patriotic torturers
Quote: MrVYou misunderstand.
I did not take his comments out of context.
I snipped the quote in the interests of brevity, not to twist.
Whatever, the notion that "It would have been far more effective to take these people in, treat them well" is short-sighted and naive, in my opinion.
Turn them into informants?
Really?
"What happened here was that we asked the agency to go take steps and put in place programs that were designed to catch the bastards who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11 and make sure it never happened again, and that's exactly what they did. --- Dick Cheney
Brenner, current head of the CIA, and Dep Dir during 9/11, says these people (contractors brought in as interrogators) did many unsanctioned things, broke laws and directives (though he says they are unable to prosecute - which may indicate not a lack of evidence but necessary prosecution and defense materials being classified), and caused large amounts of internal problems between CIA case officers and interrogators both ethically and procedurally (paraphrasing Brenner's press conference today). He seems to be politically constrained but is being interpreted to point back to forced compliance with Cheney's WH directing the CIA to be involved despite their misgivings.
I agree that I may have misunderstood your intent in favor of brevity. However, perhaps you can agree that reading only what you quoted is a misrepresentation of what he said, and a person would have to realize that, scroll back and read the actual quote to get his context? Your edit makes it look like he was an ISIS/terrorist sympathizer, when he is nothing of the sort.
And neither am I. I can't set their ethical standards. If I had control of a drone or three, ISIS would have no unburned oil wells, and Syria would have no desert training camps. But I can and do as a citizen have expectations for how the United States conducts itself in war, and it must be above the level demonstrated by the interrogators during that period.
Quote:I can and do as a citizen have expectations for how the United States conducts itself in war, and it must be above the level demonstrated by the interrogators during that period.
We are not at war.
They're terrorists.
There is a difference.
Heck, they're beheading Americans.
Let's return the favor.
So far as I'm concerned, "anything goes."
No mercy.
Quote: MrVWe are not at war.
They're terrorists.
There is a difference.
Heck, they're beheading Americans.
Let's return the favor.
So far as I'm concerned, "anything goes."
No mercy.
Well we could have gassed and buried Germans in mass graves at one time. Then we could each be watching each other's atrocity documentaries today.
(Couldn't help it, had to go there.)
Quote: MrVWe are not at war.
They're terrorists.
There is a difference.
Heck, they're beheading Americans.
Let's return the favor.
So far as I'm concerned, "anything goes."
No mercy.
Well, that's the difference in our viewpoints, then. My understanding of both Bush and Obama's stances is that we are absolutely at war, with the terrorists and more recently with ISIS. We returned the favor, in our own way, to Bin Ladin, Hussein, Gaddafi, and a bunch of others, and rightly so. But there are POW rules we insist on for our people, so we must comply with them when we are the jailers.
about enhanced methods, yet other senators
are saying she was right there in 2002 at the
briefing that gave detailed accounts of water
boarding. The response from everyone there?
Why aren't we doing more.
She also has no idea who Gruber is, until video
was played with her speaking glowingly of him in
press conferences. What a piece of work she
truly is.
Quote: GandlerI strongly doubt it was a case of animistic vengeance. To get into the CIA let alone as a high level field agent you have to go through so many psychological tests and emotion tests. There is a reason so many seem so mechanical when you talk to them. I doubt they get any pleasure from waterboarding somebody, its probably just another task of the day like entering files into a computer.
But we don't know all of the details. We know in some cases they do work (and have worked, such as the attack that was prevented by the UK). But my opinion is if there is even a slight chance of it working it is worth it if other options are exhausted. I feel no sympathy for people who have killed countless people while planning to kill countless more, and not in pleasant ways. I can't feel sorry for somebody having water dumped on them or forced to stay awake for a few hours, when if the situation is reversed, they would be chopping the captive into pieces, except often purely for resolve not for information.
I find it sadly ironic that so much time is being debated about this handful of times this was used in the last decade (which I don't even view as an issue, its a plausible option in an already limited toolbox). When the people this is used on often kill more people a day then America has waterboarded in the last two decades... Its just politics, look at who opened the case. People want to make America look like the villian, and its an easy task when so many people in America love to jump on board.
You misunderstand I meant animalistic vengeance is a reason why some support it not why the CIA did it. Oh and are you talking about this UK plot that was foiled
The Senate report said identification of Issa came from a British investigation. It says Mohammed didn't provide the first reporting on him, nor is there evidence showing CIA interrogations led to Barot's arrest. After Barot was apprehended, the report said, CIA officers prepared a document for British authorities stating that while Mohammed tasked al-Hindi to go to the U.S. to study targets, he was unaware how far Barot's planning progressed, who Issa's co-conspirators were or that Issa's planning focused on Britain.
Here are some more cases where torture "saved lives" except not really http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2867354/Competing-claims-torture-effectiveness.html#ixzz3LfKn4AEg
Quote: BozAnd they seem to be ignoring the budget talks that have placed far left loons like Warren against more normal Dems who dont think Wall Street is out to get everyone.
Senator Warren and the TEA Party oppose a change to Dodd-Frank that gives the banks a larger Federal safety net in the event of another collapse.
The change shifts more derivatives units losses to the taxpayer when these investments fail.
When they win their bets, they keep the money.
When they lose, we have to cover their losses.
'Normal' Dems joined Republicans and passed this legislation.
Quote: EvenBobGood ol Nancy Pelosi. Says she knew nothing
about enhanced methods, yet other senators
are saying she was right there in 2002 at the
briefing that gave detailed accounts of water
boarding. .
Good Ol John McCain, he knows everything about torture due to experience.
This republican senator war hero is against torture.
Quote: terapined
This republican senator war hero is against torture.
His stance is ridiculous. He says the tortured
person will say anything to make it stop. Yeah,
but a lot of that 'anything' is truthful info, it's
up to the interrogators to sort it out. Look at
McCain's viewpoint, he has to be against it,
he was tortured for 5 years. He can't be in favor
of something he hates.
Even "outdated" intelligence proved highly useful in finding bin Laden. After all, bin Laden was relying on his longtime courier and driver for much of his contact with his minions. As three directors of the C.I.A., along with their deputies, have clearly confirmed for one and all who care, the intelligence gleaned from enhanced interrogation proved highly useful in tracking terrorist enemies of the United States as well as preventing and pre-empting attacks. Feinstein and Pelosi are dissembling for nothing more than crass political points.Quote: Dicenor33The info obtained would probably be outdated since the perpetrator is in captivity already and accomplices would probably alter their plans accordingly.
Jihadi fighters are not "agents" in the normal sense. No real "agent" would expect 73 virgins awaiting him.Quote: Dicenor33Besides, agents are trained to tolerate torture and they might purposely send investigators on a wrong path . . .
That is nothing more than pure speculation and conjecture, all without any basis in fact or documentation. The history of John Owen Brennan in the C.I.A. and related activities is pretty much well known and is on the easily available public record. Although Brennan was left out of the enhanced interrogation program, he stated in the Congressional hearing this week that it had definitely provided useful and actionable intelligence to help defend the United States against the growing threat of terrorism.Quote: beachbumbabsBrenner, current head of the CIA, and Dep Dir during 9/11, says these people (contractors brought in as interrogators) did many unsanctioned things, broke laws and directives (though he says they are unable to prosecute - which may indicate not a lack of evidence but necessary prosecution and defense materials being classified), and caused large amounts of internal problems between CIA case officers and interrogators both ethically and procedurally (paraphrasing Brenner's press conference today). He seems to be politically constrained but is being interpreted to point back to forced compliance with Cheney's WH directing the CIA to be involved despite their misgivings.
Quote: rxwineWell we could have gassed and buried Germans in mass graves at one time. Then we could each be watching each other's atrocity documentaries today.
(Couldn't help it, had to go there.)
We did kill Nazi SS Officers without a trial. There were Nazi Hunting Squads from America and the UK (though I'm sure the Russians participated). They track down established Nazis (after the war mind you), take them into the wilderness, shoot them in the head and bury them. Christopher Lee, the old guy who plays the Evil Wizard in Lord of the Rings, used to do this with the British Special Forces.
And I am willing to bet you have no issue with SS officers being killed without a trial? Its because they are established and the military knows who they are and what they do (and of course in the case of SS officers it was well documented). How is it any different to know somebody is a long established terrorist?
Quote: beachbumbabsWell, that's the difference in our viewpoints, then. My understanding of both Bush and Obama's stances is that we are absolutely at war, with the terrorists and more recently with ISIS. We returned the favor, in our own way, to Bin Ladin, Hussein, Gaddafi, and a bunch of others, and rightly so. But there are POW rules we insist on for our people, so we must comply with them when we are the jailers.
We are also at "war" with Ebola and poverty, but that does not mean they are conventional wars.
Quote: GandlerWe did kill Nazi SS Officers without a trial. There were Nazi Hunting Squads from America and the UK (though I'm sure the Russians participated). They track down established Nazis (after the war mind you), take them into the wilderness, shoot them in the head and bury them. Christopher Lee, the old guy who plays the Evil Wizard in Lord of the Rings, used to do this with the British Special Forces.
And I am willing to bet you have no issue with SS officers being killed without a trial? Its because they are established and the military knows who they are and what they do (and of course in the case of SS officers it was well documented). How is it any different to know somebody is a long established terrorist?
Well you're willing to lose a bet then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
Quote: rxwineWell you're willing to lose a bet then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
I'm not talking about Nuremberg. I'm talking about the tracking and execution squads for Nazi SS Officers who did not turn themselves in.
Quote: GandlerI'm not talking about Nuremberg. I'm talking about the tracking and execution squads for Nazi SS Officers who did not turn themselves in.
I'd have to do a roll call, but sure some of the 200 on trial in Nuremberg didn't turn themselves in. Someone could have shot them without going to trial, but I don't know why you think I'd approve of summary execution.
Quote: rxwineI'd have to do a roll call, but sure some of the 200 on trial in Nuremberg didn't turn themselves in. Someone could have shot them without going to trial, but I don't know why you think I'd approve of summary execution.
I think you are missing my point. Even if some resisted arrest initially, so to speak, they were still captured.
The SS Officers who were executed with no intention of arresting them were officers who ran off and were a known threat and hiding their identity. It was not just an American thing, many countries participated. Israel was still executing SS officers in the 1960s, tracking down the ones trying to hold out in South America.
I'm sorry it was wrong of me to assume that you would be in favor, but most people I ask seem to have no problem killing SS even people against waterboarding so its usually a safe assumption.
But my point is most people are totally OK with the execution of SS without trial, yet when known terrorists who have done worst things than the majority of the average SS Officer have done, and are held and treated a little bit harshly people act like America is going crazy.
Quote: GandlerI'm not talking about Nuremberg. I'm talking about the tracking and execution squads for Nazi SS Officers who did not turn themselves in.
Below is a quote from Christopher Lee's Wiki page
Here, he was tasked with helping to track down Nazi war criminals.[66] Of his time with the organisation, Lee has said: "We were given dossiers of what they'd done and told to find them, interrogate them as much as we could and hand them over to the appropriate authority ... We saw these concentration camps. Some had been cleaned up. Some had not."[66] Lee then retired from the RAF in 1946 with the rank of flight lieutenant
Execution squads???
He was in the Royal Air Force.
Source please?
Quote: terapinedBelow is a quote from Christopher Lee's Wiki page
Here, he was tasked with helping to track down Nazi war criminals.[66] Of his time with the organisation, Lee has said: "We were given dossiers of what they'd done and told to find them, interrogate them as much as we could and hand them over to the appropriate authority ... We saw these concentration camps. Some had been cleaned up. Some had not."[66] Lee then retired from the RAF in 1946 with the rank of flight lieutenant
Execution squads???
He was in the Royal Air Force.
Source please?
Return of the King making of Documentary they discussed it (when talking about what sounds to make when somebody gets stabbed in the back, because his character dies by a backstabbing from Wormtoungue).
Hang on I'll see if I can find it online.
He was in several things. He was in the Finnish Army to fight the Russians at one point. He did quite a lot during WWII.
Quote: terapinedtold to find them, interrogate them as much as we could
Oops, sorry, another dies during questioning.
What do you think, Lee is going to admit to
such a thing?
Quote: GandlerBut my point is most people are totally OK with the execution of SS without trial, yet when known terrorists who have done worst things than the majority of the average SS Officer have done, and are held and treated a little bit harshly people act like America is going crazy.
I'm sure the soldiers who pulled Saddam out of his spider hole could have shot him on the spot. People would expect a story about how Saddam flinched, had a gun in his hand. Bin Laden's case was probably iffy, but they were in a short fire fight before that moment, so there was certainly doubt about the danger.
But, if you actually can capture the worst people in the world, you give them a trial. Civilized world anyway.
Quote: EvenBobOops, sorry, another dies during questioning.
What do you think, Lee is going to admit to
such a thing?
True, but don't you think its not a good idea to accuse a major celebrity of executing human beings just because he would never admit to it.
That's pretty serious, executing humans.
Before we go there on this board, I think its important to have a source regarding this.
I think its important to have a trial so surviving victims can testify so there is a permanent record of the atrocities.
Giving surviving victims the right to confront is more important then a quick death in the countryside.
Israel tried this execution thing. The executed Moroccan waiter in Norway July 1973. The guy was simply returning home from a movie with his pregnant wife.
Quote: terapinedTrue, but don't you think its not a good idea to accuse a major celebrity of executing human beings just because he would never admit to it.
That's pretty serious, executing humans.
Before we go there on this board, I think its important to have a source regarding this.
I think its important to have a trial so surviving victims can testify so there is a permanent record of the atrocities.
Giving surviving victims the right to confront is more important then a quick death in the countryside.
Israel tried this execution thing. The executed Moroccan waiter in Norway July 1973. The guy was simply returning home from a movie with his pregnant wife.
Sorry I should have worded my post better I am not accusing him of personally being the executer, but without a doubt he worked with the squads.
In one interview when he asked about what he did in that department his reply was "Can you keep a secret?" The guy said said yes and he said "So can I".
Its hard to find a lot of videos of him talking of the War, he never talks in depth about it (perhaps there is a reason).
(I'm still looking for a youtube version of the video, don't worry I did not forget). Its hard to find clips from random documentaries that most people don't watch.
But even if he was the direct executioner (which again, I never alleged), that is not a point of disdain but of respect in my view. You have to be pretty hardcore to hunt down guerilla Nazis in the forests and mountains with just a few men and covertly take care of the issue.
As for Israel, I have no clue about this Morocco business.
But they did execute Nazis without a trial, they are one of the few countries to admit to sending their Special Ops. groups to South America to execute, this is well documented and they are crtizied. Eichman was one of the top targets they took down in South America in the mid 60s I believe, and in my view he certainly deserved it. If the local government refuses to cooperate, what else are you going to do? Hit squad seems like the only option.
weren't there have no idea how much
hated the Nazi's were. The death
camps were unknown to the public
until 1945 and it traumatized the
civilized world. The size and scope of
them were unreal, they could have
drawn and quartered Nazi's in the
courtyard and we were fine with it.
Quote: terapinedTrue, but don't you think its not a good idea to accuse a major celebrity of executing human beings just because he would never admit to it.
That's pretty serious, executing humans.
Before we go there on this board, I think its important to have a source regarding this.
I think its important to have a trial so surviving victims can testify so there is a permanent record of the atrocities.
Giving surviving victims the right to confront is more important then a quick death in the countryside.
Israel tried this execution thing. The executed Moroccan waiter in Norway July 1973. The guy was simply returning home from a movie with his pregnant wife.
Christopher Lee Biography
(Caution Link contains some profane language)
- I found this link from google, it is far from an academic site, and it certainly exaggerates for effect. But based on what I know of his biography the hard facts are legit, if you don't mind colorful language, its actually a pretty entertaining read.
"I've seen many men die right in front of me - so many in fact that I've become almost hardened to it. Having seen the worst that human beings can do to each other, the results of torture, mutilation and seeing someone blown to pieces by a bomb, you develop a kind of shell. But you had to. You had to. Otherwise we would never have won." -Christopher Lee
"After working with the LRDP, Lee was assigned to the Special Operations Executive – better known as Winston Churchill's Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare – a group that did *** like lead a twelve-man assault that destroyed the German top secret nuclear weapons development facility in Norway and assist brave Eastern European partisans and rebels sabotage Nazi supply lines to prevent them from bringing reinforcements up to fight the Soviets" -Quote from Article.
"His service records are sealed and Lee doesn't talk much about his service but we do know that by the time he retired as a Flight Lieutenant in 1945 he'd been personally decorated for battlefield bravery by the Czech, Yugoslavian, English, and Polish governments and was good friends with Josip Broz Tito, so draw your own conclusions. " -Quotes from above article
"Lee also belongs to three stuntman unions, does all of his own stunts, once busted his face smashing head-first through an actual plate glass window for a scene, injured himself falling into an open grave while portraying Dracula, and once had his hand slashed open during a drunken sword fight with Errol Flynn." -Above Article
Now of course this does not prove anything about his personal actions. But we know he is physically fit, agile, experienced with weapons especially blades, was a member of various Intelligence and Special Operations groups and his WWII records are still sealed to this date.
Like I said I never would say he personally pulled the trigger on anyone as there is no way anyone except for him can prove that (until his records are made public, which I assume won't be until long after his death if ever), but he was certainly involved a lot with people who did, not just formal armies, look at the various rebel groups he fought with against he Nazis, do you think they followed the Geneva Conventions?
Christopher Lee is a total badass, in a good way.
Most actors are all about pretend.
Christopher Lee is the real deal. He walked the walk.
Thanks, love him in the Rings and other movies.
Never knew this about him.
Wow, I am impressed.
Thanks Gandler.
I do not want my country to condone or use torture....
In my opinion it is irrelevant whether or not torture 'works' in obtaining valuable information.....
"the torture program shows that no one in the US and European governments who knew of the program and participated in torture has an ounce of humanity, integrity, compassion, and morality. They are evil people, and the ones who inflicted the torture enjoyed the pain and suffering that they inflicted on others."
"President Reagan appointed Dr. Roberts Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and he was confirmed in office by the U.S. Senate. From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill"
Quote: terapinedGoing off topic here but what long thread doesn't from time to time.
Christopher Lee is a total badass, in a good way.
Most actors are all about pretend.
Christopher Lee is the real deal. He walked the walk.
Thanks, love him in the Rings and other movies.
Never knew this about him.
Wow, I am impressed.
Thanks Gandler.
(Since we are doing a Christopher Lee detour)
He spends his 90s doing Metal music He started realsing Heavy Metal versions of classic Christmas songs in 2012 and has every Christmas since.
Christopher Lee 2014 Christmas Metal
Christopher Lee WWII clip
Its hard to find good speeches from him on WWII since he mostly only mentions small snindpets here and there in random obscure documentaries that only a few nerds like me have probably ever seen. But this is the best clip I could find here on youtube. I have had a mancrush on him since I was a young kid lol.
Ian Fleming (the writer/creator of James Bond, also a WWII vet) was his cousin, so in some Ian Fleming documentaries and Bond documentries he mentions some intelligence and WWII type stuff. But its impossible to find any single place where he talks a lot about it, just random thoughts here and there in various old documentaries.
I'd link, but WSJ is a paid site; the app won't even allow a cut-and-paste. They disagree with the majority's report, and it's an illuminating read.
Perhaps most telling:
"How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way."
Edit: I'll try the link to the main site, dunno if a paid subscription is required to view --
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644
Quote: Calder
"How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way."
Amazing, huh. Only cost us 40 mil to get
a full of crap biased report.
Quote: CalderMaybe I missed it, but I am a little surprised that no one has mentioned the written response to the Senate report from three former CIA directors and three former deputy directors, printed in the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 10.
I'd link, but WSJ is a paid site; the app won't even allow a cut-and-paste. They disagree with the majority's report, and it's an illuminating read.
Perhaps most telling:
"How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way."
Edit: I'll try the link to the main site, dunno if a paid subscription is required to view --
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644
Not too suprising, their intention was to stir controversy, assembling the facts would have hindered their goal.
Quote: TankoSenator Warren and the TEA Party oppose a change to Dodd-Frank that gives the banks a larger Federal safety net in the event of another collapse.
The change shifts more derivatives units losses to the taxpayer when these investments fail.
When they win their bets, they keep the money.
When they lose, we have to cover their losses.
'Normal' Dems joined Republicans and passed this legislation.
That's sort of true. "Normal" Dems voted it down on the initial test vote. The change you mention is a rider to a much larger bill. The Dems worked to get the rider removed, though the leadership and the White House had signed off on it as a necessary evil/compromise (depending on your POV) to get the important stuff passed. In the final vote, enough Dems came over to get the bill passed, barely. The other poison pill was a campaign contribution expansion to some insane amount, like $125,000 per individual per 2 year cycle. (Where it had been 2300, then 5000 in the last 20 years).
It may not survive the Senate, either of those riders. Let's hope it doesn't, or they get removed in reconciliation.
-Douglas Murray the British Neocon seems to have the most realistic view on this.
"The CIA and the minority representatives strongly disputes a lot of the major findings in this report"
"The Number of human rights complaints in a society is exactly inverse of the number of human rights in a society"
<Instead, it is the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report that dropped the big bombshell regarding the U.S. torture program.>
<
The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting FALSE confessions for propaganda purposes.>
<The White House started pushing the use of torture not when faced with a “ticking time bomb” scenario from terrorists, but when officials in 2002 were desperately casting about for ways to tie Iraq to the 9/11 attacks — in order to strengthen their public case for invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.>
<Colin Powell's former chief of staff (Colonel Larry Wilkerson) wrote in 2009 that the Bush administration's "principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qaeda.">
<Colin Powell's former chief of staff (Colonel Larry Wilkerson) wrote in 2009 that the Bush administration's "principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qaeda.">
Quote: CalderMaybe I missed it, but I am a little surprised that no one has mentioned the written response to the Senate report from three former CIA directors and three former deputy directors, printed in the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 10.
I'd link, but WSJ is a paid site; the app won't even allow a cut-and-paste. They disagree with the majority's report, and it's an illuminating read.
Perhaps most telling:
"How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way."
Edit: I'll try the link to the main site, dunno if a paid subscription is required to view --
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644
Colin Powell realizes he was used to drum up support for invading Iraq and his chief of staff Col. Wilkerson says "let me waterboard Rumsfeld and we will see if he thinks its not torture". The argument in '03-'04 was discussing whether or not the techniques used were indeed torture or not? Now the discussion has migrated to whether or not the torture provided actionable intelligence, justifying going to war with Iraq, which had already been decided.
http://youtu.be/E4_RQc9NLxQ
Quote: petroglyphColin Powell realizes he was used to drum up support for invading Iraq and his chief of staff Col. Wilkerson says "let me waterboard Rumsfeld and we will see if he thinks its not torture". The argument in '03-'04 was discussing whether or not the techniques used were indeed torture or not? Now the discussion has migrated to whether or not the torture provided actionable intelligence, justifying going to war with Iraq, which had already been decided.
http://youtu.be/E4_RQc9NLxQ
No to link Iraq with Al Queada.
Which was the main reason to go to Iraq, though it would be good to know.
Quote: GandlerNo to link Iraq with Al Queada.
Which was the main reason to go to Iraq, though it would be good to know.
You didn't need torture to know Iraq wasn't linked with Al Qaeda since such a link fails every smell test. The chance of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq was basically impossible given vast differences in ideology.
Quote: TwirdmanYou didn't need torture to know Iraq wasn't linked with Al Qaeda since such a link fails every smell test. The chance of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq was basically impossible given vast differences in ideology.
Sorry meant to say "was not the main reason".
Perhaps, though there is some evidence to the contrary. Certain officials made it into Iraq with Husseins approval.
But I agree, it is not important to dwell on at this point. It is done and if somebody is trying to justify the Iraq War there are far better reasons.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt may not survive the Senate, either of those riders. Let's hope it doesn't, or they get removed in reconciliation.
If the riders don't pass this year, the Republicans will certainly pass them next year.
Citigroup owns Washington.
Senator Warren is spot on in this speech:
Quote: Tanko
Senator Warren is spot on in this speech:
She has so much Native American blood,
why is she dressed like a white. She
should have a headdress on at least. What
a joke she is..
Quote: GandlerNo to link Iraq with Al Queada.
Which was the main reason to go to Iraq, though it would be good to know.
So, with no link between Iraq and OSB, so no link with 911, so no reason to torture folks from Afghanistan because it was the Saudi's behind the attack? The PNAC neocon dream logic really breaks down if you don't understand the agenda. Look at the links I provided today upthread about focusing on the wrong torture report.
The neocon agenda was/is to produce reasons to divvy up MENA.
Quote: petroglyphSo, with no link between Iraq and OSB, so no link with 911, so no reason to torture folks from Afghanistan because it was the Saudi's behind the attack? The PNAC neocon dream logic really breaks down if you don't understand the agenda. Look at the links I provided today upthread about focusing on the wrong torture report.
The neocon agenda was/is to produce reasons to divvy up MENA.
I never said Saudi Arabia was behind the attack. Some of the attackers happened to have Saudi Arabian origin but that is happenstance.
However what do you mean "divy up the Middle East" and what NeoCon plan is this?
Quote: EvenBobShe has so much Native American blood,
why is she dressed like a white. She
should have a headdress on at least. What
a joke she is..
Wow, modern Indians wear headdress? Maybe at Washington football games. (refuse to print the slur name of that team)
Brad Carson doesn't wear a headdress
Markwayne Mullin doesn't wear a headdress
Both dress as "white" no headdress. Both American Indians in congress.
Small mistake versus giving Wall Street the ability to wreck the economy.
Lets create a mountain out of a small mistake and let the whole USA economy go down the toilet.
The priorities are amazing.
Is this a joke :-)
Quote: GandlerI never said Saudi Arabia was behind the attack. Some of the attackers happened to have Saudi Arabian origin but that is happenstance.
However what do you mean "divy up the Middle East" and what NeoCon plan is this?
No, you did not say Saudi anything as far as I know? I did, I didn't blame the Saudi government directly but I will say again that 15 of the 18 hijackers were Saudi nationals with some evidence stating collusion and financing coming from top sources within the gov. I tried following your logic trail about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. I think most are agreed it isn't because of 911, do it made no sense to attack Iraq as they had nothing to do with it. Also why torture captured Afhani's and try to force evidence linking Saddam who was enemies with Alqueda, which never existed in Iraq pre- war.
You have declared your position regards being neocon. The neocon agenda in MENA is synomous with PNAC.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130609155105/http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm
Also link to article by PCR on Neocon:http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=1726
If you dislike the anti war source for article by PCR who is rarely questioned, try search engine for other source.
Please read:http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12730
Quote: terapinedWow, modern Indians wear headdress?
Sure do. But they are part of ceremonial dress that must be earned. To don one without earning it is the height of offense, similar to Justin Beiber hoisting the Stanley Cup, or the guy who claims he "served in Vietnam" when all he did was drive a supply truck from Nantucket to Poughkeepsie on the weekends.
for that Washington team.
Quote: petroglyphNo, you did not say Saudi anything as far as I know? I did, I didn't blame the Saudi government directly but I will say again that 15 of the 18 hijackers were Saudi nationals with some evidence stating collusion and financing coming from top sources within the gov. I tried following your logic trail about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. I think most are agreed it isn't because of 911, do it made no sense to attack Iraq as they had nothing to do with it. Also why torture captured Afhani's and try to force evidence linking Saddam who was enemies with Alqueda, which never existed in Iraq pre- war.
You have declared your position regards being neocon. The neocon agenda in MENA is synomous with PNAC.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130609155105/http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm
Also link to article by PCR on Neocon:http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=1726
If you dislike the anti war source for article by PCR who is rarely questioned, try search engine for other source.
Please read:http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12730
In the process of reading them now.
But I want to ask you, what is your definition of a NeoCon? Because I think you (not just you, most people in general) claim that a lot of people have this philosophy incorrectly. I can't think of a single American politician that is a true NeoCon by the strict philosophical definition. And very view public figure in general.
Douglas Murray (posted video of him earlier) who is British is one who comes to mind as a true NeoCon, but he is just a writer.
But who do you view as NeoCon? And what would you call Neoconservative?
Quote: Face... or the guy who claims he "served in Vietnam" when all he did was drive a supply truck from Nantucket to Poughkeepsie on the weekends.
Stolen Valor:
