Obama releases the "Torture Memos" - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-25-2009, 07:46 PM   #121
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
911 happened after Bush got a daily briefing that said BinLaden determined to hit U S

Rice said before Congress we had no idea they wanted to use planes to hit buildings, after there had been written reports that said the very same thing.
Bin Ladin had been determined to strike the United States since the early to mid-1990s. What did the Clinton administration do in response? Was it more or less than the Bush administration has done over the past 8 years?

Quote:
Why would they want to do this?
because they are completely incompetent.
If that were the case, the Bush administration would not have been re-elected by the FIRST popular vote majority since 1988!

Quote:
they were not fit to governed before 911 and failed - big time. they could not even read the memos.
Bin Ladin first struck against the United States during the Clinton Administration. Was Clinton and his cabinet not fit to govern because they failed after several years to catch Bin Ladin or destroy or seriously degrade his organization Al Quada? Were they not able to read the memos either?
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 08:05 PM   #122
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Not once has our intelligence community been in such a situation where torturing a prisoner provided information that shut down a "ticking time bomb" situation. Not once. It's a Hollywood pipe dream.
Again, I would agree with you if it has actually been proven that such techniques are ineffective. I don't know if that is the case though. Can you actually prove that not even one person's life has been saved through extreme interigation technique's?

Would it really be the moral thing to do, to not waterboard an individual even IF by waterboarding that individual you could obtain information that could save one persons life? Again, this assuming such a technique works.

Quote:
Because BushCo have shown themselves to be morally suspect in other ways?
Explain.

Quote:
Because they wanted answers (whether true or not) to questions that would help paint the push for war in a better light?
They did not release this information, Obama did.

Quote:
Personally, I feel that one of the big factors they went to torture was this: they wanted to show the enemy that we're not as soft as they think we are. That we'll get just as dirty as you guys would. Not scared by all our high tech toys? Well guess what, one on one, we're not afraid to get down and dirty on you, either. Oh sure, we're not complete savages who'll behead you, but we sure as hell don't mind dabbling in some of the tried and true techniques of some of the more brutal regimes out there.

Whether they got credible information was probably a distant secondary benefit in their minds (you don't waterboard someone 83 times because you think he's just about to crack, you waterboard someone 83 times to teach him a lesson).
Well, how would uncaptured Al Quada have any idea what is happening to someone in captivity whom the United States has no intention of releasing, and keeps the interigation techniques used against them classified?

I've not seen anything which shows Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell decided to use certain interigation techniques to simply punish or teach someone a lesson. Again, it serves no purpose to do that.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 09:42 PM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:31 AM
I understand that the CIA uses only handcrafted American-made waterboards.

Does the anti-torture crowd ever stop to think of the jobs that will be lost due to your delicate, highly sensitive nature?

Imagine your conundrum if these were union jobs.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 09:57 AM   #124
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 10:31 AM
this is ghastly. and INDY, you are sinking into a swamp when you can't offer anything other than cheap insults because, again, you have nothing to offer other than your hatred of "liberals."

it's simple -- it doesn't matter of torture "works" or not, it is still torture. and proving that torture "works" is entirely on the shoulders of people who want to tear up the Constitution, increase the power of the executive, and adopt the tactics of the Khamer Rouge and the Imperialist Japanese so that they can fabricate a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (something that no pro-torture poster has even gone near). you were dead wrong historically INDY. you need to prove that these illegal techniques are necessary. and you'll need to get a better legal team than Bybee and Yoo who offered up the equivalent in legal advice.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 10:00 AM   #125
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
How would you justify letting a child, a thousand children, a million children, die, because you were unwilling to allow an interigation technique to be used on a terrorist that could retrieve intelligence to prevent such a disaster?

Lets just say for the moment that waterboarding does work and could save millions of people in certain situations. Are you really going to value preventing the extreme discomfort for a few minutes on a single individual over the entire lives of millions of people?



let's say for a moment that an asteroid the size of Texas were hurtling towards the earth, and the only thing you could do to stop it would be to send a team of expert oil drillers on a space ship to the asteroid so they could dig deep into it's core and drop a nuclear weapon and blow up the asteroid. there's a likely chance that the crew will not make it back to earth are you willing to sacrifice those people?

i am. you know why? because that scenario has as much basis in reality as the one you've just constructed.

there has never, EVER, been a ticking time bomb. the scenario you described has not ever happened.

so come back to reality when you're done masturbating to episodes of "24."

and, suddenly from STING, a concern for human life? amazing.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 10:03 AM   #126
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I think some have no idea how rare liberty and freedom are nor the enormous effort it takes to defend them.



the irony of this post is astounding.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 01:34 PM   #127
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

there has never, EVER, been a ticking time bomb. the scenario you described has not ever happened.
You know for a fact that not a single human life has ever been saved in history through such interigation techniques? Source?


Quote:
and, suddenly from STING, a concern for human life? amazing.
Hey, I'm NOT the one who thinks that Human Life would be safer and better off with Saddam's regime still in power.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 02:41 PM   #128
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
let's say for a moment that an asteroid the size of Texas were hurtling towards the earth, and the only thing you could do to stop it would be to send a team of expert oil drillers on a space ship to the asteroid so they could dig deep into it's core and drop a nuclear weapon and blow up the asteroid. there's a likely chance that the crew will not make it back to earth are you willing to sacrifice those people?

i am. you know why? because that scenario has as much basis in reality as the one you've just constructed.
I'll give you a scenario.

As emergency crews already race towards the Pentagon and stunned Americans watch the Twin Towers collapsing, a suspected 4th hijacked commercial passenger jet is headed towards Washington D.C.

You have minutes to decide.
Does President Irvine sacrifice the innocent passengers and crew to potentially save a greater lose of life on the ground and possibly the destruction of the White House or Capital Building or not?

Of course we know what actually happened. But shooting down the jet, as awful and hard a choice as that would have been, would have been THE CORRECT choice.

The CIA or Bush Administration faced another hard choice as we started to capture high-level members of al-Qaeda. Given that we haven't had another attack I'd say they made THE CORRECT choice.

Anything else is only speculation. You might be right... or tragically wrong.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 02:51 PM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
You know for a fact that not a single human life has ever been saved in history through such interigation techniques? Source?
Shifting the burden of proof.

Quote:
If that were the case, the Bush administration would not have been re-elected by the FIRST popular vote majority since 1988!
Appeal to popularity.

Quote:
Again, I would agree with you if it has actually been proven that such techniques are ineffective. I don't know if that is the case though. Can you actually prove that not even one person's life has been saved through extreme interigation technique's?
Shifting the burden of proof.

C'mon. If I were the pro-torture side I'd be a little concerned that the advocates need to jump to obvious logical fallacies in order to argue their case.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 02:58 PM   #130
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
this is ghastly.
This was a joke. When The Daily Show does a bit with one of its faux reporters in front of a closed waterboard factory -- just remember where you heard it first.
Quote:
it's simple -- it doesn't matter if torture "works" or not, it is still torture.
Let's substitute "torture" with the Obama rallying cry of "change" for a moment shall we.

-- It doesn't matter if change works or not, it is still change.

Silly isn't it? Especially since the definition of "change" can vacillate as often as "torture" now can.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 03:06 PM   #131
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
This was a joke. When The Daily Show does a bit with one of its faux reporters in front of a closed waterboard factory -- just remember where you heard it first.


Let's substitute "torture" with the Obama rallying cry of "change" for a moment shall we.

-- It doesn't matter if change works or not, it is still change.

Silly isn't it? Especially since the definition of "change" can vacillate as often as "torture" now can.
I don't think we signed a UN treaty against change.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 03:21 PM   #132
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Let's sink to new lows shall we....

YouTube - Sean Hannity Volunteers To Be Waterboarded!!!
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 03:34 PM   #133
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The CIA or Bush Administration faced another hard choice as we started to capture high-level members of al-Qaeda. Given that we haven't had another attack I'd say they made THE CORRECT choice.

Anything else is only speculation. You might be right... or tragically wrong.
Hold on. You're saying "anything else" is speculation when you're SPECULATING that Bush was right because we haven't had another attack?

That doesn't make any sense. You know why? Maybe ... just maybe ... there was not going to be another attack, regardless of whether or not we tortured.

Crazy, isn't it?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 03:36 PM   #134
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Let's substitute "torture" with the Obama rallying cry of "change" for a moment shall we.

-- It doesn't matter if change works or not, it is still change.

Silly isn't it? Especially since the definition of "change" can vacillate as often as "torture" now can.
The only people vacillating the definition of torture are people like you and STING.

I think Obama has made it quite clear what he meant by change: change in the economy, change in foreign policy, change in issues like torture. He's made the differences between his administration and the last quite clear.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 03:55 PM   #135
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,668
Local Time: 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Hold on. You're saying "anything else" is speculation when you're SPECULATING that Bush was right because we haven't had another attack?

That doesn't make any sense. You know why? Maybe ... just maybe ... there was not going to be another attack, regardless of whether or not we tortured.

Crazy, isn't it?
There was an attack on the World Trade Centre one month or so into Clinton's first term (February 1993), about seven months earlier than 9/11 occurred in Bush's first term. In both instances there wasn't another attack on home soil for the remainder of their presidencies, yet all we hear about from some people is that Bush's security policies helped prevent another attack. But where is the credit for the Clinton administration in preventing an attack?
__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com