Bin Laden is DEAD, thread from Hell

[elvis]

Wow... Talk about revisionist history

To someone like Ravi, "truth" is defined as "that which serves the party." Facts and history are irrelevant, she serves her party and posts that which promotes it. Sure, most of what she posts are complete fabrications, but that isn't the point: serving the party is all that matters.

She just said Clinton tried to get bin Laden and failed.

 

[Jarhead]

Thanks for helping, now I know if you torture someone they're more scared months and months and months later than right after being tortured.

Great point, I've seen the light.

Actually you put words in my mouth.

Waterboarding could in some cases be effective at getting a prisoner to be more cooperative.

The incentive is avoiding a repeat of the negative reinforcement it presents. In other words, it tames them. Makes them less likely to lie out of fear of another dunking. Keeping prisoners seperated helps this as well.

So in some cases it gets them to be more cooperative months and months and months later, but not right after? He was just waterboarded, it had not affect on him telling the truth, but eons later he will.

That's your defense to keep torture going?

When a person is threatened to be tazed, they dare the cop to taze them as they continue to do whatever it is the cop is inisiting they stop doing.
I dont know this as fact, but I can pretty much assume with certainty that a high percentage of people would NOT dare the cop to taze them a second time.

After experiencing a session of waterboarding, I must believe it leaves the prisoner lots of time to think of what he would do to avoid it again.

To ignore this logic is irresponsible when debating the use of waterboarding. Still disagree that it should not be used...thats fine...but to ignoire this logic simply means you are not interested in taking an educated position on the debate.

 

[Jarhead]

Wow... Talk about revisionist history

To someone like Ravi, "truth" is defined as "that which serves the party." Facts and history are irrelevant, she serves her party and posts that which promotes it. Sure, most of what she posts are complete fabrications, but that isn't the point: serving the party is all that matters.

She just said Clinton tried to get bin Laden and failed.

That in itself was a lie.
He was offered bin laden and he declined...He never tried and failed.
He failed to try.
So if he failed to try then where is the logic that he warned Bush and Bush ignored him?

Her whole post was a partisan spin of the truth.

 

[elvis]

To someone like Ravi, "truth" is defined as "that which serves the party." Facts and history are irrelevant, she serves her party and posts that which promotes it. Sure, most of what she posts are complete fabrications, but that isn't the point: serving the party is all that matters.

She just said Clinton tried to get bin Laden and failed.

That in itself was a lie.
He was offered bin laden and he declined...He never tried and failed.
He failed to try.
So if he failed to try then where is the logic that he warned Bush and Bush ignored him?

Her whole post was a partisan spin of the truth.

he was offered him and refused. and then he tried to kill/capture him and failed.

 

[Jarhead]

She just said Clinton tried to get bin Laden and failed.

That in itself was a lie.
He was offered bin laden and he declined...He never tried and failed.
He failed to try.
So if he failed to try then where is the logic that he warned Bush and Bush ignored him?

Her whole post was a partisan spin of the truth.

he was offered him and refused. and then he tried to kill/capture him and failed.

And when was that?

 

[elvis]

That in itself was a lie.
He was offered bin laden and he declined...He never tried and failed.
He failed to try.
So if he failed to try then where is the logic that he warned Bush and Bush ignored him?

Her whole post was a partisan spin of the truth.

he was offered him and refused. and then he tried to kill/capture him and failed.

And when was that?

I don't have the timeline on it. I've never been a fan of Clinton.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Actually you put words in my mouth.

Waterboarding could in some cases be effective at getting a prisoner to be more cooperative.

The incentive is avoiding a repeat of the negative reinforcement it presents. In other words, it tames them. Makes them less likely to lie out of fear of another dunking. Keeping prisoners seperated helps this as well.

So in some cases it gets them to be more cooperative months and months and months later, but not right after? He was just waterboarded, it had not affect on him telling the truth, but eons later he will.

That's your defense to keep torture going?

When a person is threatened to be tazed, they dare the cop to taze them as they continue to do whatever it is the cop is inisiting they stop doing.
I dont know this as fact, but I can pretty much assume with certainty that a high percentage of people would NOT dare the cop to taze them a second time.

After experiencing a session of waterboarding, I must believe it leaves the prisoner lots of time to think of what he would do to avoid it again.

To ignore this logic is irresponsible when debating the use of waterboarding. Still disagree that it should not be used...thats fine...but to ignoire this logic simply means you are not interested in taking an educated position on the debate.

Let's stick to your example

The cop tazes someone, he says "tell me something or I'll taze you again!" Then the suspect still doesn't talk.

Months and months and months later, the suspect talks because of basic interrogation without a tazer.

Call me crazy but I'll give credit to the 2nd method, rather than the 1st when even moments after being tazed the suspect at the height of fear wouldn't give up information.

 

[bodecea]

Nope, no one would have bought that....Obama is the CinC....the Buck stops there.

ROFLMAO

You're a ******* retard bod, seriously - but you make us laugh! (At you!)

Wait? You are saying the buck does NOT stop at the CinC? Since when?

 

[bodecea]

Nope, no one would have bought that....Obama is the CinC....the Buck stops there.

ROFLMAO

You're a ******* retard bod, seriously - but you make us laugh! (At you!)

Some how Bush would have gotten the blame

If he had tried (which I don't believe) NOBODY would have bought it. NOBODY....because he is the CinC. The CinC takes the hit just like Carter took the hit for Desert One even tho he did not taxi the helo into that C-130. Just like Bush took the hit for the intell failures leading to 9/11. Just like Reagan took the hit for the Marine Barracks. Just like Clinton took the hit for the failed attempts to get OBL.

 

[bodecea]

So in some cases it gets them to be more cooperative months and months and months later, but not right after? He was just waterboarded, it had not affect on him telling the truth, but eons later he will.

That's your defense to keep torture going?

When a person is threatened to be tazed, they dare the cop to taze them as they continue to do whatever it is the cop is inisiting they stop doing.
I dont know this as fact, but I can pretty much assume with certainty that a high percentage of people would NOT dare the cop to taze them a second time.

After experiencing a session of waterboarding, I must believe it leaves the prisoner lots of time to think of what he would do to avoid it again.

To ignore this logic is irresponsible when debating the use of waterboarding. Still disagree that it should not be used...thats fine...but to ignoire this logic simply means you are not interested in taking an educated position on the debate.

Let's stick to your example

The cop tazes someone, he says "tell me something or I'll taze you again!" Then the suspect still doesn't talk.

Months and months and months later, the suspect talks because of basic interrogation without a tazer.

Call me crazy but I'll give credit to the 2nd method, rather than the 1st when even moments after being tazed the suspect at the height of fear wouldn't give up information.

Let us not forget that useful intell such as in this case is not something gathered all at once...it is the collecting of 1,000s of bits of data and eventually putting them together like pieces of a puzzle. The problem today is not getting enough pieces....it's getting too many and missing the needle in the haystack. It takes time, it takes perseverance, it takes attention to detail.

 

[Jarhead]

When a person is threatened to be tazed, they dare the cop to taze them as they continue to do whatever it is the cop is inisiting they stop doing.
I dont know this as fact, but I can pretty much assume with certainty that a high percentage of people would NOT dare the cop to taze them a second time.

After experiencing a session of waterboarding, I must believe it leaves the prisoner lots of time to think of what he would do to avoid it again.

To ignore this logic is irresponsible when debating the use of waterboarding. Still disagree that it should not be used...thats fine...but to ignoire this logic simply means you are not interested in taking an educated position on the debate.

Let's stick to your example

The cop tazes someone, he says "tell me something or I'll taze you again!" Then the suspect still doesn't talk.

Months and months and months later, the suspect talks because of basic interrogation without a tazer.

Call me crazy but I'll give credit to the 2nd method, rather than the 1st when even moments after being tazed the suspect at the height of fear wouldn't give up information.

Let us not forget that useful intell such as in this case is not something gathered all at once...it is the collecting of 1,000s of bits of data and eventually putting them together like pieces of a puzzle. The problem today is not getting enough pieces....it's getting too many and missing the needle in the haystack. It takes time, it takes perseverance, it takes attention to detail.

but it also takes a starting point. And there was no denial that the starting point was the informtation that they got from KSM.
Now was it due to waterboarding? While a democrat is in the WH the answer is no and when a republican is in the WH the answer will be yes.

And we, the people...their employers...will never know the truth.

 

[Ravi]

She just said Clinton tried to get bin Laden and failed.

That in itself was a lie.
He was offered bin laden and he declined...He never tried and failed.
He failed to try.
So if he failed to try then where is the logic that he warned Bush and Bush ignored him?

Her whole post was a partisan spin of the truth.

he was offered him and refused. and then he tried to kill/capture him and failed.

No one knows if he was offered bin laden, according to the 9/11 commission.

Wikipedia:

Capturing Osama bin Laden has been an objective of the United States government since the presidency of Bill Clinton.[104] It has been asserted that in 1996 while the Clinton Administration had begun pursuit of the policy, the Sudanese government allegedly offered to arrest and extradite Bin Laden as well as to provide the United States detailed intelligence information about growing militant organizations in the region, including Hezbollah and Hamas,[105] and that U.S. authorities allegedly rejected each offer, despite knowing of bin Laden's involvement in bombings on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.[105]
However, the 9/11 Commission found that although "former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States", "we have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."[106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#cite_note-105


In 1998, two years after the warning, the Clinton administration ordered several military missions to capture or kill bin Laden that failed.[107]

 

[elvis]

That in itself was a lie.
He was offered bin laden and he declined...He never tried and failed.
He failed to try.
So if he failed to try then where is the logic that he warned Bush and Bush ignored him?

Her whole post was a partisan spin of the truth.

he was offered him and refused. and then he tried to kill/capture him and failed.

No one knows if he was offered bin laden, according to the 9/11 commission.

Wikipedia:

Capturing Osama bin Laden has been an objective of the United States government since the presidency of Bill Clinton.[104] It has been asserted that in 1996 while the Clinton Administration had begun pursuit of the policy, the Sudanese government allegedly offered to arrest and extradite Bin Laden as well as to provide the United States detailed intelligence information about growing militant organizations in the region, including Hezbollah and Hamas,[105] and that U.S. authorities allegedly rejected each offer, despite knowing of bin Laden's involvement in bombings on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.[105]
However, the 9/11 Commission found that although "former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States", "we have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."[106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#cite_note-105


In 1998, two years after the warning, the Clinton administration ordered several military missions to capture or kill bin Laden that failed.[107]

well, I'll put that in my "osama is dead" cigar and smoke it.

 

[bodecea]

Let's stick to your example

The cop tazes someone, he says "tell me something or I'll taze you again!" Then the suspect still doesn't talk.

Months and months and months later, the suspect talks because of basic interrogation without a tazer.

Call me crazy but I'll give credit to the 2nd method, rather than the 1st when even moments after being tazed the suspect at the height of fear wouldn't give up information.

Let us not forget that useful intell such as in this case is not something gathered all at once...it is the collecting of 1,000s of bits of data and eventually putting them together like pieces of a puzzle. The problem today is not getting enough pieces....it's getting too many and missing the needle in the haystack. It takes time, it takes perseverance, it takes attention to detail.

but it also takes a starting point. And there was no denial that the starting point was the informtation that they got from KSM.
Now was it due to waterboarding? While a democrat is in the WH the answer is no and when a republican is in the WH the answer will be yes.

And we, the people...their employers...will never know the truth.

How do we know this to be true?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama can now claim that in a horrible, yet understandable clerical mix-up, his Original Long Form Birth Certificate was accidentally buried with Osama.

OOpsies.

 

[Ravi]

Let us not forget that useful intell such as in this case is not something gathered all at once...it is the collecting of 1,000s of bits of data and eventually putting them together like pieces of a puzzle. The problem today is not getting enough pieces....it's getting too many and missing the needle in the haystack. It takes time, it takes perseverance, it takes attention to detail.

but it also takes a starting point. And there was no denial that the starting point was the informtation that they got from KSM.
Now was it due to waterboarding? While a democrat is in the WH the answer is no and when a republican is in the WH the answer will be yes.

And we, the people...their employers...will never know the truth.

How do we know this to be true?

It is inscribed in the Book of Right Wing Talking Points.

It doesn't have to be true.

 

[Jarhead]

Let us not forget that useful intell such as in this case is not something gathered all at once...it is the collecting of 1,000s of bits of data and eventually putting them together like pieces of a puzzle. The problem today is not getting enough pieces....it's getting too many and missing the needle in the haystack. It takes time, it takes perseverance, it takes attention to detail.

but it also takes a starting point. And there was no denial that the starting point was the informtation that they got from KSM.
Now was it due to waterboarding? While a democrat is in the WH the answer is no and when a republican is in the WH the answer will be yes.

And we, the people...their employers...will never know the truth.

How do we know this to be true?

It was reported that the initial "lead" was the courier...and the name of the courier was offered up by KSM...and then confirmed by a second prisoner...and over the next 4 years, they could not locate the courier...until he finally did something stupid and used his cell phone....and that allowed them to hone in on his location....

 

[Uncensored2008]

She just said Clinton tried to get bin Laden and failed.

No, she said that Clinton "warned Bush about bin Laden and Bush ignored it."

That is of course a lie, one told by the mindless sycophants marching in lock-step in service of the party.

"Bin Laden determined to attack."

Well gawddamn - thanks for the ******* intel. Man, we can take all kinds of actions with such deep and compelling analysis.....

Ravi is a mindless drone, attacking the enemies of the party because they are enemy, embracing members of the party regardless of acts or positions, because they are friend.

The pheromones tell the drones all they need know.

 

[Sarah G]

A picture speaks a thousand words.

Who is in charge in this pic?

You don't really get how this works. These people all work for Obama. When my boss comes to my office, he doesn't sit down and start doing my job..

Go figure.

 

[Jarhead]

but it also takes a starting point. And there was no denial that the starting point was the informtation that they got from KSM.
Now was it due to waterboarding? While a democrat is in the WH the answer is no and when a republican is in the WH the answer will be yes.

And we, the people...their employers...will never know the truth.

How do we know this to be true?

It is inscribed in the Book of Right Wing Talking Points.

It doesn't have to be true.

you are such an ass.