BF2S Forums Staunch Bush Policy Supporter Jounalist Tries Waterboarding

We aren't even waterboarding the right people. We are the terrorists. These so called "terrorists" haven't done anything to us. We staged an attack on ourselves, blamed them, and used it as an excuse to invade their countries and kill their people for no reason. If anybody should be executed on television, it should be George Bush. But then again, he is nothing more than a puppet.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Do all of the 'waterboarding is just fine' crowd advocate using it as a standard police questioning tool. Grab people you suspect of a minor crime, waterboard the crap out of them and then start asking the questions. Would you mind if the cops did this to your wife/kids? If it's not torture, why not inflict upon the general populace?

I'm fairly sure nobody has implied or stated explicitly that random, everyday use of the technique would be acceptable. You don't start with it...you work your way up to it when lesser techniques don't work.

The lesser techniques that aren't even debated as torture aren't "inflicted" upon the general populace, either.

A drill instructor yelling in your face and PT'ing you into goo isn't torture...but it's not "inflicted" upon the general populace either, is it?

Why not if it's not torture?

I'd be interested in seeing the proof regarding the Pentagon.  Loose Change doesn't count.

pyscofrawg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing the proof regarding the Pentagon.  Loose Change doesn't count.

Loose Change? Anyways, everything about the Pentagon points to a tomahawk hitting it. You don't get a shockwave from a plane crash. People don't just happen to be thrown from their seats into walls when they are 100's of yards away from the area of impact. But arguing about this is pointless, we might as well argue about religion. Neither of us will be swayed, and this has no connection to the topic, so lets go back to waterboarding.

What are your basing that on? Done any tests?

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Do all of the 'waterboarding is just fine' crowd advocate using it as a standard police questioning tool. Grab people you suspect of a minor crime, waterboard the crap out of them and then start asking the questions. Would you mind if the cops did this to your wife/kids? If it's not torture, why not inflict upon the general populace?

again, what methods would you suggest to extract information about command and control elements of a terrorist infrastructure that is bent upon doing you harm?  if dude was captured with bomb making tools, jihadi tapes, etc, he's likely not a choir boy.  he's not going to talk willingly.  then how do you suggest we get this info out of him?  or do we just hold him?  perhaps he should just be killed outright?  maybe caught and then released? 

i'm not trying to sound 'smart-alek' - just frustrated that we don't get counter proposals on how best to get the information that can save people's lives.

how about any method that doesn't violate human rights, amounts to torture, or sounds like something only those would do that you claim to fight ?

If you're so much better than them, why would you use the same methods ? It's a question of ethics, and moral principles.

Turquoise wrote:

pyscofrawg wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

What are your basing that on? Done any tests?

I'm glad I could start this debate. I'll just use my religion defense. There is no proof that a plane hit the pentagon whatsoever. Why must I try to prove to you that one didn't?

You mentioned sources.  I don't see any.  I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but you are attempting to defend a radical position on this.  The general consensus on what happened to the Pentagon is that a plane hit it.  Now, I think we can all agree that some shady things surround this event.

I guess there is no actual proof. But I just can't grasp the claim that the plane was vaporized by the burning jet fuel. That is one of the most absurd things that I have ever heard considering how it is not even possible. For a plane that size to have hit that building, there should have been tons of debris and more damage to the building.

pyscofrawg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

pyscofrawg wrote:

I'm glad I could start this debate. I'll just use my religion defense. There is no proof that a plane hit the pentagon whatsoever. Why must I try to prove to you that one didn't?

You mentioned sources.  I don't see any.  I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but you are attempting to defend a radical position on this.  The general consensus on what happened to the Pentagon is that a plane hit it.  Now, I think we can all agree that some shady things surround this event.

I guess there is no actual proof. But I just can't grasp the claim that the plane was vaporized by the burning jet fuel. That is one of the most absurd things that I have ever heard considering how it is not even possible. For a plane that size to have hit that building, there should have been tons of debris and more damage to the building.

but wouldn't the same be true if a tomahawk had hit the building ? You know, more damage ?

I realize that there are loose ends here and there, but some of these conspiracy theories are simply too absurd to be true.

pyscofrawg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

pyscofrawg wrote:

We aren't even waterboarding the right people. We are the terrorists. These so called "terrorists" haven't done anything to us. We staged an attack on ourselves, blamed them, and used it as an excuse to invade their countries and kill their people for no reason. If anybody should be executed on television, it should be George Bush. But then again, he is nothing more than a puppet.

Uh...  You must be rather lonely in Alabama.  About as lonely as I am as an atheist in the Bible Belt.

Whatever the case, 9/11 was staged by extremists, not us.  Now, if you subscribe to the idea that Bush let 9/11 happen, that's feasible.  If you think he actually set it up....  I think you're forgetting how incompetent this administration is....

I know how incompetent the administration is, but the fact that science actually proves that a plane did not hit the pentagon, and that it is scientifically impossible for the trade centers to have fallen the way they did without explosives on the inside leads me to believe that it was in inside job.

Yeah...interesting that.

I guess the dude I work with didn't actually go around the days after the Pentagon strike picking up pieces of an American Airlines 757. And see burnt passengers strapped in their seats.

I'll have to let him know. He'll be surprised that it didn't happen.

FEOS wrote:

pyscofrawg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uh...  You must be rather lonely in Alabama.  About as lonely as I am as an atheist in the Bible Belt.

Whatever the case, 9/11 was staged by extremists, not us.  Now, if you subscribe to the idea that Bush let 9/11 happen, that's feasible.  If you think he actually set it up....  I think you're forgetting how incompetent this administration is....

I know how incompetent the administration is, but the fact that science actually proves that a plane did not hit the pentagon, and that it is scientifically impossible for the trade centers to have fallen the way they did without explosives on the inside leads me to believe that it was in inside job.

Yeah...interesting that.

I guess the dude I work with didn't actually go around the days after the Pentagon strike picking up pieces of an American Airlines 757. And see burnt passengers strapped in their seats.

I'll have to let him know. He'll be surprised that it didn't happen.

Your friend has the benefit of first hand evidence (not the kind you can post a source for obviously) but you can't expect everyone to simply swallow any story these days without convincing evidence. The Pentagon attack was controversial because it didn't look like the kind of damage you would imagine a plane would inflict and, unlike the twin towers, half the planet didn't see it hit. Add a few conspiracy theorists to the mix and you get doubt.

I don't believe anything either way but that's only because I've never had definitive proof given to me, I'll keep an open mind until then. If one of my trusted friends was able to assure me I would then probably be sold on the story too.

pyscofrawg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

pyscofrawg wrote:

We aren't even waterboarding the right people. We are the terrorists. These so called "terrorists" haven't done anything to us. We staged an attack on ourselves, blamed them, and used it as an excuse to invade their countries and kill their people for no reason. If anybody should be executed on television, it should be George Bush. But then again, he is nothing more than a puppet.

Uh...  You must be rather lonely in Alabama.  About as lonely as I am as an atheist in the Bible Belt.

Whatever the case, 9/11 was staged by extremists, not us.  Now, if you subscribe to the idea that Bush let 9/11 happen, that's feasible.  If you think he actually set it up....  I think you're forgetting how incompetent this administration is....

I know how incompetent the administration is, but the fact that science actually proves that a plane did not hit the pentagon, and that it is scientifically impossible for the trade centers to have fallen the way they did without explosives on the inside leads me to believe that it was in inside job.

Probably because the building was designed to collapse that way maybe? Plus the internal design of its structure and the weakening of the support beams by fired, once one gave out the floors sandwiched down one on top of the other.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm fairly sure nobody has implied or stated explicitly that random, everyday use of the technique would be acceptable. You don't start with it...you work your way up to it when lesser techniques don't work.

