Ernie S.
Diamond Member
I think I want my countrymen to live. No we don't torture. Waterboarding is not torture.
Austin Police Chief Says Cops Need To ‘Vet’ Gun Owners
- Thread starter bigrebnc1775
- Start date
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,078
- 53,601
- 2,290
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
Diamond Member
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
Diamond Member
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
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,078
- 53,601
- 2,290
Joe....you suffer from "projection"
Psychological projection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
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....
Last edited:
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,078
- 53,601
- 2,290
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
Diamond Member
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
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,078
- 53,601
- 2,290
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.....
You need to think through things Joe.....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,078
- 53,601
- 2,290
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....
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....
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Okay, I'm going to ask this very nicely.
ARE YOU SOME KIND OF ******* 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
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,078
- 53,601
- 2,290
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
and sorry Joe....the New York Times broke the chemical weapons story.....about a month back....
WikiLeaks The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection Confirmed Again The Weekly Standard
and sorry Joe....the New York Times broke the chemical weapons story.....about a month back....
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Again, we didn't go to war over expired mustard gas.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,078
- 53,601
- 2,290
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....
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....
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
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.
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.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Guy, I know you guys live in an alternative universe, but Iraq was a ******* 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.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Congresswoman Summer Lee told the crowd that the “upper class” is the real “enemy.”- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 1
-
-
Why Interstellar Travel is Physically Impossible.- Started by ShahdagMountains
- Replies: 14
-
-
Energy Prices Skyrocket in West Virginia. $940 household electric bill!!!!- Started by candycorn
- Replies: 1
