CIA lied over brutal interrogations

[9mm]

So-called collateral damage is only hugely one-sided because of the technological superiority of one side and the fact that states are fighting insurgents. It isn't strategy. You can be sure that were AQ, ISIL, etc capable of visiting major destruction on their opponents, they would, and at least as many French, British and US civilians would be killed as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Moreover, we do not fight our wars with the objective of creating a sexist, homophobic, one religion state. You might argue we fight them purely for self-interest, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but we aren't trying to take the world back to the 10th century. As I said in an earlier post, which has not been challenged, meeting any or all of AQ's stated 2002 objectives would not alter their wider ambition.

I have no issues with moderate muslims (or any religous person provided they are moderate) but I have a massive problem with any group or individual who believes life should be run according to ancient texts, women are inferior, men make all the decisions and homosexuals are sinners. They can hide behind whatever fig leaf they like, but these people are evil and they have no place in civilised societies - east or west. We need to get our house in order and stop providing them with any more recruiting tools.

[9mm]

Anyone doubting just how outrageous some of these hardline religous views are should take a look at the special report on women in Pakistan currently showing on BBC news 24. Outrageous in any country but since the likes of ISIL and AQ would like to export these practices, also intolerable and unacceptable.

[KareemK]

XJ Flyer said:

In general 'our side' has only resorted to going outside its own rules on a reactive basis not a pro active one and even then we don't generally summarily behead hostages to make our point.Which at least shows that it is 'our side' rather than 'the opposition' that is leading some advance in human civilisation over medieval times.

You see all of the practices mentioned here:

KareemK said:

Quote:

While parts of the programme had been known – and much more will never be revealed – the catalogue of abuse is nightmarish and reads like something invented by the Marquis de Sade or Hieronymous Bosch.

Detainees were forced to stand on broken limbs for hours, kept in complete darkness, deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, sometimes standing, sometimes with their arms shackled above their heads.

Prisoners were subjected to “rectal feeding” without medical necessity. Rectal exams were conducted with “excessive force”. The report highlights one prisoner later diagnosed with anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and “symptomatic rectal prolapse”.

The report mentions mock executions, Russian roulette. US agents threatened to slit the throat of a detainee’s mother, sexually abuse another and threatened prisoners’ children. One prisoner died of hypothermia brought on in part by being forced to sit on a bare concrete floor without pants.

So, tortured to death. Thats somebodys son, husband or even father.

And we wonder why they behead our people.

Given a choice I think I'd prefer to be beheaded.

I very much suspect they were all around in medieval times as well.

Of course don't let that get in the way any proclamation about the opposition being barbaric and medieval in nature.

[Jimbeaux]

KareemK said:

Jimbeaux said:

KareemK said:

9mm said:

rohrl said:

9mm said:

In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and give the land to the Palestinians

This is a blatant and outright lie. Obama has never said this.

Can you explain what he meant by his comments in section (1)(i) in this link?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theob...

Maybe I misunderstood.

But...but....Jimbo said that Palestine had nothing to do with the conflict between east and west as the arabs/muslims don't give a fig about the Palestinians.

Righto.

OBL seems to have it down as THE main reason for conflict between Muslims and the West.

Try not to be stupid, honestly. They do not give a st for the Palestinians. They are the rallying cry for the nutters that make up the Jihadists armies. That is why he mentions that, it lends a noble tone to the argument. That way some idiots will believe that as opposed to what he really wants.

Sorry fella but you are sooooo wide of the mark on this its unreal. Perhaps the despots running a few of the regimes out there don't care about the Palestinians but then those same dictators don't care about there own people either - just so long as the petro dollars continue to roll in they'll do and say fk all.

The average Muslim on the street however has very strong feelings on the subject. And, as you are so keen to tell us on other threads that over here we don't understand whats happening in the US on the recent subject of racist (or not) police actions please don't attempt to preach to us on what the average Muslim in the Middle East feels, you are every bit as clueless on that particular issue.

Then explain, all knowing one, why it is that the brother nations, that are so distraught with their plight, do not take in the "Palestians" that are so cruelly contained in bad conditions? They don't because they are more useful staying right were they are! There borders are as stout as ever. An additional interesting note to consider is that the West gives more money to the "Palestinians" than all of the oil rich brother nations combined. The fact that most of that ends up in Swiss bank accounts further attests to the real dedication to the cause "Palestinian leaders" possess. Go pedal that bullst somewhere else.

[Jimbeaux]

JuniorD said:

XJ Flyer said:

However when push comes to shove at the end of the day winning is all about being a more vicious bd to those who we have to fight than they are to us.

Trouble is, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who have died as a result of our actions in the "war against terror" or its aftermath weren't even in the fight in the first place.

Hundreds of thousands? There is that oft-thrown about figure yet again. Where does one come by such a large figure?

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

Then explain, all knowing one, why it is that the brother nations, that are so distraught with their plight, do not take in the "Palestians" that are so cruelly contained in bad conditions? They don't because they are more useful staying right were they are! There borders are as stout as ever.

Both Lebanon and Jordan already have a significant number of Palestinian refugees. There are also large numbers working in the Emirates. On top lf that, Palestines immediate neighbours are relatively poor countries with insufficient resources for themselves let alone significant migrants. That aside, why should anybody simply accept being evicted from land that their family may have lived on for hundreds of years and rely on strangers to take them in on the grounds that share their religion? Perhaps you should Have a look at how keen the US was on accepting Jewish refugees before casting stones at greenhouses?

Jimbeaux said:

An additional interesting note to consider is that the West gives more money to the "Palestinians" than all of the oil rich brother nations combined. The fact that most of that ends up in Swiss bank accounts further attests to the real dedication to the cause "Palestinian leaders" possess. Go pedal that bullst somewhere else.

one wonders about the stupidity of "western" governments, and especially the US, if they know this and continue to let it happen. In reality I suspect it's just hot air and bluster without any real proof.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

JuniorD said:

XJ Flyer said:

However when push comes to shove at the end of the day winning is all about being a more vicious bd to those who we have to fight than they are to us.

Trouble is, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who have died as a result of our actions in the "war against terror" or its aftermath weren't even in the fight in the first place.

Hundreds of thousands? There is that oft-thrown about figure yet again. Where does one come by such a large figure?

One can find it relatively easy if one cares to look....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-deat...

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

Then explain, all knowing one, why it is that the brother nations, that are so distraught with their plight, do not take in the "Palestians" that are so cruelly contained in bad conditions? They don't because they are more useful staying right were they are! There borders are as stout as ever.

Both Lebanon and Jordan already have a significant number of Palestinian refugees. There are also large numbers working in the Emirates. On top lf that, Palestines immediate neighbours are relatively poor countries with insufficient resources for themselves let alone significant migrants. That aside, why should anybody simply accept being evicted from land that their family may have lived on for hundreds of years and rely on strangers to take them in on the grounds that share their religion? Perhaps you should Have a look at how keen the US was on accepting Jewish refugees before casting stones at greenhouses?

Jimbeaux said:

An additional interesting note to consider is that the West gives more money to the "Palestinians" than all of the oil rich brother nations combined. The fact that most of that ends up in Swiss bank accounts further attests to the real dedication to the cause "Palestinian leaders" possess. Go pedal that bullst somewhere else.

one wonders about the stupidity of "western" governments, and especially the US, if they know this and continue to let it happen. In reality I suspect it's just hot air and bluster without any real proof.

Starting 5 on 1 wars you can't win would be a great start to not losing one's land or that of their "brothers". As to "bluster", etc. recall Arafat's Billion Dollar Swiss acount. I don't buy the Palestinan plight as it is sold. They are pawns of "brother nations" that do not give a rat's ass for them beyond the purpose of instigation they serve.

