CIA:Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]100meters wrote:
By defintion the only people that can do anything about Iraq would be ABB’ers.
1.can we win with the current troop footprint? (obviously not)
2.Can we increase it 3x? (don’t have the boots/political will)
3.That leaves what? Redeployment-perhaps into friendly kurdistan/splitting iraq into 3 pieces and political/financial support(by people who know what they’re doing–not the current idiots).

your guys don’t have the balls to do 2 or 3, that leaves 1. Not good, and painfully totally predicted.[/quote]

There is already an elected government in place in Iraq. What do you tell those Iraqis that trusted the US to be there? “Sorry - we are redeploying. Have a nice death”

Tucking tale is not an option. Run the election on that - It is not an idea. It is quitting. America won’t vote for a quitter.

Like I said - the ABBer’s have no ideas. I don’t think quitting is an idea.

Say you guys win the House - who introduces the “Yellow Stripe Bill”? No one - that’s who.

But at least you are not affraid to take a stand on what you believe.

82

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? We could raise the defense budget by slahing the absurd pork barrel spending that has gone on under Bush’s watch

[…]

we could make the CIA engage in careful, humane interrogations that won’t alienate the millions we are now driving into the arms of radical Islamists…

I agree with you 100% that pork barrel spending under Bush is WAY out of control, But I’d like to know what kind of “humane” interrogations would extract the necessary information.

Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

-Bigflamer

Well its you vs. every single expert on the subject and our military. The ONLY way to get reliable information with out consequences is to not torture. I’m guessing that’s why intelligent people are against it.

It’s almost like the reality is THE EXACT opposite of what you just said.

Not suprising.

Utterly false. The pro “torture” guys do not want their face on TV.

No, still utterly true.

You said:
Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

Despite the fact that this is one of the stupidest things posted here (low bar amongst the yellow elephant brigade)…it is refuted BY EVERBODY FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT AND ALL THE EVIDENCE.

You have military commanders testifying all the useful information they’ve gotten was through traditional methods, and still you pull this s–t out…jeebus!

[/quote]

Only a fool would think that torture never works.

83

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m not saying it was all the Republicans’ fault- the Democrats voted for the war too.

Actuall NONE did.

The AUMF gave the president the authority to carry a “big stick”. While they should have known Bush was lying when he said war was a last resort—they certainly did not vote “for war”.

Still it’s enraging to think some were dumb enough to believe the president.

Bullshit. The US has not declared war since WW2.

Both sides knew exactly what they were voting for. Bush made it very clear it was going to be a war if Saddam did not cave in.

Clear as in last resort?
is the AUMF a vote for war?
yes or no? be honest…

[/quote]

You cannot possibly be this stupid so I must conclude that you have no desire to discuss this issue in a serious manner.

84

[quote]rainjack wrote:
There is already an elected government in place in Iraq. What do you tell those Iraqis that trusted the US to be there? “Sorry - we are redeploying. Have a nice death”

Tucking tale is not an option. Run the election on that - It is not an idea. It is quitting. America won’t vote for a quitter.
[/quote]

Strangely, according to CNN today, 70% of the Iraqi’s want the US out. Those that don’t are predominantly Kurdish. I guess you don’t really have to explain anything to the Iraqi’s!

The bigger problem is what happens after the US finally does leave. It’s not going to be pretty…

85

[quote]vroom wrote:
Strangely, according to CNN today, 70% of the Iraqi’s want the US out. Those that don’t are predominantly Kurdish. I guess you don’t really have to explain anything to the Iraqi’s!

The bigger problem is what happens after the US finally does leave. It’s not going to be pretty…[/quote]

It should be 100%. No one wants another nation in their country. But anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that to leave now is signing Iraq’a death warrant.

We are turning controlled areas over to the Iraqi army one province at a time. It is a process, not instant gratification.

To leave before we have secured the entire country would be too soon. Once that happens - we can leave. Then it will be up to the Iraqi people and their resolve to hold their nation together.

For us to quit before they have the ability to make that decision would be wrong.

86

[quote]rainjack wrote:
It should be 100%. No one wants another nation in their country. But anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that to leave now is signing Iraq’a death warrant.

We are turning controlled areas over to the Iraqi army one province at a time. It is a process, not instant gratification.

To leave before we have secured the entire country would be too soon. Once that happens - we can leave. Then it will be up to the Iraqi people and their resolve to hold their nation together.

For us to quit before they have the ability to make that decision would be wrong.[/quote]

That’s what I’m talking about! Nice well laid out point man.

When I’m bitching about Iraq, I’m not saying (and don’t think I’ve ever said) we should just pull out immediately.

What I do say, is that I’d like to see some more initiatives, both there and throughout the Middle East, possibly of a non-military nature.

For example, my completely ridiculed thread about trying to get Iraqi citizens directly involved to foster a sense of ownership and cooperation, perhaps helping lead to better long term prospects.

I’ve also talked about what I see as rampant propaganda throughout the Middle East and our need to find ways to counter that.

Shit, maybe I’m dreaming, but at least I’m trying to develop positive ideas instead of only bitching.

87

Let them rot. They can have their civil war.
http://www.yahoo.com/s/400536

88

[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? We could raise the defense budget by slahing the absurd pork barrel spending that has gone on under Bush’s watch

[…]

we could make the CIA engage in careful, humane interrogations that won’t alienate the millions we are now driving into the arms of radical Islamists…

I agree with you 100% that pork barrel spending under Bush is WAY out of control, But I’d like to know what kind of “humane” interrogations would extract the necessary information.

Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

-Bigflamer

Well its you vs. every single expert on the subject and our military. The ONLY way to get reliable information with out consequences is to not torture. I’m guessing that’s why intelligent people are against it.

It’s almost like the reality is THE EXACT opposite of what you just said.

Not suprising.[/quote]

Here’s the problem 100m, what is torture?. Damn, it feels like we’re talking about Clinton’s sex life again, what is is.

I’ll ask you this, what do you think is torture? Because, and I hate to be the one to break this to you, we will have to cause at least some discomfort to these bloodthirsty, fanatical zealots, if we are to get information from them.

I’m not talking about bamboo shoots under the fingernails, smashing fingers and toes one by one, or yikes sawing their heads off with a bowie knife on tv. I’m talking about letting the interogators do their jobs within reasonable boundries. And no, I don’t consider water boarding, sleep deprivation, or being subject to extreme temparatures “torture”.

So, I’d like to hear the fantastically humane, gentle, and non threatening methods you have tucked up your sleeve to extract this information.

I’m sure they’re dynamic. I can’t wait.

89

Okay but imagine this. An innocent Iraqi was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and is suspected of being a terrorist. He is then interrogated by the above mentioned methods. And all this while his family has no idea where he is or what the fuck is happening.

And then a couple of years later they realize he was innocent all along. What then? This shit is possible you know. I’m not taking any sides here just offering another point of view.

90

Flamer, this is indeed exactly the same issue as complaining about Clinton’s what does “is” mean.

The real question is “what does outrages on human dignity” mean? I think most people will start to feel uncomfortable doing certain things to other people and know when they shouldn’t continue.

I also think conservatives who have ever used the phrase “moral relativism” should seriously consider why we don’t allow torture on general citizens. It is wrong, isn’t it? Wait, why are we fighting to allow it if it is wrong?

My answer, cowardice. We are afraid, so we’ll allow it. We shouldn’t bend our principles because we are afraid. You know what, I’ll admit, that could cost us some lives…

Do you have principles, or not?

91

[quote]semper_fi wrote:
And then a couple of years later they realize he was innocent all along. What then? This shit is possible you know. I’m not taking any sides here just offering another point of view.[/quote]

You have created a hater, who will tell everyone about his experience.

However, it’s not hypothetical. It’s been documented that many innocent people have been captured, held and later released.

There is a Canadian guy trying to sue the American government because he was taken at the border on his way into the states and rendered overseas for tortured. Well, had extreme pain and other things inflicted on him, some won’t consider it torture I suppose.

He’s a little pissed off about the whole ordeal.

If you guys really want torture to be available, I’d suggest it be made a one off situation. The president writes up a writ, signs it, and has the balls to say I approve it and I accept the consequences. Then if you have some retard who everyone believes knows about an imminent attack, you can still act because someone truly in charge is man enough to stand up and be counted when the decision is made.

Somebody needs to be able to be held to some type of account… the buck needs to stop somewhere if inappropriate and what should be unlawful actions are taken.

It saddens me to see a systematic removal of all accountability and responsibility for behavior under way nowadays… bunch of sackless leaders if you ask me.

Where oh where is the integrity?

92

[quote]vroom wrote:
Flamer, this is indeed exactly the same issue as complaining about Clinton’s what does “is” mean.

The real question is “what does outrages on human dignity” mean? I think most people will start to feel uncomfortable doing certain things to other people and know when they shouldn’t continue.

I also think conservatives who have ever used the phrase “moral relativism” should seriously consider why we don’t allow torture on general citizens. It is wrong, isn’t it? Wait, why are we fighting to allow it if it is wrong?

My answer, cowardice. We are afraid, so we’ll allow it. We shouldn’t bend our principles because we are afraid. You know what, I’ll admit, that could cost us some lives…

Do you have principles, or not?[/quote]
Just so I understand you clearly. Do you support a Police/US suspect type of interrogation. Like what we use on our own citizens? Just seems to me, that when dealing with die-hard zealots, we might as well give up on interrogations. Read this. It’s interesting how “putting the squeeze” to one guy lead to so much success.
http://www.newsobserver.com/701/story/483403.html

The technique that got him to talk is below. It’s from the National Review online. If anyone has doubts to it’s claims, feel free to check additional resources.

“While Zubaydah reportedly kept his mouth shut at first, he became much more loquacious once interrogators stuck him in a cold room and cranked up the music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Evidently not a fan, Zubaydah sang anyway, although a different song altogether. Zubaydah identified Omar al-Faruq, Rahim al-Nashiri, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, as well as other terrorists.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ1YWE1OTVkNTEyMGIwOGIwMmViYWEzYTFhYTIxZGU=

Would you object to “cranked up” western music nearly 24/7 with maybe a few hours of silence for sleep? Not sure if that’s exactly what they did, but I’m curious.

93

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Would you object to “cranked up” western music nearly 24/7 with maybe a few hours of silence for sleep? Not sure if that’s exactly what they did, but I’m curious.
[/quote]

There are a lot of questions. Look, what does it mean that it was cool. Was he naked and freezing? Was he tied or otherwise restrained, hanging or stretched? Was he kept awake for several days?

The “characterizations” of the treatment are, listen to loud music, hahahahaha… that’s not torture. We don’t really have much idea of what was going on from the story.

Listen to music at 1000 decibels and you are dead.

Trivializing the treatment by putting it into terms of things that we think we know in our daily lives isn’t really a good representation of what is going on out there. Or maybe it is.

As I said, I’m for somebody standing up and approving excessive use of pain and suffering, because the geneva convention and basic human rights are important concepts.

I don’t think principles should be sacrificed so easily. That’s my take on it and it will not change. I do understand that this will risk some lives.

As with the statements often made about the price of freedom (generally purchased with lives), so to do our principles have a cost that we may have to pay in order to keep them.

I think fear and cowardice have some of us unwilling to pay the price of keeping our principles intact. Again, I do also understand the enemy has no such principles.

94

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Only a fool would think that torture never works.[/quote]

Only a fool would think that someone wouldn’t say anything and make anything up in order to stop the torture…

So all those people that Stalin and Hitler tortured into signing “confessions”…they were really guilty, huh?

Torture is one thing I will never get behind. There are certain methods that are admissable in an interrogation, and certain ones that are not.

For instance, agents would play rap music at full volume constantly for Arab captives…this would drive certain things out of them. This is a lot different than half drowning them, or making them stack up on each other naked and having German shepherds snap at their balls.

Zap…would you want your kid being tortured if he was a POW?

95

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Only a fool would think that torture never works.

Only a fool would think that someone wouldn’t say anything and make anything up in order to stop the torture…

So all those people that Stalin and Hitler tortured into signing “confessions”…they were really guilty, huh?

Torture is one thing I will never get behind. There are certain methods that are admissable in an interrogation, and certain ones that are not.

For instance, agents would play rap music at full volume constantly for Arab captives…this would drive certain things out of them. This is a lot different than half drowning them, or making them stack up on each other naked and having German shepherds snap at their balls.

Zap…would you want your kid being tortured if he was a POW?[/quote]

Playing rap music at full volume and not letting them sleep is one of the most commonly used methods and it is being decried as torture.

As I understand it waterboarding has been used for a very small number of people and it has worked.

96

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? We could raise the defense budget by slahing the absurd pork barrel spending that has gone on under Bush’s watch

[…]

we could make the CIA engage in careful, humane interrogations that won’t alienate the millions we are now driving into the arms of radical Islamists…

I agree with you 100% that pork barrel spending under Bush is WAY out of control, But I’d like to know what kind of “humane” interrogations would extract the necessary information.

Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

-Bigflamer

Well its you vs. every single expert on the subject and our military. The ONLY way to get reliable information with out consequences is to not torture. I’m guessing that’s why intelligent people are against it.

It’s almost like the reality is THE EXACT opposite of what you just said.

Not suprising.

Utterly false. The pro “torture” guys do not want their face on TV.

No, still utterly true.

You said:
Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

Despite the fact that this is one of the stupidest things posted here (low bar amongst the yellow elephant brigade)…it is refuted BY EVERBODY FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT AND ALL THE EVIDENCE.

You have military commanders testifying all the useful information they’ve gotten was through traditional methods, and still you pull this s–t out…jeebus!

Only a fool would think that torture never works.[/quote]

You didn’t address your quote.

97

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m not saying it was all the Republicans’ fault- the Democrats voted for the war too.

Actuall NONE did.

The AUMF gave the president the authority to carry a “big stick”. While they should have known Bush was lying when he said war was a last resort—they certainly did not vote “for war”.

Still it’s enraging to think some were dumb enough to believe the president.

Bullshit. The US has not declared war since WW2.

Both sides knew exactly what they were voting for. Bush made it very clear it was going to be a war if Saddam did not cave in.

Clear as in last resort?
is the AUMF a vote for war?
yes or no? be honest…

You cannot possibly be this stupid so I must conclude that you have no desire to discuss this issue in a serious manner.[/quote]

just yes or no plus post the context of the vote with what bush said pre-vote. Then I’ll accept your humble apology.

98

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
There is already an elected government in place in Iraq. What do you tell those Iraqis that trusted the US to be there? “Sorry - we are redeploying. Have a nice death”

Tucking tale is not an option. Run the election on that - It is not an idea. It is quitting. America won’t vote for a quitter.

Strangely, according to CNN today, 70% of the Iraqi’s want the US out. Those that don’t are predominantly Kurdish. I guess you don’t really have to explain anything to the Iraqi’s!

The bigger problem is what happens after the US finally does leave. It’s not going to be pretty…[/quote]

You’re dealing with reality here VROOM, that’s not how the yellow-elephant brigade or rainjack roll…

99

[quote]100meters wrote:
You’re dealing with reality here VROOM, that’s not how the yellow-elephant brigade or rainjack roll…[/quote]

You are of the belief that we can just quit, turn tail, and run back home with nary a repuercussion.

What reality are you and the other quitters living in?

You can’t hit reset and start over. Blaming Bush won’t save a single life in Iraq.

100

Assessing the National Intelligence Estimate leaked report

In his newsletter, Stratfor’s George Friedman helps to clarify the meaning of the findings of the National Intelligence Report:

There is no question but that anti-Americanism increased in the region as a result of the war, as did Islamic fundamentalism. The pool of people willing to carry out terrorist attacks in Iraq certainly grew. The pool of people willing to carry out such attacks in the United States also grew. What is not clear is whether the pool of willing people capable of carrying out such attacks also grew. It is not the number of people who want to carry out an operation that matters, nearly as much as the number of people able to carry out the operation.

Begin by distinguishing strategic terrorism attacks from tactical terrorism attacks. A tactical terrorism attack is characterized by being carried out within a society where the attacker is able to blend in, on a scale that is relatively easy to organize and that causes limited casualties. A suicide bomber in Iraq or Israel who causes a few dozen casualties is tactical. By itself it does not destabilize a society. It rises to the strategic level only when a very large number of such attacks take place. Thus, in Iraq, a large series of tactical events combine to create strategic destabilization.

A strategic terrorist attack has three characteristics. It is carried out at some distance, and certainly outside the geographical area where the attacker is at home. It causes massive casualties, sufficient to destabilize a society simply by itself. In order to protect it from penetration by security, a relatively few conspirators are involved. The obvious example of a strategic attack was 9/11, an attack carried out on an intercontinental basis outside the attackers’ society, causing massive casualties and involving relatively few people.
…

The argument [about the NIE] should be phrased this way. The number of tactical terrorists in Iraq has soared because of the war. The number of radical Islamists in the region has also risen by an indeterminate but substantial amount. This does not by itself translate into a strategic threat to the United States, because sentiment turns itself readily into tactical attacks but not into strategic ones. Therefore, until now, Bush’s argument is compatible with the NIE.

The problem with Bush’s argument is the phrase “until now.” Bush can have no confidence that another team may not be in place or on its way. But his critics also cannot make the argument that if they are on the way, it was because of the Iraq war. After all, Osama bin Laden had no problem recruiting a strategic team prior to 9/11, without the Iraq war. Having a larger pool does not necessary increase or decrease the strategic threat.

There are many reasons to criticize the war in Iraq and Bush’s execution of it; but even though on the surface this seems to be one of the strongest arguments against it, it seems to us to be one of the weakest. Strategic covert operations do not depend on large recruitment pools. They depend on strong expertise in strategic covert operations. Few people have that, few people are suitable for it – and al Qaeda did not need a huge pool to hit the United States painfully.