Glad you finally admitted your support of torture is faith-based, rather than empirical or rational. As you well know, science excludes unfalsifiables.
So much for "we'll never know" being a vindication of the efficacy of torture.
Lame. Why are they worried about the front page headlines on a newspaper? Publish the damn photo and let local editors decide what page to put it on.The official says the challenge is that the picture that includes the most recognizable image of OBLs face – from the hangar in Afghanistan – is so gruesome and mangled its not appropriate for say the front page of the newspaper. On the other hand, this is the one that is most identifiable as him.
Yes, and we only "know" what these people are willing to say to the press.
If you have some empirical data, I'd like to see it.
clown points!
Then why did you present the extraction of the courier names from KSM through waterboarding as a solid fact? You claimed to know that with certainty and without reservation based on whatever source you heard it from.
You are lying again, Darrin. Is it the preservation of your e-rep or your desire to believe in torture that drives you to lie?
DarrinS does more to undermine the argument for torture here. If we never know what exactly produces the info, why resort to waterboarding at all?
Why do you think they're lying DarrinS? Why would they specifically say waterboarding didn't work?
Is it because the military is full of liberals?
Which flaming liberal said this, Darrin?It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.
Full sophist mode: when making up and posting phony support for it doesn't work, fall back on obfuscation and sententious bull .
Says the guy that writes like this.
Did you not understand what he posted?
Actually, I used the term "enhanced interrogation", not waterboarding. Either way, I already admitted the mistake of declaring that this was a solid fact.
KSM is not the only person who revealed actionable intel. Another, at Gitmo, also endured enhanced interrogation -- cold was used on him, as well as humiliation.
Which flaming liberal said this, Darrin?It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.
I prefer brevity and clarity to verbose, flowery lanuage. Just my preference.
I'm on pins and needles.
Eh, you did nothing to address the actual point. That speaks volumes.
Question:
Does good-cop/bad-cop work without the "bad" cop?
Take a guess.
Conventional interrogation has worked without the techniques you have been lying about. That's why it's conventional.
Would you consider the statement "I don't know" to be obfuscation?
It's pretty clear to me.
It's the position you walked back to after stating with certainty that the harsh interrogation got this information from KSM.
You lied, then caught in the lie, you attempted to obfuscate.
It's pretty clear to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
