patrick.net

sbh says

DAMN RIGHT! We hold 'em under water for fifteen fucking minutes. If they fucking die, they're Gomers who don't know nuthin'. If they live we torture 'em until they tell us what we already know and then we hold 'em under water for thirty minutes just for being fuckin' terrorists. If they die it proves they told us the truth.

HOW CAN YOU ARGUE WITH THAT?

Enhanced interrogation techniques Monty Python style.

Here is something sensible.
1. All members of any known terrorist organization must be assumed guilty.
2. They must be killed or captured.
3. If captured, they must tell us everything we need to know, regardless of how that information is derived.
4. Once we are done with them, we feed them to the sharks.
Keeping it simple :)

Dan8267 says

Exactly. That's why ISIS rose to power. That's why there is more terrorism now than before 9/11.

Nope ISIS is O's handiwork.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Exactly. That's why ISIS rose to power. That's why there is more terrorism now than before 9/11.

Nope ISIS is O's handiwork.

Bullshit.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Exactly. That's why ISIS rose to power. That's why there is more terrorism now than before 9/11.

Nope ISIS is O's handiwork.

Because you believe it should be true?

The French King and the Catholic Church used enhanced interrogation on de Molay and the Knights Templar, proving they praised Mammon, kissed the Goat, worshipped Satan, etc. etc.

If they hadn't used interrogation, would they have discovered all the baby sacrificing to Satan that was going on in the 14th Century?

Baby sacrificing to Satan is horrible.

bob2356 says

Because you believe it should be true?

Not that you ever back up your assertions...

Does it ever occur to you mutts that there is a logical disconnect when goat herders know how to use high tech weapons?

This at about 22min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8AgwBpv-h8

Or google ISIS and Obama

and baby sacrificing via libby abortions is not??

thunderlips11 says

Baby sacrificing to Satan is horrible.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Because you believe it should be true?

Not that you ever back up your assertions...

Does it ever occur to you mutts that there is a logical disconnect when goat herders know how to use high tech weapons?

This at about 22min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8AgwBpv-h8

Or google ISIS and Obama

I skipped through parts of that broadcast. It wasn't an argument for ISIS being Obama's handiwork. It was an argument for non-intervention. It also points to the central role of GW. Did you even listen to any of it before linking it?

Bigsby says

It was an argument for non-intervention. It also points to the central role of GW. Did you even listen to any of it before linking it?

Listen to at the time I stated and google ISIS and Obama and the CIA

indigenous says

Bigsby says

It was an argument for non-intervention. It also points to the central role of GW. Did you even listen to any of it before linking it?

Listen to at the time I stated and google ISIS and Obama and the CIA

I did. He's complaining about Obama's intervention. He's not saying Obama is responsible for Daesh. He then goes on to make the assertion that Assad would have defeated the insurgency without Obama's intervention. Based on what? The intervention in Syria was very low key for a long time. I didn't notice Assad making great strides to regain control of all of Syria. And this person is a radio host for an antiwar show. What exactly makes him an expert on the Middle East?

Bigsby says

I did. He's complaining about Obama's intervention. He's not saying Obama is responsible for Daesh. He then goes on to make the assertion that Assad would have defeated the insurgency without Obama's intervention. Based on what? The intervention in Syria was very low key for a long time. I didn't notice Assad making great strides to regain control of Syria. And this person is a radio host. What exactly makes him an expert on the Middle East?

..

It is implied, and I'm sure he mentions it elsewhere. His depth of knowledge of the Middle East is impressive. Pick your poison would you rather go to there yourself? or listen to the NY Times? Or triangulate?

indigenous says

Bigsby says

I did. He's complaining about Obama's intervention. He's not saying Obama is responsible for Daesh. He then goes on to make the assertion that Assad would have defeated the insurgency without Obama's intervention. Based on what? The intervention in Syria was very low key for a long time. I didn't notice Assad making great strides to regain control of Syria. And this person is a radio host. What exactly makes him an expert on the Middle East?

..

It is implied, and I'm sure he mentions it elsewhere. His depth of knowledge of the Middle East is impressive. Pick your poison would you rather go to there yourself? or listen to the NY Times? Or triangulate?

How exactly do you think he implied it? You're just talking nonsense.
I live in the ME so am exposed to the issues more than most, but just as a general point, I prefer to get my information from experts rather than radio hosts, but I guess each to their own.

Bigsby says

How exactly do you think he implied it?

Where he said that Bashar al-Assad would have defeated the insurgents if not for US support, and that this activity is high treason, around the time I indicated.

Bigsby says

I prefer to get my information from experts

Do tell, IOW backup your assertions, like you complain I don't.

And don't give a bunch of tangential yik yak.

indigenous says

Where he said that Bashar al-Assad would have defeated the insurgents if not for US support, and that this activity is high treason, around the time I indicated.

Ignoring the fact that that is an extraordinarily dubious contention, it has nothing to do with your claim that Obama created Daesh.

indigenous says

Do tell, IOW backup your assertions, like you complain I don't.

And don't give a bunch of tangential yik yak.

Back up what claim? You're the only person I've ever heard claim that Obama created Daesh. Do you want me to link to every informed article on the internet to show that you are wrong in that assertion? As you said before about using Google, just type IS/ISIL/Daesh into your browser and you'll get a better understanding of the facts than you seem to have got from imprinting your own biases on the statements of a radio host who doesn't even agree with your stated view.

Bigsby says

That has nothing to do with your claim that Obama created Daesh.

Like I said it is implied.

Bigsby says

Back up what claim? You're the only person I've ever heard claim that Obama created Daesh. Do you want me to link to every informed article on the internet to show that you are wrong in that assertion? As you said before about using Google, just type IS/ISIL/Daesh into your browser and you'll get a better understanding of the facts than you seem to have got from imprinting your own biases on the statements of a radio host who doesn't even agree with your stated view.

There you go no expert...

The US needs an enemy, it created Bin Ladin through the CIA, of course this stuff is not main stream as they don't want it to be. The US has provoked every war it has engaged in for 100 years.

Are you really that ignorant?

indigenous says

Like I said it is implied.

And like I said, no it isn't.

indigenous says

There you go no expert...

The US needs an enemy, it created Bin Ladin through the CIA, of course this stuff is not main stream as they don't want it to be. The US has provoked every war it has engaged in for 100 years.

Are you really that ignorant?

Eh? Obama didn't create Daesh. End of discussion. You can go off on any number of tangents you want in an effort to distract, but your claim was, is and will always be complete bullshit.

Bigsby says

Eh? Obama didn't create Daesh. End of discussion. You can go off on any number of tangents you want in an effort to distract, but your claim was, is and will always be complete bullshit.

Agree to disagree and fuck off

Sure he did. Run away...

I don't have time for this shit.

sbh says

Strategist says

Here is something sensible.


...........any known terrorist

At this point it's clear you don't even care how stupid your logic is. You don't try to explain anymore

If I did you would not understand anyway.

indigenous says

Sure he did. Run away...

I don't have time for this shit.

Run away from what? Your idiocy? Good idea.

HydroCabron says

- "Zero Dark Thirty", "24" and "Dirty Harry" are the basis of conservative theories on torture. "Zero Dark Thirty" is cited by conservative "researchers" as the primary evidence for the effectiveness of torture in catching *Obama*.

Was this deliberate?

I have no sympathy for the terrorists as their are not your conventional soldiers but at the same time I hope that whoever ended up in guantanamo actually deserved to be there vs being fucked over 1937 soviet style when neighbors/haters would make shit up to get their enemies liquidated.

While torture is not intrinsically immoral, I question its economics.

Genghis Khan, the greatest man ever walked on earth (or on horseback, whatever), reportedly did not use torture in his conquest.

Anyone watched Netflix's Marco Polo yet?

I keep hearing about this Marco Polo guy from kids at the pool.

And of course I am a fan of Kublai Khan.