• 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!

Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogation...

What was difficult, so hard, about that the question? What couldn't you understand about it that the majority around here doesn't have any trouble with? Why do you have more trouble than 90% of the members here?

What is it that you are not telling us about the way you take in information?

What the blue **** is "Hillary's Smart Power"?

You're being awfully generous to yourself if you think 90% of the people here can comprehend your nonsense.
 
What the blue **** is "Hillary's Smart Power"?

You're being awfully generous to yourself if you think 90% of the people here can comprehend your nonsense.


Well if you were up on what she said. Then it would have registered. Meaning your light bulb would have went off.

Whatever on the Percentage, seems you are in a very small minority. So that's not saying much for yourself.
 
Reports that aren't bipartisan are garbage? I'll remember that the next time the GOP releases its next Benghazi bukkake.

LOL, So what else is new....You've never been for getting to the truth about Benghazi...But as adpst just asked you, and you ignored...The Select committee investigating Benghazi is absolutely bipartisan, and they are interviewing people about it...

It is only your side of the isle that likes to stomp off and create crap like this tantrum by Feinstein...Refer to Connyers and his little hearings in the basement broom closet of the congressional building during the Bush administration.
 
You said I made it up, which was wrong.

Words have meanings, you took what I said and twisted it to your own ends.

I guess you can't remember what you wrote from one moment to the other. That's fine, but don't call people liars just because you've got the memory of a goldfish.

What you claim is not what I wrote,

Well, that's false, and I'm always amazed that people equate "disagree with me on some issues" with evil. Surely, if you think about it for about 1 second, you'd realize that "The democrats" represents about half the country and pretty much the gamut of opinions on just about every important issue. One of my best friends is a democrat, as is his son, and the democratic son spent six years in the ME killing radical Islamists, his dad the last 30 in active service or the Guard, and all of the time post 9/11 training others to kill them...



?????

The democrats are a political party - with a defined agenda and platform.

When we see the outgoing chair of the Senate intelligence committee handing Al Qaeda a major propaganda victory that will be - is already - used to recruit terrorists to attack Americans and American interests around the globe: handed this due to the butt hurt over suffering an election loss, then it is difficult to deny that the democrats hold Republicans as a greater enemy than the Al Qaeda faction they just helped.

Many Americans will die because of what Feinstein did - that is a fact.
 
Yes, you've stated it dozens of times, and you've been hysterically wrong each time.

So providing a propaganda win and recruiting tool to Al Qaeda is something you support? As long as it damages the Republicans?

Because this is precisely the position that Feinstein and the democrats took.
 
Apples and oranges. We are not trying to take their countries from them. They are terrorist, they represent no country. They have attacked us unprovoked and we have every right to defend ourselves.

That's fine, we should and are defending ourselves and no one has claimed we should not. But torture and public, televised executions are beneath a decent country. It's what ISIS does. It's also stupid in every way imaginable IMO.
 
Nothing, huh. When was the last time Israel went to war with Egypt?

Isreal has 70+ years of conflict, much of it armed, against Palestine. How's that going? Oh yeah....still. Decades upon decades and the only real result has been a bolstering of various terrorist organizations. Maybe doing more of the same isn't the best plan. Unless the goal was to keep terrorism active, in which case it would make sense.
 
Isreal has 70+ years of conflict, much of it armed, against Palestine. How's that going? Oh yeah....still. Decades upon decades and the only real result has been a bolstering of various terrorist organizations. Maybe doing more of the same isn't the best plan. Unless the goal was to keep terrorism active, in which case it would make sense.

Ok, tell Palestinians to knock it off...
 
That's fine, we should and are defending ourselves and no one has claimed we should not. But torture and public, televised executions are beneath a decent country. It's what ISIS does. It's also stupid in every way imaginable IMO.

We are not really defending ourselves. If we REALLY wanted to eradicate ISIS, do you believe they would be able to continue to exist? We have the ability both in technology and manpower to make that organization nothing more than a memory. The problem is we lack the political will to go get them.
 
Isreal has 70+ years of conflict, much of it armed, against Palestine. How's that going? Oh yeah....still.

Yup. India and Pakistan have a similarly lengthed conflict over Kashmir, how's that going?

But I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question?

Decades upon decades and the only real result has been a bolstering of various terrorist organizations.

That is flatly false. I could just as easily make the argument that the only result has been that Iran hasn't shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Focusing on a single data point devoid of context or competing priorities may make for good polemics, but it's a poor way to craft policy.

Maybe doing more of the same isn't the best plan. Unless the goal was to keep terrorism active, in which case it would make sense.

Gosh. If only there was some kind of counter-insurgency methodology out there somewhere with a recent, proven track record......
 
Ok, tell Palestinians to knock it off...

Well I think the theory is that if the mean ole US wasn't there, well, gosh, the Palestinians and Jews, Sunni and Shia, would all just settle their differences over a cold beer and live in peace. :roll:
 
um... yeah.... so, what good actors are going to step in and fill the security void? Is Germany going to do it? Spain? Japan? Does Australia have that kind of projection capacity?


The US is the indispensable nation at this point. None of the people that you would want to project stability are capable of the task, even if they were willing.

It will require a communal organization of security.
 
What the blue **** is "Hillary's Smart Power"?

You're being awfully generous to yourself if you think 90% of the people here can comprehend your nonsense.

Did you miss "Smart Power"?



Smart Power.jpg


You see, the problem with the world wasn't intractable problems and ancient hatreds with modern weaponry, it was just that gosh those Republicans are just so dumb, so, like, by having, like, you know, smart people like us being in charge, we'll be like, so smart and stuff, that, like, you know, we can solve this stuff. Cause we're like, so smart, and they were like, so dumb and stuff. :roll:
 
We are not really defending ourselves. If we REALLY wanted to eradicate ISIS, do you believe they would be able to continue to exist? We have the ability both in technology and manpower to make that organization nothing more than a memory. The problem is we lack the political will to go get them.

That's what the war hawks say about every war. This isn't WWII where both sides were clearly identifiable. So if by lacking political will you mean unwillingness to genocide a region of people in and not in Isis... Only then would you be correct.
 
I have lived long enough to retire from the Marine Corps after 20 years of service. I have also been around long enough to question the integrity of individuals who portray themselves as former warriors who question their country.

It's not "bloodlust" I do understand that war is a horrible thing, however, if you are going to commit to war, then commit. It must be all in, total warfare, to hell with international politics. It is no other countries right to dictate to us how we defend ourselves, especially the Russians, the French and the Germans.

War is misused here to start with. We decided to war groups and individuals, which elevates them to the status of countries. A mistake. But even in war, you set a precedence for other real wars, between countries, that label us as rouge warriors who have no honor, who can't be trusted, and no rules will apply to what they do to us. In essence, we endanger future soldiers. This is the price of being morally bankrupt.

Also, the notion that a warrior never questions the actions of it's leaders is foolish. A warrior is not an automaton. The best question and think critically where appropriate.
 
Did you miss "Smart Power"?





View attachment 67177193


You see, the problem with the world wasn't intractable problems and ancient hatreds with modern weaponry, it was just that gosh those Republicans are just so dumb, so, like, by having, like, you know, smart people like us being in charge, we'll be like, so smart and stuff, that, like, you know, we can solve this stuff. Cause we're like, so smart, and they were like, so dumb and stuff. :roll:

I have no opinion about cover, having not read the article. But have you listened to Palin, Santorum, Bachmann, Cruz, King, and Paul?
 
Sorry - "Violent Extremist Organization". It's the way that we avoid saying things like "Islamic Terrorist Networks". :)



The problem being, once you break it out, you get more terrorists when terrorist groups are perceived as being successful, and fewer when they are perceived as losing.

So, does that mean they've been perceived as being successful for the past 14 years?
 
That is exactly what was done with this report...

Rich Lowery makes an excellent point in this article:

Dianne Feinstein's Travesty | National Review Online

Also a good back and forth with Megyn Kelly and Brit Hume on this here:

[video]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/12/10/brit_hume_cia_torture_report_never_talked_to_accus ed_like_rolling_stone_uva_rape_article.html#ooid=p ycm43cjpvVoMlexx_weRvqexbNy60Un[/video]

But, don't take my word for it...Many are asserting that this report was written solely by Demo staffers, starting with the conclusions that wanted to show, and either omitted information, or massaged information to fit their conclusion.

Sorry that is inconvenient for you.



That's a strawman argument. I never said that, and if you can point to where I did, then I'll address that ridiculous claim.
OK, then there was sharpened interrogation. the problem, then, is that the report was made by the Democrats.
 
Did you miss "Smart Power"?





View attachment 67177193


You see, the problem with the world wasn't intractable problems and ancient hatreds with modern weaponry, it was just that gosh those Republicans are just so dumb, so, like, by having, like, you know, smart people like us being in charge, we'll be like, so smart and stuff, that, like, you know, we can solve this stuff. Cause we're like, so smart, and they were like, so dumb and stuff. :roll:

Apparently I did miss it. So MMC's comment wasn't entirely nonsensical, just pointlessly irrelevant.
 
Words have meanings, you took what I said and twisted it to your own ends.

You said "democrats [are] willing to craft an alliance with Al Qaeda to attack republicans" and I said you, "accused "democrats" of conspiring with AQ.." Maybe you can explain how the democrats can form an alliance with AQ but won't be conspiring with them. Should be fascinating to see you try to thread that "definition of 'is' is" needle.

The democrats are a political party - with a defined agenda and platform.

