PDA

View Full Version : "ZERO DARK THIRTY"



Robert F. Dorr
01-11-2013, 08:58 PM
There may be a spoiler or two in this post.

Before I went in to see it today, I was disappointed that Kathryn Bigelow hadn't received a nomination for best director for the movie "ZERO DARK THIRTY." After seeing it: not so much.

In overseas capitals, the job of Central Intelligence Agency station chief is one that is conducted under cover -- sometimes very light cover, but cover nonetheless. In this movie, the Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Pakistan wears a Central Intelligence Agency lapel pin on his suit coat in early scenes. Assuming the film was shot chronologically, it would appear that someone detected this boner because in later scenes he wears a United States flag on his lapel instead.

Jessica Chastain is too weak to give the persuasive performance as intelligence analyst Maya that was needed to make this movie work.

It's too long. The same story could have been told well in 30 to 45 minutes less.

Apart from the inexplicable lapel pin, there is a lot of effort aimed at realism. Perhaps there is too much, because the drama seems not to be there. After two hours when the SEALs finally attack the bin Laden compound, the event is played out so literally that, again, the drama is missing. I may have missed it but thought there were a couple of helicopters missing. After the stealth MH-60K crashed and was subsequently destroyed, I got the impression the film had the entire raiding party extracting on the sole surviving MH-60K. In real life, there were CH-47G Chinooks involved.

The bottom line is the weak central performance by the main character. Yeah, you're going to go see it anyway. So when you do, give your impressions.

jshiver15
01-11-2013, 09:03 PM
They were airing it on TV today. I saw bits and pieces of it and from what I can tell, the acting is pretty horrid. Nearly all the way around.

Smeghead
01-11-2013, 09:06 PM
I saw it and had a hard time caring. When we caught Saddam in 03 it was exciting. We went in to get him and did ir, the fact that I was deployed at the time probably added to my care factor. With Osama though, we'd been there for 10 years. Mis disinterest in the real mission probably tainited my view of the movie.

I will say it was much better than Acto of Valor though.

Robert F. Dorr
01-11-2013, 10:19 PM
You didn't like it - shocker

Not what I wrote.

Robert F. Dorr
01-11-2013, 10:35 PM
What you wrote means f@ck all,
It's what I read that matters.

Chaque person a son gout

tiredretiredE7
01-12-2013, 12:05 AM
There may be a spoiler or two in this post.

Before I went in to see it today, I was disappointed that Kathryn Bigelow hadn't received a nomination for best director for the movie "ZERO DARK THIRTY." After seeing it: not so much.

In overseas capitals, the job of Central Intelligence Agency station chief is one that is conducted under cover -- sometimes very light cover, but cover nonetheless. In this movie, the Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Pakistan wears a Central Intelligence Agency lapel pin on his suit coat in early scenes. Assuming the film was shot chronologically, it would appear that someone detected this boner because in later scenes he wears a United States flag on his lapel instead.

Jessica Chastain is too weak to give the persuasive performance as intelligence analyst Maya that was needed to make this movie work.

It's too long. The same story could have been told well in 30 to 45 minutes less.

Apart from the inexplicable lapel pin, there is a lot of effort aimed at realism. Perhaps there is too much, because the drama seems not to be there. After two hours when the SEALs finally attack the bin Laden compound, the event is played out so literally that, again, the drama is missing. I may have missed it but thought there were a couple of helicopters missing. After the stealth MH-60K crashed and was subsequently destroyed, I got the impression the film had the entire raiding party extracting on the sole surviving MH-60K. In real life, there were CH-47G Chinooks involved.

The bottom line is the weak central performance by the main character. Yeah, you're going to go see it anyway. So when you do, give your impressions.

These were the same producers who Obama personally briefed on the classified specifics of the mission. So these producers made the film based on the classified details Obama briefed them and you are surprised the movie was not very well made? I won't go see any film where the producer uses classified detail of our Special Forces tactics to make money off of our special operators. I believe I would be unpatriotic if I went to go see this movie so I will not see this movie or buy it in any format.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 12:06 AM
Chaque person a son gout

What the fuck's a frush?

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 12:09 AM
These were the same producers who Obama personally briefed on the classified specifics of the mission. So these producers made the film based on the classified details Obama briefed them and you are surprised the movie was not very well made? I won't go see any film where the producer uses classified detail of our Special Forces tactics to make money off of our special operators. I believe I would be unpatriotic if I went to go see this movie so I will not see this movie or buy it in any format.

That's funny; obama personally briefed the filmmakers, and the movie sucks. Interesting correlation....

Capt Alfredo
01-12-2013, 12:23 AM
Perhaps I missed it, but why is Tak making a bunch of posts and then deleting them?

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 12:28 AM
These were the same producers who Obama personally briefed on the classified specifics of the mission. So these producers made the film based on the classified details Obama briefed them and you are surprised the movie was not very well made? I won't go see any film where the producer uses classified detail of our Special Forces tactics to make money off of our special operators. I believe I would be unpatriotic if I went to go see this movie so I will not see this movie or buy it in any format.

The filmmakers did indeed receive briefings from intelligence officials and did meet with Obama. Those are legitimate functions for public servants. There doesn't seem to be anything in this motion picture that could be considered classified. However, the president and agency heads determine what is classified and what isn't.

The term Special Forces refers to members of U.S. Army special operations forces, also called Green Berets, and is not applicable here. The people in this film belong to the Central Intelligence Agency and to U.S. Navy special operations forces, also called SEALs.

I haven't encountered any reviewer who thinks this movie is pro-Obama. If anything, it is supportive of the Bush-43 policies that have brought such shame and disgrace down on our nation. In real life, Obama was very much a "hands on" commander-in-chief here, unlike Bush-43 who relied on subordinates, but you would never know about Obama's role from watching the film.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 12:29 AM
Perhaps I missed it, but why is Tak making a bunch of posts and then deleting them?

On my list of things about Tak that rankle me, this is very close to being number one. Nobody knows what Tak is thinking. He is in a world all unto himself.

tiredretiredE7
01-12-2013, 12:41 AM
The term Special Forces refers to members of U.S. Army special operations forces, also called Green Berets, and is not applicable here. The people in this film belong to the Central Intelligence Agency and to U.S. Navy special operations forces, also called SEALs.



I just got the smack down from RFD. My good day is now ruined. J/K. RFD I was referring to special operators as a whole. I do appreciate your candor about whether or not the movie is Pro-Obama and this is a viewpoint I will never know since I will not give the producers my money in anyway. I won't say too much about the classified issue other than I saw previews of zero dark thirty which had information which would be helpful to our enemy but as you state they would be unclassified by our government so it’s OK to tell the enemy about our tactics in a movie. I guess I will be the only one here who sees a problem with our President informing movie producers about our classified military tactics which will help the enemy.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 01:01 AM
On my list of things about Tak that rankle me, this is very close to being number one. Nobody knows what Tak is thinking. He is in a world all unto himself.

Have you taken it up directly with Tak? I mean, you really seem to have a problem.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 01:26 AM
I just got the smack down from RFD. My good day is now ruined. J/K. RFD I was referring to special operators as a whole. I do appreciate your candor about whether or not the movie is Pro-Obama and this is a viewpoint I will never know since I will not give the producers my money in anyway. I won't say too much about the classified issue other than I saw previews of zero dark thirty which had information which would be helpful to our enemy but as you state they would be unclassified by our government so it’s OK to tell the enemy about our tactics in a movie. I guess I will be the only one here who sees a problem with our President informing movie producers about our classified military tactics which will help the enemy.

Fortunately for us all, it is not incumbent upon an individual citizen to determine which information would be helpful to our enemy. However, I would like to better understand your thinking here. Which particular enemy to you have in mind? The remnants of al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, who are the last people left responsible for attacking the United States? The islamist forces that have gained increasing power in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as Yemen, Mali and elsewhere but who never had any interest in attacking the United States? The Russians? Who?

I went to the first showing of the movie that was available. I didn't see anyone who looked like the enemy taking notes and I didn't see anything in the film that looked like it would help an adversary of the United States.

So which enemy do you have in mind? The only people who scare me aren't in Afghanistan. They're in Washington.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 01:27 AM
Have you taken it up directly with Tak? I mean, you really seem to have a problem.

It is impossible to take anything up directly with Tak. It is only possible to take stuff up obtusely with Tak.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 01:27 AM
I guess I will be the only one here who sees a problem with our President informing movie producers about our classified military tactics which will help the enemy.

That classified information was disclosed after the fact is the least of our worries.

When the president went on national TV to declare that we had finally killed Osama (spiking the ball, as it were), he ruined the ultimate opportunity to truly decapitate al Qaeda.

Think about it: computers, hard drives, thumb drives and loads of data regarding Osama's contacts/affiliates were recovered; had the entire operation been kept secret, the Osama adherents might not have been aware of Osama's demise until it was too late. BUT, when the president of the USA goes on international TV to announce that "We got him" (spiking the ball), do you not think that ANYBODY that had even peripheral contact with OBL would think about reconsidering how they communicated with the evil bastard? Such things COULD HAVE been exploited, if the operation had been kept SECRET. Osama's contacts MIGHT have been exposed or discovered, and helped on the journey to their 72 Virginians. The announcement that the al Qaeda leader had been discovered and murdered, though, only drove those nefarious actors further underground and that much more difficult to locate and/or interdict.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 01:40 AM
It is impossible to take anything up directly with Tak. It is only possible to take stuff up obtusely with Tak.

Hunter S. Thompson was a GREAT writer. You, sir, are just a writer.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 02:17 AM
That classified information was disclosed after the fact is the least of our worries.

When the president went on national TV to declare that we had finally killed Osama (spiking the ball, as it were), he ruined the ultimate opportunity to truly decapitate al Qaeda.

Think about it: computers, hard drives, thumb drives and loads of data regarding Osama's contacts/affiliates were recovered; had the entire operation been kept secret, the Osama adherents might not have been aware of Osama's demise until it was too late. BUT, when the president of the USA goes on international TV to announce that "We got him" (spiking the ball), do you not think that ANYBODY that had even peripheral contact with OBL would think about reconsidering how they communicated with the evil bastard? Such things COULD HAVE been exploited, if the operation had been kept SECRET. Osama's contacts MIGHT have been exposed or discovered, and helped on the journey to their 72 Virginians. The announcement that the al Qaeda leader had been discovered and murdered, though, only drove those nefarious actors further underground and that much more difficult to locate and/or interdict.

You cannot seriously believe that the United States would carry out an operation to get Osama bin Laden, succeed, and afterward keep it secret?

I could be wrong on the details but I think those are virgins, not Virginians. Hands off my commonwealth, sir.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 02:17 AM
You mean second rate, 3rd grade level, hack fiction author.

Maybe second rate, maybe third grade level, but no fiction.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 02:18 AM
You mean second rate, 3rd grade level, hack fiction author.

I'd read Hunter S. Thompson's grocery list before I'd read a RFD diatribe.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 02:18 AM
Hunter S. Thompson was a GREAT writer. You, sir, are just a writer.

He was a great writer. He may not have been the best model for life, though.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 02:48 AM
He was a great writer. He may not have been the best model for life, though.

Is ANYONE supposed to be the "best model for life?"

Sports stars should never be held up to be models for life, yet many expect them to be "role models." ROLE MODEL IS NOT THEIR JOB.

I have exactly TWO role models in my life: my father, a 20 year Air Force Vietnam vet who along with my other role model (Mom) raised 8 children. They were married for 53 years until Dad passed away. THEY are my role models.

tiredretiredE7
01-12-2013, 02:55 AM
That classified information was disclosed after the fact is the least of our worries.

When the president went on national TV to declare that we had finally killed Osama (spiking the ball, as it were), he ruined the ultimate opportunity to truly decapitate al Qaeda.

Think about it: computers, hard drives, thumb drives and loads of data regarding Osama's contacts/affiliates were recovered; had the entire operation been kept secret, the Osama adherents might not have been aware of Osama's demise until it was too late. BUT, when the president of the USA goes on international TV to announce that "We got him" (spiking the ball), do you not think that ANYBODY that had even peripheral contact with OBL would think about reconsidering how they communicated with the evil bastard? Such things COULD HAVE been exploited, if the operation had been kept SECRET. Osama's contacts MIGHT have been exposed or discovered, and helped on the journey to their 72 Virginians. The announcement that the al Qaeda leader had been discovered and murdered, though, only drove those nefarious actors further underground and that much more difficult to locate and/or interdict.

You sir are absolutely correct. Apparently RFD wants to pretend our government has always advertised all covert operations where we killed high level officials/enemy in enemy governments.

tiredretiredE7
01-12-2013, 02:57 AM
He was a great writer. He may not have been the best model for life, though.

RFD,

You are a great writer but not very proficient on enemy governments and OPSEC principles.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 03:04 AM
You sir are absolutely correct. Apparently RFD wants to pretend our government has always advertised all covert operations where we killed high level officials/enemy in enemy governments.

This discussion has no bearing on the real world. After years of shame, incompetence and failure by the Bush-43 administration -- and damage to this country from which we shall never recover -- the Obama administration managed to mount the operation to kill the most wanted man in the world. And you think it should, or could, have been kept secret? You're not living in the real world.

Except to the extent it relates to the drone program, there have been no "covert operations where we killed high level officials/enemy in enemy governments." Never happened, not since Patrice Lumumba. Also, it's illegal, although that of course never stopped the Bush administration. And just what enemies do you mean? When are you going to explain what enemies -- and, now, you've added enemy governments -- are you talking about? Do you mean the Pakistan government? Do you mean the Saudi government, whose citizens were the majority of the 9-11 hijackers? What "enemy government" are you thinking of?

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 03:05 AM
I'd like to see this become a discussion about the movie. I'd like to know what others think of the film.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 03:21 AM
I'd like to see this become a discussion about the movie. I'd like to know what others think of the film.

Is the absolute loss of gaining intelligence from Osama's media NOT relevant? The result of the events in the movie might illustrate that, for those who grasp reality.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 03:23 AM
Nah. Let's talk about Kim kardashian.

Eewww. Nice rack, but I wouldn't fuck her without two condoms and wearing a biological hazard suit.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 03:24 AM
Unintended double tap.

Greg
01-12-2013, 03:31 AM
Nah. Let's talk about Kim kardashian.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BXuP7b2mM1M/Tq8jpykPuiI/AAAAAAAA1jQ/areCjt1OZAE/s1600/kim-kardashian-bikini-1-03.jpg

Moose knuckle, sans fur.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 03:46 AM
And to think, now that kanye west knocked her up,
Her big ole titties will get ginormous.

Nothin' wrong with some ginormous titties...

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 03:52 AM
Nah. Let's talk about Kim kardashian.

Dude, she's not THAT hot. Cute? Doable? Yeah. I have a 50 year old woman in my bed that I'd rather be with than that kardashian skank.

Greg
01-12-2013, 03:56 AM
If it wasn't made to be eaten, then why does it look so much like a...

Bearded Taco

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 04:02 AM
She's a skank whore with a body made for sex.

Who else do you propose as a ho bag you'd bang?

I guess that sports illustrated chick. Beyond that, I'm back to my own house.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 05:27 AM
Yeah, Porkys. Is Mike Hunt in the parking lot?

CrustySMSgt
01-12-2013, 05:36 AM
Chaque person a son gout

After all the shit you give people over acronyms (abbreviations), you're actually posting in a foreign language?!?

(BTW, it took me 8 seconds to copy the text, open Google, and translate it...)


I won't go see any film where the producer uses classified detail of our Special Forces tactics to make money off of our special operators. I believe I would be unpatriotic if I went to go see this movie so I will not see this movie or buy it in any format.

Not sure what's the deal with the current generation of special operators who suddenly tossed aside a history of keeping a low profile and are consulting on video games, giving details and acting in movies, writing books...

RobotChicken
01-12-2013, 05:54 AM
You cannot seriously believe that the United States would carry out an operation to get Osama bin Laden, succeed, and afterward keep it secret?

I could be wrong on the details but I think those are virgins, not Virginians. Hands off my commonwealth, sir.
:spy Like the 'Brits' say,"Americans do not know how to keep a secret!!' And their stuff from WW-II is still classified and no-one is talking;"just kills the yanks...." :tape2

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 10:09 AM
1.) Completely Mental - crazy 2.) Quite nice/ "rawther" (rather) lovely - Its Good 3.) Ruck Sack - Back Pack 4.) Useless Knob - Lazy person 5.) pop over/in - go to, stop by 6.) What do you fancy? - What do you like? 7.) Gob - Mouth 8.) Ish - something not nice 9.) Scarper - to escape fast 10.) Barking - crazy 11.) cane - travel at speed 12.) Bee's Knee's - the best 13.) Elbow grease - Hard work 14.) chuffed as nuts - extremely pleased 15.) cow juice - milk 16.) Bob's your Uncle - there you have it 17.) Cackhander - Left Handed person 18.) Arse about tit - back to front 19.) Keep your hair on - calm down 20.) Absolute tosh - complete rubbish 21.) beastly - big 22.) Belt up - shut up 23.) blast - dammit 24.) cheesed off - annoyed 25.) chivvy along - hurry up 26.) codswallop - baloney 27.) donkeys years - a long time 28.) duffer - old person 29.) fiddle sticks - polite swear word 30.) full of beans - someone has a lot of energy 31.) knockers - breasts 32.) alright mush - hi 33.) nitwit - twit 34.) not my cup of tea - not for me 35.) on your bike - polit way of saying f*** off 36.) off your trolley - mad 37.) Parky - cold 38.) pear shaped - something gone wrong 39.) piece of cake - easy 40.) put a sock in it - shut up 41.) Rat arsed - drunk 42.) shirty - bad tempered 43.) shambles - chaotic mess 44.) skew-whiff - crooked 45.) Smarmy - smooth 46.) spend a penny - go to the toilet 47.) splash out - spend a lot of money 48.) stone the crows - blimey 49.) suss - figure out 50.) taking the mickey - taking the piss 51.) throw a spanner in the works - wreck something 52.) Tickety-boo - if someting is going well 53.) twee - dainty 54.) two finger salute - swear 55.) waffle - talk about something irrelevant 56.) put some welly into it - put some muscle into it 57.) zonked - tired, exhausted 58.) throw a wobbly - have a tantrum 59.) yonks - a long time 60.) whinge - complain

Mercifully, this quote from Tak isn't something you actually need to read.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 11:23 AM
Writing books?
There's this old timer who writes about Airpower,
Little does he realize, shock and awe are stale
And boots on the ground is fresh.

I do indeed know an old timer who does this. But, them, I do it, too.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 11:37 AM
You sir are absolutely correct. Apparently RFD wants to pretend our government has always advertised all covert operations where we killed high level officials/enemy in enemy governments.

TiredretiredE7, please elaborate a bit on your views. How would you like things to work? Would you like real life to be similar to a techno-thriller, where a secret band of special operators carries out clandestine missions around the world killing bad guys? Who exactly is the enemy to whom you keep referring? Would you approve of a bunch of government sanctioned cowboys killing people in Mali, or Iran, or North Korea, or Russia? Are you willing to let these special operators do their jobs without any oversight? When and under what circumstances would you approve of sending Navy SEALs to kill someone?

On September 11, 2001 we were attacked by 19 men, most of them Saudi citizens, all carrying so-called "photo ID" documents in their real names. They perpetrated a crime (the attack on the World Trade Center) and an act of war (the attack on the Pentagon). That evening, President Bush and the United States of America had the support of virtually all the world. There were pro-American demonstrations in Tehran, for God's sake. The American people for the first time wanted payback. They wanted out troops to go to Afghanistan, where the hijackers had trained, and clean them out. Just about everyone supported that. Bush had this great opportunity to wipe out the people responsible for the attack and he squandered it. As early as the afternoon of September 11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was studying maps not of Afghanistan but of Iraq.

We blew Afghanistan, we invaded the wrong country, we tortured prisoners, we publicly abandoned the Geneva Conventions, and we began a massive expansion of government that led to far more involvement in Afghanistan than we ever needed and an invasion of Iraq that made no sense. (On September 11, 2001, no two men on earth despised each other more than Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein).

Going to war was a departure from past practice that crimes are prosecuted under the U.S. justice system. Because of the extraordinary circumstances it was justified. The mission to get bin Laden was justified. But we should have treated those events as a rare departure from our usual practices, not as a way of life.

We need special operations forces but we need to keep them in check, give them oversight, and hold them accountable. If you want us to use them against the enemy, you have to tell me who the enemy is.

Rizzo77
01-12-2013, 05:52 PM
http://www.gadgetreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Doritos-Taco_Small-650x499.jpg

Those things are AWESOME.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 06:50 PM
Hell yeah they are.
I've been trying to get bob to try one.
But the Airpower legend
Is wussing out.

Heading to Taco Bell even as we speak.

Pullinteeth
01-12-2013, 07:21 PM
Those things are AWESOME.

I had their 12 taco box...the bottom of every doritos taco was soggy...

Greg
01-12-2013, 09:03 PM
Heading to Taco Bell even as we speak.

Had a couple of Doritos tacos for lunch today, along with a 7-layer burrito.

Monday, I plan to take in a matinee viewing.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 09:04 PM
Had a couple of Doritos tacos for lunch today, along with a 7-layer burrito.

There is nothing to compare with it.

Greg
01-12-2013, 09:09 PM
There is nothing to compare with it.

Ahhh, marketing strategy?

efmbman
01-12-2013, 09:36 PM
As early as the afternoon of September 11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was studying maps not of Afghanistan but of Iraq.

On September 11, 2001, no two men on earth despised each other more than Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Two statements from your post I would like clarification on, please. Are these your opinions or facts?

Thanks

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 10:07 PM
Bob excels in marketing strategy, if your a book reader that is.

Tak spells "you're" correctly every time except when he knows I'm reading.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 10:07 PM
Mr Dorr is correct.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Okay, so maybe this thread can get back on track. Or not.

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 10:08 PM
Bob in my research and inconsiderable expertise,
The only other ingenious food creation, which
Is ordered most on death row for last meals, is
The amazing, the talented, Mr. Pizza hut stuffed
Crust pizza. One of the best inventions in the last decade.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_m1W47Rb26ag/TT2lNBcdSGI/AAAAAAAAAE0/kIOqHSsUhu0/s1600/pizzahutstuffedcrust.jpg

It will never begin to compare with thin crust,

Robert F. Dorr
01-12-2013, 10:09 PM
Two statements from your post I would like clarification on, please. Are these your opinions or facts?

Thanks

I don't see any ambiguity. They are written as fact, not as opinion. And they are fact.

PickYourBattles
01-12-2013, 10:56 PM
Interesting collection of media review quotes (http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/frank-bruni-new-york-times-its-hard-not.html) of this movie, particularly discussing its depiction of torture as being good/necessary/useful for finding OBL - a fact apparently disputed.

BTW, I have to wonder if TAK isn't part of this company (http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/1147073/) or a similar company, perhaps employed to ensure that military conversation remains moronic. Only way I can understand why a retiree would put so much effort into babble. Either way, he does his work well.

sandsjames
01-12-2013, 10:58 PM
I don't see any ambiguity. They are written as fact, not as opinion. And they are fact.

And that is YOUR opinion.

efmbman
01-12-2013, 11:09 PM
I don't see any ambiguity. They are written as fact, not as opinion. And they are fact.

Can you supply a source that verifies your claim that Rumsfled was studying maps of Iraq on the afternoon of 11 SEP 2001?

I am certainly not coming to the defense of Rumsfled - I think he is one of the worst SECDEFs we endured in last 30 years, but that is a pretty wild claim. If this did happen, I would just like to know.

Robert F. Dorr
01-13-2013, 01:33 AM
Can you supply a source that verifies your claim that Rumsfled was studying maps of Iraq on the afternoon of 11 SEP 2001?

I am certainly not coming to the defense of Rumsfled - I think he is one of the worst SECDEFs we endured in last 30 years, but that is a pretty wild claim. If this did happen, I would just like to know.

It's in the 9-11 Commission Report and is attributed to Rumsfeld.

He had a lot of competition for the title you want to give him. Bill Cohen. Louis Johnson.

Rumsfeld was wrong about almost everything, as was Robert Gates, but at least both were strong leaders in the position they occupied. The fact that Bush-43 was such a weak president enabled them to wield enormous influence. The idea of invading Iraq was dead wrong and a lot of us knew it at the time but no one could accuse these guys of being weaklings in the tradition of Cohen (especially) and Johnson. Cohen, incidentally, had little money when he finished his long years of government duty but he has since become extremely wealthy wielding influence in Washington.

Robert F. Dorr
01-13-2013, 01:33 AM
And that is YOUR opinion.

Nope. There is a clear distinction between opinion and fact.

Robert F. Dorr
01-13-2013, 01:34 AM
Thin crust was produced to corner two demographics
1) wankers
2) marys

As recently as a couple of decades ago, no one in America knew what the word wankers meant.

efmbman
01-13-2013, 01:55 AM
It's in the 9-11 Commission Report and is attributed to Rumsfeld.

I can't seem to find that in my copy of the 9-11 Report. The closest thing I can find is:

"Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11." (10.3 – page 351)

Searching the PDF for "Iraq", "Rumsfeld" and "map" revealed nothing. Do you have a recollection of where in the report this information is?

Greg
01-13-2013, 02:20 AM
"CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, “Rumsfeld felt it was ‘vague,’ that it ‘might not mean something,’ and that there was ‘no good basis for hanging hat.’ In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).
Entity Tags: Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen A. Cambone, Al-Qaeda, George J. Tenet
Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Donald Rumsfeld, Alleged Iraq-Al-Qaeda Links"

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=donaldRumsfeld

Robert F. Dorr
01-13-2013, 05:27 PM
Here is a link to a review of the movie "ZERO DARK THIRTY" where comments are invited:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/zero-dark-thirty-movie-review/

I'm still waiting to read a comment from someone else who saw the picture and has an opinion.

sandsjames
01-13-2013, 06:37 PM
Nope. There is a clear distinction between opinion and fact.

And that is YOUR opinion.

sandsjames
01-13-2013, 07:07 PM
Fact: PickYourBattles is a TROLL

This may be the first fact I've seen on these boards.

tiredretiredE7
01-31-2013, 03:04 PM
I can't seem to find that in my copy of the 9-11 Report. The closest thing I can find is:

"Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11." (10.3 – page 351)

Searching the PDF for "Iraq", "Rumsfeld" and "map" revealed nothing. Do you have a recollection of where in the report this information is?

It is not in the report. This is another myth brainwashed into the core of the democratic simpletons.

DWWSWWD
01-31-2013, 03:30 PM
We need special operations forces but we need to keep them in check, give them oversight, and hold them accountable. If you want us to use them against the enemy, you have to tell me who the enemy is.

From now on, making a Hollywood movie about our clandestine missions shall be considered sufficient oversight. I'm with TR7 on this one. I was part of this group for years and I won't watch it.

Banned
01-31-2013, 04:40 PM
"Zero Dark-Thirty" is a monument to how America has changed.

This movie is a symbol of Osama's crushing victory against us. The terrorists have won. They've successfully opened a new front in an old war that destroyed every shred of decency and morality in our entire country.

TJMAC77SP
01-31-2013, 05:24 PM
"Zero Dark-Thirty" is a monument to how America has changed.

This movie is a symbol of Osama's crushing victory against us. The terrorists have won. They've successfully opened a new front in an old war that destroyed every shred of decency and morality in our entire country.

I assume you are speaking specifically about that portion of the beginning of the film which depicts torture of detainees?

JD2780
01-31-2013, 05:58 PM
"Zero Dark-Thirty" is a monument to how America has changed.

This movie is a symbol of Osama's crushing victory against us. The terrorists have won. They've successfully opened a new front in an old war that destroyed every shred of decency and morality in our entire country.

Would you rather us have killed him with kindness?

JD2780
01-31-2013, 05:58 PM
"Zero Dark-Thirty" is a monument to how America has changed.

This movie is a symbol of Osama's crushing victory against us. The terrorists have won. They've successfully opened a new front in an old war that destroyed every shred of decency and morality in our entire country.

Would you rather us have killed him with kindness?

Banned
01-31-2013, 06:34 PM
I assume you are speaking specifically about that portion of the beginning of the film which depicts torture of detainees?

I got about an hour into the movie before I switched it off, so yeah. Deliberately distorting the truth for propaganda purposes is appalling, IMO - especially conveniently leaving out the fact that many of the people kidnapped and tortured by the CIA were later determined to be completely innocent.


Would you rather us have killed him with kindness?

You killed him? What a hero.

Banned
01-31-2013, 06:34 PM
I assume you are speaking specifically about that portion of the beginning of the film which depicts torture of detainees?

I got about an hour into the movie before I switched it off, so yeah. Deliberately distorting the truth for propaganda purposes is appalling, IMO - especially conveniently leaving out the fact that many of the people kidnapped and tortured by the CIA were later determined to be completely innocent.


Would you rather us have killed him with kindness?

You killed him? What a hero.

Sergeant eNYgma
01-31-2013, 07:13 PM
The filmmakers did indeed receive briefings from intelligence officials and did meet with Obama. Those are legitimate functions for public servants. There doesn't seem to be anything in this motion picture that could be considered classified. However, the president and agency heads determine what is classified and what isn't.

The term Special Forces refers to members of U.S. Army special operations forces, also called Green Berets, and is not applicable here. The people in this film belong to the Central Intelligence Agency and to U.S. Navy special operations forces, also called SEALs.

I haven't encountered any reviewer who thinks this movie is pro-Obama. If anything, it is supportive of the Bush-43 policies that have brought such shame and disgrace down on our nation. In real life, Obama was very much a "hands on" commander-in-chief here, unlike Bush-43 who relied on subordinates, but you would never know about Obama's role from watching the film.

I'm really not understanding how Bush is so terrible and Obama is so Godlike...granted I wasn't a Bush fan myself but damn man. He's not in anymore we gotta move on...nobody is thinking about Bush. O wanted the job he takes the good and bad that comes with it.

Anon
01-31-2013, 08:07 PM
I just got the smack down from RFD. My good day is now ruined. J/K. RFD I was referring to special operators as a whole. I do appreciate your candor about whether or not the movie is Pro-Obama and this is a viewpoint I will never know since I will not give the producers my money in anyway. I won't say too much about the classified issue other than I saw previews of zero dark thirty which had information which would be helpful to our enemy but as you state they would be unclassified by our government so it’s OK to tell the enemy about our tactics in a movie. I guess I will be the only one here who sees a problem with our President informing movie producers about our classified military tactics which will help the enemy.

I would see this as a serious problem; however, I think there is difference between military tactics, and CLASSIFIED military tactics. From the outside looking in, I doubt most people would know the difference. If classified information was provided to those without a clearance, by the Pres, why has there not been a serious outcry from Republicans. I would think this would be grounds for impeachment?

BTW, to me it doesn't matter if the stuff released was classified, unclassified, or declassified, if it puts our folks at risk, I would see that as a problem. Showing any military tactics gives the enemy (no RFD, I will not try to tell you who they are) insight to how we act/react to a given situation and potentially puts people at risk and is counter productive to everything we're told about OPSEC. It seems as though we forget that.



From now on, making a Hollywood movie about our clandestine missions shall be considered sufficient oversight. I'm with TR7 on this one. I was part of this group for years and I won't watch it.

On what grounds are you not choosing to watch it? Not questioning whether you should or should not, but trying to understand the rationale. I will probably watch it based on potential entertainment value. Despite the fact that I have a problem with information being shared, whether I watch it or not, does not put our folks at more risk.

tiredretiredE7
01-31-2013, 08:46 PM
I got about an hour into the movie before I switched it off, so yeah. Deliberately distorting the truth for propaganda purposes is appalling, IMO - especially conveniently leaving out the fact that many of the people kidnapped and tortured by the CIA were later determined to be completely innocent.



You killed him? What a hero.

I don’t know how many were innocent but that really doesn't matter because I do not believe anyone should be tortured regardless of status. I also believe they should not be given our rights or access to our legal system. Geneva Convention only for them.

Robert F. Dorr
01-31-2013, 09:17 PM
I don’t know how many were innocent but that really doesn't matter because I do not believe anyone should be tortured regardless of status. I also believe they should not be given our rights or access to our legal system. Geneva Convention only for them.

It also turned out that a significant number of the detainees at Guantanamo didn't have the remotest connection to terrorism. Every person held prisoner should be treated either under criminal law or under the law of armed conflict. The latter means abiding by the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. The United States is the only nation to have publicly abandoned the convention.

grimreaper
01-31-2013, 09:53 PM
The United States is the only nation to have publicly abandoned the convention.

Well, taking into account all the nations/groups we've been in conflict with during my lifetime, that means that now NOBODY is following the Conventions where before, we were the only ones doing so.

efmbman
01-31-2013, 11:15 PM
It is not in the report. This is another myth brainwashed into the core of the democratic simpletons.

Yeah, I know :) It is odd how certain "plot lines" in these threads dry up and go away once facts are interjected. I am also wondering how Paul Wolfowitz is getting a free pass on all this. If given a line up of suspects, I would certainly select Paul Wolfowitz as the reason we invaded Iraq.

Robert F. Dorr
02-01-2013, 01:17 AM
Well, taking into account all the nations/groups we've been in conflict with during my lifetime, that means that now NOBODY is following the Conventions where before, we were the only ones doing so.

Every other signatory at least SAYS it follows the Geneva Convention. Ours is the only nation in the world to have openly abandoned it.

Robert F. Dorr
02-01-2013, 01:18 AM
Yeah, I know :) It is odd how certain "plot lines" in these threads dry up and go away once facts are interjected. I am also wondering how Paul Wolfowitz is getting a free pass on all this. If given a line up of suspects, I would certainly select Paul Wolfowitz as the reason we invaded Iraq.

Please don't include me among those who want to give Wolfowitz a free ride.

Robert F. Dorr
02-01-2013, 01:18 AM
I'm really not understanding how Bush is so terrible and Obama is so Godlike...granted I wasn't a Bush fan myself but damn man. He's not in anymore we gotta move on...nobody is thinking about Bush. O wanted the job he takes the good and bad that comes with it.

I don't know who wrote that Obama is godlike.

tiredretiredE7
02-01-2013, 01:25 AM
Yeah, I know :) It is odd how certain "plot lines" in these threads dry up and go away once facts are interjected. I am also wondering how Paul Wolfowitz is getting a free pass on all this. If given a line up of suspects, I would certainly select Paul Wolfowitz as the reason we invaded Iraq.

Efmbman,

There were extremely large convoys going from Iraq into Syria carry unknown payloads. Syria now possesses one of the largest stockpile of chemicas weapons in their region. 2+2=4 in my book and I believe the chemical weapons and the fear of Iran using these chemical weapons against Iran is enough for this administration to just let it all work itself out. Israel is not about to allow its country to be the victim of our country's complete lack leadership from the state department and presidential offices. 2013 is going to be a very interesting year.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/did-syria-receive-its-chemical-weapons-saddam/55142/

http://blog.usni.org/2012/07/20/iraq-chemical-weapons-moved-to-syria-before-2003-invasion

CYBERFX1024
02-01-2013, 01:29 AM
I don't know who wrote that Obama is godlike.

Like always you overlook everything that the Mainstream Media and Democrats do. If you even looked at the last four years you would see that Obama was trying to do the best he could, he got left this situation and whatever happens it's all Bush's fault. That's pretty much how his first term went. If you ever dared to question Obama you were labeled as a racist.

Not one mainstream media news has looked into why we know so little about our President. Whenever someone brings this up they are looked on as crazies and birthers. When it has been proven time and time again that his SSN was issued to someone from CT not HI. How he went to college under the name of Barry Soweto. They are numerous things that don't add up but no one of note looks into it.

CYBERFX1024
02-01-2013, 01:32 AM
Efmbman,

There were extremely large convoys going from Iraq into Syria carry unknown payloads. Syria now possesses one of the largest stockpile of chemicas weapons in their region. 2+2=4 in my book and I believe the chemical weapons and the fear of Iran using these chemical weapons against Iran is enough for this administration to just let it all work itself out. Israel is not about to allow its country to be the victim of our country's complete lack leadership from the state department and presidential offices. 2013 is going to be a very interesting year.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/did-syria-receive-its-chemical-weapons-saddam/55142/

http://blog.usni.org/2012/07/20/iraq-chemical-weapons-moved-to-syria-before-2003-invasion

Also you forget that not even 4 months ago. Syria was "warned" not to use those large amounts of chemical weapons on there own people. But supposedly there were no WMD's in Iraq right? All because they got shipped to Syria. Strange isn't it

grimreaper
02-01-2013, 01:37 AM
Every other signatory at least SAYS it follows the Geneva Convention. Ours is the only nation in the world to have openly abandoned it.

You can always say you've lived up to something you said you would do if you've never actually had to do it.

I could promise you today that if I win the lottery, I'll give you 50% on my winnings. 20 years from now, I would still be able to say I've kept my promise even though I never actually won the lottery.

efmbman
02-01-2013, 01:54 AM
There were extremely large convoys going from Iraq into Syria carry unknown payloads. Syria now possesses one of the largest stockpile of chemicas weapons in their region.


Also you forget that not even 4 months ago. Syria was "warned" not to use those large amounts of chemical weapons on there own people. But supposedly there were no WMD's in Iraq right? All because they got shipped to Syria. Strange isn't it

I hear you both... the whole thing made me envision the police setting up outside a meth lab but waiting 3 weeks to go inside and make the bust. Meanwhile, the "cooks" inside are flushing everything down the toilet.

tiredretiredE7
02-01-2013, 02:00 AM
I hear you both... the whole thing made me envision the police setting up outside a meth lab but waiting 3 weeks to go inside and make the bust. Meanwhile, the "cooks" inside are flushing everything down the toilet.

and then there is this: http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq/study-wind-blew-deadly-gas-to-us-troops-in-gulf-war-1.200742

make sure and read the comments section at the bottom. There were a lot of people affected and let all veterans you know from that region, during that time frame about this article.

Robert F. Dorr
02-01-2013, 02:04 AM
You can always say you've lived up to something you said you would do if you've never actually had to do it.

I could promise you today that if I win the lottery, I'll give you 50% on my winnings. 20 years from now, I would still be able to say I've kept my promise even though I never actually won the lottery.

There is genuine importance to the fact that EVERY OTHER SIGNATORY pays lip service to the convention and that MANY SIGNATORIES actually abide by its provisions. We shall never live down the shame of the secret CIA interrogation centers, the torture or Guantanamo Bay. All of this is a stain on every American and we are stuck with it forever.

tiredretiredE7
02-01-2013, 02:09 AM
We shall never live down the shame of the secret CIA interrogation centers, the torture or Guantanamo Bay. All of this is a stain on every American and we are stuck with it forever.

RFD,

I agree 100% with you on this point.

grimreaper
02-01-2013, 02:19 AM
There is genuine importance to the fact that EVERY OTHER SIGNATORY pays lip service to the convention and that MANY SIGNATORIES actually abide by its provisions. We shall never live down the shame of the secret CIA interrogation centers, the torture or Guantanamo Bay. All of this is a stain on every American and we are stuck with it forever.

Without a shadow of a doubt, I believe that if any single one of the signators of the Geneva Conventions were convinced that if they failed to do x, y, or z, it would be to the detriment of their own security, they would not hesitate for a single second to do it even if it violated the Conventions. To think that they wouldn't would be incredibly naive IMO.

DWWSWWD
02-01-2013, 03:19 AM
On what grounds are you not choosing to watch it? Not questioning whether you should or should not, but trying to understand the rationale. I will probably watch it based on potential entertainment value. Despite the fact that I have a problem with information being shared, whether I watch it or not, does not put our folks at more risk. Fair question. Politics aside, and I do think it was politically motivated, I was part of the community for a very long time. Everyone, in each of the units that make up the community, consider themselves quiet professionals. They are the very best in the world. Better funded, better equipped, better trained and have more reason than most to declare themselves badasses. They will not. It is ingrained in the culture. The publicity that came from this was counter to everything the command stands for. It bothers me.

cloudFFVII
02-01-2013, 03:49 AM
The thing is, Hollywood is never going to get military, "real life" scripted.

Some might get elements right, but there's simply no substitute from being in that harm's way.

In other words, if the bullets are flying at YOU in real time, no movie is going to simulate that emotion, sorry.

What they film company SHOULD do is donate any profits over the costs of production to the Wounder Warrior/Fisher House funds. Then it would actually do good for those soldiers who have made the real sacrifice in defending our freedom.

I've got no desire to see it, personally. I saw Saving Private Ryan 3 times and cried every time at the end (My brother had a 26 1/2 year career in the Navy as a Command Master Chief, and all I could think about at the end was he was in both Gulf Wars and Iraq/Afghanistan, those operations, and I was scared to death he might be killed). I don't need another movie in that vein.

CJSmith
02-01-2013, 06:17 AM
Where was the outrage when the movie Rendition came out?

TJMAC77SP
02-01-2013, 11:36 AM
I got about an hour into the movie before I switched it off, so yeah. Deliberately distorting the truth for propaganda purposes is appalling, IMO - especially conveniently leaving out the fact that many of the people kidnapped and tortured by the CIA were later determined to be completely innocent.





What truth was distorted? I mean, it is a fictional movie based on actual events and not a documentary but I am assuming you have some bigger issue than mere dramatic license. I don't recall the movie giving me the opinion that every detainee was guilty.

BTW: serious questions here.

TJMAC77SP
02-01-2013, 11:40 AM
It also turned out that a significant number of the detainees at Guantanamo didn't have the remotest connection to terrorism. Every person held prisoner should be treated either under criminal law or under the law of armed conflict. The latter means abiding by the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. The United States is the only nation to have publicly abandoned the convention.

The ONLY nation?

TJMAC77SP
02-01-2013, 11:42 AM
There is genuine importance to the fact that EVERY OTHER SIGNATORY pays lip service to the convention and that MANY SIGNATORIES actually abide by its provisions. We shall never live down the shame of the secret CIA interrogation centers, the torture or Guantanamo Bay. All of this is a stain on every American and we are stuck with it forever.

Agreed.

(text added to make the post long enough)

sandsjames
02-01-2013, 02:38 PM
We all know MI-6 would never violate the Geneva Convention. No chance they use questionable tactics to gain information. It's only the U.S. for sure.

Robert F. Dorr
02-01-2013, 11:01 PM
We all know MI-6 would never violate the Geneva Convention. No chance they use questionable tactics to gain information. It's only the U.S. for sure.

I wrote that the United States is the only signatory to have openly abandoned the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. That's a fact. Other countries have treated people badly -- can you spell North Vietnam? -- but no other signatory has publicly repudiated the convention and its principles. And contrary to what you suggest, the British have a more serious attitude about being humane than the United States does.

sandsjames
02-01-2013, 11:16 PM
And contrary to what you suggest, the British have a more serious attitude about being humane than the United States does.

And you know this because you have worked directly with the SAS? Or I suppose you are referring to the Gurkhas who, as you know, are mercenaries for the Brits.

I worked closely with members of Her Majesty's forces for 8 years and I fell safe in saying that they are no more "humane" than we are.

In addition, are you saying it's better for them to be doing the same things we are doing because they aren't public about it? I thought you were all for information being made public. It sounds like you are advocating the idea that more secresyness is better.

JD2780
02-01-2013, 11:30 PM
I wrote that the United States is the only signatory to have openly abandoned the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. That's a fact. Other countries have treated people badly -- can you spell North Vietnam? -- but no other signatory has publicly repudiated the convention and its principles. And contrary to what you suggest, the British have a more serious attitude about being humane than the United States does.

Nobody ever mentions the thousands of medics that have had to bandage up the same guy that was trying to kill him. Setting up a hasty pow holding area and an Airman making sure the shithead has a blanket, cot and an MRE.

JD2780
02-01-2013, 11:35 PM
And you know this because you have worked directly with the SAS? Or I suppose you are referring to the Gurkhas who, as you know, are mercenaries for the Brits.

I worked closely with members of Her Majesty's forces for 8 years and I fell safe in saying that they are no more "humane" than we are.

In addition, are you saying it's better for them to be doing the same things we are doing because they aren't public about it? I thought you were all for information being made public. It sounds like you are advocating the idea that more secresyness is better.

I'm with you. Trained with them and fought along side of them. They seem to have the same thoughts as we do. I think they're better at just keeping it behind closed doors. Unless your the good Prince that knows how to party in vegas. Oh and hes a JTAC also. Just saying.

JD2780
02-01-2013, 11:36 PM
And you know this because you have worked directly with the SAS? Or I suppose you are referring to the Gurkhas who, as you know, are mercenaries for the Brits.

I worked closely with members of Her Majesty's forces for 8 years and I fell safe in saying that they are no more "humane" than we are.

In addition, are you saying it's better for them to be doing the same things we are doing because they aren't public about it? I thought you were all for information being made public. It sounds like you are advocating the idea that more secresyness is better.

I'm with you. Trained with them and fought along side of them. They seem to have the same thoughts as we do. I think they're better at just keeping it behind closed doors. Unless your the good Prince that knows how to party in vegas. Oh and hes a JTAC also. Just saying.

grimreaper
02-02-2013, 12:06 AM
I wrote that the United States is the only signatory to have openly abandoned the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. That's a fact. Other countries have treated people badly -- can you spell North Vietnam? -- but no other signatory has publicly repudiated the convention and its principles. And contrary to what you suggest, the British have a more serious attitude about being humane than the United States does.

As the old saying goes Bob, "actions speak louder than words". For clarities sake, can you provide the part of the Conventions that deals with unlawful combatants. While you at it, the part where the enemy uses civilains as human shields and human IED's, uses mosques and hospitals as shelter and weapons storage, and saws the heads off of their prisoners. Thanks in advance.

PickYourBattles
02-02-2013, 12:07 AM
And you know this because you have worked directly with the SAS? Or I suppose you are referring to the Gurkhas who, as you know, are mercenaries for the Brits.

I worked closely with members of Her Majesty's forces for 8 years and I fell safe in saying that they are no more "humane" than we are.

In addition, are you saying it's better for them to be doing the same things we are doing because they aren't public about it? I thought you were all for information being made public. It sounds like you are advocating the idea that more secresyness is better.

So you mention SAS, then say you worked for her majesty's forces. I'm going to go out on a limb and jut guess that you did NOT work with British SAS. Just a hunch.

sandsjames
02-02-2013, 12:19 AM
So you mention SAS, then say you worked for her majesty's forces. I'm going to go out on a limb and jut guess that you did NOT work with British SAS. Just a hunch.

You're right, for once. I did NOT work with the SAS. I don't have the courage for that, but I don't have to tell you that.

And I didn't say I "worked for her majesty's forces". I said "I worked closely with members of...". I thought your comprehension skills were much better than that.

PickYourBattles
02-02-2013, 12:23 AM
Good point, you said you worked with them. Like you saw them on base, or you were tasked to give them a military vehicle while they were TDY, or you filed a travel voucher for them. Got it. Thanks.

sandsjames
02-02-2013, 12:30 AM
Good point, you said you worked with them. Like you saw them on base, or you were tasked to give them a military vehicle while they were TDY, or you filed a travel voucher for them. Got it. Thanks.

My pleasure.

Robert F. Dorr
02-02-2013, 01:14 AM
As the old saying goes Bob, "actions speak louder than words". For clarities sake, can you provide the part of the Conventions that deals with unlawful combatants. While you at it, the part where the enemy uses civilains as human shields and human IED's, uses mosques and hospitals as shelter and weapons storage, and saws the heads off of their prisoners. Thanks in advance.

