Americans Back Tough Interrogations
Now, before you liberals PMS and get your undies in a wad, read the whole article, before just focusing on the op-ed.
Twits.
LINK: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/13/144852.shtml
Poll: Americans Back Tough Interrogations
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans support U.S. interrogators doing "whatever it takes" to get information from terrorist suspects who might be planning attacks against U.S. interests.
Oh hohohoho! Well, that's not something the wittle wiberwals wanna hear! Let's read shall we?
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows 55 percent of those surveyed support the current policy that allows tough interrogation tactics - while just 30 percent say that techniques now being employed by U.S. intelligence go too far.
Nice poll kids, but as usual, the liberals screwed up this poll. They could not make it any more obvious. More Americans, than shown in this poll, no doubt want tough interrogation. They want their lives and their loved ones safe, no matter how much some guy cries having panties put on his head, barked at by mean dogs, or having a lady MP laugh at his infant-sized junk......
30 percent? What city did they take this in? Detroit? LA? Did you boys take this at a mosque?
"They don't want to know what the specifics are," NBC's Andrea Mitchell said Sunday while discussing the previously unreported survey. "They agree with whatever it takes."
And with that being said, let's let the experts interrogate without some suitcase toting lawyer breathing down their necks. Time for the Cub Scouts to pack it in, let's get ole Jack Bauer from 24 on this.....
'Your lawyer can kiss my ass.....'-Jack Bauer, Season 1.
The finding would be a boost for Vice President Dick Cheney, whose been under fire from the press for opposing Sen. John McCain's proposal to reign in U.S. interrogators.
McCain, let's talk about this. McCain was a vet, he got tortured. Understandable for his objections. But, Mr. Senator, if we have enemies willing to saw off heads and burn folks alive, how can we reason with those same koranimals? We can interrogate, but unlike the Viet Cong and the Al Qaeda and Gestapo types, we aren't doing it for fun. We're SAVING LIVES, not RUINING and HURTING, like was done to you, sir. We're not sadists, we're life-savers.
One technique, waterboarding - which has been decried as "torture" by critics - was used on 9/11 operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Awww, poor wittle Sheik got wet, awwwwww. Too bad, these same critics didn't care when Daniel Pearl's throat was slashed, he was bled, and beheaded. Where were they for Nick Berg, Kenneth Bigley, Margaret Hassan, or even Paul Johnson? How about the other Muslims that these terrorists kill and torture? I say, fight fire, with fire. Show you have the will, or show yourself a willing victim.
The tactic yielded "rich and important information about terrorist operations" - according to the New York Times.
Yeah, like stopping more attacks on the USA. Getting names of other terrorists. Getting banks and financial info, so we could shut this part of Al Qaeda down. Would these 'critics' prefer we let them go on and kill? Only, as long as it makes conservatives and Americans look bad. Kill a liberal, and they'll get mad.
Well, tough crap.
Question: If any of you had your family, loved one, or others held hostage and their death was certain, if and only if you tortured a guy to reveal their whereabouts to stop it, would you do it? Would you have the guts to make a bad man talk, or would you take the liberal high horse and let them die?
Are your own perceptions of right and wrong gonna keep you company, as good as say your family, friends, and others that ought to live?
What do you value?
Twits.
LINK: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/13/144852.shtml
Poll: Americans Back Tough Interrogations
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans support U.S. interrogators doing "whatever it takes" to get information from terrorist suspects who might be planning attacks against U.S. interests.
Oh hohohoho! Well, that's not something the wittle wiberwals wanna hear! Let's read shall we?
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows 55 percent of those surveyed support the current policy that allows tough interrogation tactics - while just 30 percent say that techniques now being employed by U.S. intelligence go too far.
Nice poll kids, but as usual, the liberals screwed up this poll. They could not make it any more obvious. More Americans, than shown in this poll, no doubt want tough interrogation. They want their lives and their loved ones safe, no matter how much some guy cries having panties put on his head, barked at by mean dogs, or having a lady MP laugh at his infant-sized junk......
30 percent? What city did they take this in? Detroit? LA? Did you boys take this at a mosque?
"They don't want to know what the specifics are," NBC's Andrea Mitchell said Sunday while discussing the previously unreported survey. "They agree with whatever it takes."
And with that being said, let's let the experts interrogate without some suitcase toting lawyer breathing down their necks. Time for the Cub Scouts to pack it in, let's get ole Jack Bauer from 24 on this.....
'Your lawyer can kiss my ass.....'-Jack Bauer, Season 1.
The finding would be a boost for Vice President Dick Cheney, whose been under fire from the press for opposing Sen. John McCain's proposal to reign in U.S. interrogators.
McCain, let's talk about this. McCain was a vet, he got tortured. Understandable for his objections. But, Mr. Senator, if we have enemies willing to saw off heads and burn folks alive, how can we reason with those same koranimals? We can interrogate, but unlike the Viet Cong and the Al Qaeda and Gestapo types, we aren't doing it for fun. We're SAVING LIVES, not RUINING and HURTING, like was done to you, sir. We're not sadists, we're life-savers.
One technique, waterboarding - which has been decried as "torture" by critics - was used on 9/11 operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Awww, poor wittle Sheik got wet, awwwwww. Too bad, these same critics didn't care when Daniel Pearl's throat was slashed, he was bled, and beheaded. Where were they for Nick Berg, Kenneth Bigley, Margaret Hassan, or even Paul Johnson? How about the other Muslims that these terrorists kill and torture? I say, fight fire, with fire. Show you have the will, or show yourself a willing victim.
The tactic yielded "rich and important information about terrorist operations" - according to the New York Times.
Yeah, like stopping more attacks on the USA. Getting names of other terrorists. Getting banks and financial info, so we could shut this part of Al Qaeda down. Would these 'critics' prefer we let them go on and kill? Only, as long as it makes conservatives and Americans look bad. Kill a liberal, and they'll get mad.
Well, tough crap.
Question: If any of you had your family, loved one, or others held hostage and their death was certain, if and only if you tortured a guy to reveal their whereabouts to stop it, would you do it? Would you have the guts to make a bad man talk, or would you take the liberal high horse and let them die?
Are your own perceptions of right and wrong gonna keep you company, as good as say your family, friends, and others that ought to live?
What do you value?
posted by NDwalters @ 6:09 PM
5 Comments:
At 11:44 AM,
blamin said…
Kevin
Wars will never end; only the scope or size of war will change. Sorry bub, that’s human nature.
I don’t personally know you, but I’m going to make a guess here. Perhaps the reason you’re having such a hard time with Nick’s perspective is because you’re the typical liberal who believes himself an advanced intellectual, able to see clearly while so many haven’t a clue. You believe if you and yours could just teach (or if that didn’t work, indoctrinate) others to realize these great truths you’ve learned, then everything would be hunky dory.
I’m sorry, but as far as human relations go, there is nothing new in this world. Everything that is happening now has happened at some point in the history of mankind. So if you believe liberals or pacifist have the plan for “strawberry fields forever” then you’re just fooling yourself.
History has shown time and time again that trying to reason with barbarians, trying to appease terrorist, ignoring and giving in to those who will take by force that which doesn’t belong to them, never works.
History has also shown time and time again that, getting aggressive with aggressors, a good offense is a good defense, or fighting fire with fire, does work. It may never permanently end all wars but it definitely changes the scope or size of a particular war.
BTW the more you and your comrades shout your beliefs, the more you endanger the rest of us who understand what a good defense involves, the more you give comfort and aid to the enemy, the more irresponsible you prove yourselves to be.
At 12:02 PM,
NDwalters said…
So again, I'm looking at your 'aggression causes more war and death' line. But still, you contend we should fight fire with fire?
Aggression by the EVIL causes more death, war to end aggression causes short term loss, not long term. Look at how well the harbingers of war were assuaded by Chamberlain in 1938. Not very well. Look no further than the gutless French placating a bunch of swine burning property and people. These types of animals deserve no pity, they have shown reason and pleas of decency do not work. So that's what fight fire with fire is. They go past the point of no return, then we must respond.
If not, we become a worse target. Apparently, you prefer kissing up to your enemies rather than calling a spade a spade, and a demon a demon. Let the rest of the world get bent, we've kept them safe and they never ask why. Screw em. Marshall Plan or Japan's Reconstruction ring a bell?
Where'd it all go so wrong ND?
Nothing went wrong. Oh, you mean, when did I get so upset and not wanna placate the libs and their Islamofascists? Well, probably since the start of college.
You know fighting the rest of the world will only cause more fighting, and yet, you still contend we do it or die trying. Why?
The rest of the world is not against us, and before you present some bullshit poll or set of quotes, remember this. They don't like our tactics, as they have not the will or juevos to do a thing. The Europeans sighed in relief when the Berlin Wall fell, but they yelled and pissed and moaned about Reagan calling the Soviets bluff. The Euros again were happy the US got to kick Nazi and Jap Asses, but were whining that we dare not interfere in their business. Thank God there were some Churchill types back then. Your kind would be content with the swastika flying, as long as you lived.
And as far as the rest of the world picking a fight, bring it the hell on. If they're that suicidal, fine. If they want us to behave like the worst of Hitler and the Kaiser, sure, they force us into a corner, how shall we respond?
And that's not gonna happen and you know it.
The World is fickle. They want protection and safety, but they question the manner in which it is done? I got two solutions for them. They can be nice, and thank us for our trouble and be on their ways. Second, they can grab a gun, man a wall, and fight. Either way, I don't give a damn what they think. Let them know what we think.....
You don't speak German all over the world, thanks to us. You are not living under Mao or Stalin's red flags, you're welcome. You're about to overran by the koranimals, and we're saving you, yet again.....(tapping foot)
No thank you? Hmmmmm.
At 1:47 PM,
blamin said…
Kevin,
You posted:
“I don't think I shouted anything. I just asked a question. Had I shouted, however, I am confused how it '...endangers the rest of us who understand what a good defense involves...'
