Austin Police Chief Says Cops Need To ‘Vet’ Gun Owners

[Ernie S.]

Well, if you studied the topic...we learned everything about the terrorists, how they were organized, how they communictated, how they moved their money...and where bin laden was hiding.....

Well, no, we didn't. IN fact, KSM told his interrogators that the "courier" that led us to Bin Laden was nobody important. We caught KSM in 2003. We didn't get around to killing Bin Laden until 2011.

Senate report Torture didn t lead to bin Laden

The most high-profile detainee linked to the bin Laden investigation was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused 9/11 mastermind who was waterboarded 183 times. Mohammed, intelligence officials have noted, confirmed after his 2003 capture that he knew an important al-Qaida courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.

The Senate report concludes such information wasn't critical, according to the aides. Mohammed only discussed al-Kuwaiti months after being waterboarded, while he was under standard interrogation, they said. And Mohammed neither acknowledged al-Kuwaiti's significance nor provided interrogators with the courier's real name.

The debate over how investigators put the pieces together is significant because years later, the courier led U.S. intelligence to the sleepy Pakistani military town of Abbottabad. There, in May 2011, Navy SEALs killed bin Laden in a secret mission.

And no, when we waterboarded 3 terrorists...and it was only 3, we did not do it the way the communists in Vietnam, Cambodia, or the inquisition or the Japanese did it.....so please spare me....

I think I want my country to be a little better than those guys. We don't torture. We signed treaties that said we woldn't torture.

I think I want my countrymen to live. No we don't torture. Waterboarding is not torture.

 

[2aguy]

Water boarding is against the Geneva convention for actual military personnel. they are "lawful" combatants, where terrorists are in violation of the laws of war, they are unlawful enemy combatants and their actions open them up to water boarding an enhanced interrogation technique...supported by at least 4 former Vietnam POWS two of whom are Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.

 

[JoeB131]

Duh.. Joe thinks 8 or 9,000 is 43 times as big as 1,600,000. AND he can prove it with a debunked study.

No, guy, I don't take the non-lethal DGU claims seriously because I don't believe that when people like you who fantasize all day about killing "criminals" (read- black people) actually have that wonderful day when one walks into your gun sites, you can restrain yourselves. Shit, man, that would be like Christmas and your birthday all rolled up into one.

 

[JoeB131]

I think I want my countrymen to live. No we don't torture. Waterboarding is not torture.

Waterboarding IS torture. But more importantly, it's worthless. People will say whatever they think their torturer wants to hear to get the pain to stop. It just creates a lot of useless information.

 

[2aguy]

o, guy, I don't take the non-lethal DGU claims seriously because I don't believe that when people like you who fantasize all day about killing "criminals" (read- black people) actually have that wonderful day when one walks into your gun sites, you can restrain yourselves. Shit, man, that would be like Christmas and your birthday all rolled up into one.

Joe....you suffer from "projection"

Psychological projection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Joe, notice how you are the only one who talks about killing minorities.....and you do it over and over again.....you should look into getting some help with that....

 

[2aguy]

Waterboarding IS torture. But more importantly, it's worthless. People will say whatever they think their torturer wants to hear to get the pain to stop. It just creates a lot of useless information.

Joe, this just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.....you have absorbed the liberal talking points but haven't thought through what they actual mean or wether they are based in truth, facts or reality....

do you understand that the first questions asked in any interrogation are questions the interrogatr knows the answer to.......and when the terrorist lies, he gets water boarded....it sets up the desire to be truthful....then, when they get to questions they need answered....they check what the prisoner tells them.....they still keep him in custody...so if he lied to them....they can still go back and water board him.......so lying gets them nowhere......

Please Joe....start to think.....get past your democrat controlled education....

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, this just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.....you have absorbed the liberal talking points but haven't thought through what they actual mean or wether they are based in truth, facts or reality....

do you understand that the first questions asked in any interrogation are questions the interrogatr knows the answer to.......and when the terrorist lies, he gets water boarded....it sets up the desire to be truthful....then, when they get to questions they need answered....they check what the prisoner tells them.....they still keep him in custody...so if he lied to them....they can still go back and water board him.......so lying gets them nowhere......

Please Joe....start to think.....get past your democrat controlled education....

A whole lot of problems with that mentality, the first being that if the torturered person really, really doesn't know the answer, he'll make some shit up.

We tortured Khalid Sheihk Mohammed 183 times. It's clear that he really didn't know anything about where Bin Laden was hiding. The government STILL won't tell us what we asked him, probably because they tortured him to try to get him to say that Al Qaeda was working with Saddam. (Which we now know was certainly not true.)

 

[2aguy]

Joe...they found actual chemical weapons in Iraq during the war....as reported by the New York Times, and decided that bringing that up would just rehash old arguments....so they didn't bother to make it known to the public...if they wouldn't point out that they actually found chemical weapons, which the democrats bitched about 5 seconds after the war started, why would they go to the effort of forcing guys to admit to that....besides salaam did have links to the terrorists.....

You need to think through things Joe.....

 

[2aguy]

As to the 183 times....you need to realize that you are probably referring to the times they poured water on the terrorist....hardly what you would mean by torture since they could only pour water for a set amount of times Each day, for a set amount of water...per pour, which wasn't very much....you should research the actual method they used in their water boarding technique....then you would see how silly your objections are....

the interrogators said the terrorists were knowledgeable about the rules for water boarding and as he was water boarded he held up his hand and used his fingers to show them the count on the number of seconds they could pour the water over his nose...as they were pouring the water....hardly someone terrified by the technique....

 

[JoeB131]

Joe...they found actual chemical weapons in Iraq during the war....as reported by the New York Times, and decided that bringing that up would just rehash old arguments....so they didn't bother to make it known to the public...if they wouldn't point out that they actually found chemical weapons, which the democrats bitched about 5 seconds after the war started, why would they go to the effort of forcing guys to admit to that....besides salaam did have links to the terrorists.....

You need to think through things Joe.....

Okay, I'm going to ask this very nicely.

ARE YOU SOME KIND OF FUCKING RETARD?

Seriously, this is the only conclusion I can come to. First, old expired chemical weapons is not what we went to war over. We went to war because Saddam was making nukes and anthrax and was going to give them to Al Qaeda, and that just wasn't true.

Second, Saddam had links to Palestinian "Terrorists", not Al Qaeda. Sorry, That's between the Palestinians and the Zionists. So not our problem.

 

[2aguy]

ARE YOU SOME KIND OF FUCKING RETARD?

No Joe, I am not....but in post after post you prove you are....

 

[2aguy]

Joe....wikileaks...the darling of the anti war on terror types....proves the link....

WikiLeaks The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection Confirmed Again The Weekly Standard

Sadkhan’s relationship with Saddam’s regime did not end either, according to the Gitmo files. Although Sadkhan claimed to have fled Iraq in 1997, he allegedly continued to work with Saddam’s regime.

“Conduits” to Saddam’s regime

At least three Guantanamo detainees identified Sadkhan as a henchman for Saddam Hussein.

An Uzbek named Oybek Jamoldinivich Jabbarov, told authorities that Sadkhan “admitted working as a liaison between [the] Taliban Intelligence Directorate and Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein.” Jabbarov explained that Sadkhan and another Iraqi once held at Guantanamo, Hassan Abdul Said, “traveled between Iraq and Afghanistan ferrying unidentified supplies from Iraq through Iran on multiple occasions.” Sadkhan “would receive money from the Taliban in exchange for these supplies.”

Both Said, who claimed to have worked for the Iraqi opposition, and Sadkhan are described as “conduits” between the Taliban and Saddam’s regime in declassified files.

and sorry Joe....the New York Times broke the chemical weapons story.....about a month back....

 

[JoeB131]

and sorry Joe....the New York Times broke the chemical weapons story.....about a month back...

Again, we didn't go to war over expired mustard gas.

 

[2aguy]

these are the reasons...but remember...it was the democrats who focused solely on WMDs, while rational people knew there were many reasons to go....


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121504452359324921


When the president ultimately decided that the Iraqi regime must be ousted by force, he was influenced by five key factors:

1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam's regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush's strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 – especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction.

3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam's compliance.

4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.

-----------------------

I know joe, 9/11 was a whole 13 years ago and history for you starts when you wake up and resets each night when you go to sleep, as,it does with the left.....but there were actual reasons we attacked sadaam...which of course we're undermined, and attacked by the media wing of the democrat party.....and the democrat politicians....

 

[JoeB131]

these are the reasons...but remember...it was the democrats who focused solely on WMDs, while rational people knew there were many reasons to go....

Yeah, there were a lot of reasons, but no GOOD ones. Not for what that war cost us in terms of lives and treasure and not in terms of the chaos it's unleashed in the region. It was just a really, really stupid idea that a dumb president got us into because he wanted to avenge his Daddy because Saddam survived and Poppy Bush got voted out.

I know joe, 9/11 was a whole 13 years ago and history for you starts when you wake up and resets each night when you go to sleep, as,it does with the left.....but there were actual reasons we attacked sadaam...which of course we're undermined, and attacked by the media wing of the democrat party.....and the democrat politicians....

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush used our fear to get a war he'd have never gotten people to agree to otherwise. Shame on him for doing it, shame on us for going along with it.

 

[2aguy]

Not for what that war cost us in terms of lives and treasure and not in terms of the chaos it's unleashed in the region.

We lost very few soldiers for the gains we made and the chaos happened after obama came into office....the fight in Iraq was over and Afghanistan was stable...enter obama and all those gains are lost....

 

[JoeB131]

We lost very few soldiers for the gains we made and the chaos happened after obama came into office....the fight in Iraq was over and Afghanistan was stable...enter obama and all those gains are lost....

Guy, I know you guys live in an alternative universe, but Iraq was a fucking mess under Bush. Finally, we paid the Sunnis a nice big bribe to play nice until we were done bugging out.

Afghanistan was hardly "Stable", either. The Taliban controlled most of the countryside.