Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 The Science of Torture

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/19/2013, 3:31 pm

I see, so the only fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the only one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.


Got it, you think people who torture, are "compelling."

I have no problem acknowledging that fact, honestly.

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/19/2013, 4:23 pm

edge540 wrote:
I see, so the only fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the only one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.


Got it, you think people who torture, are "compelling."

I have no problem acknowledging that fact, honestly.




This is what you claim I said:


edge540 wrote:
I see, so the only fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the only one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.



This is what I actually said:


happy jack wrote:

One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator ….



The difference between what I said and what you claim I said?
Quite a lot, actually.
What you said I said was a flat-out lie.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/19/2013, 4:53 pm

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Yeah,but you already admitted that he's allegedly based on a real person.
happy jack wrote:
One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator who used the enhanced interrogation techniques,

[b]I would not be at all surprised to learn that he is based on a real person or a composite of several real persons.
Would you?
I have no idea since I don't spend my time fantasizing about fictional characters. Btw,you still haven't answered any of Heretic's questions...
Heretic wrote:

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/20/2013, 8:00 am

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
I see, so the only fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the only one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.


Got it, you think people who torture, are "compelling."

I have no problem acknowledging that fact, honestly.




This is what you claim I said:


edge540 wrote:
I see, so the only fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the only one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.



This is what I actually said:


happy jack wrote:

One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator ….



The difference between what I said and what you claim I said?
Quite a lot, actually.
What you said I said was a flat-out lie.

Make that:
I see, so the fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.

Got it, you think people who torture, are "compelling."

I have no problem acknowledging that fact, honestly.

Like I said before, interesting.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/20/2013, 10:26 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
I see, so the only fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the only one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.


Got it, you think people who torture, are "compelling."

I have no problem acknowledging that fact, honestly.




This is what you claim I said:


edge540 wrote:
I see, so the only fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the only one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.



This is what I actually said:


happy jack wrote:

One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator ….



The difference between what I said and what you claim I said?
Quite a lot, actually.
What you said I said was a flat-out lie.

Make that:
I see, so the fictional character in the movie that evokes your interest, the one you're fixated on, is a character who tortures people.

Got it, you think people who torture, are "compelling."

I have no problem acknowledging that fact, honestly.

Like I said before, interesting.



Fixated?
No, I don’t think so.
I kind of just mentioned it in passing.
You, on the other hand, seem to have latched onto it like Rosie O’Donnell on a pork chop.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/20/2013, 11:51 am

happy jack wrote:

Fixated?
No, I don’t think so.
I kind of just mentioned it in passing.
You, on the other hand, seem to have latched onto it like Rosie O’Donnell on a pork chop.

Uh huh
I haven't seen the movie yet but I have read at least 15 reviews of the movie. Funny there is no mention in any of them about how "compelling" the torturer is in the movie. None of the people that I know who have seen the movie mentioned anything about the torturer being "compelling."
None, zip, nada.
You're the only one.

And BTW, you don't fuck with Rosie O'Donnell
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/20/2013, 1:20 pm

I wrote:
Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?

Predictably, they've gone unanswered, as the larger point of this thread has as well:

I wrote:
So even if it had provided key information (it didn't), and even if it had provided information we couldn't have gotten any other way (it most likely didn't, especially considering that we wouldn't have been distracted by Iraq without it), it's still a desperate cherry pick done to justify an unreliable program. And its no justification for it now anymore than it was two years ago.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/20/2013, 1:27 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Fixated?
No, I don’t think so.
I kind of just mentioned it in passing.
You, on the other hand, seem to have latched onto it like Rosie O’Donnell on a pork chop.

Uh huh
I haven't seen the movie yet but I have read at least 15 reviews of the movie. Funny there is no mention in any of them about how "compelling" the torturer is in the movie. None of the people that I know who have seen the movie mentioned anything about the torturer being "compelling."
None, zip, nada.
You're the only one.

And BTW, you don't fuck with Rosie O'Donnell

A combination of words I never want to see within the same sentence are 'fuck' and 'Rosie O'Donnell'.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/20/2013, 2:16 pm

Heretic wrote:
I wrote:
Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?

Predictably, they've gone unanswered, as the larger point of this thread has as well:
Once again he ends up looking like an uninformed stooge.
I wrote:
So even if it had provided key information (it didn't), and even if it had provided information we couldn't have gotten any other way (it most likely didn't, especially considering that we wouldn't have been distracted by Iraq without it), it's still a desperate cherry pick done to justify an unreliable program. And its no justification for it now anymore than it was two years ago.
Here's what John McCain said about it...
John McCain: 'Zero Dark Thirty' Torture Depiction Is Wrong
Quote :
"Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information," McCain said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, backed up McCain's assessment that waterboarding of Mohammed did not produce the tip that led to bin Laden.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/22/2013, 3:38 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
"Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information," McCain said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, backed up McCain's assessment that waterboarding of Mohammed did not produce the tip that led to bin Laden.



I don’t know that Panetta was referencing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when he made these statements.
Here are Panetta’s own words:



”Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used,” he admitted.
………
"Some of the detainees who provided useful information...had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques," he continued. "Whether those techniques were the 'only timely and effective way' to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively."


What he is clearly saying is that useful information was obtained through “enhanced interrogation techniques”, and that there is no way to definitively establish that the same useful information could have or would have been obtained through other methods.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/22/2013, 4:38 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
"Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information," McCain said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, backed up McCain's assessment that waterboarding of Mohammed did not produce the tip that led to bin Laden.



[b]I don’t know that Panetta was referencing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when he made these statements.
Are you both blind and ignorant? Rolling Eyes Reread the post.

After you finish that,how about answering Heretic's questions.?
Heretic wrote:

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/22/2013, 6:03 pm

Artie60438 wrote:

Are you both blind and ignorant? Rolling Eyes Reread the post.


When he made these statements - pay attention.


”Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used,” he admitted.
………
"Some of the detainees who provided useful information...had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques," he continued. "Whether those techniques were the 'only timely and effective way' to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively."

What he is clearly saying is that useful information was obtained through “enhanced interrogation techniques”, and that there is no way to definitively establish that the same useful information could have or would have been obtained through other methods.
And there is no indication that these statements were in reference to Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/23/2013, 11:19 am

happy jack wrote:

pay attention.
I am. What I've noticed is you still have no answer to Heretic's questions. Shocked
Heretic wrote:

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer his questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/23/2013, 12:21 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

pay attention.
I am. What I've noticed is you still have no answer to Heretic's questions. Shocked
Heretic wrote:

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer his questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.



There are still some questions outstanding that I've asked of you and you have yet to answer.
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer my questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/23/2013, 4:38 pm

cowardly troll and uninformed stooge wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

pay attention.
I am. What I've noticed is you still have no answer to Heretic's questions. Shocked
Heretic wrote:

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer his questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.



[b]There are still some questions outstanding that I've asked of you and you have yet to answer.
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer my questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/23/2013, 4:58 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
cowardly troll and uninformed stooge wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

pay attention.
I am. What I've noticed is you still have no answer to Heretic's questions. Shocked
Heretic wrote:

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer his questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.



There are still some questions outstanding that I've asked of you and you have yet to answer.
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer my questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.






Have you forgotten these exchanges already?
My, my.
Dishonest and senile.
Helluva combination.



Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:45 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
You can't even keep your lies straight,can you?

And which lies would those be?



Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:19 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Slow day in trolltown? I'm still waiting for you to explain why there is no rioting in the US over the movie?
There is no mass rioting in the U.S. because the would-be rioters do not have home-field advantage, and they know that they would get their miserable asses kicked for attempting such a thing. That should be obvious to normal people.
Really? That's going to scare them? You don't think rioters in other countries never suffer consequences? They could hold mass demonstrations here,yet I don't believe they have. No suicide bombings either. Your answer simply makes no sense.
Quote :
Now, as to your answer to my question:

Do you believe that this country should ban further showings or distribution of this movie, seeing as how much trouble it has allegedly caused?
Not at the present time.

Under what circumstances do you think they would be justified in doing so?

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Slow day in trolltown? I'm still waiting for you to explain why there is no rioting in the US over the movie?
There is no mass rioting in the U.S. because the would-be rioters do not have home-field advantage, and they know that they would get their miserable asses kicked for attempting such a thing. That should be obvious to normal people.
Really? That's going to scare them? You don't think rioters in other countries never suffer consequences? They could hold mass demonstrations here,yet I don't believe they have. No suicide bombings either. Your answer simply makes no sense.
Quote :
Now, as to your answer to my question:

Do you believe that this country should ban further showings or distribution of this movie, seeing as how much trouble it has allegedly caused?
Not at the present time.

Under what circumstances do you think they would be justified in doing so?
Sleep

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Slow day in trolltown? I'm still waiting for you to explain why there is no rioting in the US over the movie?
There is no mass rioting in the U.S. because the would-be rioters do not have home-field advantage, and they know that they would get their miserable asses kicked for attempting such a thing. That should be obvious to normal people.
Really? That's going to scare them? You don't think rioters in other countries never suffer consequences? They could hold mass demonstrations here,yet I don't believe they have. No suicide bombings either. Your answer simply makes no sense.
Quote :
Now, as to your answer to my question:

Do you believe that this country should ban further showings or distribution of this movie, seeing as how much trouble it has allegedly caused?
Not at the present time.

