• 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!

Osama Bin Laden is dead

ushaditcoming said:
mac, Al Jazeera still has this message at the bottom of their home page: DEMAND AL JAZEERA IN THE USA. It has a space for your zip code there. I don't know what that means but I took it as Al Jazeera not being available in the US. Can someone confirm one way or another?
Click to expand...
Local cable companies don't carry every network there is. They pick and choose based on what their customers ask for. I suspect that's what the notice would be about.
 
ushaditcoming said:
The fact is, it's the best source there is at the moment. Your reasons for rejecting it are only political.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make much sense. They probably won't have much exposure to the sources. Since the sources here are mostly American.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Local cable companies don't carry every network there is. They pick and choose based on what their customers ask for. I suspect that's what the notice would be about.
Click to expand...



I think cablevision you can add it with one of thier international packages for $9.95 a month...... Cheaper than an enema, just as fun. :thumbs:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
okay dood, whatever you need to believe.... :shrug: I'm about done with this emperors new clothes schtick of yours. :lamo
Click to expand...

Meaning you can't address the facts. I understand. your video doesn't change that either.
 
Boo Radley said:
He does not say we got the intel from people when they were waterboarded. Only that they were at some point waterboarded. That is consistent with what we know.

Once again you guys are leaping.
Click to expand...


The BOO RADLEY SHUFFLE!!!!! :lol:


spin-arrows.gif
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, you ignore the differences and what those who do it say.
Click to expand...


So you trust the veracity of those who say it isn't much of anything in training, and dismiss those who say it is the same thing....Hmmmm....Now I wonder if that has anything at all to do with your political leanings?

Nahhhhhhhh!

j-mac
 
rev, the facts are the facts. We got the information in 2007. Waterboarding stopped in 2006. Your clip does not ahve Paneta saying we got this intel from waterboarding or torture of any kind, only that the sources were at sometime tortured. We know that. You have to show they gave us the intel while being tortured, before the techniques ended in 2006.

Being silly doesn't change the facts or your burden. it does show the weakness of your argument.
 
j-mac said:
So you trust the veracity of those who say it isn't much of anything in training, and dismiss those who say it is the same thing....Hmmmm....Now I wonder if that has anything at all to do with your political leanings?

Nahhhhhhhh!

j-mac
Click to expand...

I trust the logic yes. If you can stop it, and it is only done a couple of times, it can't possibly be the same. And yes, i trust those who do it over those who have not actually been a POW, and tortured by someone they cannot stop. It makes perfect sense.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have tried to show them that it was different. You do a nice job of spelling out the differences. Thanks.
Click to expand...


I'm inclined to believe they know the difference but want to play the "real water boarding" down.
 
Boo Radley said:
I trust the logic yes. If you can stop it, and it is only done a couple of times, it can't possibly be the same. And yes, i trust those who do it over those who have not actually been a POW, and tortured by someone they cannot stop. It makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...


In your days wearing the uniform, did you undergo the training?

j-mac
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
ahh good you found it. :thumbs:



good for you.



So, tell me now, tell me how bad you feel for KSM, I mean after all those 83 times, it led to the guy who led us to Osama. :lamo
Click to expand...


I guess you missed the line in the article that claims that the information didn't come at the time he was being water boarded, but rather under the normal techniques?

Not surprised.

And, don't try to make it personal, has nothing to do with feeling bad over a Muslim being water boarded, but rather whether or not we follow protocol. I guess the rules don't matter to some? Even when it has been proven that the info gathered under such methods wasn't of any value?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Duh. So if I beat the living crap out of you, for 83 days, and then on the 84th a schoolgirl comes up to you and asks you pretty please, and you give in, it must have been the girl, not the threat of another beatdown. You guys are too much sometimes. :lamo
Click to expand...

You really do stretch the facts, don't you?
 
mertex said:
I guess you missed the line in the article that claims that the information didn't come at the time he was being water boarded, but rather under the normal techniques?

Not surprised.

And, don't try to make it personal, has nothing to do with feeling bad over a Muslim being water boarded, but rather whether or not we follow protocol. I guess the rules don't matter to some? Even when it has been proven that the info gathered under such methods wasn't of any value?
Click to expand...


to be fair, there are differing reports on what led to the couriers name being revealed. My guess is that those in favor of enhanced interrogation methods will claim that is what led to the name, and those not in favor will cling to the opposite.

Doesn't mean that either is correct.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
it wasn't the next day either. It was months later. There is no logical way to link it to the waterboarding.
Click to expand...


Oh, the fact that it was done, regardless of how far back and that it didn't provide any info of any value doesn't seem to matter to those here defending it and trying to get as much credit for Bush as they can - rather amusing how they will stretch the facts.
 
gekaap said:
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt, for a moment, that you are indeed in MI. Saying that waterboarding is not torture because it's a training technique is self contradictory. The training is to make you more able to resist breaking down under torture. So, that kinda makes your comments military unintelligence.
Click to expand...

If you are at all familiar with military training, you'd know that every effort is made to make it absolutely risk-less. In most cases were actually doing something that needs be addressed would likely result in injury, the topic is usually discussed rather than executed. Having said that...waterboarding, as unpleasant as it is, causes no physical harm. That's why it has been used in POW training. It's a way to simulate interrogation techniques that might likely be used without actually causing the student any harm. Bottom line up front, waterboarding, though psychologically unpleasant, is physically harmless.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Dood, your posturing is more absurd than usual.

We were indeed waterboarded. that's a fact. not 83 times or whatever, but we were indeed waterboarded.


Pinetta disagrees with you. :lamo
Click to expand...

I got it 6 times. I was a "special" war criminal. 15, btw.
 
Boo Radley said:
rev, the facts are the facts. We got the information in 2007. Waterboarding stopped in 2006. Your clip does not ahve Paneta saying we got this intel from waterboarding or torture of any kind, only that the sources were at sometime tortured. We know that. You have to show they gave us the intel while being tortured, before the techniques ended in 2006.

Being silly doesn't change the facts or your burden. it does show the weakness of your argument.
Click to expand...

wait, wait, wait.....isn't the overall claim being presented here that Obama is solely responsible to the exclusion of GWB? If the director of the CIA just said that waterboarding had an impact in finding and killing UBL, and that it's still going on, and that it is useful in interrogations....how then can you assert that it stopped in 2006 and that GWB had nothing to do with finding UBL?
 
j-mac said:
to be fair, there are differing reports on what led to the couriers name being revealed. My guess is that those in favor of enhanced interrogation methods will claim that is what led to the name, and those not in favor will cling to the opposite.

Doesn't mean that either is correct.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The very source that claimed the info came from them at a site where water boarding occurred later reversed their info and claimed that it did not - it was months later and under standard techniques. I certainly am not saying that Bush didn't deserve some credit, but it seems that some are trying to give him more credit than he deserves, and have gone so far as to go back and try to prove that water boarding was not torture and not illegal.

The question of the role such techniques played in this mission arose after the Associated Press reported that it was two key detainees -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi -- who gave American officials the nickname of a courier who ultimately led U.S. intelligence officials to bin Laden. The two detainees reportedly gave the information up at foreign CIA "black sites," where waterboarding occurred.

However, the AP fleshed out its report later in the day. Citing unnamed former officials, the AP wrote, "Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding... He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation."
Debate continues over role of waterboarding in gathering bin Laden intel - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom