Sunday, February 21, 2010

WHAT DOES WATER BOARDING LOOK LIKE?....IT WORKS

Have you noticed that since the capture a few weeks ago of Mullah Baradar, the Taliban’s second in command and being held by Pakistani forces, suddenly intelligence has been forth coming in the capture of other top Taliban leaders?

Fox News reporter Justin Fishel reports “The intelligence that led to Kabir's capture was gathered from Mullah Baradar, the Taliban’s second in command, who was picked up roughly two weeks ago in Karachi, Pakistan by a joint CIA and Pakistani intelligence operation.”

There is no restriction on water boarding in Pakistan. Is there any question that the interrogation techniques being implemented have paid off big time, saved and will save lives in the future. Is there a better endorsement of the water boarding techniques and the value of getting quick reliable intelligence to capture more bad guys?
Ever wonder what water boarding looks like? Check it out.

WHAT DOES WATER BOARDING LOOK LIKE?

CLICK HERE

The surprising thing to me is the lack of physical force or abuse used. It appears to me to be one of the best ways devised to simply get instant information when necessary. It worked so quickly on Khalid Sheikh Mohammad we saved many American lives with no real damage to Mohammad. If it were your family members and friends who were saves, what would your response be to the use of water boarding? Just think, John McCain wouldn’t have a broken and twisted body because of the horrendous torture by the Viet Cong if they had used water boarding instead.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

why do I have little compassion of doing this to people who would be happy strapping a bomb to themselves in order to saves lives just to show that we are "better" than them.
In the words of Dr Phil" How's that working out for you?".

Anyway it was an interesting video. I still don't feel any worse about it knowing the people it was done do would be quite happy to do the same thing they did to Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg.
Oh wait he already did.
tos

NewGnome said...

I agree. NG

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

1) NG you are a hypocrite. You refuse to post comments to your site that contain profanity, but you post a link to a video provided by one of the country's largest and most widely known pornographers, however, if I had used certain words from that clip in this comment, you would have refused to post it.

2) You realize that I could have filmed that video in my basement right? Is there any proof what so ever that the person in that video is actually an interrogator (um, fact issue here, the gitmo bay interrogators were cia, not military).

3) Wow newsgnome, I thought Fox was a questionable news source, but now that your citing playboy...... I might have to send an e-mail to the head of the Provo LDS and tell them one of its members is endorsing and spreading the propaganda of a pornographic organization.

You won't drink caffeine but you'll help earn revenue for Hugh Hefner.

I only hope that I age to have your principles.

Lonely, but Principled.

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

you can ignore the previous comment if you want, or you can edit it, because you apparently only believe in selective censorship, but I have one question for you:

why is the life of an american more important than the life of a person from another country?

NewGnome said...

Geeeezee LAC, would you please dump the name-calling, anti-religious bigotry and stay on topic and quit trying to change the subject.

And I haven't got a clue what you're talking about saying: "why is the life of an american more important than the life of a person from another country?"

TOS is right! There's no problem waterboarding terrorists for me. Perhaps you have sympathy for murdering terrorists. I don't. Obviously, you also equate beheading with waterboarding. Interesting!

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

1) you are a hypocrite who will sacrifice your stated beliefs to make a political point.

2) learn to read critically

3) I'm not a religious bigot to point out that endorsement of pornography and profanity that you have previously denounced is hypocritical for your stated religion. Criticize me for bringing up religion, but don't call me a religious bigot for asking you whether you're use of these sources coincides with your religious beliefs. Because that is not the definition of bigotry (see number 2).

4) I equate all forms of inhumane treatment of prisoners that violate the Geneva convention. There are degrees, but they are all bad.

5) I suppose you agree with Dick Cheney, that we should have just locked up the Denver man who was plotting the NY transit attacks several months ago in a dark hole and never heard from him again. Of course if you do that, you don't get him pleading guilty and stating that the reason he wanted to kill Americans was because of the way that the US government treated Islamic prisoners/enemy combatants.

6) You and the rest of the pro-torture, anti-dialogue crowd, fail to realize that there is not a set number of terrorists in the world. We can't just kill them all, because every time another civilian dies in an Islamic country, every time that it comes out that we've been torturing prisoners, every time that we kill a member of the Taliban (and I'm not saying they aren't bad people) but that provides fodder for other Muslims in those countries to hate us. Just as you feel more strongly about our wars because of the service of your son and daughter, the civilians over there feel more strongly about it every time an action in the "war on terror" kills or harms someone they know.

You might not understand it, and if you do, you probably won't admit it, but the implication of your point of view is that we need to detain or kill everyone who has taken a negative action against the United States. I doubt you will feel good about the future of this country until most liberals are out of office, and most of the Islamic world is entirely subdued.

There's a word for that political viewpoint and it's not Conservatism (because an essential element of conservatism is restrained government, but the type of massive state security apparatus and political controls necessarily to maintain what seems to be your vision of America is hardly a restrained government.) That word is Fascism. You can deny it. You can hide from it and call me a socialist/communist/maoist/stalinist - whatever the word of the week is, but the natural implication of your view points is American Fascism.

Anonymous said...

I think LAC's campus indoctrination has delved into depravity.
Of course now we find pout that theres' something in this trial for Holder and his cronies from the law firm he worked at just like Universal Healthcare will benefit Obama's Union cronies.
tos


tos

NewGnome said...

TOS, The ivory-towered cloistered contingency is alive and well in academia. There is no real-world to them. My response is next.
NG

NewGnome said...

1. You are a hypocrite of the worst kind. You detest fundamentalist Christians yet claim deep religious faith and justify the use of murder by Muslims to force conversion. And by the way, you’re the one always bringing up religion.
2. Learn to think critically in terms of real life. You won’t always be in a cloistered classroom where you demand and expect others to provide your personal safety and then criticize those who put their lives on the line to provide your protection as hate-mongers. Talk about hypocrisy. WOW!
3. Try reading some history. Terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva Convention and do not follow its rules. Learn to define words such as humane. Last time I checked beheading was not considered humane.
4. Yea, let’s let terrorists kill lots of Americans on our soil and then worry about their civil rights. What about our civil rights!? Obviously you don’t understand that the aggressor in war sets the rules or the defender loses. But then you’d rather have Imam’s dictating your activities than democracy.
5. It’s amazing to me that you totally ignore or purposefully misunderstand Islamist's religious reasoning for killing Americans (or should we more accurately say any non-Muslims that have nothing to do with us defending ourselves) by killing those who would first try to kill us. You have a monstrous hole in your “reasoned” justifications for allowing others to murder Americans with impunity.
6. Your alleged reasoning that the death of one Muslim civilian generates another terrorist shows a self-indulgent myopic world view. But you also assume that civilian casualties are only created by Americans. A very false and assumptive conclusion without historical foundation and no logic. You are so stuck in the world of hate-America first you have not once considered that Muslim radicals have been killing more Muslims at a rate that almost equals full-scale war than Americans. Somehow in your twisted logic, Americans only are responsible, and that those deaths only create more terrorists and you blame it on your fellow American. What you seem to want is that American blood should run our streets daily before you’ll consider defending democracy.
7. Islamists, whose aim is to force conversion or kill infidels, are killing Christians in at least three countries in Africa, killing Hindus, Sheiks and Buddhists in India, Christians in Indonesia and they're fighting back and killing Muslims civilians in self-defense. But only Americans beget more terrorists. Yes you are a mammoth hypocrite because you blame only Americans. Wake up or you’ll be dead or Muslim.
And lastly, your intolerable and insufferable condescension and patronizing gets more tedious with everything you write. You promote the false assumption that the real world is naturally at peace except for Americans. You have no understanding that world peace is maintained by the capacity to extend the violent use of massive force if necessary, as Ahmedinejad, Saddam, Alexander the Great, Mussolini, Tojo, the Islamists, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan and an unlimited list of tyrants and despots have proven for centuries. I find it fascinating that you’ve aligned (as you did in your last paragraph) yourself with Communism, Maoism and Stalinism because they killed more “civilians” than any group of tyrants in the history of Man including Hitler.
So please, continue your myopic close-minded hate-America first thinking. But for heaven’s sake, don’t ever open your eyes and look at the whole world, not just your version of America, because you’ll have apoplexy. You concluded that my viewpoint is American Fascism and I say your view of reality is Ostrichism.

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

i haven't bothered reading your entire post yet (for a number of reasons, but based on your next to last paragraph (I'd call it penultimate, because it's more efficient to use one word instead of a handful to convey a concept) you've already read and responded to my last post without actually posting it.

Although some or your earlier remarks seem to be completely ignorant of the points I make, so wants again I'm faced with the decision of trying to decide if you are more ideologue or idiot. I'll take the time to read your individual points and respond to them with arguments (which you will inherently respond to by using the same name calling and bigotry you accuse me of - I guess if I've learned anything from you, it's how to be extremely ugly and insulting without cursing)

TOS - you are still an idiot. I insist you get the (in the interest of not being censored by our favorite fascist, I use pure G language) "puck 'pout'"

NewGnome said...

Tos, Don't take LAC too seriously. He's the smartest man in the known universe. Just ask him. The rest of us are on earth just to provide him with occasional amusement.
NG

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

1) I never aligned myself with communism, etc. I was simply anticipating that you were going to respond to what I wrote by calling me such. I urge you to find a single sentence I have ever written that expresses the view that private property should be seized in mass and redistributed on a per capita basis. I urge you to find a sentence that shows I support the types of cultural or linguistic censorship by Stalin or Mao.

2) Do you really think that you are also not being condescending with every word you write? My condescension, and I admit that there is some, comes from my level of education. You equally condescend to me from your age and your life experience, although according to hour helium profile, you've done so many jobs that it's impossible for me to figure out what you're supposedly good at besides sculpture (and I applaud you for that talent).

3) I don't have a problem with every fundamentalist Christian in the world. I regularly go with my parents to their fundamentalist church and I have great talks with sunday school teachers, ministers and members there. I don't hate them. Maybe I should have been more clear, I have a problem with Christian Dominionists (using the term as Chris Hedges, a graduate of Harvard Divinity and the son of a Presbyterian minister uses the term in his commentary, which is based on the writings of protestant theologians like Reinhold Niebhur and Paul Tillich. I suppose that my argument is inherently wrong since I'm siting someone with an advanced degree who sites people with even more advanced degrees). Christian Dominionists, and they're only a sub set of the fundamentalist culture (and they also exist in other Christian faiths like Catholicism) believe that their interpretation of the Bible should be enforced on the world, primarily America first. They campaign for candidates who to some degree support this idea. I think it's valid, in terms of debate, to challenge their assumptions, because they lean on those assumptions in their attempts to appoint judges and elect legislators who will try and force their views on the rest of us. I don't think religious debate should be off the table when the religious belief forms the basis for the policy they want to effect all of us.

This might be too much of a nuanced argument for you. If I can say anything with 100% belief, its that you don't respond well to nuanced approaches, they aren't black and white enough for you.

4) Yes, I'm the one bringing up religion. I admitted as much in my last full comment, but that doesn't stop you from attacking me with the same thing that I already admitted, as if it was something I was trying to hide.

I need to go and wish two friends well at an engagement party now. I'll respond to your points on Islam, torture, and the related issues in a few hours.

LAC

NewGnome said...

Could it be that I don't respond well to "your" nuanced arguments because they aren't very effectively nuanced? May I point out that within your statement you make my point perfectly. You say that "If I can say anything with 100% belief...." That is a contradiction within itself. Belief is subjective and to say that you can have a 100% belief in a totally subjective topic is certainly not a nuanced argument. It's not even an argument it's simply a meaningless assertion.

Item #3 Your discussion of education is a perfect example of the problem America is facing. We have a president whose nose-in-air assumed erudition is used to dismiss the collective common sense of Americans who oppose his health care bill by 65% with only 25% supporting him, yet he demands that it be passed. You're obvious submission to one person who has a degree that is advanced to yours, and they're submission to another academic whose degree is slightly advanced to theirs, whether there is a scintilla of common sense or not, is what's destroying the Constitution.

I once read a description about those who hold doctorates which I find interesting because it has a fundamental truth to it. "A person with a doctorate is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."

We've had Harvard and Yale economic advanced degrees in government and on Wall Street ad nauseam and they've made a disaster of our economy with, of course, the help of greed and Democrat social engineering and a dipstick with eyes for a president. So frankly, I'm not too impressed with your advanced education theories or those you're quoting. The higher the degree the less common sense, with two exceptions: Krauthammer and Sowell. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist said to be one of the world's 100 greatest intellects, is a blithering idiot and without a shred of common sense.

Religion. I'm sure that you would avoid announcing your abortion and homosexuality opinions to Muslims in an Islamic country because you could get your head removed , or a thousand lashes. However if you want to talk to yourself, be my guest. Your conclusion that we have to include religion argument ain't gonna happen. Read your own comment. You are coming from one religious point of view and critiquing someone with another religious point of view and assuming that your position is correct by the sheer fact that it's from you. It sounds so pathetic because you don't even seem to recognize your doing what you accuse those with religious arguments are doing.

And by the way, your favorite president just signed a bill extending critical parts of the Patriot Act that allows warrantless wire taps. If you want to talk about the importance of water boarding in the gathering of critical information…then I'll be glad to oblige.