It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



I did read the article. Convincing? Not really. One has to assume that first, the Egyptians obtained false information from their torture.


How do you explain that every claim turned out to be false and went against the other intelligence was obtained?


, second, that declaration of war was based on ONLY that information,

Article never claims that.


third, there was no other information that would negate his allegations


Like what for instance?

Still waiting for those links so we can continue discussing what drove us into war.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


One, what other intelligence, that negated the claim? Two, I'm sooo glad the article never claimed that it was the only source. So are you telling me that while this data was suspect, there was valued information that supported the allegations brought against Saddam?Three, was information was there that might have supported the fact that Saddam wasn't supporting terrorists.

And if you want those links I will get them for you but to obtain the proper references might take a little time. Pleae be patient.




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



And if you want those links I will get them for you but to obtain the proper references might take a little time. Pleae be patient.

We'll continue this debate when you present them then. Thanks.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
[
Edit to add: How is information after a war started relevant? You need solid information to go there in the first place. There was no solid information, only false intelligence.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Information gathered after the war started only SUPPORTED in initial intel. And if all the initial intel was 'false' then how could you have intel that verified that 'false' info.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



And if all the initial intel was 'false' then how could you have intel that verified that 'false' info.

I'll answer this one question for you, it was verified that it was false because there was true intelligence that said that it was false before the war began and confirmed after. This was ignored, they chose the other intelligence because they wanted war.



[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 

As for the torture and death of the individual what did he have to do with the Yellow Cake purchases in Africa?

LINK www.msnbc.msn.com...

What did he have to do with the ties to German chemical manufacturing contracts with Saddam?

LINK www.fas.org...

What did he have to do with the contacts with Syria and the stogage of chemical biological weapons?

LINK www.nysun.com...


Hope this answers some of your questions, I can provide more links to the above topics if required.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Look, if anyone here can convince me that more lives can be saved, that the war can end quicker without torture, please tell me.
I would love to hear a solution to this mess that doesn't require 'dirty' 'wet' work.
We are dealing with a group of individuals that do not hold the same ssanctity to life that the western cultures do. So the same approach that we would use towards our more conventional foes just doesn't apply here.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


First let's address this one:


What did he have to do with the contacts with Syria and the stogage of chemical biological weapons?

LINK www.nysun.com...



Later U.S.-led inspections concluded that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, though not its intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[10] President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq.[11]


en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.guardian.co.uk...


Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

www.salon.com...



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


One article, obviously taken out of context. If Saddam didn't have WMD then how did thousands of those Kurds die? Swine Flu? Terminal dandruff?

The arguement against him not having WMD is patently false!



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


Typical idiotic hypocritical liberal comments. Oh - the travesty of pouring water on the poor terrorists head - but its ok to do it to the radio guys I don't agree with.

This typifies the hypocrisy of the liberal mentality. Kiss Osama Bin Laden's "freedom fighters" on the rear and attack their own countrymen in the name of political views.

The liberals are no more against waterboarding than consevatives are. Its just a "trendy" cause for them and one of the last aspects of the Bush administration they can admonish now that their own regime is failing miserably after 4 months in control.

Liberals being anti-waterboarding is just a new "trend" - it didn't bother any of them in late 2001- NONE of them - including Pelosi. But boy - they sure like pointing their arrogant fingers now!



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
If your theory is being put forth as a guarantee, then I would have to ask, do you also offer a Money Back promise with that?


I can also promise that you will spend less money over-all if you get everything out now, than if you wait however much longer, pumping more money over there day by day, etc. and then pulling out. So we would have to spend less money either way.

I know it's not going to happen though, because me and you don't get a voice in it. They're getting ready for the long haul. Iran next in our conquest, right?

[edit on 22-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


One article, obviously taken out of context. If Saddam didn't have WMD then how did thousands of those Kurds die? Swine Flu? Terminal dandruff?

The arguement against him not having WMD is patently false!


He did have them, not during the time period you're thinking of though. Please show where the context is not clear?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Torture or not, true criminals (not those in the rightwing reports who are headed off to fema camps like all of us...lol) lose certain rights when captured. In this case, I would personally define torture as not damaging someone physically or mentally, but doing what is necessary to save innocent lives. I understand the worry over the techniques used in the case of attempting to get innocents to respond in order to convict them anyway, but if it is a known terrorist (IE if we had Tim Ossman/Osama Bin Laden in custody) who cares if he is mentally or physically provoked into releasing valuable information?

He isn't being deprived of life, limb, or overall health if he is waterboarded. If he thinks he is dying, so be it if it saves even one innocent life. Not just American lives, but any nationality.

I don't think that the govt necessarily has been correct in how they approached releasing this information, or how they have administered these techniques so liberally, but for high value criminals NOT SUSPECTS, I don't have a problem with advanced interrogation, which is only torture if you are attempting to get someone to admit to something they didn't do...or just want to watch them suffer for no reason...think about it. These were the ways real torture devices were used in the middle ages...the rack, the hanging cage, the pear (nasty device!), the breast ripper, etc...

1 Criminal Life != 1 innocent



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Second this one:


What did he have to do with the ties to German chemical manufacturing contracts with Saddam?

LINK www.fas.org...



Alleged German participation to aid Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction

Two thousand Iranians who received injuries due to chemical warfare during the Iran–Iraq War (1980-1988) submitted an indictment some years ago with a Tehran court against nine companies that had provided Saddam Hussein, then president of Iraq, with precursors of the chemical agents used in the Iran–Iraq War. Several American and European companies provided aid to Iraq during its war with Iran. The United Nations published a 12,000-page report about the conflict, naming also companies involved. After his fall, the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was brought to trial by an Iraqi tribunal; Iranian chemical victims were not allowed to be present in the closed-door trial, and the issue of Iranian victims was not part of the agenda in the tribunal. However, a violation of international law by German companies was not part of the findings of this court. en.wikipedia.org...



Both your article and the above confirms that Germany helped Iraq gain chemicals in the past. How is any of that relevant to invading Iraq? Please provide a link that claims this was part of the reason we went into Iraq. Can find no such statements involving an Iraq time line or the administration and it is not in the article that you posted.


[edit on 23-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



Well I'm glad the issue has changed from "if" he had WMD to "when".
I can obviously research time lines but that is besides the point. He had them. He was willing to use them. He HAD used them.
Are you saying that because he 'used' them earlier, that he didn't have or wouldn't have used them later?

If torturing just one dumb SOB could've saved their lives, would it have been worth it?

Or would we be hanging our heads in shame because we tortured one person to save thousands.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



What did he have to do with the contacts with Syria and the stogage of chemical biological weapons?

LINK www.nysun.com...



Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

So he talked to a magazine and made claims in a book? So what? Nothing he says has been validated. Not. One. Bit. Of. It.

The CIAs take on this (from your article):

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group acknowledged in its September 30, 2004, "Comprehensive Report," "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war. Reports of such actions exist, but we have not yet been able to investigate this possibility thoroughly."



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



Are you saying that because he 'used' them earlier, that he didn't have or wouldn't have used them later?

He was no longer in possession of them, he gave them to Syria in the 90's.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


The issue with German chemical companies substanciated evidence that Saddam was building chemical stockpiles. Hell I could've added GE in with it as well as probably half dozen American companies if I look hard enough.

You're missing the point though, your issue was with so-called false information brought about by torture. I'm saying that regardless of his specific information there was still enough supporting evidence to go in there.

We can only speculate as to what would've happened if we never would have gone in there. We can only speculate as to whether or nott lives would've been saved from waterboarding.

But do you REALLY want to bet the lives of Americans here and overseas on that speculation?

I couldn't.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



If torturing just one dumb SOB could've saved their lives, would it have been worth it?

Or would we be hanging our heads in shame because we tortured one person to save thousands.


Nope.

1. You can not just torture people when you feel like it, no matter who he is, then you open the door for all kinds of the things that we did, like torturing innocents people.
2. You can translate that same excuse to any number of things. You can say why can't we torture the American who is planning an attack, why can't we torture the American who we think is hiding a girl he abducted somewhere, etc, etc, etc.
3. Torture is not the best method for gaining information, so why approve of it?

Torture is not justifiable, you cross the line that says it is in any way and you open a can of warms.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



I'm saying that regardless of his specific information there was still enough supporting evidence to go in there.

But you haven't produced any supporting evidence that was factual.

You have not been able to disregard the confessions MAJOR involvement in going to Iraq.

And you have not linked the German issue to us invading Iraq, please do so if you wish to continue this claim.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Just because Mancow is a wussy does not mean waterboarding is torture.


Waterboarding is NOT torture.
IF it was torture, then I guess the military tortures it's own troops since it is part of their training.


Easy to say if you haven't tried it.

Oh and yes, according to some of those that went through the military exercise like Jesse Ventura did, it is torture.

If it wasn't such an effective tool, and only broke the will of "girly men" then why even use it?
Why did the Viet Cong use it on their POW's?
Why not use it on citizens here in the United States?


Originally posted by WhatTheory
IF it was torture, that Shiek fellow would be dead since he got the treatment something like 83 times.

Waterboarding is mental and not physical.


The recipient of the torture isn't supposed to die, or the whole point of the torture would be negated.

tor·ture

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.


Mental is covered under the definition of torture so I really don't see your point.
Mental torture is probably one of the most powerful forms of torture.

- Lee



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join