Since the other waterboarding thread got locked...

So we should lower ourselves to be just like the terrorists?

Should we follow the rules of the Geneva convention, or is war no holds barred? I think if you advocate these practices, it's a tad hypocritical to criticize the enemies similar tactics.

it's a tad hypocritical to criticize the enemies similar tactics

I for one understand that war is hell. I will never truly understand because I have never been in war but I respect those who have and respect there judgment when it comes to doing what needs to be done. But employing some of these tactics is just asinine. It gains no true results. We all felt sick when we heard about the beheadings but what if that was there tactic to pump our POW's for information? Make an example out of a few people so the rests will spill. Torture gains you very little usefull information, there are a lot better ways to get the truth out of someone.

It gains no true results

We all felt sick when we heard about the beheadings but what if that was there tactic to pump our POW's for information?

Make an example out of a few people so the rests will spill.

Torture gains you very little usefull information, there are a lot better ways to get the truth out of someone.

When was the last time this country was attacked by extremist muslims? I consider that a result of our tactics.

Don't look at it that way. History shows that no one is innocent. Some are less guilty than others, indeed, but no one is innocent. Victory in war requires bloodshed. That's life. We must kill the enemy to win. :no:

Which tactics would those be? Isn't he the one that past on Osama? That kinda tactic?

Tactics? Who knows, but we weren't attacked for nine years after the first time, as a matter of fact, we have lost about 95% of American deaths to terrorist since Bush took office.

we have lost about 95% of American deaths to terrorist since Bush took office.

We weren't attacked by whom? Terrorist? So when you say we, you do not include US embassy's or our military?

Wonder what that number would of been had Clinton not passed on him?

So you do not consider those to be legit terrorist attacks? IMO your nine years has be reduced significantly.

Your avoiding the question. Are those not legit attacks?

Actually, this is my thread, and terrorist attacks are not the subject. But there's always the school of thought that the USS Cole was a military target, and therefore falls outside the terrorist model, and if you notice the first "terrorist" attack (which I don't really view as a typical terrorist attack) was in 1975 in Tehran when they took control of the embassy and held them captive WHICH funny enough, was in response to what? Oh yea, The US supported dictator that the CIA put in place when they overthrew the democratically-elected Mohammad Mossadegh so that the British could take their oil, amazing huh? And I didn't say they weren't legit attacks, I said Bush hasn't done anything to make us a safer country.

And I didn't say they weren't legit attacks, I said Bush hasn't done anything to make us a safer country.

No you said we have not been attacked between 93 and 01.

If you want to try playing symantics, I'm game.

Saying that bush single handedly protected us since 9/11 is just like saying waterboarding has stopped all attacks on US soil. It just really does not make sense.

On the subject of torture though, how is that we are disgusted and hate everyone else that have tortured our people yet we turn around and do the same?

An eye for an eye is not a great way to live life.

Just because someone else is doing something does not mean we get to do it. Is that how you live your life?

Simply put this is not the best way to gain useful intel.