[b]Under what circumstances do you think they would be justified in doing so?
Sleep

By saying this ....
Artie60438 wrote:
Not at the present time.
.... you clearly think that there is a time when such censorship would be appropriate.
When do you think that time would be?

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
You don't think rioters in other countries never suffer consequences?

Such as?
Too complicated for you to google middle east riots crackdown? Palestinians for starters.

Thanks. I'll do that.
Now - too complicated to give a straight answer to ....?

happy jack wrote:
By saying this ....
Artie60438 wrote:
Not at the present time.
.... you clearly think that there is a time when such censorship would be appropriate.
When do you think that time would be?

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Thanks. I'll do that.
Now - too complicated to give a straight answer to ....?

happy jack wrote:
By saying this ....
Artie60438 wrote:
Not at the present time.
.... you clearly think that there is a time when such censorship would be appropriate.
When do you think that time would be?
1)You have no idea what I think.
2) I'm not interested in engaging in an endless hypothetical with you.
Find somewhere else to troll.
Sleep

AND THEN:

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Man, I really don't think that the censorship question is hypothetical. I'm sure that many people have thought about it, given the fallout from this video.

For what it's worth, I consider Jack's question entirely relevant, and I will answer it.

Censoring or banning this video, no matter how repugnant it may be, is not how we roll in America. I'd be interested to hear any argument in favor of censorship in a situation like this, but in my mind, it's clearly protected speech, covered by the First Amendment.
I'm not advocating censorship. I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.

[b]And that would be ....?

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Man, I really don't think that the censorship question is hypothetical. I'm sure that many people have thought about it, given the fallout from this video.

For what it's worth, I consider Jack's question entirely relevant, and I will answer it.

Censoring or banning this video, no matter how repugnant it may be, is not how we roll in America. I'd be interested to hear any argument in favor of censorship in a situation like this, but in my mind, it's clearly protected speech, covered by the First Amendment.
I'm not advocating censorship. I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.

Artie:

It’s been hours since your claim that you have a way “as to how to deal with this type garbage”, and we have yet to hear your plan.

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Meanwhile, the Middle East is in a state of chaos, and all the major players wait with bated breath for your solution.

I'd like to know what would be YOUR solution.

Waiting with bated breath.
Moi?
Unlike Artie, I never claimed to have one.

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
In other words, .99999? did not choose to participate.

.... yet.

So, where is that solution of yours?
Is it hiding in the same undisclosed location as that of Harry Reid's Mitt-Romney-didn't-pay-income-tax-for-10-years source?


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

happy jack wrote:


Artie60438 wrote:
I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.

Waiting to hear your solution.

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:
I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.
Waiting to hear your solution.

You're gonna have a long wait. Sleep

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:
I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.
Waiting to hear your solution.

You're gonna have a long wait. Sleep
I was never actually expecting to hear your solution.
I have had enough experience with you to know that you were lying from the get-go.

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:
I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.
Waiting to hear your solution.

You're gonna have a long wait. Sleep
I was never actually expecting to hear your solution.
I have had enough experience with you to know that you were lying from the get-go.
What did I lie about,Einstein? The fact that I have no intention of getting into a useless hypothetical discussion with you and thus will not share my ideas does not constitute a lie.

I suggest you calm down,stop your tantrum,and move on.

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
What did I lie about,Einstein?

Artie60438 wrote:
I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.


[b]Making claims that you cannot back up is the very definition of lying.

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
What did I lie about,Einstein?

Artie60438 wrote:
I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.
Making claims that you cannot back up is the very definition of lying.
Since you don't know what my idea is,how could you possibly know if I could back it up?


Your comment is a prime example of why I choose to limit the amount of time I waste on you. Please continue chasing your tail Laughing

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
What did I lie about,Einstein?

Artie60438 wrote:
I have a different idea as to how to deal with this type garbage.
[b]Making claims that you cannot back up is the very definition of lying.
Since you don't know what my idea is,how could you possibly know if I could back it up?



The very fact that you cannot even verbalize this imaginary solution of yours is proof enough that you are lying about having such a solution.
See my comment on Harry Reid in the 10.0 thread- same principle.

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
The fact I choose not to verbalize it proves nothing.

[b]Yes, it does.
It proves that you are either a liar, or a weasel.
You pick.




Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/24/2013, 9:41 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
cowardly troll and uninformed stooge wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

pay attention.
I am. What I've noticed is you still have no answer to Heretic's questions. Shocked
Heretic wrote:

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer his questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.



[b]There are still some questions outstanding that I've asked of you and you have yet to answer.
The way I see it,you have 3 choices...
1)Answer my questions
2)Admit that you can't
3)Continue to act like the coward that you are by ignoring the repeated requests.


Have you forgotten these exchanges already?
My, my.
Dishonest and senile.
Helluva combination.
Wow! Someone has accumulated quite the dossier Shocked Obsess about me much?

As to Sluggo's accusation.....I did share my idea with Scorpion and others. I chose not to share it with him in order to avoid an endless exchange about a hypothetical idea with a lazy troll that doesn't do any research and constantly ignores rebuttal facts that are presented to him.

As to the cowardly troll's latest temper tantrum,it's nothing more than his usual tactic of trying to take the discussion off track in order to dodge legitimate questions. Let me illustrate further....
Heretic's questions were posed on Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:15 am. 6 days later and still no answer Rolling Eyes Instead,Sluggo decides to resurrect an exchange with me that happened 5 months ago in another foolish attempt to avoid the responsibility of answering Heretic's legitimate questions.
Your move,Jacko Laughing
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/24/2013, 10:41 am

Artie60438 wrote:
.
Your move,Jacko Laughing

Actually, it’s your move, and has been for some time.
But you can’t answer the questions, can you?




Artie60438 wrote:
Heretic's questions were posed on Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:15 am. 6 days later and still no answer Rolling Eyes Instead,Sluggo decides to resurrect an exchange with me that happened 5 months ago in another foolish attempt to avoid the responsibility of answering Heretic's legitimate questions.

Is Heretic truly so desperately concerned about me answering his questions that he sent his eunuch slave boy to pester me by proxy?
(Just out of curiosity, what kind of costume does he make you wear?)
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/24/2013, 9:27 pm

The only real question regarding your drudging up 2 yr old info I'm interested in seeing answered is ... what exactly is your point?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/24/2013, 11:49 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
.
Your move,Jacko Laughing

[b]Actually, it’s your move, and has been for some time.
But you can’t answer the questions, can you?
What questions?

Artie60438 wrote:
Heretic's questions were posed on Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:15 am. 6 days later and still no answer Rolling Eyes Instead,Sluggo decides to resurrect an exchange with me that happened 5 months ago in another foolish attempt to avoid the responsibility of answering Heretic's legitimate questions.
village idiot wrote:
Is Heretic truly so desperately concerned about me answering his questions that he sent his eunuch slave boy to pester me by proxy?
(Just out of curiosity, what kind of costume does he make you wear?)
And right on schedule the board's nominee for dumbest man on the internet responds with his default tactic when cornered...attacking my manhood. Thanks for another cheap laugh at your expense Laughing

Oh,and btw,Heretic did note your inability to answer his questions
[quote]
Heretic wrote:
I wrote:
Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?

Predictably, they've gone unanswered
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/25/2013, 5:54 am

Artie60438 wrote:


I did share my idea with Scorpion and others. I chose not to share it with him in order to avoid an endless exchange about a hypothetical idea with a lazy troll that doesn't do any research and constantly ignores rebuttal facts that are presented to him.


Artie60438 wrote:
Heretic's questions were posed on Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:15 am. 6 days later and still no answer

Seeing as how you answered the questions I asked of you not by giving me an answer, but rather by providing your answer to “Scorpion and others”, I have answered Heretic’s questions not by posting my answers on the board, but rather by sharing them with a guy in South Chicago who stands on the corner wearing two hats and screaming at passing cars.
So yes, I have answered Heretic’s questions.
I would say that makes us even.
Fair’s fair, right?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/25/2013, 5:55 am

Artie60438 wrote:
And right on schedule the board's nominee for dumbest man on the internet responds with his default tactic when cornered...attacking my manhood.

Can't attack what ain't there.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/25/2013, 9:20 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:


I did share my idea with Scorpion and others. I chose not to share it with him in order to avoid an endless exchange about a hypothetical idea with a lazy troll that doesn't do any research and constantly ignores rebuttal facts that are presented to him.


Artie60438 wrote:
Heretic's questions were posed on Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:15 am. 6 days later and still no answer

[b]Seeing as how you answered the questions I asked of you not by giving me an answer, but rather by providing your answer to “Scorpion and others”, I have answered Heretic’s questions not by posting my answers on the board, but rather by sharing them with a guy in South Chicago who stands on the corner wearing two hats and screaming at passing cars.
So yes, I have answered Heretic’s questions.
I would say that makes us even.
Fair’s fair, right?
Looks like a win-win for me Very Happy: The less interaction I have to have with you,the better. However,feel free to keep amusing me while further embarrassing yourself. Laughing


Last edited by Artie60438 on 2/25/2013, 9:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/25/2013, 9:27 am

Torture, Lies and Hollywood
Quote :

By ALI H. SOUFAN

I WATCHED “Zero Dark Thirty” not as a former F.B.I. special agent who spent a decade chasing, interrogating and prosecuting top members of Al Qaeda but as someone who enjoys Hollywood movies. As a movie, I enjoyed it. As history, it’s bunk.

The film opens with the words “Based on Firsthand Accounts of Actual Events.” But the filmmakers immediately pass fiction off as history, when a character named Ammar is tortured and afterward, it’s implied, gives up information that leads to Osama bin Laden.

Ammar is a composite character who bears a strong resemblance to a real-life terrorist, Ammar al-Baluchi. In both the film and real life he was a relative of Bin Laden’s lieutenant, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But the C.I.A. has repeatedly said that only three detainees were ever waterboarded. The real Mr. Baluchi was not among them, and he didn’t give up information that led to Bin Laden.

In fact, torture led us away from Bin Laden. After Mr. Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times, he actually played down the importance of the courier who ultimately led us to Bin Laden. Numerous investigations, most recently a 6,300-page classified report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have reached the same conclusion:
enhanced interrogation didn’t work. Portraying torture as effective risks misleading the next generation of Americans that one of our government’s greatest successes came about because of the efficacy of torture. It’s a disservice both to our history and our national security.

While filmmakers have the right to say what they want, government officials don’t have the right to covertly provide filmmakers with false information to promote their own interests. Providing selective information about a classified program means there is no free market of ideas, but a controlled market subject to manipulation. That’s an abuse of power.

John O. Brennan, a former C.I.A. official and now President Obama’s nominee to head the agency, recently testified that the classified report raised “serious questions” about information he received when he was the agency’s deputy executive director. Mr. Brennan said publicly what many of us — who were in interrogation rooms when the program was devised — have been warning about for years: senior officials, right up to the president himself, were misled about the enhanced interrogation program.

For instance, a 2005 Justice Department memo claimed that waterboarding led to the capture of the American-born Qaeda member Jose Padilla in 2003. Actually, he was arrested in 2002, months before waterboarding began, after an F.B.I. colleague and I got details about him from a terrorist named Abu Zubaydah. Because no one checked the dates, the canard about Mr. Padilla was repeated as truth.

When agents heard senior officials citing information we knew was false, we were barred from speaking out. After President George W. Bush gave a speech containing falsehoods in 2006 — I believe his subordinates lied to him — I was told by one of my superiors: “This is still classified. Just because the president is talking about it doesn’t mean that we can.”

Some of these memos, and reports pointing out their inaccuracies, have been declassified, but they are also heavily redacted. So are books on the subject, including my own.

Meanwhile, promoters of torture get to hoodwink journalists, authors and Hollywood producers while selectively declassifying material and providing false information that fits their narrative.

The creators of “Zero Dark Thirty” attempted to document the greatest global manhunt of our generation. But they did so without acknowledging that their “history” was based on dubious sources.

The filmmakers took the “firsthand accounts” of a few current and former officials with an agenda and amplified their message worldwide — suggesting to Americans in cinemas around the country, and regimes overseas, that torture is effective and helped lead to Bin Laden. There is no suggestion in the movie that another narrative exists.

Hollywood is primarily about entertainment. The moral responsibility for setting history straight, ensuring the public isn’t misled, and making sure mistakes aren’t repeated falls to Congress and the president. Yet the Senate report remains classified, and only those with security clearances, like Mr. Brennan, can read how the public was misled.

It’s the duty of the president and Congress to responsibly declassify the report — and the other documents that advocates of torture don’t want released.

That’s the only way to ensure that future generations won’t ever go down that dark and dangerous path again. As Senator John McCain has said, the Senate report “has the potential to set the record straight once and for all” and end “a stain on our country’s conscience.”

Once that’s done, it won’t be long before another Hollywood movie comes along to tell the real story about how America killed Bin Laden.

Ali H. Soufan is a former F.B.I. special agent who interrogated Qaeda detainees and the author of “The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda.”
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   2/25/2013, 10:53 am

Quote :
Portraying torture as effective risks misleading the next generation of Americans that one of our government’s greatest successes came about because of the efficacy of torture. It’s a disservice both to our history and our national security.

That bears repeating.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Science of Torture   

Back to top Go down
 
The Science of Torture
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: