Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Double dog dare ya' to answer: if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, would you have acquiesced to the enhanced interrogations?
That's the typical demand (usually posted in the form of a "ticking time bomb" and it is an unanswerable question because in real life (not hypothetical scenarios) - it isn't that clear cut at all.
It's been shown that torture isn't usually necessary to gain good information (Secret WWII camp interrogators say torture wasn t needed - CBS News nor does torture gain useful or accurate information. So if I choose to employ torture on an individual who might (or might not) have knowledge that could help save those children I *might* get useful information but - more likely, given what we've found about torture - I *might not*. In that case - valuable time and resources could be lost chasing a phantom and the children could end up dead anyway.
No I would not since there are other means at my disposal.
Stop tap-dancing: yes or no.
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, would you have acquiesced to the enhanced interrogations?
Read my last line - the answer is right there in English.
Now, here is my question and it's a more honest question:
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?
For starters that no useful intelligence was attained, which, like your posts, is BS.Bull shit. It was highly partisan because it was. Stop with the ding bat stuff. You don't even know enough to know you don't know anything.While many regret the internment of Japanese-Americans, most do not seem to be sorry for the interrogation techniques used on people like KSM. This is the guy's testimony, "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew,"
Sorry, your equivalency is BS.
Many regret it NOW - years after the fact. How long did it take to even grant the reparations? "Regret" is easy, long after the deed when rationality takes over isn't it? And there are still people who justify it even now.
KSM was only one person. Many of those tortured were of dubious value who may or may not have done anything worth torturing. And even then - no useful informatioin was gained. So what's the real purpose of the torture? Punative?
KSM was only one person? Didn't we already have a short chat about grasping the obvious and spewing platitudes?
When you seem incapable of grasping the obvious, it's a useful technique. Also...having a hissy fit over it certainly allows you to ignore what was said.
As for the rest, how the hell do you know these things? Based on a highly partisan report which has the legitimacy of a Rolling Stone article and has been roundly disavowed by all in the actual intelligence community?
Is it highly partisan simply because it disagrees with your view point? Specifically - what was wrong in the report? The fact that people died? The fact that there was little to no accountability? The fact that some of the prisoners were never charged with anything or found to have done anything wrong?
If I need a conscience or feel like self-flagellating, I'll let you know. In the meantime I call BS once again.
Your conscience or...physical desires...have nothing to do with me. That's your business.
Three "know"s in one sentence. Pretty impressive, huh?
Yeah, it can be called torture, but who cares? It damn well worked!
Ok. You're good at the name calling but weak on substance.
What did the report present that was wrong?
"What we take pride in is overcoming the shit Clinton did to give us 9/11"
...and Bull once again starts up the tilt-a-wheel. Take your Dramamine, folks!
For starters that no useful intelligence was attained, which, like your posts, is BS.Bull shit. It was highly partisan because it was. Stop with the ding bat stuff. You don't even know enough to know you don't know anything.Many regret it NOW - years after the fact. How long did it take to even grant the reparations? "Regret" is easy, long after the deed when rationality takes over isn't it? And there are still people who justify it even now.
KSM was only one person. Many of those tortured were of dubious value who may or may not have done anything worth torturing. And even then - no useful informatioin was gained. So what's the real purpose of the torture? Punative?
KSM was only one person? Didn't we already have a short chat about grasping the obvious and spewing platitudes?
When you seem incapable of grasping the obvious, it's a useful technique. Also...having a hissy fit over it certainly allows you to ignore what was said.
As for the rest, how the hell do you know these things? Based on a highly partisan report which has the legitimacy of a Rolling Stone article and has been roundly disavowed by all in the actual intelligence community?
Is it highly partisan simply because it disagrees with your view point? Specifically - what was wrong in the report? The fact that people died? The fact that there was little to no accountability? The fact that some of the prisoners were never charged with anything or found to have done anything wrong?
If I need a conscience or feel like self-flagellating, I'll let you know. In the meantime I call BS once again.
Your conscience or...physical desires...have nothing to do with me. That's your business.
Three "know"s in one sentence. Pretty impressive, huh?
Yeah, it can be called torture, but who cares? It damn well worked!
Ok. You're good at the name calling but weak on substance.
What did the report present that was wrong?
"What we take pride in is overcoming the shit Clinton did to give us 9/11"
...and Bull once again starts up the tilt-a-wheel. Take your Dramamine, folks!
He had at least two chances to take bin-Laden into custody...and didn't...and had a chance to kill his ass...and didn't...
“And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,” Clinton is heard saying. “I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”
It takes a "real man" to lie about George Washington and shit all over the sacrifices of true patriots who gave their all to protect and preserve our ideals and principles - just because he's too scared to do anything other than try to protect his own shit-stained ass.
"What we take pride in is overcoming the shit Clinton did to give us 9/11"
...and Bull once again starts up the tilt-a-wheel. Take your Dramamine, folks!
He had at least two chances to take bin-Laden into custody...and didn't...and had a chance to kill his ass...and didn't...
“And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,” Clinton is heard saying. “I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”
You would have to ask the CIA directors who claimed there was, something the Democrat committee failed to do.For starters that no useful intelligence was attained, which, like your posts, is BS.Bull shit. It was highly partisan because it was. Stop with the ding bat stuff. You don't even know enough to know you don't know anything.KSM was only one person? Didn't we already have a short chat about grasping the obvious and spewing platitudes?
When you seem incapable of grasping the obvious, it's a useful technique. Also...having a hissy fit over it certainly allows you to ignore what was said.
As for the rest, how the hell do you know these things? Based on a highly partisan report which has the legitimacy of a Rolling Stone article and has been roundly disavowed by all in the actual intelligence community?
Is it highly partisan simply because it disagrees with your view point? Specifically - what was wrong in the report? The fact that people died? The fact that there was little to no accountability? The fact that some of the prisoners were never charged with anything or found to have done anything wrong?
If I need a conscience or feel like self-flagellating, I'll let you know. In the meantime I call BS once again.
Your conscience or...physical desires...have nothing to do with me. That's your business.
Three "know"s in one sentence. Pretty impressive, huh?
Yeah, it can be called torture, but who cares? It damn well worked!
Ok. You're good at the name calling but weak on substance.
What did the report present that was wrong?
What useful intelligence was gained that was not gained from other sources?
It takes a "real man" to lie about George Washington and shit all over the sacrifices of true patriots who gave their all to protect and preserve our ideals and principles - just because he's too scared to do anything other than try to protect his own shit-stained ass.
Problem with the above rant. NoFightInDog wants US to not only protect our own asses, but his too while NoFightInDog sleeps warm and cozy in its bed.
Oh, and protect the Dog while handcuffed.
This was all before 9/11. You do realize that don't you? You can't just go in bomb a village in a sovereign nation based on an event that had not happened and hadn't even been concieved of as possible.
It takes a "real man" to lie about George Washington and shit all over the sacrifices of true patriots who gave their all to protect and preserve our ideals and principles - just because he's too scared to do anything other than try to protect his own shit-stained ass.
Problem with the above rant. NoFightInDog wants US to not only protect our own asses, but his too while NoFightInDog sleeps warm and cozy in its bed.
Oh, and protect the Dog while handcuffed.
Done my time - your welcome you chickenshit pussy
Now clean out your diaper while REAL MEN protect your shit-stained ass without trading off America.
You would have to ask the CIA directors who claimed there was, something the Democrat committee failed to do.For starters that no useful intelligence was attained, which, like your posts, is BS.Bull shit. It was highly partisan because it was. Stop with the ding bat stuff. You don't even know enough to know you don't know anything.When you seem incapable of grasping the obvious, it's a useful technique. Also...having a hissy fit over it certainly allows you to ignore what was said.
Is it highly partisan simply because it disagrees with your view point? Specifically - what was wrong in the report? The fact that people died? The fact that there was little to no accountability? The fact that some of the prisoners were never charged with anything or found to have done anything wrong?
Your conscience or...physical desires...have nothing to do with me. That's your business.
Three "know"s in one sentence. Pretty impressive, huh?
Yeah, it can be called torture, but who cares? It damn well worked!
Ok. You're good at the name calling but weak on substance.
What did the report present that was wrong?
What useful intelligence was gained that was not gained from other sources?
You know, this is quickly becoming tiresome. While some posters seem to thrive on endless and ultimately pointless exchanges, I do not.
tell them the cops want their weapons because they are in fear and watch their faces as they slowly realize what they have been advocating for all this time
but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him.
tell them the cops want their weapons because they are in fear and watch their faces as they slowly realize what they have been advocating for all this time
Ummm, Ok
You're drunk pretty early in the day
...oh its the NSA spying debate all over again lol
Using tactics creating fear and pain have been implemented in getting information from a detainee for hundreds, if not thousands of years.Torture, or whatever you want to call it, "justified" by majority of Americans.
New poll finds majority of Americans believe torture justified after 9 11 attacks - The Washington Post
By an almost 2-1 margin, or 59-to-31 percent, those interviewed support the CIA’s brutal methods, with the vast majority of supporters saying they produced valuable intelligence.
Just goes to show how fragile our rights and liberties are that fear, not rationality, would allow us to justify torture. Saying they "believed" it produced "valuable intelligence" is not the same as actually producing "valuable intelligence".
Never trust your rights to public opinion because some day you might be on the wrong side of it.