The lesser techniques that aren't even debated as torture aren't "inflicted" upon the general populace, either.

A drill instructor yelling in your face and PT'ing you into goo isn't torture...but it's not "inflicted" upon the general populace either, is it?

Why not if it's not torture?

What I'm getting at is that there are many unpleasant things that aren't torture and yet also aren't inflicted on the populace at large.

BUD/S training is hellish so I hear, but its not classed as torture either, just like PT.

pyscofrawg wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Probably because the building was designed to collapse that way maybe? Plus the internal design of its structure and the weakening of the support beams by fired, once one gave out the floors sandwiched down one on top of the other.

If the floors had sandwiched down on top of one another, the buildings would not have collapsed at free fall speed, which they did. Also, if the floors were to have done that, the central frame consisting of steel columns up the middle would have been left stand up. The buildings were designed to take impacts from multiple aircraft of that size. Nothing happened how it should have happened. Fire does not cause a steel framed building to collapse at free fall speed.

No, but a shitload of heavy steel does. The building was designed and built in the 70's to handle, at the time the largest aircraft which was the 707, it was designed before the 747 came to be. The aircraft that hit the towers were larger and heavy planes. Fire retardant foam on the girds was blown off in the impact and the jet fuel created a superheated environment in which the steel warped and becoming weaker, therefore it gave out. If explosives were used then how come there is no 'bang' heard at the time or any visible explosion of material? Inside or not you would have heard a boom if explosives had been used. The central core would have been brought down as the building fell because the roofing also came down. You'll also notice on, I think the 2nd tower, that when it comes down it falls at a slight angle which easily would've resulted in the core being taken out.

pyscofrawg wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

pyscofrawg wrote:

If the floors had sandwiched down on top of one another, the buildings would not have collapsed at free fall speed, which they did. Also, if the floors were to have done that, the central frame consisting of steel columns up the middle would have been left stand up. The buildings were designed to take impacts from multiple aircraft of that size. Nothing happened how it should have happened. Fire does not cause a steel framed building to collapse at free fall speed.

No, but a shitload of heavy steel does. The building was designed and built in the 70's to handle, at the time the largest aircraft which was the 707, it was designed before the 747 came to be. The aircraft that hit the towers were larger and heavy planes. Fire retardant foam on the girds was blown off in the impact and the jet fuel created a superheated environment in which the steel warped and becoming weaker, therefore it gave out. If explosives were used then how come there is no 'bang' heard at the time or any visible explosion of material? Inside or not you would have heard a boom if explosives had been used. The central core would have been brought down as the building fell because the roofing also came down. You'll also notice on, I think the 2nd tower, that when it comes down it falls at a slight angle which easily would've resulted in the core being taken out.

Hundreds of people claim to have heard explosions, before and during the collapse of the building. People from inside the buildings reported there being explosions in the basement immediately before the planes hit, the same thing occurring in both buildings. As for building 7, how did this building manage to collapse? It had almost no damage whatsoever done to it, and only two or three minor fires, yet it collapsed on itself for no apparent reason.

Structural fires in the wrong place? Also at the time I think the towers and those involved were of more concern than Building 7. But I'm sorry, I really can't see any reason, point or even see the whole thing as being thought of by the government. It's about as farfetched as the claim a nuke was set off in the tower because the dust cloud formed the same shape as one from a nuclear explosion.

You could also ask why during WW2, St. Paul's Cathedral was surrounded by a firestorm, yet didn't burn down itself. Luck of the draw, some buildings survive under extreme circumstances, others can fail under less extreme circumstances.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-07-10 03:11:24)

Turquoise wrote:

Whatever the case, 9/11 was staged by extremists, not us.  Now, if you subscribe to the idea that Bush let 9/11 happen, that's feasible.

Feasible ? Really ??
Feasible meaning logical and or likely..

The other guy is clearly mental, but I didn't expect that from you.