Exclusive: Most Americans support torture against terror suspects - poll

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Belgium isn't part of America. I think their hatred of America is real, but we aren't their only target.

That attack on Belgium forced America to increase it's defenses in many areas. We will now have to do that for the next 20 or 30 years, wasting money.

All without even firing a shot at us.

a reply to: Aazadan

True

We're playing a defensive game.

Not offensive.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Which means sit back and wait til were attacked.

Human intelligence could prevent that from happening. IE torture.

".... and the home of the brave."

Rings hollow these days.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

True

We're playing a defensive game.

Not offensive.

What would we realistically be offensive against? The enemy is completely decentralized, and is content to hit soft targets that disrupt our economy. On a budget of about $20 million/year for a decade Al Qaeda made us spend $8 trillion in Iraq and more elsewhere and that was in a single small country that we couldn't contain.

The best way to attack them honestly, is to give them an alternative to attacking us because harsh treatment doesn't work. It just inspires more and it's not a winning strategy. Even if we can stop 99% of attacks against us by using torture, all they need is that 1% and they'll maintain a huge spending advantage against us.

originally posted by: intrepid
".... and the home of the brave."

Rings hollow these days.

It doesn't help when our leaders are such cowards that the lion from Oz is more of a badass.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: intrepid
".... and the home of the brave."

Rings hollow these days.

It doesn't help when our leaders are such cowards that the lion from Oz is more of a badass.

I'm assuming you're talking about the Obama administration. Cool. So we've had "YEEHAW" for 7 years and "Obama does nothing" for 7 years. Both ends of the spectrum. What's the solution then?

originally posted by: neo96
Very few eh.

en.wikipedia.org...

You are changing what is being talked about. I stated "here in the USA". Bnd even so, those totals, on all countries, are petty compared to the death we have waged there.

Don't believe everything you read.

Especially that number by ORB poll. en.wikipedia.org...

Hard saying just how many have died. The question is by who though.

Sure, that's why I put the spread in there (don't you think I would've just put the high number only if I was trying to be disingenuous?). But you know as well as I do, that there are those that squelch the numbers. We squelch them to avoid being accused of all the civilian deaths. They squelch them to not appear like we are doing damage. But the truth is that all of the estimates shown, even by your link, make the total number of deaths carried out by the opposition in The War on Terror seem minuscule when compared to the death and destruction we've created.

No 'we' didn't

AQ did not exist until the soviet withdrawl of Afghanistan in the very late 80s.

Yes we did. So they didn't go by that name yet. Same people. You are mincing words.

Did ya miss this 'war mongering' ?

Did ya miss these 'lies' ?

You mean Carters FISA Act ?

You means CLintons Omnibus Counter Terrorsim Act ?

Ah, I see, you're getting defensive about this for partisan reasons. Of course the Democrats have been part of the problem. I'm not sure where you got that I felt otherwise. Because I quoted Bush about this being a "mission from God"? That was stated for religious context and why they have every reason to believe that we are fighting this war for religious reasons, which I was very clear about.

They all beat the war machine drums, but come on man, don't act like the drums on the republican side don't beat a little harder. See, now you made it be partisan. They are both part of the problem!

Have ANYTHING other than factual inaccuracies ?

I think I answered that. And I'm not sure where you've proven otherwise.

This website sickens me more by the day.

Come to think of it, nowadays the hatred and bile I have to sift through to find actual intriguing content is just not worth the effort.

a reply to: intrepid

You know what they say when you assume. . . .

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrepid

You know what they say when you assume. . . .

So you've got nothing.... as usual. Got it. I was asking for a solution. Not a blurb.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Belgium isn't part of America. I think their hatred of America is real, but we aren't their only target.

That attack on Belgium forced America to increase it's defenses in many areas. We will now have to do that for the next 20 or 30 years, wasting money.

All without even firing a shot at us.

I suspect that the one thing you can take from Al Qaeda: don't attack the US directly.

You nip at the periphery, harass "US Interests", maybe behead a few civilians here and there. But if you attack on our soil directly, the only thing that will save your neighbors is our restraint.

But if you distill the whole thing down: the attack on Belgium is an attack on the US. Europe supports our interests, and is far easier to reach (and will create much, much less backlash....the US really does lose its bowels over a direct attack).

a reply to: intrepid

Option A:

Ban the entire middle east's oil like the world did with African blood diamonds.

Add practically every middle eastern country to the state sponsors of terrorism.

This includes both Saudi Arabia,Iran,Kuwait,Turkey,UAE,Yemen,Syria,Oman etc.

Kick China and Russia off the Un 'security' council since they are arming them.

The west stop arming 'moderates'

That's a beginning.

When that fails.

Boots on the ground, and kill them until they are gone. No half asses measures.

No winning hearts and minds.

No 'nation building'.

Kill them, and break their will to fight.

That means bringing the entire resources of this country to bear. Like we did in world war 2.

A combined effort from everyone.

And lastly keep the effing politics out of it.

Get it done.

a reply to: neo96

I meant viable options. I don't think you could implement 1 of those.

a reply to: intrepid

A solution?

No And I'm being honest.

A solution would win you the Nobel. I ain't that smart.

But the way we're fighting now, is wrong. Even a blind man can see that.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

I meant viable options. I don't think you could implement 1 of those.

If the west had any snips they would.

I know it's never going to happen though.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

But the way we're fighting now, is wrong. Even a blind man can see that.

which is really the point, now isn't it?

We are here, talking about this, and none of it really makes a whole lotta sense.

Lies seldom do, though.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Exactly. Ideologies can't be beat with weapons. People can't get together without understanding. And trust me, I know more than 1 Muslim that LOVES pork ribs. "Don't tell Mom."

There was the same type of fear when Lebanese came here in the 70's. Turned out to be AWESOME for our culture.

It's an ugly world is all I have to say.

From swordfish.

You might not like it but It's the reason many of us sleep tight at night.

Gabriel: You don’t understand what it takes to protect those freedoms. That’s my job, Stanley. To protect your way of life.
Stanley: So you and your band of lunatics are really stealing all this money just to protect little old me.
Gabriel: That’s right, Stanley. Because wars cost money.
Stanley: War? Who are we at war with?
Gabriel: Anyone who impinges on America’s freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.“

a reply to: thesaneone

How's that working out for you?