Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Missin21

I am. And then some.

I say go after their families. They are born to die for their cause & take as many Americans & Jews with them as possible, but they know in doing so, their families will be protected & provided for by their governments. You take that protection away, you take away that motivation.

That's why the USSR never had a problem with terrorist. The KGB kidnapped their families and sent back videos with ears and toes.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If Obama released the means of torture then why if it didn't work did he not release the results from what YOU call torture?

Are you suggesting the only reason the result weren't released is because they worked? A) Obama didn't release the means of torture, everyone already knew we were water-boarding so the release of the memos is immaterial and B) Obama professed in one of his speeches that torture might have worked though there are alternatives to torturing people to get information.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

That's why the USSR never had a problem with terrorist. The KGB kidnapped their families and sent back videos with ears and toes.

LOL...Afghani rebels and Chechen rebels anyone? Notice how we call them rebels here in the states and not terrorists.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...Afghani rebels and Chechen rebels anyone? Notice how we call them rebels here in the states and not terrorists.

Trample is right, You are wrong. imagine that!!!!
Rebels fight in their homeland against a govt and mostly as an organized resistance army. Terrorists attack innocents, usually, in distant lands. Trample said the USSR, not Russia, and there was/is a distinct difference. Afghani rebels fought the Soviets, in Afghanistan, successfully. But you never saw any successful terrorist attacks in Moscow/St. Petersburg. Your Chechen rebels comment just doesn't really apply to the USSR.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...Afghani rebels and Chechen rebels anyone? Notice how we call them rebels here in the states and not terrorists.

Speak for yourself. I don't call them rebels. You must be referring to the liberal media. I was thinking more along the lines of the PLO, Hezzbollah, and Islamic Jihad. They tried to get ballsey with the Russians but the KGB wasn't having it. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Chechnya is part of Russia. I would have just nuked Afghanistan. Why waste time with torturing them when you can microwave every since soul in less than a second?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Trample is right, You are wrong. imagine that!!!!
Rebels fight in their homeland against a govt and mostly as an organized resistance army. Terrorists attack innocents, usually, in distant lands. Trample said the USSR, not Russia, and there was/is a distinct difference. Afghani rebels fought the Soviets, in Afghanistan, successfully. But you never saw any successful terrorist attacks in Moscow/St. Petersburg. Your Chechen rebels comment just doesn't really apply to the USSR.

This has got to be the most contorted argument ever. I guess Iraqis can't be terrorists. One man's terrorists are another's rebels and according to the USSR Afghani rebels were terrorists (even by our standards they are terrorists):

The mujahideen leaders paid great attention to sabotage operations. The more common types of sabotage included damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines, radio stations, blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. From 1985 through 1987, an average of over 600 "terrorist acts" a year were recorded. In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and January 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. The mujahideen surveyed firing positions that they normally located near villages within the range of Soviet artillery posts, putting the villagers in danger of death from Soviet retaliation. The mujahideen used land mines heavily. Often, they would enlist the services of the local inhabitants and even children.

They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On September 4, 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard.

You are right in that Russia is not USSR but if I'm not mistaken the KGB still exists to protect the Russian Federation. Be weary my friend, I too can slice hair and I assure you I am very good at it.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Speak for yourself. I don't call them rebels. You must be referring to the liberal media. I was thinking more along the lines of the PLO, Hezzbollah, and Islamic Jihad. They tried to get ballsey with the Russians but the KGB wasn't having it. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Chechnya is part of Russia. I would have just nuked Afghanistan. Why waste time with torturing them when you can microwave every since soul in less than a second?

i really admire how you never waver. when all else fails, it must be the liberal media. what a joke

[Zerohero]

I always get drawn to these type threads, and always think of one scenario. Imagine if every country was nuked expect the U.S. Instant division would occur, states would start jockeying for power and war would break out.

Apparently most here that are for killing anyone but an American don't have family in other areas. If you don't believe in torture or killing you can't pick certain areas, its either all or none.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I will answer this way, in a perfect world no one would torture, and/or be tortured. However, lets not play dumb a** and say Americans are NOT tortured. We have witnessed our soldiers dragged and beaten, civilians heads chopped off on the internet, planes flown directly into a civilian target. If I thought for half a second that us not torturing these agents would prevent these types of acts from re-occurring, then do not use these techniques. BUT our enemies will torture regardless of our actions, they will commit atrocities against civilians regardless of our civility, they will seek out targets that will cause mass casualties regardless of our attempts to use pinpoint accuracy and minimize civilian casualties.
Bottomline, no I do not want United States citizens tortured, but I recognize our enemies regardless of my desires, and so if we need to use brutal tactics on the very worst of the worst, then so be it

nice post, i agree with you 100%.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

No I wouldn't resort to torture because I wouldn't assume torture was the only viable means of archiving the desired result. Furthermore, your argument for torture in this instance would pave the way for using torture in any scenario where someone's life is in danger.

Very carefully worded response. I didn't say torture, I said waterboarding. On a scale of 1 (being standard jail treatment and ask a few questions) to 10 (chainsaws, blowtorches, and electric shocks to gentials), I'd put the waterboarding the CIA did to the Al Qeada terrorists at about a 3. While liberals and intellectuals debate policy and what constitutes torture, people need to make decisions to save lives. If I know (or have a very strong chance) I could save the lives of the Iraqi family by waterboarding someone who was planning their rape/murder, I'd do it and sleep like a baby.

Obviously this is a hypothetical and we could go on with these all day, bottom line is the Bush Admin. did what they believed was in the best interest of the country to save lives. Much worse was done by the Clinton Admin. If you are strictly against the actions the Clinton Admin. took in the mid-90s (which based on an earlier post I think you are) I respect that, not agree, but definitely respect.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

what if it was an American being water boarded? would that be OK?

Yes. All is fair in love and war.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Reflects my feelings to a T. Hell, pull their fingernails off one by one for all I care. Do whatever it takes.

Yup. My feelings as well. But obviously only if we have determined with the best possible intelligence that the person we're torturing is likely to have information that will help save American lives. If that's the case, proceed with 1 million paper cuts.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yup. My feelings as well. But obviously only if we have determined with the best possible intelligence that the person we're torturing is likely to have information that will help save American lives. If that's the case, proceed with 1 million paper cuts.

I don't even mind erring on the side of caution and torturing them "just in case" they carry meaningful intel.

It's been said before in this thread. Our guys' bodies get drug through the streets and hung from bridges, heads get cut off on the internet, and on and on. I don't think we should act like we're above returning the favor.

Cut their heads off and mail them to the middle east, just to send a message. What, like that's going to make them more at war with us than they already are?

[Schneed10]

Funny thing about war. In times preceding the 18th century, armies met on open battlefields and went toe to toe with one another. While just movies, the scenes from Braveheart tell the tale. Along comes the invention of the firearm and armies still battled in this manner, standing in an open field trading volley after volley.

It wasn't long before a group of militia figured out that hiding in the trees, bushes, and shrubbery could give their men a leg up on the opposition. One army stands out in the open and marching down roads in formation, while the undermanned rag-tag militia hid in the trees and continually ambushed the more powerful army, an army that was ultimately either too proud to adapt or too slow to do so.

Thus the Revolutionary War was won and the United States was born.

You can't criticize terrorists for fighting the way they are. They can't meet us head on, so sneaking around setting bombs and hijacking commercial planes is their next best option. And surely they aspire to sneaking a nuclear weapon into our country. Some might call this style cowardly, but if you want to win that fight you better figure out a way to combat it. If you don't adapt to their style you risk losing the war, no matter how proud you are of your values and way of life.

Sneaking around to set bombs and hijack planes requires coordinated covert planning. If you want to uncover the plan, you have to uncover the intel. Torture is the answer to the terrorists' version of ambushing the Red Coats from the woods.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't even mind erring on the side of caution and torturing them "just in case" they carry meaningful intel.

It's been said before in this thread. Our guys' bodies get drug through the streets and hung from bridges, heads get cut off on the internet, and on and on. I don't think we should act like we're above returning the favor.

Cut their heads off and mail them to the middle east, just to send a message. What, like that's going to make them more at war with us than they already are?

Oh neither do I. I'm not talking about without a shadow of a doubt type intel. If there's a good chance they know something, go get 'em.