Thread: torture

Originally Posted by stroller

True or false: since record keeping started in 1968 over 10,000 people die per year due to terrorism.

Well the War on Terror has really nothing to do with Terrorism, but more with terrorizing your own population for suspect motives. Saddam would be proud. He has changed the USA more than any pinko liberal commies could have done.

It was I that posted that and I was interested in non-state sponsored terrorism as whether or not the answer was true or false.

In fact, here's the answer:



From 1968- November 4, 2006 about 43,000 people have died worldwide due to terrorism. Of these 43,000 almost 17,000 of them have died in Iraq alone since the U.S. invasion (the graph says 'filtered' because I grouped the deaths by year).

Now, who wants to tell me that the war on terrorism is being won? And, given that historically an average of 5 Americans die each year due to terrorist attacks just why the hell are we in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by surasak

why the hell are we in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Playing with the locals ?

Originally Posted by surasak

... why the hell are we in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Maybe, because if we weren't over there, they'd be over here?

Originally Posted by RDN

Maybe, because if we weren't over there, they'd be over here?

by 'here' i assume you're referring to a western nation, and that is quite possibly the biggest fabrication currently being told about iraq.

if/when al qaeda (and similar groups) want to stage attacks in the west, they will.

to imply that they're currently 'too busy', is absurd.

Originally Posted by RDN

Originally Posted by surasak

... why the hell are we in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Maybe, because if we weren't over there, they'd be over here?

You got that right, RDN!
Whole bunches of Mohamad Atta's lined up to get in the US - best we whack 'em over there, eh?

Originally Posted by RDN

Originally Posted by surasak

... why the hell are we in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Maybe, because if we weren't over there, they'd be over here?

Maybe, because we don't want Santa to wear a veal and say:

Hey little boy I got a present inside this sack for you.....now take this sack and put it over your young sisters head.

Hhhhhoooo........Hhhhhhoooooo........Hhhhhhoooooo

because she will never see Santa again..... anyway.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by RDN

Maybe, because if we weren't over there, they'd be over here?

by 'here' i assume you're referring to a western nation, and that is quite possibly the biggest fabrication currently being told about iraq.

if/when al qaeda (and similar groups) want to stage attacks in the west, they will.

to imply that they're currently 'too busy', is absurd.

What makes you so sure?
Are they taking a so called head-bangers break or what!

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

My reality is blown by

can I play the chart game too...?

Your chart is trending downward. Ooops. You really ought to think before posting something that contradicts what you are trying to get across.

let's be honnest here, Terrorism Golden age were in the 70s and mid 80s and mid 90s

Most western nations involved with terrorism attacks have found ways to deal with them effectively (less than 5 years) than invading poor nations and suspending their constitutions

The US feels like the 800 pound Gorilla, pounding his chest for better things to do, and destroying his own habitat because someone stole his banana

Ridiculous is the word coming to mind at this stage. This is what this conflict is all about: ridicule and useless

So, what do the British think about all this?

Senior British security officials have become increasingly willing to criticise the United States openly. Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6 until 2004, broke silence to warn of how US policies such as rendition were making it increasingly difficult for British spies to recruit agents in the Islamic world. Western strategy against extremism was doomed, he said at a conference in Colorado, unless it reclaimed “the moral high ground”.

Sir David Omand, Tony Blair’s intelligence and security adviser from 2002 to 2005, told me it was time to draw a line under US policies since 9/11. Rendition was, he said, a useful tool to deal with terrorists but renditions “must be carried out within the framework of the rule of law and with oversight”. The most important thing now was to win a war of ideas against Islamic militancy. “Some of the tactics employed so far may no longer therefore be justified when set against these strategic goals,” he said.

Losing the moral high ground. Now, who else said that?

Our dirty little torture secret - Sunday Times - Times Online

...and the British authorities are in no way squeamish, you're looking at decades of counter-terrorist experience there.

MI6 supported the notion that Saddam had WMDs prior to the invasion of Iraq. It was partially their intelligence that was used by Colin Powell to brief the UN.

^
Switchboarding again SK?

Originally Posted by stroller

^
Switchboarding again SK?

What does that have to do with my comment ?

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

MI6 supported the notion that Saddam had WMDs prior to the invasion of Iraq. It was partially their intelligence that was used by Colin Powell to brief the UN.

So, who provided the majority of the intelligence?

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

MI6 supported the notion that Saddam had WMDs prior to the invasion of Iraq

Wrong. The Blair government was cooking up the facts to make the story more sexy, but Intelligence stated that no such nuclear threat existed. When you can't blame your own government intelligence, try the others.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by stroller

^
Switchboarding again SK?

What does that have to do with my comment ?

What did your comment have to do with the topic?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by stroller

^
Switchboarding again SK?

What does that have to do with my comment ?

What did your comment have to do with the topic?

Delete it then.

I am impressed with the level of rationalization that causes some members of the neo-con persuasion to claim that waterboarding and some of the other practices used in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are not torture because they don't maim or cause excruciating physical pain. WTF??

because they're really, really tough.






but not tough enough to go to iraq though.

I was tortured by the Australian Army sort of. Put into cell for a few days striped naked woken up ever hour on the hour for two days where they would shove you into the corner. Turn your matress up side down and leave this doesnt sound that bad but I can tell you it starts getting to you after a while. The only things in the room is a bible a matress a can to shit in and a water bottle. Now if they do that to there own guys I wonder what they do the the real enemy