Spy agency heads: Dem "report" "biased, inaccurate, and destructive".

[HenryHill9323 65]

Right. We just employ a lesser form of torture than our enemies.

 

We should be so proud.

The goal of our interrogation techniques is to glean intel that will save lives.

 

They behead innocent people to terrorize.

 

There is no comparison.

[jerryskids 7,085]

 

This is a pretty simple dumb argument. How about if the intel was bad and lead to killing civilians or misdirecting our resources that in turn foiled a BS event, while opening ourselves up to an actual terror attack. Then torture would be bad. Right?

 

I am not sure if torture is a proven method of getting good information. But I think if we are claiming that we do not torture, but our enemies know that we do, that will come to be a problem. It gives our enemies something to use against us. I don't think they would care about the report. They already know if this is true or not.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Personally I oppose torture unless there is imminent danger. Personally I find the "torture is always bad" position to be simple dumb.

[HenryHill9323 65]

A nuclear bomb is set to go off in NYC in 12 hours and we've captured a terrorist who knows where it is.

A few million dead Americans is a small price to pay so guys like Worms and Frank M can keep their faux dignity.

[MDC 7,889]

You guys know that a large part of the "intel" we used to support the Iraq war was gathered through torture, pointlessly misdirecting trillions of dollars and resources away from actual legitimate terror threats ... Right?

[Herbivore 1,197]

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Personally I oppose torture unless there is imminent danger. Personally I find the "torture is always bad" position to be simple dumb.

 

The question was is it ok to use torture, the argument was if its good, its good, but if its bad, its bad. To use your example, what if you had 2 terrorists, they knew where a nuclear bomb was, you torture them, but they claim they do not know where it is, 12 hours go by no detonation. Turns out there was no nuclear bomb. What happens then? Can you really pick and choose when you ok torture?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,602]

BS...though, i knew you couldnt admit it.

How does any of it keep American lives safe? bad intel keeps lives safe now?

 

 

What you would do? You have a mid level al qaeda fighter who gets captured on the battlefield. He has SAM's and RPG's. When you ask him nicely where he got them, he tells you to fawk off. After a few hours of Obama interogation, you realize that he is not going to tell you where he got the weapons that kill our soldiers, or who else, and where we might find more of these weapons, you give him a bed and three square meals a day. Our soldiers then die because you didn't do all you could do to save them.

 

What I would do. I would take that mid level al qaeda soldier and ask him how, when, and where he received these weapons. Nicely. When he tells me to fawk off, I use every technique I can to make him tell me what I need to know so my soldiers get to go home to their families in one piece. If that means I have to use sleep deprivation or water boarding, so be it. My actions are insuring that more of my soldiers live because I'm doing everything I can for them.

[jerryskids 7,085]

 

The question was is it ok to use torture, the argument was if its good, its good, but if its bad, its bad. To use your example, what if you had 2 terrorists, they knew where a nuclear bomb was, you torture them, but they claim they do not know where it is, 12 hours go by no detonation. Turns out there was no nuclear bomb. What happens then? Can you really pick and choose when you ok torture?

I think your point involves the level of certainty of an event. I suppose one could argue that there is only 100% certainty after an event occurs, which is true for any event, not just terrorism. Hence we as humans are constantly making decisions based on our perception of the probability.

 

So in my scenario there is a very high probability of the bomb.

 

If instead you are indicting the quality of our intel, I think that is a separate conversation.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

A nuclear bomb is set to go off in NYC in 12 hours and we've captured a terrorist who knows where it is.

Sounds like a job for Jack Bauer

[Mike Honcho 5,435]

Mike did institute that feature: he banned your ass multiple times. But you keep coming back because you're a focking sad sack of a human being

 

Funny how RP responds to every focking post, but this one....crickets.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Funny how RP responds to every focking post, but this one....crickets.

Could it be because it was a poor excuse for coming into a thread and crying about the thread being posted?

 

If one doesn't want to read a thread, or participate in a thread, the simple solution is to not click on the thread. This concept seems to be beyond Worms' ability to comprehend.

[jerryskids 7,085]

Sounds like a job for Jack Bauer

I was going to add "or insert your favorite 24 season here"

[Herbivore 1,197]

I think your point involves the level of certainty of an event. I suppose one could argue that there is only 100% certainty after an event occurs, which is true for any event, not just terrorism. Hence we as humans are constantly making decisions based on our perception of the probability.

 

So in my scenario there is a very high probability of the bomb.

 

If instead you are indicting the quality of our intel, I think that is a separate conversation.

 

You suppose?

[jerryskids 7,085]

 

You suppose?

Yes. I presume the sun will come up tomorrow and act accordingly. I'm kinda bored of trying to guess your point, so why don't you say it?

[Herbivore 1,197]

Yes. I presume the sun will come up tomorrow and act accordingly. I'm kinda bored of trying to guess your point, so why don't you say it?

 

The first point in my original post was that your post was dumb. Childlike really. My second point related to the OP and in general some of the responses, mainly that this report does not shed new light on how and if we torture to the terrorists. They already know that we are doing this. In your scenario, terrorists are tortured and give quality intel, saving American lives. Torture therefore must be good. But what about the next 9 times we torture someone..its the wrong person, leads to bad intel, costs American lives, etc. So torture is not always bad, but you cannot count on when it is good. And therefore maybe torture is not a good way to go.

[Frank M 181]

A few million dead Americans is a small price to pay so guys like Worms and Frank M can keep their faux dignity.

 

 

 

 

I think torture is wrong and beneath us as Americans = I'm willing to sacrifice americans for my dignity.

 

[jerryskids 7,085]

 

The first point in my original post was that your post was dumb. Childlike really. My second point related to the OP and in general some of the responses, mainly that this report does not shed new light on how and if we torture to the terrorists. They already know that we are doing this. In your scenario, terrorists are tortured and give quality intel, saving American lives. Torture therefore must be good. But what about the next 9 times we torture someone..its the wrong person, leads to bad intel, costs American lives, etc. So torture is not always bad, but you cannot count on when it is good. And therefore maybe torture is not a good way to go.

Perhaps English isn't your first language, because the post you initially quoted was a question (not an argument, which I already said) to Sho who said he opposed torture because the intel was bad. I also clarified that I in general oppose it except for imminent danger. If in my scenario we captured the terrorist and got bad intel, we'd be no worse off than if we did nothing.

 

I'm trying to explore the moral limits of torture. In doing so one may, for instance, presume that the bomb will 100% go off and that the torture will provide data to stop it. Would you advocate it's use then? I think we need to answer that basic question before you pull more random numbers out of your ass.

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

 

I think torture is wrong and beneath us as Americans = I'm willing to sacrifice americans for my dignity.

 

Would you use EITs in Jerry's scenario?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Would you use EITs in Jerry's scenario?

"EITs"

 

Here's a tip: if you won't say the word of what it is that you're defending because it has such an awful history and connotation, then you probably shouldn't be defending it

[HenryHill9323 65]

"EITs"

Here's a tip: if you won't say the word of what it is that you're defending because it has such an awful history and connotation, then you probably shouldn't be defending it

Unlike you, I don't let libtard hack DiFi define things for me.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

 

What you would do? You have a mid level al qaeda fighter who gets captured on the battlefield. He has SAM's and RPG's. When you ask him nicely where he got them, he tells you to fawk off. After a few hours of Obama interogation, you realize that he is not going to tell you where he got the weapons that kill our soldiers, or who else, and where we might find more of these weapons, you give him a bed and three square meals a day. Our soldiers then die because you didn't do all you could do to save them.

 

What I would do. I would take that mid level al qaeda soldier and ask him how, when, and where he received these weapons. Nicely. When he tells me to fawk off, I use every technique I can to make him tell me what I need to know so my soldiers get to go home to their families in one piece. If that means I have to use sleep deprivation or water boarding, so be it. My actions are insuring that more of my soldiers live because I'm doing everything I can for them.

 

Yet...techniques you think will make him tell you what you need to know...have shown that he will just tell you what he thinks you want to know (without really giving you anything) so that you will stop.

 

Your actions don't lead to good intel...it has been shown over and over and over that it is one of the least effective ways to gain intel.

Again...you all like to laud guys like McCain...until the point his voice and personal experience tell you that your techniques don't work. Then you forget about him again or ignore what he has said on the topic.

[Frank M 181]

Would you use EITs in Jerry's scenario?

 

You and Jerry can keep your make-believe scenarios.

 

Torture doesn't work and it's beneath us as Americans.

 

On a side note, I'm not sure I've ever seen such epic retardedness from you as in this thread. Congrats, I guess.

[HenryHill9323 65]

You and Jerry can keep your make-believe scenarios.

 

 

C'mon Frankie, man up. It's a simple yes or no question about your values.

 

Don't be squishy when it comes to your values.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Unlike you, I don't let libtard hack DiFi define things for me.

Oh so now Diane Feinstein invented the word "torture"?

[drobeski 3,061]

None have answered if they are OK with drone strikes which often have collateral damage.

[Sho Nuff 720]

None have answered if they are OK with drone strikes which often have collateral damage.

 

Because people don't want to play your game where you try to equate two things that are quite different in order to justify your defense of torture.

[Frank M 181]

C'mon Frankie, man up. It's a simple yes or no question about your values.

 

Don't be squishy when it comes to your values.

 

Can you not read? I said it's wrong and it doesn't work and it's beneath us. Do you think that if you throw in the fantasy of a nuclear bomb or a hundred nuclear bombs,I'm going to say "Well, in that case, I guess we should shove a few nails under some raghead's fingernails" ?

 

Fock, this is drobeski level stupid.

[Reality 3,121]

I guess if somebody keeps repeating something they eventually believe it to be true. To definitively say torture didn't work is extremely disingenuous. Regardless How I feel about torture, saving thousands of lives is a reason to exhaust multiple options for gathering information.

 

6 Former CIA directors strongly disagree with the report.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-directors-interrogation-program-saved-thousands-lives/story?id=27470215

[Frank M 181]

I guess if somebody keeps repeating something they eventually believe it to be true. To definitively say torture didn't work is extremely disingenuous. Regardless How I feel about torture, saving thousands of lives is a reason to exhaust multiple options for gathering information.

 

6 Former CIA directors strongly disagree with the report.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-directors-interrogation-program-saved-thousands-lives/story?id=27470215

 

The guys that run the agency that performed the torture disagree with a report that says torture doesn't work.

 

Color me shocked.

 

[Thornton Melon 648]

 

I will trust a guy who has been there and knows how ineffective torture is...Ill trust the mounds of reports out there showing torture leads to crap intel.

Gut instincts...hah!!!

 

Yeah, well, I'll stick with my gut that tells me that if we hadn't gotten some useful info from these techniques, the CIA wouldn't be using them.

[Reality 3,121]

 

The guys that run the agency that performed the torture disagree with a report that says torture doesn't work.

 

Color me shocked.

 

An extremely partisan Democratic only committee, which didn't bother to conduct 1 single interview, on a witch hunt says it doesn't work.

 

Color me equally as shocked.

[Reality 3,121]

 

Yeah, well, I'll stick with my gut that tells me that if we hadn't gotten some useful info from these techniques, the CIA wouldn't be using them.

I have a feeling most Americans, although initially outraged, will eventually feel the same way.

 

Most of us already knew, in general, this stuff went on.

[MDC 7,889]

You guys know that a large part of the "intel" we used to support the Iraq war was gathered through torture, pointlessly misdirecting trillions of dollars and resources away from actual legitimate terror threats ... Right?

Nothing? I guess "intelligence" gleaned from EITs that results in a botched war that costs us trillions and thousands of dead troops doesn't count ... if you're a Republitard.

 

I'll claim the win here.

[Voltaire 5,491]

Could it be because it was a poor excuse for coming into a thread and crying about the thread being posted?

 

If one doesn't want to read a thread, or participate in a thread, the simple solution is to not click on the thread. This concept seems to be beyond Worms' ability to comprehend.

I think the original point was there was already one thread on the subject and you decided it was better to have three threads on the subject.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Can you not read? I said it's wrong and it doesn't work and it's beneath us. Do you think that if you throw in the fantasy of a nuclear bomb or a hundred nuclear bombs,I'm going to say "Well, in that case, I guess we should shove a few nails under some raghead's fingernails" ?

 

Fock, this is drobeski level stupid.

So I was spot on when I said you wouldn't use EITs on one terrorist to prevent the death of millions of Americans.

 

Disgusting.

[HenryHill9323 65]

An extremely partisan Democratic only committee, which didn't bother to conduct 1 single interview, on a witch hunt says it doesn't work.

Color me equally as shocked.

This guy gets it.

[MDC 7,889]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html?pagewanted=all

 

Whoops! Oh well, if he knew anything we could've saved millions!

 

Unfortunately we blew trillions for nothing.

 

Go torture?

[jerryskids 7,085]

Since I can't get anyone to object to torture in the absolute sense, should I infer that one option is to improve our torture techniques to get more useful info?

[Voltaire 5,491]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html?pagewanted=all

 

Whoops! Oh well, if he knew anything we could've saved millions!

 

Unfortunately we blew trillions for nothing.

 

Go torture?

But Invading Iraq seemed like such a good idea at the time.

[Frank M 181]

So I was spot on when I said you wouldn't use EITs on one terrorist to prevent the death of millions of Americans.

 

Disgusting.

 

More like I was correct that you're an epic retard.

[HenryHill9323 65]

More like I was correct that you're an epic retard.

Step up to the plate, Frankie.

 

Either you would let millions of Americans die or not.

 

One terrorist suffering EITs, or millions of dead Americans.......what side do you fall on?