@wilhelm: There are multiple prevailing theories among terrorism experts as to why we haven't been hit by a second attack. Bush & company doing a good job is only one of them.

It's also quite possible that al Qaeda is not nearly the threat to us as those who benefit from our fear would like us to think.

This doesn't even take into account the theory 9/11 was an inside job. If that was the case, then there would be no need for further attacks to rouse the nation to get behind an illegal war at that point. Mission (truly) accomplished.

But either way, you're directing your sarcasm at the CIA's Inspector General. Take it up with him....

@wilhelm: There are multiple prevailing theories among terrorism experts as to why we haven't been hit by a second attack. Bush & company doing a good job is only one of them.

It's also quite possible that al Qaeda is not nearly the threat to us as those who benefit from our fear would like us to think.

This doesn't even take into account the theory 9/11 was an inside job. If that was the case, then there would be no need for further attacks to rouse the nation to get behind an illegal war at that point. Mission (truly) accomplished.

But either way, you're directing your sarcasm at the CIA's Inspector General. Take it up with him.

@BitDrifter: Dennis Blair's opinion of the value of torture is at odds with that of the CIA's Inspector General, as well as most professional interrogators.

How come all the pro-torture folk never quote a professional interrogator, someone who looks prisoners in the eyes and is tasked with getting information out of them?

Is it because the professionals know that torture overwhelmingly leads to crap information by someone willing to say anything to make the suffering stop?

It's the amateurs who have a hard-on for torture.

"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Willie: Before you correct me, oh wise one, know what you're talking about. People debate over whether Ben Franklin said that quote or not, so I doubt you were there and know personally what he meant by it. The quote, real or not, is a good thought and I like. It applies to your silly ass too. Do NOT tell me what I'm willing to give up in my life. You don't know me and never will. Your party is full of cowards and hypocrisy the likes of which this country has ever seen. I don't care about bipartisanship anymore. Your party and you make me sick. The way you speak to me, is hateful and pathetic dribble, full of sour grapes. YOU correcting ME! You're funny!

Read what Spritial Monkey said....

Willie: Before you correct me, oh wise one, know what you're talking about. People debate over whether Ben Franklin said that quote or not, so I doubt you were there and know personally what he meant by it. The quote, real or not, is a good thought and I like. It applies to your silly ass too. Do NOT tell me what I'm willing to give up in my life. You don't know me and never will. Your party is full of cowards and hypocrisy the likes of which this country has ever seen. I don't care about bipartisanship anymore. Your party and you make me sick. The way you speak to me, is hateful and pathetic dribble, full of sour grapes. YOU correcting ME! You're funny!

Read what Spritial Monkey said. He is spot on! I don't need to repeat it, because you don't hear or listen anyway. Just read it. You do read other things besides Freeper garbage and WND or Stormfront don't you?

@BitDrifter

"This doesn't even take into account the theory 9/11 was an inside job."

Delusion would be more accurate.

I'd say it's less delusional than thinking Bin Laden was behind it. Ever wonder why Bin Laden was charged with the 1998 US Embassy bombings but not charged with the 9/11 attacks?:

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Pub...

read more»

@BitDrifter

"This doesn't even take into account the theory 9/11 was an inside job."

Delusion would be more accurate.

I'd say it's less delusional than thinking Bin Laden was behind it. Ever wonder why Bin Laden was charged with the 1998 US Embassy bombings but not charged with the 9/11 attacks?:

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”



Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Let me get this straight, anomaly. For about the one dozenth time you take my factual comments, that are grounded in reality, and hold to your delusion, which is grounded in ignorance. Then, you justify your opinion by spewing more ignorance. You want to pretend to tell me about what this quote means, but you cannot even get the quote right. Also, you apparently cannot even grasp the profundity of the way your misquote does injustice to the actual quote. But, it is futile discussing it with you as you make apparent your ignorance of history. There was no context in colonial times to support the idea that government sought to minimize liberty for protection from abroad. The discussions were ...

Let me get this straight, anomaly. For about the one dozenth time you take my factual comments, that are grounded in reality, and hold to your delusion, which is grounded in ignorance. Then, you justify your opinion by spewing more ignorance. You want to pretend to tell me about what this quote means, but you cannot even get the quote right. Also, you apparently cannot even grasp the profundity of the way your misquote does injustice to the actual quote. But, it is futile discussing it with you as you make apparent your ignorance of history. There was no context in colonial times to support the idea that government sought to minimize liberty for protection from abroad. The discussions were not of an international paradigm. The entire war for independence was for individual liberty and natural law. The discussions and debates of the day were of domestic policy, Republican government, and liberty. The entire founding was on principles opposite that which you seem to suggest were protested by this quote.

Spiritualmonkey, ignorance is most prevalent among those who live in theoretical worlds.

@Everybody: I'm noticing a tone-drift in this thread. Let's keep it on topic and not personal, or I'm going to start deleting comments that descend into ad hominem, no matter who posts them. And do people the courtesy of addressing them by their chosen CM handles, not some diminutive.

@Wilhelm:

Spiritualmonkey, ignorance is most prevalent among those who live in theoretical worlds.

Do you have anything more than your layperson's opinion that the CIA Inspector General lives in a "theoretical world" or is in some other way not qualified to perform the task he (and his staff of analysts) are mandated to perform, which is to be an independent, outside overseer of the C...

@Everybody: I'm noticing a tone-drift in this thread. Let's keep it on topic and not personal, or I'm going to start deleting comments that descend into ad hominem, no matter who posts them. And do people the courtesy of addressing them by their chosen CM handles, not some diminutive.

@Wilhelm:

Spiritualmonkey, ignorance is most prevalent among those who live in theoretical worlds.

Do you have anything more than your layperson's opinion that the CIA Inspector General lives in a "theoretical world" or is in some other way not qualified to perform the task he (and his staff of analysts) are mandated to perform, which is to be an independent, outside overseer of the CIA's activities?

Because what you're offering is essentially ad hominem against the CIA IG whose report you'd rather not believe and nothing more. That's both a logical fallacy (the third you've been called on in this thread alone) and dishonest argumentation.

@BitDrifter:

"I'd say it's less delusional"

Good, I am glad that we at least agree it is delusional.

No, and I find myself hard-pressed to believe you actually think we're in agreement on this point.

But since semantic word-games seem to be on the menu, let me try more clearly: "less delusional" includes the possibility of "not delusional at all".

In fact, if one chooses to look at delusionality as a dichotomy, then the choices are "delusional" and "not delusional at all", which fulfills the requirements for "less delusional".

So no, I don't really think I'm in agreement with you on the particular point under discussion, and I don't particularly think an honest reading of my comment as written, nor the context that followed, would have led to the conclusion you came to.

Do you have anything more than your layperson's opinion that the CIA Inspector General lives in a "theoretical world"

Spiritualmonkey, you were the one that first used the word theories. Ignorance does indeed find solace in theories. Don't tell me about your idiotic theories. Let's deal with facts. For example, how did this thread get off course? Let me hear a fact.

That said, I am out of this debate because you can't argue with people that don't hear

Actually, anomoly, you can argue. What you can't do is continually blather when the facts are thrown in your face and you continue to ignore them, then say that the other person does not hear. I have NEVER, n...

Do you have anything more than your layperson's opinion that the CIA Inspector General lives in a "theoretical world"

Spiritualmonkey, you were the one that first used the word theories. Ignorance does indeed find solace in theories. Don't tell me about your idiotic theories. Let's deal with facts. For example, how did this thread get off course? Let me hear a fact.

That said, I am out of this debate because you can't argue with people that don't hear

Actually, anomoly, you can argue. What you can't do is continually blather when the facts are thrown in your face and you continue to ignore them, then say that the other person does not hear. I have NEVER, not one single time, anomaly, ever seen you support your opinion with a logical idea, a fact or two, or just a little plain common sense rationale. Sure, you can have a fellow clipper say that the tone of the clip is off line, when YOU alone are the one that refuses to deal in reality and berate the other for your own refusal to accept the facts. I'm not just talking about this clip, anomoly. You have a serious issue with discussing and accepting facts. I don't even care that you take the facts and rationalize to make them fit your opinion. That's fine. Just freakin' deal with the FACTS!

By the way, spiritualmonkey, remove away. Because you are a disgraceful liar.

Here is what you said to anomoly when he engaged in his idiocy and never argued a single rational point other than to lash out at other clippers:

spiritual monkey said:

Public clip & it's on topic. Argue away.

Then when I answer your suggestion that I listen to theories, when I know the facts and the theories, You say:

Because what you're offering is essentially ad hominem against the CIA

My comment was only about those who rely upon and live in theoretical worlds. Take it for what you will. However, I am not the idiot here that seeks to make my sources, opinion, and philosophy a

@wilhelm:

By the way, spiritualmonkey, remove away. Because you are a disgraceful liar.

Here is what you said to anomoly when he engaged in his idiocy and never argued a single rational point other than to lash out at other clippers:

spiritual monkey said:

Public clip & it's on topic. Argue away.

One can argue without resorting to personal insults, the definition of ad hominem.

But I'll accept that the Ben Franklin discussion was indeed off topic & I was wrong on that one. You both were guilty of it and I should have stepped in earlier.

Let's come back to the subject of "Is there any proof that torturing peop...

@wilhelm:

By the way, spiritualmonkey, remove away. Because you are a disgraceful liar.

Here is what you said to anomoly when he engaged in his idiocy and never argued a single rational point other than to lash out at other clippers:

spiritual monkey said:

Public clip & it's on topic. Argue away.

One can argue without resorting to personal insults, the definition of ad hominem.

But I'll accept that the Ben Franklin discussion was indeed off topic & I was wrong on that one. You both were guilty of it and I should have stepped in earlier.

Let's come back to the subject of "Is there any proof that torturing people stopped terror attacks against the US?"

You assert that you live in a world of facts and yet I see none offered in this thread. Who are these people that live in "Theoretical worlds"? The terrorism experts interviewed for the article I linked to?

You bandy about the word "facts" quite a bit, but you offer precious little in the way of back up. Calling "bullshit" on your arguments for lack of support is no ad hominem. I'm addressing your argument, not saying anything about you as a person.

I'm saying your arguments on the subject at hand have fallen prey to multiple logical fallacies, and that automatically invalidates your argument.

BTW, you get that "disgraceful liar" comment for free this time.

@Wilhelm: What you offer as evidence is in fact the very circumstance we're trying to explain.

Lack of attacks against the US since Sept 11th does not itself alone prove that torture was instrumental in preventing attacks. You're begging the question, a logical fallacy which renders your argument void.

I've given you the link to the 8 prevailing theories adopted by terrorism experts as to why we haven't been attacked. Bush kept us safe (the one you advocate) is one of them. But evidence for it is far from conclusive. It could just as easily be argued that the terrorists got spec...

@Wilhelm: What you offer as evidence is in fact the very circumstance we're trying to explain.

Lack of attacks against the US since Sept 11th does not itself alone prove that torture was instrumental in preventing attacks. You're begging the question, a logical fallacy which renders your argument void.

I've given you the link to the 8 prevailing theories adopted by terrorism experts as to why we haven't been attacked. Bush kept us safe (the one you advocate) is one of them. But evidence for it is far from conclusive. It could just as easily be argued that the terrorists got spectacularly lucky that day and haven't pulled it together since.

The CIA IG says torture didn't work. Bush's own FBI director says torture didn't work.

And on the subject of what is a theory, it's not some wild-ass guess by some tweedy, pipe-smoking academic in pondering ideas in his office:

A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

What I'm saying is that the theory you're offering (that torture help keep America safe from attacks), is based on insufficient evidence, faulty logic, and no evidence, and there are equally plausible explanations (which I've offered) for the lack of terror attacks that don't rely on torture.

-Love that CPUSA crack. Very retro, very old-school. But bordering on personal attack. Focus.

I oppose torture, but I'm not idiotic enough to believe it does not work. You can describe or explain the evidence I suggest however you want. It IS the only evidence you have. Knock yourself out with your theories. You really need to brush up on ad hominem. By the way, I've studied philosophy formally for years and I am aware of each case and instant of "fallacy" I use. Here's the thing, monkey, I don't care. If I make an argument and I use 20 instances of what you call and ad hominem, it does not mean my argument is wrong. It is only YOU playing an avoidance game. Count the ad hominems if it helps you pretend to think you have a clue. Like I said, ignorance lives in the theoretical realm. ...

I oppose torture, but I'm not idiotic enough to believe it does not work. You can describe or explain the evidence I suggest however you want. It IS the only evidence you have. Knock yourself out with your theories. You really need to brush up on ad hominem. By the way, I've studied philosophy formally for years and I am aware of each case and instant of "fallacy" I use. Here's the thing, monkey, I don't care. If I make an argument and I use 20 instances of what you call and ad hominem, it does not mean my argument is wrong. It is only YOU playing an avoidance game. Count the ad hominems if it helps you pretend to think you have a clue. Like I said, ignorance lives in the theoretical realm. YOu miss so much because you focus, in fact seek out, the distractions. I learn a lot from the reactions to my comments. I learn even more from my reactions to others. Do you learn anything?

“It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting.”

Epictetus