According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.


Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust & than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866

This is old news, reported months ago. So what's your point posting it here and now? Or are you posting things and then refraining from comment again?

It's reprehensible that a civilized nation is even debating wether to torture, much less brag about how long someone lasted.

News to me...thanks for posting! :)

This is old news, reported months ago. So what's your point posting it here and now? Or are you posting things and then refraining from comment again?

My point is to prompt discussion. Your point is to make personal attacks on me. You're a Republican. Instead of commenting on the contents of the article. You chose to question the credibility, and the motivations of the one that's posting it, instead of dealing with the contents of the article. This is getting old. And illustrates a severe lack of intelligence. Especially when you forfeit comments to attacking the messenger, instead of addressing the message. So forget the article, lets talk about ME :D

Now, wait a minute. I haven't lodged any personal attacks on this site against anyone. The same cannot be said about you. You're the person who just slagged me off in another thread. Now you're calling me a Republican, which I'm not (I've never voted Republican in my life).

So far as motives are concerned, I do question your motives. It's obvious to anyone that all the threads you start have some obvious things in common. I haven't been here that long, but even I can see that.

As for waterboarding, I could care less. What should we do with terrorists? Ask them to politely tell us their plans? I'm sure that will work...

It's even more reprehensible to me that anyone feels any kind of sympathy for a terrorist.

" He whom fights with monsters for too long, risks himself becoming a monster...He who stares too long into the abyss, has the abyss stare back into him."

It's even more reprehensible to me that anyone feels any kind of sympathy for a terrorist.

would you deny their humanity for down that path lies humanity's end for the denial of anyones humanity is to deny everyone's humanity so are you denying your humanity Sandy?

It's even more reprehensible to me that anyone feels any kind of sympathy for a terrorist.

Do you want the same organization responsible for the DMV to be able to torture someone? How many innocent people did they torture? I know they detained many innocent people, because many of them were released from Guantanimo.

There's a difference...they KNEW this guy was a terrorist. They KNEW it. They just needed him to break. And...they got him to! I love how people are getting all up in arms about the US prying a confession from a known terrorist, but nobody thinks about what this particular guy was responsible for...

Knowing what this guy has done, "Water Boarding" was too good for him.

Amen. These are the same people who saw people's heads off.:mad:

It's a dangerous precedent, and there is no indication they got useful intelligence. It's a fact that terrorist cells are arranged so that no one person knows everything about an operation.

There's a difference...they KNEW this guy was a terrorist. They KNEW it. They just needed him to break. And...they got him to! I love how people are getting all up in arms about the US prying a confession from a known terrorist, but nobody thinks about what this particular guy was responsible for...

Knowing what this guy has done, "Water Boarding" was too good for him.

Did he confess to Kennedy's murder too? That "confession" isn't worth anything. I wouldn't be surprised if he merely agreed to whatever they said so they would let him go.

Granted, but they wanted this guy to admit what they do know. And seeing as these guys are trained not to confess...we have to get the confession out of them somehow! Imagine we didn't use techniques like this with a known terrorist, and couldn't get him to confess? Without a confession, there is a very real possibility of him getting found innocent, despite his obvious guilt.

And why should we have to be so much less vicious than the terrorist groups? We must our hands be tied in our efforts against them? Don't think for a second that we are saints, because we aren't. And don't think for a second that our cause is so much more just than theirs, because it isn't. What this boils down to is that a terrorist group targeted and killed 3000 of our citizens, and we are trying to make them pay for it.

I'm not for the war in Iraq, and I'm not for President Bush. I think he's one step above a retard, and is only in office because of his name. I think he's used 9/11 to justify a war for profit, and I think he's cost many soldiers their lives needlessly. But torturing some terrorist is the least offensive act we've committed.

I'm not worried that the CIA will start torturing Americans. I'm not worried that if I get arrested, cops will start using the "belly slap" or the "Water Board" on me. But I won't shed a tear for some scumbag terrorist who swallowed some water. No way. Not when we know he's done far worse to us.

Revenge is a very natural part of our makeup. This war is based upon that, and it should be carried out as such. The ideal result of it would be a severe decrease in the capabilities of terrorist groups to execute attacks on our land and interests, but the purpose of this war was always to take an eye for an eye, and then some.

And a little torture isn't the worst thing we could do. Remember, when they take one of our people, they parade them around on camera, then cut their heads off. They do so knowing that their demands will not be met, while we conduct these interrogations to get some information.

I'm not worried that the CIA will start torturing Americans.
Maybe you should be. They can already hold you without a trial or charges, as long as the president calls you an "enemy combatant". Doesn't matter if you are a US citizen or not.

I'm not worried. Remember, we didn't bomb the World Trade Center, and usher in this super-sensitive policy, they did. And I'm not going to do anything that would make anyone think I was a "enemy combatant".

You people judge without seeing the details. You don't see the forest for the trees.

Our government is scared. Think about how easy it was for these terrorists to get visas, buy plane tickets, and fly airplanes into our buildings. They literally walked out of a crowd and killed 3000 people. Of course we're going to be hyper-careful when it comes to this. Eventually, we'll calm down, and some of these things will be relaxed. But right now, we are simply trying to prevent another 9/11 from happening, and we're doing so at almost all cost.

And honestly, the only way to completely prevent it from happening again is to have soldier with automatic weapons at every gate of every airport in the country. But until we're far enough removed from this to look at the situation objectively, and come up with sound strategies to drastically lessen the chances of major attacks happening on our soil, this is how it's going to be. And again, it will ease as time goes on.

I refuse to say that this is a precedent, because of the ever-changing leadership. Someone new will be our President eventually, and they will put a stop to it.

Did he confess to Kennedy's murder too? That "confession" isn't worth anything. I wouldn't be surprised if he merely agreed to whatever they said so they would let him go.

The confession is worth plenty. And why do they have to be confessions? Most likely, the CIA is trying to get information from these people. You know, trying to protect the nation? You have a right to disagree with it, but I can't see there being any other way to deal with those kinds of people. If they are willing to fly planes into buildings, killing themselves and others, why would they give away secrets to an American? They wouldn't, and not having the intelligence would jeopardize our safety.

Man, how do you think the authorities in Britain foiled that terrorist plot to blow up ten airplanes flying from the UK to the US? You think the terrorist just offered up the info? Hell no! They probably had to beat it out of him! And how many lives do you think that information saved? Oh, right, we can't worry about the lives of innocents, we need to worry about the comfort level of a fucking terrorist.

Do you want the same organization responsible for the DMV to be able to torture someone? How many innocent people did they torture?

When I travel down such a slippery slope as that, you always tell me how stupid I'm being. Yet, here you are, traveling down an even slipper-ier slope than I'd ever consider traveling. Why is that?

Baron Max

The confession is worth plenty. And why do they have to be confessions? Most likely, the CIA is trying to get information from these people. You know, trying to protect the nation? You have a right to disagree with it, but I can't see there being any other way to deal with those kinds of people. If they are willing to fly planes into buildings, killing themselves and others, why would they give away secrets to an American? They wouldn't, and not having the intelligence would jeopardize our safety.

Man, how do you think the authorities in Britain foiled that terrorist plot to blow up ten airplanes flying from the UK to the US? You think the terrorist just offered up the info? Hell no! They probably had to beat it out of him! And how many lives do you think that information saved? Oh, right, we can't worry about the lives of innocents, we need to worry about the comfort level of a fucking terrorist.

I think you'll find the British use their brains rather than their fists; which is why they are not a trillion dollars in debt and embroiled in an unwinnable war; also why they have managed to catch and foil the terrorists while the Americans have torture camps, worldwide condemnation and OBL still footloose and fancy free.

Maybe you should be. They can already hold you without a trial or charges, as long as the president calls you an "enemy combatant". Doesn't matter if you are a US citizen or not.

I'm not sure, but I think that's always been the case. I.e., if so, then it's been in affect for umpty-eleven years and nothing "bad" happened to any of us in that time.

Is this another slippery slope you're trying to get us to slide down?

Baron Max

I'm not worried. Remember, we didn't bomb the World Trade Center, and usher in this super-sensitive policy, they did.

They flew the planes into the WTC, but we had a nervous breakdown and let the Neo-Cons grab unconstitutional powers.

And I'm not going to do anything that would make anyone think I was a "enemy combatant".
That is a weak argument against tyranny. One Canadian citizen was grabbed by mistake and sent to a nation WE KNEW would torture him. They could get anyone by mistake.

Man, how do you think the authorities in Britain foiled that terrorist plot to blow up ten airplanes flying from the UK to the US?
Good police work.

I'm not sure, but I think that's always been the case. I.e., if so, then it's been in affect for umpty-eleven years and nothing "bad" happened to any of us in that time.

Is this another slippery slope you're trying to get us to slide down?

Baron Max

It is a slippery slope and all the more hypocritical given some conservative's rabid and highly selective support of the constitution.

They flew the planes into the WTC, but we had a nervous breakdown and let the Neo-Cons grab unconstitutional powers.

No, that wasn't a nervous breakdown. And we didn't "let" anyone take control, we demanded it.

They could get anyone by mistake.

Shit happens in an imperfect world.

Good police work.

Hard to have good police work in countries that won't let our police operate in, don't you think?

Baron Max

So there those who would deny their own humanity. I hope that one day your treated as if you weren't human. perhaps then as you shriek at the inhuman tortures inflicted upon thee you shall look into to the depths of your mind and understand what it means to deny someone's humanity.

Amen.
Hypocrite.

I think you'll find the British use their brains rather than their fists;

Right. Which is why they used to control most of the globe. Yes, the Brits are far more level-headed, and far less violent. Which is also why they jumped in side-by-side with us into this war.

also why they have managed to catch and foil the terrorists while the Americans have torture camps, worldwide condemnation and OBL still footloose and fancy free.

I love how we just figure that everyone is better than us. Consider that the UK has worked hand-in-hand with the US for the entirety of this war, and have probably employed many of the same tactics we have. I would not put torture beyond them.

They're our partner in this whole thing, but they must be better than us, right?

Good police work.

As have we. But I'm sure they employ the same tactics we do. There's no reason to think otherwise.

They flew the planes into the WTC, but we had a nervous breakdown and let the Neo-Cons grab unconstitutional powers.

If there is a reason to have a nervous breakdown, I'd say that having 3000 civilians killed is a damn good one. But regardless, the conservatives are paying for their actions following 9/11. A republican will not win office in 2008, and the very next step in this Iraq campaign will be withdrawl. Don't worry, man, we're trying to fix it.

But again, torturing a terrorist isn't going to win you any sympathy votes with me. I may be hard-headed in my stance, but it is my stance. I say that your best bet is to get them as hard and fast as you can, and if you take down a few innocents along the way...oh well. Collateral damage is a part of any war.

Whats the exact legality of all this then, i mean obviously torture is utterally immoral - even a toddler could tell you that.
But how does it fit into the regulations and general law that the CIA have to opperate under, or is it just a case of see no evil hear no evil?

Whats the exact legality of all this then, i mean obviously torture is utterally immoral - even a toddler could tell you that.

Immoral? Geez, I think pickin' yer nose is immoral, too, but most people do it at one time or another. Immoral is just a word, nothing more, nothing less. Cutting off people's heads is immoral, I think, but some people do it, don't they?

Baron Max

Good police work. ”

As have we. But I'm sure they employ the same tactics we do. There's no reason to think otherwise. There is no reason to think our police work has been good, lately, and some reason to think otherwise.

They do not necessarily employ "the same tactics" we do, and in the instances of their effectiveness manifestly did not. They have been known to torture in other circumstances, when oppression rather than law enforcement was the object - agaisnt the IRA, for example.

Torture does work for some things. Terrorization, oppression, imposition of tyranny, etc. Anytime you don't really care whether the tortured person is guilty or not, and don't need to depend on the information you beat out of them, torture can be effective. In combination with secret and warrantless surveillance it is a standard tyrant's approach - it inculcates a climate of fear far beyond its actual application.

Torture is not helpful to good police work, because it's no good for getting information, and information is what good police work rides on.

Torture is a good way to get a trained terrorist to give up valuable information, however. But you refuse to see it, because you consider it immoral. And that's fine, but don't expect me to buy into your ideals simply because you do.

Torture WORKS for the purposes the CIA is using it for, and you can't argue that. There hasn't been another attack on American soil, has there?

Torture is a good way to get a trained terrorist to give up valuable information, however. But you refuse to see it, because you consider it immoral. And that's fine, but don't expect me to buy into your ideals simply because you do.

Torture WORKS for the purposes the CIA is using it for, and you can't argue that. There hasn't been another attack on American soil, has there?

torture has not worked for the purposes of the cia. and its immoral to treat someone as if they were nothing more the a lab animal

Torture is a good way to get a trained terrorist to give up valuable information, however. But you refuse to see it, because you consider it immoral. And that's fine, but don't expect me to buy into your ideals simply because you do.

Torture WORKS for the purposes the CIA is using it for, and you can't argue that. There hasn't been another attack on American soil, has there?

No merely going broke and downhill at top speed.

So busy looking at imaginary enemies, can't even tell when you're being robbed blind by the ones distracting you.:rolleyes:

...and its immoral to treat someone as if they were nothing more the a lab animal

You do the lab animals an injustice comparing them to terrorists! The lab animals are much nicer and are deserving of much better treatment.

Baron Max

No merely going broke and downhill at top speed.

I think that's what people have been saying about the USA for many, many years, but it's never happened yet ...even with all the dire predictions. Why do you think that is, Sam? And are you goiing to be one of those who keeps saying it without any real evidence at all? ..LOL! And ye're a scientitst? No, really, what are you?

Baron Max

Immoral? Geez, I think pickin' yer nose is immoral, too, but most people do it at one time or another. Immoral is just a word, nothing more, nothing less. Cutting off people's heads is immoral, I think, but some people do it, don't they?

Baron Max

Ive always had you down as someone simply projecting an exaggerated version of their own masochistically wallowing ignorance, and with that sentence im absolutely certain.
Youve over-played your hand mate, stick to soundbytes and swearies, youre laying it on to thick for me to even pretend to take you seriously.

Youre obviously a decent relatively harmless person, so im not even sure what the affected bullishness is even about, what ever gets you off i guess.

So busy looking at imaginary enemies, can't even tell when you're being robbed blind by the ones distracting you.:rolleyes:
terrorists and terrorism are not imaginary.

No merely going broke and downhill at top speed.

Yep. Bad foreign policy must = Death of the USA.

Sorry, man, but you're just spitting rhetoric. Oh, and we're not broke. The UK recently finished paying their debt to us from WWII. So...we've got some pounds in the bank, doll.

So busy looking at imaginary enemies, can't even tell when you're being robbed blind by the ones distracting you.

Imaginary enemies? I see. How quickly some people forget what these terrorists actually did to earn themselves this treatment. Whatever. No matter what anyone does to the USA, apparently the USA is always acting without merit.

torture has not worked for the purposes of the cia. and its immoral to treat someone as if they were nothing more the a lab animal

Ah yes, the old "Turn a blind eye to the truth" method. Ignorance is bliss, eh? Listen: Whatever tactics we employ against suspected terrorists is working. We did nothing of the sort before, and we ended up losing a veritable national monument, and thousands of American lives. Since we started hunting these fuckheads, all of a sudden, we're killing all of the top chiefs. Hmm...I wonder if torture is working...hmmm...

You say it's wrong to treat people that way, but is it any less wrong for those people to capture and kill civilians? To fly planes into civilian buildings? At what point can we stop being pussies and start fighting back? I don't agree with the direction this war has taken (Iraq), but I admit that we need to be doing something along the lines of cutting the throats of the terrorist organizations. If that means we have to torture to get information, then so be it. They would do, and have done, far worse in order to meet their goals.

But again, America is the villain. I guess that's just something we will always have to live with. The fat and happy who live under America's freedoms will always complain about the morality of our nation, but would never once try to see it from somewhere other than their couch. It's easy to criticize and point fingers from your comfortable amrchairs, because the terrorists never directly affected you. But suppose one of your loved ones was in one of the towers that day, or working in the Pentagon, or on one of the planes, THEN tell me how we're the bad guys.

Forget this. You blindly dismiss torture as this immoral, useless, and evil thing without even considering the results: We have killed or captured DOZENS of these top terrorist figures. How do you think we accomplished this? One of you even said that we don't use our brains...so how then have we been so successful in finding and killing or capturing these specific individuals, in the desert, a half a world away? Do you think that information came without a price? Do you think that there were informants within these cells? Hardly. We had to capture, and often force the information from them. And it has been correct enough for us to find others, and climb higher in the organization's food chains.

These bastards who kill innocents for no other reason than they don't like the Americans backing the Israelis, or because we have troops there protecting our interests. Bin Laden himself is a hypocrite, as he claims that we are this evil nation--despite the fact that he gladly accepted our help in getting the Russians out of Afghanistan years before all of this.

So go on and believe that the entirety of our nation is just like our President. Don't even consider that there are highly intelligent, highly capable people operating within our military and government who can--and do--work effectively in this campaign.

It's your right to believe what you wish. It's your right to say that the US is acting immoral and arrogant. You can say and feel what you like, and I wouldn't call you a coward or call into question your patriotism--but I will say that the evidence for the effectiveness of our methods is there, and arguing against it blindly is simply foolish.

I love the argument that torture doesn't work, when it's very obviously it does, and in the case mentioned here, did. The full Bryan Ross report, which again, is months old, details how at least a doze terrorists plots were broken up with information that was obtained through water-boarding. Ross interviewed CIA case officers who spoke about its incredible effectiveness.

So you can make all the moral arguments against torture that you like, but please don't try to sell people that load about it "not being effective."

Now you're calling me a Republican, which I'm not

You sure fooled me... :mad:

I love the argument that torture doesn't work, when it's very obviously it does, and in the case mentioned here, did.
It doesnt work, or to put it more accurately its so ineffective as a means of information gathering its pointless even going down that road.
This isnt a few hysterical side-liners saying this either, ive heard at least half a dozen very stauch conservative ex-CIA top brass say the exact same thing, its incredibly unreliable and extremely short-sighted.

torture has not worked for the purposes of the cia. and its immoral to treat someone as if they were nothing more the a lab animal

I am a big believer in the Golden Rule. These people cut off the heads of soldier, civillians, and caharity worrkers. They torture people for their faith. They hang people for sexual preferences, and murder for religious differences. They flog their women for showing a bit of skin. Obviusly they want to be tortured and the CIA is obliging them.

man man, haha that isnt the golden rule.
Youre thinking of 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth'.
Youre a heathen.

Helio, I'm well aware of the people who've come out against torture, but the Brian Ross report for ABC, not the one which I think we're dealing with here, explicitly details how a dozen terror plots have been broken up thanks to strenuous interrogation, and more specifically water-boarding.

This report that Ganymede links is from 2005, which is why I questioned its posting and still question its posting. Ross has written and reported extensively on this topic since then, and in doing so, said the government broke up the dozen plots. He's not an apologist for water boarding or torture, either. He simply has reported the facts. Sometimes we get bogus information, others we get information that saves lives. So again, you can be against torture. That's fine. I have no problem with that position, morally speaking. But tell the truth about it...

terrorists and terrorism are not imaginary.

The most wanted ones are. They only exist on Video. That's why they can never be caught.

man man, haha that isnt the golden rule.
Youre thinking of 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth'.
Youre a heathen.

No, it is Golden Rule, eye for and eye tooth for a tooth means we would do all those things to the Terrorists, as it is I think a little waterboarding, which is nothing more than psychological assault is pretty fair. Or perhaps you would rather have us do prolonged sensory deprivation, drive them crazy get them to babble and sort out the truth.

"also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic"...

lol and I love that song

Are the ever conditions where torture may be acceptable? Let's say, "some guy has the location to a nuke, and he's not talking?" type situation. Because, it would appear, that there have been situations where human lives have been directly in the ballance and water boarding** has garnered valuable information.

~String

____________________________________________
**Not exactly the toughest form of coersion invented by man-- but appearently man has become a bunch of pussies because it appears to break the average hardened muslim in under 90 secons... then again, maybe muslims are just a bunch of pussies.

I am a big believer in the Golden Rule. These people cut off the heads of soldier, civillians, and caharity worrkers. They torture people for their faith. They hang people for sexual preferences, and murder for religious differences. They flog their women for showing a bit of skin. Obviusly they want to be tortured and the CIA is obliging them.

They they? How vague can you get?

Did everybody that was tortured by the CIA cut off a head? Did everybody who was tortured by the CIA kill someone of their own faith? Did everybody who was tortured by the CIA hang a person for the sexual preference? Did everybody who was tortured by the CIA flog a woman?

By applying your own logic you are stating that the 3000 casualties at the twin towers were entirely justifiable. They (americans) killed, raped, insulted, tortured us and hence they (americans) can be targeted for killing/torture.

Are the ever conditions where torture may be acceptable? Let's say, "some guy has the location to a nuke, and he's not talking?" type situation. Because, it would appear, that there have been situations where human lives have been directly in the ballance and water boarding** has garnered valuable information.

~String

____________________________________________
**Not exactly the toughest form of coersion invented by man-- but appearently man has become a bunch of pussies because it appears to break the average hardened muslim in under 90 secons... then again, maybe muslims are just a bunch of pussies.

Are you suggesting we should allow the torture of American nuclear missile controllers, or even Americans that work as cleaners at American nuclear missile silos?

You blindly dismiss torture as this immoral, useless, and evil thing without even considering the results: We have killed or captured DOZENS of these top terrorist figures.
Can you give us examples of terrorist figures captured or killed on the basis of information gained under torture?

Hypocrite.

When did it become ok for mods to personally attack and call board members names:confused:

And no, the most wanted terrorists are not imaginary. Some are dead. They hijacked OUR planes and flew them into OUR buildings. A big one killed 1.5 MILLION of HIS OWN PEOPLE. We blew the crap out of another one. We have several more in custody. And we WILL get binLaden.

Imaginary my @ss.:mad:

And no, the most wanted terrorists are not imaginary. Some are dead. They hijacked OUR planes and flew them into OUR buildings.

The WTC was owned by a private owner. It was not yours.

Similarly the airplanes were owned by companies. Not you.


A big one killed 1.5 MILLION of HIS OWN PEOPLE.

source?


And we WILL get binLaden.


and what was the headline this morning?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6679371.stm
A car bomb has killed at least 25 people and wounded dozens more in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, police say.

The only thing the USA has accomplished so far is to stimulate violence and terrorism.

There was plenty of violence and terrorism in Iraq before we ever even thought of going there. In case you forgot, Saddam Hussein was one of the biggest terrorists in the world. He killed over a million of his own people. He had the torture rooms. He had the rape rooms. He was vile. And you think Iraqis were better off before we got rid of him:confused:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

There was plenty of violence and terrorism in Iraq before we ever even thought of going there. In case you forgot, Saddam Hussein was one of the biggest terrorists in the world. He killed over a million of his own people. He had the torture rooms. He had the rape rooms. He was vile. And you think Iraqis were better off before we got rid of him:confused:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

God killed 2.7 million people in the bible.
http://www.gospeakit.com/science/bible-body-count.html

How many Iraqis did the USA kill? Millions.
For instance
http://www.as-sahwah.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=453&pageID=34

spare us your hypocritical stance on Saddam. It was your buddy. The taliban were sponsored by the US. Saudi Arabia is much worse than the regime under saddam. They also sponsor most of the radical terrorism. They torture people. Still (or because of that) they are the best buddies of the USA.

in theory i am not against torture,but i dont trust anyone to make the decision whether or not to use it.

How many Iraqis did the USA kill? Millions.

Most of those were killed by Iraqi insurgents and terrorists by car bomdings and suicide bombings.

Why is it so difficult for y'all to admit that? Is it 'cause it doesn't fit your "hate America" campaigns?

Baron Max

Most of those were killed by Iraqi insurgents and terrorists by car bomdings and suicide bombings.

Why is it so difficult for y'all to admit that? Is it 'cause it doesn't fit your "hate America" campaigns?

Baron Max
How much of that was going on before y'all rolled in?

How much of that was going on before y'all rolled in?

That changes nothing in the discussion. But just for your info, Sadman killed thousands, maybe millions, and imprisoned and torture many more in his prisons.

Perhaps what you're suggesting is that violent, tyrannical regimes is the best thing for all nations of the world ...is that right, Nick? You continue to support the regime of Sadman, so I gues you approved of his methods of governing, huh?

Baron Max

That changes nothing in the discussion. But just for your info, Sadman killed thousands, maybe millions, and imprisoned and torture many more in his prisons.
It does when your moronic intervention led to the current fucked up situation in Iraq. The rate of deaths and fleeing of refugees is far higher now, even Saddam wasnt as prolific in 25 years.


Perhaps what you're suggesting is that violent, tyrannical regimes is the best thing for all nations of the world ...is that right, Nick? You continue to support the regime of Sadman, so I gues you approved of his methods of governing, huh?

Baron Max

On the contrary Baron, it is the US that has historically supported Saddam.

If you are going to intervene, and make life worse for the Iraqis as you have done, then what does that say for your comparison with Saddam?

On the contrary Baron, it is the US that has historically supported Saddam.

Not when he began his tyrannical rule of the Iraqi people. You fail to understand that people can change, Nick. We supported Sadman when he was a nice guy ......then he changed and became a monster.

If you are going to intervene, and make life worse for the Iraqis as you have done, then what does that say for your comparison with Saddam?

If the violent insurgents and terrorists weren't operating, Iraq would now be a great place to live and work, and it would be a rich nation. But, no, the Muslim terrorists don't want that for the Iraqis, so they blow them up and kill them at every chance. It's not the USA that's the problem in Iraq, it's the terrorists.

Baron Max

It's even more reprehensible to me that anyone feels any kind of sympathy for a terrorist.

If they were proven to be terrorists, and there was evidence for such, they would be tried in a court of law, instead of being detained illegally and tortured.

They are captives, and not terrorists until convicted.

"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

Disgusting, if these interrogators knew that their own men could only maintain 14 seconds why would they subject anyone to two - two and a half minutes without thinking that they were violating the basic human rights laws that the U.S. helped initiate.


Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. res. 39/46, [annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984)], entered into force June 26, 1987.

Article I

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Article 2
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.


http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/h2catoc.htm

No, it is Golden Rule, eye for and eye tooth for a tooth means we would do all those things to the Terrorists, as it is I think a little waterboarding, which is nothing more than psychological assault is pretty fair. Or perhaps you would rather have us do prolonged sensory deprivation, drive them crazy get them to babble and sort out the truth.
No it isnt the golden rule, the golden rule teaches doing to things to others that you would feel comfortable or would be happy to be done to you.
I very much doubt youd be into a spot of water-boarding, unless youve got some very specifc psycho-sexual fetish that i dont know about.

Youre an ingnorant little heathen.

Anyway this threadis quickly turning into an excuse for some of the Americans on here to wallow in their tiresomely predictable victim-complex.
*me = out

Not when he began his tyrannical rule of the Iraqi people. You fail to understand that people can change, Nick. We supported Sadman when he was a nice guy ......then he changed and became a monster.


Maximus, you amaze me!!!

wtf are you saying here you are one funny bloke maximus

. Saddam was a bigger arsehole in the 80's thne he was after it (or just as much anyway)




If the violent insurgents and terrorists weren't operating, Iraq would now be a great place to live and work, and it would be a rich nation. But, no, the Muslim terrorists don't want that for the Iraqis, so they blow them up and kill them at every chance. It's not the USA that's the problem in Iraq, it's the terrorists.

Baron Max

Why are the terrorists there maximus, were they in Iraq before 2003?

well the US has done well hasn't it? It has created a great place for Alqueda. to train and recruit

~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

Most of those were killed by Iraqi insurgents and terrorists by car bomdings and suicide bombings.

Why is it so difficult for y'all to admit that? Is it 'cause it doesn't fit your "hate America" campaigns?



It's difficult to admit because it is a lie. And I don't like to admit to lies without torture that is.

There was plenty of violence and terrorism in Iraq before we ever even thought of going there. In case you forgot, Saddam Hussein was one of the biggest terrorists in the world. He killed over a million of his own people. He had the torture rooms. He had the rape rooms. He was vile. And you think Iraqis were better off before we got rid of him:confused:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

well george bush is the biggest terrorist in the world. terrorism has nothing to do with killing its about fear. it mostly about the use of fear as a weapon to acchieve goals

It's difficult to admit because it is a lie. And I don't like to admit to lies without torture that is.

If that's true, then you must have the exact numbers of Iraqis killed by each group ...the American military, and the Iraqi bombers, terrorists and insurgents. Do you? If not, how can you call it a lie?

Baron Max

well george bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.

Saying something so silly is just that .....saying it, hot air. It means little or nothing to anyone with any brains or intelligence.

Baron Max

Saying something so silly is just that .....saying it, hot air. It means little or nothing to anyone with any brains or intelligence.

Baron Max

why is it a silly statement maximus???

Or is just silly cos you dotn agree with it???

Helio, I'm well aware of the people who've come out against torture, but the Brian Ross report for ABC, not the one which I think we're dealing with here, explicitly details how a dozen terror plots have been broken up thanks to strenuous interrogation, and more specifically water-boarding. I call BS.

The evidence for the existence of most of those plots was obtained by the same methods as those by which they were "broken". By and large they are artifacts of a worhtless interrogation method, and a waste of anti-terrorism efforts. All of the plots "broken" by al Libbi's torture, for example, were torturer's fantasies.
So you can make all the moral arguments against torture that you like, but please don't try to sell people that load about it "not being effective."
Another example: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866 They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess The crimes he then confessed to were a mush of actual terrorism, invention, improbablity, and flat impossibility (such as coordinating a terrorist attack against a building not yet built at the time of his capture). There is now no way to sort out the truth, and his value as an intelligence asset has been all but destroyed by the torture used on him.

The defenders of torture not only exaggerate the benefits, wandering off into unrealistic hypotheticals instead of considering the day to day degradtion and morass of real life torture, but they overlook and dismiss the costs.
Let's consider just some of the costs, just some of the downside and only that connected with torture for information (not the usual employment).

There are direct costs and opportunity costs:

directly, torture produces a flood of worthless "information" beaten out of desperate people. In real life torture operations hundreds of innocents and fantasizers and clever liars and mentally ill and low-level sacrificed peons are tortured, and they tell the interrogator whatever will make the torture stop. Vetting all that crap is very costly, even if it is properly rejected - and if it is instead accepted by mistake, real disaster is possible. The US has a history now of accepting tortured "info" - including some of the "evidence" of Saddam's WMDs - and having it blow up in their face.

John McCain is celebrated for the misleading info he gave his torturers, but we assume there are no McCains among the terrorists. The people in Gitmo are now known to have been mostly innocents - the torture some were put through was a waste, and a costly one. It vastly complicated our dealings with them and terrorism generally. And it tied up a whole lot of anti-terrorism efforts, simply to reject crap that never should have existed.

indirectly, torture prevents and excludes the most valuable sources of info: honest cooperations from "turned" or actually sympathetic people who know valuable things. Look at how the US caught the terrorist Ted Kazcinski: his brother turned him in under a promise of decent treatment. The fact that the anti-terrorist forces of the US did not, at the time, routinely torture people, saved many lives. Look at the voluntary help the US soldiers are getting even in Iraq, in those places that have been treated decently - contrast with the stubborn resistance in those places that have abused fellow citizens to remember. Look at the many instances of voluntary and valuable help the US has received in conflicts past - from Philippinos tortured by the Japanese in WWII, from Russians disenchanted by the ugly abuses of the Soviet Union - simply by being the good guys.

Torturers always overestimate the validity of the info they obtain, and always underestimate the info they lose, by torture.

And of course there's always the personal security angle: which is more threatening, a terrorist organization based in a community that knows the US does not torture or do evil to anyone, or a US government that has set up a large, secret, and efficient torture organization with hundreds of employees available for whatever project Homeland Security finds of interest ?

No it isnt the golden rule, the golden rule teaches doing to things to others that you would feel comfortable or would be happy to be done to you.
I very much doubt youd be into a spot of water-boarding, unless youve got some very specifc psycho-sexual fetish that i dont know about.

Youre an ingnorant little heathen.

Anyway this threadis quickly turning into an excuse for some of the Americans on here to wallow in their tiresomely predictable victim-complex.
*me = out

Actually been waterboarded once. Sure i was young and it was a group of bullies, but hell once you get dried off everything is fine. Of course I'm not the type of asshole who agonizes over hangnails either.


Truth is that the Golden Rule works both ways, Christ may have said turn the other cheek, but he did not say keep taking it. Hell, look what he did to the moneylenders in the temple, he whipped them, with HIS whip.

Christ may have said turn the other cheek, but he did not say keep taking it.
He most certainly did.

Mat 5:38 You have knowledge that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say to you, Do not make use of force against an evil man; but to him who gives you a blow on the right side of your face let the left be turned.
Mat 5:40 And if any man goes to law with you and takes away your coat, do not keep back your robe from him.
Mat 5:41 And whoever makes you go one mile, go with him two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him who comes with a request, and keep not your property from him who would for a time make use of it.
Mat 5:43 You have knowledge that it was said, Have love for your neighbour, and hate for him who is against you:
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Have love for those who are against you, and make prayer for those who are cruel to you;


Luk 6:27 But I say to you who give ear to me, Have love for those who are against you, do good to those who have hate for you,
Luk 6:28 Give blessing to those who give you curses, say prayers for those who are cruel to you.
Luk 6:29 If a man gives you a blow on one side of your face, then let the other side be turned to him; from him who takes away your coat, do not keep back your robe.
Luk 6:30 Give to everyone who comes with a request, and if a man takes away your property, make no attempt to get it back again.
Luk 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Luk 6:32 If you have love for those who have love for you, what credit is it to you? for even sinners have love for those who have love for them.
Luk 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is it to you? for even sinners do the same.

Idiot, if they were proven to be terrorists, and there was evidence for such, they would be tried in a court of law, instead of being detained illegally and tortured.They are captives, and not terrorists until convicted.

"IDIOT"????:confused: What's with the name-calling and personal attack:confused:
They are terrorists.That's the reason they're there. Not convicted yet. Some just suspects. But most are terrorists.

Most Iraqis are killed by thier own fellow muslims:
The Real 2006 'Iraq Body Count' *16,791* Iraqi civilians killed last year by ISLAMIC Terrorists.

*225* Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
(and Islamic Terrorists).

Iraqis aren't dying from war. They are being murdered by Islamic terrorists.

*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists, and terrorists who may have been counted as civilians).

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/IraqBodyCount2006.htm

I love it! Do you honestly think the CIA would be torturing if it didn't work? Come on, people.

But at the end of the day, all that really matters is that we don't have to be these angels that everyone says we should be. Our nation was attacked, and we're getting them back--that's all there is to it, and that's all there should be to it. If a group or groups take action against us, then we take action against them.

Why should anyone care if we are torturing terrorists? Torturing people who blow themselves up on crowded buses, fly planes into buildings, executed innocents for execution's sake...why is it such a big deal? Why do we have to play this fucking role of Father-figure to the world? We never have been! Why start now?

I love it! Do you honestly think the CIA would be torturing if it didn't work? Come on, people.
They only have to think it works.

I love it! Do you honestly think the CIA would be torturing if it didn't work? Come on, people.

But at the end of the day, all that really matters is that we don't have to be these angels that everyone says we should be. Our nation was attacked, and we're getting them back--that's all there is to it, and that's all there should be to it. If a group or groups take action against us, then we take action against them.

Why should anyone care if we are torturing terrorists? Torturing people who blow themselves up on crowded buses, fly planes into buildings, executed innocents for execution's sake...why is it such a big deal? Why do we have to play this fucking role of Father-figure to the world? We never have been! Why start now?

Because the law should not be applied selectively.

Because the law should not be applied selectively.

But the terrorists do that, and you and others don't seem to mind that. Why?

Baron Max

Sure i was young and it was a group of bullies, but hell once you get dried off everything is fine. When done for real, it causes brain damage, lung damage, vision damage, breaks bones (from the convulsions), and occasionally kills.

In addition to the psychological scars. These are permanent, apparently, and the main reason such techniques are normally employed.

I love it! Do you honestly think the CIA would be torturing if it didn't work? Come on, people. Work for what?

Exactly what did the Abu Ghraib, Bucca, Diego Garcia, European gulag, nd Gitmo torturing accomplish? Besides screwing over any chance of a decent outcome in Iraq, I mean.

I haven't been all that impressed, as an outsider, with the CIA's info-gathering of late. Maybe all the good stuff is classified, and the fuckups are just to mislead the enemy?

The enemy is sufficiently misled, I think. Time to roll out the effective intelligence.

Or reveal the actual reasoning behind a policy of torture - not information, but intimidation. Fear.

When done for real, it causes brain damage, lung damage, vision damage, breaks bones (from the convulsions), and occasionally kills.

In addition to the psychological scars. These are permanent, apparently, and the main reason such techniques are normally employed.

I think cutting off one's head does similar things to a person, don't it? And how 'bout being blow into little tiny pieces by a suicide bomb? ...don't that also cause some physical problems for the victims?

But, wait, you don't seem to care about that, do you? You ignore that because it doesn't fit you agenda or your bias, huh?

I'll say another thing; you must be aware that you can't possibly know what kind of information that the CIA or others have gotten from those tortured suspects/prisoners/terrorist, can you? And yet you're making claims as if you have inside information that the rest of us don't have. Why? More bias and your own agenda?

Baron Max

Baron, I really hate that I'm on the same side of an argument with a waste of life such as yourself...

I guess there is evidence that states torture (or, at least, mistreatment) of captives isn't the best method. It can be faulty, and I can't argue that. But again, I can't say that it is totally ineffective, as some of you have said. I'm not blinded by this false sense of morality on this issues; I'm trying to see it from the perspective of an American...and I mean that I want to see my government work to cripple the major terrorist organizations...and I also want to see some of those bastards feel the same pain that they've inflicted upon us.

An eye for an eye isn't such a bad thing. It's a natural human trait. And I go back to my point that we, as Americans, aren't saints, and shouldn't be held to such standards. A few prisoners got tortured by the military? So what? Why is it accepted that these things happen everywhere else, but it criminalized when it happens here? We are no better than anyone else, and we've proven it.

I guess maybe it's because I don't expect these unrealistic moral standards from our government. Maybe it's because I can see through the BS that they try to feed us. And maybe it's because I want to see that those fuckers who funded, planned, trained for, assisted, and applauded the terrorist attacks of 9/11 get their eyes gouged out with a fork. I guess I feel no remorse for a person who has shown me none.

But ultimately, I can concede that torture is not the best method for getting invaluable information--though I still say it can, in certain situations. But again, I really don't care that these people are being hurt. I really don't. I enjoy their pain, because they would enjoy mine.

But the terrorists do that, and you and others don't seem to mind that. Why?

Baron Max

How do the terrorists apply their laws selectively? It's my impression that they want uniform sharia law everywhere. If anything, they are strict constructionists.

You can call whatever you like, Iceaura, the simple fact is Ross has reported and said in interviews that the CIA has gained valuable intelligence through water boarding, regardless of the link to the same two-year old story you've chosen to post again for some reason. To be fair, Ross has also raised serious questions about the torture and its overall value, but I saw the man interviewed in person, heard him saw that anonymous high-ranked CIA officials claim US has disrupted at least 12 serious terror plots based on the technique. So again, talk about torture morally as long as you like, talk about it producing often questionable results (which it can and does), but don't deny its successes simply because they don't fit in with your argument.

And why not confess to what's really at issue here. You and your ilk love the fact that the media, which ironically enough you've argued in another thread are stooges of the Right, have "uncovered" the fact that the CIA tortures people because it allows you an opening to attack America and heap criticism on the Bush administration. The surprise everyone with your particular "bent" seems to display at this revelation is ridiculous. The CIA tortures people? Did no one know think or realize that until Brian Ross came along? The agency, as the insiders call it, has been torturing people, working with unsavory types and doing unsavory things since its inception, because that's what the business of espionage is all about. Or do you think George Bush invented to idea of forcefully extracting information from people all by his lonesome?

Doesn't make it right. It's was wrong if and when the CIA did it, and it's especially wrong for who swear to uphold the law to encourage it.

I didn't say it was right. I said it can be effective, which people here are denying...

Effective for fighting terrorism? Or effective for extracting information from one person? I agree with the latter, to a degree. The former is questionable. Does our use of torture make enemies?

Amen. These are the same people who saw people's heads off.:mad:
So now youa re going to saw his head off? What does that accomplish?

Did no one know think or realize that until Brian Ross came along? The agency, as the insiders call it, has been torturing people, working with unsavory types and doing unsavory things since its inception, because that's what the business of espionage is all about. Believe me, no one you are addressing with that is any stranger to CIA behavior of the past. The record of damage and disaster is long and bloody. Brian Ross I myself had never heard of until this thread. You can call whatever you like, Iceaura, the simple fact is Ross has reported and said in interviews that the CIA has gained valuable intelligence through water boarding, Ross has said several anonymous CIA torturers have claimed such, yes. And we have several examples of these CIA claims to look at: al Libbi, Shiek Muhammad, the three Brits at Gitmo, the guy they had somebody torture WMD info from, the Canadian they kidnapped and sent to Syria who is suing, the continual patter of apprehensions of number twos, never number threes or ones, etc.

They are not impressive. "We are doing all this great stuff but we can't tell you, and everything that you find out about is a horror or a fuckup because you are biased." Right.

Can someone, anyone, please supply at least one or two examples of the great successes obtained from torture?

And after that, we can compare them with the disasters: the diplomatic meltdowns, the boost to our enemies from Abu Ghraib and Bucca and Bagram, the undermining of our courts and military by Gitmo, the loss of cooperation from Muslim communities worldwide, likewise from police departments and other law enforcement worldwide,

or compare the short term gains with the longer term costs as shown elsewhere: the refugee generation and tyrannical governments in Cental and South America, the degradation of Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay, the Palestinian intransigence, the fate of the Soviet gulag.

What we don't have is any hint of an acknowledgment by any torturer that they have also lost info, created and chased blind leads, wasted resources and effort and moral authority and opportunities for much better info, and in general screwed up operations, by torturing people.

It's like gambling: you only hear about your neighbor's wins, and then he has to sell his house. The torture program at Abu Ghraib may have cost us Iraq.

And after that we can analyse less obvious problems: the creation of an agency of secret torture, with trained pros and electrical gear bid out cost-plus, eager to expand the range of their contributions: child porn? draft resistance? Patriot Act defiance ? These guys are not going to just disband: they're role models, too, for the local police.

And the loss of self-respect, even pride, that would come from knowing your country is not that cowardly, not that stupid, not that inept, and not that panic-stricken, that it needs to torture people in some desperate attempt to gain any scrap of info that can be gained in that fashion, no matter how unreliable.

If that's true, then you must have the exact numbers of Iraqis killed by each group ...the American military, and the Iraqi bombers, terrorists and insurgents. Do you? If not, how can you call it a lie?

Baron Max

The US was already killing hundred of thousands of Iraqis before there was a civil war, created by the US which led to more killings.

Can someone, anyone, please supply at least one or two examples of the great successes obtained from torture?

I too would like to see this. Not the fantasy "Theres a nuke and we have the guy who knows where it is", but rather real examples of where torture was used to obtain credible information.

And of course you can't use information gained through torture in court. And hence torture undermines law enforcement.

Well, you can't use torture information in the civilized world. I don't know about the US of course.

I too would like to see this. Not the fantasy "Theres a nuke and we have the guy who knows where it is", but rather real examples of where torture was used to obtain credible information.

Would it work on you?

Would it work on you?
No, because I dont have any information, therefore you would be torturing me for nothing. But then again you dont know that, do you?

Nick:

No, because I dont have any information, therefore you would be torturing me for nothing. But then again you dont know that, do you?


Oh well. If you last more than 2 1/2 minutes, you probably don't have any info. Or you're a tough SoB...

I see new possibilities for terrorists here.

1. They train people to withstand standard torture techniques by the US government (and people).

2. This makes them more reliable as sources of information when captured.

3. These agents are now send out to be captured doing a fake but seemingly important task.

4. These agents use their training to withstand the torturing techniques as long as they can.

5. The agents spill the beans on fake operations, preferably some which will create unease and fear among the US government and people disrupting US society.

