in the next room.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

shesulsa said:


> Torture, which is designed to incite terror, is okay, but terrorism is evil.


 
some people only seem to understand terror. Do you really think a terrorist, an extremist, someone who is so dedicated to ending our existence that they will give their own lives will actually react in the way we want to anything else? Maybe we need to be extra nice and say pleaseeeeeee
ummm ya that will work..
 :rofl:


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Tez3 said:


> It's being reported on the BBC news as well as in newspapers that Bin Laden wasn't killed in a firefight, the troops weren't shot at as only one man was armed. It seems this was an execution after all. this is one of the reports, Many other news agencies seem to be carrying the same story.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change
> 
> The problem I think is going to be more all the contradictions by American officials rather than the actual operation. It seems to have turned from an heroic 'battle' to a cold blooded killing. The hype and publicity around this could and should of been handled much better than this. 'Fog of war' doesn't cover it, the President and others were shown to have been watching it all happen live so why the 'confusion'?


 
see this is what happens when Americans pretend to give a crap what the rest of the world thinks. I would rather we be unapologetic about it. He deserved to die, I dont care how it happened, it did and now its over, move on.


----------



## yorkshirelad

LuckyKBoxer said:


> some people only seem to understand terror. Do you really think a terrorist, an extremist, someone who is so dedicated to ending our existence that they will give their own lives will actually react in the way we want to anything else? Maybe we need to be extra nice and say pleaseeeeeee
> ummm ya that will work..
> :rofl:


----------



## billc

Actually there are so far about 18 changes to the initial story.  This is why I call it amatuer hour.  They debrief these guys, someone in charge needed to read the debrief and put out one story, or they should have said they were not going to discuss the operational details of the raid.  Tez mentioned they watched it live, apparently that may not be the case.  Other story changes I heard today,

1) the helicopter had some sort of engine stall, changed to helicopter blade clipped wall
2) Osama was clothed, osama was naked

3) there was an intense firefight, there was very little shooting after the first floor
4) Osama was armed, osama was not armed, osama had an AK 47 near by that he was reaching for
5) They killed one of his wives, they did not kill one of his wives

There are about 18 story changes, not saying they lied, but come on.  The biggest story of the year and they don't prepare for the press coverage.


----------



## Tez3

LuckyKBoxer said:


> see this is what happens when Americans pretend to give a crap what the rest of the world thinks. I would rather we be unapologetic about it. He deserved to die, I dont care how it happened, it did and now its over, move on.


 
You don't know however if the unknown woman who died deserved to die.
I think when your country interferes so much with the rest of the world ie give Bin Laden money to fight the Russians, support Saddam, invade Grenada, interfere with South American and even Italian elections etc etc you probably will have the rest of the world thinking you are possibly the most dangerous people on this planet. When I was at military staff college in the days of the Cold war the third World War scenerios always had the USA strarting it not China or the USSR simply because you can't stop interfering with other counties and that makes you very very dangerous.
Yes I understand you wish they wouldn't and would like to go back to being isolated but the fact is you aren't and you have to live with that as we all do.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Tez3 said:


> You don't know however if the unknown woman who died deserved to die.
> I think when your country interferes so much with the rest of the world ie give Bin Laden money to fight the Russians, support Saddam, invade Grenada, interfere with South American and even Italian elections etc etc you probably will have the rest of the world thinking you are possibly the most dangerous people on this planet. When I was at military staff college in the days of the Cold war the third World War scenerios always had the USA strarting it not China or the USSR simply because you can't stop interfering with other counties and that makes you very very dangerous.
> Yes I understand you wish they wouldn't and would like to go back to being isolated but the fact is you aren't and you have to live with that as we all do.


 

yes we are very dangerous. The most dangerous country on the planet.. thats the point.
the rest of the world can talk all it wants, but if any country really steps out of line, the US will crush them. Everyone knows this, hence the new war with these groups like Al Qaeda... So guess what, if countries are too weak or stupid to make sure Al Qaeda is not operating in their borders, then we will go in and end it when we find it happening. The rest of the world can complain all it wants it is not going to change that. The rest of the world can gripe and complain and try to pretend they have power, and unfortunately the current political climate in America seems to want to support this ridiculous behavior and apologetic approach to world politics. Its asenine. If we were really sorry we wouldn't do it in the first place. If we cared what the rest of the world thought we would have asked you for permission to do it to begin with. If we were worried about the consequences we would have not done it. Do I sound cocky?? Ya I know I do, but its the most honest answer and closest to the truth you are going to get.
also I like the Irony in a Brit telling me that we interfere to much with the rest of the world ROFLMAO.. Pot... Kettle... Kettle....Pot... HULLO


----------



## billc

As a supporter of capitalism, I just wish I had the American flag concession in the islamic countries, I'd have made a killing.


----------



## yorkshirelad

luckykboxer said:


> i like the irony in a brit telling me that we interfere to much with the rest of the world roflmao.. Pot... Kettle... Kettle....pot... Hullo


 
qtf!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Tez, you have to understand, Osama had to die, he had to die right then and there. After all, the formality of an official trial before the execution was a real PR disaster with Saddam. Now you people in the UK better take care of your own terrorist issues, lest you wake up to find Dick Cheney holding a tall glass of water over Gnarley Charlies head while The Donald screams "Where weere ya burne!"
(thats sarcasm)

On a serious note, Grenada was legit. But there's no worry about "massive US penis shaking" as our CiC is hell bent on being the "Community Organizer" to the world, rather than taking an actual aggressive posture, leaving situations like Libya where the world sits and waits while the US sits and waits.

Me, I just enjoy the interwebs and the arguments here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> As a supporter of capitalism, I just wish I had the American flag concession in the islamic countries, I'd have made a killing.


Ok, I'll agree with you there. Me too. I'd hold a fire sale.


----------



## shesulsa

yorkshirelad said:


> What the President did was great! It was balsy! It was courageous! If anyone says otherwise, it's because their ideology has blinded them! Obama as one of his campaign promises vowed to hunt bin Laden where-ever he may be and he came through. I am by no means an Obama fan in general, but the moment I heard the initial press conference, I was immensley proud of him.Waterboarding worked and it worked as it is intended to work. No-one gave up valuable information when being waterboarded, that's not how it works. The individual is asked questions that the interrogator already knows the answers to when the individual in question is being waterboarded. When the idividual eventually breaks, they begin to give the truthful answers to these questions. After the coersed interrogations are stopped the interrogator will continue to aske questions that he already knows the answers to, until he is satified that he can then gain valuable previously unknown intel. The method worked.In short, I am proud of President Obama for going into a foreign country's  souvreign territory, without authorization (suppossedly), to execute a piece of **** who ordered thousands of US citizens dead. I am also proud of the previous administration's tactics that lead to the intel that lead to the location of UBL. Good job lads!!



I haven't seen any relatively unbiased source support the notion that the intel key in leading to OBL's location was obtained from Gitmo.  If you have some please provide it, but don't waste your time linking me to a fascist righty rag.



KELLYG said:


> This assassination, in my opinion has opened Pandora's box.  Everyone is now fair game anywhere any time and in any country.



While I believe the target might be trained a bit more on us again right now, I don't necessarily think we have opened a box we hadn't already opened, what with prosecuting nazi fascists 70 years down the pike, finding, trying and executing Saddam Hussein, etcetera.  We've been getting away with a lot for a long time.  OBL, on the other hand, was one of the richest men in the world.  It takes money to **** people up.  



LuckyKBoxer said:


> some people only seem to understand terror. Do you really think a terrorist, an extremist, someone who is so dedicated to ending our existence that they will give their own lives will actually react in the way we want to anything else? Maybe we need to be extra nice and say pleaseeeeeee
> ummm ya that will work..
> :rofl:



And I guess no matter how many people who have been tortured that say they would lie and told you they **** gold to get the torture to stop would skew your view on that eh? Even the fact that our very own government trains spies and special agents to cope with torture doesn't mean other nations do the same and we have the magic wand that negates the possibility that others could lie to us during torture, eh?  

None of that matters because you find it comforting that with all the suffering and death and disfigurement and other ongoing horrors Al Qaeda thrust upon us that the individuals at Gitmo get waterboarded and spout ****. Their suffering gives you comfort because we suffered and thus, that makes it all okay, right?

And that's not an emotional reaction that has been fostered in any way to help certain people justify certain actions that by definition remove our status as a human rights nation, right?

*shakes head*

So ... if it's okay to torture people for information which will likely be false information anyway ... is it okay for Americans to be tortured for information that would most certainly be lies anyway?  Since, you know, we killed a BUNCH of people over there and stuff.


----------



## yorkshirelad

shesulsa said:


> I haven't seen any relatively unbiased source support the notion that the intel key in leading to OBL's location was obtained from Gitmo. If you have some please provide it, but don't waste your time linking me to a fascist righty rag.
> .


Is Leon Panetta good enough for you? Btw, did you take me off your ignore list? I've missed you!


----------



## Tez3

LuckyKBoxer said:


> yes we are very dangerous. The most dangerous country on the planet.. thats the point.
> the rest of the world can talk all it wants, but if any country really steps out of line, the US will crush them. Everyone knows this, hence the new war with these groups like Al Qaeda... So guess what, if countries are too weak or stupid to make sure Al Qaeda is not operating in their borders, then we will go in and end it when we find it happening. The rest of the world can complain all it wants it is not going to change that. The rest of the world can gripe and complain and try to pretend they have power, and unfortunately the current political climate in America seems to want to support this ridiculous behavior and apologetic approach to world politics. Its asenine. If we were really sorry we wouldn't do it in the first place. If we cared what the rest of the world thought we would have asked you for permission to do it to begin with. If we were worried about the consequences we would have not done it. Do I sound cocky?? Ya I know I do, but its the most honest answer and closest to the truth you are going to get.
> also I like the Irony in a Brit telling me that we interfere to much with the rest of the world ROFLMAO.. Pot... Kettle... Kettle....Pot... HULLO


 

I'm telling you you interfere too much? Did I say it was too much? did I say you shouldn't?
I'm pointing out that if you interfere you have to take what comes with it. Stop taking things so personally and as if everything is a criticism against you. 
I don't care whether you care, I was thinking more about how your own citizens feel about this all and how they see it.


----------



## billc

actually, they didn't appear to have waterboarded  people at gitmo, it was at the C.I.A. secret prisons in various countries.  

I remember reading Stephen Ambrose's book D-Day.  One of the stories, I think it was about the british but it could have been the american paratroopers, was about the paratroopers behind the lines before the invasion.  The paratrooper kicked in the door of a building to find a mess hall filled with germans eating breakfast.  He sprayed the room and then tossed in a grenade.  He didn't try to capture them, he didn't hold them for interogation, he sprayed the room with his weapon and killed everyone he could.  the assault on bin laden is no different.  They obviously didn't kill everyone since at least one of bin laden's wives is still alive.  That is a good thing, it shows they only killed where necessary, and bin laden is a definite necessary.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

shesulsa said:


> And I guess no matter how many people who have been tortured that say they would lie and told you they **** gold to get the torture to stop would skew your view on that eh? Even the fact that our very own government trains spies and special agents to cope with torture doesn't mean other nations do the same and we have the magic wand that negates the possibility that others could lie to us during torture, eh?
> 
> So ... if it's okay to torture people for information which will likely be false information anyway ... is it okay for Americans to be tortured for information that would most certainly be lies anyway? Since, you know, we killed a BUNCH of people over there and stuff.


 
torture of certain types I have no problem with. Waterboarding directly led to UBLs death. It got us the info we wanted. It worked. Claim all you want, the information gathered was TRUE, and got us the objective. You can't argue that.

no its not ok for Americans to be tortured, we have rights granted to us that forbid it.
non american aggresives who want to end us? no such rights.


----------



## yorkshirelad

shesulsa said:


> And I guess no matter how many people who have been tortured that say they would lie and told you they **** gold to get the torture to stop would skew your view on that eh? Even the fact that our very own government trains spies and special agents to cope with torture doesn't mean other nations do the same and we have the magic wand that negates the possibility that others could lie to us during torture, eh?
> 
> None of that matters because you find it comforting that with all the suffering and death and disfigurement and other ongoing horrors Al Qaeda thrust upon us that the individuals at Gitmo get waterboarded and spout ****. Their suffering gives you comfort because we suffered and thus, that makes it all okay, right?
> 
> And that's not an emotional reaction that has been fostered in any way to help certain people justify certain actions that by definition remove our status as a human rights nation, right?
> 
> *shakes head*
> 
> So ... if it's okay to torture people for information which will likely be false information anyway ... is it okay for Americans to be tortured for information that would most certainly be lies anyway? Since, you know, we killed a BUNCH of people over there and stuff.


 
This whole post is hog wash! You have no idea how the process of enhanced interrogation works! You just concoct scenarios from pieced together nonsense you've read on Move On.org or seen on MSNBC. I hear they're hiring at Media Matters. With nonsense like this you'll be Managing Editor in no time!


----------



## Tez3

Bob Hubbard said:


> Tez, you have to understand, Osama had to die, he had to die right then and there. After all, the formality of an official trial before the execution was a real PR disaster with Saddam. Now you people in the UK better take care of your own terrorist issues, lest you wake up to find Dick Cheney holding a tall glass of water over Gnarley Charlies head while The Donald screams "Where weere ya burne!"
> (thats sarcasm)
> 
> On a serious note, Grenada was legit. But there's no worry about "massive US penis shaking" as our CiC is hell bent on being the "Community Organizer" to the world, rather than taking an actual aggressive posture, leaving situations like Libya where the world sits and waits while the US sits and waits.
> 
> Me, I just enjoy the interwebs and the arguments here.


 
Hey I support hunting down the Nazi war criminals which many of you don't, I supported hunting down the killers at the Munich Olympics, my opinion isn't that he shouldn't have been killed. It seems though that many can't take a step back and view this action objectively. I realise it's an emotive subject but stepping back and looking at it then discussing it like adults seems a step too far. It always turns into a personal argument and if it's not' if it wasn't for us you'd be speaking grman' it's 'the irony of the Brits telling us anything'. Well this Brit isn't 'telling' anyone anything just pointing out what the media said and it's not just the 'foreigners' that it concrns. If there's a backlash to this it will also be in America.

As for Libya we sent the RAF, the Navy and the SAS, can't say that's just waiting. Btw the SAS were formed in Libya back in the last war as the LRDG.


----------



## shesulsa

yorkshirelad said:


> This whole post is hog wash! You have no idea how the process of enhanced interrogation works! You just concoct scenarios from pieced together nonsense you've read on Move On.org or seen on MSNBC. I hear they're hiring at Media Matters. With nonsense like this you'll be Managing Editor in no time!



I frequent neither newssource.  I *did* post links to conservative shock jocks who were waterboarded who admitted they would lie to make it stop.  Concoct?  You just like an excuse to use the second syllable.

Personal attack much?  OH yeah! That's why I put you on ignore ... that and your ignorant rightist spew.

Buh-bye ... again!


----------



## Tez3

shesulsa said:


> I frequent neither newssource. I *did* post links to conservative shock jocks who were waterboarded who admitted they would lie to make it stop. Concoct? You just like an excuse to use the second syllable.
> 
> Personal attack much? OH yeah! *That's why I put you on ignore* ... that and your ignorant rightist spew.
> 
> Buh-bye ... again!


 
Yep, me too.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> Hey I support hunting down the Nazi war criminals which many of you don't, I supported hunting down the killers at the Munich Olympics, my opinion isn't that he shouldn't have been killed. It seems though that many can't take a step back and view this action objectively. I realise it's an emotive subject but stepping back and looking at it then discussing it like adults seems a step too far. It always turns into a personal argument and if it's not' if it wasn't for us you'd be speaking grman' it's 'the irony of the Brits telling us anything'. Well this Brit isn't 'telling' anyone anything just pointing out what the media said and it's not just the 'foreigners' that it concrns. If there's a backlash to this it will also be in America.
> 
> As for Libya we sent the RAF, the Navy and the SAS, can't say that's just waiting. Btw the SAS were formed in Libya back in the last war as the LRDG.


 

I thought that it was the LRDP, but I could be wrong! Yes, a Brit berating the US for medalling in the Middle East is a tad hypocritical! Just saying.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I did a small survey.
Asked 10 people the following:
How long would I have to waterboard you, before you confessed to stealing the Death Star plans?
In 5 cases I had to describe what waterboarding is.
Funny thing.

All 10 people said they'd confess.

Guess that means I know 10 people wanted by Lord Vader right?
Because it's an accurate way of getting information?

Yeah.

Anyone who supports the discredited idea of torture, you haven't got much credibility here.

Mind you, I have no issues with a dead Bin Laden.
Just some of the means.

I also have no issue with the strike that killed him.
Even if it was actually illegal.
It was still right.

Legal, right, 2 separate things.


----------



## yorkshirelad

shesulsa said:


> I frequent neither newssource. I *did* post links to conservative shock jocks who were waterboarded who admitted they would lie to make it stop. Concoct? You just like an excuse to use the second syllable.
> 
> Personal attack much? OH yeah! That's why I put you on ignore ... that and your ignorant rightist spew.
> 
> Buh-bye ... again!


 
So, I know you're not going to see this, but intel was not collected through waterboarding. Waterboarding serves a different, but necessary purpose. You should research it and open your mind!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

yorkshirelad said:


> So, I know you're not going to see this, but intel was not collected through waterboarding. Waterboarding serves a different, but necessary purpose. You should research it and open your mind!


Some of us have, that's why we accept the illegality of it, the immorality of it, and the plain wrongness and contradictory nature of it.

But, Emperor George the Dim said he was above the law and could do what he wanted, and Prince Dick the Rabid did agree, and they had a fool pen a tome for the ages, which was passed down unto the faithful who hold it as Gospel against the evils of the unbelievers. You know, the legal community.

Me, I'd love to see them both waterboarded.
Anyway, gotta run, have to go watch that documentary "Lil Bush". The episode where Lil Cheny's black heart bursts is on.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Bob Hubbard said:


> I did a small survey.
> Asked 10 people the following:
> How long would I have to waterboard you, before you confessed to stealing the Death Star plans?
> In 5 cases I had to describe what waterboarding is.
> Funny thing.
> 
> All 10 people said they'd confess.
> 
> Guess that means I know 10 people wanted by Lord Vader right?
> Because it's an accurate way of getting information?
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> Anyone who supports the discredited idea of torture, you haven't got much credibility here.
> 
> Mind you, I have no issues with a dead Bin Laden.
> Just some of the means.
> 
> I also have no issue with the strike that killed him.
> Even if it was actually illegal.
> It was still right.
> 
> Legal, right, 2 separate things.


 
well that would be a stupid way to question someone under the stress of waterboarding.
I think its pretty well known that waterboarding for example us used in an open ended questioning manner.
its also used after extensive normal questioning is done, or if there is a time crunch and the person in question is believed to have sensitive material that needs to be had asap.
asking a terrorist associate to give all the names of the people they know is involved is going to get you quite different results then asking him to give you all the names as you are waterboarding him. Sure you will get some nonsense information as well, but you will stand a better chance of getting quality information as well, the next steps are easy in developing that information as was done in the case of UBL, then planning and executing the plan as was done in this case.
its stupid to ask normal people a question about something they are not passionate about, with nothing on the line. you might as well asked them to translate your farts into english to discover what you were really trying to inform them of.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Bob Hubbard said:


> Some of us have, that's why we accept the illegality of it, the immorality of it, and the plain wrongness and contradictory nature of it.
> 
> But, Emperor George the Dim said he was above the law and could do what he wanted, and Prince Dick the Rabid did agree, and they had a fool pen a tome for the ages, which was passed down unto the faithful who hold it as Gospel against the evils of the unbelievers. You know, the legal community.
> 
> Me, I'd love to see them both waterboarded.
> Anyway, gotta run, have to go watch that documentary "Lil Bush". The episode where Lil Cheny's black heart bursts is on.


 
umm Obama has carried on the practice, or at least allowed it to continue..


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> you might as well asked them to translate your farts into english



I now have my summer project.....with the help of a triple bean burrito 



> umm Obama has carried on the practice, or at least allowed it to continue..


 Community Organizer Obama is well covered here, but yes he's also not quite right. He's also in the documentary. Something about building a house for the poor which lil Cheney burns down for the insurance money.


----------



## Big Don

bob hubbard said:


> ok, i'll agree with you there. Me too. I'd hold a fire sale. :d


groan!


----------



## The Last Legionary




----------



## billc

Luckyboxer, they don't want to understand how the C.I.A. actually used waterboarding to get the information.  They call it torture as if it has anything in common with pincers, and pliers and batteries connected to sensitive parts of the anatomy.  It is not even close.  If they would read "Courting Disaster," or the book "Master Mind," they would understand the process of information gathering that was used.  They waterboarded KSM three times.  He broke, and decided that he had had enough.  He then went on to conduct lectures for intelligence analysts on the al queda network, their leadership, their financing, how they moved people around the world, he told them everything.  Before he was waterboarded he didn't tell them anything.  He was also ready for the water boarding through his terrorist training.  When they were pouring the water on him, he knew exactly how long they could pour  the water and would show them he was counting the seconds on his fingers.

I was listening to Dennis Miller today at work.  He made the point that if you knew one of these jerks had knowledge of a bomb attack, and you didn't waterboard him, that would be the immoral act.  To let innocent people die, when a non-lethal, safe, and mild form of coercian will get the information you need would be wrong.

The people on the other side of the argument throw out the word torture in order to silence the argument.  Torture brings to mind intense pain, long term damage, and physical injury, and is nothing like the water boarding the C.I.A. used.   Oliver North was on the radio show I listen to in the morning, Don And Roma out of chicago, he said he has been waterboarded 3 times, and when he was an instructor at S.E.R.E. he waterboarded trainees.  He has no problem with using it.   Of course a british writer, an older british writer, and a shock jock know more than a S.E.R.E instructor.


----------



## billc

Two medal of honor recipients who were held with John McCain as P.O.W.'s during the vietnam war also disagree that waterboarding is torture.  Both men were tortured horribly by the vietnamese socialists.  Bud Day says it is harsh treatment but not even close to actual torture.  I'll listen to these men over a writer and a shock jock.

Leo Thorsness:
http://www.looktruenorth.com/securi...orsness-torture-thoughts-on-memorial-day.html

If someone surveyed the surviving Vietnam POWs, we would likely not agree on one definition of torture. In fact, we wouldn't agree if waterboarding is torture. For example, John McCain, Bud Day and I were recently together. Bud is one of the toughest and most tortured Vietnam POWs. John thinks waterboarding is torture; Bud and I believe it is harsh treatment, but not torture. Other POWs would have varying opinions. I don't claim to be right; we just disagree. But as someone who has been severely tortured over an extended time, my first hand view on torture is this:

Torture, when used by an expert, can produce useful, truthful information. I base that on my experience. I believe that during torture, there is a narrow "window of truth" as pain (often multiple kinds) is increased. Beyond that point, if torture increases, the person breaks, or dies if he continues to resist.

Colonel Bud Day:

http://olotliny.wordpress.com/2009/...-of-honor-recipient-prisoner-of-war-survivor/


I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/stories/thorsness.html who was also in my sq in jail&#8230;. as was John McCain &#8230; and we agree that McCain does not speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture&#8230; or that &#8220;water boarding&#8221; is torture.

Point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding &#8230;which has no after effect&#8230; is torture.  If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC &#8230; hurrah for the guy who poured the water.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding



> *United States law*
> 
> The United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,  said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its  own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."[182]  However, the United States has a historical record of regarding water  torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals  for the use of such practices in the past.
> In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had  served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military,  Yukio Asano, for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting  that he "did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross  packages and supplies intended for" prisoners, but, far worse, that he  also "did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture" prisoners of  war. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[115]  The charges against Asano included "beating using hands, fists, club;  kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a  stretcher head downward."[183]  The specifications in the charges with regard to "water torture"  consisted of "pouring water up [the] nostrils" of one prisoner, "forcing  water into [the] mouths and noses" of two other prisoners, and "forcing  water into [the] nose" of a fourth prisoner.[184]
> Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, several memoranda, including the Bybee memo, were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners.[185] The memos, known today as the "torture memos,"[186]  advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, while pointing out that  refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of  prosecution for war crimes.[187][188]  In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that  fall under the international definition do not fall within this new  definition advocated by the U.S.[189][190]
> In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record,[45] and critics of waterboarding[_who?_] draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject.[_citation needed_]
> On 6 September 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled _Human Intelligence Collector Operations_  that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The  department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S.  handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism,  and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised  manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not  apply to the practices of the CIA.[191] Nevertheless Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel, on 14 February 2008 testified:There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the  use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under  current law.[192]​In addition, both under the War Crimes Act[193] and international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and they could still be prosecuted for war crimes.[194] Commenting on the so-called "torture memoranda" Scott Horton pointed outthe possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. Altstötter,  the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers  whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous "Night and Fog Decree."[195]​Michael Mukasey's refusal to investigate and prosecute anyone that relied on these legal opinions led Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center to write an article for JURIST stating:it is legally and morally impossible for any member of the  executive branch to be acting lawfully or within the scope of his or her  authority while following OLC opinions that are manifestly inconsistent  with or violative of the law. General Mukasey, just following orders is no defense![196]​On 22 February 2008 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse  made public that "the Justice Department has announced it has launched  an investigation of the role of top DOJ officials and staff attorneys in  authorizing and/or overseeing the use of waterboarding by U.S.  intelligence agencies."[197][198]
> Both houses of the United States Congress approved a bill by February  2008 that would ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation  methods, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.  As he promised, President Bush vetoed the legislation on 8 March. His  veto applied to the authorization for the entire intelligence budget for  the 2008 fiscal year, but he cited the waterboarding ban as the reason  for the veto.[199] Supporters of the bill supporters lacked enough votes to overturn the veto.[200]
> On 22 January 2009 President Barack Obama  signed an executive order that requires both U.S. military and  paramilitary organizations to use the Army Field Manual as the guide on  getting information from prisoners, moving away from the Bush  administration tactics.[201]



But, lets go read a couple of books by guys who were discredited during the last major debate on this.Former military interrogator and author of _How to Break a Terrorist_, Matthew Alexander, characterizes Thiessen's book "Courting Disaster" as 'a literary defense of war criminals'. The book is a one sided defense of torture, carefully omitting the 'con' argument.  The post-war trials of Japanese war criminals punished for torture,  including waterboarding, and examples where law enforcement officials  have been discharged or even imprisoned for the activity are not even  mentioned. People much more knowledgeable than me have gone through this book and debunked it cover to cover.


----------



## billc

Well the book "Courting disaster," covers exactly what the Japanese did and it isn't what the C.I.A. did.  the Japanese waterboarding consisted of forcing water into the victims abdomen and intestines to the point that the abdmen swelled to the point of causing massive pain and agony.  Once they could not force more water into the victims body, the japanese interrogator would jump with both feet on the vicitms stomach forcing the victim to forcibly expel the water and the process would start over again.  They did this not only to extract informatin but for fun.  

THIS IS NOT THE WAY THE C.I.A. CONDUCTED WATERBOARDING, which is why it is important to know the difference.  The inquistion and the Kmer Rouge also are usually mentioned because they tortured with water as well and once again, it was not what the C.I.A. did.  To say it is is to be innaccurate and misleading to say the least.  Saying that what the japanese, inquistition and the kmer rouge did is the same as what the C.I.A. did is lazy argumentation.  It is not even close to being the same thing.  Not even remotely close.


----------



## billc

A new one for information about the waterboarding of KSM:"Master Mind"

http://www.amazon.com/Mastermind-Ar...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304737432&sr=1-1

from the info on the book:


*	How KSM's waterboarding helped the CIA stop terror plots already in motion, saving thousands of lives 
*	How the ACLU and Janet Reno raised $8.5 million to fund the legal defense of KSM and other admitted terrorists


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> e. The inquistion and the Kmer Rouge also are usually mentioned because they tortured with water as well and once again, it was not what the C.I.A. did. To say it is is to be innaccurate and misleading to say the least. Saying that what the japanese, inquistition and the kmer rouge did is the same as what the C.I.A. did is lazy argumentation. It is not even close to being the same thing. Not even remotely close.


 

Odd. This





is what the Khmer Rouge did-it's painted by one of their victims.

This:






Is a CIA waterboarding, or, actually, SERE training waterboarding. 

What, pray tell, is the difference? Other than "Khmer Rouge=evil, CIA=good?"


----------



## Bob Hubbard

elder999 said:


> Odd. This
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is what the Khmer Rouge did-it's painted by one of their victims.
> 
> This:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a CIA waterboarding, or, actually, SERE training waterboarding.
> 
> What, pray tell, is the difference? Other than "Khmer Rouge=evil, CIA=good?"


The difference is obvious.
The CIA lets you wear a tee shirt, and have your hands in your pocket.
MAJOR DIFFERENCE!!!

/sarcasm


----------



## billc

From "Courting Disaster."

"...In Phnom Penh, a man named Kaing Guek Eav-a.k.a. "dutch" was facing prosecution for his crime as commander of the Kmer Rouge torture prison...a prisoner is submerged in a life-sized box full of water, handcuffed to the side so he cannot escape or raise his head to breathe..."

"During Dutch's reign of terror at S-21, more than 14,000 men, women and children were tortured there.  Only seven people survived."

Yeah, that is the same as what the C.I.A. did...Not even close.

Funny, the picture shows the kmer rouge doing an example of waterboarding, first, when was the drawing made and by who, but more importantly, if the picture is accurate, ***you can see it is done to our own troops as part of sere training, or at least it was, courting disaster reports that most courses stopped using it because all the trainees broke,  and they were not short or long term harmed by it.  If you do it like I am sure the Kmer rouge did it, they harmed the person, The C.I.A. did not.

The C.I.A. waterboarded 3 men.  All Terrorist leadership, to save innocent lives from maiming and death.  Once the men cooperated the waterboarding stopped.  Lives were saved at little cost to the terrorists.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> From "Courting Disaster."
> 
> "...In Phnom Penh, a man named Kaing Guek Eav-a.k.a. "dutch" was facing prosecution for his crime as commander of the Kmer Rouge torture prison...a prisoner is submerged in a life-sized box full of water, handcuffed to the side so he cannot escape or raise his head to breathe..."
> 
> "During Dutch's reign of terror at S-21, more than 14,000 men, women and children were tortured there.  Only seven people survived."
> 
> Yeah, that is the same as what the C.I.A. did...Not even close.
> 
> Funny, the picture shows the kmer rouge doing an example of waterboarding, first, when was the drawing made and by who, but more importantly, if the picture is accurate, ***you can see it is done to our own troops as part of sere training, or at least it was, courting disaster reports that most courses stopped using it because all the trainees broke,  and they were not short or long term harmed by it.  If you do it like I am sure the Kmer rouge did it, they harmed the person, The C.I.A. did not.
> 
> The C.I.A. waterboarded 3 men.  All Terrorist leadership, to save innocent lives from maiming and death.  Once the men cooperated the waterboarding stopped.  Lives were saved at little cost to the terrorists.


.





			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Former military interrogator and author of _How to Break a Terrorist_,  Matthew Alexander, characterizes Thiessen's book "Courting Disaster" as  'a literary defense of war criminals'. The book is a one sided defense  of torture, carefully omitting the 'con' argument.  The post-war trials  of Japanese war criminals punished for torture,  including  waterboarding, and examples where law enforcement officials  have been  discharged or even imprisoned for the activity are not even  mentioned.  People much more knowledgeable than me have gone through this book and  debunked it cover to cover.


----------



## billc

Law enforcement officers should be arrested and tried if they waterboard people.  It is against the law to do that to U.S. citizens.  The C.I.A. doing it in foriegn countries to terrorist leadership to save lives is another story entirely.

I like the way some of these arguments go.  I support limited waterboarding for specific types of prisoners under strict guidelines and people say I support torture, implying that I support cutting flesh, filling stomachs with water and jumping on them, pulling fingernails, using electrodes and other types of actual torture.  I do not support torture, but that doesn't stop the posters here.

Let me try.

Some posters here have stated that the wound powder we now use for our soldiers originated from National socialist medical experiments on living people.  They stated that even though it was gained in a bad way, they approve its use because they don't want to waste that knowledge.  So here goes.

Apparently, they support performing medical experitments on living and consious people if it brings about useful information.  There is no reason to ever experiment on living people, but apparently these posters do.  Shame on them.

See how that works out there?


----------



## shesulsa

One of the biggest fallacies embraced by individuals such as these is that the US doesn't engage in the kind of activities we criticize (and sometimes invade) other countries for.


----------



## billc

Here is an article about water boardin and its effectiveness:

http://www.sundriesshack.com/2007/12/11/cia-agent-waterboarding-saved-lives/

From the article:

he word &#8220;torture&#8221; carries a certain number of very weighty connotations that I&#8217;m not sure apply to waterboarding. Should it be a regular part of our interrogations? Of course not, and I&#8217;m very glad that it isn&#8217;t. Let us remember here that for all the sturm und drang over waterboarding, it has been used only three times since 9/11, it hasn&#8217;t been used since 2003, and a bipartisan group of our duly-elected officials had oversight over the program and registered no meaningful objections to it when it was in use. What we do know now, and many of us strongly suspected for some time, is that waterboarding was at the extreme point of a very carefully-followed and strictly-approved continuum of interrogation techniques. It was not used recklessly, as you might have gathered from the shrill MSM coverage and the frantic accusations from the left. But it has to be on the table. It has to be part of the continuum. Because of all the extreme things we could do, this one is by far the least damaging and it works.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

"Some posters" here would be me.  You can mention me by name Bill.  I won't get offended.



billcihak said:


> Law enforcement officers should be arrested and tried if they waterboard people.  It is against the law to do that to U.S. citizens.  The C.I.A. doing it in foriegn countries to terrorist leadership to save lives is another story entirely.
> 
> I like the way some of these arguments go.  I support limited waterboarding for specific types of prisoners under strict guidelines and people say I support torture, implying that I support cutting flesh, filling stomachs with water and jumping on them, pulling fingernails, using electrodes and other types of actual torture.  I do not support torture, but that doesn't stop the posters here.



No. You don't support torture, except in X, Y and Z cases. That's what you've said.
As I've said, torture is illegal, in the US and outside the US.
Your argument that the CIA doing it elsewhere somehow makes it legal, makes as much sense as me arguing that I shouldn't get a traffic ticket in Canada because the speedlimit in NY is different.



> Let me try.
> 
> Some posters here have stated that the wound powder we now use for our soldiers originated from National socialist medical experiments on living people.  They stated that even though it was gained in a bad way, they approve its use because they don't want to waste that knowledge.  So here goes.
> 
> Apparently, they support performing medical experitments on living and consious people if it brings about useful information.  There is no reason to ever experiment on living people, but apparently these posters do.  Shame on them.
> 
> See how that works out there?


No.  I don't support medical research on unwilling subjects.  But to discard it would be a waste.


----------



## billc

But if you support using national socialist medical experiments on living patient discoveries then you must support just doing medical experimentation in general to get even more knowledge, hence, that would make you just as guilty and bad.  See how that works.  It would help if people actually described what the C.I.A. did and what real torture looks like.


----------



## shesulsa

Real torture = waterboarding.

Pretend torture = foreplay.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

shesulsa said:


> Real torture = waterboarding.
> 
> Pretend torture = foreplay.


That's why I always have extra clamps on the fun shoots.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> But if you support using national socialist medical experiments on living patient discoveries then you must support just doing medical experimentation in general to get even more knowledge, hence, that would make you just as guilty and bad.  See how that works.  It would help if people actually described what the C.I.A. did and what real torture looks like.


I don't support shooting monkeys into space, but that doesn't mean I want to erase NASA's R&D from the 50's and 60's.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Funny, the picture shows the kmer rouge doing an example of waterboarding, first, when was the drawing made and by who .


