Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 153 of 153

Thread: "ZERO DARK THIRTY"

  1. #151
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,716
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "ZERO DARK THIRTY"

    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    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/fil...ebwcover_1.pdf

  2. #152
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Re: "ZERO DARK THIRTY"

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    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.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  3. #153
    JD2780
    Guest

    Re: "ZERO DARK THIRTY"


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •