Waterboarding?

[OffroadFever]

To compare waterboarding our own soliders to what we do to the enemy is ludicrous. The physical aspects may (or may not) be the same, but the psychological torture is something completely different. It would be a fair comparison to let the enemy administer it, but that would be even more ludicrous. I mean nobody is debating that waterboarding is a form of torture. The message we're giving to the recipient is that we've been unable to get the information we want, so now this information that may or may not exist is worth more than this poor soul's life. Maybe if every "insurgent" captured was 100% guilty without question, but we're fighting a war in a country that we can't always recognize who the enemy even is. That's some audacity to torture the ones you do capture even though they might not even be viable.

It's not like we'll ever agree with them and live under the same set of laws. They are a different people and don't need our intolerance in their face cuz it'll just incite more violence. If the roles were reversed, we'd be fighting in the streets too.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

As stated, water boarding is a technique that many of our soldier's, sailors and airmen undergo. Check into SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape) training. I never had the "pleasure" of attending this training, but have two friends who did. Only one of them underwent water boarding. I won't go into details as to which technique, they vary and you can google it if you want to look into the various methods. He doesn't have any long term trauma or effects and is still proudly serving at a very high level.

With the knowledge that our own men and women willingly go through this, how can anyone feel that it is to harsh of an interrogation method to use on terrorists. And please don't think that this is something used on every terrorist brought to camp, there isn't a get your prison uniform and water boarding line. It is a technique reserved for certain people who were in positions that made them privy to certain information. The thought of someone who has no clue past what their news station of choice tells them thinking they should have a say as to what techniques are used to gain information to protect our soldier's and citizens just pisses me off. Who the hell are you to make such enlightened and bold judgments when in your mind you know you don't know jack about what's going on. When you sit through briefings in a 120 degree desert outlining new threats and techniques; when you patrol the streets and talk to the people affected; when you are forced to end the life of someone who is barely even a teen yet but was given a gun, a message of hate and a slap on the ass; when you pull security on a Humvee while the bodies of brothers in arms are cut out of the wreckage; and when you know the feeling of talking to one of your best friends wife and daughter for the first time since he was killed by a cowardly roadside bomb... then you tell me what techniques should and should not be used.

I have stated in other threads that my feelings on Afghanistan and Iraq are different, I really hope we find a speedy but not hasty withdrawal from Iraq, but things such as techniques used go well beyond the fight we find ourselves in now, and decisions made now will have huge effects in future conflicts. At no point should what we will and will not do be outlined. "The American people have a right to know". The hell you do, you have the right to know a lot of things... some things you don't need to know and I hate it if you can't comprehend that. Above the American people not needing to know, our enemies sure as hell don't need to know. Where there is no fear of repercussions, there is no hesitation. If you fight an enemy who really isn't afraid of death due to what they believe the afterlife holds, what kind of idiot removes the fear they might have of what could happen while alive. You remove someones fear of things in life and death and you have created one of the most ruthless enemies possible. Who does this effect?... in the long run it effects civilians as your security is chipped away, but the immediate and harshest effects fall on the ones putting the boots on the ground. When do we stop drawing lines, do we keep finding the next thing we wouldn't want to go through and take that away as well until we are left with a sterile government and a military with their hands tied so tight they can't even reach for their weapon. As much as I respect John McCain, his stance on this issue is just mind boggling. When you have information to be extracted from an enemy set on the destruction of you and other nations, no method should be taken off the table, even if they die. Our Government doesn't get everything right, but they get more right than wrong, if you don't agree with that then what are you still doing here. There are plenty of opportunities outside of our borders, so don't let us keep you here. They made the decision to do these things, we've got to make the decision that we are going to do the things to limit and stop them.

Just why are your soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan when they should be at home defending your lands from the enemy within?

War = Peace?

 

[Old Man Time]

We didnt win WW2 by taking prisoners. If they were against us....we killed them.

I kinda wish we would do the same now....instead of using our money to shack some dude up in cuba....he should have been shot on the spot when we caught him.
Then we wouldnt have to worry about water boarding laws.

Saddam in a hole? Drop a grenade down there and waa laa. No trial or hoopla drawn out for years.

Wiki isnt the only site with info regarding khalid mohammed. He was waterboarded and revealed much in the way of inteligence that saved american lives. Ramsi Yousef as well.(first WTC bombing) I believe it was Ramsi who disclosed the plan to blow up 12 airliners over the pacific in the mid 90s.

Torture does work if you must....if I had my way....we would dip every american bullet in pigs blood and let it be known to our islamist enemies that when they are shot we will bury them each with a pigs head. That sorta thing puts a damper on their afterlife. This war would be over.

But thats just my opine.

 

[zeloszero]

i guess habeas corpus is dead, and really doesnt matter anymore.

eye for and eye..

damn

 

[zeloszero]

You can't go around spewing about the evils of a group when your own people are doing things either the same way as them or worse.

You cannot scream that group A torturing group B is terrible and inhuman but that group B torturing group A is justified and a good thing.

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

kind of funny how one of the selling points used by bush and crew was Saddam and his secret torture rooms and the horrors he would inflict on those that opposes his rule. Well the USA now has , and may have before, secret torture rooms where we torture people that oppose Bush. Kind of odd huh? So how can it be used as a selling point when we do the same? To see how gullible the American public is and blind to what is in front of them is a bit disheartening.



Nevermind

 

[Guest]

Kind of not the topic but along the same vein. Islam is called the religion of peace but it is the only religion fighting just about every other religion. Christanity...yep. Judism...yep. Hindu's...yep. Hell they are even fighting each other (Sunni vs Shia). It is the only religion to cut off the heads of non-believers. I know, for the most part, it is the looney fringe doing so but just the same...

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

Kind of not the topic but along the same vein. Islam is called the religion of peace but it is the only religion fighting just about every other religion. Christanity...yep. Judism...yep. Hindu's...yep. Hell they are even fighting each other (Sunni vs Shia). It is the only religion to cut off the heads of non-believers. I know, for the most part, it is the looney fringe doing so but just the same...

Most of those you see fighting do not truly represent islam. The press uses the images to make it seem that way. You want to see a true image of islam? Look up the Haaj. That is like saying Timothy Mcveigh ( OK city bombing) showed that christianity is a religion of wackos. You cant make the actions of one or a few wack jobs represent a religion that has over 1 billion people. News only reports the bad news. So sure there are a few thousand wackos fighing in Iraq that also happen to be muslim. But those few thousand are less than 1% of the population of islam. So you want make a judgment of over 1 billion people based off the actions of less than 1%?

Its like having a pocket full of money. All kinds of bills and coins adding upp to thousands of dollars. You look at your money only to see 1 penny is faded and not a shiny copper like the rest of your money and saying that all money is old and dingy based off looking at one penny as opposed to the rest of your pristine money.

News is in the business of bad news. The only tell you bad news cuz it gets ratings. They tell you about the 2 people that died in baltimore that night and dont mention the 300,000 people that made it home safe that night. Like Islam. How interesting would the news be if they said " today 1.1 billions muslims prayed ate and went home"" wouldnt be to interesting woud it? But saying " 2 muslims blew themselves up" sure is interesting isnt it? How cares about the 1.1 billion that made it homs safe and didnt hurt anyone, lets talk about the 2 crazy ones.

Same could be said about any religion. They all have blood on their hands, from the jews to the christians to the muslims. All of em have blood on their hands and all of em use violence. the media just focuses on islam to boost our war and "support for the troops" which is the biggest line of BS. All those who have that sticker on their SUV " i support the troops" i want to choke. The biggest bunch of idiots you will ever see. Want to support the troops but wont sacrifice





Nevermind

 

[Guest]

Yeah but islamic religion has violence written into it, doesn't it?

 

[greenhead]

So you want make a judgment of over 1 billion people based off the actions of less than 1%?

Nevermind

Less than 1 percent, lol. You must be a comedian or something.

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

 

[greenhead]

But saying " 2 muslims blew themselves up" sure is interesting isnt it? How cares about the 1.1 billion that made it homs safe and didnt hurt anyone, lets talk about the 2 crazy ones.

Nevermind

Well, somebody making it home safe is obviously not newsworthy, but some sicko Muslim blowing themselves up and a whole bunch of other people just about every single day somewhere in the world is. And no, sorry bud, no other religion has as many violent, backwards, fanatical sickos as there are sickos in Islam. It's the world's biggest death cult.

 

[Guest]

Bin Laden says there will never be peace between the West and Islam because the West celebrates life while the Moslem world celebrates death. I don't care if it's 1%, 2% or 90% until there is a cleric that has juice stands up and says enough and the Moslem street agress, VOCALLY and with action, like the Sunni's have done in Iraq, then I'm sorry the whole religion gets painted with the same brush. It is a good sign that the Sunni's turned on their former allies.One of Binnie and the Cavemen's spiritual leaders has denounced Bin Laden and the Doctor but he has been held by the Eygptian government so that has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The Moslem public can turn out in mass protest against the U.S. and Israel...let's see the samething against terrorism then we can talk.

 

[marx2k]

Well, somebody making it home safe is obviously not newsworthy, but some sicko Muslim blowing themselves up and a whole bunch of other people just about every single day somewhere in the world is. And no, sorry bud, no other religion has as many violent, backwards, fanatical sickos as there are sickos in Islam. It's the world's biggest death cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_index.htm
http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/05/05/christian-terrorists-and-moral-equivalence/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

Less than 1 percent, lol. You must be a comedian or something.

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

Not a comedian, just a stickler for facts and truth. So lets look at your example? So you say 4 out of 10 muslims in the UK want sharia law? So you say 40% of muslims in brits right? since thats 4 out of 10. what is interesting is that the UK has a population of around 1,579,000 muslims which is roughly 2.7% of the worlds muslim population. So you are basing your views on muslims of the opinion of .7% of the population.

So i stand by what i said, less than 1% you are basing your views off of. So based off how you view the minority as the majority based off their views, Cristians want to kill kids in the USA right? I mean timothy Mcveigh was a chrisitian and he bombed a building killing kids. So lets base all of our opinions of Christianity off timothy Mcveigh, right?


Yet another fox news watcher ( greenhead) showing he aint that bright. Thanks for the link proving yourself to be wrong with the 1% thing. You make posting easy for me


Nevermind

 

[greenhead]

Not a comedian, just a stickler for facts and truth. So lets look at your example? So you say 4 out of 10 muslims in the UK want sharia law? So you say 40% of muslims in brits right? since thats 4 out of 10. what is interesting is that the UK has a population of around 1,579,000 muslims which is roughly 2.7% of the worlds muslim population. So you are basing your views on muslims of the opinion of .7% of the population.

So i stand by what i said, less than 1% you are basing your views off of. So based off how you view the minority as the majority based off their views, Cristians want to kill kids in the USA right? I mean timothy Mcveigh was a chrisitian and he bombed a building killing kids. So lets base all of our opinions of Christianity off timothy Mcveigh, right?


Yet another fox news watcher ( greenhead) showing he aint that bright. Thanks for the link proving yourself to be wrong with the 1% thing. You make posting easy for me


Nevermind

You are obviously ignorant, and I don't mean that as an insult, such as what you were attempting to do with your "fox news watcher" comment, but rather as a fact.

Yes, that poll was just from the UK. Things are starting to look much worse when you add in other Islamic countries.

According to poll results, bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. Musharraf's support is 38 percent. U.S. President George W. Bush's approval: 9 percent.

46% of 165,000,000 = 75,9000,000 scumbag Muslims who admire Bin Laden and that's just in Pakistan

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html

If you weren't so ignorant and unknowledgable when it comes to these matters, you'd know that the figure is far greater than your imaginary one percent when you begin to add in other barbaric Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, where a great percentage of people admire savage terrorists. Break out your calculator and find out for yourself, if you're interested in the truth.

As for McVeigh, he was agnostic, so your attempts to characterize the Oklahama City Bombing as being religiously motivated is innacurate.

 

[greenhead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_index.htm
http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/05/05/christian-terrorists-and-moral-equivalence/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

The Crusades ? lol

This is almost 2008, not ancient times.

How many people have Christian terrorists killed in the past week, month, year ?

Compare that figure to Islamic terrorists and see what you come up with.

People who like to defend Islamic terrorists always like to mention Abortion bombers. Yeah, there's a real scary group. How many people total have they killed since the beginning of time ? lol

Sorry pal, I'm not worried about any Christian terrorists, lol. Maybe if this were the darkages, then I'd have a different view.

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

You are obviously ignorant, and I don't mean that as an insult, such as what you were attempting to do with your "fox news watcher" comment, but rather as a fact.

Yes, that poll was just from the UK. Things are starting to look much worse when you add in other Islamic countries.

According to poll results, bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. Musharraf's support is 38 percent. U.S. President George W. Bush's approval: 9 percent.

46% of 165,000,000 = 75,9000,000 scumbag Muslims who admire Bin Laden and that's just in Pakistan

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html

If you weren't so ignorant and unknowledgable when it comes to these matters, you'd know that the figure is far greater than your imaginary one percent when you begin to add in other barbaric Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, where a great percentage of people admire savage terrorists. Break out your calculator and find out for yourself, if you're interested in the truth.

As for McVeigh, he was agnostic, so your attempts to characterize the Oklahama City Bombing as being religiously motivated is innacurate.

No im not ignorant, i just read the whole article before jumping to conclusions that the sky is falling and all muslims want to kill us. Lets use your link and post as an example.

You say 46% of all muslims equaling over 75 million people, thats quite a leap if you had read the article. Here is an excerpt from your article

The poll was conducted for Terror Free Tomorrow by D3 Systems of Vienna, Virginia., and the Pakistan Institute for Public Opinion. Interviews were conducted August 18-29, face-to-face with 1,044 Pakistanis across 105 urban and rural sampling points in all four provinces across the nation. Households were randomly selected.




So in fact the poll is based of 1044 Pakistanis, not any other region . So you are basing your perception of muslims based of 1044 in 1 country? I could go to North carolina and find 1044 white guys who want to kill all black people but im smart enough to know that they are a minority and only reflect a small % of the actual population. based off your logic if i can find 1044 white people that hate blacks then that means all white people hate blacks.



No offense greenhead , but you make this too easy. You are exactly what is wrong withthe american public. The knee jerk reaction off stories that George Bush loves, It what got him elected. Fools see 46% of all muslims, educated people read the article and see its not 46% off all muslims, rather 46% off 1044 people polled which is just 480, not the 75 million you claim


Anything else Genius?



Nevermind

 

[okwildfire]

well..its only been done three time's...and only lasted a few seconds in each case...i think pouring some water on em is being a lil TO nice...maybe we should change over to some of there tactic's? minus the head chopping part...i'm so damn happy kids dont rule the world...oh man i can picture it...ohhh please dont hurt him! he only killed 52 people....lol funny...

 

[greenhead]

No offense greenhead , but you make this too easy. You are exactly what is wrong withthe american public. The knee jerk reaction off stories that George Bush loves, It what got him elected. Fools see 46% of all muslims, educated people read the article and see its not 46% off all muslims, rather 46% off 1044 people polled which is just 480, not the 75 million you claim

Anything else Genius?

Nevermind

And no offense intended back of course, but you continue to flaunt your extreme ignorance by either being completely uninformed or pretending that over 1000 people polled is not a fairly accurate representation of the general population within a very small margin of error.

You apparently don't understand the scientific concepts behind polling, and you have obviously never studied the topic in any sort of school for higher learning, but if you went to North Carolina as you suggested and accurately polled 1044 people and they all hated black people, then yes, that would mean that virtually everybody in North Carolina (-/+ 3%) hated black people, and not just 1044 people.

1,000 people polled = -/+ 3 % margin of error
10,000 people polled = -/+ 1 % margin of error

A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that 95% of the time the procedure used would give an estimate within 3% of the percentage to be estimated. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get 500 complete responses it may be necessary to make thousands of phone calls.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

And no offense intended back of course, but you continue to flaunt your extreme ignorance by either being completely uninformed or pretending that over 1000 people polled is not a fairly accurate representation of the general population within a very small margin of error.

You apparently don't understand the scientific concepts behind polling, and you have obviously never studied the topic in any sort of school for higher learning, but if you went to North Carolina as you suggested and accurately polled 1044 people and they all hated black people, then yes, that would mean that virtually everybody in North Carolina (-/+ 3%) hated black people, and not just 1044 people.

1,000 people polled = -/+ 3 % margin of error
10,000 people polled = -/+ 1 % margin of error

A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that 95% of the time the procedure used would give an estimate within 3% of the percentage to be estimated. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get 500 complete responses it may be necessary to make thousands of phone calls.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

First off , its rather amusing you use Wiki as a source. Its not a very good one since anyone ( including me or you) can edit Wiki to say anything you want. so if you care to use a source, make it a reputable one.

Just like with the article, its clear you dont read but you skim thru looking for bits and pieces to support your views. But really, read my post. The initial poll stated 1044 were polled total, out of that number 46% or 480 people out of the total had the same view. so you saying

but if you went to North Carolina as you suggested and accurately polled 1044 people and they all hated black people, then yes, that would mean that virtually everybody in North Carolina (-/+ 3%) hated black people, and not just 1044 people.

Isnt the same as the pakistan poll, not all 1044 had the same view as you mention. Taking less than 1/10 of the population and asking them a few questions ( whom the answers reflect an almost 50/50 split) doesnt show anything at all. their views are a mere drop in the bucket so the population of muslims. Like saying the views of neo nazi's in america represent the views of america as a whole. The entire population of neo nazi's in the USA is not even 1% so using less than 1% as your basis for views on a whole population is silly.

Besides, look at the poll. Sure 46% have a bad view, but they are in the minority. 54% had a positive view. Hell in the USA thats a mandate. remember when Bush got 51% of the vote and calle dit a mandate?


Besides, polls dont mean shit. If they were accurate Kerry would be the President of the USA. Since all the polls showed him winning prior. So using a poll is stupid





Nevermind


when do the kids go back to school? This xmas break has been annoying with kids and too much free time.