|
On May 25 2009 17:16 HeadBangaa wrote:
Well I did NOT read the update, but the ORIGINAL article DID support EXACTLY what I said. I am only guilty of reading what the media put out originally, I do not go back and re-read articles looking for amendments
Well, just let it serve as a reminder that you should take a little time to check your facts before you end up putting your foot in your mouth.
you could point it out without being such a fucking douche. oh but then you wouldn't be Servolisk, would you?
Well, firstly, I'm not Servolisk... (Reading, boys and girls. Reading...)
Secondly, I take the extra time to verify my facts and check sources which you sadly don't seem to take the effort to do. And when somebody calls you out on it, you start crying foul rather than address the point at hand?
And anyways, that doesn't disprove anything I said. It just leaves it as unsubstantiated
Otherwise known as being not credible.
But hey, since I'm feeling especially nice, I'll go the extra mile and lets look up information from somebody who actually participated in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Taken from Newsweek.
Newsweek wrote:
Last week [Ali] Soufan, 37, now a security consultant who spends most of his time in the Middle East, decided to tell the story of his involvement in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations publicly for the first time. In an op-ed in The New York Times and in a series of exclusive interviews with NEWSWEEK, Soufan described how he, together with FBI colleague Steve Gaudin, began the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. They nursed his wounds, gained his confidence and got the terror suspect talking. They extracted crucial intelligence—including the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the architect of 9/11 and the dirty-bomb plot of Jose Padilla—before CIA contractors even began their aggressive tactics.
"I've kept my mouth shut about all this for seven years," Soufan says. But now, with the declassification of Justice memos and the public assertions by Cheney and others that "enhanced" techniques worked, Soufan feels compelled to speak out. "I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he says. "We were able to get the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a couple of days. We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way."
HeadBangaa continues:
and honestly I already broke my rule of never engaging you in General, so I'll leave you to your static, unchangeable opinions (despite, two seconds later, more google dumps could easily prove this,
Which is, of course, why you're complaining about your hurt feelings rather than post any real evidence illustrating the effectiveness of torture.
but you still dodge my original post, and my first follow up, in typical servolisk style. fuck off)
Hmmm... I'm not Servolisk, but lets look up your first post in this thread, shall we? It does contain a point that should be addressed.
Once upon a time, HeadBangaa wrote:
It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
Fun fact: Waterboarding is performed specifically because it induces the gag reflex (as opposed to just shoving someone's head in a bucket of water). It's easy to say that you have control when you're sitting in front of your PC, but the reality is once you lose physical control of your body (which is what the gag reflex will do), attempting to breathe (automatically) and find yourself taking in water you'll quickly enter a state of panic. Simply put, holding your breath will not work.
|
headbanga would you be kind enough to elaborate if rape counts as an enhanced interrogation technique or is it immoral and shouldnt be done?
Please also state why and how its different from waterboarding since none of them cause any physical damage, just psychological.
|
On May 25 2009 17:45 tinman wrote:
apparently you are a douche, ignorant, or an imbecile. i'm leaning toward imbecile.
Wow! You can throw insults. I'm most impressed! It's a pity that making a well-informed post substantiated by actual logic, reasoning and evidence is a little bit too demanding for you, but keep trying. 
|
This post has been purposely removed at the request of baal, since he confused me with HeadBangaa but wanted to leave his question there open for answer.
|
|
|
On May 25 2009 18:10 Syntax Lost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2009 17:16 HeadBangaa wrote:
Well I did NOT read the update, but the ORIGINAL article DID support EXACTLY what I said. I am only guilty of reading what the media put out originally, I do not go back and re-read articles looking for amendments Well, just let it serve as a reminder that you should take a little time to check your facts before you end up putting your foot in your mouth. Show nested quote +you could point it out without being such a fucking douche. oh but then you wouldn't be Servolisk, would you? Well, firstly, I'm not Servolisk... (Reading, boys and girls. Reading...) Secondly, I take the extra time to verify my facts and check sources which you sadly don't seem to take the effort to do. And when somebody calls you out on it, you start crying foul rather than address the point at hand? Show nested quote +And anyways, that doesn't disprove anything I said. It just leaves it as unsubstantiated Otherwise known as being not credible. But hey, since I'm feeling especially nice, I'll go the extra mile and lets look up information from somebody who actually participated in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Taken from Newsweek. Show nested quote +Newsweek wrote:
Last week [Ali] Soufan, 37, now a security consultant who spends most of his time in the Middle East, decided to tell the story of his involvement in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations publicly for the first time. In an op-ed in The New York Times and in a series of exclusive interviews with NEWSWEEK, Soufan described how he, together with FBI colleague Steve Gaudin, began the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. They nursed his wounds, gained his confidence and got the terror suspect talking. They extracted crucial intelligence—including the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the architect of 9/11 and the dirty-bomb plot of Jose Padilla—before CIA contractors even began their aggressive tactics.
"I've kept my mouth shut about all this for seven years," Soufan says. But now, with the declassification of Justice memos and the public assertions by Cheney and others that "enhanced" techniques worked, Soufan feels compelled to speak out. "I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he says. "We were able to get the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a couple of days. We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way." Show nested quote +HeadBangaa continues:
and honestly I already broke my rule of never engaging you in General, so I'll leave you to your static, unchangeable opinions (despite, two seconds later, more google dumps could easily prove this, Which is, of course, why you're complaining about your hurt feelings rather than post any real evidence illustrating the effectiveness of torture. Show nested quote + but you still dodge my original post, and my first follow up, in typical servolisk style. fuck off) Hmmm... I'm not Servolisk, but lets look up your first post in this thread, shall we? It does contain a point that should be addressed. Show nested quote +Once upon a time, HeadBangaa wrote:
It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D Fun fact: Waterboarding is performed specifically because it induces the gag reflex (as opposed to just shoving someone's head in a bucket of water). It's easy to say that you have control when you're sitting in front of your PC, but the reality is once you lose physical control of your body (which is what the gag reflex will do), attempting to breathe (automatically) and find yourself taking in water you'll quickly enter a state of panic. Simply put, holding your breath will not work.
Clearly he confused you with somebody else so you don't have to act like a douche
|
On May 25 2009 12:32 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2009 12:08 jeppew wrote:On May 25 2009 12:03 HeadBangaa wrote:On May 25 2009 06:37 Servolisk wrote:On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote:
- anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking:
retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick. /thread because if physician said it, it must be true because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote. nothing to discredit really. physician shits and like ten tons of stupid opinions came out. just feelings, though, you know? emotions. preference. you don't really discredit it or credit one way or another. just agree or disagree and go on with your day. look i can do the same thing: anyone who disagrees with my opinions is unintelligent or evil or an alien being devoid of the capacity to recognize valid opinion. take your pick. see? not difficult.
the thing is that it's a pretty common "trick"
Person A makes a statement, person B agrees.
Person C in the opposition questions B's agreement, if B can't defend his posture that means A is wrong right?
if it's just opinionated garbage then why not pick it apart instead?
|
On May 25 2009 06:37 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote:
- anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking:
retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick. /thread
|
On May 25 2009 19:53 jeppew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2009 12:32 tinman wrote:On May 25 2009 12:08 jeppew wrote:On May 25 2009 12:03 HeadBangaa wrote:On May 25 2009 06:37 Servolisk wrote:On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote:
- anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking:
retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick. /thread because if physician said it, it must be true because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote. nothing to discredit really. physician shits and like ten tons of stupid opinions came out. just feelings, though, you know? emotions. preference. you don't really discredit it or credit one way or another. just agree or disagree and go on with your day. look i can do the same thing: anyone who disagrees with my opinions is unintelligent or evil or an alien being devoid of the capacity to recognize valid opinion. take your pick. see? not difficult. the thing is that it's a pretty common "trick" Person A makes a statement, person B agrees. Person C in the opposition questions B's agreement, if B can't defend his posture that means A is wrong right? if it's just opinionated garbage then why not pick it apart instead?
that was his point: you can't pick apart an opinion
|
1) Yes you can.
2) Doing so does not discredit the argument on which the opinion is based.
|
what? that doesnt make any sense.
good night.
|
On May 25 2009 19:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2009 19:53 jeppew wrote:On May 25 2009 12:32 tinman wrote:On May 25 2009 12:08 jeppew wrote:On May 25 2009 12:03 HeadBangaa wrote:On May 25 2009 06:37 Servolisk wrote:On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote:
- anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking:
retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick. /thread because if physician said it, it must be true because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote. nothing to discredit really. physician shits and like ten tons of stupid opinions came out. just feelings, though, you know? emotions. preference. you don't really discredit it or credit one way or another. just agree or disagree and go on with your day. look i can do the same thing: anyone who disagrees with my opinions is unintelligent or evil or an alien being devoid of the capacity to recognize valid opinion. take your pick. see? not difficult. the thing is that it's a pretty common "trick" Person A makes a statement, person B agrees. Person C in the opposition questions B's agreement, if B can't defend his posture that means A is wrong right? if it's just opinionated garbage then why not pick it apart instead? that was his point: you can't pick apart an opinion
it's a series of statements, ofcourse you can.
and if it's just based on feelings as he claims it will be even easier.
|
On May 25 2009 16:19 The Storyteller wrote:
What is really scary is what happens when
1. The enemy finds out you're using waterboarding
2. Trains their people to resist it
3. Gives them false information to feed to the Americans
4. And have Americans feel that the information must be valid because it was extracted under torture
why do they need special training to tell a lie?
|
Because, as i imagine, the torture won't stop for every lie you made up. If your tortures don't believe you, you have to keep up with your lie for a long time and many "sessions".
Thats why lying requires training.
|
also the lie would be more credible if it was co-ordinated from several sources.
|
On May 25 2009 23:35 Velr wrote:
Because, as i imagine, the torture won't stop for every lie you made up. If your tortures don't believe you, you have to keep up with your lie for a long time and many "sessions".
Thats why lying requires training.
Wait so if the terrorists tells them something they will automatically think its a lie? What if they tell the truth first and they assume thats a lie, and then they keep torturing them until he tells a lie and they believe that?
|
thats why torturing is so unreliable. also "truth serums" cant really work. if you pump to much into the victim he wont remember shit if you dont pump enough he is conscious enough to not tell you. btw. truth serums are stuff like acid.
a lot of torture/truthfinding methods were scientifically researched by the germans in the 1930's and 40's. the CIA took over that knowledge and continued some of it.
|
On May 25 2009 06:46 DrTJEckleburg wrote:
I feel fucked up just from watching that first video let alone getting that done to me.
you must be new to the internet.
Welcome to the internet, enjoy losing your morality!
|
On May 24 2009 11:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2009 11:33 Frits wrote:
looks like waterboarding is the new 'in' thing right now, someone did it on dutch tv as well pretty recently
christ, maybe it really isnt torture after all there was a norwegian who pulled out his own toenail on tv
and there was a German guy who voluntared to have his penis cut off until he bleed to death on camera, then his body was eaten after he died. lolz.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On May 26 2009 01:13 stroggos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2009 11:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 24 2009 11:33 Frits wrote:
looks like waterboarding is the new 'in' thing right now, someone did it on dutch tv as well pretty recently
christ, maybe it really isnt torture after all there was a norwegian who pulled out his own toenail on tv and there was a German guy who voluntared to have his penis cut off until he bleed to death on camera, then his body was eaten after he died. lolz.
Don't know where you get that story from, how it is relevant to this thread, and, what's so funny about it?
If you are referring to the Cannibal of Rotenburg, they both wanted to eat the penis of the victim, he did not bleed to death but was killed by the cannibal and the recorded video was obviously not meant for TV. It is a pretty gruesome story though....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