6. The agents are heroes and can now retire praying in prison or die like martyrs during execution.

No, because I dont have any information, therefore you would be torturing me for nothing. But then again you dont know that, do you?

But still it would be good practice.

But still it would be good practice.
Kind of like "shooting innocent civilians is good for target practice".

are you asking me or telling me.

There's a difference...they KNEW this guy was a terrorist. They KNEW it. They just needed him to break. And...they got him to! I love how people are getting all up in arms about the US prying a confession from a known terrorist, but nobody thinks about what this particular guy was responsible for...

Knowing what this guy has done, "Water Boarding" was too good for him.

Yeah, I've no problem with water boaring being used on a known or confessed terrorist, but when it comes to picking up random suspected Iraqi citizens and lumping them into the same catagory and torturing them, that's wrong.

I doubt most people would be as concerned with some of the practices we're doing as it's war and all, but this is a war where we specifcally went out to spread so-called freedom and liberate people and remove Saddam because he was an oh-so-bad leader who killed and tortured his own people only for us to go around and do the exact same thing. People hate hypocrits, even worse, power-hungry hypocrits.

Eventually, we'll calm down, and some of these things will be relaxed. But right now, we are simply trying to prevent another 9/11 from happening, and we're doing so at almost all cost.

We'll calm down and some of these things will be relaxed.. yeah, like gas prices. You raise em super high so when they "calm down", while the price is still double of what you were previously paying, you wind up being content with the "relaxed" prices even though you're still getting screwed. When a law is put into effect, rarely does it ever get removed. How you likin' them taxes? I just looooove the IRS..

I love how we just figure that everyone is better than us.

Funny, I thought it was the other way around. Gotta love our patriotism..

So busy looking at imaginary enemies, can't even tell when you're being robbed blind by the ones distracting you.

Haha, yeah. I'm more worried about my own government than if ten Osama's were running around free. Same reason why I'm more worried about gangs than I am about terrorists. While I know there's a terrorist threat out there, it impacts me little, but gangs and government personally impact me every single day. They've probably both caused more troubles and death than all acts of terrorism combined in the past 50 years.

Imaginary enemies? I see. How quickly some people forget what these terrorists actually did to earn themselves this treatment.

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call them imaginary, but we're fueling the fire more than we are putting it out with our War on Terrorism. That whole "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to over here" line is total BS, even more so when this administration has no concerns about protecting our borders where terrorists can, and have, so easily infiltrate our country. Ever ask yourself why our president is not concerned one bit about it?

But again, America is the villain.

Well, uh, considering we're the nation that has been going out and starting almost every major conflict ever since WWII, that says a lot. World Police my ass. America, fuck yeah! Gotta love how we're always worried about the next country to awake and try and take over the world. First it was the Russians, now the Chinese, especially when the Chinese haven't done a damned thing. Sleeping dragons only awake when you continue to poke and prod them or steal their pile of gold.

It's a real simple question, considering there's soooo many countries that supposedly hate us and want to see us destroyed, why is it? Ask yourself why. Every country you can think of, you'll first find us sticking our greedy hand into the cookie jar starting it all. Iran? Don't gimme that BS about the 70's because our actions against them with the CIA predate those incidents by a good 15 years. Every single problem we're facing right now has been a direct reaction to our fears of worrying about other people taking over the world. Everything we're fighting now is a result of the Cold War. Then in another 50 years, after we have our own little Cold War with China due to our fears, we'll be cleaning up our mess from that, warring with little nations here and there as we're doing now.

man man, haha that isnt the golden rule.
Youre thinking of 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth'.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind..

And we WILL get binLaden.

Well, to quote Bush, he isn't truly concerned about him..

spare us your hypocritical stance on Saddam. It was your buddy. The taliban were sponsored by the US. Saudi Arabia is much worse than the regime under saddam. They also sponsor most of the radical terrorism. They torture people. Still (or because of that) they are the best buddies of the USA.

Yup, glad to see some not forgetting. And since Bible talk is being tossed around, here's one for ya: you reap what you sow.

The US was already killing hundred of thousands of Iraqis before there was a civil war, created by the US which led to more killings.

Hey, careful with that talk, you're sounding unAmerican! Thank god for your sake you don't live here to be called that when speaking truth. How's it go? The truth shall set you free, but first it'll make you angry?

well george bush is the biggest terrorist in the world. terrorism has nothing to do with killing its about fear. it mostly about the use of fear as a weapon to acchieve goals

Yep, terrorism is about fear, and our government and Fox News is doing an awesome job of not letting us forget all that with so much of their doomsday talk trying to keep us on our toes.

Anyhow, another one of my favorite Bushisms: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8pvU1iyT3c

:D

- N

I didn't say it was right. I said it can be effective, which people here are denying...

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

"Well, you can't use torture information in the civilized world. I don't know about the US of course."

Are you alleging the US is uncivilized?

countezero

"Well, you can't use torture information in the civilized world. I don't know about the US of course."


countezero, Who ever made this post is blind or stupid to the reality of the world of spying, every civilized country and uncivilized country uses torture when the need arises, who do they think they are kidding? There are time when you don't have the time to ask nicely, when lives are at stake, and the information in imperative, and all countries will use what ever means to get that information, there is a neet drug that make you babble like a school girl spreading the latest gossip, it has one side effect though, it wipe the brain clean, total wipe out, but while you are under its influence you will answer any question ask with no hesitation, they also use it to sedate hospital patents, for procedures that require the patent to be semi alert, the patient doesn't remember the procedure or any pain, but it is administered in far smaller doses than for aggressive questioning.

"Well, you can't use torture information in the civilized world. I don't know about the US of course."

Are you alleging the US is uncivilized?

Are they using information obtained by torture?:rolleyes:

samcdkey

Are they using information obtained by torture?

Even India uses information obtained by torture.

One of a 166000 site on torture in India.


http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0204/97/


Dealing with the tremendous problem of torture in India

Consultation on the Convention against Torture, Kerala, India

1. Torture is widespread and has routinely been practised at police stations in India. Unchallenged and unopposed, it has become a 'normal' and 'legitimate' practice all over.

2. Torture often leads to custodial deaths, disappearances and deaths in 'encounters'. The numbers of reported custodial deaths are quite high and keep escalating.

3. Besides this, there are fatal injuries, permanent disabilities, mental derailment, loss of faculties and psychological trauma.

4. With the emergence of new sanctions for torture - like the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Terrorism and Destructive Activities Act (Prevention), and Essential Services Maintenance Act - that justify or legalize any amount of torture, the police enjoy enormous freedom to have recourse to any such crimes.

5. The use of extremely crude and filthy language is very common at police stations. It amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, grossly derogatory to the dignity of the human person. We are ashamed of being told of the existence of a directory of vulgar words, widely used by police personnel, published by a police officer in one of the southern states.

6. Torture has also been practised on women and girls, in the form of custodial rape, molestation and other forms of sexual harassment.

7. Torture has been inflicted not upon the accused only, but also on bona-fide petitioners, complainants or informants. The police deliberately delay the submitting of First Information Reports and unnecessarily harass and torture such persons for no reason.

Fighting torture is very difficult and risky. The reasons are many.

8. There is no impartial mechanism for receiving complaints against torture. The complaints must be made to police authorities themselves. This only allows the police to bring pressure and harassment onto the victims, who are de facto complainants. The Convention against Torture requires impartial investigations. Unfortunately, in India the police force is not independent. The National and State Human Rights Commissions, and other national institutions of India, have neither the power nor the provisions to deal with torture effectively. The National Commission for Police Reforms many years ago recommended that police in India should be made independent. The National Human Rights Commission itself has gone to the Supreme Court with a plea that the recommendations of the National Police Commission be implemented. However, the absence of political will has meant that these attempts have failed.

9. Torture and fabrication of cases are closely linked. In attempting to save offenders for obvious reasons, the police implicate innocent people and impose any amount of cruelty and torture on them until a 'confession' is extracted.

10. Torture is not treated in India the way required by the Convention against Torture. Only two sections in the Penal Code (sections 330¡V1) deal with punishment for use of force in obtaining confessions. However, if torture is to be dealt with effectively, it is essential that it be made an offence in terms of the Convention. This also involves provisions for adequate punishment against torture. Thus, the law against torture in India is extremely defective in terms of international understanding and social jurisprudence. To mention two examples, in Hong Kong the offence of torture carries a life sentence, while in Sri Lanka it carries a sentence of 7 years only.

11. The prosecution system as it exists now in India only militates against the rights of victims of human rights violations. The prosecutors act in many ways to protect the perpetrators. Prosecutors should be independent, competent, and appointed through a judicious process to scrupulously uphold the cherished values enshrined in statutes.

12. In the present criminal justice system in India, the victims or complainants have no decisive role in seeking redress. Everything depends on the mercy of the investigating officer and the state prosecutor, who are often subject to manipulations and malpractice. Therefore, the de facto complainants or victims, if they are resourceful and confident, should be allowed to appoint their own lawyers to conduct prosecution on their behalf.

13. India not having ratified the Convention against Torture, its citizens do not have the opportunity to find recourse in remedies that are available under international law. Indian practices with respect to torture do not come under international scrutiny. Access to the UN Committee against Torture, and other mechanisms, is effectively denied people living in the largest democracy in the world. Since the country has also not signed the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, its citizens also do not have the right to make individual complaints to the UN Human Rights Committee. The victims are trapped with the local system, which in every aspect militates against their rights. Many victims conclude that a justice system accessible to the poor of the land does not exist at all.

14. Despite its many human rights groups, an effective and powerful campaign for the elimination of torture has yet to be developed in India. If we fail to protect ourselves from torture, which is the basis for all other fundamental rights, we will not be able to vindicate any other rights.

15. "Human Rights Court" is a misnomer. What exists is an additional duty appended to the already overworked judges. Thus, adjudication on human rights matters is trapped within the same cycle of delay and neglect that affects other cases. The general principle that 'justice delayed is justice mocked' equally applies to these courts. The concept of Human Rights Courts needs to be revamped and re-envisaged so that an effective mechanism can be introduced. Judges who sit in such courts need to have a thorough knowledge of human rights law and should be endowed with a deep sense of the sublime supremacy of human life over all else.

16. The Malimath Committee recommendations will not only undo the practice of fair trial, but also will enhance the power of police to an absolute level. They have to be checked and carefully resisted if human rights are to have any meaning in India.

17. The early ratification of the Convention against Torture is imperative if we wish to defend the human rights of torture victims. It is mandatory for any attempt at reforms in the police system as an effective mechanism for law enforcement and administration of justice.

18. Most countries in the world have ratified this Convention and India being a signatory has no excuse for not ratifying it. In fact, the unwillingness of the Indian government to ratify the Convention brings only discredit to its people and places the country in a very shameful situation.

19. The citizens have a civic responsibility to campaign for ratification of the Convention. In fact, the National Human Rights Commission has already recommended and urged it to do so. Many high-profile organizations and eminent citizens of international repute also have pressed the government on this issue.

20. Meanwhile, it is highly necessary to document torture cases in a meticulous way. The lack of proper documentation only permits the unfettered continuance of barbaric methods of torture and acquittal of the culprits. Had there been proper documentation, it would not have been possible to hide the colossal and devastating atrocities of the police, whose constitutional mandate is to protect the people. NGOs should undertake scientific and systematic documentation of torture and follow-up on it.

21. Modern communication systems offer tremendous opportunities for victims of torture to expose it to the rest of the world. Urgent Appeals have been quite successful at coordinating and combining domestic and international efforts to resist this atrocious encroachment on human rights. Hence human rights defenders and activists should be equipped and conversant with what information technology offers for the promotion of human rights activity anywhere in the world, less expensively and with greater efficiency.

22. The communal and caste divide in India is closely linked with torture. Police and law enforcement agencies have been instrumental in much of the recent communally charged violence in the country. Torture remains unaccounted for and not prosecuted. It leads to total anarchy and the rule of vandalism and lawlessness. When police become a party to such violence, it becomes a state-sponsored crime against the people. Therefore, the fight against communalism and caste should start with the fight against torture.

Whether India uses it or not, does not make it right either. That is why people are writing against it, in India. You don't see the President of India signing a bill condoning torture do you?

samcdkey but this is in everyday life, it doesn't even involve dire circumstances, such as a terrorist plot to kill thousands, it is part and parcel of normal Indian culture.

samcdkey but this is in everyday life, it doesn't even involve dire circumstances, such as a terrorist plot to kill thousands, it is part and parcel of normal Indian culture.

Still does not excuse the US torture on chiefly innocent people.

samcdkey

you mean dire circumstances like poverty and starvation? People committing suicide due to hunger and bankruptcy? Selling children into prostitution and labor due to hunger? That kind of dire circumstances? Your idea of culture is based on a fat stomach and a full tank of gas.

Well your from India and you know the home rule definition better than I do, so why then doesn't India do some thing about it? oh I for got they are, they torture the people that have the problems, instead of trying to enforce the law, they protect the upper class from accusations from the lower classes by making it understood that if you make a complaint against the wrong cast that you will be the one under scrutiny, painful scrutiny, and maybe the problem will disappear, yes sam tell me how horrible my country is for defending the lives of its people all of its people, and then lets look at India, torture is a common everyday practice, it citizens can't even go to the police and expect any protection for themselves and their children, they starve to death, and are tortured to death, all under the watchful eye of the Indian Government.

Still does not excuse the US torture on chiefly innocent people.

How do you know the status of their guilt? And why do you ignore that India uses these methods as well? Are you from India, or something? I'm not getting the connection here...

Must be because I'm American...

Anyway, the main point here is that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on the US since the Anthrax-in-an-envelope ordeal after 9/11. So we must be doing something right.

How do you know the status of their guilt? And why do you ignore that India uses these methods as well? Are you from India, or something? I'm not getting the connection here...

Must be because I'm American...

Anyway, the main point here is that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on the US since the Anthrax-in-an-envelope ordeal after 9/11. So we must be doing something right.

Your logic:

After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!”

Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment.

Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “... but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”

Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock...”

So you're calling the attacks of 9/11 an isolated incident?

JDawg, yes she is from India.

No sam this is your logic, as you wish to apply it to JDawg,

Your logic:

After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!”

Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment.

Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “... but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”

Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock...”

And it is totally specious.

So you're calling the attacks of 9/11 an isolated incident?

No I'm calling the war on terror Lisa's rock.:)

JDawg, yes she is from India.

No sam this is your logic, as you wish to apply it to JDawg,



And it is totally specious.

Your comprehension is boundless.

No I'm calling the war on terror Lisa's rock.

But...I thought...man, I don't get it.

JDawg , don't worry sam seldom make any sense, she just hammers anything American.

But...I thought...man, I don't get it.

It was in response to this:


Anyway, the main point here is that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on the US since the Anthrax-in-an-envelope ordeal after 9/11. So we must be doing something right.

I could just as easily say I have a magic peanut which keeps elephants out of my street; after all since last year, I haven't seen a single elephant in my street. :D

I'm just trying to figure out the analogy, is all. Is she saying that we are fighting something that isn't really there? Lisa said her rock was keeping tigers away...but there really weren't any tigers...and Sam says the war on terror is Lisa's rock...God, I feel stupid...

So we're saying the war on terror is just a useless rock?

Maybe I'm just dumb (or American, according to spuriousmonkey) and can't see it, but no matter how you slice it, that analogy still sounds like you think we are fighting an enemy that doesn't exist.

Which isn't true. Terrorism exists.

OK...so you're saying that the war on terror is having no effect on the capability of terrorist groups to attack us?

sam, I would think that there are more important thing that you need to take care of in India than worrying about what America is doing, remember there are 166000 site on torture in India, the Cast system is still alive and well, people are still selling their children into prostitution, and slavery, people are starving to death in the thousands, health care is nearly non existent, and India is a Proud Member of the Nuclear Club, spending millions on its military, take care of your problems at home before you preach to us in America, from what I see your people from India are leaving for America as fast as they can raise the money, and not the other way around, even you came here to be educated.

OK...so you're saying that the war on terror is having no effect on the capability of terrorist groups to attack us?

Well, it has increased the number of people who want to kill you. Like the Iraqis.

sam, I would think that there are more important thing that you need to take care of in India than worrying about what America is doing, remember there are 166000 site on torture in India, the Cast system is still alive and well, people are still selling their children into prostitution, and slavery, people are starving to death in the thousands, health care is nearly non existent, and India is a Proud Member of the Nuclear Club, spending millions on its military, take care of your problems at home before you preach to us in America, from what I see your people from India are leaving for America as fast as they can raise the money, and not the other way around, even you came here to be educated.

Some cheese with that whine, perhaps? :rolleyes:

JDawg, ask sam to explain the 59,000 site on foiled terrorist attacks?, the tiger is still out their.


CNN.com - Bush details foiled 2002 al Qaeda attack on L.A. - Feb 9 ...
Shortly after 9/11, al Qaeda began planning to use shoe bombers to hijack a commercial airplane and fly it into the tallest building in Los Angeles, ...
http://www.unv.net/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html

Plot to Bomb U.S.-Bound Jets Is Foiled
Plot to Bomb U.S.-Bound Jets Is Foiled ... 11, 2001, attacks in death toll. The plot "was sophisticated, it had a lot of members and it was international in ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html

Two attackers on Saudi’s most-wanted list - Mideast/N. Africa ...
MANAMA, Bahrain - Saudi Arabia said Sunday that two suicide bombers killed in a foiled attack on the world’s biggest oil processing complex were on its list ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11538965/

Lieberman And Today’s Foiled Terrorist Attacks » Outside The ...
Lieberman actually had the cojones to talk about his opponent’s position vis-a-vis the war on terrorism in light of today’s foiled terrorist attack. ...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/08/lieberman_and_todays_foiled_terrorist_attacks/
Page: 1 2 3 next

That's not exactly true, Sam. They've always wanted to kill us. We side with Israel, and the Bush's with the Saudis...we've never been popular over there.

But I already said I agree that Iraq is fucked up. We had no business attacking Iraq. They where wholly incapable of producing even one WMD. They didn't even rebuild their military following the Gulf War!

The way the War on Terror started--in Afghanistan--was the correct way to fight the war; going after terrorist groups and regimes that posed a threat. I can't imagine what benefit Saddam's fall would have had for any other state in the region, so I really don't know why we ever went there.

But something had to be done, don't you think? Were we supposed to just take the 9/11 attacks on the chin? What diplomatic approach could we have taken with Al-Qaeda? The only answer was to attack them.

samcdkey

Some cheese with that whine, perhaps?

No sam I am a beer and pretzel guy, Whine and Cheese is your forte, the nose in the air crowd, snooty as we called it.

That's not exactly true, Sam. They've always wanted to kill us. We side with Israel, and the Bush's with the Saudis...we've never been popular over there.

But I already said I agree that Iraq is fucked up. We had no business attacking Iraq. They where wholly incapable of producing even one WMD. They didn't even rebuild their military following the Gulf War!

The way the War on Terror started--in Afghanistan--was the correct way to fight the war; going after terrorist groups and regimes that posed a threat. I can't imagine what benefit Saddam's fall would have had for any other state in the region, so I really don't know why we ever went there.

But something had to be done, don't you think? Were we supposed to just take the 9/11 attacks on the chin? What diplomatic approach could we have taken with Al-Qaeda? The only answer was to attack them.

You've never met any ME people, have you? No one hates the Americans, they simply hate you bombing and killing their families.

Btw, what evidence do you really have that 9/11 was even caused by someone from the ME? After all, it was for lack of evidence that the Afghanis did not hand over OBL; so what evidence do you have?

JDawg, ask sam to explain the 59,000 site on foiled terrorist attacks?, the tiger is still out their.


Boy, you guys are even dumber than everyone thinks you are.:rolleyes:

JDawg

But I already said I agree that Iraq is fucked up. We had no business attacking Iraq. They where wholly incapable of producing even one WMD. They didn't even rebuild their military following the Gulf War!

No in that you are wrong JDawg, just do a Google search on the weapons that Saddam bought to replace those he lost in the first gulf war, he spent billions on new weapons.

JDawg



No in that you are wrong JDawg, just do a Google search on the weapons that Saddam bought to replace those he lost in the first gulf war, he spent billions on new weapons.

No more than the US and the US has attacked and killed more people than Saddam.

samcdkey

Well sam please explain the 59000 stories on foiled terrorist attacks, I will give you the fact that there are multiply repeats of incidents that have been reported but the news has 59000 articles on attacks that have been thwarted, and some of them from information that came from aggressive interrogation techniques.

Google (foiled terrorist attacks) and this is the header;

enhanced by Results 1 - 15 of about 59,300 web results

samcdkey

Well sam please explain the 59000 stories on foiled terrorist attacks, I will give you the fact that there are multiply repeats of incidents that have been reported but the news has 59000 articles on attacks that have been thwarted, and some of them from information that came from aggressive interrogation techniques.

Google (foiled terrorist attacks) and this is the header;

enhanced by Results 1 - 15 of about 59,300 web results

http://www.google.com/search?q=pink+elephants&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Btw, what evidence do you really have that 9/11 was even caused by someone from the ME? After all, it was for lack of evidence that the Afghanis did not hand over OBL; so what evidence do you have?

Well, aside from the tape where Osama admits that he was responsible...and you honestly buy that Afghanistan didn't hand over Osama because of a lack of evidence? Man, are you kidding me? The fucking Taliban was running Afghanistan at the time! OF COURSE they weren't going to hand Osama over!

You've never met any ME people, have you? No one hates the Americans, they simply hate you bombing and killing their families.

Well, we hated them knocking down our buildings and killing our families.

You know what? I'm really sick of all this. We're the bad guys for going to war against terrorists, we're the bad guys for not bringing peace to that region, we're the bad guys for supporting an ally...where does it end? At what point can the Middle East handle it themselves? When are they going to pick themselves up, and NOT beg the rest of the world to step in? I understand that we fucked up in Iraq, but if they didn't fly fucking airplanes into our buildings, there wouldn't be a war in the first place!

That region only happens to be the home of the first fucking civilization in the history of mankind, so I know it's asking a lot for them to get their shit together. Jews and Muslims fighting over land in the region, meanwhile, they live next door to each other over here, along with every other ethnicity in the world. Why can't the Middle East come out of the Stone Age, and act like a real region?

It's disgusting. So many people put all the blame on us, but nobody even thinks to consider for one second that this situation wouldn't even have transpired if the governments in the region knew how to gain the trust and support and civility of their people! I know the US has a fucking ridiculous gun-related homicide rate, but come on!

Well, aside from the tape where Osama admits that he was responsible...and you honestly buy that Afghanistan didn't hand over Osama because of a lack of evidence? Man, are you kidding me? The fucking Taliban was running Afghanistan at the time! OF COURSE they weren't going to hand Osama over!



Well, we hated them knocking down our buildings and killing our families.

You know what? I'm really sick of all this. We're the bad guys for going to war against terrorists, we're the bad guys for not bringing peace to that region, we're the bad guys for supporting an ally...where does it end? At what point can the Middle East handle it themselves? When are they going to pick themselves up, and NOT beg the rest of the world to step in? I understand that we fucked up in Iraq, but if they didn't fly fucking airplanes into our buildings, there wouldn't be a war in the first place!

That region only happens to be the home of the first fucking civilization in the history of mankind, so I know it's asking a lot for them to get their shit together. Jews and Muslims fighting over land in the region, meanwhile, they live next door to each other over here[i], along with every other ethnicity in the world. Why can't the Middle East come out of the Stone Age, and act like a real region?

It's disgusting. So many people put all the blame on us, but nobody even thinks to consider for [i]one second that this situation wouldn't even have transpired if the governments in the region knew how to gain the trust and support and civility of their people! I know the US has a fucking ridiculous gun-related homicide rate, but come on!


http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/13/stories/0313000b.htm

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200109/21/eng20010921_80761.html

http://www.tufts.edu/communications/stories/100501ShouldTalibanSeeEvidence.htm

Considering US history of lies and subterfuge, I would like more evidence than a terrorists say-so.

Again, Sam, why should I just believe that the Taliban were telling the truth? Because it says so in The Hindu? Please. A fucking militia, probably funded by Bin Laden, and we're supposed to take them at their word?

Come on. Be realistic.

samcdkey

No more than the US and the US has attacked and killed more people than Saddam.

Please provide proof of the numbers that you claim the U.S. has killed in Iraq? The terrorist seem to be killing hundreds ever week, not U.S. forces, it is in the news everyday the 20s- 30s- 40- 100eds, that are killed by the bombings of schools, markets, Police check points, employment lines, Mosques, it is kind of like India the Police are suppose to be helping the people, but they are the one who have the torture chambers, and death houses, the Terrorist insurgent claim to be trying to free Iraq, How by killing all of the Iraqis they can, they are killing 100eds of Iraqis for every coalition soldier they claim, now prove that the death toll is directly caused by U.S. military action against Iraqi civilians.

Again, Sam, why should I just believe that the Taliban were telling the truth? Because it says so in The Hindu? Please. A fucking militia, probably funded by Bin Laden, and we're supposed to take them at their word?

Come on. Be realistic.

The Taliban were funded by Pakistan with US money. Its no secret. As for their stand on the evidence, it is a matter of public record.

And after checking those links, the Taliban actually refers to us as "evil"...you don't see a bias there? And it's not like we didn't show anyone the evidence; Pakistan and the UK saw the evidence. We just didn't show the Taliban.

Let's be real here. We're talking about a militia. We could (as we did) just come in and take them out of power...or they could hand Bin Laden over. They didn't want to hand him over, and I'm not sure that they would have even if they saw the evidence.

And you just don't even bother to realize that Bin Laden has been wanted for years...he's an admitted leader of the Al-Qaeda group, but the Taliban let him stay in their country? How shady is that? Most likely, Bin Laden (a billionaire) supported the Taliban financially.

I really don't think they would have handed him over anyway. And it wasn't that we didn't have the evidence...we just didn't show it to them. And we had no reason to--we gave them the option, and they chose to get attacked.

And after checking those links, the Taliban actually refers to us as "evil"...you don't see a bias there? And it's not like we didn't show anyone the evidence; Pakistan and the UK saw the evidence. We just didn't show the Taliban.

Let's be real here. We're talking about a militia. We could (as we did) just come in and take them out of power...or they could hand Bin Laden over. They didn't want to hand him over, and I'm not sure that they would have even if they saw the evidence.

And you just don't even bother to realize that Bin Laden has been wanted for years...he's an admitted leader of the Al-Qaeda group, but the Taliban let him stay in their country? How shady is that? Most likely, Bin Laden (a billionaire) supported the Taliban financia