• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

Henry David said:
The shorter list would be when Bush actually told the truth.
Click to expand...

That's a claim you might want to think about.
Cripes, he even lied about seeing the first airplane strike the towers--few people saw it because it was not televised.
Click to expand...

Few people saw it or nobody saw it?
He lied about Iraq and its being a threat to this country.
Click to expand...

Iraq was not a threat? Are you quite certain that that was a commonly held idea at the time?

Weapons of Mass Deception sir,
Click to expand...

Again, we have almost every world leader, as well as UN directives, making allegations and clear statements that Saddam had WMD, and yet these facts appear to be unknown to you. Why not read the actual history of these important events rather than guessing at them?
 
Grant said:
In fact there are usually several people present.

We're talking 'enhanced interrogation' here, not personal confrontations..
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that in these circumstances where I am tortured, I would probably tell you anything to get you to stop.

Of course you could do like J-mac and call me wetback until I cry. Then I would spill my guts.
 
Last edited:
Texmex said:
If it's just me and you alone, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

I re read that post your referring to and can understand, by my poor phrasing, how you interpreted this as a personal challenge. I meant that you would, of course, be alone.

I am not one of those phonies who pretend to be an internet tough guy but do believe that after a session or two of water boarding you'd tell me all i need to know.
 
Grant said:
That's false. Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the statements of those, including Clinton and Gore, who believe Saddam had WMD??
Click to expand...

Left overs. And if you're speaking of wild Bill Clinton, you have to go back to context.
Click to expand...
 
Henry David said:
The shorter list would be when Bush actually told the truth.

Cripes, he even lied about seeing the first airplane strike the towers--few people saw it because it was not televised.

He lied about Iraq and its being a threat to this country. Weapons of Mass Deception sir, and Obama governs like Bush on steroids!
Click to expand...

No, those weren't lies. He was repeating stuff that Clinton had said about Iraq and that everyone thought was true, including the CIA and British intelligence.

It's a simple request. One statement he made that was clearly deliberate deception.
 
Boo Radley said:
Left overs. And if you're speaking of wild Bill Clinton, you have to go back to context.
Click to expand...

Leftovers? What does that mean?

And I'd be pleased to go back to context with all the many world leaders who said Saddam had WMDs. Are you claiming otherwise?
 
Grant said:
That's a claim you might want to think about.


Few people saw it or nobody saw it?


Iraq was not a threat? Are you quite certain that that was a commonly held idea at the time?



Again, we have almost every world leader, as well as UN directives, making allegations and clear statements that Saddam had WMD, and yet these facts appear to be unknown to you. Why not read the actual history of these important events rather than guessing at them?
Click to expand...

Oh, I've done more than think about it, and that was 10 years ago. Bush made far more false statements than he made truthful statements.

Yes, English is my primary language, and when I said few people saw the first tower strike, I meant FEW people saw it. Bush was not one of them, despite his false claim to the contrary.

I did not make a career of it, but from my time in the Army, I understood full well that in 2003 Iraq was no threat at all to the US. After the first Gulf War under Bush 41, Iraq's army had been thoroughly defeated and humiliated. It did not have a navy, and in 2003 its air force was nonexistent, with most of its old airplanes buried in the sand. No sir, that ragtag country, after 10 years of heavy trade sanctions, in 2003 was no threat at all to the US. Bush, Cheney, Powell et al lied to the world and the country about the Weapons of Mass Deception.

I lived the history of those events sir, and I'm still able to remember them. Where were you when all that was happening?
 
LowDown said:
No, those weren't lies. He was repeating stuff that Clinton had said about Iraq and that everyone thought was true, including the CIA and British intelligence.

It's a simple request. One statement he made that was clearly deliberate deception.
Click to expand...

That he saw on TV the first airplane to strike at WTC.
 
Grant said:
Leftovers? What does that mean?

And I'd be pleased to go back to context with all the many world leaders who said Saddam had WMDs. Are you claiming otherwise?
Click to expand...

Left overs, those not accounted for. Bush took it further than others did. He said, growing and gathering, meaning active or grams creating new weapons. Very different than what the rest if the world said.
 
Samhain said:
Some argue that the government's torture, or enhanced interrogation, rules are driving increased participation in AQ.
Click to expand...

And do they base this on any knowledge, studies, or first hand information? Or is that just their feelings talking?
 
Boo Radley said:
Left overs, those not accounted for. Bush took it further than others did. He said, growing and gathering, meaning active or grams creating new weapons. Very different than what the rest if the world said.
Click to expand...

It seems you are just making things up as you go along. Most everyone said what Bush said and the great majority supported him in Congress. That is historical fact.
 
Henry David said:
Oh, I've done more than think about it, and that was 10 years ago. Bush made far more false statements than he made truthful statements.
Click to expand...
And you have a count, some evidence of this?

Yes, English is my primary language, and when I said few people saw the first tower strike, I meant FEW people saw it. Bush was not one of them, despite his false claim to the contrary.
Click to expand...

You should provide some evidence. As George Bush was not even in NY State at the time your statement is difficult to believe.
I did not make a career of it, but from my time in the Army, I understood full well that in 2003 Iraq was no threat at all to the US.
Click to expand...

Others disagree. especially those in the region and people who were familiar with Saddam's history.

After the first Gulf War under Bush 41, Iraq's army had been thoroughly defeated and humiliated. It did not have a navy, and in 2003 its air force was nonexistent, with most of its old airplanes buried in the sand. No sir, that ragtag country, after 10 years of heavy trade sanctions, in 2003 was no threat at all to the US. Bush, Cheney, Powell et al lied to the world and the country about the Weapons of Mass Deception.
Click to expand...

Most everyone lied then, but it was up to Saddam to prove without any doubt that he had no WMD. He refused to fully cooperate, even with forces lined along his border. He was an evil person and the world is better off with his departure.

I lived the history of those events sir, and I'm still able to remember them. Where were you when all that was happening?
Click to expand...

I lived the history as well, and am able to support what happened with public documentation. I would never, under any circumstances, support an evil dictator such as Saddam Hussein.

President Obama recently helped murder Qadaffi of Libya, and with no excuses whatsoever. I had no use for Qadaffi either, but he was not in the same league as Saddam Hussein. At least the law was on the side of George Bush whereas that was not the case with Obama.
 
Grant said:
It seems you are just making things up as you go along. Most everyone said what Bush said and the great majority supported him in Congress. That is historical fact.
Click to expand...

That is factually inaccurate. Show me one person not connected with us administration who claimed growing and gathering, new programs (and don't back to Clinton because his administration declared that problem ended).
 
Grant said:
And you have a count, some evidence of this?



You should provide some evidence. As George Bush was not even in NY State at the time your statement is difficult to believe.


Others disagree. especially those in the region and people who were familiar with Saddam's history.



Most everyone lied then, but it was up to Saddam to prove without any doubt that he had no WMD. He refused to fully cooperate, even with forces lined along his border. He was an evil person and the world is better off with his departure.



I lived the history as well, and am able to support what happened with public documentation. I would never, under any circumstances, support an evil dictator such as Saddam Hussein.

President Obama recently helped murder Qadaffi of Libya, and with no excuses whatsoever. I had no use for Qadaffi either, but he was not in the same league as Saddam Hussein. At least the law was on the side of George Bush whereas that was not the case with Obama.
Click to expand...

If you are still living in the World According To Dubya & Dick, there is nothing I can say, link, or otherwise show to you that will help you understand. :peace
 
Henry David said:
If you are still living in the World According To Dubya & Dick, there is nothing I can say, link, or otherwise show to you that will help you understand. :peace
Click to expand...

Okay, you cannot support your claims. Why not just be honest and admit it? Do you really believe you're fooling anyone?
 
Grant said:
You cannot disagree.
Click to expand...

Then don't fly? ;)

Health insurance.

Plus various licenses, annual permits and inspections, that can take weeks to get through if you want to start any small business.
Click to expand...

Well.... That Health Insurance thing is new and I am not sure how it works as I am living overseas.... as to the rest, don't start a business then.. they can't "force" you.
 
I've always found it weird that the same people that think torture is ineffective also think it's immoral. Just...odd. You get these weird arguments wherein people are forced to defend the position that torture can never, ever, ever work, because they don't like the idea of using it.

And that's to say nothing of waterboarding.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I've always found it weird that the same people that think torture is ineffective also think it's immoral. Just...odd. You get these weird arguments wherein people are forced to defend the position that torture can never, ever, ever work, because they don't like the idea of using it.

And that's to say nothing of waterboarding.
Click to expand...

You do know something can be both ineffective and immoral. The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do know something can be both ineffective and immoral. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Sure. But then that leads to the position that torture has never and could never work. And of course such absolutes are pretty absurd, so...
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Sure. But then that leads to the position that torture has never and could never work. And of course such absolutes are pretty absurd, so...
Click to expand...

That's actually not the argument. The argument is that it is ineffective an that you're more likely to get misinformation. I can point to one concrete and verifiable case. Look up al Libi. We tortured him, got misinformation, and used it. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but not effective at keeping time. Torture is much the same way.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's actually not the argument. The argument is that it is ineffective an that you're more likely to get misinformation. I can point to one concrete and verifiable case. Look up al Libi. We tortured him, got misinformation, and used it. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but not effective at keeping time. Torture is much the same way.
Click to expand...

So now you're also speaking for everyone that says torture is both immoral and ineffective?

Anything can be effective in the right circumstances. It's all about proper application of tactics, no matter what we're talking about, from interrogation to basketball to college writing. Randomly taking a whole measure off the table because it's immoral? Okay. Because it's ineffective? lol
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So now you're also speaking for everyone that says torture is both immoral and ineffective?

Anything can be effective in the right circumstances. It's all about proper application of tactics, no matter what we're talking about, from interrogation to basketball to college writing. Randomly taking a whole measure off the table because it's immoral? Okay. Because it's ineffective? lol
Click to expand...

Your post has both the appearance and the odor of pure sophistry with political overtones.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So now you're also speaking for everyone that says torture is both immoral and ineffective?

Anything can be effective in the right circumstances. It's all about proper application of tactics, no matter what we're talking about, from interrogation to basketball to college writing. Randomly taking a whole measure off the table because it's immoral? Okay. Because it's ineffective? lol
Click to expand...

No, I'm speaking to the overall argument. You can anyone to have said anything. But the real overall argument is often quite different.

However, the literature on techniques states clearly that other methods are far more effective even when torture is done right. Torture is only really good at getting confessions.
 
Henry David said:
Your post has both the appearance and the odor of pure sophistry with political overtones.
Click to expand...

Ummm...okay?

Boo Radley said:
No, I'm speaking to the overall argument. You can anyone to have said anything. But the real overall argument is often quite different.
Click to expand...

Who are you to pick up the banner for what an argument is? I don't understand this.

However, the literature on techniques states clearly that other methods are far more effective even when torture is done right. Torture is only really good at getting confessions.
Click to expand...

Sometimes other methods are more effective. Sometimes they're not. That's kind of the point. If there was one method that always worked, or was always the most effective, interrogating people would be much easier. It's funny because listening to NPR as I drove into work, immediately after my previous post, I heard some folks reviewing this movie. They pointed out that the torture was marginally effective in it, at another point giving a dude a Lamborghini was somewhat effective, and the most effective intel was derived over lunch. Now, I haven't seen the movie, but I would imagine that the lunch itself wasn't the point, it was the rapport built with the source, which that lunch was representative of, that was.

And that's exactly as it is in reality: of course the best course of action is to build a rapport with the guy and make him genuinely want to help you; the second best is just to pay him off (assuming you have the ICF for it, which often you won't, but whatever); the last and least useful method in general is to make him uncomfortable to the point that he spills his guts to give you the intel- that's what waterboarding or even torture falls into. But sometimes the first and second methods won't work or just plain aren't options. Then the best route is to go with three. That's about effectiveness, and that's all. I know to some people it's an anti- or pro-Bush talking point, but...it's really not.

Now the legality for waterboarding can be up in the air. Whatever you want to argue there, I really don't care, but if you say that it's clearly allowed or clearly not allowed...well, that's just incorrect. But someone's subjective interpretation of the UN's Convention against Torture? Sure, whatever you think.

I just laugh when people argue against that: "No! It will never work! It's only good for confessions! I read it in a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE!!!" lol, okay buddy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom