Obama to Apologize for the Osama bin Laden Hit

[Monketi Ghost]

You ever notice: Obama, Osama?

Remarkably simular, so simular in fact that it can't be cooincidence.

 

[BenBurch]

You ever notice: Obama, Osama?

Remarkably simular, so simular in fact that it can't be cooincidence.

And don't get me stated on the Santa/Satan thing.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Oh.

My.

God!

 

[Halfcentaur]

You ever notice: Obama, Osama?

Remarkably simular, so simular in fact that it can't be cooincidence.

That's not all. We're only just beginning to understand.



Tell me this doesn't mean something. You can't tell me it doesn't.

 

[RandFan]

Your thread title is misleading.

evidence for any of your claims?

Your premise is bogus.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did not give up the courier when waterboarded. He spilled what few beans he spilled several years later, during "normal" interrogation.

Source?

No. My thread title is designed to expose the illiterate and lazy.

Or it's intentionally dishonest to provoke. But even the premise of your OP is wrong.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I am sure the perception from the Arabs is that we got the info from torture. The Democrats should do some sort of good-will tour. Mabye the Secretary of State's husband can go to Saudi Arabia and entertin bin Laden's widdow wives.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Or it's intentionally dishonest to provoke. But even the premise of your OP is wrong.

That is fuzzy logic you are using. The title and the OP are seperate texts.

I have heard from too many reliable sources that the infor was obtained by tortue. I have heard from Dems as well as Republicans.

On the other hand, the people who are in bed with the idea that no torture is good torture seem to be inventing the idea that torture was not necessary here.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You ever notice: Obama, Osama?

Remarkably simular, so simular in fact that it can't be cooincidence.

"Obama joe Biden"

"Osama bin Laden"

"Yo Mamma been Stupid"

Preemptive Moderator defensive disclaimer: Hey, come on, it is in quotes.

 

[BenBurch]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am sure the perception from the Arabs is that we got the info from torture.

That's a different claim.

Do you think U.S. citizens should cast their vote for the POTUS based on what you think perception from "the Arabs" is?

 

[Foolmewunz]

No. My thread title is designed to expose the illiterate and lazy.

And in that it succeeded. Perhaps not with the exact result you hoped for, but in that it succeeded, nevertheless.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That is fuzzy logic you are using. The title and the OP are seperate texts.

You're wrong, as usual. Look carefully at the OP:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8256837#post8256837

[ETA: The term "fuzzy logic" doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.]

I have heard from too many reliable sources that the infor was obtained by tortue. I have heard from Dems as well as Republicans.

Put up or shut up. Show us the evidence.

On the other hand, the people who are in bed with the idea that no torture is good torture seem to be inventing the idea that torture was not necessary here.

It doesn't seem that way to me. And since you can't provide any evidence for your claim, I'm unconvinced by how things "seem" to you.

 

[RandFan]

That is fuzzy logic you are using. The title and the OP are seperate texts.

The title is misleading but I can alive with that. I've been there. The OP is nonsense.

I have heard from too many reliable sources that the infor was obtained by tortue. I have heard from Dems as well as Republicans.

And my mom talks to god.

On the other hand, the people who are in bed with the idea that no torture is good torture seem to be inventing the idea that torture was not necessary here.

I don't need to rely on unnamed sources (I'm skeptical that way). It doesn't work.

Top Interrogation Experts Agree: Torture Doesn't Work.

Apologists for torture say that it was a "necessarily evil" to stop future terror attacks.
However, the top interrogation experts all say torture that doesn't work:

• The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce "unreliable information."

• Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
  "Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."​

A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)

Those are authoritative sources and I couldn't post all of them.

 

[Craig4]

No. My thread title is designed to expose the illiterate and lazy.

I'm dubious as to you ability to distinguish between the two.

 

[Olowkow]

I have heard from too many reliable sources that the infor was obtained by tortue.

Ahhh, no wonder it took so long.

 

[TheSapient]

I am sure the perception from the Arabs is that we got the info from torture. The Democrats should do some sort of good-will tour. Mabye the Secretary of State's husband can go to Saudi Arabia and entertin bin Laden's widdow wives.

So Obama is weak because Bill Thompson can imagine some Arabs as agreeing with the claims of Bill Thompson's super-top-secret torture expert?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The location of Osama bin Laden was determined by following a specific message courier. The name of that specific courier was obtained by the means of torture. A central talking point of Liberals and the Democratic party is that torture does not work and is incontrovertibly immoral. Do the ends justify the means? Just as, in an American court of law, evidence and results obtained by illegal means are thrown out, shouldn't Obama have decided not to kill Osama bin Laden? Doesn't Al Qaeda deserve an apology? Obama is quick to apologize, whither it is justified and warranted or not, so shouldn't we all expect him to apologize for this?

Your facts about information gained by torture have been refuted. Did you think we wouldn't notice?

The rest is just crap.

 

[shemp]

No. My thread title is designed to expose the illiterate and lazy.

If you expose yourself I shall be forced to call the police.

 

[gnome]

At this point Bill Thompson is doing so good at embarrassing himself I wonder if he's trying to gain support for Obama by spamming inept criticism.

 

[TimCallahan]

My sources say that the information was obtained by torture. But my sources cannot go public.
The fact that there is a debate in the mainstream news should be telling enough. If it was a slam-dunk that the information was not obtained by torture, there would be no debate.

I think it is a truth no one wants to believe.

Liberalism is just like a religion. We have strong faith that it was not obtained by torture.

You have specific sources who told you explicitly that the information was obtained by torture; but you can't reveal the sources. So, we cannot check their validity. So, this information amounts to an unsubstantiated and unsubstaniatable claim. Do you have anything else - preferably something that can be tested - to support your assertion?