CIA torture report paints picture of agency out of control

[Human]

The best political leaders in history have been spiritual, of that there is no doubt. The Ghandis, the Martin Luther Kings, the Ashokas, the Buddhas and the Mandelas. All were men who inspired people at a personal level, and that, for me, is something that has been sorely missing in politics of late.

The reason these men were so successful wasn't because of their political prowess, economic knowledge or college degrees, it was because of their first hand experience of, and staunch aversion to, oppression, inequality, hatred, greed, oneupmanship and many other negative attributes of the individual and of humanity as a whole.

They were able to reach people because they tapped into something within people that gave them hope, a desire for better, a want for peace and a more easy life than the one that currently existed for them.

How these people actually went about their political policies, while rare, was not mysterious. They took interpersonal and intrapersonal humanconcepts and inflated them to social levels. Mandela spoke about the nature of individual hatred and managed to radically change an apartheid country; Ashoka spoke of individual desire, greed and selfishness and managed to radically change a hitherto wealth and chaste focused social system; Luther King spoke about the nature of elitism and the inherent commonality of man and managed to radically change a society that had based its economic stability on inequality of race.

They touched people with personal moral concepts and backed them up in political installation, and these men managed to do it while promoting peace throughout; peacefulness was always a part of the intended means.

What if we were toapply such concepts to how we deal with radicalist Islam?

The method, is of course, extremely complex. But take note from MAndela. He didn't just oppose the apartheid, he was able to expound on why it existed in the first place; or Luther King, he didn't just oppose the inequality, he was able to describe what fuelled it; or Budda, he didn't just oppose the suffering of those around him, he was able to identify its causes.

So, what is the aim of the wider extremist sections of Islam? It's Madkhali, the Salafist Islamist teaching of nonviolence unless violated. They see their purpose as 'terrorizing the terrorists', and view America, obviously, as the prime terrorist to be terrorized. Osama Bin Laden, to mention one well know terrorist, viewed himself a strong advocate of this teaching. In one interview he quipped, 'If we are terrorizers without cause, then why don't you see us attack Sweden, for instance? It is because Sweden have not attacked us'.

Bin Laden can't be considered the architect and creator of extremism, but certainly the catalyst and vocal point for a vast number of contemporary extremists. So, in understanding these men's views, that America are the instigators, which arguably they are (Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, campaigns and interventions stretching back many years), it is possible to understand what drives them and attempt to address the problem at its root.

Since war is clearly not working, evidenced by the huge growth in membership to extremist organizations in the last twenty years, perhaps a new approach is necessary. For my liking, we should take such an approach in guide with the lessons learnt from leaders who have made tremendous differences to conflict environments in the past.

 

[Human]

The government and military leaders are not Christians trusting in God, so we cannot expect that they will be looking to God to guide their decisions and help them. They are doing the best they know how to gain relevant information that can saves lives. And note that they do it without the brutal burning, crucifixions, beheading, rape, enslaving, etc, of children , women and men who oppose them. But those on the Left, as usual, are more concerned about the hateful terrorists than they are for the thousands of victims these terrorists attack.

My issue is one of moral integrity. How can we possibly call 'them' barbarians if we're willing to torture? The US have killed many more innocent children than terrorists have.

Seems to me you are advocating the heartless, unloving position of not doing everything possible to protect innocent lives from a known threat. You show more concern for hateful terrorists who seek to kill us than you do for the victims they have killed and plan the kill. A "horrible, grotesque" attitude, but then again the liberal/Left are known for their heartlessness which they hide behind feigned compassion.

Heartless towards whom? Are they inferior humans beings so much that torturing some of them and murdering hundreds of thousands of their innocents is justified in order to stop the same happening to our own?

But for Christians, however, we trust in God and look to Him for guidance in our own circumstances. Thus we love our enemies as well as all those around us. Our own personal circumstances are where we have direct involvement to act as Jesus commanded. And when asked to take sides on issues such as in this OP, then in it's secular context it would be a very heartless Christian who would side with comforting hateful terrorists resulting in the death of innocent lives.

Can you serve secularism and God? If not, then your primary focus should be the interpersonal relations of your own life. If you believe that the secular society and the Godly are starkly divided and your place is one of Godliness, then your opinions should elevate above that of the secularist society and be of an enlightened and singular character encompassed by love. It seems to me that you think it perfectly acceptable to justify your own dualistic mind in this manner, yet the Liberal secularist, whom you seem to generalize as a conflicted hatemongerer incapable of Godly love, you hold to higher standards than yourself.

 

[haz]

Sadly the Left so often distort the truth. Nelson Mandella is one such example who the Left glorify whilst ignoring his many atrocities.

And why has Bin Laden not attacked Sweden?
Sweden's leftist government and leftist mainstream media etc love hateful Muslims and share a similar racism with them against Jews. Sweden's love of Muslims extends so far that, in spite of being seen as the rape capital of Europe, it avoids addressing the actual issue that these rapes are committed primarily by the Muslims in Sweden that they embrace with such reverence. That's the Left for you.

So as usual we see the Left's argument that it's all somehow relative and hence we do not have to take the issue of Islam's violent directives seriously. The Left are merely Muslim apologists who seek to cover up for one of their favorites.

 

[Human]

Sadly the Left so often distort the truth. Nelson Mandella is one such example who the Left glorify whilst ignoring his many atrocities.

He did commit plenty of heinous atrocities. That's common knowledge. He also spent many years in prison in penance for them, and came out with insider wisdom regarding why hatred doesn't benefit anybody. Aren't you supposed to be all about rehabilitation and forgiveness?

And why has Bin Laden not attacked Sweden?
Sweden's leftist government and leftist mainstream media etc love hateful Muslims and share a similar racism with them against Jews. Sweden's love of Muslims extends so far that, in spite of being seen as the rape capital of Europe, it avoids addressing the actual issue that these rapes are committed primarily by the Muslims in Sweden that they embrace with such reverence. That's the Left for you.

So, Osama Bin Laden didn't attack Sweden because the government in Sweden let Muslims rape a lot?

The Swedish police record each instance of sexual violence in every case separately, leading to an inflated number of cases compared to other countries.[SUP][230][/SUP][SUP][233][/SUP][SUP][237][/SUP] Sweden also has a comparatively wide definition of rape.[SUP][230][/SUP][SUP][231][/SUP][SUP][232][/SUP] This means that more sexual crimes are registered as rape than in most other countries.[SUP][231][/SUP] For example, in 2005 Sweden reformed its sex crime legislation and made the legal definition of rape much wider,[SUP][230][/SUP][SUP][238][/SUP][SUP][239][/SUP][SUP][240][/SUP] which lead to a marked increase in reports.[SUP][241][/SUP][SUP][242][/SUP] Additionally, the Swedish police have improved the handling of rape cases, in an effort to decrease the number of unreported cases.[SUP][230][/SUP][SUP][242][/SUP][SUP][243][/SUP][SUP][244][/SUP] For this reason, large-scale victimisation surveys have been presented by criminologists as a more reliable indicator of rape prevalence.[SUP][230][/SUP][SUP][231][/SUP][SUP][232][/SUP] An EU-wide survey on sexual violence against women, published the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2014, placed Sweden below Denmark and Finland,[SUP][245][/SUP] and a previous assessment by Brå have placed Sweden at an average level among European nations.[SUP][231]
[/SUP]
As usual, you failed to back up your argument with any evidence. The argument itself, was pretty outlandish, too. In contrast, it seems, Australia began more tightly defining rape and instances dropped from a pretty insane 98 per 100,000 to 28 per 100,000. Something don't smell right.

So as usual we see the Left's argument that it's all somehow relative and hence we do not have to take the issue of Islam's violent directives seriously. The Left are merely Muslim apologists who seek to cover up for one of their favorites.

Don't see where I said any of that, don't see how you come to that conclusion from my arguments. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along or what?

 

[The_Wanderer]

Any session you can walk away from isn't torture, ...

Is that right? So if I were to, for instance, burn cigarettes into your chest or twist your arm slowly and agonizingly until it snapped it would not be torture? You'd be able to walk away afterward.
What about psychological torture? How about if I whipped someone you care for while you sit in bound in a chair? You'd be able to walk away afterward.

Perhaps the CIA didn't do those particular things I mentioned, but let's be careful about making silly edicts about what's not torture.

 

[The_Wanderer]

There are many lesson to be learned from this. Diane Feinstein is no friend of common sense. She is a wicked political hack with no love for the USA.

The government does not go to church. The government is authorized to do things that civilians are not. Fighting wars is dirty business. Politicians often forget that wars are dirty and often suffer buyers remorse.

One lesson to take from all this is that there is no limit of mans brutality toward his fellow man. Some accomplish this with words and others with swords but the end is the same.

Jesus told His disciples to be as harmless as doves and as wise as serpents. To take a sword for defense and trust Him always. As well as lieth within you live peaceably with all men. Note that some men will not allow you to live in peace. When this is the case you must defend yourself and your family. The strong man abides in peace.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Short version: The ends justify the means.

 

[Human]

Just as you fail to comprehend that EITs are not torture. We'll just have to live with that about you, I guess. God bless.

So, waterboarding isn't torture? Here's the definition of torture for you:

''Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity''

Waterboarding, among other reported 'enhanced interrogation techniques', are indeed torture.

 

[Human]

Exaggerate much? Our agents raping our enemies' wives then slitting throats? That's hysterical! LOL. Source, please.

200 hours without sleep? More humor! LOL. Source please.

If your family was saved by the tactics you mentioned you'd be singing a different tune, but in fact, your family members have been kept safe by tactics less extreme than most fraternity hazing traditions.

You find my comments utterly disgusting, vile and indefensible? You deny Jesus' divinity therefore your views mean nothing to me. I promise I'll let you know if I ever care what you think of me. The only reason I'm even responding to you is to defend the integrity of my nation's servants that help keep innocent people safe. And if any servants are reading this, I say thank you for all that you do.

There's no integrity in this:

16 Horrifying Excerpts From the Torture Report That the CIA Doesn't Want You to See - Mic

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Blaming one political party for something both approved is ignorant David but you managed it.

"The CIA briefed Congressional leadership multiple times. The briefings were detailed and graphic. The briefers held nothing back. Nor did Senators, who asked, among other things, whether the CIA had the authorities it needed. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and chairwoman of the panel, herself said that, 'We have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.'

"In a Washington Post op-ed Friday, Rodriguez accused Rockefeller and other Democrats of hypocrisy for opposing the torture of terrorism suspects after being briefed on such actions and giving their tacit support, a claim Rockefeller clearly felt was ridiculous given his years of investigating the agency’s use of torture and efforts to publicly release the Senate Democrats’ CIA torture report, which finally occurred on Tuesday."

"In early September 2002, the CIA briefed Pelosi and other top members on the House Intelligence Committee about the enhanced interrogation techniques."

"Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee during much of the George W. Bush Administration..."

Etc...

Furthermore:

With regard to effectiveness, those responsible for the program confirm that this was successful. It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives (including helping to find Osama bin Laden); added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization; and led to the disruption of terrorist plots, saving American and allied lives.The Senate Democrat document, however, denies such credit and reads like a shrill prosecutorial screed rather than a dispassionate historical study. The staff started with a conclusion and then cherry picked their way through six million pages, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to make their case — the very definition of politicization."

And David, what do you think a report on ISIS torture would look like? Here's a fresh report to get that started: US Claims ISIS Demoralized by Airstrikes; Militants Selling Christian Artifacts, Using Churches as Torture Chambers

CIA torture report paints picture of agency out of control What shocks me more about the brutal Republican Lead Government, was not just it's crimes against humanity but the profound incompetence. After all that torture, there was very little to show for it.

 

[Human]

Blaming one political party for something both approved is ignorant David but you managed it.

"The CIA briefed Congressional leadership multiple times. The briefings were detailed and graphic. The briefers held nothing back. Nor did Senators, who asked, among other things, whether the CIA had the authorities it needed. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and chairwoman of the panel, herself said that, 'We have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.'

"In a Washington Post op-ed Friday, Rodriguez accused Rockefeller and other Democrats of hypocrisy for opposing the torture of terrorism suspects after being briefed on such actions and giving their tacit support, a claim Rockefeller clearly felt was ridiculous given his years of investigating the agency’s use of torture and efforts to publicly release the Senate Democrats’ CIA torture report, which finally occurred on Tuesday."

"In early September 2002, the CIA briefed Pelosi and other top members on the House Intelligence Committee about the enhanced interrogation techniques."

"Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee during much of the George W. Bush Administration..."

Etc...

Furthermore:

With regard to effectiveness, those responsible for the program confirm that this was successful. It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives (including helping to find Osama bin Laden); added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization; and led to the disruption of terrorist plots, saving American and allied lives.The Senate Democrat document, however, denies such credit and reads like a shrill prosecutorial screed rather than a dispassionate historical study. The staff started with a conclusion and then cherry picked their way through six million pages, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to make their case — the very definition of politicization."

And David, what do you think a report on ISIS torture would look like? Here's a fresh report to get that started: US Claims ISIS Demoralized by Airstrikes; Militants Selling Christian Artifacts, Using Churches as Torture Chambers

I appreciate dispassionate discourse on the merits of hisotircal political policy as much as the next intellectual, but we're talking about torture here AgeOfKnowledge. Whether it got results or not is a bit of a secondary issue to the message a self-appointed Big Brother sends when he rebrands 'mild' torture as ''advanced interrogation'' and covers up more severe instances.

 

[haz]

How can we possibly call 'them' barbarians if we're willing to torture? The US have killed many more innocent children than terrorists have.

It's obvious.
The terrorists kill the innocent children etc deliberately for their own selfish gain and in hate.
The US accidentally kills them in the field of battle. They even accidentally kill their own military personnel.
Thus we see there's a vast difference.

But the Left will always try to distort this stark reality and plead that it's all somehow relative.

Heartless towards whom? Are they inferior humans beings so much that torturing some of them and murdering hundreds of thousands of their innocents is justified in order to stop the same happening to our own?

Let's reword your statement to make it line up with reality.
"Torturing some of them" (that is the terrorists who seek to kill the innocent) so as to gain important information that could saves the lives of many.

It's a no brainer here what is the better option, unless of course your a heartless lefty who thinks the comfort of a hateful terrorist is more important than the lives of innocent children, women, men the terrorists seek to kill, rape, enslave, etc.

The US murdering "hundreds of thousands of their innocents"??
Whilst some Muslim innocents have been killed unintentionally by US and allied forces, that would not account for hundreds of thousands as you suggest.
Most killings by the US and allied forces would have been hateful Muslim terrorists seeking to kill others.

BTW, it's the ideology of Muslim terrorists that is "inferior". You really need to let go of this trademark leftist tactic of always accusing opponents of seeing others as inferior. It's a worn out deceitful tactic that no longer works.

We see this deceitful tactic from the Left too often here in Australia. I hear it's just as bad in the UK, etc.
A classic example here is the so called Aboriginal stolen generations fable, based all upon the Left's deceitful claims that Aboriginal children were stolen for racist reasons. The truth however is very different and shows the Left to be liars.

Can you serve secularism and God? If not, then your primary focus should be the interpersonal relations of your own life. If you believe that the secular society and the Godly are starkly divided and your place is one of Godliness, then your opinions should elevate above that of the secularist society and be of an enlightened and singular character encompassed by love. It seems to me that you think it perfectly acceptable to justify your own dualistic mind in this manner, yet the Liberal secularist, whom you seem to generalize as a conflicted hatemongerer incapable of Godly love, you hold to higher standards than yourself.

No, it's much simpler than the distortion you portray.
The secular military do the best they know how to obtain information that will save lives from the plans of hateful murderous terrorists. Outcome is living terrorist prisoners who went through discomfort, resulting more importantly in innocent people saved from brutal murder, rape, enslavement, etc. It's a no brainer here what is the better option considering our limited options in the secular context.

As for the liberal/Lefties, well from my experience I found many are hateful people only capable of feigned love to prop up their hypocritical attacks on opponents. It's the Left's hypocrisy that I expose, and not your imagined fear that I expect from them higher standards than Christians hold to. Nice try though.

 

[Human]

It's obvious.
The terrorists kill the innocent children etc deliberately for their own selfish gain and in hate.
The US accidentally kills them in the field of battle. They even accidentally kill their own military personnel.
Thus we see there's a vast difference.

But the Left will always try to distort this stark reality and plead that it's all somehow relative.

So killing over 150,000 Iraqi civilians (note that's just in Iraq) is warranted because they are 'accidental' or 'collateral'? How many people have been killed by terrorist attacks? It's less than 20,000, incase you don't know. The American policy is that if there is a combatant in a building, the building will be brought down, civilians and all. Don't you think the terrorists consider civilians collateral, too? So considering the idology (civilians are collateral) what makes the Army's killings more right than the extremists'?

I don't see what, to be quite honest with you. When young children lay bloodied or dying in the street -- the result of both sides' irreverence -- I cannot quite bring myself to choose which sides' innocents are less deserving of their lives than the other, unlike you can.

Let's reword your statement to make it line up with reality.
"Torturing some of them" (that is the terrorists who seek to kill the innocent) so as to gain important information that could saves the lives of many.

And is it justified the same for the extremists to torture US soldiers to gain intelligence that might save the lives of a village or several? Or is this another biased argument that places higher value on Western lives than Eastern ones?

It's a no brainer here what is the better option, unless of course your a heartless lefty who thinks the comfort of a hateful terrorist is more important than the lives of innocent children, women, men the terrorists seek to kill, rape, enslave, etc.

I don't oppose torture to comfort terrorists, I oppose it because I believe it's wrong nomatter who the victim is; Jihadist or G.I. Joe. And as a citizen of a Western nation, I have a voice to change our practices. Were I a Muslim in Iraq, I would hold similar views about extremist practices; they are wrong.

The US murdering "hundreds of thousands of their innocents"??
Whilst some Muslim innocents have been killed unintentionally by US and allied forces, that would not account for hundreds of thousands as you suggest.
Most killings by the US and allied forces would have been hateful Muslim terrorists seeking to kill others.

The statistics say differently.

BTW, it's the ideology of Muslim terrorists that is "inferior". You really need to let go of this trademark leftist tactic of always accusing opponents of seeing others as inferior. It's a worn out deceitful tactic that no longer works.

That very well may be the case, that you see their ideology as inferior, however it still does not answer the question; are Muslim civilian lives worth less than American or Australian ones? Are Muslim combatant lives worth less than US soldiers'? Both sides fight for what they believe they must.

We see this deceitful tactic from the Left too often here in Australia. I hear it's just as bad in the UK, etc.
A classic example here is the so called Aboriginal stolen generations fable, based all upon the Left's deceitful claims that Aboriginal children were stolen for racist reasons. The truth however is very different and shows the Left to be liars.

I don't see how this is relevent to the torture of Muslims or the civilian casualties of the wars other than your preconcieved idea that anyone and everyone on the left of politics is not to be trusted.

No, it's much simpler than the distortion you portray.
The secular military do the best they know how to obtain information that will save lives from the plans of hateful murderous terrorists. Outcome is living terrorist prisoners who went through discomfort, resulting more importantly in innocent people saved from brutal murder, rape, enslavement, etc. It's a no brainer here what is the better option considering our limited options in the secular context.

How many Australians have been brutally raped, murdered or enslaved by Muslim extremists? If any, it is an extremely low number compared to the civilians killed indiscriminately by the mlitary in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think aversion to a party's willingness to fight back against you justifies massacring innocents that aren't extremists. Ironically, the reason that ideology has become more extreme and more widespread is because of the indiscriminate nature of the military's bunker-busting. If you and your kin experienced mass bombings by foes far more technologically and finanially capable than you, wouldn't you feel tyrannized too, perhaps compelled to resist?

I do not daily face water shortage, food shortage, hunger, poverty, strife, the threat of bombing or oppression, but those people do, and the West, rightly or wrongly, is the growing focus of their discontent. I believe that is the case for valid reasons.

As for the liberal/Lefties, well from my experience I found many are hateful people only capable of feigned love to prop up their hypocritical attacks on opponents. It's the Left's hypocrisy that I expose, and not your imagined fear that I expect from them higher standards than Christians hold to. Nice try though.

I oppose war full stop, and as a member of a society professedly more civilized, educated, progressive and contemporary than that of the foes of my country I would expect my country's government and military to behave in a manner that befitted that self-perception, otherwise everything that I have been brought up to believe about nobility, honour, fairness and justice is meaningless and I am lumped in by the world, by virtue of my geographical place of birth, with the dishonesty of my government and military.

 

[kaylagrl]

So killing over 150,000 Iraqi civilians (note that's just in Iraq) is warranted because they are 'accidental' or 'collateral'? How many people have been killed by terrorist attacks? It's less than 20,000, incase you don't know. The American policy is that if there is a combatant in a building, the building will be brought down, civilians and all. Don't you think the terrorists consider civilians collateral, too? So considering the idology (civilians are collateral) what makes the Army's killings more right than the extremists'?

I don't see what, to be quite honest with you. When young children lay bloodied or dying in the street -- the result of both sides' irreverence -- I cannot quite bring myself to choose which sides' innocents are less deserving of their lives than the other, unlike you can.





And is it justified the same for the extremists to torture US soldiers to gain intelligence that might save the lives of a village or several? Or is this another biased argument that places higher value on Western lives than Eastern ones?



I don't oppose torture to comfort terrorists, I oppose it because I believe it's wrong nomatter who the victim is; Jihadist or G.I. Joe. And as a citizen of a Western nation, I have a voice to change our practices. Were I a Muslim in Iraq, I would hold similar views about extremist practices; they are wrong.



The statistics say differently.



That very well may be the case, that you see their ideology as inferior, however it still does not answer the question; are Muslim civilian lives worth less than American or Australian ones? Are Muslim combatant lives worth less than US soldiers'? Both sides fight for what they believe they must.



I don't see how this is relevent to the torture of Muslims or the civilian casualties of the wars other than your preconcieved idea that anyone and everyone on the left of politics is not to be trusted.





How many Australians have been brutally raped, murdered or enslaved by Muslim extremists? If any, it is an extremely low number compared to the civilians killed indiscriminately by the mlitary in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think aversion to a party's willingness to fight back against you justifies massacring innocents that aren't extremists. Ironically, the reason that ideology has become more extreme and more widespread is because of the indiscriminate nature of the military's bunker-busting. If you and your kin experienced mass bombings by foes far more technologically and finanially capable than you, wouldn't you feel tyrannized too, perhaps compelled to resist?

I do not daily face water shortage, food shortage, hunger, poverty, strife, the threat of bombing or oppression, but those people do, and the West, rightly or wrongly, is the growing focus of their discontent. I believe that is the case for valid reasons.



I oppose war full stop, and as a member of a society professedly more civilized, educated, progressive and contemporary than that of the foes of my country I would expect my country's government and military to behave in a manner that befitted that self-perception, otherwise everything that I have been brought up to believe about nobility, honour, fairness and justice is meaningless and I am lumped in by the world, by virtue of my geographical place of birth, with the dishonesty of my government and military.

Wow,sounds like Muslims are peace loving people! According to you.If Muslims dont want innocent children dead stop putting them in harms way. Stop attacking the Jews,terrorizing the world and spreading your religion by the sword.Like Golda Meir said "peace will come when Arabs love their children more than they hate us" Live by the sword,die by the sword.




ps. Attack Gods chosen people,the Jews,expect to lose.Take a look down through history.God will repay.

 

[Human]

Wow,sounds like Muslims are peace loving people! According to you.If Muslims dont want innocent children dead stop putting them in harms way. Stop attacking the Jews,terrorizing the world and spreading your religion by the sword.Like Golda Meir said "peace will come when Arabs love their children more than they hate us" Live by the sword,die by the sword.




ps. Attack Gods chosen people,the Jews,expect to lose.Take a look down through history.God will repay.

I challange you to go to Afghanistan or Iraq and just look. These people are thousands of miles way, most far too poor to travel, trying to make lives off the land. Most have run down old houses, little money, nothing to take, no grand ideas, fancy apartments or televisions. What they have is very little. Their towns, villages, cities, are bulletridden and half standing, their markets are ramshackle, and their water isn't even clean half the time.

I defy you to tell me these people are such a threat that Bush had to invade two entire countries and spent countless lives. What should have happened, militarily, (and which many of Bush's more sane advisors suggested) was a quiet special operation in Afghanistan to bite the head off the snake; it would have been efficient, cost-effective, and limited. There was never a justification for invading the countries.

With the might of the US military (consider the hundreds of jets, the highly trained speial forces, all of it, as opposed to Al Qaeda's zero jets, zero planes, zero aircraft carriers, zero multi-billion dollar intelligence agencies, lacking economy, etc) there was never a need to go as far as they did.

The only thing Iraq and Afgahnistan have achieved are to make the US hated, Islam unduly stigmatized, thousands of innocents dead, ideology more extreme and Al Qaeda mebership skyrocket. Give me one good consequence of these wars other than the satisfaction of bloodthirst.

 

[kaylagrl]

Nearly 18,000 people lost their lives in 2013 as a result of terrorist attacks. ~state department

More than 35,000 people have been killed in terrorist attacks since 2001.~the telegraph

9/11 attacks killed [FONT=arial, sans-serif] 2,977 victims alone.[/FONT]


[FONT=arial, sans-serif]The Muslim faith is evil to the core.ISIS sawing children in half,forcing women into sex slavery and murdering those who are not of their faith.Hamas vows to push Israel into the sea. If you are not a Muslim according to the Koran you are an infidel and worthy of death especially if you happen to be a Jew.They have brought destruction on their own heads and that of their children.[/FONT]

 

[Human]

Nearly 18,000 people lost their lives in 2013 as a result of terrorist attacks. ~state department

More than 35,000 people have been killed in terrorist attacks since 2001.~the telegraph

9/11 attacks killed 2,977 victims alone.


The Muslim faith is evil to the core.ISIS sawing children in half,forcing women into sex slavery and murdering those who are not of their faith.Hamas vows to push Israel into the sea. If you are not a Muslim according to the Koran you are an infidel and worthy of death especially if you happen to be a Jew.They have brought destruction on their own heads and that of their children.

Kayla, do you want to know the really scary bit? ISIS wouldn't exist if there hadn't been hundreds of thousands killed by bombings and drone strikes. The reason extremist membership is growing is just a matter of exponentiality. The more the West kill, the bigger the extremist backlash -- more members, more force, more momentum. It's really that simple.

Contrary to your assumption, I believe it'll be the US that ends up the worst off for it in the long run, if something doesn't change, and drastically. War isn't working, it just antagonizes. It does not suppress, in fact the opposite is true.

 

[kaylagrl]

I challange you to go to Afghanistan or Iraq and just look. These people are thousands of miles way, most far too poor to travel, trying to make lives off the land. Most have run down old houses, little money, nothing to take, no grand ideas, fancy apartments or televisions. What they have is very little. Their towns, villages, cities, are bulletridden and half standing, their markets are ramshackle, and their water isn't even clean half the time.

I defy you to tell me these people are such a threat that Bush had to invade two entire countries and spent countless lives. What should have happened, militarily, (and which many of Bush's more sane advisors suggested) was a quiet special operation in Afghanistan to bite the head off the snake; it would have been efficient, cost-effective, and limited. There was never a justification for invading the countries.

With the might of the US military (consider the hundreds of jets, the highly trained speial forces, all of it, as opposed to Al Qaeda's zero jets, zero planes, zero aircraft carriers, zero multi-billion dollar intelligence agencies, lacking economy, etc) there was never a need to go as far as they did.

The only thing Iraq and Afgahnistan have achieved are to make the US hated, Islam unduly stigmatized, thousands of innocents dead, ideology more extreme and Al Qaeda mebership skyrocket. Give me one good consequence of these wars other than the satisfaction of bloodthirst.

Islam stigmatized?! Are you kidding me?! Give me a break.These people that live in poverty do they stand against terrorism? No! They teach hatred to their children.Kill the Jew.I'm not the head of military so I cant speak for decisions made but when you murder over 2000 people expect war and expect causalities.If Muslims lived in peace and stayed in their own country and practiced their evil religion they'd be left alone,their children would be safe.If they cared so much about their children,again as Meir said,they'd live in peace.They cant even get along with their OWN people! So dont hand me that poor innocent Muslim people leftist pc nonsense.I'm tired of it.Kill innocents expect to be killed back.Live in peace and there will be no dead children in the streets.

 

[kaylagrl]

Kayla, do you want to know the really scary bit? ISIS wouldn't exist if there hadn't been hundreds of thousands killed by bombings and drone strikes. The reason extremist membership is growing is just a matter of exponentiality. The more the West kill, the bigger the extremist backlash -- more members, more force, more momentum. It's really that simple.

Contrary to your assumption, I believe it'll be the US that ends up the worst off for it in the long run, if something doesn't change, and drastically. War isn't working, it just antagonizes. It does not suppress, in fact the opposite is true.

Obama has tried to bow,ask forgiveness and kiss behinds,has that helped?What do you propose be done?

 

[Human]

Islam stigmatized?! Are you kidding me?! Give me a break.These people that live in poverty do they stand against terrorism? No! They teach hatred to their children.Kill the Jew.I'm not the head of military so I cant speak for decisions made but when you murder over 2000 people expect war and expect causalities.If Muslims lived in peace and stayed in their own country and practiced their evil religion they'd be left alone,their children would be safe.If they cared so much about their children,again as Meir said,they'd live in peace.They cant even get along with their OWN people! So dont hand me that poor innocent Muslim people leftist pc nonsense.I'm tired of it.Kill innocents expect to be killed back.Live in peace and there will be no dead children in the streets.

That's very Christian of you.

Idosyncracies aside, your ignorance offends me more than your tone. What justification do 15 rogue Saudi Muslims, 2 rogue United Arab Muslims, 1 rogue Egyptian Muslim and 1 rogue Lebanese Muslim (the nationalities of the hijackers) who are not affiliated with any of the governments of their countries, and who trained in Pakistan (not Afghanistan) give for Bush to invade Afghanistan with an entire army?

What justification is 3000 people to kill over 150,000? Do you know what the victims of 9/11's families think about using their deaths to kill hundreds of thousand of people? And what justification are 15 Muslim extremist's misled lives for the decimation of two entire Muslim countries?

Under your logic, an attack by any member of any massive religious group condones all out war on all people of that religion. Do Anders Brevik's (a Swede) apparently Christian inspired attacks thus warrant that the entire Western world go on a Crusade against Christian people in, say, the Netherlands and Denmark? Because the logic is exactly the same.

Wake up.

 

[Thailand_Paul]

Wow,sounds like Muslims are peace loving people! According to you.If Muslims dont want innocent children dead stop putting them in harms way. Stop attacking the Jews,terrorizing the world and spreading your religion by the sword.Like Golda Meir said "peace will come when Arabs love their children more than they hate us" Live by the sword,die by the sword.

Focus on the bold :/ it's more truthful
So, Israel, backed by the coalition of collateral murder are okay attacking / invading and generally living by the sword. Then, if ONE Jew dies by the sword it's an atrocity and the people of Israel are victims, but when large numbers of non-combatants / innocent civilians are killed by drones and other strikes by the above mentioned coalition they aren't even worthy of the dignity of being named as "victim", Instead they are labeled an inanimate object "collateral damage"
Why can't the coalition of the insane call them what they are? (Innocent victims)...oh that's right, that would make those responsible war criminals / murderers.
It must be nice to be able to hide behind a barrier of words instead of hiding behind the crumbling walls of a mud hut ...................
Next someone will tell us "Not all Jews want war with the Arabs or to expand their territory by force"...and I will agree, just as NOT ALL Muslims are blood thirsty Jihadists......