Reply With Quote
Yes. It's a misrepresentation of what you actually said.
You said: "we'll never know." Right after you presented the linkage between torture and Eagle Claw as a fact, present tense, indicative mood.
lie: A false statement deliberately presented as being true;
I already admited my mistake.
Yes. It's a misrepresentation of what you actually said.
You said: "we'll never know." Right after you presented the linkage between torture and Eagle Claw as a fact, present tense, indicative mood.
You lied about knowing it as a fact. Or were you lying when you said no one could ever know?
You lied at least once there.
Which one was the lie, Darrin?
DarrinS misrepresenting his own remarks is another honest mistake very much akin to misrepresenting what others say.
I get the feeling Darrin is done with this thread for awhile.
The US did the right thing in putting a bullet to his head even though he was apparently unarmed. Can you imagine the circus if he was captured alive?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/...den/index.html
Bin Laden was unarmed when killed, White House says
Washington (CNN) -- Osama bin Laden was not armed when he was shot and killed by U.S. forces in the assault on his compound in Pakistan, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday.
The al Qaeda leader resisted the assault on his compound, Carney said, adding: "I think resistance does not require a firearm."
Carney described how the U.S. Navy SEALs carrying out the operation went floor-to-floor clearing the three-story compound where bin Laden's family lived with another family.
Three people were killed on the first floor, including a woman, and then the U.S. forces moved upstairs where they found bin Laden, Carney said.
"Bin Laden was then shot and killed," Carney said. "He was not armed."
On Monday, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, said bin Laden was resisting and had a weapon, though it was unclear if bin Laden had fired a shot.
damn. Can't believe they released that.
I have the right to change my opinion as new information becomes available. As for the whole "enhanced interrogation" business, if there is DATA that suggests that it is entirely ineffective, them I'm not an advocate for its continued use.
True, you can lie about anything you want.
All of a sudden you think its we'll never know but before when you thought that the information backed up your viewpoint you sure as thought we'd know.
Textbook conformation bias.
Hmm. Don't know if that helps or hurts his martyrdom.
Um, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who want to use it that it IS effective? Since when do we have to prove that things don't work in order to avoid using them?
I can now see why you usually just run away in threads. When you actually try to defend yourself you just come out even looking dumber.
I wasn't thinking as much about that as the legal questions it raises about invading a sovereign nation and assassinating an unarmed man.
Not that I care, but some certainly will.
But presumably you will continue to defend its use without any data whatsoever supporting its effectiveness. Telling.
I doubt there will be a legal issue. What can be ascertained clearly from post review of video may not be clear at the time of action and it was a wartime mission.
If we killed prisoners before giving them a chance to speak, there would be no data that shows it's ineffective either, so maybe we should try that.
I'm reminded of an Al Gore quote during an internal debate over extraordinary rendition:
"That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
It seems to be an accepted fact over the centuries that torture used in conjunction with normal stress/sleep deprivation/interrogation procedures can be effective.
The threat of impending repeated torture is often enough to make the prisoner realize the futility of resisting.
Just saying. It's been pretty effective for thousands of years.
Effective in what?
Making Jews convert to Catholicism?
Making women admit to being witches?
Making Americans declare themselves war criminals?
or if the needle on his martyr status even moves at all.
Why do you think the CIA gave spies suicide pills during the cold war? they knew if captured they wouldn't be able to resist repeated torture/interrogation.
The effectiveness of torture to produce false confessions is not contested. It's mainly what torture is for, historically speaking.
Accepted as fact and proven as fact are two different things. I don't need to point out the pretty much unlimited supply of ideas that were accepted as fact at one point only to be proven wrong.
If torture is effective, then there should be some actual proof of that.
In any event, the actual thing to note here wasn't whether or not torture is effective but the stunning clarity of Darrin's conformation bias and his inability to understand burden of proof which only adds to the former.
Even if it was shown to be effective, it would still be immoral, inhumane and contrary to over 200 years of US legal custom.
Suicide pills were to avoid interrogation of any form. They aren't somehow proof that torture is effective.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
