CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attac

[Iriemon]

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

Daniel Pearl would have taken this over being beheaded.

Interesting speculation.

But you dodged my question.

I didn't dodge anything. Beheading and torture as PC described vs. water boarding? If they are going to torture our guys, water boarding wins.

Thanks for answering. So you think others should be able to torture US citizens or soldiers this way.

Not me.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't know one person on the left who basis their position on that. But do you think that if we say we're going to torture that's going to help US soldiers or agents or citizens who are captured?



I agree that there are some evil people who oppose us. So you point is we should be evil people too?

Personally I'd rather think my side is noble righteous as opposed to maybe just a little less evil than them.

The point is, terrorists are going to do to our guys whatever the hell they want regardless of what we do to their guys. If water boarding results in intel that stops another 9-11, you'd rather spare the prisoner that and let another 3000 people die?

Under that circumstance where I knew that it would save 3000 lives I'd probably do it. But I wouldn't make it legal to do.

Having answered your question, I have a few also.

1. Why stop there? Would you put electrodes on some guys nuts and shock him if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life? How about bamboo shoots under fingernails? Drilling teeth down to the root? Why not?

2. Would you be willing to do these things if it might save a life but you weren't sure? How about if it probably wouldn't?

3. How would you feel about these kinds of things being done to US soldiers or agents? Or do you think that these are things only the US should be able to do and other nations not?

What you just described is torture. Compare that to what we've done to prisoners. See the difference? No, I'm not for what you described nor would I want our guys tortured in this manner. Doesn't much matter if we 'torture' their guys or not . . . they will rip our guys apart because they hate us and they don't care.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why didn't we experiment on Jeffrey Dahmer? We could have got a lot of good medical information from it.

And given the chance, that guy would rape your ass and eat your brain.

So why didn't we put his body to good use?

Can I answer first?

BECAUSE THE FUCKING USA DOESN'T DO THAT KIND OF SHIT!!!!!

At least not that we know about.

What the hell are you talking about Jeffery Dahmer for??

Per the bolded, you stated earlier that you would torture but just wouldn't let anyone find out about it.

I was trying to make a point. Jeffrey Dahmer was a piece of shit. But I wouldn't torture him. That would make me just as bad.

But what if experimenting on him could possibly save lives. Would I do it? As a policy, no I would not. Behind the scenes, I probably would.

But keep in mind, Dahmer would never get out of prison. Many of the people we tortured are free now or will be freed someday.

In that case, YOU DON"T FUCKING TORTURE!!! Because the rest of the world is going to find out, and you are breeding enemies. And that won't make us safer.

And I would experiment on freaks like Jeff Dahmer. But I would never let it get out.

You do realize that experimenting on people and what the U.S. did to prisoners are two different things, right?

Jeffery Dahmer was nuts; what makes you think the terrorists are nuts? I think they're every bit as sane and you or me.

How come you posted earlier that you would torture but wouldn't let anyone find out about it? So it's ok if done in secret?

 

[WillowTree]

That seems to be the mindset of many who lean left. 'They hate us and we torture; if we stop torturing they won't hate us as much'.

I don't know one person on the left who basis their position on that. But do you think that if we say we're going to torture that's going to help US soldiers or agents or citizens who are captured?

It's laughable that some actually think that terrorists play by any kind of rules. They hate us, period. These are people who think blowing themselves up and taking Americans out with them is as noble and as righteous and as good as it gets. God, if anything they'll see our 'not torturing' as a sign of weakness . . . and hate us even more.

I agree that there are some evil people who oppose us. So you point is we should be evil people too?

Personally I'd rather think my side is noble righteous as opposed to maybe just a little less evil than them.

The point is, terrorists are going to do to our guys whatever the hell they want regardless of what we do to their guys. If water boarding results in intel that stops another 9-11, you'd rather spare the prisoner that and let another 3000 people die?

And these basement dwellers would know this if they read anything but liberal lunatic rantings.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the question is simple folks

Would you use one of the techniques laid out in the NYT article describing the "torture" if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life?

And if you chose some moral high ground, would that comfort you when you are living with the knowledge that an American died because of your failure to act?

Would I torture 100 Iraqi's "in hopes" of saving one American life, without any credible information? No.

They were never reasonably sure of anything. When those abu grabe pictures came out, what were those guards sure of?

But yes, if I was sure, I'd torture. But I wouldn't let the world find out. I wouldn't be so sloppy.

You must admit, bush was sloppy in Afganistan, sloppy in Iraq, sloppy with our economy, the worst fucking president ever. He should be in prison. Or at least he should have been impeached. Keeping us safe. HA! No ones buying that Skull.

we are not talking about Abu Ghraib. We are talking about sanctioned interrogation techniques. the guards at Abu Ghraib were not interrogating prisoners, they were degrading them. there is a difference.

 

[Iriemon]

The point is, terrorists are going to do to our guys whatever the hell they want regardless of what we do to their guys. If water boarding results in intel that stops another 9-11, you'd rather spare the prisoner that and let another 3000 people die?

Under that circumstance where I knew that it would save 3000 lives I'd probably do it. But I wouldn't make it legal to do.

Having answered your question, I have a few also.

1. Why stop there? Would you put electrodes on some guys nuts and shock him if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life? How about bamboo shoots under fingernails? Drilling teeth down to the root? Why not?

2. Would you be willing to do these things if it might save a life but you weren't sure? How about if it probably wouldn't?

3. How would you feel about these kinds of things being done to US soldiers or agents? Or do you think that these are things only the US should be able to do and other nations not?

What you just described is torture. Compare that to what we've done to prisoners. See the difference? No, I'm not for what you described nor would I want our guys tortured in this manner. Doesn't much matter if we 'torture' their guys or not . . . they will rip our guys apart because they hate us and they don't care.

So you'd rather let 3000 innocent people die rather than jolt some scumbag in the balls?

So you're OK with a rule that allows US soldiers to be waterboarded, head banged, dog bitten and the rest of it?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Interesting speculation.

But you dodged my question.

I didn't dodge anything. Beheading and torture as PC described vs. water boarding? If they are going to torture our guys, water boarding wins.

Thanks for answering. So you think others should be able to torture US citizens or soldiers this way.

Not me.

Nice twisting of words. I said if they are going to torture our guys, water boarding wins out over beheading and being put in a shredder. Interesting you twisted that around to say I support others torturing US people. You libs love to put words in other people's mouths.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Under that circumstance where I knew that it would save 3000 lives I'd probably do it. But I wouldn't make it legal to do.

Having answered your question, I have a few also.

1. Why stop there? Would you put electrodes on some guys nuts and shock him if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life? How about bamboo shoots under fingernails? Drilling teeth down to the root? Why not?

2. Would you be willing to do these things if it might save a life but you weren't sure? How about if it probably wouldn't?

3. How would you feel about these kinds of things being done to US soldiers or agents? Or do you think that these are things only the US should be able to do and other nations not?

What you just described is torture. Compare that to what we've done to prisoners. See the difference? No, I'm not for what you described nor would I want our guys tortured in this manner. Doesn't much matter if we 'torture' their guys or not . . . they will rip our guys apart because they hate us and they don't care.

So you'd rather let 3000 people die rather than jolt some scumbag in the balls?

No, I'd rather them water board they guy 283 times or whatever it takes. But you'd rather water boarding be banned and let 3000 people die.

 

[WillowTree]

Interesting speculation.

But you dodged my question.

I didn't dodge anything. Beheading and torture as PC described vs. water boarding? If they are going to torture our guys, water boarding wins.

Thanks for answering. So you think others should be able to torture US citizens or soldiers this way.

Not me.

Nobody said they should asshole. We said they did.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Under that circumstance where I knew that it would save 3000 lives I'd probably do it. But I wouldn't make it legal to do.

Having answered your question, I have a few also.

1. Why stop there? Would you put electrodes on some guys nuts and shock him if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life? How about bamboo shoots under fingernails? Drilling teeth down to the root? Why not?

2. Would you be willing to do these things if it might save a life but you weren't sure? How about if it probably wouldn't?

3. How would you feel about these kinds of things being done to US soldiers or agents? Or do you think that these are things only the US should be able to do and other nations not?

What you just described is torture. Compare that to what we've done to prisoners. See the difference? No, I'm not for what you described nor would I want our guys tortured in this manner. Doesn't much matter if we 'torture' their guys or not . . . they will rip our guys apart because they hate us and they don't care.

So you'd rather let 3000 innocent people die rather than jolt some scumbag in the balls?

So you're OK with a rule that allows US soldiers to be waterboarded, head banged, dog bitten and the rest of it?

Not playing your game IM. You can twist my words all you want, trying to make it sound as if I somehow support terrorits torturing our guys. It's not what I said and you know it.

 

[WillowTree]

Says the real "patriot" who'd just as soon see what he calls "the fucking country" go bankrupt.

well face it asshole, it you aren't willing to do what is necessary to prevent a 9-11 then you obviously don't give a shit about the 3000 that died. It's just that simple.. No go read some more media matters. or sumpin

Go whine about bankrupting "your fucking country" to someone else, traitor.

that really got to ya huh asshole?

 

[Iriemon]

What you just described is torture. Compare that to what we've done to prisoners. See the difference? No, I'm not for what you described nor would I want our guys tortured in this manner. Doesn't much matter if we 'torture' their guys or not . . . they will rip our guys apart because they hate us and they don't care.

So you'd rather let 3000 people die rather than jolt some scumbag in the balls?

No, I'd rather them water board they guy 283 times or whatever it takes. But you'd rather water boarding be banned and let 3000 people die.

No, sorry, that wasn't the quesitons I put to you.

You expect me to answer your questions and I do. But dodge mine because you know the inconsistency of your own opinions.

Old tactic of a argument with a losing position.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the question is simple folks

Would you use one of the techniques laid out in the NYT article describing the "torture" if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life?

And if you chose some moral high ground, would that comfort you when you are living with the knowledge that an American died because of your failure to act?

You know what, under that circumstance where I was reasonably sure it would save other lives I'd probably do it. But I wouldn't make it legal to do.

Having answered yours, I have a few simple questions also.

1. Why stop there? Would you put electrodes on some guys nuts and shock him if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life? How about bamboo shoote under fingernails? Drilling teeth down to the root?

2. Would you be willing to do these things if it might save a life but you weren't reasonably sure? How about if it probably wouldn't?

3. How would you feel about these kinds of things being done to US soldiers or agents? Or do you think that these things only the US should be able to do and other nations not?

Ah taking the extreme to deflect the argument. nice try at a diversion, but my question was specific.

If you want to move into the methods of your example, you first must show me that Americans have done these things under sanction of the government.

Me personally, if I was reasonably sure, I would do whatever it took to save a life of one of my countrymen.....even you.

If I wasn't acting on information I was reasonably sure of, I would not as I do not take pleasure in inflicting pain.

And those things and worse are done to American soldiers and the fact that we choose not to do them does not change that.

 

[sealybobo]

the question is simple folks

Would you use one of the techniques laid out in the NYT article describing the "torture" if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life?

And if you chose some moral high ground, would that comfort you when you are living with the knowledge that an American died because of your failure to act?

Would I torture 100 Iraqi's "in hopes" of saving one American life, without any credible information? No.

They were never reasonably sure of anything. When those abu grabe pictures came out, what were those guards sure of?

But yes, if I was sure, I'd torture. But I wouldn't let the world find out. I wouldn't be so sloppy.

You must admit, bush was sloppy in Afganistan, sloppy in Iraq, sloppy with our economy, the worst fucking president ever. He should be in prison. Or at least he should have been impeached. Keeping us safe. HA! No ones buying that Skull.

we are not talking about Abu Ghraib. We are talking about sanctioned interrogation techniques. the guards at Abu Ghraib were not interrogating prisoners, they were degrading them. there is a difference.

I am sure we tortured thousands of Sunni's in Iraq and at that prison. Not the guards, but the CIA.

Just admit that Bush handled Iraq/Afganistan all wrong.

You all seemed to summons up the courage to distance yourselves from him on the economy, now just take it the rest of the way. Say it. He sucked!

And you went along with him every step of the way. You even went along with him on the economy, until about a month before the election.

Then you and McCain tried to distance yourselves from him.

I got to go home. Good night.

 

[WillowTree]

Would I torture 100 Iraqi's "in hopes" of saving one American life, without any credible information? No.

They were never reasonably sure of anything. When those abu grabe pictures came out, what were those guards sure of?

But yes, if I was sure, I'd torture. But I wouldn't let the world find out. I wouldn't be so sloppy.

You must admit, bush was sloppy in Afganistan, sloppy in Iraq, sloppy with our economy, the worst fucking president ever. He should be in prison. Or at least he should have been impeached. Keeping us safe. HA! No ones buying that Skull.

we are not talking about Abu Ghraib. We are talking about sanctioned interrogation techniques. the guards at Abu Ghraib were not interrogating prisoners, they were degrading them. there is a difference.

I am sure we tortured thousands of Sunni's in Iraq and at that prison. Not the guards, but the CIA.

Just admit that Bush handled Iraq/Afganistan all wrong.

You all seemed to summons up the courage to distance yourselves from him on the economy, now just take it the rest of the way. Say it. He sucked!

And you went along with him every step of the way. You even went along with him on the economy, until about a month before the election.

Then you and McCain tried to distance yourselves from him.

I got to go home. Good night.

night bobo,, hope you didn't work to hard at screwing your company out of 8 hours..

 

[Iriemon]

What you just described is torture. Compare that to what we've done to prisoners. See the difference? No, I'm not for what you described nor would I want our guys tortured in this manner. Doesn't much matter if we 'torture' their guys or not . . . they will rip our guys apart because they hate us and they don't care.

So you'd rather let 3000 innocent people die rather than jolt some scumbag in the balls?

So you're OK with a rule that allows US soldiers to be waterboarded, head banged, dog bitten and the rest of it?

Not playing your game IM. You can twist my words all you want, trying to make it sound as if I somehow support terrorits torturing our guys. It's not what I said and you know it.

Your game is dodging because you can't defend your position.

You justify torture on the grounds it would save lives. OK.

So you'd approve torture by jolting someone in the balls if it would save lives?

