He's doing the right thing. The last thing the country needs during the economic downturn is a witch hunt to appease anti Bush Democrats. He's everyone's President now and made a call that's in the best interest of the country.
10 'torture' techniques blessed by Bush
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
He's doing the right thing. The last thing the country needs during the economic downturn is a witch hunt to appease anti Bush Democrats. He's everyone's President now and made a call that's in the best interest of the country.
Fantastic response ? Sounds like the start of a new friendship.
As to the rest of it, you might be aware of the fact that there are upwards of 150,000 US troops in Iraq and plenty of anti Government Al-Qaeda types who want to kill them. Those who are captured need to be interrogated to get information about their comrades who are still running about plotting things.
And your statements underscore the rampant ignorance of point and click internet spastics who know nothing about what happens on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. You pontificate as if you're mildly educated about the subject matter you're trying discuss by throwing around unrelated historical references and inferring that there is more to this story that there really is. The fact that you tried to compare the US to a genocidal regime speaks volumes about the credibility of anything you have or will contribute to this thread. Good luck digging out of this one.
interrogated yes - tortured no
whats the legal difference in a witch hunt for terrorists
and a witch hunt for torturers
The trouble with using the word torture is that it demonizes perfectly legitimate interrogation practices while conjuring up thoughts of real torture that has occurred elsewhere in the past. Practices such as depriving inmates of normal food in favor of a liquid diet, sleep deprivation etc are not torture in my book not should they be to the objective observer. Unfortunately the misuse of the term has been exploited by many left wing loons who are against US foreign and are hellbent on making it appear as if inmates are having their nuts wired to car batteries. This type of fear mongering misses the point of what interrogation is meant to achieve; namely to extract information to save lives.
I'll let you figure that one out yourself.
As to the rest of it, you might be aware of the fact that there are upwards of 150,000 US troops in Iraq and plenty of anti Government Al-Qaeda types who want to kill them. Those who are captured need to be interrogated to get information about their comrades who are still running about plotting things.
And your statements underscore the rampant ignorance of point and click internet spastics who know nothing about what happens on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. You pontificate as if you're mildly educated about the subject matter you're trying discuss by throwing around unrelated historical references and inferring that there is more to this story that there really is. The fact that you tried to compare the US to a genocidal regime speaks volumes about the credibility of anything you have or will contribute to this thread. Good luck digging out of this one.
Big words like 'pontificate', 'ignorance', 'inferring' ...
Are they meant to scare me off or something? Cut the crap and tell me simply why there are over 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq right now? Exactly what legal and factual basis of terrorism elimination were they sent?
As for being a 'rampant point and click internet spastic' errr, you're the one with 27,000+ posts on an internet site. Errrr Go figure!
exactly how is the word 'torture' being misused or misinterpreted in this context, given the written evidence that this thread is based upon?
Exactly which of these 10 'interrogation practices' (
) do you consider 'perfectly legitimate', in your esteemed opinion?Sam,
I've known Raoul for... well going on 10 years. He has laid upon you his disinformation conversation killer technique -
That being the tools of:
- You don't know what you are talking about.
- The invalidating use of the word 'Pontificate', thus to disuade people from considering your points. We may as well include the use of the word 'Ignorant'. As if you are unable to read the news or see or hear what's on the tv. Therefor you have no right to the moral or ethical drawbacks of the Iraq conflict.
- Genocide ~ Genocide?! ~ GENOCIDE, are you fecking stupid. WE ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE THE USA OF GENOCIDE!!! -
*Please see past conversations about the US warfare policy of Clear-Stablize-Rebuild. There have been two seperate documentaries that I've seen that elude to shades of genocide because of this tactic, whole towns that have been flattened into desert sand.
Point is... don't be discourage by Raoul's attempt to humiliate or discredit your points.
I've known Raoul for... well going on 10 years. He has laid upon you his disinformation conversation killer technique -
That being the tools of:
- You don't know what you are talking about.
- The invalidating use of the word 'Pontificate', thus to disuade people from considering your points. We may as well include the use of the word 'Ignorant'. As if you are unable to read the news or see or hear what's on the tv. Therefor you have no right to the moral or ethical drawbacks of the Iraq conflict.
- Genocide ~ Genocide?! ~ GENOCIDE, are you fecking stupid. WE ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE THE USA OF GENOCIDE!!! -
*Please see past conversations about the US warfare policy of Clear-Stablize-Rebuild. There have been two seperate documentaries that I've seen that elude to shades of genocide because of this tactic, whole towns that have been flattened into desert sand.
Point is... don't be discourage by Raoul's attempt to humiliate or discredit your points.
Tell me simply why there are over 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq right now? Exactly what legal and factual basis of terrorism elimination were they sent?
As for being a 'rampant point and click internet spastic' errr, you're the one with the 27000+ posts on an internet site. Errrr Go figure!
U.S. Troops are in the country right now at the request of the Iraqi Government. There is a bi-lateral agreement in place that governs their presence, and as such, they have also been asked to help eradicate Al-Qaeda terrorists by the Iraqi Government.
That has to be worthy of a
Oh dear. Dear oh dear. Full of utter bollocks.
you've been utterly brainwashed through too much 'point & click Internet spastic' tendencies given your 27,000+ posts.
That has to be worthy of a
Oh dear. Dear oh dear. Full of utter bollocks.
you've been utterly brainwashed through too much 'point & click Internet spastic' tendencies given your 27,000+ posts.
Are you living in some sort of bubble that's devoid of reality ?
The Iraqi and U.S. Government signed a Status of Forces Agreement that created the legal framework for U.S. Troops to remain in Iraq until 2011.
I know your trick...answering a differet question to the one which was asked.
I'll try one more time: Exactly what legal and factual basis of terrorism elimination were they sent?
They never went into Iraq for terrorism elimination. The purpose of the 2003 invasion was to remove Saddam Hussein and his totalitarian regime.
Sell outs!
No Raoul.
There are many others dictators around the world which are worthy of removal, why Iraq?
WMD was the excuse.
It was down to a strategic miscalculation by the Bush administration, that Iraq was linked with Al-Qaeda.
Oh dear. I rest my case. I think you will find it had something to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction (Just where did all those big bad bombs destined for the USA go?) and the 'proven' links Sadaam had with Al Qaeda.
Cherry pick and try and rewrite history as much as you want. The more you write it, its obvious the more you believe it. The victor does often get the chance to rewrite history as he chooses. Problem is, whoever it is you seem hellbent on fighting (who are you fighting anyway?!), you are obviously not winning this war ... and given the state of your country's economy, cultural reputation, not to mention what the rest of the world thinks of you, the USA has for all intents and purposes LOST THIS WAR.
Huff, puff as much as you like, I know for Americans, winning at any cost is so important to your fragile ego's ... well you guys have got well and truly creamed crackered this time around. And no one is scared anymore either.
And the problem of Al Qaeda has been proven to be something that happened way after the invasion of Iraq. The stories of terror camps in Iraq have been proven to be false.
So, the reality is as follows:
- The Allied forces invade Iraq under false pretenses
- They claim to be using extraordinary techniques of interigation, in Iraq because of ties to Al Qaeda - which had been proven to be false
- Private military contractors that just happen to be involved in the oil industry and supplying services to bolster military operations are at the forefront of the controversy.
...and the neo-cons continue to harp on about it being an effort to protect the world from dangerous leaders, really?
Invasion of Iraq was an open breach, and contempt of international law. A crime against humanity.
Policy makers who authorised the invasion should be subject to war crimes. I have no doubt if these crimes were committed by those not on friendly terms with the US, a session in the Hague would have been a no brainer.
I think you will find it had something to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction (Just where did all those big bad bombs destined for the USA go?) and the 'proven' links Sadaam had with Al Qaeda.
Cherry pick and try and rewrite history as much as you want. The more you write it, its obvious the more you believe it. The victor does often get the chance to rewrite history as he chooses. Problem is, whoever it is you seem hellbent on fighting (who are you fighting anyway?!), you are obviously not winning this war ... and given the state of your country's economy, cultural reputation, not to mention what the rest of the world thinks of you, the USA has for all intents and purposes LOST THIS WAR.
Huff, puff as much as you like, I know for Americans, winning at any cost is so important to your fragile ego's ... well you guys have got well and truly creamed crackered this time around. And no one is scared anymore either.
More long winded nonsense. Not surprisingly, you seem incapable of sticking to the main point of this thread and are now clutching at straws by questioning the motives behind the Iraq war.
Strategic Miscalculation
That's just a fancy way of saying Bush lied or committed international crimes.
Eh, Raoul?
