• 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

I guess I really am not following you. If we adopt their tactics, use their standards, then there really wouldn't be much difference. I certainly think we've come far too close without any real justification to their standard than we should. But we are not yet them.

Who is suggesting that Americans become terrorists and begin planting explosions on public transportation systems? Do you really have any idea what you are saying here?
 
Without providing any evidence at all.

Evidence? They've all said so.

I can't be responsible because you don't know what your own leaders are saying. Become more aware of the reports and then you can perhaps qualify to become involved in this debate.
 
Evidence? They've all said so.

I can't be responsible because you don't know what your own leaders are saying. Become more aware of the reports and then you can perhaps qualify to become involved in this debate.

When you are a former Sec Def, you don't have to provide evidence. If Obama said EIT works, you think Boo would question it? Of course not.
 
Evidence? They've all said so.

I can't be responsible because you don't know what your own leaders are saying. Become more aware of the reports and then you can perhaps qualify to become involved in this debate.

Saying so is not evidence. Seriously. Each time they've tried to give an example it has proven false. They said, but it wasn't true. You need more than they said so. You need to show that they what they say is actually true. Example. Cheney said torture of KSM proveded intel stopped the plot for a second 9/11. Trouble with that was that we stopped the plot before we even captured KSM. Today some are saying we got the intel that led to the death of OBL, yet that is possible as we stopped those techniques long before we got the intel.

because of this track record of failing to support what they say, there is no reason to accept claims that torture gave us anything, let alone anything we couldn't have gotten by other means.
 
When you are a former Sec Def, you don't have to provide evidence. If Obama said EIT works, you think Boo would question it? Of course not.

yes you do. Rumsfeld once said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What was lost on many is absence of evidence isn't evidence either. Making claims without support is useless, meaningless.
 
Saying so is not evidence. Seriously. Each time they've tried to give an example it has proven false. They said, but it wasn't true. You need more than they said so. You need to show that they what they say is actually true. Example. Cheney said torture of KSM proveded intel stopped the plot for a second 9/11. Trouble with that was that we stopped the plot before we even captured KSM. Today some are saying we got the intel that led to the death of OBL, yet that is possible as we stopped those techniques long before we got the intel.

because of this track record of failing to support what they say, there is no reason to accept claims that torture gave us anything, let alone anything we couldn't have gotten by other means.

That's about what I thought your position would be. No matter what any member of the government says about waterboarding, and the positive results, you are not going to believe them.

So why waste my time asking for verification of what was said?
 
If they went with no other intent than to assisinate (sic) him, then I would agree that is wrong. If they went in to get him and in the course of a firefight killed him, I would have no real problem with that.

you don't know THE NEWS?

i guess it hasn't been published yet in new south wales

oh well

today: News from The Associated Press

The commandos encountered gunshots from only one man, whom they quickly killed, before sweeping the house and shooting others, who were unarmed, a senior defense official said in the latest account.
 
Saying so is not evidence. Seriously. Each time they've tried to give an example it has proven false. They said, but it wasn't true. You need more than they said so.
It really depends on the who_Often, politicos et al will use technicalities and negative pregnants to say something in the "strongest" way that they can w/o crossing the line into falsehood. And, what people say someone says isn't always the same as what was said. It's not uncommon to find that a headline (or fellow DPer) gets it wrong.
So, imho, the who and the what are of particular importance.
 
Making claims without support is useless, meaningless.

says the serious solon whose ratio of posts to links is a thousand to three

and those three are---wik, jon stewart and the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

LOL!
 
That's about what I thought your position would be. No matter what any member of the government says about waterboarding, and the positive results, you are not going to believe them.

So why waste my time asking for verification of what was said?


Verification isn't that someone says so. it is what evidence do they present with their claim. Those who used torture have an inherent need to claim its effectiveness. Same could be true of those who believe the litature on the subject. But, if you claim the affirmative, you should be able to show actual, tangiable evidence that can be confirmed. I gave two examples where what was claimed could not be true. Specific and verifiable. Can you do the same?
 
It really depends on the who_Often, politicos et al will use technicalities and negative pregnants to say something in the "strongest" way that they can w/o crossing the line into falsehood. And, what people say someone says isn't always the same as what was said. It's not uncommon to find that a headline (or fellow DPer) gets it wrong.
So, imho, the who and the what are of particular importance.

I understand what you're saying, and certianly they can be tricky with the language. And I often think they do just that to try and present the impression that torture was more successful than it was. And sometimes, they just lie. It happens.
 
Harrington is a serial complainer against everything the military does and will always have a ready audience from the international Left and America's enemies.

The classic fallacy. . .

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem
 
That's about what I thought your position would be. No matter what any member of the government says about waterboarding, and the positive results, you are not going to believe them.

The government is not an authoritative source. An authority is an individual professionally trained in the relevant area who is not under any political pressure to skew his assertions.

An professor, a scholar, an ex-military interrogator are all examples of such sources. A politician or someone working for one (i. e. Rumsfeld) is not.
 
Looks like Usama Bin Laden is dead as well lol.
 
The government is not an authoritative source. An authority is an individual professionally trained in the relevant area who is not under any political pressure to skew his assertions.

A politician or someone working for one (i. e. Rumsfeld) is not.

why did HOLDER's doj release the cia's ig report on the monday preceding aug 29?
 
I understand what you're saying, and certianly they can be tricky with the language. And I often think they do just that to try and present the impression that torture was more successful than it was. And sometimes, they just lie. It happens.

Why would anyone lie about "torturing" someone? Do you feel it would enhance their reputation to be known as a torturer?

What's really torturous is this path of illogical reasoning.
 
The government is not an authoritative source. An authority is an individual professionally trained in the relevant area who is not under any political pressure to skew his assertions.

An professor, a scholar, an ex-military interrogator are all examples of such sources. A politician or someone working for one (i. e. Rumsfeld) is not.

Perhaps you should read your own post.


The classic fallacy. . .

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem
 
Why would anyone lie about "torturing" someone? Do you feel it would enhance their reputation to be known as a torturer?

What's really torturous is this path of illogical reasoning.

It helps them justify the unjustifiable. They lie and give it names like enhanced interrogation techniques. This group worked wonders with labnguage. You know, patriot act, no child left behind, and collateral damage. Sadly, they had people willing to believe. I knew hope of sound thinking was lost when Bush got away with moving from Saddam has wmds, to Saddam has wmd porgrams, to Saddam has wmd related program activites, to we're spreading freedom. Too few really cared at all.

However, as i note, there are plenty of reasons to lie. They broke the law and have to justify it. And despite not being able to show a single specific verifiable example of anything we got, some are more than willing to suspend disbelief and merely accept their word, even when what they claim isn't even possible, as is the case here.
 
And despite not being able to show a single specific verifiable example of anything we got, some are more than willing to suspend disbelief and merely accept their word, even when what they claim isn't even possible, as is the case here.

you really shouldn't talk about eric holder that way, unless you really want to

meanwhile, how's that ASSASSINATION going over
 
It helps them justify the unjustifiable. They lie and give it names like enhanced interrogation techniques.

No, they are calling it "waterboarding", which is what it is.
This group worked wonders with labnguage. You know, patriot act, no child left behind, and collateral damage. Sadly, they had people willing to believe. I knew hope of sound thinking was lost when Bush got away with moving from Saddam has wmds, to Saddam has wmd porgrams, to Saddam has wmd related program activites, to we're spreading freedom. Too few really cared at all.

There's that torturous path again. KSM would have spilled his guts weeks earlier if he had to put up with this convoluted highway to nowhere.

However, as i note, there are plenty of reasons to lie. They broke the law and have to justify it. And despite not being able to show a single specific verifiable example of anything we got, some are more than willing to suspend disbelief and merely accept their word, even when what they claim isn't even possible, as is the case here.

What law did they break? They were advised at the time that waterboarding was legal, as well it should be.

And of course it was justified by the subsequent killing of Dustbin Laden. Where is the problem?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom