• 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'

Best article I can find on this: http://www.rgj.com/article/20110510...presented-waterboarding-helped-find-bin-Laden

The conclusion:

Those who promote waterboarding have not provided a persuasive link between it and the finding of bin Laden.

The CIA says two of the key three people who spoke about the courier were not waterboarded, and the third lied that he didn't know much about the courier -- and even this was months after being waterboarded. That's not convincing evidence for its efficacy.

It should be a huge, giant, great big clue that both Carl Levin and John McCain, who usually are battling fiercely, both agree with something and both likely have more information than any of us on it.
 
Well, let's take a look at what you are doing here...

You said this;



Credible sources? you never distinguish...I think purposely. And "do"? Do what?

Don't try that **** with me Joe...Your shtick is tired. Come on back when you can structure a sentence properly professor.

Hey J-mac, if FOX reports that Obama said that everything bad in the world is the fault of republicans, does that mean I can claim FOX as a source for republicans being at fault for everything?
 
Well, let's take a look at what you are doing here...

You said this;



Credible sources? you never distinguish...I think purposely. And "do"? Do what?

Don't try that **** with me Joe...Your shtick is tired. Come on back when you can structure a sentence properly professor.

Let me get this straight, we're talking about one post, I point out your error and you jump to another? And your complaining about ****? :lamo:lamo

Now, I've given your those links before j, but if you need them again, just ask and when I get the computer I'll link them again as I always do. But, that does fix or address your misreading. Care to step up and tackle that? Or s diversion all you got?
 
Hey J-mac, if FOX reports that Obama said that everything bad in the world is the fault of republicans, does that mean I can claim FOX as a source for republicans being at fault for everything?


Sure....Why not? Is it against the rules?
 
Let me get this straight, we're talking about one post, I point out your error and you jump to another? And your complaining about ****? :lamo:lamo

Now, I've given your those links before j, but if you need them again, just ask and when I get the computer I'll link them again as I always do. But, that does fix or address your misreading. Care to step up and tackle that? Or s diversion all you got?


My misreading? Or your purposely piss poor articulation? You are pathetically dishonest Joe, I think for the best we are both done replying to each other for a while.
 
Sure....Why not? Is it against the rules?

It would not be against the rules, but it would be pretty stupid. I am thinking the point went over your head.
 
My misreading? Or your purposely piss poor articulation? You are pathetically dishonest Joe, I think for the best we are both done replying to each other for a while.

I think it was fairly clear, and others above seemed to get it. But, when confused, it is not bad form to ask a valid question for clarification.
 
Best article you can find on the matter eh....How convenient that is bolsters your point of view....Wow....*shakes head....*

View attachment 67139686

On the other hand, it was much better than the articles you found bolstering your point of view. I know, it is really inconvienient that I base my point of view on facts, and not opinions of politicians who I agree with.
 
On the other hand, it was much better than the articles you found bolstering your point of view. I know, it is really inconvienient that I base my point of view on facts, and not opinions of politicians who I agree with.


that's you opinion...the subject is in dispute, and controversial. So, that you think only you have the correct opinion really speaks to your objectivity.
 
Just want to check something. Words or a politician saying they were used and gained info from them is untrustworthy because its a politician with a political motivation to say that

But a politician whose been staunchly anti torture to any degree for decades is inherently trustworthy and reliable in his statements because he agreed with someone who he usually agrees with on this issue?

That makes TONS of sense....
 
Just want to check something. Words or a politician saying they were used and gained info from them is untrustworthy because its a politician with a political motivation to say that

But a politician whose been staunchly anti torture to any degree for decades is inherently trustworthy and reliable in his statements because he agreed with someone who he usually agrees with on this issue?

That makes TONS of sense....

Certainly not what I'm saying. But torture is not new, has been greatly studied. Libraries are full of material on this. The unreliability of torture is well documented. I suggest not what any politician says (though McCain has above average cred.), but cutlasses, verifiable evidence is what should matter.
 
[h=1]Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'[/h]So, apparently three senators are upset that a Hollywood movie is less than 100% factually accurate. In other news, one M. Mouse is revealed to be a cartoon rodent and dinosaurs can't really be cloned from DNA locked in amber for millions of years.

Really? Is this what members of Congress are drawing a salary for doing?

If it isn't my old nemisis... Andalublue
 
allow me to finish the sentence for you:
It really is unfortunate that "advanced interrogation methods" actually work to motivate the opposition

The opposition is already motivated...
 
The opposition is already motivated...

Which doesn't preclude motivating those who would not have been inclined otherwise. We're not dealing with a set membership.
 
Certainly not what I'm saying. But torture is not new, has been greatly studied. Libraries are full of material on this. The unreliability of torture is well documented. I suggest not what any politician says (though McCain has above average cred.), but cutlasses, verifiable evidence is what should matter.

I was speaking to the claim that EIT were used in the process of intel gathering with the string of intel that led to Bin Laden, not regarding the effectiveness of such techniques comparative to others
 
Which doesn't preclude motivating those who would not have been inclined otherwise. We're not dealing with a set membership.

Those that are "motovated" to join don't need torture to motivate them... they already hate us and all they need is any nudge.

Torture is just an excuse that apologists make.
 
I was speaking to the claim that EIT were used in the process of intel gathering with the string of intel that led to Bin Laden, not regarding the effectiveness of such techniques comparative to others

I think the timeline handles that fairly well, but the burden is in those who say it did contribute. And you have to show we cold not and did not get it any other way. It is about showing verifiable evidence and not just claims, which both sides can furnish ad nausum.
 
Those that are "motovated" to join don't need torture to motivate them... they already hate us and all they need is any nudge.

Torture is just an excuse that apologists make.

It's a pretty big motivator. Not an excuse. You wrongly torture one if mine, and we got issues. Ever hear of the hayfields and McCoys?

The thing s actions matter. Pretending they don't is what an apologist does.
 
[h=1]Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'[/h]So, apparently three senators are upset that a Hollywood movie is less than 100% factually accurate. In other news, one M. Mouse is revealed to be a cartoon rodent and dinosaurs can't really be cloned from DNA locked in amber for millions of years.

Really? Is this what members of Congress are drawing a salary for doing?

Amazingly enough, yes.:(
 
It's a pretty big motivator. Not an excuse. You wrongly torture one if mine, and we got issues. Ever hear of the hayfields and McCoys?

The thing s actions matter. Pretending they don't is what an apologist does.

Hatfields... but that could have been a typo now that I see where the keys are.

They could use anything... being in Saudi Arabia was enough to galvanize an entire terror organization against us.

Torture? Just an excuse.
 
Just want to check something. Words or a politician saying they were used and gained info from them is untrustworthy because its a politician with a political motivation to say that

But a politician whose been staunchly anti torture to any degree for decades is inherently trustworthy and reliable in his statements because he agreed with someone who he usually agrees with on this issue?

That makes TONS of sense....

Not exactly, no. What I said was that when two politicians who disagree on almost everything find common ground, it is time to sit up and take notice.
 
I was speaking to the claim that EIT were used in the process of intel gathering with the string of intel that led to Bin Laden, not regarding the effectiveness of such techniques comparative to others

Intelligence was gathered from a person who was subject to EIT. That is the closest positive claim that can safely be made a bout the effectiveness of EIT as an interrogation tool in this case. Anything beyond that is based on guesses.
 
I think the timeline handles that fairly well, but the burden is in those who say it did contribute. And you have to show we cold not and did not get it any other way. It is about showing verifiable evidence and not just claims, which both sides can furnish ad nausum.


Well, that is a pretty big dishonest unprovable you have there...I don't think anyone has ever said that other interrogation techniques don't work as well, but as for some of the information that came to us about the courier, that came directly through EIT, nothing else as reported by the people that were in the damned room. Now, three people ever had waterboarding done to them, three. It is a fact that we found out who the courier was through EIT, and you are saying what? That we could have gotten the same information by serving hot chocolate, and asking pretty please? Prove that.
 
Intelligence was gathered from a person who was subject to EIT. That is the closest positive claim that can safely be made a bout the effectiveness of EIT as an interrogation tool in this case. Anything beyond that is based on guesses.

And what was the intel gathered Red?
 
Back
Top Bottom