When we see the outgoing chair of the Senate intelligence committee handing Al Qaeda a major propaganda victory that will be - is already - used to recruit terrorists to attack Americans and American interests around the globe: handed this due to the butt hurt over suffering an election loss, then it is difficult to deny that the democrats hold Republicans as a greater enemy than the Al Qaeda faction they just helped.

No it's not difficult to deny because it's insane.

Many Americans will die because of what Feinstein did - that is a fact.

Right. It's not what was done, it's that it's been disclosed in the Western media. The people over there know what happened - they've known for 10 years or more. And AQ and ISIS were killing Americans long before the report's release. But I get it - you hate democrats. Just say that, and then you don't have to make insane justifications for it.
 
We are not really defending ourselves. If we REALLY wanted to eradicate ISIS, do you believe they would be able to continue to exist? We have the ability both in technology and manpower to make that organization nothing more than a memory. The problem is we lack the political will to go get them.

I'll conclude that you're walking back the televised executions and torture stuff, which is good.

And I suppose if we devoted a few hundred $billion to the problem, invade and occupy the area for a decade or so, we could eradicate "ISIS," but I don't think the problem is that simple. For example, I don't think our inability to eradicate radical Islam from the face of the earth is due to a lack of will or resources, etc.

Not comparing them in ANY way - just an example - but let's pretend the Chinese wanted to eradicate militia types in the U.S. I'm sure they could eradicate known militias with enough effort and with proper disregard of civilian casualties, but we've got 300 million people, 10s of millions at least armed and some millions of those willing to fight an enemy like China, and watching them round up and kill 10,000 Americans would just motivate some large number of those to take their place. I don't see any difference with our efforts against "ISIS" or "AQ" in that region. Not unless you're willing to do the "Stalin purge" kind of thing, which we're not going to do.
 
OK, then there was sharpened interrogation. the problem, then, is that the report was made by the Democrats.


But of course you remember the Eleventh Commandment

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." - Ronald Reagan

That's the reason they got their panties in a wad (but then again it doesn't take much of anything to do that ).

Even their two biggest war hawks (McCain and Graham) supports the report.


Graham doesn't like the timing, so maybe next they should have a consult with him on when would be a good time for him. LOL!!!

“The only thing I disagreed with: Don’t release it now because the world is on fire. I supported the investigation and I support making it public. I just think given the state of the world this is a bad time to do it,” - Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)


Torture report divides Republicans - Burgess Everett - POLITICO
 
I'll conclude that you're walking back the televised executions and torture stuff, which is good.

And I suppose if we devoted a few hundred $billion to the problem, invade and occupy the area for a decade or so, we could eradicate "ISIS," but I don't think the problem is that simple. For example, I don't think our inability to eradicate radical Islam from the face of the earth is due to a lack of will or resources, etc.

Not comparing them in ANY way - just an example - but let's pretend the Chinese wanted to eradicate militia types in the U.S. I'm sure they could eradicate known militias with enough effort and with proper disregard of civilian casualties, but we've got 300 million people, 10s of millions at least armed and some millions of those willing to fight an enemy like China, and watching them round up and kill 10,000 Americans would just motivate some large number of those to take their place. I don't see any difference with our efforts against "ISIS" or "AQ" in that region. Not unless you're willing to do the "Stalin purge" kind of thing, which we're not going to do.

It wouldn't take a few hundred billion. We could offer 75k to the poor for each dead Terrorist/Jihadist. 75k they could live the rest of their lives out over there in comfort. There is only around a 100k of them. There is over 10 million poor people for the terrorists to deal with.

Moreover if we wanted.....we could empty our Prisons with those who have life and or the death penalty, offering them a pardon. Which would require seeking out and terminating Jihadists on sight. Free again if they can survive and free to live anywhere else in the world but here.

This does not include hiring those Bounty Hunters who fund themselves to go Hunting.
 
But of course you remember the Eleventh Commandment

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." - Ronald Reagan

That's the reason they got their panties in a wad (but then again it doesn't take much of anything to do that ).

Even their two biggest war hawks (McCain and Graham) supports the report.


Graham doesn't like the timing, so maybe next they should have a consult with him on when would be a good time for him. LOL!!!

“The only thing I disagreed with: Don’t release it now because the world is on fire. I supported the investigation and I support making it public. I just think given the state of the world this is a bad time to do it,” - Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)


Torture report divides Republicans - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

Yep.

Of course McCain knows about torture from first hand experience.
 
Yep.

Of course McCain knows about torture from first hand experience.
But was McCain tortured for the purpose of extracting information from him? Or was he tortured for sport? I ask because I question the claim that torture is a poor way to get info. Plus I am curious as to what methods McCain would suggest be used on a guy like Khalid Sheik Muhammed. After all, the guy wasn't going to talk on his own. Finally, how is it we haven't developed some sort of truth serum by now that would make the whole torture issue obsolete? Sorry to drop all this on you Dittohead not! You were just the last one to post lol
 
Back
Top Bottom