View Single Post
  #72  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 23rd, 2006, 08:43 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/2...rture-tactics/

Does that change your mind at all Ziggy? It surely rebuts much of your argument so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
If the threat of torture by Americans helps us more than it harms, by all means, waterboarders start your near-asphyxiations!
I find this bit of news interesting, but let's just say I don't find the CIA a much more neutral source on the issue of torture efficacy than the Algerian police.

So the CIA claims they've found more terrorists and uncovered more plots thanks to waterboarding. We have no idea of knowing how real those plots really were, or how many of the names they got were actual terrorists, but whatever. I'm sure some of them were, but we've not been given any real indication of how much good intel came out and how much bad intel came out. I suppose if we knew for a fact that we prevented one terrorist event that absolutely would have gone thru otherwise, it would be worth thousands of man hours of false lead chasing.

I still maintain that the intel is not as reliable as intercepted communications thru infiltration or eavesdropping. The bad guys are less likely to make up lies when they don't know their enemy is standing right there, and I hope you don't need a CIA leak to tell you that. But maybe you don't agree?

We have other options available to us. Ones that are much lower profile. I suspect those should be the focus of our efforts. That may sound like a bit of moral argument, but again, I'm stressing the pragmatic aspects of it.
So, basically, you don't believe the report, right? You watched the video, right? The report was pretty convincing, and it seem to indicate 14 or so terrorists have been waterboarded effectively... pragmatically, even... most of who we've been hearing about on the news for the last few years ago. Sheik Khalid Muhammed? Ring a Bell?

A network news report confirms this. We are left to assume it has done so responsibly, as it's been a few days and nobody has attacked the report as misleading, much less false. On what grounds do you dispute it? Have you looked into this reporter? Do you have information about his bias? LINKY?

Do you also have a few links regarding the major intel we've produced due to some sort of other method of gathering? I only ask because, despite all the hubub over the so-called "domestic spying program" at the NSA, I've yet to see Mr. Bartlett touring the news stations touting intel we uncovered due to stuff like that. I can't seem to find any articles about that, either. I'm kinda at a loss, and apparently aren't as good as you about surfing the intenets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
There are two arguements here, and I ask you again to understand, they are not MY arguments, as I believe I'm fairly detached from the whole thing. There is a moral argument, and there is a pragmatic argument. I've been (mostly) arguing the pragmatic argument, because I thought it was youy basis for "supporting torture".
Well, I've actually been arguing the moral side. Care to address that, since you are so reluctant to admit that torture actually has now been proven to work?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote