US journo claims Bhutto was killed on Cheney’s orders

[Prometheus The Supremo]

.... but it definitely is xenophobia.

there's nothing wrong with xenophobia. that dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs is an evil SOB.

 

[detroitbootybass]

there's nothing wrong with xenophobia. that dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs is an evil SOB.

Wouldn't that be 'Xenuphobia'?

 

[Hydrogen]

I thought Cheney would be too busy stealing kid's candy, killing puppies and kittens and waterboarding Democrats to have the time to kill the best American ally in a country of significant concern to the US. Aren't assassinations best left to the President while the Vice hunts his own friends?

Actually it was Dalton McGuinty who consumed kittens...

But I digress.

Actually, my own theory is that jade_lee had something to do with Bhutto's assassination. The essential purpose of which was to frame Cheney for the act.

Not like I have any evidence, but based on jade-lee's desire to torture Cheney, I think there's solid ground for the theory.

 

[jade_lee]

I have no idea who killed Bhutto, I posted this article because it was interesting and the information is wide spread and circulating, but I do think that Cheney should be waterboarded and then have him open his disgusting mouth and tell us all about his definition of torture. (don't take this literally but instead inject sarcasm) damn.
The fact is that this war criminal is defending his decision to torture yet not in a criminal court and I am suggesting that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Amphibius]

Cheney will walk. We know for a fact he shot some dude on a bird-hunting trip and he's still walking around scott free. I imagine the family's mighty pissed about that, accident or no accident. Did you seriously think men with that much clout could ever get prosecuted for their misdeeds? Get a clue. Also, even if Cheney's involved in Bhutto's death, there's already like a dozen fall guys that'll take the wrap for it, long before anything concrete implicates him.

Just like with 9/11, we'll never know for certain whether it was truly an inside job, we can only speculate and in time move on with our lives.

 

[jade_lee]

It's all about torture and those who inflict it often run for cover. I like the idea that Cheney actively continues to support torture, it keeps his war crime in the public forum.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ I am more concerned that there are Canadians such as yourself who think torture is acceptable when it's used against people they don't like.

 

[jade_lee]

Torture is not acceptable. It's not my problem that you jump all over a caustic remark I made about Cheney experiencing what he is preaching. I see what you are doing as immature. As for torture, all the classic experiments suggests that given the authority some people do torture. It's these people who need the reinforcement message that "torture is wrong, torture is illegal, people who torture are criminals".
Our own military got a lesson on torture a few years back, i.e. the 16 year old Somalian who was beaten to death and yes they took pictures. Sick mfs.
It's only torture when they get caught and the message is only loud and clear against torture when they are also convicted of the crime....
Working in the criminal justice field is very insightful. Working among cops, jail guards and the likes has proved to me that the culture there is easily tilted towards abuse if you don't oversee it. Nobody abuses people in front of me I can assure you of this!

 

[Hydrogen]

Torture is not acceptable. It's not my problem that you jump all over a caustic remark I made about Cheney experiencing what he is preaching. I see what you are doing as immature. As for torture, all the classic experiments suggests that given the authority some people do torture. It's these people who need the reinforcement message that "torture is wrong, torture is illegal, people who torture are criminals"

If these remarks are so "immature" as you claim, then why would you want to have torture inflicted on someone like Cheney? You come off as a hypocrite. You're against torture - except in those cases where you want to torture someone you don't like.

Not terribly mature-sounding. And it is abuse that you appear to condone.

As for your remarks on what happened in Somalia, in no was it ever suggested that either the military or government supported torture. In case you missed it, there were court martial trials and the Airborne Regiment was eventually disbanded due in part to this event and others.

 

[adma]

If these remarks are so "immature" as you claim, then why would you want to have torture inflicted on someone like Cheney? You come off as a hypocrite. You're against torture - except in those cases where you want to torture someone you don't like.

Well, in Cheney's case, it's easy to inflict life-threatening torture. As the old late-night quipsters might have said, just sneak up behind him and say BOO

 

[cacruden]

I doubt everyone on this board has the same definition of torture.....

Is causing discomfort torture? Is scaring someone torture? Does it have to cause permanent physical or mental damage? How do you define mental damage?

Now if waterboarding is torture - Bill Clinton and both Bushes would have to be brought up on charges (40,000 military service personnel have been waterboarded, n reporters, and 3 terrorists or "illegal combatants"). Now of course Bill Clinton did not authorize the use of waterboarding on "terrorists", but he did authorize something much worse - rendition (no control over methods used).

Personally, I would not make it part of the "regular manual" on interrogation, but contrary to what I believed - it wasn't if it was only used on three (that would make it more of the exception). I do believe that if extra-ordinary means must be used, the President himself has to authorize each case (which is what Obama basically has committed to).

Contrary to the dogma these days, torture does work.... it just does not work in isolation (you must have some intelligence to match it to - otherwise you won't know if they just are saying anything).

 

[Asterix]

Just like with 9/11, we'll never know for certain whether it was truly an inside job, we can only speculate and in time move on with our lives.

What? Are you serious? Do you really have anything remotely compelling that might suggest Sept 11 was an 'inside job'?

 

[kEiThZ]

Contrary to the dogma these days, torture does work.... it just does not work in isolation (you must have some intelligence to match it to - otherwise you won't know if they just are saying anything).

As somebody who works in the security and intelligence community I would challenge that assertion. There's a good book out called, "How to break a terrorist." The authors are CT interrogators and they show you that traditional agressive interrogation (sans torture) does work. Ultimately though it comes down a question of values. Military professionals will always tell you that war is not just fought on the physical plane but on the moral plane as well. Victory requires domination on every plane of the conflict. If we claim that our fight against Islamist (not Islamic) terrorism is based in large part on not just our desire for security but on our higher moral standing, than we have to be mindful of the fact that torture could very well undermine that argument....and compromise the mission ultimately harming our own security. And there can't be flexibility on how you define torture either. Ultimately, if the public (in your country or the country being targeted) finds certain techniques unacceptable then it becomes torture in the public's eyes which ultimately would result in setbacks on the moral plane. I would only go so far as techniques that could legally be used against POWs (which incidentally most military personnel have experienced as part of any R2I (resistance to interrogation) training. These include some sleep depravation (through the use of sounds and lighting only), taunting, minor physical discomforts (awkward sitting positions, hard sleeping surfaces, etc.), etc. Having gone through R2I myself, I can tell you these will work if you give it enough time and if it is combined with some kind of reward system. Yes, they don't go down well for the Jack Bauer type of situation, but then again that kind of stuff does not happen in real life either. Waterboarding a guy 300 times is not going to get you anything more. And in the worst case, could yield you erroneous information as the individual might simply make up stuff or agree with any leading information....hardly beneficial.

In Canada's case our own military learned a lot of lessons from Somalia. Although, the specific incident in Somalia was a criminal act by a few soldiers the net effect was similar to many historical incidents of this type. The news galvanized anti-military sentiment at home and generated more opposition to the mission in Somalia ultimately resulting in our pull-out (to the detriment of the Somali public). The US went through the same process with My Lai in Vietnam and Abu Gharib in Iraq. If you recall, Abu Gharib is what really swung public opinion in the US. At that point the casualty count was not yet intolerable for the American public. That's why I think it's absolutely important to avoid torture absolutely. In our case it's hard enough to undertake missions like Afghanistan and justify the coffins coming home. Were we to have an incident like Abu Gharib that would most likely end our mission immediately. That's why we have seen such strict controls by the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan...far and above any standards used by many of our allies. Our public is a mission centre of gravity, that we don't want targeted by our own mistakes.

What? Are you serious? Do you really have anything remotely compelling that might suggest Sept 11 was an 'inside job'?

There are truthers and conspiracy theorist everywhere. I am just waiting for someone to merge a few of the theories. When do we go from 'inside job' to 'Cheney did it'? I mean if we can say that Cheney offed his best ally in Pakistan (against the US' own self-interests) then it wouldn't be a stretch for any conspiracy theorist to propose that the administration might have plotted to kill American citizens itself.

 

[Asterix]

There are truthers and conspiracy theorist everywhere. I am just waiting for someone to merge a few of the theories. When do we go from 'inside job' to 'Cheney did it'? I mean if we can say that Cheney offed his best ally in Pakistan (against the US' own self-interests) then it wouldn't be a stretch for any conspiracy theorist to propose that the administration might have plotted to kill American citizens itself.

I'm sure I've seen somewhere someone presenting Sept 11 as something either engineered by Bush/Cheney or as a hoax engineered by Bush/Cheney.

Doesn't mean that there are actually any brain cells behind those 'theories', so wanted to clarify with that poster whether they claimed to have any themselves.

 

[Amphibius]

What? Are you serious? Do you really have anything remotely compelling that might suggest Sept 11 was an 'inside job'?

For the record, though I am distrustful of the US Government in general (hope Obama proves me wrong!), I'm not a 9/11 Truther. However this is a free-thinking society and I respect those willing to question the motives of our appointed leaders.

There could be something sinister behind the Bush family's 30 some odd years relationship with the bin Ladens, their financial dealings in the oil trade (Arbusto/Harken Energy Corporation & BCCI), Reagan Era money laundering intended for clandestine CIA activities ranging from financial support of the Afghan mujahedin to paying intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair (i.e. the US backing authoritarian dictatorships in a conflict against a Communist regime just because it wasn't Communist itself), hike in US defence spending to benefit Osama's family's Mid East interests, George HW Bush's dealings with defense contractors The Carlyle Group, in turn Bush Jr's with Haliburton, etc. Or maybe there isn't. We just don't know and likely never will.

But not being afraid to ask these tough, difficult questions of our gov'ts doesn't mean that all the Truthers "lack brain cells" as you put it; or are deserving of our ridicule when the "Official" account leaves in its wake still so many unanswered queries.