PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Marc Thiessen Confronts Christiane Amanpour on Waterboarding Propaganda


MarcBulger
01-22-2010, 09:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUl3iBN4PjI

Reaper16
01-22-2010, 09:10 PM
Good grief. I have the sudden urge to find you in real life and fucking punch you into paralysis.

Norman Einstein
01-22-2010, 09:22 PM
Good grief. I have the sudden urge to find you in real life and ****ing punch you into paralysis.

Which one?

Reaper16
01-22-2010, 09:24 PM
Which one?
YOU

Direckshun
01-22-2010, 09:50 PM
I can't even fathom what argument Thiessen was trying to make.

Even if we want to make the distinction between submerging someone in water to drown them and pouring water down their nostrils to drown them, I have no idea what point he thinks he's making.

I'd normally take this opportunity to give props to Amanpour, but this is low-hanging fruit type material she's working with.

headsnap
01-22-2010, 09:55 PM
Even if we want to make the distinction between submerging someone in water to drown them and pouring water down their nostrils to drown them

there is where your problem lies... it is not the purpose of waterboarding to drown the person.

Norman Einstein
01-23-2010, 07:26 AM
YOU

What are you nucking futs or something? I'd drop you like a bad habit!:rolleyes:

MarcBulger
01-23-2010, 08:44 AM
I can't even fathom what argument Thiessen was trying to make.

Even if we want to make the distinction between submerging someone in water to drown them and pouring water down their nostrils to drown them, I have no idea what point he thinks he's making.

I'd normally take this opportunity to give props to Amanpour, but this is low-hanging fruit type material she's working with.


He basicaly laid out the fact that she was trying to relate the old waterboarding torture where people did to the way the CIA did it...He made her look like the liberal fool she is...

Can't wait to read his book...

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 09:16 AM
He basicaly laid out the fact that she was trying to relate the old waterboarding torture where people did to the way the CIA did it...He made her look like the liberal fool she is...

Can't wait to read his book...
Fuck yeah! Torture book!

patteeu
01-23-2010, 09:34 AM
Thiessen absolutely owned Amanpour in this interview.

It reminds me of the time she did an interview in Kosovo (or maybe Bosnia) of some emaciated people who were standing on the other side of a fence giving the impression that they were in a nazi-style concentration camp. Later, she was exposed as a lying propagandist when someone revisited that location and pointed out that it was just a fence and either she or the people she was interviewing could have easily walked around it to get to the other side.

Saul Good
01-23-2010, 09:36 AM
Thiessen absolutely owned Amanpour in this interview.

It reminds me of the time she did an interview in Kosovo (or maybe Bosnia) of some emaciated people who were standing on the other side of a fence giving the impression that they were in a nazi-style concentration camp. Later, she was exposed as a lying propagandist when someone revisited that location and pointed out that it was just a fence and either she or the people she was interviewing could have easily walked around it to get to the other side.

My dog lives in a concentration camp in my backyard.

patteeu
01-23-2010, 09:37 AM
My dog lives in a concentration camp in my backyard.

LOL

Chief Henry
01-23-2010, 10:41 AM
If what Marc is saying is true - then the Obama ADMN. is playing Russian Roulette with the safety of our country.

KCTitus
01-23-2010, 12:08 PM
I can't even fathom what argument Thiessen was trying to make.

You must have not watched the whole thing...the last 5 seconds summarized it perfectly.

Maybe you could answer the question Thiessen posed...of all the terror plots that were discovered due to waterboarding terrorists, which one would you prefer happened?

RINGLEADER
01-23-2010, 02:11 PM
I can't even fathom what argument Thiessen was trying to make.

Even if we want to make the distinction between submerging someone in water to drown them and pouring water down their nostrils to drown them, I have no idea what point he thinks he's making.

I'd normally take this opportunity to give props to Amanpour, but this is low-hanging fruit type material she's working with.


His points are:

1. The application of a technique to simulate drowning by one group isn't necessarily the same as that used by another;

2. That comparing the techniques and the application therein of the CIA (waterboarding three individuals in a controlled environment designed NOT to kill them -- their value was, after all, in what they knew and what they could tell us) to what Pol Pot did (killing thousands) was a gross mischaracterization;

3. That a foreign force acting against the US during a time of war (declared or otherwise) may be detained for the duration of the conflict;

4. That terrorists who do not conform to the laws of war are not extended the benefits of the Geneva convention;

5. That the terrorists code requires only that they resist after which time they can spill their guts freely (which they did);

6. That no one was water boarded in Guantanomo and that the extent of the water boarding was the three people most directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

He made these points well.

Furthermore, if you take these facts into account (especially the fact that the application of this technique DID yield positive intelligence and was only applied to three individuals) it puts the entire issue into a perspective that has been (purposefully) lost on most of the media and the politicians. I guarantee if you ask most people how many individuals were subjected to the technique (especially those on the left who are vehemently against it) they would give you a number in the hundreds, if not thousands.

That said, if you want to make the argument that giving Al Qaeda the opportunity to equate the actions of the US with those of Pol Pot (or was that CA doing that?) and that the resulting benefits aren't worth inviting that comparison I guess that's valid too.

As for the interview, my favorite highlight was after MT completely schooled CA with her own words she wanted to immediately change the subject. People who have facts to support their convictions don't run away from such challenges (kinda reminds me of Obama saying how great Obamacare is -- which is why everyone on the left is fighting to be excluded for its application).