Who is this enemy? Who are you referring to? Do you want the U.S.A. to follow this enemy's example?

Robert F. Dorr
02-02-2013, 01:15 AM
Where was the outrage when the movie Rendition came out?

I think it was shown in 6,555 theaters and was viewed by 217 people.

sandsjames
02-02-2013, 02:06 AM
I think it was shown in 6,555 theaters and was viewed by 217 people.

That's because there was no hype or outrage. I'm sure if "Zero Dark Thirty" didn't have the outrage prior to release, it wouldn't have been as widely viewed.

So to repeat the question, where was the outrage when the movie Rendition came out?

Banned
02-10-2013, 12:57 AM
What truth was distorted? I mean, it is a fictional movie based on actual events and not a documentary but I am assuming you have some bigger issue than mere dramatic license. I don't recall the movie giving me the opinion that every detainee was guilty.

BTW: serious questions here.

Its a propaganda film masquarading as a documentary ("based on actual events") - it falsly implies that torture is an effective means of gathering intel (even the Nazis and NVA figured out that this doesn't work!).

We killed Osama. Whatever. Really not anymore impressive than the Romans killing a troublesome warlord on the frontier. But the endorsement of torture - and false exagurations of its usefulness... that does worry me. What worries me even more - is these "Americans... these "Christians" cheering at the the movie.

Robert F. Dorr
02-10-2013, 01:31 AM
Its a propaganda film masquarading as a documentary ("based on actual events") - it falsly implies that torture is an effective means of gathering intel (even the Nazis and NVA figured out that this doesn't work!).

We killed Osama. Whatever. Really not anymore impressive than the Romans killing a troublesome warlord on the frontier. But the endorsement of torture - and false exagurations of its usefulness... that does worry me. What worries me even more - is these "Americans... these "Christians" cheering at the the movie.

Hey, it's only a movie. But I thought it was poorly executed with a weak performance by the main character. The film did retain the "For God and country...." real-life radio transmission, which reflects the deep-rooted evangelical, born-again Christian culture of the U.S. special operations forces, especially Navy SEALs.

As for the mission, not the movie, it was the right thing to do and unlike special operations efforts during the Bush administration it was done well. I'm not happy with Obama but I'm glad we have a hands-on commander-in-chief who actually performs his duty as the head of the military.

BRUWIN
02-10-2013, 11:10 AM
I'm not happy with Obama but I'm glad we have a hands-on commander-in-chief who actually performs his duty as the head of the military.

I'm hesitant to say anything bad about the guy anymore...I've heard drones flying over my house. He obviously enjoys pulling the trigger on his enemies with those things.

Robert F. Dorr
02-10-2013, 11:51 AM
I'm hesitant to say anything bad about the guy anymore...I've heard drones flying over my house. He obviously enjoys pulling the trigger on his enemies with those things.

The White House didn't send them. They're from the SECRET REBEL BASE. And they're just taking pictures and making recordings. It's just like being asked for a so-called "photo ID." If you haven't done anything, why would you object?

imported_KnuckleDragger
02-10-2013, 12:38 PM
I saw the movie. Not worth paying for...maybe free on TV. Did not care for the torture.

Robert F. Dorr
03-12-2013, 06:50 PM
I saw the movie. Not worth paying for...maybe free on TV. Did not care for the torture.

Movie is disappearing from theaters and doesn't seem to have performed nearly as well as expected. Agree: the torture wasn't needed for this story.

Greg
03-12-2013, 07:25 PM
Movie is disappearing from theaters and doesn't seem to have performed nearly as well as expected. Agree: the torture wasn't needed for this story.

I'd be willing to wager, that once the movie theatre going public realized the SEALs were only on screen for the last fifteen minutes of the film, well, that was the extent of the public's interest.

As far as the torture depicted in the movie: I would say it was displayed fairly. And needed, maybe not for the story but to show mission creep.

Class5Kayaker
03-12-2013, 08:58 PM
My $0.02 worth, I was actually pleased with the movie. For once it wasn't a movie packed full of action. I think that's why the public didn't support it (in the form of ticket sales), but it's what I liked the most about it. Told a good "behind the scenes" story of how we got OBL. Sure, there were flaws in it, but what movie "based on true events" doesn't have flaws.

TJMAC77SP
03-13-2013, 11:01 AM
Movie is disappearing from theaters and doesn't seem to have performed nearly as well as expected. Agree: the torture wasn't needed for this story.

Really, wouldn't it have left a hole in the story line as to where the information on the courier came from?

I realize it is an inconvenient truth (and a shameful fact) but let's not turn this into a 2-dollar-bill moment.

Robert F. Dorr
03-13-2013, 11:20 AM
Really, wouldn't it have left a hole in the story line as to where the information on the courier came from?

I realize it is an inconvienant truth (and a shameful fact) but let's not turn this into a 2-dollar-bill moment.

The movie did not tell the audience that "enhanced interrogation techniques" led to the courier. That appears nowhere in the movie, contrary to criticisms of the film by people who may not have seen it. In real life, these techniques did not lead to the courier, either. One problem with "Zero Dark Thirty" was that the film is simply too long. Shortening or eliminating the torture scenes would have been one way out of that problem.

Robert F. Dorr
03-13-2013, 11:23 AM
If you're a writer and you talk to people at Kunsan, they'll tell you that because it's a remote tour they're focused on the mission and this brings them closer together. Because you don't have your family with you, they'll say, your colleagues become your family. The result is enhanced combat capability and a great deal of camaraderie and harmony.

True?

W hat are your thoughts?

Robert F. Dorr
03-13-2013, 11:24 AM
My question about Kunsan was supposed to be a new thread. Don't know what happened.

TJMAC77SP
03-13-2013, 11:54 AM
The movie did not tell the audience that "enhanced interrogation techniques" led to the courier. That appears nowhere in the movie, contrary to criticisms of the film by people who may not have seen it. In real life, these techniques did not lead to the courier, either. One problem with "Zero Dark Thirty" was that the film is simply too long. Shortening or eliminating the torture scenes would have been one way out of that problem.

I must have seen a different movie because I deduced that is exactly what happened. Well, I should say to clarify. The interrogations revealed other leads which led to the courier which was eventually followed to OBL.

And, please Bob don't spread the nonsense that Pelosi and Biden insist on spreading...that no valuable information came from this torture. The sad fact is that just isn't true. It helps the sensitive sleep at night I suppose but just isn't true.

Even Leon Panetta, while trying to downplay the results admitted (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/leon-panetta-enhanced-interrogation-tactics-played-role-death-osama-bin-laden-article-1.1254336)to this.

Why can't we just say that torture is bad? Simply as a matter of principle? Why do we have to alter history to make it seem somehow more palatable (hence my 2-dollar-bill comment). I could have also said a “Plantation owner on the lower Santee in 1776 who doesn’t own slaves moment’ but that seems a bit cumbersome. I prefer to look at it as John McCain does….It just isn’t who we are (although I suppose nowadays I should say who we were).

Robert F. Dorr
03-13-2013, 05:53 PM
I must have seen a different movie because I deduced that is exactly what happened. Well, I should say to clarify. The interrogations revealed other leads which led to the courier which was eventually followed to OBL.

And, please Bob don't spread the nonsense that Pelosi and Biden insist on spreading...that no valuable information came from this torture. The sad fact is that just isn't true. It helps the sensitive sleep at night I suppose but just isn't true.

Even Leon Panetta, while trying to downplay the results admitted (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/leon-panetta-enhanced-interrogation-tactics-played-role-death-osama-bin-laden-article-1.1254336)to this.

Why can't we just say that torture is bad? Simply as a matter of principle? Why do we have to alter history to make it seem somehow more palatable (hence my 2-dollar-bill comment). I could have also said a “Plantation owner on the lower Santee in 1776 who doesn’t own slaves moment’ but that seems a bit cumbersome. I prefer to look at it as John McCain does….It just isn’t who we are (although I suppose nowadays I should say who we were).

I haven't seen the quotes from Pelosi and Biden. Can you tell me when and where they said that? Many people doubt that torture works. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the three figures said to have been subjected to waterboarding, has reportedly confessed to every crime since the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and appears to have succeeded, brilliantly, in making himself appear to be an important al-Qaeda leader. Pretty easy to do when you remember that the people who brought us Guantanamo are the people who gave us the Transportation Security Administration.

Out of the small amount of information that has reached the public, there's no way to reach a conclusion as to whether torture yields anything worthwhile. It's unlikely since most intelligence is useless, or worse. Fact remains, even if torturing someone would enable us to defuse a ticking bomb it would still demean us and make us smaller. Younger members here may not remember but the United States was once a great country.

sandsjames
03-13-2013, 06:01 PM
Fact remains, even if torturing someone would enable us to defuse a ticking bomb it would still demean us and make us smaller. Younger members here may not remember but the United States was once a great country.

If people would quit worrying about the U.S. being seen as small and demeaned we might not end up in all the senseless wars we get involved in.

Robert F. Dorr
03-13-2013, 06:35 PM
If people would quit worrying about the U.S. being seen as small and demeaned we might not end up in all the senseless wars we get involved in.

Good point. I agree. Several other nations have higher standards of living, literacy and education, perhaps because they don't try to be world powers.

TJMAC77SP
03-13-2013, 07:06 PM
I haven't seen the quotes from Pelosi and Biden. Can you tell me when and where they said that? Many people doubt that torture works. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the three figures said to have been subjected to waterboarding, has reportedly confessed to every crime since the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and appears to have succeeded, brilliantly, in making himself appear to be an important al-Qaeda leader. Pretty easy to do when you remember that the people who brought us Guantanamo are the people who gave us the Transportation Security Administration.

Out of the small amount of information that has reached the public, there's no way to reach a conclusion as to whether torture yields anything worthwhile. It's unlikely since most intelligence is useless, or worse. Fact remains, even if torturing someone would enable us to defuse a ticking bomb it would still demean us and make us smaller. Younger members here may not remember but the United States was once a great country.

So, the words of the guy who ran the CIA during the raid on OBL doesn't satisfy you? (if you read the article I cited)

"The movie seems to say, to indicate that enhanced interrogation techniques or torture was used to get information to get Bin Laden. Is that true?” asked NBC’s Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.”

“Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used,” Panetta responded."


And despite your agreeable statement of the last 'fact' the first one you cited is incorrect.

Robert F. Dorr
03-14-2013, 02:04 PM
So, the words of the guy who ran the CIA during the raid on OBL doesn't satisfy you? (if you read the article I cited)

"The movie seems to say, to indicate that enhanced interrogation techniques or torture was used to get information to get Bin Laden. Is that true?” asked NBC’s Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.”

“Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used,” Panetta responded."

And despite your agreeable statement of the last 'fact' the first one you cited is incorrect.

The quote from Panetta is about real life. In the movie, nothing suggests that torture produced useful information. It isn't there in the film. As to what happened in real life, who can argue with a statement that interrogation tactics influenced other tactics? Too vague to mean anything.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2013, 03:00 PM
The quote from Panetta is about real life. In the movie, nothing suggests that torture produced useful information. It isn't there in the film. As to what happened in real life, who can argue with a statement that interrogation tactics influenced other tactics? Too vague to mean anything.

This is where your credibility goes south Bob. You have been called on this before. While I am absolutely sure in your version of reality when good people do bad things nothing valuable comes from it. The good guys wear white hats and, well you know the rest. The dark world known as reality says differently

For you to say that Panetta's statement isn't a clear indication that the so-called EIT's produced actionable intelligence is ludicrous at best.

Soon after the scenes of such torture in the movie the same two characters are discussing intelligence leads which then uncovers more leads which etc.....

Is your position that since we didn't actually hear the interrogation subject say the actual words that it didn't happen? That again is preposterous at best and completely irrelevant to the FACT the EITs lead to actionable intelligence (which is what you refuted and has been proven false).


The movie did not tell the audience that "enhanced interrogation techniques" led to the courier. That appears nowhere in the movie, contrary to criticisms of the film by people who may not have seen it. In real life, these techniques did not lead to the courier, either. ……..



…..Out of the small amount of information that has reached the public, there's no way to reach a conclusion as to whether torture yields anything worthwhile. It's unlikely since most intelligence is useless, or worse. ………..


The director CHOSE to film and portray events (fictional or not) as she saw fit..........it wasn't a documentary, which btw is exactly what she has told her critics over and over again.

I will repeat just so it is clear......Torture is bad.....Torture is bad. Bad because it is morally wrong. Not wrong because it never produces tangible results. That is factually retarded.

Why isn't a moral position enough to stand by itself?

Robert F. Dorr
03-14-2013, 06:32 PM
This is where your credibility goes south Bob. You have been called on this before. While I am absolutely sure in your version of reality when good people do bad things nothing valuable comes from it. The good guys wear white hats and, well you know the rest. The dark world known as reality says differently

For you to say that Panetta's statement isn't a clear indication that the so-called EIT's produced actionable intelligence is ludicrous at best.

Soon after the scenes of such torture in the movie the same two characters are discussing intelligence leads which then uncovers more leads which etc.....

Is your position that since we didn't actually hear the interrogation subject say the actual words that it didn't happen? That again is preposterous at best and completely irrelevant to the FACT the EITs lead to actionable intelligence (which is what you refuted and has been proven false).

The director CHOSE to film and portray events (fictional or not) as she saw fit..........it wasn't a documentary, which btw is exactly what she has told her critics over and over again.

I will repeat just so it is clear......Torture is bad.....Torture is bad. Bad because it is morally wrong. Not wrong because it never produces tangible results. That is factually retarded.

Why isn't a moral position enough to stand by itself?

Torture is worse than bad. You are correct that the argument whether it works and the argument whether it is moral are two different issues. I've never suggested otherwise. I am deeply ashamed to be a citizen of a country that intentionally tortured prisoners (euphemistically called detainees). It would be wrong if it produced results. It would be wrong if it didn't. I've always said it is wrong.

Fact is, you saw a different movie than the one I saw, movie reviewers saw, the producers described, and audiences witnessed. There is nothing in the movie, visual or vocal, that suggests or implies that torture produced useful results. Nothing whatsoever. I know this movie inside and out, and it isn't there. Yes, a lot of people say the opposite and many have turned it into a political issue -- but those people, unlike you and me, haven't actually seen the motion picture.

The more general question as to whether torture works is easy to answer. It doesn't, for all the obvious reasons. Sadly,much of the institutional torture taking place today isn't for the purpose of gathering intelligence anyway. Think of the Mexican drug cartels.

You skipped past my comment that most intelligence is useless. We could save a lot of money by eliminating most of it, especially the intelligence work being performed by contractors.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2013, 06:54 PM
Torture is worse than bad. You are correct that the argument whether it works and the argument whether it is moral are two different issues. I've never suggested otherwise. I am deeply ashamed to be a citizen of a country that intentionally tortured prisoners (euphemistically called detainees). It would be wrong if it produced results. It would be wrong if it didn't. I've always said it is wrong.

Fact is, you saw a different movie than the one I saw, movie reviewers saw, the producers described, and audiences witnessed. There is nothing in the movie, visual or vocal, that suggests or implies that torture produced useful results. Nothing whatsoever. I know this movie inside and out, and it isn't there. Yes, a lot of people say the opposite and many have turned it into a political issue -- but those people, unlike you and me, haven't actually seen the motion picture.

The more general question as to whether torture works is easy to answer. It doesn't, for all the obvious reasons. Sadly,much of the institutional torture taking place today isn't for the purpose of gathering intelligence anyway. Think of the Mexican drug cartels.

You skipped past my comment that most intelligence is useless. We could save a lot of money by eliminating most of it, especially the intelligence work being performed by contractors.

So your premise is that the movie shows the torture scenes and then followed by the agency employees working leads and that is completely unrelated?

Allrightythen. So be it.

All the misdirection aside (which I tried without success to prevent by stating my own opinion on the use of torture by the US....so much for pissing in the wind) we were not nor am I interested in torture used by the Mexican Cartels, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Chinese, MSS or the Russian FSB. You stated something which has been publically refuted and I stated such narrowly. Vacillate all you want, it doesn't help.

I 'skipped over' your comment regarding intelligence for two reasons. One because it is nothing but hyperbole akin to many that Joe B utters....completely unprovable and therefore equally hard to disprove and two because it too is irrelevant to the discussion.

Banned
03-15-2013, 02:25 AM
I must have seen a different movie because I deduced that is exactly what happened. Well, I should say to clarify. The interrogations revealed other leads which led to the courier which was eventually followed to OBL.

And, please Bob don't spread the nonsense that Pelosi and Biden insist on spreading...that no valuable information came from this torture. The sad fact is that just isn't true. It helps the sensitive sleep at night I suppose but just isn't true.

Even Leon Panetta, while trying to downplay the results admitted (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/leon-panetta-enhanced-interrogation-tactics-played-role-death-osama-bin-laden-article-1.1254336)to this.

Why can't we just say that torture is bad? Simply as a matter of principle? Why do we have to alter history to make it seem somehow more palatable (hence my 2-dollar-bill comment). I could have also said a “Plantation owner on the lower Santee in 1776 who doesn’t own slaves moment’ but that seems a bit cumbersome. I prefer to look at it as John McCain does….It just isn’t who we are (although I suppose nowadays I should say who we were).

Okay so let me get this straight - even Nazi Germany and the NVA figured out that torture isn't effective. The most successful German interrogator of WWII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff) never used torture. Heck even the medieval inquisition knew torture was worthless, only using it to get "confessions" - not actually considering it valuable intel. Yet here you are sitting, claiming it works.


So, the words of the guy who ran the CIA during the raid on OBL doesn't satisfy you? (if you read the article I cited)

Yes brilliant because we KNOW the CIA would never tell a fib, now would they?

Of course I would expect the CIA to denounce their own methods if they didn't work... right? Because they're nice, honest, upstanding citizens!

Banned
03-15-2013, 02:28 AM
I am deeply ashamed to be a citizen of a country that intentionally tortured prisoners (euphemistically called detainees). It would be wrong if it produced results. It would be wrong if it didn't. I've always said it is wrong.


...you are not the only one. Unfortunately, this practice, along with all the other horrid things done by our leaders in the name of "security" - will continue while there are people who sit around pretending to be "pragmatic".

Robert F. Dorr
03-15-2013, 02:34 AM
So your premise is that the movie shows the torture scenes and then followed by the agency employees working leads and that is completely unrelated?

Allrightythen. So be it.

All the misdirection aside (which I tried without success to prevent by stating my own opinion on the use of torture by the US....so much for pissing in the wind) we were not nor am I interested in torture used by the Mexican Cartels, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Chinese, MSS or the Russian FSB. You stated something which has been publically refuted and I stated such narrowly. Vacillate all you want, it doesn't help.

I 'skipped over' your comment regarding intelligence for two reasons. One because it is nothing but hyperbole akin to many that Joe B utters....completely unprovable and therefore equally hard to disprove and two because it too is irrelevant to the discussion.

You're entitled to your opinion and your opinions are usually pretty good but this time they're based on false facts. I'm going to say this one more time: There is nothing in the movie, nothing whatsoever, that even remotely suggests torture helped to elicit relevant information. It isn't there because the screenwriter and the director didn't want it there. Assertions to the contrary are made mostly by people who haven't seen it.

A great many career professionals in the Central Intelligence Agency knew from Day One that torture is useless for the purpose of eliciting information but the few who made it happen didn't listen. The absence of a leader in the White House or in the Director of Central Intelligence slot may have helped others to institute these interrogation procedures. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was eager to sing from Day One and sang everything from "Aida" to "Stand By Your Man," while confessing to robbing Willy Sutton's banks and God knows what else. He was singing long before they tortured him. His deception worked, too, because the people who ran this program were as incompetent as their leaders.

RobotChicken
03-15-2013, 06:07 AM
You're entitled to your opinion and your opinions are usually pretty good but this time they're based on false facts. I'm going to say this one more time: There is nothing in the movie, nothing whatsoever, that even remotely suggests torture helped to elicit relevant information. It isn't there because the screenwriter and the director didn't want it there. Assertions to the contrary are made mostly by people who haven't seen it.

A great many career professionals in the Central Intelligence Agency knew from Day One that torture is useless for the purpose of eliciting information but the few who made it happen didn't listen. The absence of a leader in the White House or in the Director of Central Intelligence slot may have helped others to institute these interrogation procedures. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was eager to sing from Day One and sang everything from "Aida" to "Stand By Your Man," while confessing to robbing Willy Sutton's banks and God knows what else. He was singing long before they tortured him. His deception worked, too, because the people who ran this program were as incompetent as their leaders.
:spy Got it more black money for drones didn't it?? :wof 'Hide in plane site!!' :plane

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2013, 11:02 AM
Okay so let me get this straight - even Nazi Germany and the NVA figured out that torture isn't effective. The most successful German interrogator of WWII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff) never used torture. Heck even the medieval inquisition knew torture was worthless, only using it to get "confessions" - not actually considering it valuable intel. Yet here you are sitting, claiming it works.



Yes brilliant because we KNOW the CIA would never tell a fib, now would they?

Of course I would expect the CIA to denounce their own methods if they didn't work... right? Because they're nice, honest, upstanding citizens!

Joe, go to class, the bell rang.

At least bring something close to a rationale argument.

My argument is (AND YOU FUCKING VERY WELL KNOW IT BECUASE YOU CAN FUCKING READ) is that actionable intelligence WAS obtained by the enhanced interrogation techniques (which includes torture such as water boarding). Your post is nothing but typical obfuscation because you would rather undergo torture yourself than to admit that I am right. Unfortunately for you that is a very common occurrence.

So, your reaction to Panetta's statement is simply that he is lying?

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2013, 11:16 AM
You're entitled to your opinion and your opinions are usually pretty good but this time they're based on false facts. I'm going to say this one more time: There is nothing in the movie, nothing whatsoever, that even remotely suggests torture helped to elicit relevant information. It isn't there because the screenwriter and the director didn't want it there. Assertions to the contrary are made mostly by people who haven't seen it.

A great many career professionals in the Central Intelligence Agency knew from Day One that torture is useless for the purpose of eliciting information but the few who made it happen didn't listen. The absence of a leader in the White House or in the Director of Central Intelligence slot may have helped others to institute these interrogation procedures. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was eager to sing from Day One and sang everything from "Aida" to "Stand By Your Man," while confessing to robbing Willy Sutton's banks and God knows what else. He was singing long before they tortured him. His deception worked, too, because the people who ran this program were as incompetent as their leaders.

There is the fatal flaw in your associative argument.

I saw the plot line one way; you saw it the other way. I know you are smart enough to come to a conclusion based on a series of portrayed events but you saw it your way, or continue to claim you did because it fits in with the crux of your real intellectual failure. In the face of admissions by key members of both the Bush and Obama administration you and others continue to portray the enhanced interrogation techniques as a complete failure because it fits into a nice neat package where bad deeds never pay off. Good triumphs in the end.

In the real world KSM did provide actionable intelligence. Of course a lot was bullshit, which is usually the case. That is true in every interrogation, whether coerced or not. People don't readily give up valuable information to their enemies. His interrogation and that of others simply DID produce leads which led to raids and arrests of other HVTs.

I WISH that wasn't the case because it WOULD be simpler to simply dismiss the fact that our government did this. That it wouldn't be tempting to repeat these acts in the future during some dark time of imminent threat.

I actually subscribe to the long term approach in interrogation techniques. A lot like the books by Matthew Alexander. I have had training in it and agree with it. Unfortunately some people decided that another way was better and faster. Well it was faster and IT DID PRODUCE RESULTS. Unfortunately we lost something of our national soul along the way and altering history does not change that fact……………..back to the two dollar bill.

