Really Mr Rove? Claims of averted terror attacks.
Discussion
Handy that so few terror ssupects knew about so many plots isn't it? Particularly as secrecy will mean no official corroboration for 30 odd years.
"I'm proud that we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists and gave us valuable information that allowed us to foil plots such as flying aeroplanes into Heathrow and into London, bringing down aircraft over the Pacific, flying an aeroplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles and other plots," Mr Rove told the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8563547....
"I'm proud that we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists and gave us valuable information that allowed us to foil plots such as flying aeroplanes into Heathrow and into London, bringing down aircraft over the Pacific, flying an aeroplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles and other plots," Mr Rove told the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8563547....
Fittster said:
To my mind it's a simple question. If an enemy of the US captures one of your troops are you happy for them to be water boarded?
As opposed to executed on a Sony HandyCam? Yup, seems reasonable.Like it or not, this is a war. I'd personally prefer that non-uniformed combatants be subject to the Geneva convention.
Fittster said:
To my mind it's a simple question. If an enemy of the US captures one of your troops are you happy for them to be water boarded?
Think that's a very good way of deciding.Didn't Mr Rove say that they did this to their own troops as part of their training though? Of course, kinda different in training as opposed to a real interrogation.
randlemarcus said:
Fittster said:
To my mind it's a simple question. If an enemy of the US captures one of your troops are you happy for them to be water boarded?
As opposed to executed on a Sony HandyCam? Yup, seems reasonable.The point I was making was that using cells is very basic stuff, it's even on page one of the Ladybird book of spying. So what are the chances the the three people that it's claimed have been waterboarded knew about all those attacks.
Or is it just convenient bulls
t to defend the indefencible?Bill said:
The point I was making was that using cells is very basic stuff, it's even on page one of the Ladybird book of spying. So what are the chances the the three people that it's claimed have been waterboarded knew about all those attacks.
Or is it just convenient bullst to defend the indefencible?
I'd guess that its suggesting that the intelligence came from these particular captures to hide the source of the actual intel. Protect the source, and all that (page 5 IIRC Or is it just convenient bulls
t to defend the indefencible?
)Bill said:
randlemarcus said:
(page 5 IIRC )
)
But due to the cellular nature of the "organisation" you'd know that's bulls
t.
Although my impression from the press etc, is that while they operate in cells lower down, there arent many steps in the hierarchy before you get near decision makers across areas of operation.
Mojocvh said:
"Mr Rove said US soldiers were subjected to waterboarding as a regular part of their training."
Aye, I am sure that they do not.
Probably aircrew (escape and evasion training), SF and selected units are, but it will only be for a short time and they 'know' it's an exercise anyway, so not quite the same psychological effect.Aye, I am sure that they do not.
Bill said:
So what are the chances the the three people that it's claimed have been waterboarded knew about all those attacks.
I guess that the ones that were waterboarded were known to be quite high ranking, so it's not impossible. If they were just three randoms, I'd probably agree with you.Taffer said:
Mojocvh said:
"Mr Rove said US soldiers were subjected to waterboarding as a regular part of their training."
Aye, I am sure that they do not.
Probably aircrew (escape and evasion training), SF and selected units are, but it will only be for a short time and they 'know' it's an exercise anyway, so not quite the same psychological effect.Aye, I am sure that they do not.
randlemarcus said:
Fittster said:
To my mind it's a simple question. If an enemy of the US captures one of your troops are you happy for them to be water boarded?
As opposed to executed on a Sony HandyCam? Yup, seems reasonable.Like it or not, this is a war. I'd personally prefer that non-uniformed combatants be subject to the Geneva convention.
t way to die, but over there they are a bunch of animals punishment wise anyway, so to them, it's fairly normal. Look at amputations for punishment, lashings, public executions, etc. We simply kill innocents using hi tech, rather than a blunt bread knife.
As for Rove, I'm not sure I believe a single word he says.
Edited by Blue Meanie on Friday 12th March 16:37
Blue Meanie said:
randlemarcus said:
Fittster said:
To my mind it's a simple question. If an enemy of the US captures one of your troops are you happy for them to be water boarded?
Like it or not, this is a war. I'd personally prefer that non-uniformed combatants be subject to the Geneva convention.[/b] Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff