[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Wait, I’m sorry, is this a US operated torture chamber or a terrorist operated torture chamber? I get the torturers mixed up.
Torture is so “in” this decade, the Geneva Convention is soo 1990s.[/quote]
You really are an ignorant ass aren’t you?
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
Wait, I’m sorry, is this a US operated torture chamber or a terrorist operated torture chamber? I get the torturers mixed up.
Torture is so “in” this decade, the Geneva Convention is soo 1990s.
You are a troll.
Pretty big difference between no air conditioning and blood on the walls.
Oh, you also suck.
JeffR
And you’re a retard.
Oooooh blood on the walls. Haven’t detainees died while in US custody during “intense interrogations”(aka torture)? I’ll answer that for you, yes, yes they have… So now your response will be…?[/quote]
Hey, shitstain,
If you can’t see the difference between deliberately torturing civilians to death on a mass scale and a few deaths of suspected terrorists, then I can’t help you.
If your brain cannot understand that harsh interrogation is one of the tools that has allowed the U.S. to remain attack free since 2001, then I can’t help you.
Finally, no one believes that your Pollyana view of the world would hold up if your family was targeted.
Don’t insult people who have to do unpleasant things.
You aren’t informed enough about the issues to make an education assessment.
JeffR
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
…
You want to support the same methods our enemy uses? …[/quote]
Do you even read the articles before you start spewing shit?
The enemy uses electric shock and power drills on people that try to repair the countries infrastructure. When they are done they often behead them.
The US uses sleep deprivation and loud music on terrorists to try to get them to give us vital information so we can break up terrorist cells and save lives.
These are nowhere near the same thing.
The crap you posted takes away from legitimate debate on what type of interrogation should be used.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
…
You want to support the same methods our enemy uses? …
Do you even read the articles before you start spewing shit?
The enemy uses electric shock and power drills on people that try to repair the countries infrastructure. When they are done they often behead them.
The US uses sleep deprivation and loud music on terrorists to try to get them to give us vital information so we can break up terrorist cells and save lives.
These are nowhere near the same thing.
The crap you posted takes away from legitimate debate on what type of interrogation should be used.
[/quote]
You don’t even know the extent of American interrogation. How many secret US facilities are there around the world? You think they’re only resorting to water boarding and sleep deprivation? I really doubt it. That’s just what they’ll openly admit to. I’m sure their secret interrogative methods are a bit harsher.
Now you’re concerned with saving lives? What lives? Iraqi lives? Because correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure we went into Iraq with guns blazing and we’ve managed to take out a large chunk of the civilian populace. Come off that knight in shining armor bullshit.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
Wait, I’m sorry, is this a US operated torture chamber or a terrorist operated torture chamber? I get the torturers mixed up.
Torture is so “in” this decade, the Geneva Convention is soo 1990s.
You are a troll.
Pretty big difference between no air conditioning and blood on the walls.
Oh, you also suck.
JeffR
No one’s talking about “no air conditioning.” We’re talking about simulated drowning, threats to families, extreme sleep deprivation (which McCain and others who suffered it say is the worst form of torture of all) and psychological pressure to the point of destroying sanity (see Abu Zubaydah, do you even know who that is?). Way to be uninformed as usual Jeffy.[/quote]
Hey, Mr. Independent:
Thanks for chiming in. It’s so hard to keep track of what you are “talking about.” If you think that no air conditioning wasn’t a big issue for your lefty friends, then you are the one who is uninformed.
Further, I simply disagree with McCain. I’m not sure he can give an objective assessment of the practices. That is certainly not a criticism of the man. God only knows what mental and physical scars the man bears from this.
I want a balanced approach to this issue. In fact, I’d feel much better if McCain wasn’t naming specific measures to be banned.
Read this:
I summary, I believe that balance has to be employed. When I see jackasses saying, “no torture” it irritates me. It’s so subjective. It’s so apt to be twisted to suit one’s particular political leanings.
I think we need to do whatever can effectively prevent further attacks.
It’s just hard to argue with having no attacks since 2001. Do we really want to overhaul a system that is working?
We must use care and not employ the time honored political approach of overreacting.
JeffR
P.S. I will reiterate this 1,000,000,000 times: If your family was attacked and/or if another 9/11 occurred you’d be one of those people asking “Why didn’t Bush do whatever was necessary to prevent these attacks?”
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
No one’s talking about “no air conditioning.” We’re talking about simulated drowning, threats to families, extreme sleep deprivation (which McCain and others who suffered it say is the worst form of torture of all) and psychological pressure to the point of destroying sanity (see Abu Zubaydah, do you even know who that is?). Way to be uninformed as usual Jeffy.[/quote]
I can’t speak from personal experience, but if Door 1 contained a tub of water, bright lights, and loud noise, and Door 2 contained blood-stained walls, bloody knives and swords, and an iron bed hooked up to a car battery, I’m not going to think too long about which one to choose.
Note that McCain is still alive, fully functional, and able to speak about his experiences. Note that the 29 people found in the makeshift gravesite are, um, less than able.
I’m not saying waterboarding isn’t torture, I’m not saying it isn’t barbaric. I’m not even necessarily condoning its use. But, as a means to an end, If using such a technique (on a person whose compatriots think nothing of slaughtering their OWN PEOPLE will protect my family no less!)…well…
When you take action to destroy our country and kill our peoople, you lose access to the basic rights we provide. I no longer give two shits about your psychological wellbeing. I guess I’m barbaric. Sorry.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Have you ever looked in the mirror and realized that you are worthless?
I’m wondering if you could see your reflection. You are an absolute vampire living off the good graces of other people.
If you are an American, I’m ashamed of you. If you are a foreigner, please indicate which virtuous country you reside in.
Other than having a great avatar, you have no redeeming features.
Oh, in case you were wondering, I realize that if your family was attacked you change your entire outlook.
JeffR
Oh ow, that really stung. I’m so hurt. You’ve damaged my frail self esteem.
I’m ashamed of you, for supporting torture methods. Methods any American POW would vehemently oppose. John McCain? Talk to someone who’s actually experienced it you cunt.
You want to support the same methods our enemy uses? The same enemy you claim is a worthless savage? So what exactly does that make you? A fucking saint because you’re an American? No dirt bag, it makes you a worthless fucking savage, unfit to hold the title of American.
What don’t you retards understand? How much more simple can I make this? You’ve become the evil you so wish to eradicate. What, don’t, you, get?[/quote]
Which country do you live in? Which country were you born in?
It would help us understand your perspective.
Thanks in advance,
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
It’s just hard to argue with having no attacks since 2001. Do we really want to overhaul a system that is working?[/quote]
Mother fucker, it’s been 6 years. What kind of time frame exists between most major attacks against the US?
Like invading a country based on faulty and forged evidence?
[quote]JeffR wrote:P.S. I will reiterate this 1,000,000,000 times: If your family was attacked and/or if another 9/11 occurred you’d be one of those people asking “Why didn’t Bush do whatever was necessary to prevent these attacks?”
[/quote]
No, actually, I’d be blaming terrible foreign policy for increasing Anti American sentiment around the world by invading 2 nations and maintaining a large US presence in an area of the world that is largely opposed to Western interference. Dick. The actions of the US government, especially during Bush’s two terms, are doing nothing but putting American lives at more of a risk.
But I suppose the failed Iraqi government and war is a testament to Bush’s successful foreign policies, right? Bizarro World, sounds like an interesting place to live.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
…
You don’t even know the extent of American interrogation. How many secret US facilities are there around the world? You think they’re only resorting to water boarding and sleep deprivation? I really doubt it. That’s just what they’ll openly admit to. I’m sure their secret interrogative methods are a bit harsher.
…[/quote]
I am sure these secret torture chambers where we use the same method as AQ are located with Saddams WMD’s.
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
But, as a means to an end, If using such a technique (on a person whose compatriots think nothing of slaughtering their OWN PEOPLE will protect my family no less!)…well… [/quote]
You are judging a whole nation based on the actions of a handful of their compatriots? I sincerely hope that is not what you meant.
I’ll have you know that a great deal of Al-Qaeda in Iraq is constituted of foreign combatants who poured in the country following the US’ invasion of the country. Most are Saudis.
And what’s with “technique”? Are you scared to use the correct terminology?
You provide squat! Not being tortured is a basic human right.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but your country has taking more action to destroy Iraq and actually killed plenty (that’s a euphemism) of people there. Did Iraqis ever set foot on your soil with the purpose of blasting people and overthrowing the government? Didn’t think so. Yet, we have Abu Ghraib and other atrocities perpetrated in the name of the American people.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You are judging a whole nation based on the actions of a handful of their compatriots? I sincerely hope that is not what you meant.[/quote]
No, I am judging people affiliated with Al Qaeda and those who sympathize with their ambitions. Here’s a headline from a few minutes ago: “Suicide bomber targets worshippers in Pakistan, kills 50”.
[quote]
I’ll have you know that a great deal of Al-Qaeda in Iraq is constituted of foreign combatants who poured in the country following the US’ invasion of the country. Most are Saudis. [/quote]
No way! Next are you gonna spill the beans that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi as well?!?! How does this matter?
Because it’s a procedure implemented to bring about an intended result. Hence, the word ‘technique’. Now, in OUR case, the ‘technique’ is implemented to abstract information pertinent to the protection of our citizens. The TECHNIQUES used by Al Qaeda in the aforementioned article are designed to instill a sense of terror in the general population.
But it’s still all the same, right?
[quote]
When you take action to destroy our country and kill our peoople, you lose access to the basic rights we provide.
You provide squat! Not being tortured is a basic human right. [/quote]
Re-read what I wrote. As stated, I dont give a shit about their basic human rights if they were actively planning to murder my fellow countrymen.
[quote]
Yet, we have Abu Ghraib and other atrocities perpetrated in the name of the American people.[/quote]
Abu Ghraib was a shame and should be viewed accordingly. It was a crime committed by a group of ordinary 20 year olds unable to handle the intensity of their environment. I’m not excusing or condoning it, it was a shame.
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
No, I am judging people affiliated with Al Qaeda and those who sympathize with their ambitions. Here’s a headline from a few minutes ago: “Suicide bomber targets worshippers in Pakistan, kills 50”. [/quote]
No. You used the term compatriot, which for all intents and purposes, refers to Iraqis.
Knowing that a good chunk of the people who constitute Al-Qaeda in Iraq are not locals, and that most Iraqis - despite supporting attacks on the foreign troops occupying their land - do not sympathize with Al-Qaeda’s ambitions, how can you rationalize your statement about using “such a technique” on people based on their nationality?
Easy!
You referred to people “who bears ill will and mal intent towards our country” earlier in the thread. Iraqis don’t fit that description as well as Saudis, yet your president decides to invade the former and give weapons to the latter. Do you not see a problem with that?
[quote]Because it’s a procedure implemented to bring about an intended result. Hence, the word ‘technique’. Now, in OUR case, the ‘technique’ is implemented to abstract information pertinent to the protection of our citizens. The TECHNIQUES used by Al Qaeda in the aforementioned article are designed to instill a sense of terror in the general population.
But it’s still all the same, right?[/quote]
Again with comparing US actions to the ones of Al-Qaeda? You are a disgrace to the American principles and to civilized people everywhere.
The only reason you picked the term “technique” over “torture” was to dehumanize the horrendous practice.
Good! Now, do you think such “a shame” may have alienated the Iraqi population? Do you not think some of the victims’ relatives and friends might want to hurt the people who supported the war on Iraq?
Abu Ghraib was a direct consequence of the US invading Iraq, as if the piles of bodies shredded by American bombs weren’t enough. You can’t really call it hindsight, because I, and millions others, were out protesting the attacks in 2003 before it even happened.
The Iraq war did more damage to the image of the US states than dozens of other wars of aggression combined. I hope you at least got some remorse if you voted for Bush.
[quote]lixy wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
…
Anyway, you should keep in mind that Al-Qaeda wouldn’t have flourished in Iraq had the US not invaded the country.[/quote]
True. I agree with that. Sadam pretty much had a corner on the torture and killing market.
If not in Iraq, they would have flourished somewhere else. Unfortunately, there is plenty of fertile ground in the world.
I’m pretty sure plenty of countries are in worse shape than pre-war Iraq.
Can we go invade and help them too?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’m pretty sure plenty of countries are in worse shape than pre-war Iraq.
Can we go invade and help them too?[/quote]
If they got oil, I don’t see why not.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m pretty sure plenty of countries are in worse shape than pre-war Iraq.
Can we go invade and help them too?
If they got oil, I don’t see why not.[/quote]
Really, You still think we get shit from there oil? Should come visit us some time and see are 30cent gas…0h wait thats right the sign says $3 my bad.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’m pretty sure plenty of countries are in worse shape than pre-war Iraq.
Can we go invade and help them too?[/quote]
My God - this again as an argument?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Really, You still think we get shit from there oil? Should come visit us some time and see are 30cent gas…0h wait thats right the sign says $3 my bad.[/quote]
Exactly - where is all the cheap oil we we supposed to get from our invasion for the oil?
Oh wait - when that scenario didn’t come to pass, the Left insured us that we invaded to bump prices up as a boon to the evil oil companies.
Low oil prices, high oil prices - who can keep up with the stupid, stupid Left anymore?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Really, You still think we get shit from there oil? Should come visit us some time and see are 30cent gas…0h wait thats right the sign says $3 my bad.[/quote]
The populace gets squat. They finance the war, have their loved ones killed, but it’s the oil companies who are the big winners here.
Control of oil is a central component of the war and if you don’t see it, you’re simply an imbecile. The war on Iraq guaranteed the US military stays at a strategic location which is at the heart of the oil-rich region. Proof? Go check PNAC literature.
“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” – Hermann Goering