 
Painting by former prison inmate Vann Nath at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> *I would not water board U.S. Citizens or foreign nationals*.


 

Hmm. Wouldn't you waterboard this guy?



> He is an Islamic lecturer, spiritual leader, and former imam who has inspired Islamic terrorists against the West. According to U.S. officials, he is a senior talent recruiter and motivator, who has also become operational as a planner and trainer, "for al-Qaeda and all of its franchises".[3][7][10][11][12][13] The U.S. Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence warned that al-Awlaki "is extraordinarily dangerous, committed to carrying out deadly attacks on Americans and others worldwide".[6] With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, he has been described as the "bin Laden of the Internet".[14][15]
> Al-Awlaki's sermons were attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. He reportedly met privately with two of them in San Diego. Investigators suspect al-Awlaki may have known about the 9/11 attacks in advance.[16] In 2009, he was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.[4][17]


----------



## billc

Sure, he is a U.S. citizen making war on the united states.  If he is captured and they know he has info. waterboard him.  His citzenship shouldn't protect him if he goes overseas to fight against this country.  He is an unlawful combatant, so he is fair game.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> *Sure,* he is a U.S. citizen making war on the united states. If he is captured and they know he has info. waterboard him. His citzenship shouldn't protect him if he goes overseas to fight against this country. He is an unlawful combatant, so he is fair game.


 

"Sure?" How remarkably glib for someone sitting at their computer. I'm done.


----------



## shesulsa

But ... it's illegal.


----------



## shesulsa

Wow. SOOOOO cavalier.


----------



## billc

Yeah, this is the guy I would waterboard:

from the article above:

bdulmutallab told the FBI that al-Awlaki was one of his al-Qaeda trainers in remote camps in Yemen. And there were confirming "informed reports" that Abdulmutallab met with al-Awlaki during his final weeks of training and indoctrination prior to the attack.[166][167] The L.A. Times reported that according to a U.S. intelligence official, intercepts and other information point to connections between the two:

Some of the information ... comes from Abdulmutallab, who ... said that he met with al-Awlaki and senior al-Qaeda members during an extended trip to Yemen this year, and that the cleric was involved in some elements of planning or preparing the attack and in providing religious justification for it. Other intelligence linking the two became apparent after the attempted bombing, including communications intercepted by the National Security Agency indicating that the cleric was meeting with "a Nigerian" in preparation for some kind of operation.[24]


----------



## billc

According to the way some people post, because you support Nasa research you believe in torturing animals.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

billcihak said:


> *I would not water board U.S. Citizens or foreign nationals*.



Except:


billcihak said:


> Sure, he is a U.S. citizen making war on the united states.  If he is captured and they know he has info. waterboard him.  His citzenship shouldn't protect him if he goes overseas to fight against this country.  He is an unlawful combatant, so he is fair game.



So, won't waterboard a US Citizen, except when you will. 

Gotcha.

Oh, a US Citizen who fights against the US is still a citizen.
He's not a "unlawful combatant".

He would be most likely defined as a *Rebel*.
"A person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler"
Or possible a *traitor*, "A person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc"

Then there is this from that "God Damned Piece of Paper" so dismissed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.


> *U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
> *
> 
> *Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
> Section 3 - Treason*
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


----------



## shesulsa

billcihak said:


> According to the way some people post, because you support Nasa research you believe in torturing animals.



You know, I took you off ignore because this topic was important.  I've read your comments and Bob Hubbard's responses and I am convinced now more than ever that you seriously just type ****.

You don't read other people's posts.  It's not even a discussion with you, you're talking AT us.  

Totally. Not. Worth. My. Time.

Buh-bye. Again.


----------



## billc

An unlawful enemy combatant trumps citizenship. If he is fighting with the terrorists against us, in a foreign country he is fair game.  If he was caught here in the states, he would be protected by the constitution for the most part.  Yeah, you got me.  Let's pick some more nits shall we.


----------



## billc

I'll clarify the foreign national part as well.  If a british citizen commits a crime under the U.S. criminal code here in the states, I would not waterboard him.  If he commits an act of terrorism in the continental U.S. I would not water board him.  If he is fighting overseas as an unlawful enemy combatant, I would waterboard him, if he is determined by the C.I.A. and the intelligence community to need to be waterboarded.

Oh, if you want to call that other guy a traitor, I'll go with that.  Then we can execute him after we put him through a military tribunal, if he is found guilty.


----------



## billc

You know, its the "unlawful enemy combatant, fighting overseas," that is really the determinant in my water boarding list.  It should be fairly obvious, if it isn't I hope that clarifies my position even more.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Luckyboxer, they don't want to understand how the C.I.A. actually used waterboarding to get the information. They call it torture as if it has anything in common with pincers, and pliers and batteries connected to sensitive parts of the anatomy. It is not even close. If they would read "Courting Disaster," or the book "Master Mind," they would understand the process of information gathering that was used. They waterboarded KSM three times. He broke, and decided that he had had enough. He then went on to conduct lectures for intelligence analysts on the al queda network, their leadership, their financing, how they moved people around the world, he told them everything. Before he was waterboarded he didn't tell them anything. He was also ready for the water boarding through his terrorist training. When they were pouring the water on him, he knew exactly how long they could pour the water and would show them he was counting the seconds on his fingers.
> 
> I was listening to Dennis Miller today at work. He made the point that if you knew one of these jerks had knowledge of a bomb attack, and you didn't waterboard him, that would be the immoral act. To let innocent people die, when a non-lethal, safe, and mild form of coercian will get the information you need would be wrong.
> 
> The people on the other side of the argument throw out the word torture in order to silence the argument. Torture brings to mind intense pain, long term damage, and physical injury, and is nothing like the water boarding the C.I.A. used. Oliver North was on the radio show I listen to in the morning, Don And Roma out of chicago, he said he has been waterboarded 3 times, and when he was an instructor at S.E.R.E. he waterboarded trainees. He has no problem with using it. Of course a british writer, an older british writer, and a shock jock know more than a S.E.R.E instructor.


 

 Do you want to write that again but just a bit more patronising?
I'm sorry I just have to laugh otherwise I think I'd probably cry at your naivety. You of course have personal experience of nearly forty years dealing with terrorists suspects, have a huge amount of experience in interrogation techniques both 'soft' and 'hard' so can say for sure that this torture is the best way to make someone tell you the truth. Again taking out the moral aspects you really do believe don't you that waterboarding is a useful way to collect intel, dear me, it must be so your media darlings are telling you that it is.

If I knew someone had vital infomation and I could save thousands of lives I still wouldn't waterboard them because I know, yes, know that it isn't the fastest or the most efficient way of gaining that information, it's crude and done more for the enjoyment of those watching or for revenge. There's faster more reliable ways to make someone talk and make sure it's reliable information, ways certainly that would be classed as immoral but as I said taking the moral aspect out of it waterboarding is still not a useful tool in an interrogator's box.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> I'll clarify the foreign national part as well. If a british citizen commits a crime under the U.S. criminal code here in the states, I would not waterboard him. If he commits an act of terrorism in the continental U.S. I would not water board him. If he is fighting overseas as an unlawful enemy combatant, I would waterboard him, if he is determined by the C.I.A. and the intelligence community to need to be waterboarded.
> 
> Oh, if you want to call that other guy a traitor, I'll go with that. Then we can execute him after we put him through a military tribunal, if he is found guilty.


 

You have British detainees in Gitmo, I can even give you their names and they are being abused ands tortured.

All the names of the detainees have been put on Wikileaks btw along with more secret filesfrom Gitmo.
http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/


----------



## Bob Hubbard

See, secret interrogation places are Goodthink if done by the US. Badthink if done bay -anyone else-.
Like having nukes. Only the people we like are supposed to have them, because everyone else are bad.
But don't worry, they must be guilty as the US doesn't make mistakes and accidentally do things like say, kidnap a Canadian ship him to our Syrian buddies who spend some 'quality enhanced interrogation time' with him before releasing him months later with out explanation or apology. Nope. Never happened.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Tez3 said:


> You have British detainees in Gitmo, I can even give you their names and they are being abused ands tortured.
> 
> All the names of the detainees have been put on Wikileaks btw along with more secret filesfrom Gitmo.
> http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/


But see, they weren't fighting under a British flag, so that makes them 'unlawful'.
Because of course 'mercenary' doesn't apply.

See


> With the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan some lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and in the office of White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the War on Terrorism. This applied not only to members of al Qa'ida but the entire Taliban, because, they argued, Afghanistan was a "failed state.



So, in order to get around the various GC's all you have to do is have a lawyer declare your country a 'failed state' and bam!  instant excuse to torture at whim.


----------



## Tez3

Bob Hubbard said:


> But see, they weren't fighting under a British flag, so that makes them 'unlawful'.
> Because of course 'mercenary' doesn't apply.
> 
> See
> 
> 
> So, in order to get around the various GC's all you have to do is have a lawyer declare your country a 'failed state' and bam! instant excuse to torture at whim.


 
That's *if *they were fighting, some just went back to Pakistan to visit families, go to funerals, get married etc. It's common here for Asians to go back to marry,it causes an immigration issue but isn't illegal. We have a lot of first generation immigrants whose families are still in their country of origin so naturally they go back and forward on visits.
That's not to say there aren't potential and real terrorists out there but the chances of you finding them in poor countries when you offer a bounty is very slight. What you get is poor people dobbing neighbours etc in that they have had disagreements with, don't like or are jealous of. Informers get rich by their terms and we end up with innocent victims who we have to say are terrorists to save face. Hardly satisfactory or good security.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

But when you need to keep fear in the public eye and justify huge payouts to companies owned by friends of yours for things like 'rebuilding' and 'reconstruction', that's hard to do without every so often announcing you've captured 'another' terrorist.

Of course, the US would never do such a thing.
Mistake an innocent for a terrorist, or make an arrest just to snag some headline space. 

Because of course the US and international intelligence community has a terrific track record on gathering accurate, reliable and current intel.  That's why they found those WMD in Iraq, and saved those Buddha's in Afghanistan.


----------



## yorkshirelad

shesulsa said:


> You know, I took you off ignore because this topic was important.  I've read your comments and Bob Hubbard's responses and I am convinced now more than ever that you seriously just type ****.
> 
> You don't read other people's posts.  It's not even a discussion with you, you're talking AT us.
> 
> Totally. Not. Worth. My. Time.
> 
> Buh-bye. Again.


 
Someone's tired!! That ignore button must be worn out by now.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Kids, take the personal digs elsewhere.
Note I did not say 'please'.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> If I knew someone had vital infomation and I could save thousands of lives I still wouldn't waterboard them because I know, yes, know that it isn't the fastest or the most efficient way of gaining that information, it's crude and done more for the enjoyment of those watching or for revenge. .


 

Really, so this Brits don't torture? Hmm, if waterboarding is considered mental torture, what about telling someone if they don't talk, you'll kill their family. Is that torture? What about kicking the guy's head in. Is that torture? You'll probably deny it. Or tell us something about your James Bond adventures!What about Brits been held in Guantanamo without trial? Is it wrong Irene? Everyone out there, did you know that from 1971 to 1998 over 12000 irishmen have been held, many without trial? What was their crime? Being a Republican. HM prison Maze is probably one of the most notorious institututions of Irish internment, but Irene is ok with thousands of the Irish being dragged out of their beds in the dead of night by what was then the RUC and British soldiers and held without trial, but Guantanamo is a no no. Oh the hypocrisy!


----------



## Big Don

"Obama killed Osama and we get 72 versions."


----------



## Tez3

One day some people will actually read what I've written not what they think I've written. I have no time for supporters of the PIRA who hate the UK.... the English and the Scots in particular. Remember the PIRA trained with both the PLO and the Libyans. 
I know what Yorkshirelads agenda is as he's proved, he's a PIRA/Provo sympathiser who hates the British and the British security forces in particular hence the personal attacks and the yet again twisting of words. Read what you selectively quoted I said very carefully, I said water boarding is inefficent in gaining reliable intel, there are far better methods which are considered immmoral and illegal but work much better.

It's still the RUC and they are brave hard working _police officers_, one of whom was blown up by your lot a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> In 2003, the CIA captured Mohammed, the  group's operational leader. Mohammed was interrogated using what the  agency called "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as sleep  deprivation and the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.  Months after being waterboarded, Mohammed acknowledged knowing  al-Kuwaiti, former officials say.
> 
> ...Mohammed acknowledged knowing al-Kuwaiti  after being waterboarded, but he also denied he was an Al Qaeda figure  or of any importance. It was a lie, much like the stories Mohammed said  he made up about where bin Laden was hiding. Even after the CIA deemed  him "compliant," Mohammed never gave up al-Kuwaiti's real name or his  location, or acknowledged al-Kuwaiti's importance in the terrorist  network.





> Al-Libi was not waterboarded. But he did get  the full range of enhanced interrogation, including intense sleep  deprivation, former officials recalled. Despite those efforts, al-Libi  adamantly denied knowing al-Kuwaiti. He acknowledged meeting with an  important courier, but he provided a fake name.
> 
> 
> Both he and Mohammed withheld or fabricated  information, even after the agency's toughest interrogations. That gave  credence to what many longtime interrogators have maintained, that  increasingly harsh questioning produces information but not necessarily  reliable information.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/07/bin-laden-death-reignites-debate-cia-tactics/


Sounds like good old fashioned detective work was what did it as the torture generated a mix of accurate/inaccurate information which needed to be vetted through other sources to filter out the 'tell you what you want to know to make it stop' lies.

I know, I know, read the discredited book by the apologist whose also been debunked, but take it as fact.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> One day some people will actually read what I've written not what they think I've written. I have no time for supporters of the PIRA who hate the UK.... the English and the Scots in particular. Remember the PIRA trained with both the PLO and the Libyans.
> 
> .


I don't blame you for having no time for them, but British security forces have tortured them, and held them without trial and you seem to be ok with that, but not with Guantanamo....Interesting!You keep claiming that I am a provo supporter. I know you are angry and can't help the personal attacks, but I am no more of a supporter of the Provos as you are a supporter of al Qaeda. You have a habit of lambasting the US for crimes that the Brits have be perpetrating for years. My posts are to point out your hypocrisy, not to support any faction of the IRA. Btw, I thought the RUC were now the PSNI incorporating the RUC, but I could be wrong!


----------



## billc

Where were the british nationals captured...on a foreign battlefield fighting as unlawful combatants?


----------



## billc

The process to get to gitmo is quite extensive and we have been reviewing cases yearly.  That is why we see about a quarter of these guys, the innocent sheep herders, back on the battlefield killing our people.  There are numerous checks on who gets sent to gitmo, and if it is found later that someone shouldn't be there, they are released.  Is it perfect, of course not, but tell me a better system in the context of fighting a group of people who can't just be "sent Home" after the war, like after world war 2.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

What about the ones 'released' about 100 miles off shore from 50' in the air Bill?


----------



## Tez3

yorkshirelad said:


> I don't blame you for having no time for them, but British security forces have tortured them, and held them without trial and you seem to be ok with that, but not with Guantanamo....Interesting!You keep claiming that I am a provo supporter. I know you are angry and can't help the personal attacks, but I am no more of a supporter of the Provos as you are a supporter of al Qaeda. You have a habit of lambasting the US for crimes that the Brits have be perpetrating for years. My posts are to point out your hypocrisy, not to support any faction of the IRA. Btw, I thought the RUC were now the PSNI incorporating the RUC, but I could be wrong!


 
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
I am not angry in the least, tired of you twisting my words though and the personal attacks you make on me that have been noted by others so is hardly my imagination.

I haven't lambasted the US at all you just haven't read my posts correctly.
I said that if different stories keep coming out about the raid there could be difficulties, even Billcihak sees that! I said that it needs sorting, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world says but I imagine the American public will tire of being told different things every time there's a press statement.

I've said that torture like waterboarding doesn't work regardless of how people feel about it. I've said we should note the word *should* be in the right when we do things, we *should*, that word again be morally correct. I didn't say we were, I didn't say the UK was and the USA wasn't. I said *WE* should btw way not you. It's how you read it. You chose only to read part of what I wrote as I don't believe in torture instead of my saying waterboarding doesn't work, you deliberately missed that part out  in your quote.

I haven't said Osama shouldn't have been killed, I did say I supported going after the Munich Olympics killers and I support going after Nazi war criminals even though many of you said it was wrong. I did say however that killing him may open a door that we can't close.

I did say that if you choose interfere in other countries affairs you have to take what comes, which is common sense and not a rabid criticism of America. 

I have no habit of criticising America unlike your one of saying the UK sucks at every opportunity and how Dublin was great and America greater.

How about you now prove that Paras beat up pregnant women  and the Provos are all innocent of any cruelty? They of course don't torture, Robert Nairac beat himself up I suppose. they don't kneecap 'informers', they don't make people disappear. No it's only the British who are to blame for everything. As you can't get at the British you think you'll use me as your whipping horse instead. Crack on, I have broad shoulders and am only amused by gormless behaviour not angered. 

Your posts continously show all the hallmarks of a British hating republican sympathiser. why else the hate and the twisting what I say to make it seem as if I am anti American? all that hate for the British security forces who at least support the Americans in their fight against a common enemy. I think your snide remarks about me, personal ones and in case any don't get the message the use of my given name as opposed to my username just to make sure it's really personal.

For the record any one taken for interrogation in Northern Ireland was arrested, cautioned and held in prison. They were sent for trial, if found guilty they'd be sentenced, if not and there were some who were found innocent they were released. Yes, there were wrongful arrests and there were miscarriages of justice but even they got sorted. As squaddies say '**** happens in war' but we can try to make things better when we cock up. No ones perfect, no countries perfect but the first thing would be to read what's actually written rather than reading into posts what you see in your head.

The Troubles have been going on for centuries to attempt to equate it with Bin Laden's death is almost comical. for the record too, we drank a toast to the Navy SEALS and to the death of a terrorists. Don't forget the same troops you accuse of torturing people are the ones fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

It's a funny thing....

Guys kid is kidnapped. raped. murdered. He finds the killer. Kills the killer.
Many would say 'killer got what was coming' and 'good'. 
I don't think I'd disagree.
But, you're piling on the wrongs.
The father, in the end, is also guilty of breaking the law.
Lots of circumstances there.

I'm not disagreeing that Bin Ladens death is bad. Not in the least.
Not saying the guys who went in, at great risk, were in the wrong.
I'm not even going to say that shooting the SOB on site was wrong.
I'm not going to say that any pain inflicted on the masterminds of 9/11 is unjustified.

My whole position is a simple one: 
Evil tortures. The Bad Guys torture.
We're supposed to be the good guys here.
We're not supposed to do the things the bad guys do.
Stalin had secret prisons. So did Sadamn. So did Quadafi. So did a lot of those guys we list as 'Bad Guys".
So, what are we, if we have the same things?
Do the same things? Use the same methods?

My argument is on the legal aspects, the moral aspects, the "we're supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard".

US troops aren't supposed to be given viagra in their rations and told 'Have at em boys, whatever you catch you can ****." which is reported to be happening in Libya with loyalist troops, and has happened in several African nations civil wars. 
British troops aren't supposed to strip the battlefield dead of their wallets, loot the captured camp, and chop off fingers as trophies, all actions done in other conflicts by soldiers from the 'bad guys' armies.
Canadian troops aren't supposed to dig pits, line them with sharp sticks covered in crap like the Vietcong did.
That whole, 'good guys' thing.
Allied troops in WW2 were supposed to treat their POW's well, not herd them into a field and mow them down with machine gun fire like an SS unit did....however watch some WWII documentaries and you'll now hear differently.
But we're the good guys....right?

What makes us the good guys, and them the bad guys, if we do the same evil things?
My point. 
Bill and I can go back and forth trading dueling authors.
Tez, you and YL can go back and forth over the IRA. 


At the end of the day, it's all forum banter.  The terrorists are still out there, were still at war, and we've still lost a bit of what we were before this all started. 
I miss 2000.

But, Osama is dead, and for a moment, I can say, Good.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
> *I am not angry in the least*, tired of you twisting my words though and the personal attacks you make on me that have been noted by others so is hardly my imagination..


 
Pull the other one Irene, it's got bells on it!

_.[/quote]I haven't lambasted the US at all you just haven't read my posts correctly._
_I said that if different stories keep coming out about the raid there could be difficulties, even Billcihak sees that! I said that it needs sorting, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world says but I imagine the American public will tire of being told different things every time there's a press statement..[/quote]_

Correct! Obama did the right thing in snding in the SEALs! Whatever miscommunications happened or keep happening the facts don't change that the bastard is dead, and good riddens!

_.[/quote]I've said that torture like waterboarding doesn't work regardless of how people feel about it. I've said we should note the word *should* be in the right when we do things, we *should*, that word again be morally correct. I didn't say we were, I didn't say the UK was and the USA wasn't. I said *WE* should btw way not you. It's how you read it. You chose only to read part of what I wrote as I don't believe in torture instead of my saying *waterboarding doesn't work*, you deliberately missed that part out in your quote..[/quote]_

Tell that to Leon Panetta!

_.[/quote]I haven't said Osama shouldn't have been killed, I did say I supported going after the Munich Olympics killers and I support going after Nazi war criminals* even though many of you said it was wrong*. I did say however that killing him may open a door that we can't close..[/quote]_

Many may have said it was wrong, but not I. The door has already been opened Irene, nothing's gonna close it. Radical Islamists, Christians, Sikh, Pagans and Scientologists that choose to kill to spread their ideology have to be taken out, period!

_.[/quote]I did say that if *you* choose interfere in other countries affairs you have to take what comes, which is common sense and not a rabid criticism of America. .[/quote]_

We interfere because no one else can or will. It's a pitty the Brits didn't follow the advise you're giving before interfering with; the Middle East, Africa, America, Australia and Ireland.

_.[/quote]I have no habit of criticising America unlike your one of saying the UK sucks at every opportunity and how Dublin was great and America greater..[/quote]_

I think the UK sucks for general reasons; the food, weather, women, entitlement society.

_.[/quote]How about you now prove that Paras beat up pregnant women and the Provos are all innocent of any cruelty? They of course don't torture, Robert Nairac beat himself up I suppose. they don't kneecap 'informers', they don't make people disappear. No it's only the British who are to blame for everything. As you can't get at the British you think you'll use me as your whipping horse instead. Crack on, I have broad shoulders and am only amused by *gormless behaviour* not angered. .[/quote]_

More personal attacks Irene, dang your angry! Yes, your right, the Provos are a vicious group of bastard. They do all the above and more. Paint stripper has been a preferred tool of the Provos for years. Nairac, by all accounts was a good guy, a handy boxer. The guy got a raw deal!


_.[/quote]*Your posts continously show all the hallmarks of a British hating republican sympathiser.* why else the hate and the twisting what I say to make it seem as if I am anti American? all that hate for the British security forces who at least support the Americans in their fight against a common enemy. I think your snide remarks about me, personal ones and in case any don't get the message the use of my given name as opposed to my username just to make sure it's really personal..[/quote]_

No Irene, my posts show honesty! I have no problems dragging some terrorist bastard out of his bed in the dead of night and kicking the crap out of him,* if I think it will save lives.* What the Brits do with Irish Republican terrorists is ok with me. But don't for one second call the US on war crimes when your people have been doing it for centuries. At least I'm consistant Irene. I don't care what happens to al qaeda terrorists or suspected terrorists. On the other hand, I don't give a toss what happens to Provo terorists. They reap what they sow!

_.[/quote]*For the record any one taken for interrogation in Northern Ireland was arrested, cautioned and held in prison. They were sent for trial, if found guilty they'd be sentenced,* if not and there were some who were found innocent they were released. Yes, there were wrongful arrests and there were miscarriages of justice but even they got sorted. As squaddies say '**** happens in war' but we can try to make things better when we cock up. No ones perfect, no countries perfect but the first thing would be to read what's actually written rather than reading into posts what you see in your head..[/quote]_

So Irish internment never happened then Irene! Wow!

_.[/quote]The Troubles have been going on for centuries to attempt to equate it with Bin Laden's death is almost comical. for the record too, we drank a toast to the Navy SEALS and to the death of a terrorists. Don't forget the same troops you accuse of torturing people are the ones fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.[/quote]_

You don't want to equate the IRA with al qaeda. As far as I'm concerned a terrorist is a terrorist....Oh, I get it, you don't want to equate the treatment of al qaeda suspects by the US with the treatment of IRA suspects by the British. Well people, the IRA were treated far more severely by the Brits, than detainess are treated in Guantanamo.


----------



## Tez3

I agree with you Bob but when I say what you say I get called a hypocrite and get personal remarks made and yes I've taken the proper procedures provided for when that happens. For some it's not an internet debate it's turning into a hate campaign. 
Yes, I'm glad Osamas dead but I am also concerned we do the right thing as moral people. 

Perhaps the difference between us and the bad guys is that we try to do our best and to be moral. Like all humans, we don't always make it and there's always going to be bad apples but the intention is there to do the right thing, to do what we know is right. We do try to discipline our people when they do wrong, we do try to investigate the bad things done in our name, we try and in the end that's all anyone can do.


----------



## yorkshirelad

bob hubbard said:


> at the end of the day, it's all forum banter. The terrorists are still out there, were still at war, and we've still lost a bit of what we were before this all started.
> I miss 2000.
> 
> But, osama is dead, and for a moment, i can say, good.


 
qtf!!


----------



## Tez3

[ 
Stop using my name, I haven't said you can. No I'm not angry, again you think you can bulldoze your answers to make me out to be something I'm not.

You are now answering my posts in such a way that proves what I said wasn't criticising America. 

You seem still determined to push the Provo point of view though, Internment now. Now I'm not supposed to mention what America does in Gitmo but it's fine for you to bring up Internment, not very hypocritical that is it? You need to prove btw that the internees were treated worse than the detainees in Gitmo not just state it as if it were a fact.

I wasn't offerring any advice btw when I said that countries who interfere in others business etc, just pointing out what is common sense, show me where the advice is.

Where was I getting personal? gormless behaviour, my did the cap fit even though I didn't say it was your behaviour? Your behaviour isn't gormless it's spiteful. Calm down dear, (that's not patronising, our Prime Minister says in in Parliament) goad away and keep trying to attribute things to me, it means you are leaving others alone. You want to discuss Northern Ireland, start a new thread, don't derail this one.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*I'm making this statement so it's in the clear.

Tez has requested, on several occasions, to not be addressed by her given name.

Please cease doing so. Continuation will be seen as harassment, which is a violation of our policies.  No need to acknowledge. Just do it.
Thank you.*


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's a funny thing....
> 
> Guys kid is kidnapped. raped. murdered. He finds the killer. Kills the killer.
> Many would say 'killer got what was coming' and 'good'.
> I don't think I'd disagree.
> But, you're piling on the wrongs.
> The father, in the end, is also guilty of breaking the law.
> Lots of circumstances there.


 
some laws are worth breaking. I would not only kill the man that did that, I would end his line, erase him and his from history, but then I come from a different cloth then most folks. If you mess with my family, I pull out all the stops, and Its midevil time. You may want to look at other examples.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

LuckyKBoxer said:


> some laws are worth breaking. I would not only kill the man that did that, I would end his line, erase him and his from history, but then I come from a different cloth then most folks. If you mess with my family, I pull out all the stops, and Its midevil time. You may want to look at other examples.


No, it's a good example.
There is legal, and there is right.
There is legal, and there is justice.

The laws aren't necessarily right nor just, but, they are the law.
That's my point there.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Bob Hubbard said:


> My whole position is a simple one:
> Evil tortures. The Bad Guys torture.
> We're supposed to be the good guys here.
> We're not supposed to do the things the bad guys do.
> Stalin had secret prisons. So did Sadamn. So did Quadafi. So did a lot of those guys we list as 'Bad Guys".
> So, what are we, if we have the same things?
> Do the same things? Use the same methods?
> 
> My argument is on the legal aspects, the moral aspects, the "we're supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard".
> 
> US troops aren't supposed to be given viagra in their rations and told 'Have at em boys, whatever you catch you can ****." which is reported to be happening in Libya with loyalist troops, and has happened in several African nations civil wars.
> British troops aren't supposed to strip the battlefield dead of their wallets, loot the captured camp, and chop off fingers as trophies, all actions done in other conflicts by soldiers from the 'bad guys' armies.
> Canadian troops aren't supposed to dig pits, line them with sharp sticks covered in crap like the Vietcong did.
> That whole, 'good guys' thing.
> Allied troops in WW2 were supposed to treat their POW's well, not herd them into a field and mow them down with machine gun fire like an SS unit did....however watch some WWII documentaries and you'll now hear differently.
> But we're the good guys....right?
> 
> What makes us the good guys, and them the bad guys, if we do the same evil things?
> My point.


 
I don't look at it as good versus evil.
I have no interest in being the good guys.
I want to enjoy our way of life.
I want to offer that way of life to those who would embrace it and enjoy it as well.
I want to end those that seek to end my way of life.
no good or evil in it.
just them versus us.
Of course most of us would call it good versus evil, I am sure they think they are good and we are evil, so that is subjective.
It is not about good versus evil.


----------



## jks9199

Bob Hubbard said:


> Kids, take the personal digs elsewhere.
> Note I did not say 'please'.


In case the point was missed:

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.* *Personal attacks, shots and sniping will not be tolerated further.  Disregard this warning at your peril.

jks9199
Super Moderator
*


----------



## CanuckMA

billcihak said:


> But if you support using national socialist medical experiments on living patient discoveries then you must support just doing medical experimentation in general to get even more knowledge, hence, that would make you just as guilty and bad. See how that works. It would help if people actually described what the C.I.A. did and what real torture looks like.


 
There is a world of difference.

Most of my family died in the camps. Words alone cannot do justice at how I feel about the Nazis. The rest of the world was not complicit to what was done by Mengele. It pains me to no end, but it was done. We came in possession of those medical records. To ignore them would have been an even greater offence to the memory of thos ewho suffered.

That the US is COMPLICIT in the use of torture is what taints the information obtained, if any.

KSM was waterboarded 183 times. He may or may not have mentioned the courier. The last time was 7 years ago. OBL is believed to have been living in that house for the last 5 years. It takes a mighty stretch of the imagination to make the connection between the torture of KSM and the assassination of OBL.


----------



## Twin Fist

as it was put the other night on the news, the waterboarding? it didnt produce this information.

it produced co-operation, which produced this information

no one can argue that, cuz it is true.

here is how it worked.

he would say NOTHING, till he was boarded.

then he would say EVERYTHING

it cracked him, and broke his WILL

after that, he never had to be boarded again, not for the last 7 years cuz NOW he co-operates.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> Stop using my name, I haven't said you can. No I'm not angry, again you think you can bulldoze your answers to make me out to be something I'm not..


 
I apologize Tez or do you prefer Mrs. Tez?



Tez3 said:


> You seem still determined to push the Provo point of view though, Internment now. *Now I'm not supposed to mention what America does in Gitmo but it's fine for you to bring up Internment*, not very hypocritical that is it? You need to prove btw that the internees were treated worse than the detainees in Gitmo not just state it as if it were a fact..


 
No Tez, you can mention Gitmo all you want. To tell you the truth, I couldn't care less what you do with the Provos. In the same instance, I don't care about Islamic terrorists either. I don't care that they're in Gitmo and I don't care how Irish Catholic terrorists are treated. I have family that have lived in Tyrone for generations and the effects of the Omagh bombing in August of 98 are still causing great pain. What I find interesting and hypocritical is that you have the gaul to preach to us about the ramifications of our policies yet your government have been at similar business for years. What do you have t say about that? Are the Brits out of order for what they've done in the North....actually in the whole of Ireland? Black and Tans mean anything to you?
Now, I said this so many times in the past that it's becoming a mantra....I don't care if you are a Islamic, Christian, Pagan, buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, or Scientologist terrorist. If you kill and maim innocent people for the peupose of forwarding your religious, or any other ideology for that matter, you should be hunted and dispatched like the dog you are. If you are going to engage the most powerful nation on Earth, kill soldiers and civilian contractors, with no recognizable uniform, in a foreign land, don't expect to be treated like a US citizen, or with Geneva Convention protections. You gave up that right when you became a terrorist!



Tez3 said:


> *I wasn't offerring any advice* btw when I said that countries who interfere in others business etc, *just pointing out what is common sense*, show me where the advice is..


 
There's a bit of a contradiction there Tez! "Just pointing out what is common sense" is offering advice!


Tez3 said:


> *Where was I getting personal*? gormless behaviour, my did the cap fit even though I didn't say it was your behaviour? Your behaviour isn't gormless *it's spiteful*. Calm down dear, (that's not patronising, our Prime Minister says in in Parliament) goad away and keep trying to attribute things to me, it means you are leaving others alone. You want to discuss Northern Ireland, start a new thread, don't derail this one.


 
I think the above post shows quite well where you're getting personal. Although I've been called gormless so many times by my Mum that I now consider it a term of endearment. I know you're angry and upset, but as Bob said this is only a forum. The northern Ireland issue and Gitmo have a correlation. It isn't my intention to derail the thread. It is my intention to show how hypocritical you are. Now, Tez, was it wrong of your government to intern hundred of Irishmen without being charged, without a trial, with no representation, with the only reason being that they were Irish Catholics loyal to a free state? And please don't say it never happened.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Bob Hubbard said:


> *I'm making this statement so it's in the clear.*
> 
> *Tez has requested, on several occasions, to not be addressed by her given name.*
> 
> *Please cease doing so. Continuation will be seen as harassment, which is a violation of our policies. No need to acknowledge. Just do it.*
> *Thank you.*


I am only aware of one time. I don't know where the "several occasions" were!


----------



## Empty Hands

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I would not only kill the man that did that, I would end his line, erase him and his from history, but then I come from a different cloth then most folks.



You would murder innocent children because their father killed one of yours?

That's a different cloth all right, but not one to be proud of.

A perfect illustration of why we have the laws we do.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Empty Hands said:


> You would murder innocent children because their father killed one of yours?
> 
> That's a different cloth all right, but not one to be proud of.
> 
> A perfect illustration of why we have the laws we do.


 
I decided long ago you are not worth talking to. Make whatever you want of it, I could care less what you think, you are going to make a mountain out of a molehill and try to villify anyone who is not you or like you anyways.


----------



## shesulsa

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I decided long ago you are not worth talking to. Make whatever you want of it, I could care less what you think, you are going to make a mountain out of a molehill and try to villify anyone who is not you or like you anyways.



Mmmm.  Nah.  Nope.  Killing the innocent as an act of revenge pretty much makes you what you are. And you know what you are.

You're the one who built that mountain. B8tching about someone calling it what it is makes it ... your fault.


----------



## yorkshirelad

shesulsa said:


> Mmmm. Nah. Nope. Killing the innocent as an act of revenge pretty much makes you what you are. And you know what you are.
> 
> You're the one who built that mountain. B8tching about someone calling it what it is makes it ... your fault.


 
What about killing the innocent, as a matter of convenience to the Mother. That seems pretty evil to me!


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

shesulsa said:


> Mmmm. Nah. Nope. Killing the innocent as an act of revenge pretty much makes you what you are. And you know what you are.
> 
> You're the one who built that mountain. B8tching about someone calling it what it is makes it ... your fault.


 
ya you are your buddies are the ones talking about killing innocents, and setting a picture of extreme circumstances, not me... you and the rest of your demented types can choke on your accusations, assumptions, and misconceptions. I could care less. LEts make it clear though, that it its you and your types using the words, and setting the scenarios you are discussing not me. You can choose to be demented as you want, but don't include me in your deliusions.


----------



## MJS

Admin Note

Due to numerous reported posts and people not capable of following the rules, this thread is closed.


----------

