CIA:Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]100meters wrote:

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.[/quote]

When they captured, they’re not just going to come out and tell you about plots and battle plans and all that.

Why would they?

You knock’em around a little bit, and they’ll talk a lot more.

Not too mention that the “witches” in Salem were not captured by rival witches who wanted to blow up lots of innocent non-witches. That’s a terrible analogy.

Torture, to me, is plugging a car battery to your balls and leaving you for a week. Smacking someone around and intimidating them is not the same. C’mon now…

122

[quote]100meters wrote:
Woodward on 60 minutes this week on how bad it is in Iraq.

Apparently it is much worse than JeffR, and Headhunter and our president make it out to be.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

"According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It?s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there?s public, and then there?s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

“The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn’t know? The American public,” Woodward tells Wallace. "[/quote]

Imagine, if you will, being lumpy: The consumate democratic partisan.

Imagine having to passionately wish for the economy to crash, hurricanes to prove that global warming is Bush’s fault, and Iraq to implode.

All so his little band can retake power. Oh, he also desperately wants to say, “I was right all along.”

It’s sad.

I can almost see him tuning into cnn/msnbc and chanting, “Yea, America is hurting!!!” Now we have a chance!!!

Take it a step further and imagine being part of that party. No alternatives. No vision. No consistency. No leadership. No hope. Nothing attractive to anyone who isn’t a die-hard.

The ONLY chance they have is if the country falters.

So sad.

JeffR

123

[quote]100meters wrote:
Woodward on 60 minutes this week on how bad it is in Iraq.

Apparently it is much worse than JeffR, and Headhunter and our president make it out to be.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

"According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It?s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there?s public, and then there?s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

“The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn’t know? The American public,” Woodward tells Wallace. "[/quote]

Oh, lumpy.

It might be a nice change of pace for you to post something positive from Iraq.

You do remember the boy who cries wolf?

JeffR

124

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

I absolutely don’t think that we should just ask said captured terrorist/insurgent a question, and if he refuses to answer it, shrug and walk away.

…

On this we agree 100%. Of course if we apply the Geneva Convention that is what we have to do.

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.[/quote]

I’d love to see how lumpy would deal with interrogation.

I could see lumpy saying, “Well, I know you’ve been forced into this by our government’s malevolant support of Israel. You haven’t had enough aid to make the right choices. I also know George Bush is responsible for making you into a terrorist. Therefore, I feel your pain. Could you please tell me where your misunderstood friends are planning their next demonstration?”

On a lighter note, I’d be chattering like a bird within five minutes if you forced me to read noamchomsky.

JeffR

125

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
simpler: Rainjack is Bush going to increase the troop footprint 3x? Just yes or no.

No need to.

We are taking one province at a time, and turning it over to Iraqi control. To say what we are doing now is not working is to want instant gratification like a baby still sucking the tit.

Impatient children like the ABB/anti-war crowd think this is a fucking video game that should be won, or at least moved to the next level by bedtime. It’s not. Bush said this would take years before we started the thing.

Stating the course insures completeion - quitting insures failure. It is not our job to divide Iraq. It is Iraq’s job. We at least owe them the choice.

Quitters. You can’t shoot them - they’ve already gone home and started whining. [/quote]

Funny, I heard 6 weeks to 6 months.
Isn’t that why there was no need for a phase IV plan?

Good to here you are on the record for staying the course. But as you know Iraq is already divided, and they have made that choice(See all but independent Kurdistan)–we should just recognize it. It’s that whole reality thing again.

126

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
Woodward on 60 minutes this week on how bad it is in Iraq.

Apparently it is much worse than JeffR, and Headhunter and our president make it out to be.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

"According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It?s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there?s public, and then there?s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

“The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn’t know? The American public,” Woodward tells Wallace. "

Imagine, if you will, being lumpy: The consumate democratic partisan.

Imagine having to passionately wish for the economy to crash, hurricanes to prove that global warming is Bush’s fault, and Iraq to implode.

All so his little band can retake power. Oh, he also desperately wants to say, “I was right all along.”

It’s sad.

I can almost see him tuning into cnn/msnbc and chanting, “Yea, America is hurting!!!” Now we have a chance!!!

Take it a step further and imagine being part of that party. No alternatives. No vision. No consistency. No leadership. No hope. Nothing attractive to anyone who isn’t a die-hard.

The ONLY chance they have is if the country falters.

So sad.

JeffR

[/quote]
2+2 still equaling apples I see.

127

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
Woodward on 60 minutes this week on how bad it is in Iraq.

Apparently it is much worse than JeffR, and Headhunter and our president make it out to be.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

"According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It?s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there?s public, and then there?s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

“The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn’t know? The American public,” Woodward tells Wallace. "

Oh, lumpy.

It might be a nice change of pace for you to post something positive from Iraq.

You do remember the boy who cries wolf?

JeffR
[/quote]

Your posts: winning Iraq! Iraq safer than Detroit! WMD found!

The boy who cries wolf a little more like you?

128

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

I absolutely don’t think that we should just ask said captured terrorist/insurgent a question, and if he refuses to answer it, shrug and walk away.

…

On this we agree 100%. Of course if we apply the Geneva Convention that is what we have to do.

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.

I’d love to see how lumpy would deal with interrogation.

I could see lumpy saying, “Well, I know you’ve been forced into this by our government’s malevolant support of Israel. You haven’t had enough aid to make the right choices. I also know George Bush is responsible for making you into a terrorist. Therefore, I feel your pain. Could you please tell me where your misunderstood friends are planning their next demonstration?”

On a lighter note, I’d be chattering like a bird within five minutes if you forced me to read noamchomsky.

JeffR

[/quote]
…OR follow the field manual…Of course I remember how you do hate the military so…anything to give them the middle finger.

129

[quote]100meters wrote:
Woodward on 60 minutes this week on how bad it is in Iraq.

Apparently it is much worse than JeffR, and Headhunter and our president make it out to be.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

"According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It?s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there?s public, and then there?s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

“The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn’t know? The American public,” Woodward tells Wallace. "[/quote]

At that rate how is anyone still alive?

Something is suspicious about those numbers.

130

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

I absolutely don’t think that we should just ask said captured terrorist/insurgent a question, and if he refuses to answer it, shrug and walk away.

…

On this we agree 100%. Of course if we apply the Geneva Convention that is what we have to do.

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.[/quote]

You really are the most bizarre combination of partisan and self-deceptive poster I have seen on these forums. Congrats.

131

They way I look at it is that both Bush and the dems yelling pull out are friggin morons.

Pulling out will more than likely turn Iraq into a similar version of Somalia, just instead of warlords vs warlords vs islamists, we’ll have the various religious factions and ethnic tribes carving out there own territories. (At least that’s what I am thinking would happen).

If we stay we just fuel their fire. The longer we are there the easier it is for extremists to make the local populace view us as conquerors and not liberators.

Clearly the current plan we have now is not working, and I have yet to see someone come up with a viable alternative. I can tell you that no bloody politician is going to come up with a decent plan, most of them know shit about military planning.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Maybe next time we invade a country we can have someone besides Rumsfeld come up with a plan?

132

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.

When they captured, they’re not just going to come out and tell you about plots and battle plans and all that.

Why would they?

You knock’em around a little bit, and they’ll talk a lot more.

Not too mention that the “witches” in Salem were not captured by rival witches who wanted to blow up lots of innocent non-witches. That’s a terrible analogy.

Torture, to me, is plugging a car battery to your balls and leaving you for a week. Smacking someone around and intimidating them is not the same. C’mon now…[/quote]

Agreed. I don’t want heavy duty torture.

I do want tough questioning. Tougher then the Geneva Convention allows.

133

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

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.

When they captured, they’re not just going to come out and tell you about plots and battle plans and all that.

Why would they?

You knock’em around a little bit, and they’ll talk a lot more.

Not too mention that the “witches” in Salem were not captured by rival witches who wanted to blow up lots of innocent non-witches. That’s a terrible analogy.

Torture, to me, is plugging a car battery to your balls and leaving you for a week. Smacking someone around and intimidating them is not the same. C’mon now…

Agreed. I don’t want heavy duty torture.

I do want tough questioning. Tougher then the Geneva Convention allows.[/quote]

I’ll take the lightest touch(by all accounts none) needed to procure the best/most reliable intel with no longterm consequences…

It’s naive to think that experts have come to these conclusions based only on morals.

134

The stupidity of the elected officials who shape our Iraq policies:

"Lott went on to say he has difficulty understanding the motivations behind the violence in Iraq.

“It’s hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what’s wrong with these people,” he said. “Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me”

Good
Lord

This is the exact same idiocy that got us into this mess in the first place. Remember the president didn’t even know what sunnis and shiites were pre-invasion.

God it makes me want to punch this guy right in the vagina.

135

[quote]vroom wrote:
Now, we’ll see if that is soon enough… and if it contains the full contents, or just other piecemeal counterpoints.

Care to make some guesses… a situation where you can’t rely on someone elses thinking, yet?[/quote]

I’d like to point out that, long ago, I wrote that Bush wasn’t trying hard enough to win. Either fight to win or stay away. Glad to see that many, even the Lefties, agree with me.

Either win or go home and let the bastards kill each other.

Headhunter

136

I know an ex Marine who fought in Vietnam, he said that for every war that the U.S. fights we should go all out and make a 100% effort to win. He said we should draft like 10 million soldiers and make all our industries help with the war production. He said if this happened in Vietnam they would have won.

And he said if the people who support the war don’t want to be drafted they should shut the fuck up and stop expecting other people to fight for them and if the people don’t want to be drafted then we shouldn’t be fighting the war in the first place. This is not my view but I gotta admit it does make some sense. What do you guys think?

137

Honestly, Iraq needed a leader like Saddam Hussein, an iron dictator just to keep the peace between the various factions and control the place, now that he’s gone, coupled with the american invasion most of hell has broken loose.
Hussein is also very anti terrotist groups, he needed to be else his hold on the country would loosen, he has been on ecord of saying these things, and has never allowed terrorist groups into iraq (that he was aware of) prior to the Coalition’s invasion. Infact, Iraq could hhave been a valuable ally in the “war on terror” due to its anti terrorsit stance and position in the middle east.

think of it in this perspective, if your country was small and relatively insignificant on the global stage but possesed large amounts of oil, youir country was invaded by the biggestb global superpower on earth. You are accused of harbouring WMDS which you know, and everyone else in your country knows you don’t have, it has been proven by the UN that you don’t have them, but yet are still invaded by this superpower. Yes your currupt, “evil” leader is removed, but that doesn’t change the fact that you were invaded due to the confessions of ONE person under torture (most people would give any information under torure to escape the pain). Of course being such a small nation you have no way to fight back conventionally,
Would you defend your nation agasint these people who have invaded you under false pretences? who have most likely killed family members and friends from bombs and stray bullets? since you canot do it face to face ebcasue of the great disparity between armies, then you resort to terroism and ambushes, ther’es no other way for you to fight back.

138

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

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.

When they captured, they’re not just going to come out and tell you about plots and battle plans and all that.

Why would they?

You knock’em around a little bit, and they’ll talk a lot more.

Not too mention that the “witches” in Salem were not captured by rival witches who wanted to blow up lots of innocent non-witches. That’s a terrible analogy.

Torture, to me, is plugging a car battery to your balls and leaving you for a week. Smacking someone around and intimidating them is not the same. C’mon now…

Agreed. I don’t want heavy duty torture.

I do want tough questioning. Tougher then the Geneva Convention allows.

I’ll take the lightest touch(by all accounts none) needed to procure the best/most reliable intel with no longterm consequences…

It’s naive to think that experts have come to these conclusions based only on morals.[/quote]

It is naive to believe the talking heads you see on TV are experts.

It is naive to believe the true experts would tell what really happens and expose themselves to legal repercussions.

139

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

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.

When they captured, they’re not just going to come out and tell you about plots and battle plans and all that.

Why would they?

You knock’em around a little bit, and they’ll talk a lot more.

Not too mention that the “witches” in Salem were not captured by rival witches who wanted to blow up lots of innocent non-witches. That’s a terrible analogy.

Torture, to me, is plugging a car battery to your balls and leaving you for a week. Smacking someone around and intimidating them is not the same. C’mon now…

Agreed. I don’t want heavy duty torture.

I do want tough questioning. Tougher then the Geneva Convention allows.

I’ll take the lightest touch(by all accounts none) needed to procure the best/most reliable intel with no longterm consequences…

It’s naive to think that experts have come to these conclusions based only on morals.

It is naive to believe the talking heads you see on TV are experts.

It is naive to believe the true experts would tell what really happens and expose themselves to legal repercussions.
[/quote]

Funny that you equate military leadership and intelligence officers to talking heads… there is zero respect for our military by you guys.

140

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

Yep…that’s exactly how traditional interrogation techniques would go down.
No information has ever been gained unless we torture…reality backs that up.

Hell, we’d never know those women in Salem weren’t witches unless we tortured them.

I just can’t believe you guys get to vote…jesus.

When they captured, they’re not just going to come out and tell you about plots and battle plans and all that.

Why would they?

You knock’em around a little bit, and they’ll talk a lot more.

Not too mention that the “witches” in Salem were not captured by rival witches who wanted to blow up lots of innocent non-witches. That’s a terrible analogy.

Torture, to me, is plugging a car battery to your balls and leaving you for a week. Smacking someone around and intimidating them is not the same. C’mon now…

Agreed. I don’t want heavy duty torture.

I do want tough questioning. Tougher then the Geneva Convention allows.

I’ll take the lightest touch(by all accounts none) needed to procure the best/most reliable intel with no longterm consequences…

It’s naive to think that experts have come to these conclusions based only on morals.

It is naive to believe the talking heads you see on TV are experts.

It is naive to believe the true experts would tell what really happens and expose themselves to legal repercussions.

Funny that you equate military leadership and intelligence officers to talking heads… there is zero respect for our military by you guys.[/quote]

Which military leaders share their secrets with you?

Or did you get your incredible insight from the Daily Kos?