|
|
|
|
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 1:31:19 PM |
How do you deal with global terrorism??? Stop terrorizing.
Nice sound bite, but just who of the terrorists that attacked us over the years leading up to and including 9-11 did we specifically terrorize? What grudge did they “personally” have to justify their terror bombings and 9-11?
I am not here to pin all of the blame on the USA because that also goes too far in the opposite direction from those whom try say the opposite.
I guess that’s as close to fairness I’ll get from you. Hey, I’ll take small morsels.
I simply want to say that we do have to look at what our governments actions had to do with making matters worse there.
Agree. All citizens of any democratic country should closely examine the policies of their respective governments, and change things when warranted. We have a system in place to do just that, it’s called elections and “voting”. We just saw it work, with the rejection of Republicanism and replacement with a liberal Democratic administration that opposes almost everything the previous administration stood for.
But what you and others seem to be advocating goes much further, that to atone for our “meddling” in international affairs we should be punished, and that terrorists, wherever and whomever they be, for whatever real or imagined grievance they hold, have a legitimate reason to attack us. And furthermore, should be sanctioned as right and proper. I don’t and will never agree to such a thing, and I think most Americans concur.
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 4:17:02 PM |
We just saw it work, with the rejection of Republicanism and replacement with a liberal Democratic administration that opposes almost everything the previous administration stood for.
Here is where I must again disagree with you. I see little difference in many of the most important aspects between republicans and democrats as parties. The two party system is seriously lacking in this regard. There are differences between certain people within the parties but, as a whole in my view, they are both two wings of the same party completely in the pockets of multinational corporations. This is a bit off topic but, would love to discuss this with you another time.
But what you and others seem to be advocating goes much further, that to atone for our “meddling” in international affairs we should be punished
Lets start with this part because you are obviously confused with what is being said. I never even remotely implied this. If it seemed I did then you obviously inserted a great deal into what was said. I always do agree any government should atone for it's part in the problems but, to say WE should be punished is going too far.
Now I did suggest that as nation we should be held accountable if our nation does not stand up and do it's obligation and hold anyone proven to be guilty of breaking the laws regarding to torture accountable. Under international and our own national laws we are obligated to bring any alleged of committing the crime of torture to trial.
I said that, if we do not do this I would completely understand the international community holding us accountable and sanctioning us for it. (treating us like N Korea because our government when it comes to the subject of torture lately is acting a lot like regimes like that. This is quite different than to think we should be "punished." Or your assumption that there is some thinking on my part, that anyone deserved to be attacked. These ideas are not coming from me. They are your words and you are attempting to pin them on me to dilute my message or as a sort of attack. Now what I would like to know is if it is intentional or not?
If you ever have a question about where I stand don't hesitate to ask. Questions usually require a ? mark.
I will take no offense to questions. What you have done in your posts are statements which fall into the category of accusations in this case. I would appreciate if you would refrain from this behavior, when it pertains to me. Your accusations be they intentional or just poor communications are unwarranted and quite insulting to say the least.
There were also times when I spoke of cause and effect.
That we should not be surprised that when you play with fire that sometimes you get burned. There were many actions by members of our government and it's entities that contributed greatly to our getting attacked.
This does not in ANY way mean that it makes me happy that the effects of this was an attack on our nation.
I am coming from the perspective of it should be obvious to these so called geniuses of strategy and covert operations, that if you stir a red ant pile you will likely get bit. My point here is not any kind happiness to watch our government make such idiotic blunders but, quite the opposite it saddens me greatly.. I am pointing it out because there are many whom do not think our government did anything wrong or in any way contributed to us being less than safe.. There seems to be a sentiment that this is all caused completely out of no where by some group that "hates our way of life" or "freedoms."
To be clear, I do not believe anyone has a legit reason to attack anyone. Again I find that behavior to be childish. I condemn not only the act of violence but, also the contributing factors that helped create the situation in the first place. We should know better and conduct ourselves in a better form.
Jesus said it so well.... {paraphrasing} If you live by the sword you will perish by it. Was Jesus by saying this also, saying it was a desire of his for people to get punished?
I believe firmly that he was pointing out the cause and effect that should be obvious but, often it is this, that people will over look. Thus the need to state the obvious which is not so obvious.
The same is happening here. I make a statement such as many of the actions of our government contributed to us being attacked, and you attack me claiming I am defending terrorists by my pointing out simple, obvious cause and effect.
When the fact is I do not support any group or government's actions that condone or use violence as an attempt to solve anything. I took no sides, I am making an observation, one that I believe is rather obvious as well.
I consider these violent acts, the actions of dangerous fools with minds like angry children whom have no control over themselves or any understanding of or at the least a severe disregard for cause and effect.
Violence should be the absolute last thing ever even thought of much less used, in any case. It causes ten thousand problems for any one it may seem to solve. Even those whom lived their lives as warriors and considered by many as great, have also stated this fact.
Try not to confuse me or my message with the message of others here. Though I see clearly many of you view these things in a dualistic manner of left vs right or Republican vs democrat... Throw these out when dealing with me, I belong to no such groups. I think you will find the discourse goes much more smoothly this way. I belong to neither left nor right. I belong to neither Republican nor Democrat. There are things I agree with and disagree with strongly on both sides of those arguments. So throw these labels and any prejudice and assumptions that go along with this away when dealing with me if you will please. Thanks. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 4:33:40 PM | And that’s why I mentioned the following in a previous post, but didn’t get much of a response from the critics.
In order to NOT give anyone in the world ammunition to attack us, we must totally withdraw from it and practice complete isolationism. This “must” be the only alternative, because NO ONE has a crystal ball to know ahead of time if “any” of our actions, no matter how seemingly trivial or innocently helpful, will piss someone off in the future.
That economically this is patently ridiculous is obvious since the world is so globally interconnected. It should be equally obvious that we’re just as interconnected politically for the very same reason.
Finally, the nature of modern global communications makes complete isolationism rather silly, so I’m not exactly sure what you’re advocating?
If you don’t agree with the above scenario and feel we should “still” be engaged in the world, but only “do the right thing”, then who will be the arbiter of what that means? Who will determine what is fair and proper? Who will define efficacy? You? Whiskey? Cotter? I’m greatly impressed with all your Oracle-like powers of Infinite Wisdom.
When you all get elected I’ll write on here, and either praise you for the right decision or slam you for stupid mistakes. I’m sure you’ll appreciate being the target instead of criticizing from a safe distance, without the responsibility to make the really tough decisions or take the blame when things go wrong. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 4:40:39 PM | It's interesting how you only show or see two extremes. Either we go all over the world and spread violence or we become isolationists. The issue here is the dualistic mind. It keeps one stuck in extremes.
How about neither?
 | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 4:56:23 PM |
I see little difference in many of the most important aspects between republicans and democrats as parties
That’s because you wouldn’t want the extremes, which would either be a right-wing military dictatorship or Soviet-North Korean-style Communism. What most administrations gravitate to is moderation, no matter how zealous their campaign platforms are. Why? They realize very quickly once in office, and faced with the enormously complex world we live in, their campaign promises were patently unrealistic.
Lets start with this part because you are obviously confused with what is being said. I never even remotely implied this. If it seemed I did then you obviously inserted a great deal into what was said. I always do agree any government should atone for it's part in the problems but, to say WE should be punished is going too far.
Really? Then how about this. Do you believe the terrorists that have attacked us and planning to are criminals and we should fight them? The answer should be totally unambiguous and completely honest. And don’t bring Bush or Israel or whatever into this. No getting into the mindset of what motivates those that hate us or laying some foundation of “why” we get attacked. No misdirection or subterfuge in answering.
It's interesting how you only show or see two extremes. Either we go all over the world and spread violence or we become isolationists. The issue here is the dualistic mind. It keeps one stuck in extremes.
What’s more interesting is how you dodged it. You’re evidently unable to give the answer because you don’t want to face the logic.
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 5:11:24 PM |
Really? Then how about this. Do you believe the terrorists that have attacked us and planning to are criminals and we should fight them? The answer should be totally unambiguous and completely honest. And don’t bring Bush or Israel or whatever into this. No getting into the mindset of what motivates those that hate us or laying some foundation of “why” we get attacked. No misdirection or subterfuge in answering.
You have me confused with someone else again. I wouldn't have brought up Israel or Bush in this. The answer is yes that we should be opposed to them. Where we disagree is the how part. You condone violence and not just because I am opposed to it.. I say that is foolish for it only serves their groups cause. I have been saying for a while we could have been less reactionary on this and come up with a better solution than invading a country, two or three...
In a case where something bad happens it is worse to do something to make matters worse than to sit doing nothing until you think of something better. We jumped the gun as cotter says cowboy style more often than not and chose violence every time. See where it got us?
There were ways to go after this group without violence they were not even given thought much less a chance. Now we must ask why not. It goes deep into entangling alliances with the royal family of a certain nation.... | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 5:13:04 PM |
What’s more interesting is how you dodged it. You’re evidently unable to give the answer because you don’t want to face the logic.
There is no logic in dualism. You are giving me an either we spread violence or we are isolationists... We have many more options and you know it. | |
|
| |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 6:31:58 PM |
Cotter, no one is for "legalizing" torture ... That's a joke ... right? It's already been revealed that they legalized it so they could use it. Did that bit of information just not register with some in here?
In the interests of telling both sides I think we already know what the other side is ...
Ummmm ... let's see. Lies, deceit, fear-mongering, inciting panic, sending our men and women off to an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, trying to steal their natural resources, subjecting our fine military to maiming and mutilations through unnecessary injuries, and now I've been reading that we have over 300,000 returning military personnel with mental health problems directly related to their experiences there and repeated deployments ... many by our reserve who should have never even been involved.
They lied to us for years and now we're supposed to muster up some sort of trust? Ya right!!!!!
I believe Nancy Pelosi. She has absolutely nothing to lose by telling the truth. On the other hand, there is an excellent reason C0ck TT (The Torturer) Cheney and his daughter have been out running their mouths ... trying desperately to cover his A$$.
From what I've been able to see, Bob Graham takes pretty clear notes ... and the CIA is struggling to tell the truth ... A LOT.
When I asked the CIA when was I briefed, they gave me four dates, two in April and two in September of ‘02. On three of the four occasions, when I consulted my schedule and my notes, it was clear that no briefing had taken place, and the CIA eventually concurred in that. So their record keeping is a little bit suspect................ Bob Graham (D-Fla.)
Do you believe the terrorists that have attacked us and planning to are criminals and we should fight them? The answer should be totally unambiguous and completely honest. Not that the previous administration didn't try their best, but (sigh) I don't believe in the boogeyman. I don't believe that there are so-called "terrorists" out there that for no good reason just want to attack us.
And don’t bring Bush or Israel or whatever into this. Why not? Without the "Shrub" and Israel, we would not be in this particular conflict. Without other countries getting upset with us for our unnecessary meddling, and without the "Shrub" and his sick need to kill Saddam and try to steal that country's oil, we would not have opened a breeding ground for the so-called terrorists that many refer to in here, without using illegal torture, we would not have given still more countries a reason to hate us and use that against us to recruit still more people who would rather see us dead.
I just hope they get them ... all of them ... anyone who was involved in "legalizing" torture, anyone who ordered it, anyone who implemented it, and those trying to cover it up now ... that would be great. I hope the "Shrub" and his gang of thugs (including the CIA) start feeling the heat ... 
OT ...
It's becoming more and more clear that the water boarding did not save lives ... it's nothing but BS to save C0ck TT Cheney's A$$. | |
|
Kaos86
|
Joined: 3/7/2007
Msg: 835 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 7:05:33 PM | lol
This is hillarious.
Nancy Pelosi was battered and beaten down today by the Press. She looked like she had gone 15 rounds today as she was escorted out of the room. Or maybe 82 rounds of water boarding.
The Press smells blood now and Pelosi is a dead duck.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/pelosi-fuels-torture-fire.html
She is now a liability to Obama and worse she is a liability to the Democratic Party.
Isn't it interesting that no one is defending her?
Not Obama.
Not Harry Read.
She is in serious "advanced interrogation doodoo" and she brought it all on herself.
Meanwhile the CIA has denied the request of****Cheney to declassify records of abusive interrogations of suspected terrorists.
So I guess the CIA is.
Which side is the CIA on? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 7:13:33 PM | Yep Kaos. More mindless pontificating about moral superiority over the Bush administration by people that not only knew about the practices, but signed off on them. I have no problem with people against waterboarding or the other enhanced techniques (it's certainly a debatable point), as long as they're honest about it.
I'd debate more but too happy my beloved Wings won. Just basking in the glow. | |
|
Kaos86
|
Joined: 3/7/2007
Msg: 837 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 7:36:00 PM | Right on motown.
It's odd with all the evidence that the techniques work that it is still debated.
The best proof is from the Dems themselves.
Both Obama and Leon Panetta admitted they worked.
CIA Director Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a “ticking time bomb” scenario.
So if they did not work why would the Democratic head of the CIA consider using them again?
Motown - Go Wings, Go Spits! | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 8:07:20 PM | Absolutely Kaos.
My question: Do you believe the terrorists that have attacked us and planning to are criminals and we should fight them?
Kabiosile’s answer: The answer is yes that we should be opposed to them. Where we disagree is the how part. You condone violence and not just because I am opposed to it.. I say that is foolish for it only serves their groups cause. I have been saying for a while we could have been less reactionary on this and come up with a better solution than invading a country, two or three...
I see you used “opposed” instead of “fight” them. Is that your way to skirt around the question when I said there can be no equivocation or fuzziness? At least you do agree they are an enemy that should be “opposed”.
You don’t condone violence in any way, which is your right, but that wasn’t the question. In what way are we supposed to “oppose” them? We already use an arsenal of nonviolent means to find and freeze their funding/assets and engage in counter-propaganda to combat their messages of hate and anger. But beyond that, what is your position? Harsh language? We are to never use violent means, either proactively if a terrorist plot is uncovered or in response to an attack.
In the end, as history has always shown, a more violent response may not only be appropriate, but demanded. To not respond only invites a mindset of weakness, which an enemy can exploit.
If you preclude “any” violent response at the outset, as a matter of national policy, please tell me how you think a potential enemy would react?
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 9:45:33 PM | This thread is like a broken record,Obama himself said of the times in history torture got answers it will never be known if the same answers would not have come from none violent methods.And even though he did not say it,I believe if that thought was reversed,same would hold true.Many many others here have shown direct quotes of professionals that state waterboarding and other illegal,torturous methods do not produce consistent reliable info.So rather than you now say prove it,just go back and reread,and its a cop out to say its just treehugging sites and liberal bush hater sites,thats hogwash since so many articles are straight from the horses mouth on CNN or speeches or off the news and such.This has also been widely stated, that violent methods quite often extract unreliable info.
Even I ,whom is dead against torture, realizes if you pull peoples fingernails off many of them will give you all the answers you wish and just as many will say anything you would want to hear but its not true,thats why hundreds and hundreds of black men ended up in prison forced to confess through beatings that they did it but they didn't,and now modern DNA proves it.Just ask thousands of black men of our past how realible the info is through torture.
Of course holding a lighter under someones hand makes a person talk and its also a fact you just created a monster from someone that wasn't even a terrorist before you tortured him,but now you probably made him crave revenge,We certainly have created scores of those that want revenge now and plot to kill us.Kill one mans brother and he will want to kill yours,and then it repeats itself,neverending.
Proves we have hardly evolved since cave men.Shows how absolutely stupid most men are,intelligent people don't stick sticks into beehives and swirl the stick around,a naive youngster would.
Cavemen ! so what if we invented fire,we are no smarter.As long as you condone violence, violence will never end.yes other countries will always fight,so let them,and if they come here then protect yourself but don't go half way across the world to stick your stick into a beehive because you think your way is better than theirs. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 10:06:01 PM | No, this isn't a cut and dry case. We have conflicting statements from both sides. Until "all" the evidence comes out no one can say a specific interrogation method worked or didn't work.
Waterboarding is definitely off the table now, and I doubt it will ever be revived. But when pressed, critics are also against the other techniques, which in no way shape or form can even be used in the same sentence as waterboarding. I take it then they are against "all" forms of coercive interrogation of terrorists, and in this I will strongly disagree with them until the cows come home. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 11:24:28 PM |
We already use an arsenal of nonviolent means to find and freeze their funding/assets and engage in counter-propaganda to combat their messages of hate and anger. But beyond that, what is your position?
All fine and good methods to start with the only issue is you cannot have an effective campaign to dry up funds and counter propaganda when you feed them more funds and give them more fodder for propaganda by bombing innocent civilians and occupying the country. The point is they are not really trying nonviolent means because they are actively engaging in violence in the region which is counter productive to nonviolent means.
Because the more the US military is conducting violent activity and just by their very presence in the region plenty more sources of income will turn up from those whom do not want the US in the region and the more they can counter your counter propaganda methods with their own. My point is no matter if you believe in nonviolence or not, the violent campaign of invading and occupying a country is the most counterproductive thing you could do to stop these groups. It plays right into their hands and helps to recruit more angry people and funding sources.
You have also made their job so much easier because now they can strike at our people without spending as much time or funds and they wear your funding down as a result of the occupation. It is not an inexpensive endeavor to invade another country on the other side of the world. So by taking the course of violence you cut yourself off at the knees strategically before you even started.
It would have been MUCH more wise from even a military perspective to beef up defenses for stopping them from being able to get at you within your nation, and wear them down trying to get at you than to stoop to their level. By bombing and invading those nations we joined the terrorists instead of opposing them.
You could actually have time for non-violent methods of drying up their funds and counter-propaganda to take effect if you do not invade. You also do not play into their hands by bombing the civilians they may hide behind.
This is not just a matter of my belief in nonviolence as a way of life, it is a matter of what is strategically smarter.
It is MUCH smarter and understandable even from a person with my perspective of disagreeing with violence to prepare for defense instead of going on the assault which is exactly what I believe they wanted us to do in the first place.
No better way to draw recruits to a jihadist movement that to have an "infidel" invader in an Islamic country whom occupies, tortures, and bombs civilians...
If you preclude “any” violent response at the outset, as a matter of national policy, please tell me how you think a potential enemy would react?
At first they would probably have no clue what to do at all. They would likely be perplexed at this change.
We would have been better off to do nothing more than better prepare our defenses for another attack than to invade.
Look you are looking at this as if it is a something you can pop into the microwave and it will be ready in minutes with a ding. We have to transform our society inside first to make this positive change to effect the outside. We have to make a shift in our values. Violence does not just appear magically out of no where. All of us each and every one of us are part of the problem. Violence is not just a physical manifestation that we are all aware of in it's famous forms such as beating, rape, murder, war etc. Violence is poverty, anger, it can be in the form of words and thoughts. I do not claim to be any kind of master in this either. Nor, am I claiming to be a saint.
What I am saying here is if we wish to ever have a safer more peaceful world to live in we must learn nonviolence. Nonviolence is not just anti-war, anti-murder anti-physical-violence or simply a strategy. Nonviolence is a way of being. Taking the path of nonviolence is not just a strategy to use when faced with oppression and violence. This is just the tip of it. At it's base is a serious change in the way we conduct ourselves in the world. It is getting control of our anger, our thoughts, our values, our actions. If we change these, we will stop spreading violence to the rest of the world. We will stand, and work together to stop other forms of violence such as poverty, and hording of resources. We will learn to cooperate with other nations instead of, taking advantage of them.
You are only looking at this as nonviolence being oh we will not attack anyone nor, even defend ourselves. This is why I said you are not even comprehending what I am saying.
I am calling for something that is simple yet very profound. If we wish to end this terrorism and militarism sincerely it will have to start in our own minds, in our own houses, in our own cities in our own states, in our own countries, continents then it will radiate out into hemispheres, then finally throughout the world.
We have to get at the causes of violence. Right now we are acting like a poor doctor whom just masks the symptoms or in the case of this terror issue we are more like a doctor whom has a patient with a cough and we decide to stop the cough but, not find out why they are coughing to begin with. The cause will still exist and more symptoms will show themselves. We are busying ourselves with masking symptoms but, we are not addressing the causes.... Then the doctor fed up with the symptoms coming decides we need a surgeon. The surgeon decides the best way to deal with this mess is just to remove both of the patients lungs.
It is about where we are today. It started with foolishness in spreading militarism to these groups in the region to fight communism and now has graduated to the same insanity of the surgeon removing the lungs all because no one wants to address the causes of the "dis ease."
Until we address the causes, the symptoms will reappear over and over even if we kill the one patient more and more will come until there is an epidemic and finally we as a nation wake up and address our own part in all of this. When we begin to address our part in this properly I believe we will be better equipped to address the world's issues.
Right now all we are doing is spreading the wrong kind of remedy for the illness. We are treating symptoms like the foolish doctor whom only masked the symptoms and calls in the mad surgeon to remove the lungs.
I have not had a chance to watch it but, I am sure he will break it down for you here... He is a source I trust knows about the subject of nonviolence.
Arun Gandhi: Nonviolence in the Age of Terrorism (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCUWr-ekGyk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o54N28W9lwk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj3d66whhuA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBsZqOOmtUg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyH_dETf2wE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VPBlv-DIGI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMoeck9M_Fc&feature=related
Have a watch to this maybe you will comprehend nonviolence a bit more. I know he is not as charismatic and great speaker as his Grandfather etc but, he tells it like it is. I just found it... I hope you can see the wisdom in this and peace finds you too. I can tell you nonviolence is not an easy road nor the road of a coward. If you still think nonviolence is the path of a coward look at the photos and videos of the civil right marchers with Dr king and those brave men and women whom were marching into the police and others, ready to beat them, sick dogs on them, even kill them. Look at them march courageously into those lines with nothing but, nonviolence and determination to wear down their oppressors. Look at what happened because of this bravery without them using any violence.
The same goes for Gandhi vs the British, Mandela vs apartheid. All of these wicked forces gave in to the power of nonviolence. These were oppressive terrorists hell bent on control and domination. They could not stand in the face of the power of nonviolence.
These groups over there are no where near as powerful as these empires and wicked regimes were nor, do they have half the control these wicked oppressive groups that were toppled by nonviolence once held. Do not think for a minute these terror groups would stand where those mighty empires fell. They too would fall by the wayside in the face of nonviolence. As will one day war if we come as a nation and then the world also take up nonviolence not as a strategy but, as a way of life....
It is not only possible it may be our only hope for survival. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/14/2009 11:31:51 PM | | You didn't listen to a single thing I wrote or you would not of replied,not a single thing I wrote can be denied.Besides you have them accused as a terrorist before they have even been tried in a legal court.We have already discussed both our beliefs,I refuse to continue to repeat,you have already asked this and was given an answer which you laugh off as bush hater remarks or such.Reread my last thread and you know what I think of your belief.I stand behind the remark as we're still little better than cavemen,people such as you only perpetuate this behavior,your kind creates more hate,your beliefs are one reason of many as why we have so many of these people,its our high and mighty belief we have a moral right to interfere in other countries affairs.You talk as if you have a moral right to interrogate someone that has not been tried.Your statements have been repeatedly disproved by many on this thread,everytime proof is shown,you decry it as a not a good enough source,even when its directly from the presidents mouth you decry it as a not good enough source.Writer after writer has displayed documents or sites and you say show me more. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/15/2009 3:39:48 AM | Take a chill pill, mesa. We're not talking waterboarding. Maybe you should reread what I wrote before spouting your mouth off. Forget about waterboarding. I said ANY interrogation techniques. What's YOUR answer?
Kabiosile, before you go off again on one of your wild stream-of-conscious rants, who said anything about indiscriminate bombing and invading countries? I said what would you do to fight terrorists and you made this giant leap to taking on the world. My question was very specific, direct, and simple. I know your answer. You would rely on non-violence to the point of being impotent.
You’re also speaking from the vantage of a private citizen that isn’t entrusted with the welfare and protection of a nation. That's the point I was trying to make. Put your president hat on and tell me what you’d do when confronted with an enemy that will use violent means to attack us, no matter how or when or where that enemy came into being.
Bush didn’t create the 9-11 terrorists. Their plans were already formulated and in place in 1999 (see “Outline of the 9/11 Plot, Staff Statement No. 16” in the 9-11 Commission report), before he even won the election. We both know al Qaeda had no idea he’d win ahead of time. But he had to deal with 9-11 and all the threats that came after just the same.
Obama didn’t create terrorists, he inherited them, but he still has to take them into consideration and react to any threat they may pose.
That’s part of the job when you become president; you have to face threats as they are, not how you want them to be.
Still got your president’s hat on? Good. What would you do in the event of another 9-11? What would you do if one of our intelligence agencies uncovered an attack plot and time was of the essence to foil it? Not so long ago both scenarios would have sounded unthinkable and laughed off as fantasy—no longer. Black and white fades into gray when confronted with real world scenarios, and reciting pious platitudes of Gandhi and MLK will not placate a terrorist with a knife at your throat. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/15/2009 4:31:18 AM |
Still got your president’s hat on? Good. What would you do in the event of another 9-11? What would you do if one of our intelligence agencies uncovered an attack plot and time was of the essence to foil it? Not so long ago both scenarios would have sounded unthinkable and laughed off as fantasy—no longer. Black and white fades into gray when confronted with real world scenarios, and reciting pious platitudes of Gandhi and MLK will not placate a terrorist with a knife at your throat.
I would NOT go apesh*t all over the middleeast if that's what you are asking. 9-11 ending-up indirectly being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Maybe if we kill enough of them we'll feel vindicated, but then we'll scratch our heads when they thrown another stick of dynamite at us, with our 4 year long memories we'll be like, "Obama is peaceful dude! Why are they bombing us? They must be criminals. Evil terrorists." HAHA!!! | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/15/2009 4:39:03 AM | ^^^^ You told me what you wouldn't do. Now try telling me what you "would" do, eh Sparky?
What this whole debate really comes down to is responsibility.
Obama might very well have to act and use force during his presidency, whether it be military or intelligence-based. This is NOT confined to terrorism, btw. His authorization to let the Navy Seals take out the Somali pirates was an instance of violent force (I’m sure kabiosile probably fainted when “that” happened), and one I fully agreed with. What other circumstances might trigger another event no one knows, but if past administrations are any indication I’m quite sure Obama’s won’t go unscathed, especially if he wins two terms. Will the critics look at the facts and circumstances before passing judgment, or will they automatically trash him as a warmonger just because he had the audacity to use force? From what I've read in here I'm betting the latter.
Obama is one of the smartest, most thoughtful presidents we’ve had a long time. Nobody by any stretch of the imagination would compare him to Bush. But as president he still must make decisions and act in the best interests of the nation. As such using force is always an option, even if last resort. That's his responsibility as leader. I don’t care who is president; as my elected representative I must trust their judgment to do what’s best. If you don’t agree, and think your agenda supercedes our elected leaders, then you’re in the wrong country and should move. Go anywhere, but please don’t stay here and b*tch like spoiled children that didn’t get their way. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/15/2009 9:52:18 AM |
Still got your president’s hat on? Good. What would you do in the event of another 9-11? What would you do if one of our intelligence agencies uncovered an attack plot and time was of the essence to foil it? Not so long ago both scenarios would have sounded unthinkable and laughed off as fantasy—no longer. Black and white fades into gray when confronted with real world scenarios, and reciting pious platitudes of Gandhi and MLK will not placate a terrorist with a knife at your throat.
There is no knife at our throat. You are having an exagerated emotional response. In the event of another 9-11 I would do pretty much the same thing as what we did with the somali pirates. Take down the individuals responsible. There were maximum about a thousand people implicated in the 9-11 (probably more like a couple hundred) attacks and we killed hundreds of thousands.
Using your logic we (the western world) should be wiped from the face of the earth because we have been criminally responsible for so much death. But in actuality our foreign policy has been the work of only a few hundred mistaken individuals.
And finally, though I am a Canadian, I am appalled at your 'love it or leave it attitude'. You believe that your country should be a dictatorship where no-one questions the intentions or decisions of the leader? Well, maybe you should move to another country because last I heard free speech was an important part of being American. His responsibility as a leader, and our responsiblity as citizens.
We are b*tching like spoiled children, and your are b*tching like...???? (you tell me) | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/15/2009 10:24:49 AM | Boy thats simple if a 9-11 happened,first off should of listened to the initial intel in the first place,second after the blast it should have been thoroughly forensically investigated,all police,fire ,and other expert testimonies shouldn't be silenced and removed from record.The hundreds of experts that said the building was hit by a plane and imploded later should have been taken into account showing there were more involved and further planning than thought.Next the terrorists involved should have been caught and thats that,one should not start world war three with total strangers having nothing to do with it.Right after the blast and all planes in the country were grounded ,it was a fatal flaw to allow one plane out of the country,the Obama family,the main witnesses a cop would investigate first.The focus would have been the strongest towards the Saudis because most the terrorists were saudis.Upon killing Bin Laden,that would be it,over,leader caught,otherwise you tackling something unwinnable something as absurd as fighting the drug war.
Oh as president ,all drugs would be made legal,its there value as to why we fight cartels and organized crimes,take the value off like a few other countries did and most the problem goes away,now you have money to spend on treating addictions and educations and jobs and such which is sometimes why someone turns to drugs,because there is no hope or work.
It easier when things are done intelligently and not because of revenge and hate and ignorance.
On these wars,lets for once not be the first one to raise our hands and say,Oh pick me first, let me take the lead.Would it kill us to be more like Switzerland and be more neutral rather than always taking point,we just thirst for the wars,and reading some of these threads,many on here crave the violence ,torture and killing,a few here should be under mental watch. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/15/2009 3:57:30 PM | I systematically and dispassionately tried to understand exactly where critics are coming from.
Waterboarding is a definite sin. A barbaric act that should never be even whispered among civilized nations. I get it.
Then I ask if “any” interrogation techniques are off limits, and received immediate shouts that they’re similarly disgusting, counterproductive, and never lead to quality intelligence. That we don’t know all the evidence to refute such statements, and may apparently never know due to national security issues, seems lost on critics, but that’s another debate.
But when I delve even further, and ask if any authorization of force is acceptable, I find to my amazement even "that" is taboo. No, No, No! the critic’s rage, all it does is play into our enemy’s hands, lead to anarchy, mayhem, death, destruction!
That’s when things go from sublime to outright ridiculous.
I totally understand k's doctrine of non-violence in all things, even in defense (looks like xzanthius feels the same, so I'll include him, too). He’s made his point quite clearly. As president he’d unilaterally dismantle our military and intelligence, ban a citizen’s right to own weapons, break security treaties that have been in place over decades. He’d espouse a doctrine of complete and universal appeasement when confronted with any threat. All violence would be "outlawed", in his own words (how he proposes to enforce such a thing is still fuzzy).
And that’s just for starters?
If another 9-11 occurred, he wouldn’t fight back, but try to "reason" with the attackers, to know their pain, to empathize with their anger, to solve what he believes are the roots of their misery. He’d probably pour billions more into third world humanitarian projects, in essence showering the rest to the world with free dollars, no strings attached, in the hope “buying” allegiance. America as the world's welfare donor.
Bottom line is he’d do anything to placate any real, potential, or imagined hostile threat into not taking up arms against the US, at whatever cost, even if it means accepting the loss of American lives.
That he wouldn’t have a shot in h*ll to ever get elected on such a platform is fairly obvious, but to hear his defenders voice such rah-rah “agreement” with him, and by extension his position, is even more frightening?
I’ll say again, I’m sure glad none of you is our president. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/15/2009 7:01:35 PM |
Then I ask if “any” interrogation techniques are off limits
All of them that involve torture yes. There are perfectly good and useful techniques that do not involve torture but, you dont like the idea of that. There are laws that are quite clear on where the line is drawn. You wish to have permission to cross those lines or make excuses as to why you think they should that much is obvious.
I totally understand k's doctrine of non-violence in all things, even in defense
You obviously do not understand a word that I have been saying or you would not write some of the things you do and try to act like they came out of my mouth. I believe you are either trolling or you really are into extremes. For you it's either full out invasion, bombing, torture anything goes or other ideas/strategies would just make the nation impotent. There will be no way for you to comprehend what I am saying with that mind set.
He’s made his point quite clearly. As president he’d unilaterally dismantle our military and intelligence, ban a citizen’s right to own weapons, break security treaties that have been in place over decades. He’d espouse a doctrine of complete and universal appeasement when confronted with any threat. All violence would be "outlawed", in his own words (how he proposes to enforce such a thing is still fuzzy).
If another 9-11 occurred, he wouldn’t fight back, but try to "reason" with the attackers, to know their pain, to empathize with their anger, to solve what he believes are the roots of their misery. He’d probably pour billions more into third world humanitarian projects, in essence showering the rest to the world with free dollars, no strings attached, in the hope “buying” allegiance. America as the world's welfare donor.
Never said anything like that and once again your words not mine. You are trying to paint your idea of what a person whom believes in the power of nonviolence is like or thinks like. Since you obviously can't argue logically then make it seem like the other option is not worth trying or is somehow weak etc. Exaggerate, lie, or just outright make up words to try to pin on the other. All typical tactics of a debater on their heels. You are the one whom came in here to take the side of torture, invasion and wanton bombing and violence.
I have yet to see how this is making us safer. There have been plenty of other threads where people posted where our own intelligence department has said these actions have done nothing but make us less safe. I even put a video clip of a real FBI interrogator whom said outright the use of torture is only aiding the enemy. The man spent 30 years in the business of legal methods of interrogation of Al Qaeda members and other mean individuals, which resulted in serious gains in intelligence without the use of torture.
You continue to ignore these people and facts. That's OK it is obvious you like torture and waring and will defend it no matter how much it makes us less safe. ----hows it feel?
Bottom line is he’d do anything to placate any real, potential, or imagined hostile threat into not taking up arms against the US, at whatever cost, even if it means accepting the loss of American lives.
Absolute proof you have no idea what your talking about. Practitioners of nonviolence simply use another method besides violence to achieve the same objectives and you obviously can never grasp that fact. It's OK though man... I am not here to convert anyone nor, am I here to argue with someone whom only can think in extremes.
Good day to you sir.
Bottom line torture is illegal. It is what got us into Iraq, it makes us less safe, it aids in the recruitment of more terrorists to al Qaeda and other similar groups, people often say anything to stop the torture even if it is not true. It makes a prisoner whom you might been able to through other means gotten good information out of them, even greater martyrs to their cause... These have all been proven as fact but, you fail to accept it. That is ok too you can believe what you like. I simply pray that you never have to find out why we should not be condoning torture. I wonder if you would be able to see the flaw in the logic of applying it if it was your son or daughter whom was being tortured?
I wonder if you would get it that, by doing this you are making our sons and daughters whom join the military less safe and likely subjected to torture. You do know that is the primary reason civilized nations of the world decided to come together and ban it right?
Do you even care? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 5/15/2009 7:21:27 PM | K, I didn’t misrepresent you one bit. I can go back to all your post and easily extrapolate what your behavior would be as president. You are 100% non-violent so would outlaw “anything” that would even remotely involve weapons and potential conflict. That would include our national and personal defense, intelligence apparatus, abrogating mutual defense treaties with other nations, and stopping any support for an ally who is involved in any violent activity (which would mean virtually everyone). Your national doctrine would be passive resistance in the face of aggression and complete appeasement to any dangerous threat.
That you would never be able to export that mindset and force the world to follow is supremely obvious, so what you're really for is total, unilateral disarmament of our nation at the expense of our national security.
All that and more would make you a terrible and unelectable leader for the vast majority of voters.
Oh, and mesa, it's OK if you don't agree with everything k and x stand for. I "know" you're more responsible than that, so please don't feel you have to back such obviously sincere but profoundly naive and silly claptrap. | |
|
|
| Page 34 of 41
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