So you're also suggesting that the very freedoms in which you think you are fighting to protect can not even be used? ie: People can't speak their opinion for fear that your 'defense' might not succeed?
I'm afraid I just don't follow that.”
I’m afraid you do follow that, but if the concept is really that difficult for you, let me try to spell it out.
I know that some are against this war, some for honorable reasons, and some for blind hatred of the “opposition”, or capitalism, or the unfair advantage of “being American” or whatever their mushroom enhanced “reality” suggest. Being against this war and for our soldiers presents a conundrum. As rational human beings we have to realize that “loud openly”, being against the war, is demoralizing to our troops, while at the same time uplifting and giving hope to our enemy. So what do you do if you’re truly against this war for “honorable” reasons?
I don’t know, maybe talk to friends and family, express your opinion at the ballet box? If you are truly against the war for honorable reasons (not just blind hate for GB), I guess you have to attempt to actually sway people with well thought out, reasonable discourse. We shouldn’t shout our disdain for our president and leaders from the rooftops and stoke the fires of our enemies. We can show a united front to our enemies and keep the bickering behind closed doors – as much as possible.
You see, as of right now Bush and his admin. have the facts, as they have been investigated, on their side, and the left has nothing but malicious accusations and specious arguments. You may not personally be spewing the venom, but when you support those who do, you’re giving aid to the enemy.
At 1:49 PM,
blamin said…
Kevin,
You posted:
“I don't think I shouted anything. I just asked a question. Had I shouted, however, I am confused how it '...endangers the rest of us who understand what a good defense involves...'So you're also suggesting that the very freedoms in which you think you are fighting to protect can not even be used? ie: People can't speak their opinion for fear that your 'defense' might not succeed? ...I'm afraid I just don't follow that.”
I’m afraid you do follow that, but if the concept is really that difficult for you, let me try to spell it out.
I know that some are against this war, some for honorable reasons, and some for blind hatred of the “opposition”, or capitalism, or the unfair advantage of “being American” or whatever their mushroom enhanced “reality” suggest. Being against this war and for our soldiers presents a conundrum. As rational human beings we have to realize that “loud openly”, being against the war, is demoralizing to our troops, while at the same time uplifting and giving hope to our enemy. So what do you do if you’re truly against this war for “honorable” reasons?
I don’t know, maybe talk to friends and family, express your opinion at the ballet box? If you are truly against the war for honorable reasons (not just blind hate for GB), I guess you have to attempt to actually sway people with well thought out, reasonable discourse. We shouldn’t shout our disdain for our president and leaders from the rooftops and stoke the fires of our enemies. We can show a united front to our enemies and keep the bickering behind closed doors – as much as possible.
You see, as of right now Bush and his admin. have the facts, as they have been investigated, on their side, and the left has nothing but malicious accusations and specious arguments. You may not personally be spewing the venom, but when you support those who do, you’re giving aid to the enemy.
At 4:17 PM,
NDwalters said…
Wes, that was Nikita Sergeivich Khrushchev, Central Committee Chairman of the USSR, slamming his fists on the table at the UN, and his shoe. Who buried whom, though?
I'd say we fought the Commies pretty well, albeit we have China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, and now Venezuela to deal with.
McCarthy's tactics were questionable, but the VENONA Papers he had were not. There were more commies than Hiss and Chambers and all of those on the HUAC and McCarthy committees combined. Yes, we came close to tearing the US apart, and we can thank the libs and Marxists for it.
They did enough damage with Vietnam, and letting us wuss out against Krushchev, ask the Cubans in the US how well we handled the commies with the Democrats in office.
And no, I don't say kill ALL OF THEM, again you're lying and cramming words into my arguments that were never there. You are reading into something, you cannot dare explain or try and tackle. I am saying, kill the terrorists and their immediate backers. All the rest get their one and only warning.
Step into your headscarf or try and kill our people, you in turn shall be killed right back.
The Muslims as a whole have done nil wrong that could be construed as ALL OF THEM. However, what they have done WRONG, is not speaking out against the radicals who run off at the mouth unchallenged. The opposition against the radicals is pathetic at best, a sham at worst. They say they tried and stopped the bad guys. Prove it.
Otherwise, your GB thrashing, your ND character assassination, Wes taunting, etc. are useless. We're not the best humans, but we're not on the side of the muzzis. We're not saying Israel is a bunch of criminals. We're not blaming the USA for the woes of the world.
Does anyone remember the British, French and other empires that drew up the current Middle East? Did Monsieur Clemeceau and Sir Lloyd George give much thought at Versailles or in their Palestine and Persian mandates? How about Africa? Before the US must endure more slings, let's remember we INHERITED Vietnam from France. We inherited Israel and Palestine from a faulty UN Mandate and others. We didn't start these messes, but we can sure as shit finish it.
So Kev, before you shake your head in disapproval and self-righteousness, remember this. I didn't give up on the USA. I didn't give up on Christianity. I am not a perfect embodiment of any of the above, but I didn't quit. Can you say the same?
Post a Comment
<< Home