And you approve a rule that allows that kind of torture so it can be applied to US prisoners?

You won't answer because you know the logic you've employed for you argument leads to a dead end.

If you argue that torture is justified because it might save lives that justifies all forms of torture.

If you say you approve torture but don't approve it for US soldiers you are saying that that you think the US should be able to have rules no one else in the world can follow.

Illogical positions.

 

[WillowTree]

So you'd rather let 3000 innocent people die rather than jolt some scumbag in the balls?

So you're OK with a rule that allows US soldiers to be waterboarded, head banged, dog bitten and the rest of it?

Not playing your game IM. You can twist my words all you want, trying to make it sound as if I somehow support terrorits torturing our guys. It's not what I said and you know it.

Your game is dodging because you can't defend your position.

You justify torture on the grounds it would save lives. OK.

So you'd approve torture by jolting someone in the balls if it would save lives?

And you approve a rule that allows that kind of torture so it can be applied to US prisoners?

You won't answer because you know the logic you've employed for you argument leads to a dead end.

If you argue that torture is justified because it might save lives that justifies all forms of torture.

If you say you approve torture but don't approve it for US soldiers you are saying that that you think the US should be able to have rules no one else in the world can follow.

Illogical positions.

well following your stupidity to it's logical conclusion. your not torturing anybody could cost millions of lives. You okay with that asshole?

 

[Iriemon]

the question is simple folks

Would you use one of the techniques laid out in the NYT article describing the "torture" if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life?

And if you chose some moral high ground, would that comfort you when you are living with the knowledge that an American died because of your failure to act?

You know what, under that circumstance where I was reasonably sure it would save other lives I'd probably do it. But I wouldn't make it legal to do.

Having answered yours, I have a few simple questions also.

1. Why stop there? Would you put electrodes on some guys nuts and shock him if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life? How about bamboo shoote under fingernails? Drilling teeth down to the root?

2. Would you be willing to do these things if it might save a life but you weren't reasonably sure? How about if it probably wouldn't?

3. How would you feel about these kinds of things being done to US soldiers or agents? Or do you think that these things only the US should be able to do and other nations not?

Ah taking the extreme to deflect the argument. nice try at a diversion, but my question was specific.

If you want to move into the methods of your example, you first must show me that Americans have done these things under sanction of the government.

Me personally, if I was reasonably sure, I would do whatever it took to save a life of one of my countrymen.....even you.

If I wasn't acting on information I was reasonably sure of, I would not as I do not take pleasure in inflicting pain.

And those things and worse are done to American soldiers and the fact that we choose not to do them does not change that.

Nice dodge. See my post above.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Would I torture 100 Iraqi's "in hopes" of saving one American life, without any credible information? No.

They were never reasonably sure of anything. When those abu grabe pictures came out, what were those guards sure of?

But yes, if I was sure, I'd torture. But I wouldn't let the world find out. I wouldn't be so sloppy.

You must admit, bush was sloppy in Afganistan, sloppy in Iraq, sloppy with our economy, the worst fucking president ever. He should be in prison. Or at least he should have been impeached. Keeping us safe. HA! No ones buying that Skull.

we are not talking about Abu Ghraib. We are talking about sanctioned interrogation techniques. the guards at Abu Ghraib were not interrogating prisoners, they were degrading them. there is a difference.

I am sure we tortured thousands of Sunni's in Iraq and at that prison. Not the guards, but the CIA.

Just admit that Bush handled Iraq/Afganistan all wrong.

You all seemed to summons up the courage to distance yourselves from him on the economy, now just take it the rest of the way. Say it. He sucked!

And you went along with him every step of the way. You even went along with him on the economy, until about a month before the election.

Then you and McCain tried to distance yourselves from him.

I got to go home. Good night.

oh you're sure.....well i guess that proves it. Might as well call it a wrap folks because booBoo is sure.

And why do you still delude yourself that i ever said that Bush did anything right in Iraq?

remember, I said we should never have been there in the first place?

 

[Iriemon]

Not playing your game IM. You can twist my words all you want, trying to make it sound as if I somehow support terrorits torturing our guys. It's not what I said and you know it.

Your game is dodging because you can't defend your position.

You justify torture on the grounds it would save lives. OK.

So you'd approve torture by jolting someone in the balls if it would save lives?

And you approve a rule that allows that kind of torture so it can be applied to US prisoners?

You won't answer because you know the logic you've employed for you argument leads to a dead end.

If you argue that torture is justified because it might save lives that justifies all forms of torture.

If you say you approve torture but don't approve it for US soldiers you are saying that that you think the US should be able to have rules no one else in the world can follow.

Illogical positions.

well following your stupidity to it's logical conclusion. your not torturing anybody could cost millions of lives. You okay with that asshole?

Maybe you can get someone else to play with you.