Or should we put it like this, 'One mans Strategic Miscalculation, is another man's Crime Against Humanity'
That's just a fancy way of saying Bush lied or committed international crimes.
Eh, Raoul?
Or should we put it like this, 'One mans Strategic Miscalculation, is another man's Crime Against Humanity'
It was just that. A strategic miscalculation. He was going on information that he thought to be correct at the time, but ended up not being accurate. But as we're seeing, the long term results of the invasion will be a stronger democratic Iraq. I don't know any Iraqi would wants to go back to the Saddam days now that they've tasted democracy and independence.
Given that I am the author of this thread, I think I know what it is about.
Let me know when you figure it out.
Ok, Raoul... the somewhat sarcastic response to your implication that it was a 'Woops!!!' mistake believing in bad information needs to stop.
There was ONE informant that the intelligence agency code-named 'Curveball'...
Anyone with half a brain and any familurarity of baseball knows that a curveball is a 'deceptive pitch'. Get it!? - By the nickname of the person they gathered intel - they knew it was false information, or very likely to be false.
You can not deny that this is a well established fact. (If I may quote the great Rafa)
So, if I may suggest with relative confidence... your argument is fecking retarded. Thank you very much.
Yes Rob. I get it.
As to the rest of it, you might be aware of the fact that there are upwards of 150,000 US troops in Iraq and plenty of anti Government Al-Qaeda types who want to kill them. Those who are captured need to be interrogated to get information about their comrades who are still running about plotting things.
And your statements underscore the rampant ignorance of point and click internet spastics who know nothing about what happens on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. You pontificate as if you're mildly educated about the subject matter you're trying discuss by throwing around unrelated historical references and inferring that there is more to this story that there really is. The fact that you tried to compare the US to a genocidal regime speaks volumes about the credibility of anything you have or will contribute to this thread. Good luck digging out of this one.
Raoul debating with this spastic isn't worth it. He believes 9/11 was an inside job.
'Nuff said.
Who believes 9.11 was an inside job?!
And even if someone in this thread does believe in that... it doesn't take away from the merits of this discussion.
Big words like 'pontificate', 'ignorance', 'inferring' ...
Cut the crap and tell me simply why there are over 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq right now? Exactly what legal and factual basis of terrorism elimination were they sent?
As for being a 'rampant point and click internet spastic' errr, you're the one with 27,000+ posts on an internet site. Errrr Go figure!
There are 150,000 troops in Iraq right now, because in the year 2003 Iraq was invaded, justly or unjustly is now irrelevant. What is relevant is that we destroyed the infrastructure of said country and removed whatever law and order that was provided by the former regime.
Those 150,000 troops are now there, because without them the country would de-evolve into an orgy of violence and ethnically and religiously motivated reprisals which would make Darfur looks like a Saturday night punchup.
So 150,000 troops remain to provide security and support to the current elected government and the people rebuilding a country we bombed into the stone age.
That is why 150,000 troops remain.
Sammsky. Don't you remember his railing on in the thread about Israel and Gaza? In the many turns it took it came out he believes Colonel Mustard was responsible for the 9/11 attacks with a candle stick in the study or some such nonsense.
As to the merits? It calls into question the credibility of someone when they believe that kind garbage.
Nucks,
You seem to have missed the subject line... allow me to help because you aren't adding anything to the topic.
It is concerning the brutal forms of torture, was it justified, or had it been lawful.
Hope that helps because the usual Neo-Con bullshit is falling on deaf ears.
You seem to have missed the subject line... allow me to help because you aren't adding anything to the topic.
It is concerning the brutal forms of torture, was it justified, or had it been lawful.
Hope that helps because the usual Neo-Con bullshit is falling on deaf ears.
I don't share that same belief in the 9.11 topic, but to discredit him in this thread because of something from another thread, isn't fair. For example, just because I believed in Santa Claus for the first 5 years of my life, that doesn't make me a complete nutter.
No offense Sam
He has made many valid points in this thread.
You mean the public found out - a bit like Bliar and his WMD dossier
I need a good laugh - tell me your definition of an objective observer in the above cases
That's not what i meant. The Iraq war was a miscalculation because the rationale that he used to sell the invasion to the public turned out to be off the mark, because as it turned out, the intelligence that led to his decision to invade turned out to be inaccurate.
Someone who doesn't have a political motive guiding their conclusions.