Is waterboarding torture?

For the most part, yes. Some elements did do stuff like that, but it was never authorized by al Sadr.


Ditto.

Re. hospitals? Been smoking makeshitup again? Since when did the Americans give two shits about hospitals? You obviously paid no attention during the two attacks on Fallujah or the recent siege of Sadr City.


He can say what he likes. I didn't say that and don't agree with it. I said some groups have done both. There are lots of groups operating in Iraq.


Abuse like mass murder in Sadr City, Fallujah (x2), Baquba etc, etc.?

You are deluded, but it's amusing.

You've not been paying attention.

He's trying hard to focus, but your chickenshit is making him delirious!

That Cristopher Hitchens is WATERBOARDED video clip in post #64 was very disappointing. I thought they where gonna strap him to the board and then tip him upside down and dump his head in the water bucket. That's all shit stirring journalists deserve.

It was merely a quip.

What I really wanted to say was that if, as was the case that the entire security system of the eastern United States of America did in fact lower its collective trousers to its ankles and bare its whiter than white arse cheeks or, if we want to be a touch kinder, was still having a late breakfast on said fateful day, and having by pure coincidence chosen the very same day that a group of alleged terrorists had also culminated all their efforts to choose to strike, is such a mindnumbing stroke of luck at such fantastic odds that one wonders why the bad guys didn't just take the easy option and fan out across the globe and make a small investment in every single lottery competition on the entire planet. With the luck they carried that day they could have avoided killing anybody, including themselves, and still have had the resources to call The White House and enquire, "Eh! George. Dis is Al Kkkkeeeda. 'owa mucha you wanta to fuck off?".

I say watch the video...then decide if that is torture. Hitchens is a punk.

I'd rather strap you to a plank and experiment, if its all the same to you.

Sorry to break it to you.

Three men admit bomb plot charges

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...don/7505040.stm

But, I guess they work for the CIA

BB, are you tarring all journalists with the 'shit stirring' brush? Hitchens may espouse some contentious views, and he may also be an arsehole in real life, but he is still a quite highly regarded thinker and writer. He also proposed prosecuting Henry Kissinger for war crimes, which improved my opinion of him massively.

I'd pay good money to watch Donald Rumsfeld and Bush have a go. It's clearly harmless fun.

Don't forget Cheney and Condi and Feith and god its gonna be a long tortuous day, but I will watch every second of it.

I'm all for NObama getting some experience.

Hey guys lay off bad bob! HE's a WAR HERO and has seen it all, you guys don't know wtf you're talking about!

Waterboard that bastard cheney and rove and rummy and and and... Jesus christ, yeah, waterboard him too, as there'll be hell to pay for all the ruination the bush administration has caused

well on a better note, here's something funny and worth reading, the replies to MCCain's quote "I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption." over at perezhilton.com

Sorry to piss on your parade...

It's amazing what people will admit to, when they are either being tortured or told that their family will be deported, businesses siezed, etc. This looks to me like a face saving measure for the Crown Prosecutor, I've seen it first hand when they have very little to go on, but it's a gamble and a big fcuking one at that. Do you hold out for a not guilty in the chance that you get screwed by the jury for something you didn't do, spending 20 odd years inside if it all goes pear shaped, or do you accept a "lower charge" for a somewhat lower stretch. You know you're innocent but faced with the odds of 5 years or 20 years I know what would be best for my family, innocent or not.

Please note that the men were convicted NOT of trying to blow up transatlantic aircraft (The reason they were arrested), Three of them pled guilty to plotting a blast at Parliament (Thought crime - Convicting someone of a crime that hasn't been perpetrated yet) whilst all FIVE of them plead guilty to Conspiring to cause a public nuisance!

They still ALL deny any involvement in planning to blow up airliners, a plan that experts say could never have worked from the offset. The restrictions of which are still in place today.

We're moving in to dangerous times when you can be prosecuted for a crime that hasn't been commited, just merely thinking about it will get you a stretch. Orwell would be so proud.

and there was me thinking he was Pope Benedikt himself!

Not pissing on my parade. You just can't accept the fact that these Muslims actually wanted to do this. Everything to you has to be a conspiracy. Gotta play that victim card.

I like your approach to combating "Terrorists", let them commit the crime - kill who knows how many people and then prosecute. You would let innocents get slaughtered instead of intervene.

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...don/7505040.stm
"The men had been "almost ready to go" and had had enough hydrogen peroxide and other materials to make at least 20 bombs disguised as soft drinks when they were arrested by police."

What did these "Adults" think they were doing? Some kind of High School science experiment. No "Thought Crime here". These players didn't just think, they took actions.

And, reading this thread, everything to you would appear to be no conspiracy at all. I mean this in a constructive way so please don't misunderstand, but if there was a conspiracy do you think you would be open-minded enough to see it or even entertain the possiblity?

Of course, I have my opinions on certain events in recent history that I believe were propogated for subversive purposes, and all others have their own take on events. All I'm trying to say here is that I fear that all of us have been heavily influenced from birth by the media, Government, parents etc. Just how open-minded and free-thinking are we in 2008 as adults?

We are sitting here discussing the use of barbaric torture on a "suspect" and many people are posting up justifications. That in itself is a bit weird and reminds me of that classic psychology "submission to authority" test.

We all must be really scared of this "invisible enemy" to allow our Governments to do this in our name. Well, at least, they say there is an enemy...

By the way, the media is crooked and manipulated by very rich and powerful people. Why would one trust a source that in itself could and in all likelihood does have subversive reasons for reporting "news"? I could quote numerous examples of having seen this first-hand, but the first I recall was watching the total swing from the Daily Mirror supporting Conservatives to Tony Blair Labour back in the last decade. Of course he won the election, but did every DM journalist suddenly become a fan over night? Of course not, but that is how the paper reported it. Either way how can you trust what they say when they do stuff like that. Pass the salt please.

Truth is it's mind games from both sides. Terrorism works on the fear not the constant attacks. As long as you fear there could be an attack then they are winning. Indeed I really don't think there is a large enough 'Al-quida' , if it does really exist in the way most people think, for it to even be capable of a full scale 'war'. An attack or two somewhere in the world is all they need to keep everybody 'in terror'. The probability of being hit are small, probably far smaller than in the bad old days of the IRA, but still there. They win.

Governments with certain agendas play on this or are sucked in to the terrorist mentality. Making the fear worse and basically giving the terrorists what they want. They get what they want though, more control over the population as we surrender our liberties in the name of keeping them!

That "invisible enemy" sure killed a lot of visible people (9-11, Madrid, London, etc..)

As far as being tricked by the government or media, don't you think that with the information society we have today that if we (The Public) were being manipulated that someone somewhere would be able to produce hard, indisputable evidence of such conspiracy.

When a "Terrorist" states he wants to kill you and your way of life why do some refuse to believe him?

TEX you're not being rational here, try applying those arguements to your own points..

You believe that 19 hijackers could carry out 911 but you seem to believe an infinite number of CAI/MI5/MOSSAD Bods would be required for a false flag attack? The attacks of 911, 7/7 and Madrid ALL have VERY LARGE question marks hanging over them. The "evidence" being presented on all Three of these fronts is the flmsiest theory ever. There is no evidence that the official line is correct either.

Ask yourself how many times in your life you have said to someone "I gonna f***ing kill you!", or "If only I could rob a bank!" doesn't make you guilty of anything. We punnish people for committing crimes in the Western World not for thinking about it. We are moving in to times where the goalposts are being shifted daily.

Where does one hide a leaf? In a forest.

Actually the best thing to do could very well be to take your position at face value and not question anything at all. It'll all come crashing to a halt sooner that way.

Here's an idea: Let's take George Bush, Rove and Cheney 100% at their word. Watch what happens when criminals have nobody to hide from.

You keep forgetting that they are / were not prosecuted for thinking. They took action. If someone said "I gonna f***ing kill you!" and then and bought a gun, then what do you do? Wait for them to kill?

"We punnish people for committing crimes in the Western World not for thinking about it" - Not correct, one does not have to commit the crime. Intent and planning are enough.

Here is quick cut & paste job from Wikipedia

In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

No, I think it is much easier to take no one at face value and question everything and everyone. This will ensure a much more enjoyable life, surrounded by the people who you trust & love you.

At least I won't be the one who ends up in a fucking cattle wagon.

You"ll just end up being paranoid about everything and everyone.

Everyone ends up in the cattle wagon, just try to enjoy life before you get there.

You pathetic cow.

Oh well if Wiki has it in it must be true.

IF and it's a big IF, these guys were planning to blow up airliners over the Atlantic, the powers that be would have been better off placing them under survielance and arresting them en-route to board the planes, then they would have had the "evidence" required to PROVE that they were intent on killing. As it stands, the powers that be told the MET to arrest these guys and put out the story that they were just hours away from pulling off this plan, as it emerged later that several didn't have passports and NONE of them had bought tickets it kind of let's you see how "imminent" the threat realy was.

Then of course there is THIS , experts in chemical and explosives have continuously stated that it would have been impossible for them to carry out this plan without killing themselves in the early stages.

You seem, just like many on here, totally ignorant of the facts surrounding this event and the others mentioned, but hey don't let experts stand in the way of your Islamophobia.

Burn the Witch, Burn the Witch....

The smoking gun that you belong in a rubber room. The people who believe this nonsense (as well as the 9/11 conspiracy crowd) secretly want it to be true so that their miserable lives will have something to fight against and thus have some perverted meaning. News flash, human existence has no meaning other than what you make it. If you choose to make it negative than it shall be so.

Sorry dude. Just research any western society legal system. They all have the ability to charge, prosecute and punish people prior to the actual crime under conspiracy charges.

Call it "thought crime" if you want. But the prosecution of individuals prior to the actual criminal act has been well documented prior to its use against Islamists. Nothing new here.

You might note, this drastic measure isn't just limited to Islamic extremists. Not terribly surprising they'd use it against more extreme crimes then eh?

wow, I agee with SlowCal about djgrazy!

Now this is what I call progress! I knew that if I blabbered on long enough I would strike a chord with someone. After all, life's a piece of shit when you look at it, so always... wait, wait, wait, that line just jumped in here from another reality where I was taking a big bong toke.

Also, TexMunich, you are not allowed to call me Dude, o.k.? Only my surfer bros from Cali can use the term dude. I know you guys have "dude ranches" in Texas, not the same thing, 'kay? Dude ranch sounds a little uh, well, you know.

I don't know if waterboarding is torture or not but the thread on hard drive recovery sure is!

If I offend I apologize. But I believe I was calling djgrazy dude.

You are correct that life is to short to be negative.

I like the quote from LOTR, "All you have to decide is what to do with the time you are given"

TexMunich, my mistake. I hear someone say dude and I immediately assume, well you know what we do when we assume, right?