Monkey
03-15-2013, 11:27 AM
Bob, you saw what you expected to see.

TJ, you saw what you expected to see.

No matter what you tell each other, your memories are not going to change. This is not a new phenomena.

Robert F. Dorr
03-15-2013, 11:32 AM
Joe, go to class, the bell rang.

At least bring something close to a rationale argument.

My argument is (AND YOU FUCKING VERY WELL KNOW IT BECUASE YOU CAN FUCKING READ) is that actionable intelligence WAS obtained by the enhanced interrogation techniques (which includes torture such as water boarding). Your post is nothing but typical obfuscation because you would rather undergo torture yourself than to admit that I am right. Unfortunately for you that is a very common occurrence.

So, your reaction to Panetta's statement is simply that he is lying?

I'm glad you at least recognize that you were mistaken about what was shown in the movie.

With so much kept so secret and so many records illegally destroyed, there is a lot we will never know. What we do know is that Panetta's quote is vague and unhelpful, no example of useful intelligence gotten this way has ever been made public, and experts on interrogation agree that torture doesn't work since the subject (KSM is a good example) will say what ever you want him to day. In KSM's case, he started talking before being interrogated and did a brilliant job of making the idiots on our side think he's important.

Robert F. Dorr
03-15-2013, 11:34 AM
Bob, you saw what you expected to see.

TJ, you saw what you expected to see.

No matter what you tell each other, your memories are not going to change. This is not a new phenomena.

No. I did not have an expectation before I saw it.

I've seen the film and read a lot about the film. TJ's the only person I know of who saw the film and saw something that wasn't there. It didn't exist.

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2013, 11:44 AM
Bob,

Exactly where did you get that I recognize any such thing? Is this you being clever, or attempting to?

If I am the only one who saw this connection in the film, why are so many people up in arms over it?

Panetta's quote is vague but hardly unhelpful. He tried as best he could to minimize the fact but admitted nonetheless that results were obtained.

Let's pretend for a second that you really didn't understand it and look again.


“The real story is that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to bin Laden, there was a lot of intelligence,” Panetta said. “There were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time — interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that. I think we could have gotten bin Laden without that.”


Does that help?

Monkey
03-15-2013, 11:48 AM
No. I did not have an expectation before I saw it.

I've seen the film and read a lot about the film. TJ's the only person I know of who saw the film and saw something that wasn't there. It didn't exist.

It did from his perspective. He also said that it wasn't there, but instead that it was implied. You can't really argue with his interpretation of a phantom.

Banned
03-15-2013, 03:58 PM
Joe, go to class, the bell rang.

At least bring something close to a rationale argument.

My argument is (AND YOU FUCKING VERY WELL KNOW IT BECUASE YOU CAN FUCKING READ) is that actionable intelligence WAS obtained by the enhanced interrogation techniques (which includes torture such as water boarding). Your post is nothing but typical obfuscation because you would rather undergo torture yourself than to admit that I am right. Unfortunately for you that is a very common occurrence.

There's a mountain of evidence showing torture not only does not produce real actionable intelligence, it actually can slow the process. Yet here you are screaming and getting emotional about it - all because the CIA told you what to think.

Its sad and pathetic that you're whoring yourself to a system that has basically become the new Nazi Germany. A ruthless and completely evil empire that - from a neutral moralistic perspective - deserves to be defeated and destroyed.


So, your reaction to Panetta's statement is simply that he is lying?

Absolutely.

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2013, 04:24 PM
There's a mountain of evidence showing torture not only does not produce real actionable intelligence, it actually can slow the process. Yet here you are screaming and getting emotional about it - all because the CIA told you what to think.

Its sad and pathetic that you're whoring yourself to a system that has basically become the new Nazi Germany. A ruthless and completely evil empire that - from a neutral moralistic perspective - deserves to be defeated and destroyed.


A 'mountain of evidence'? Really Joe. Learned that in the Corp huh? Wait, you couldn’t have learned that on line did you because after all, you seem to think people lie all the time. By the way, ANY interrogation slows the investigative process. False leads are commonplace even when the subject is being treated to milk and cookies. I realize that on The Closer it doesn’t happen that way but in real life……………

Let's just admit that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. I realize that it is convenient and intellectually lazy to claim that since I disagree with the sad fact that torture does produce actionable intelligence then ipso facto I must condone such actions (ignoring the several posts citing exactly the opposite).

“Its sad and pathetic that you're whoring yourself to a system that has basically become the new Nazi Germany. A ruthless and completely evil empire that - from a neutral moralistic perspective - deserves to be defeated and destroyed.”

No hyperbole there, no sir, none whatsoever. Please go to art class or whatever.



Absolutely.

I really didn’t give you much choice there did I? That was actually too easy. I wonder if anyone else will see the desperation there………..

Also, let’s also admit that we both know my emotion and screaming is at your continued nonsense. The “CIA told” me what to think………please. Step up will ya’?

Banned
03-15-2013, 04:49 PM
A 'mountain of evidence'? Really Joe. Learned that in the Corp huh? Wait, you couldn’t have learned that on line did you because after all, you seem to think people lie all the time. By the way, ANY interrogation slows the investigative process. False leads are commonplace even when the subject is being treated to milk and cookies. I realize that on The Closer it doesn’t happen that way but in real life……………

Let's just admit that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. I realize that it is convenient and intellectually lazy to claim that since I disagree with the sad fact that torture does produce actionable intelligence then ipso facto I must condone such actions (ignoring the several posts citing exactly the opposite).

Attempting to justify torture in any way - even claiming that it is useful at all - serves only to disguise the fact that it is a crime, and destroys any credibility this country once had.


No hyperbole there, no sir, none whatsoever. Please go to art class or whatever.

How is this hyperbole? If your family was killed, or if someone you knew was abducted and tortured for years - would you have any nice names for the country that did that?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Another 911 attack is inevitable. It WILL happen. Sooner or later we're going to piss off the wrong guy - he's going to come home one day and find his house and family of six a smoking crater from "shock and awe" - sure that happens every day in our wars, but the difference is this time it'll be someone smarter than the average bear... and he'll decide his new goal in life is to kill as many Americans as he possibly can.

And from a collective standpoint... can you really say we won't deserve it?


I really didn’t give you much choice there did I? That was actually too easy. I wonder if anyone else will see the desperation there………..

Also, let’s also admit that we both know my emotion and screaming is at your continued nonsense. The “CIA told” me what to think………please. Step up will ya’?

I find it remarkable that even after its come out that we've been lied to every step of the way in this war, some people will continue to lap up every bit of nonsense the government feeds us about it.

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2013, 07:41 PM
Attempting to justify torture in any way - even claiming that it is useful at all - serves only to disguise the fact that it is a crime, and destroys any credibility this country once had.


I really love it when you tromp through here doing exactly what you love to accuse others of.

Please point out exactly where I tried to "justify torture in any way". If I am following your fractured logic (and I will admit that lately it has gotten harder to do so. A definitely drop in intellect present)....If I state that the economy of the South was as successful as it was (to any degree) because slaves were used for labor, that must mean I endorse and condone slavery. Never mind whether or not something is true or not, I mentioned an ugly thing so I must condone it. Again, very intellectually lazy.



How is this hyperbole? If your family was killed, or if someone you knew was abducted and tortured for years - would you have any nice names for the country that did that?


Well, first of all neither of us is that category so more emotional hyperbole and you can attempt to wrap this now anyway you want but this…………….


Its sad and pathetic that you're whoring yourself to a system that has basically become the new Nazi Germany. A ruthless and completely evil empire that - from a neutral moralistic perspective - deserves to be defeated and destroyed.

………is pure hyperbole. Not even very clever hyperbole.



I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Another 911 attack is inevitable. It WILL happen. Sooner or later we're going to piss off the wrong guy - he's going to come home one day and find his house and family of six a smoking crater from "shock and awe" - sure that happens every day in our wars, but the difference is this time it'll be someone smarter than the average bear... and he'll decide his new goal in life is to kill as many Americans as he possibly can.

And from a collective standpoint... can you really say we won't deserve it?



How exactly does this relate to the above quote being hyperbole? Misdirection perhaps?


I find it remarkable that even after its come out that we've been lied to every step of the way in this war, some people will continue to lap up every bit of nonsense the government feeds us about it.

And I find it remarkable. Well in truth pathetic that without a shred of evidence to prove it you can dismiss out-of-hand anything you choose without regard for anything else. Funny part of this is that Panetta was leaning over backwards to minimize the value of the torture which I completely understand and had I been in the same position would have done the same…..oh wait I like torture don’t I. Not because of anything I have written. In fact quite the contrary. Merely that you LIKE the idea that I would like torture.

Pullinteeth
03-15-2013, 08:32 PM
It did from his perspective. He also said that it wasn't there, but instead that it was implied. You can't really argue with his interpretation of a phantom.

Oh ye of little faith.... This in reference to the guy that actually said "false facts?"

Banned
03-15-2013, 10:40 PM
I really love it when you tromp through here doing exactly what you love to accuse others of.

Please point out exactly where I tried to "justify torture in any way". If I am following your fractured logic (and I will admit that lately it has gotten harder to do so. A definitely drop in intellect present)....If I state that the economy of the South was as successful as it was (to any degree) because slaves were used for labor, that must mean I endorse and condone slavery. Never mind whether or not something is true or not, I mentioned an ugly thing so I must condone it. Again, very intellectually lazy.

Actually the slave states were extremely backwards and underdeveloped, and the slavery system left the vast majority of whites in poverty. Furthermore, everybody's civil rights were infringed upon, patrols and checkpoints across the South were used to prevent escaped slaves from slipping up North. There were other serious problems as well - such as this system encouraged people to not use proper crop rotation, leaving much of the land barren after a few generations. All in all, this required the slave states to need to constantly expand - it was unsustainable without continuous military conquest.

During the war, slavery even hurt them in a military sense as well as economic - a large portion of the army was required to stay out of the fight to keep down the slaves (In some states, such as Virginia, the slaves actually outnumbered the white population).


Well, first of all neither of us is that category so more emotional hyperbole and you can attempt to wrap this now anyway you want but this…………….

So you admit to an inability to see what effect our actions could have on the rest of the world... and what kind of blowback this could result against us?


………is pure hyperbole. Not even very clever hyperbole.

Why? So it doesn't bother you at all that we are engaging in the same war crimes that we - once upon a time - hung people for? Did we not execute German and Japanese officers for the very same mistreatment of prisoners that we are engaging in routinely today?


How exactly does this relate to the above quote being hyperbole? Misdirection perhaps?

Its an attempt to show how incredibly destructive your line of thinking is to the nation. Which apparently is a point you will never recognize.


And I find it remarkable. Well in truth pathetic that without a shred of evidence to prove it you can dismiss out-of-hand anything you choose without regard for anything else. Funny part of this is that Panetta was leaning over backwards to minimize the value of the torture which I completely understand and had I been in the same position would have done the same…..oh wait I like torture don’t I. Not because of anything I have written. In fact quite the contrary. Merely that you LIKE the idea that I would like torture.

So basically, you will ignore every investigation the Senate, Human Rights Watch, and every other organization has conducted into torture... all because the CIA insists that their torture techniques work?

sandsjames
03-15-2013, 11:58 PM
I love how all conversation on this board has gone from discussion to trying to "catch" somebody contradicting themself.

TJMAC77SP
03-18-2013, 11:19 AM
Actually the slave states were extremely backwards and underdeveloped, and the slavery system left the vast majority of whites in poverty. Furthermore, everybody's civil rights were infringed upon, patrols and checkpoints across the South were used to prevent escaped slaves from slipping up North. There were other serious problems as well - such as this system encouraged people to not use proper crop rotation, leaving much of the land barren after a few generations. All in all, this required the slave states to need to constantly expand - it was unsustainable without continuous military conquest.

During the war, slavery even hurt them in a military sense as well as economic - a large portion of the army was required to stay out of the fight to keep down the slaves (In some states, such as Virginia, the slaves actually outnumbered the white population).

How does this diatribe answer my point? Of course you have again ignored the simple point and vomited irrelevant drivel.

Just to bring the other readers back to reality, this is what I said……….”If I state that the economy of the South was as successful as it was (to any degree) because slaves were used for labor,…”


So you admit to an inability to see what effect our actions could have on the rest of the world... and what kind of blowback this could result against us?

Again not only an irrelevant point which not ignores the question but also ignores what I have previous said on the subject……..again.


Why? So it doesn't bother you at all that we are engaging in the same war crimes that we - once upon a time - hung people for? Did we not execute German and Japanese officers for the very same mistreatment of prisoners that we are engaging in routinely today?

AGAIN……….how do you get from me insisting on the telling of history being factual to be condoning torture…….DESPITE HAVING SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE SEVERAL TIMES?


Its an attempt to show how incredibly destructive your line of thinking is to the nation. Which apparently is a point you will never recognize.

In other words it was yet another lame and irrelevant attempt to say anything but what is actually the truth.


So basically, you will ignore every investigation the Senate, Human Rights Watch, and every other organization has conducted into torture... all because the CIA insists that their torture techniques work?

I am amuzed that your desparation has you attempting to paint Leon Panetta of all people as a lackey of what has become known as George Bush's legacy. BTW: In the interest of accuracy. Panetta was not with the CIA when he issued that statement.

Can you share with us the Senate investigation that stated that the interrogation of terror suspects resulted in no actionable intelligence? For that matter include the Human Rights Watch report or study that says the same thing.

TJMAC77SP
03-18-2013, 11:20 AM
I love how all conversation on this board has gone from discussion to trying to "catch" somebody contradicting themself.

Who is trying to catch anyone contradicting themselves?

Robert F. Dorr
03-18-2013, 11:30 AM
Who is trying to catch anyone contradicting themselves?

Not me. I'm looking for issues of subject/verb agreement.

Banned
03-18-2013, 02:06 PM
How does this diatribe answer my point? Of course you have again ignored the simple point and vomited irrelevant drivel.

Just to bring the other readers back to reality, this is what I said……….”If I state that the economy of the South was as successful as it was (to any degree) because slaves were used for labor,…”

Which is false blatantly false. The South as an economy did not benefit from slavery - it was backwards, underdeveloped, and unprepared to fight a war.

What part of that point confused you...?



Again not only an irrelevant point which not ignores the question but also ignores what I have previous said on the subject……..again.

So when you hit an uncomfortable truth, you just call it "hyperbole" and ignore it?

So tell me, what happens when we get attacked again... this time by one or more of the millions of victims of the WOT? What then?


AGAIN……….how do you get from me insisting on the telling of history being factual to be condoning torture…….DESPITE HAVING SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE SEVERAL TIMES?

You're dodging the question... AGAIN.

On the same note - so when are we going to start executing these military and CIA members who engaged in torture?


In other words it was yet another lame and irrelevant attempt to say anything but what is actually the truth.

And what is - "the truth"? That the rights and well being of everybody else on the planet takes second priority to our own "interests"?


I am amuzed that your desparation has you attempting to paint Leon Panetta of all people as a lackey of what has become known as George Bush's legacy. BTW: In the interest of accuracy. Panetta was not with the CIA when he issued that statement.

Can you share with us the Senate investigation that stated that the interrogation of terror suspects resulted in no actionable intelligence? For that matter include the Human Rights Watch report or study that says the same thing.

"Desperation"... I'm not the one defending torture.


Mr. Michael Lynton
Chairman and CEO
Sony Pictures Entertainment
10202 W. Washington Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232-3195

Dear Mr. Lynton:

We write to express our deep disappointment with the movie Zero Dark Thirty. We believe the film is grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Usama bin Laden.

We understand that the film is fiction, but it opens with the words “based on first-hand accounts of actual events” and there has been significant media coverage of the CIA’s cooperation with the screenwriters. As you know, the film graphically depicts CIA officers repeatedly torturing detainees and then credits these detainees with providing critical lead information on the courier that led to the Usama Bin Laden. Regardless of what message the filmmakers intended to convey, the movie clearly implies that the CIA’s coercive interrogation techniques were effective in eliciting important information related to a courier for Usama Bin Laden. We have reviewed CIA records and know that this is incorrect.

Zero Dark Thirty is factually inaccurate, and we believe that you have an obligation to state that the role of torture in the hunt for Usama Bin Laden is not based on the facts, but rather part of the film’s fictional narrative.

Pursuant to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s recently-adopted Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation program, Committee staff reviewed more than 6 million pages of records from the Intelligence Community. Based on that review, Senators Feinstein and Levin released the following information on April 30, 2012, regarding the Usama Bin Laden operation:
The CIA did not first learn about the existence of the Usama Bin Laden courier from CIA detainees subjected to coercive interrogation techniques. Nor did the CIA discover the courier's identity from detainees subjected to coercive techniques. No detainee reported on the courier’s full name or specific whereabouts, and no detainee identified the compound in which Usama Bin Laden was hidden. Instead, the CIA learned of the existence of the courier, his true name and location through means unrelated to the CIA detention and interrogation program.
Information to support this operation was obtained from a wide variety of intelligence sources and methods. CIA officers and their colleagues throughout the Intelligence Community sifted through massive amounts of information, identified possible leads, tracked them down, and made considered judgments based on all of the available intelligence.
The CIA detainee who provided the most significant information about the courier provided the information prior to being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques.

In addition to the information above, former CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote Senator McCain in May 2011, stating:

“…no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.”

We are fans of many of your movies, and we understand the special role that movies play in our lives, but the fundamental problem is that people who see Zero Dark Thirty will believe that the events it portrays are facts. The film therefore has the potential to shape American public opinion in a disturbing and misleading manner. Recent public opinion polls suggest that a narrow majority of Americans believe that torture can be justified as an effective form of intelligence gathering. This is false. We know that cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners is an unreliable and highly ineffective means of gathering intelligence.

The use of torture should be banished from serious public discourse for these reasons alone, but more importantly, because it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because it is an affront to America’s national honor, and because it is wrong. The use of torture in the fight against terrorism did severe damage to America’s values and standing that cannot be justified or expunged. It remains a stain on our national conscience. We cannot afford to go back to these dark times, and with the release of Zero Dark Thirty, the filmmakers and your production studio are perpetuating the myth that torture is effective. You have a social and moral obligation to get the facts right.

Please consider correcting the impression that the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation techniques led to the operation against Usama Bin Laden. It did not.

Thank you for your assistance on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Carl Levin
Chairman
Senate Armed Services Committee
Ex-Officio Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

John McCain
Ranking Member
Senate Armed Services Committee
Ex-Officio Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence


Here's a PDF from the human rights watch:

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/libya0912webwcover_1.pdf

TJMAC77SP
03-18-2013, 04:48 PM
Which is false blatantly false. The South as an economy did not benefit from slavery - it was backwards, underdeveloped, and unprepared to fight a war.

What part of that point confused you...?

Exactly what is blatantly false? What statement did I make? I believe I asked a question.

Again……….”If I state that the economy of the South was as successful as it was (to any degree) because slaves were used for labor,…”

I will make this as simple as I can. I am beginning to think I have overestimated your capacity for comprehension.

Please describe to me how effective you think the South’s agriculture (with very large plantations) economy would have been if there had only been paid labor to work them.

(If the answer is not as viable (to any degree) as it actually was then you have got my point)

Also, can you tell me how your point is not irrelevant as to the point I actually made and which you avoided?


So when you hit an uncomfortable truth, you just call it "hyperbole" and ignore it?

So tell me, what happens when we get attacked again... this time by one or more of the millions of victims of the WOT? What then?

Which uncomfortable truth am I ignoring with regard to how your diatribes directly relate to anything I post? I do try to ignore your misdirection but I think that pretty understandable. They insult my intellect.


You're dodging the question... AGAIN.

Exactly what question am I avoiding? That is the third time I think in less than a week that you have said that and I am still waiting for those questions to be shown to me.


On the same note - so when are we going to start executing these military and CIA members who engaged in torture?

When are you going to stop trying to widen this discussion so that you can rant about your own agenda? We have actually agreed on the point that the torture has hurt our country’s image. Why is it you find it necessary to keep coming back to that when it doesn’t relate to what is fact and what isn’t fact with regard to the (intelligence) results of the torture


And what is - "the truth"? That the rights and well being of everybody else on the planet takes second priority to our own "interests"?

The truth is that you continue to refuse to limit your posts to what is relevant in a fairly narrow discussion. If you want to discuss generally the use of torture and its long term effects on individuals, the reputation of countries and possible legal outcomes then start a thread.


"Desperation"... I'm not the one defending torture.

Well, you finally actually said it. This is exactly why I am starting to doubt my previous assessments of your intellect. To think otherwise would lead me to the inevitable conclusion that you are indeed just a pissy little troll who merely wants to stir the shitpot and not engage in any real and meaningful back and forth. I think I am more comfortable with my new opinion.

Tell me though, how do you make the (failed) logic leap that by dismissing stupid, illogical and untrue assertions that NO actionable intelligence was obtained by these immoral acts is somehow defending torture. It just doesn’t make sense.

I do however understand why you take that stand. The alternative is an anathema to you.


Here's a PDF from the human rights watch:



Kinda thought you would go to the letter. While the letter cites an investigation it only quotes what amounts to a press release from two of the three signatories to the letter. The two of which have a vested stake in the assertion made in the letter being true (as they have previously climbed out on that same limb). McCain I understand since he was from the beginning the lone voice in the wilderness when this issue first came to light. I am just disappointed in him that he now feels it necessary to not continue to make the position from a purely moral standpoint. It was always enough for me.

How exactly do you come to the conclusion that this letter is any truer than Panetta’s statement of February 3?

Let me give you a hypothetical. I torture Subject A (because after all, I condone torture right?) and he tells me something that leads to Subject B. I surveil Subject B and he leads me to Subject C which eventually leads me to Mr. Big who is the real target of my investigation. Assuming that other than supposition there is no proof that I would have found Subject B and therefore Subject C how can you say that the information that Subject A gave me didn’t aid in getting to Mr. Big?

BTW….read the letter again. I would have been happier if it had stated.

“No information was obtained from any subject by coercive interrogation techniques which led either directly or indirectly to the killing of Osama bin Laden.”

Would have saved words and been very concise. Senators and their staffs are assumed to be fairly intelligent, why do you think the letter doesn’t say that?

I am pretty busy today. Could you point out in the HRW report limited to US rendition to Libya the assertion that “the interrogation of terror suspects resulted in no actionable intelligence”? I am assuming you read the report and just point me to that section.

Once again, for the other readers, I am at this point actually not as sure as I have been in the past that you are actually capable of getting the point………………..When you acknowledge what is an actual ugly truth, even if it is a very ugly truth, you aren’t by definition condoning it or defending it. You are merely being historically truthful. Anything else, by definition is untruthful and that NEVER helps the situation.

Here are a couple of things from the Senate letter that I applaud. Too bad it isn’t all that’s in the letter.

First… "We know that cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners is an unreliable and highly ineffective means of gathering intelligence."

It IS highly ineffective. Notice not ‘completely ineffective’. Unfortunately it is somewhat effective. That makes it more dangerous. That people would be tempted to use it when it is perceived the threat dictate is (which is what I believe happened with regard to the terror suspects).

Secondly….. ” The use of torture should be banished from serious public discourse for these reasons alone, but more importantly, because it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because it is an affront to America’s national honor, and because it is wrong. The use of torture in the fight against terrorism did severe damage to America’s values and standing that cannot be justified or expunged. It remains a stain on our national conscience…”

Too bad that wasn’t the letter in its entirety. It is the entire content of McCain’s original protestations against the use of torture.

I do agree that Zero Dark Thirty could have been as good a movie without the scenes in question. I certainly would have been spared the discomfort while watching them but the director chose to put them in. Altering history to suit a moral purpose hardly serves that purpose well.

JD2780
03-20-2013, 12:05 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn_R5_FXT_0