[pork911]

Ayahuasca said:

KSM apparently confessed to:

Planning and organising the 9/11 attacks
Organizing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
The Bali nightclub bombings,
Planning Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing,
Planning attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London,
Daniel Pearl's murder in 2002, personally cutting off his head
Planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton.

If he did only 10% of what he admitted to I have zero sympathy.

and if he did 0%?

[Westy Carl]

pork911 said:

Ayahuasca said:

KSM apparently confessed to:

Planning and organising the 9/11 attacks
Organizing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
The Bali nightclub bombings,
Planning Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing,
Planning attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London,
Daniel Pearl's murder in 2002, personally cutting off his head
Planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton.

If he did only 10% of what he admitted to I have zero sympathy.

and if he did 0%?

I suspect if I'd have been waterboarded 180 times I'd admit to anything to get it to stop

[irocfan]

Countdown said:

One can find it relatively easy if one cares to look....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-deat...

seriously you've quoted the Huff as a valid news source??? Come-on chap you can do better than that surely!

[zuby84]

irocfan said:

seriously you've quoted the Huff as a valid news source??? Come-on chap you can do better than that surely!

I know I know, it's not from Fox News and hence it's completely biased, but it would be useful if people would read a news story first rather than just discounting it automatically because of what it says on the URL bar.

[NicD]

what if you started the body count earlier? Say at the beginning of the Saddam era?

[JuniorD]

Jimbeaux said:

JuniorD said:

XJ Flyer said:

However when push comes to shove at the end of the day winning is all about being a more vicious bd to those who we have to fight than they are to us.

Trouble is, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who have died as a result of our actions in the "war against terror" or its aftermath weren't even in the fight in the first place.

Hundreds of thousands? There is that oft-thrown about figure yet again. Where does one come by such a large figure?

Give me your figure.

[irocfan]

JuniorD said:

Trouble is, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who have died as a result of our actions in the "war against terror" or its aftermath weren't even in the fight in the first place.

and again that's quite a mischievous question there because, let's be honest here, you could attribute EVERY 'not from natural causes' death at the feet of there being no Saddam as opposed to 'just' those who died in G:2

[Jimbeaux]

JuniorD said:

Jimbeaux said:

JuniorD said:

XJ Flyer said:

However when push comes to shove at the end of the day winning is all about being a more vicious bd to those who we have to fight than they are to us.

Trouble is, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who have died as a result of our actions in the "war against terror" or its aftermath weren't even in the fight in the first place.

Hundreds of thousands? There is that oft-thrown about figure yet again. Where does one come by such a large figure?

Give me your figure.

I don't have one, never claimed to. You are the one using that wild figure, where did you get it from?

[JuniorD]

Jimbeaux said:

JuniorD said:

Jimbeaux said:

JuniorD said:

XJ Flyer said:

However when push comes to shove at the end of the day winning is all about being a more vicious bd to those who we have to fight than they are to us.

Trouble is, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who have died as a result of our actions in the "war against terror" or its aftermath weren't even in the fight in the first place.

Hundreds of thousands? There is that oft-thrown about figure yet again. Where does one come by such a large figure?

Give me your figure.

I don't have one, never claimed to. You are the one using that wild figure, where did you get it from?

Surely a man of your deep appreciation of war would not think 100-200k would not be an unreasonable guess, given that the number of dead in Iraq alone since 2003 and attributable to the conflict which we conjured up is widely believed to be way more. Try 500,000.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/13...

[unrepentant]

The Lancet claims 654,965 in Iraq between 2003-2006.

[NicD]

can I say this again:

what if you started the body count earlier? Say at the beginning of the Saddam era?

[JuniorD]

NicD said:

can I say this again:

what if you started the body count earlier? Say at the beginning of the Saddam era?

Oh you mean the era in which the US propped him up?