Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Speaking of lying.....

Best election ever

Chris Christie should be named Infrastructure Czar in charge of highways and bridges.

Is there a specific part of that hour 25 video that we should be focusing on?

 

not really, just gives an insight to how the next Sec of Defense thinks about things.

 

He will get a lot of bipartisan support and he should. I get the impression from everything that I've read that he will tell Trump what he sees as the truth and not just what Trump wants to hear. It will be interesting to see the dynamic between him and Flynn since Flynn is just a wee bit nuts it seems while General Mattis is a smart pragmatist.

 

He's no fan of Putin or Russia

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Flynn really shouldn't be anywhere near the White House.

 

David Frum ‏@davidfrum 7h7 hours ago

Trump’s incoming national security adviser can’t manage, govern his temper, or distinguish truth from fantasy

 

David Frum ‏@davidfrum 7h7 hours ago

David Frum Retweeted David Frum

Aside from that - oh, and his financial obligations to Putin and Erdogan - General Flynn seems perfect for the job

 

 

THE DISRUPTIVE CAREER OF MICHAEL FLYNN, TRUMP’S NATIONAL-SECURITY ADVISER

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'buddy' approach might work with low level retards but against hardened ideologues with critical information that involves the endangered lives of innocent people, dust off old Jon Burge and let him go to work.

 

Its rather absurd to suggest that if we don't torture them, that our middle eastern enemies will treat our captured soldiers well? Is that the thinking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Torture is a poor method of extracting information. Morality, "if we do it they do it", blah blah blah are all irrelevant, given my first statement is true.

 

I'll point out, because I'm sure some idiot will say that torture has worked sometimes, that it being a poor method of extracting information doesn't mean that it "never works", or that I can't easily construct a thought experiment where it would not only be the correct course of action, but the most viable. Anything can work, under specific circumstances with specific people and ignoring the probability of success vs false positives. Buying a detainee ice cream and giving him a blowjob would work sometimes too. But outside of a thought experiment where you have perfect information, in reality that is, torture is much less effective than other methods of interrogation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon further consideration: adding buying a subject ice cream and giving him a blowjob to the normal course of an interrogation would almost certainly, and I mean this literally, would almost certainly net better information, in more cases, than adding torture to the normal course of an interrogation.

 

Don't ask me why I considered this further. But I did.

 

You're welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sort of ticking time bomb, unknown location.

Lunatic who planted it, detained,

Ice cream or a blow torch?

 

That situation, torture 100% of the time.

 

In other situations that aren't quite as exigent, maybe the 'build a rapport' method is the right way but higher level ideologues who just sit in the corner and chant aloha-snackbar all day, sorry. Blowtorch.

 

Some kind of Schrodinger's-Information that may be both good and bad is better than no information at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sort of ticking time bomb, unknown location.

Lunatic who planted it, detained,

Ice cream or a blow torch?

 

That situation, torture 100% of the time.

 

Like I said, I could thought experiment scenarios where torture would be the most viable option. Yours is too thin and is wrong, but with some additions it could work.

 

If we were to explicitly stipulate that:

 

1. There were multiple proofs of a nuclear bomb going to be set off.

 

and

 

2. There was explicit evidence that a detainee had knowledge of its whereabouts.

 

and

 

3. There was an hours-long deadline before the attack was set to happen.

 

and

 

4. The detainee had previously broken reliable and demonstrably true information - and broken quickly - to torture.

 

Then probably we have a good scenario for torture being viable.

 

Some kind of Schrodinger's-Information that may be both good and bad is better than no information at all.

 

That's thought experiment. That's not how reality works. In reality bad information is terrible. It's a tremendous waste of both time and resources. This is why torture fails. It demonstrably nets bad information at a much higher rate than other methods. People will say anything to make torture stop. And "anything" is not the information I am looking for when I interrogate someone.

 

In other situations that aren't quite as exigent, maybe the 'build a rapport' method is the right way but higher level ideologues who just sit in the corner and chant aloha-snackbar all day, sorry. Blowtorch.

 

This is again, armchair thought experiment gobbledy-gook.

 

I've spent a good deal of my life doing this stuff for a living at the highest level, with the highest-tier, highest-value targets, and the hardest terrorists on the planet, and there isn't a single one that conducted themselves in that way. Sure, it's almost certainly true they exist at some exceedingly minute percentage.

 

But, here's the thing, even if with such a person - the "blowtorch" will net bad information more often than not, and that bad information results in wasted time, resources and inherent risks involved in action on bad information.

 

In fact, such a single-minded, evil-villain, pure ideological caricature type would be the worst candidate for torture. The absolute last person (aside from an innocent, obv) you're likely to get reliable information from via torture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking something that's blatantly metaphorical like "sitting in a corner chanting aloha snackbar" and making an absolutely literal response is pretty autistic. You know exactly what I meant.

 

The interesting thing is that the 'experts' claim that one thing is true in spite of being totally counter-intuitive and even contra to my own limited life experience (the three times I've needed someone to talk, one broke instantly to the threat of violence, the other two, to actual violence and provided completely accurate information). Now granted, not quite on the level of a guy who has actually dealt with terrorists overseas, but still informative. Traditionally, whenever everything one can observe in the real world is claimed to be 'incorrect' in favor of some academic thesis that purports itself true in the abstract, the problem isn't with empirical observation, but with the thesis.

 

As noted, totally not saying that there aren't circumstances and situations and adversaries where a different tack makes sense, but the old "You'll tell me where it is, things get progressively worse for you until we find it and when we do, it all stops" has been effective forever and remains effective. The idea that we should take that off the table even though there is no question whatsoever it is the only thing that would work against a certain sort of individual is dumb.

 

A guy I know who went to SERE school claims that 'hold out for as long as you can' is the best they can teach you, since they know if someone has your nutsack in a vise, you're going to talk... but apparently that same thesis doesn't apply to our adversaries, who will only give 'bad information' when subjected to similar treatment and we should 'kill them with kindness' ?

 

Sounds like post-modern horseshit to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously not meant to hold that kind of job, because if "hold out as long as I can' Is what's being taught, with no expectation of holding out under torture, as long as I could would be the moment they captured me. Because if they admit that there's no expectation of you being able to hold out, why the hell would I take even one instant of pain? For what? Other than my own sexual gratification, I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now granted, not quite on the level of a guy who has actually dealt with terrorists overseas, but still informative.

 

Not just not quite on the level, but nothing like it at all, and not informative at all.

 

The stakes of making some guy tell me something in the street - where his choices are "lose some money" or "give back that thing", or "give up the drugs" vs physical damage is nothing whatsoever like the choice between, "give up information that will likely lead to the death of my friends and or family, betray my Country, my God and my mission in life, and which will ALSO incriminate me" vs physical damage is not even ****ing close to the same thing.

 

Not even close.

 

Also, the drawbacks and ****ing benefits of false information are nothing alike whatsoever.

 

Causing someone to *easily* and *quickly* not find the drugs and then beat you up later anyway is not the same thing as causing thousands to possibly MILLIONS of dollars of man-hours, technology, prep-and-planning, and execution in an extended operation that will cost the guy *NOTHING*, but rather extend his time from pain.

 

I don't know about the "experts" (in quotes) you've read about or whatever, or your SERE school buddy (lol), but... ahhh... ahhh, haha. You don't know what you're talking about here. It's all "common sense" sophistry.

 

Reality says one thing, your common sense says another, it seems.

 

But sure, take your experience beating some goobers up as some sort of evidence if you need to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be that as it may, its still true that coercive violence and the threat of pain is enormously effective at making people talk and tell the truth. So lets disregard the number of scenarios where it makes perfect sense to NOT use violence because of a circumstance-specific read against a guy, a 'friendly' tack is the strategically best answer for that person.

 

Lets call that less coercive methodology (x%) with all other options making up some (y%).

 

Nobody is arguing against the existence of X, but rather that Y is probably greater than X and its absurd to suggest that X is the prevailing correct way to do things in spite of the existence of Y because something-something-morality.

 

The former agent, who said he participated in the Abu Zubayda interrogation but not his waterboarding, said the CIA decided to waterboard the al Qaeda operative only after he was "wholly uncooperative" for weeks and refused to answer questions. All that changed – and Zubayda reportedly had a divine revelation – after 30 to 35 seconds of waterboarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique. The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the [sic] 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kiriakou said.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mad Dog for Sec Def

 

How can you not love that?

 

Pretty much universal support for Mattis. About the only concern is more of a theoretical one about having a former General in the position and civilian control of the military.

 

This is from a foreign policy and military expert who hates Trump.

 

Max Boot ‏@MaxBoot 8h8 hours ago

Mattis would bring intellectual rigor, deep understanding of war, sympathy for grunts, & strong ethical grounding.

 

 

A Wise Choice for Defense Secretary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flynn on the other hand seems to be the worst possible person to be the National Security Advisor

 

Michael CrowleyVerified account

‏@michaelcrowley

People usually want the national security advisor to encourage opposing, inconvenient views

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/politics/in-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-experience-meets-a-prickly-past.html

 

Cyx30y9WEAY7R1d.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear-say proves what we knew before the proof ever came out.

 

 

The logic of the left is so open-minded...

 

You could replace Susan Rice with a circus clown and it would be a serious upgrade.

 

Not that Obama would know, he doesn't like attending security briefings. Prefers to get his news from the TV

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flynn's son bascially believes or at least pretends to believe every Alex Jones conspiracy.

 

Matthew YglesiasVerified account

‏@mattyglesias

If you want to be terrified check out Gen Flynn's son's feed (@mflynnJR) and consider he works as a top aide to his dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Flynn

 

He is nuts. He's basically Colonel Ripper from Dr Strangelove crazy when it comes to Islam.

 

 

Michael Cohen ‏@speechboy71 7m7 minutes ago

Good lord. Mike Flynn is a compete nut job: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-arabic-signs-on-border/index.html

 

CzMy2qEWEAAQ3jh.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Trump Rally*

 

"POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT AND ARE IN THE POCKETS OF THE ELITE"

 

<Crowd boos>

 

"WE NEED TO FIX THIS"

 

<crowd cheers>

 

"DRAIN THE SWAMP"

 

<crowd goes wild>

 

"CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN"

 

<crowd goes bananas>

 

"LET'S PUT THE ELITE DIRECTLY INTO POWER"

 

<crowd is cheering so loudly they can't even hear what is going on anymore>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...