• 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!

The Christmas attack interrogation

Coronado said:
The Taliban/al Qaeda connection was much stronger than the other connections, obviously. Your comparisons are ridiculously different and you know it.
Click to expand...

Connections in that the Taliban were harboring and facilitating al-Qaeda are the connections and my analogies are dead on. Point stands, the Taliban did not attack us, al-Qaeda attacked us. Today's intel shows KSM as involved as Osama during the 9-11 attacks, the USS Cole and other acts of war against out troops and embassies from Yemen to Somalia well known.


My position is clear and consistent, and has been stated above. If you cannot understand it, then I suggest you re-read the thread.
Click to expand...

Your position is consistent?

Tell me...who decides this "stronger connection" in Afghanistan. You just told me local authorities make the decision whether to use brutality....who decides for us whether connections or some other measure changes who should make this brutal decision? Who is deciding if the government is connected....or disconnected in any nation after a terror attack?
 
Charles Martel said:
Connections in that the Taliban were harboring and facilitating al-Qaeda are the connections and my analogies are dead on. Point stands, the Taliban did not attack us, al-Qaeda attacked us. Today's intel shows KSM as involved as Osama during the 9-11 attacks, the USS Cole and other acts of war against out troops and embassies from Yemen to Somalia well known.
Click to expand...

You're kinda skipping over the point that the Taliban made Obama bin Laden the Commander in Chief of ALL Taliban armed forces.

Which makes the atrocities in September 11, 2001 an act of war against the United States by the nation of Afghanistan.
 
Charles Martel said:
Connections in that the Taliban were harboring and facilitating al-Qaeda are the connections and my analogies are dead on.
Click to expand...
No they are not, they are ridiculous. I'm not going to argue this silliness with you.
Charles Martel said:
Your position is consistent?
Click to expand...
Is there an echo in here? Yes, it is consistent.
Charles Martel said:
Tell me...who decides this "stronger connection" in Afghanistan. You just told me local authorities make the decision whether to use brutality....who decides for us whether connections or some other measure changes who should make this brutal decision? Who is deciding if the government is connected....or disconnected in any nation after a terror attack?
Click to expand...
The same people who have been given the Constitutional authority to do it since day one: Congress.
 
satandog said:
To say that none of the Irish conflict is rooted in religion is somewhat inaccurate - see sources.
Click to expand...

The Irish-British conflict is rooted in the imperialism of the British in invading the Emerald Isle and treating the natives like dogs.
 
Boo Radley said:
He would confess to being the Easter Bunny then. Would that really be helpful?
Click to expand...


Yes, if it meant we would then be able to drop a MOAB on the EB - once his intel is confirmed independently.

Why is it you people have difficulty comprehending those last six words, and why is it you people always pretend they don't exist?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, if it meant we would then be able to drop a MOAB on the EB - once his intel is confirmed independently.

Why is it you people have difficulty comprehending those last six words, and why is it you people always pretend they don't exist?
Click to expand...

We haven't been too successful with that. We used Libi's intel, and later it proved false. Too late for us to do much about that. But that is the problem with intel gathered under torture. It's just not the magic answer many like to think it is. The literature says that good old fashion interrogation, even with proper rights, is more effective.
 
Charles Martel said:
But, you supported going right in after 9-11 and brutally killing or capturing Bin Laden and then told me that would have a positive effect.

:Oopsie
Click to expand...

I would prefer we captured him and properly held him accountable in a court of law for all to see. A man justly convicted says more to all than killing thousands of civilians with little to show for it.

But, you keep skipping the point. Perhaps you know you can't address the point honestly. Afghanistan is occupied. As such, they are not completely sovereign.
 
Coronado said:
No they are not, they are ridiculous. I'm not going to argue this silliness with you.
Click to expand...

It blows your theory from the water..is why.

Yes, it is consistent.The same people who have been given the Constitutional authority to do it since day one: Congress.
Click to expand...

So...not a domestic authority depending on where?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They were...until they declared war on the US on September 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

Given Coronado's example then...cause OBL was made CIC in Sept 0f 2001...we had actionable intel enought to kill him under Clinton.

My question stands. Who decides to use brutality when intel is gathered? No war is declared when Clinton is told he could kill or capture Bin Laden. You cannot wait for Congress to decide the issue.

Coronado declares it is the Taliban's decision whether we use brutality or not, correct....C?
 
Boo Radley said:
I would prefer we captured him and properly held him accountable in a court of law for all to see. A man justly convicted says more to all than killing thousands of civilians with little to show for it.
Click to expand...

What you preferrred wasn't what I claimed. I distinctly remember you calling for going in after 9-11 and capturing or killing. And you'd prefer any violence wouldn't be necessary in a capture attempt but then...we both know OBL wouldn't come without a fight and his followers would fanatically defend him...meaning...given your solution, brutality up to and including outright killing would be necessary. And here you are calling on the government in charge making these decision.

But, you keep skipping the point. Perhaps you know you can't address the point honestly. Afghanistan is occupied. As such, they are not completely sovereign.
Click to expand...

And I'm all over the point, we've moved beyond Afghanistan, JD. In Pakistan...where OBL is now...or so many think....we launch strikes everyday. They involve raw brutality. It is your opinion and that of C's that any sovereign state should make the decision whether brutality is decided upon or not. That we should leave it to the Yemenis to decide whether we respond with brutality after the USS Cole or Christmas bombing. That is the point you're trying to make and you're wrong, both of you.
 
Charles Martel said:
Coronado declares it is the Taliban's decision whether we use brutality or not, correct....C?
Click to expand...
Would you get your head out of your ass for a minute and read what I wrote?? I never said anything of the sort.
 
Charles Martel said:
That is the point you're trying to make and you're wrong, both of you.
Click to expand...
Well there we go. I guess we just should stop arguing altogether, as Charles Martel has deemed our opinions to be "wrong". :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
But that is the problem with intel gathered under torture.
Click to expand...

It's amazing, but true. Even after we point out that ALL intelligence, regardless of soure, MUST be verified independently, people still want to pretend SOME intelligence should be treated as more reliable than others.

Since they don't understand the issue, since they patently refuse to understand the issue, since they insist instead upon looking at their emotional bias as the only filter to regard the issue, why should anyone waste more than the minimum amount of time needed to determine who they are and then stop discussing that issue with them?

Answer: No reason at all. Therefore Boo, I shall no longer waste my time responding to your ignorant posts on the matter of intelligence gathering until such time as you demonstrate a more mature approach to a topic you're currently demonstrating ignorance of.
 
Charles Martel said:
Given Coronado's example then...cause OBL was made CIC in Sept 0f 2001...we had actionable intel enought to kill him under Clinton.

My question stands. Who decides to use brutality when intel is gathered?
Click to expand...

Answered already.

The military interrogator in charge.

Charles Martel said:
No war is declared when Clinton is told he could kill or capture Bin Laden. You cannot wait for Congress to decide the issue.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, Clinton not only made no effort to capture bin Laden, ne not only refused the gift of bin Laden when it was offered to him, but he actually called Pakistan to warn bin Laden when he launched his Hide the Lewinsky Press Conference Camel's Ass Attack on his camp in Afghanland.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It's amazing, but true. Even after we point out that ALL intelligence, regardless of soure, MUST be verified independently, people still want to pretend SOME intelligence should be treated as more reliable than others.

Since they don't understand the issue, since they patently refuse to understand the issue, since they insist instead upon looking at their emotional bias as the only filter to regard the issue, why should anyone waste more than the minimum amount of time needed to determine who they are and then stop discussing that issue with them?

Answer: No reason at all. Therefore Boo, I shall no longer waste my time responding to your ignorant posts on the matter of intelligence gathering until such time as you demonstrate a more mature approach to a topic you're currently demonstrating ignorance of.
Click to expand...

Translation: If you won't agree with me, I'll take my type and go home.

But before you go pout, you have not shown I don't understand the issue, or laid out anything logical or factual to dispute anything. Nor have you changed the fact that the overwhelming amount of literature on the subject says torture is unreliable, more unreliable and less effective than other methods. Supporting measures that are neither reliable or effective is not a positive.

Now you may leave. :2wave: ;)
 
Charles Martel said:
What you preferrred wasn't what I claimed. I distinctly remember you calling for going in after 9-11 and capturing or killing. And you'd prefer any violence wouldn't be necessary in a capture attempt but then...we both know OBL wouldn't come without a fight and his followers would fanatically defend him...meaning...given your solution, brutality up to and including outright killing would be necessary. And here you are calling on the government in charge making these decision.



And I'm all over the point, we've moved beyond Afghanistan, JD. In Pakistan...where OBL is now...or so many think....we launch strikes everyday. They involve raw brutality. It is your opinion and that of C's that any sovereign state should make the decision whether brutality is decided upon or not. That we should leave it to the Yemenis to decide whether we respond with brutality after the USS Cole or Christmas bombing. That is the point you're trying to make and you're wrong, both of you.
Click to expand...

I don't trust your memory, but notice the word "or". It is not unreasonable to think he might get killed in the effort to capture him.

Pakistan is sovereign. Not disputed. I only dispute you bring Afghanistan into this as if they were the same. Afghanistan is not completely sovereign; therefore, they are not like Pakistan.
 
Coronado said:
No, as force was initiated against us.
Click to expand...

Force wasn't used against us when the Cole was bombed killing American Sailors, I can remember when an attack on a US warship was an act of war. We know it was at least force initiated against us...by al-Qaeda...and yet it would be up to the Afghan taliban or the Yemeni government to decide on whether we get brutal or not.

Your argument is absolute sheer poppycock. And dead wrong.;)
 
Charles Martel said:
Force wasn't used against us when the Cole was bombed killing American Sailors, I can remember when an attack on a US warship was an act of war. We know it was at least force initiated against us...by al-Qaeda...and yet it would be up to the Afghan taliban or the Yemeni government to decide on whether we get brutal or not.

Your argument is absolute sheer poppycock. And dead wrong.;)
Click to expand...
Correction: your straw man is "absolute sheer poppycock".

Let me know when you would like to discuss what I said.
 
Coronado said:
Would you get your head out of your ass for a minute and read what I wrote?? I never said anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

Don't get emotional as your argument is getting its arse whooped on a national forum. You started this, cannot back it up, are getting inconsistent, and now getting all upset. Yes...you very much said that, read it again.
 
Charles Martel said:
Don't get emotional as your argument is getting its arse whooped on a national forum. You started this, cannot back it up, are getting inconsistent, and now getting all upset. Yes...you very much said that, read it again.
Click to expand...
Emotional? Hardly.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for knocking down your own straw men, okay spanky? :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't trust your memory, but notice the word "or". It is not unreasonable to think he might get killed in the effort to capture him.
Click to expand...

Meaning it would not be unreasonable to think violence and brutal at that would have to be engaged...and it's what you called for and now wish washing back and forth to other's domestic decisions. And I couldn't care less if you remember or not, JD3, I remember. You were a perfect posterchild for the Left, it's perfect example war opposition. I remember it quite well. And take joy in your attempts to redefine yourself, a badge of honor I wear proudly, you hardly sound like the same Cat and don't respond when I ask you about your positions on such things as Jumah Al-Dossari. What a difference a year makes.

Afghanistan is not completely sovereign; therefore, they are not like Pakistan.
Click to expand...

The "not likes" are needed as your argument isn't consistent. It is your and C's argument that any decision for brutality be taken by the domestic government. I point out where that's idiocy and yer both making "it's different" excuses. Sorry, you're both dead wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom