This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nice Work Creating New Terrorists, You Morons
Preface: This is admittedly somewhat peripheral to economics and
business. However, terrorist attacks cost many billions of dollars in
damage, and could severely depress consumer sentiment and “animal
spirits”. And, as I have previously written, unnecessary wars hurt
the economy. See this and this.
American civilian and military leaders have been creating new terrorists through their:
(1) Use of torture
and
(2) Killing of innocent civilians- especially children – in Arabic countries.
Torture
A high-level American Special Ops interrogator says that information obtained from torture is unreliable, and that torture just creates more terrorists. Indeed, he says that torture of innocent Iraqis by Americans is the main reason that foreign fighters started fighting against Americans in Iraq in the first place.
A former FBI interrogator — who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects — says categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that torture actually turns people into terrorists.
A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says:
“This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly
believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they
know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of
terror than it could possibly neutralize.”
Former counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke says that America’s indefinite detention without trial and abuse of prisoners is a leading Al Qaeda recruiting tool.
A former U.S. interrogator and counterintelligence agent, and Afghanistan veteran said,
Torture puts our troops in danger, torture makes our
troops less safe, torture creates terrorists. It’s used so widely as a
propaganda tool now in Afghanistan. All too often, detainees have
pamphlets on them, depicting what happened at Guantanamo.
The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found:
“The administration’s policies concerning [torture] and the resulting controversies … strengthened the hand of our enemies.”
Two professors of political science have demonstrated that torture increases, rather than decreases, terrorism.
Killing of Innocent Civilians
The former number 2 counter-terrorism expert at the State Department says that military attacks in Iraq increase terrorism.
Indeed, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.
After the U.S. military allegedly handcuffed and then killed a bunch of Afghan kids, thousands of Afghans are protesting the brutal killings, chanting 'Death to America!'.
Nice work creating new terrorists, you morons.
Anyone who thinks this is a partisan issue should read this and this.
In related news, not only are the U.S. government's actions
creating more terrorists, but "reforms" made to the intelligence
agencies have made it MORE DIFFICULT to stop the terrorists they've created.
Idiots.
- advertisements -
I'm back, Lou. You need to take the shit-stained underwear off of your head before you start posting around here. You are so easy to insult. You have nothing, nothing! to add. Move the fuck on!
WW,
I call things as i see them. If what you think or choose to believe meant anything to me, i might be tempted to claim that i respond the way i do to these wingnut-bullshit posts just to piss you off.
I would never do that, since that would imply that i actually gave a shit about what you think.
GW & PM and the rest of the wingnuts that are killing the credibility of this site are all busy at the moment taking turns watching for the black helicopters. When is your shift?
Have a nice day, asshole.
I just don't like critics that have nothing to add.
Alright you two. You know Fight Club rules.
Anytime someone says anti-government I can't help but giggle. Thanks for the end-of-week-laugh, Lou.
Hey, when are you going to start adding to the converstation around here? I'm just askin'.
All you do is say the same thing, over and over. Just like your avatar. Broken record. I mean if you could at least say something unique I would be impressed - but you're like a gopher problem!
Will someone just put you out of your misery!!
Thanks GW
Great to see someone getting angry about arrogant behavior and not blindly starts waving the flag and singing the anthem.
Rebuild gitmo in Dearborn. Let's see what happens.
i'm sure all these sources are just impecable: fair and balanced...
and CNBC, CNN, FOX, and ABC are all just reporting the news.
when someone writes a story, they have an agenda beyond news. it's today's media reality. period.
GW, i'm sure these events happened, and when lib radio's Ed Shulze spews that the repubs set up the detriot dude to thwart Obama, then Rush spews that the dems set it up to steal a few more constitutional liberties... WTF? Nobody trusts anybody, and for good reason. We're all losing. Bread and circus bickering, distracting from real issues. We're being gamed, and I think you are an unwitting participant in this case.
If you don't believe that any radical group will sacrifice a few of their own 'for the better good', then you don't understand history or humanity, and your usual writing indicates that you understand both quite well.
I don't give a rat's ass about "the event", I want to know the agendas of those involved, who's fingers are pointing where, and what each stands to gain... then we can start to do some valid speculation, which is *all* we can really do.
As a rule, I greatly appreciate and respect your (GW) viewpoint, but a few folks out there are putting *way* too much trust in sources whose biases and agendas are clearly indicated. How do you expect to get to the truth, when wrapped thus.
With what you have to work with, your conclusions are justified. I question what you have to work with.
In spite of my critique, it is clear to me that the truth is your goal. I thank you for that.
anyone even remotely afraid of the "muslum threat: is either very subject to manipulation by the media or has no balls whatsoever. if code orange scares you, then you are welcome to hide in my back pocket. most americans have never seen life and death shit up close and personal,
. i have and it humors me to see the armchair quarterbacks tell me what i should be concerned about.
You know who should be cleaning up the Muslim mess? The Muslim moderates. Where are the the fucking right headed Muslims in all of this? Sharia shmaria - clean up the mess in your own backyard. And if you aren't going to do it, well, someone else will. Situation simplified - no need to retort.
And one other thing - this Jew bear says lay off the Jew jokes. Or I will beat you to a bloody fucking pulp, with my pen. It's mightier than the sword you know?
um there weren't any jew jokes but since you are dying to hear one - 'how many jews can you put in a VW?'
54
2 in the front, 2 in the back, and 50 in the ashtray
hopefully thats your next captcha
Actually, I wasn't referring to this post specifically, but the anti-semitism has been flying of late.
As I read through your posts, and, see that you are dying to tell one, no need for me to whip out the sword, you already tripped and fell on yours.
Add "dark pools of soros" to the list.
How many jews are in control of our administration and finance sectors?
Funny stuff eh?
Why would you have to handcuff children to execute them?
Wouldn't it be easier to pour some pigs blood on them and make them "unclean", and send them back to their communities so that their own parents can murder them?
that's right, mr. washington -- what goes around comes around.
saddam, house of saud, mubarak -- what could they possibly have in common?
who is attacking paraguay?
Paraguay isn't meddling in others' affairs. Don't be so simple-minded.
that's right, mr. washington -- what goes around comes around.
saddam, house of saud, mubarak -- what could they possibly have in common?
who is attacking paraguay?
George Washington...does it matter to you that it could well have been contractors and not US military that executed those kids? It is a relevant distinction to me, and I think while the facts in the massacre point to US involvement, nothing so far conclusively says US military.
You mean our mercenaries? Yeah it would be alot better if our illegal mercenaries killed the kids for us instead of our convential millitary. Just peachy.
I wonder what the on screen score does when you kill kids with one of those predators; do the points go up or down?
I hope the driver's exam is easy, seems like a great way to further my career in video games.
It seems to me that if it were a group of contractors and not US military it would still be our responsibility. The contractors are there at the behest of the US government. They operate, I presume, with the implicit backing and support of our military might. In that case I think we're responsible for their actions, even if they were not under orders.
+1
The contracters are allowed freedom of movement at the behest of the Government of The United States of America. Don't FDIC with the United States of America. We will kick your fucking Ass back into the Sixth Century (500's) if you choose to Fuck with heavily-armed teenagers of The United States of America!
DEATH FROM ABOVE BITCHES!!!Goddamn!
You do not know how the fuck contractor works in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't fucking post on things that you don't know about.
Uh, yeah.
?
The truth is that the US has used wars to -
1) temporaily divert Americans attention span from important issues.
2) artificially stimulate growth in the defence industry which has lobbyists stuffing every Dem/Rep politicians with wads
3) project an artificial and superficial image of global supremacy while its insides have corroded and wasted away thanks to our banker friends
Last but not least the Iraq war was nothhing but a nasty gimmick to keep the collapsing markets !!
Hey smarty pants how do we get those filthy aminals to strap explosives to there kids? You shit for brains piece of crap I'm sure it's all your parrents fault.
_-
Good luck with that you Douch bag!
and thus the reason why we are filled with first person shooter gamers and no chess players
who was the last competent president we had?
Some would say Kennedy. My personal favorite is Andrew Jackson.
hard to believe abe, jefferson and jackson are even on paper money... probably was just a sick joke
possibly reagan but certainly john kennedy who was
light years ahead of his dr strangelove moron
military and security advisors who kept clammoring
for a first strike on the ussr...
read the history and you will read of the joint
chiefs of staff the same ignorant war mongering
mentality that the butthole brigade defending
tortured has....
add lincoln before that...the others afterward were crooked,
incompetent, or traitors to america...cooledge
was good...
Reagan. Before that, Coolidge. Before that, Jefferson. Before that, Adams. Before that, ironically enough, Washington
kennedy and jackson - there were quite a few good ones before jackson..not all but many
Reagan????? HaHAHAAAA
Holy Sh!t.
Morons on my team!! This is what Percy Garrett said when Butch and Sundance agreed to watch the gold shipment!! Morons on my team!! Of course torture increases terrorism, THATS WHY THE REPUBLICANS SUPPORT IT
What are you people deaf? George Bush would have never been reelected and probably would have been impeached first, if 9/11 didn't happen. THATS WHY HE DID IT.
OH YOU THINK HE DIDN'T DO IT? WELL MAYBE POPEE DID IT. READ TARPLEY FROM THE BEGINNING!!!
the International Terrorist Network fills the needs of MIC just as the Internatioanl Communist Conspiracy suits their purposes. George W was a good old boy. Obama is just, well, leave it at that.
Usually I like most of GW's posts. This one is very eh....borderline.
This isn't to say I'm supporting torture, or that I believe every last detail of why we invaded Iraq or did what we did there afterward. I'm not foolish.
But to say Al Qaeda wasn't there beforehand is to say THEY WEREN'T KNOWN to be there. In fact, there have been several Al Qaeda members who noted they had spent time in Iraq. Regardless of whether this was done with or without the support of Saddam is a moot point. Al Qaeda may not have gotten along with him, but they certainly were at least working to undermine him. They were there.
As for torture, that's very much a "well, I can appreciate the sentiment, but can't accept it on the face of it". See, regardless of whether we tortured anyone or not - these people would've become terrorists. It's absurd to think torture was the key selling point. No, it requires much much more than just torture for these people to become terrorists.
After all, they engaged in torture first. In some cases, their own families were tortured by the very terrorists they joined...until the US showed up. We could've been clean as a whistle and they'd still have related alot more closely with their own oppressors than with the US.
So I'm not sure the torture argument makes much sense to me at all, aside from the fact that it's a great political ploy to continue a natural knee-jerk "I hate these guys" view of the previous administration. Frankly, I have no love for those guys, but the only thing I dislike more is the knee-jerk response.
So, I'll take a pass on the politicization of this whole thing. Politics started it, and as a result it's become even more politicized. Which means it's moved from a basic absurdity of politics to a pure absurdity. In other words, what little truth WAS there is now lost entirely in pursuit of a political end.
Bush....Cheney....Rumsfield....
CREATED 100X THE TERRORISTS THAN WHAT WAS PRESENT BEFORE THEY WERE IN OFFICE....
This war is not ours.It's theirs.
jihadwatch.com
Double-dog dittos to Pierre LeGrand. What in the fuck is this political propaganda doing on this site. This dolt who uses George Washington for a handle must work for the DNC. That would be the Democrat National Committee for the politically uninformed. His piece is right from the Dims talking points. The only thing his piece has in common with this site is that there is zero evidence to support, and tons of evidence to refute, is assinine claims. Bush wouldn't release any of it because he didn't want to compromise the people using the enhanced interrogation procedures and The Inept Loser (Barack Obama for those that have not been paying attention these past 11 months) sure as hell isn't going to release anything that would show how successful these procedures were in getting intelligence that kept us safe for over 7 years and saved God knows how many lives. We've had 3 unsuccessful tries since The Inept Loser has been office and its only been sheer luck that nobody has been killed so far. Now The Loser is giving terrorists all the Constitutional rights of US citizens to keep the ACLU-types happy. God help us, we're gonna need it to get through the next 3 years.
The Loser will push the peanut farmer down to the #2 slot as the most incompetent President in US history.
hey numbers - you rather have us all bleed to death in taxes when we can just nuke those countries? i laugh at how fucking tough you like to torture & bully some dumb sandrats but your leaders are just soaking you and the rest of us dry. more americans die from lack of heathcare than any terrorist stunts so save the 'caring about lives' crap since your kind hates caring in general... i care about this country dissolving into a voiceless debt trap and all you can do is pump your chest vs some dark age arabs
no wonder this country is going to fail
The only thing his piece has in common with this site is that there is zero evidence to support, and tons of evidence to refute, is assinine claims.
And yet you continue to visit the site, read its articles and contribute posts. Fascinating!
The experts on extracting information from enemy combatants say that torture doesn't work, and doesn't do much except create more enemies.
Now, a former US Air Force interrogator who has just released a book called How to Break a Terrorist, told Keith Olbermann:
And yesterday, a group of prominent retired generals and admirals met with President-elect Obama’s transition team to demand that he act immediately to put an end to Bush’s torture policies.
Former Navy Judge Advocate General Admiral John Hutson also said of the Bush torture program:
So not only does torture not work, and not only does it create more terrorists, it is for the "psuedo-tough". In other words, real men don't torture.
He told Kieth Olbermann? In other words, it didn't mean shit. KO is verly likely the most dishonest douche bag on TV.
+!
And Chris Matthews. It's disgusting to watch these filth-pushers. Even if you agree, how can you not feel your skin start to peel back after watching them propagandize.
Or a tingle run up your leg?
He told Keith Olbermann? In other words, it doesn't mean shit.
The experts on extracting information from enemy combatants say that torture doesn't work...
And the entirety of human history prior to about the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius says otherwise. But hey, it's an "expert" and was "reported" on Olberloon's program so it must be true, right?
I what thought we all learned over all those years was something along the lines of murder=bad, stealing=bad, child abuse=bad, genocide=bad, and torture=bad. (And by torture=bad I mean that "on a long enough time line" torture isn't efficient for improving the human condition, despite your agruement that it delivers results) Though I could be wrong, and recent events do seem to indicate that socially important/influential people believe these activities to be benificial.
Innocents die in war, and "they" are not the only one's shooting them, handcuffed or not.
Poor analogy to divert argument. You have to also be saying "war=bad" too. Many just disagree. Sometimes you have to kill people to save lives, for the greater good. Making those decisions are difficult, but necessary.
Your ability to live like a king (by world standards) and write what you want cost millions of culpable and innocent lives.
And am certain your definition of "socially important/influential people" is amazingly narrow - someone you saw on TV or read in the newspaper -- really poor sources for framing any philosophical thought. But that is the problem with our country.
Well Captain Anonymous, I conciously left war=bad out. I'm not so unaware as to think that war's aren't a function of society and even nature generally. Hell, even apes have tribal wars. What I'm saying above is that if you're going to have a war, for your own sake, it is best not to torture your enemy, or whatever you choose to call them, terrorists for instance. "Beginnings are such delicate times" and I'm just saying we shouldn't start off torturing, probably shouldn't do so at all.
Kings have gold, not paper. Not torturing costs millions of lives? Where?!
You misunderstand as well. I'm saying that apparently the important and influential people in our society, legislators for example, agree with you that torture is efficient, good, and necessary as an organized part of war, which would indicate that I'm wrong. Though it might indicate something about our legislators, including those in the executive branch (yeah i know they're not "legislators" but...), I'm just thinking it though here, try to join in.