The CIA closed its original 'black site' years ago. But its legacy of torture lives on in Thailand

[Kitmakmak]

47 minutes ago, saakura said:

1 hour ago, Kitmakmak said:

Regarding torture.... which is worse? Tricking someone into believing they are drowning or actually drowning someone? Or burning them alive? Or chopping their head off? Or blowing up women and children?

If you are comparing, i would say that worse than that is waging wars based on false information. Or killing hundreds of thousands in the name of regime change in some countries but supporting vile dictators in other countries. Or electing idiots to the office of President.

I agree the second Iraq war was a mistake. The world would be safer today if Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi were still alive and along with Assad were in control of their countries.

I also agree that electing idiots to be president is not a good idea. But, people like George Soros are intent on making sure we elect more idiots like Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton- even if they have to get non-US citizens to vote for them.

[SunsetT]

4 hours ago, Kitmakmak said:

Or burning them alive? Or blowing up women and children?

.....So the USA and their foreign policies, directly and indirectly, since WW2 are not responsible for thousands, maybe millions of such civilian deaths worldwide? But, in comparison, the paltry 3000 killed on their own soil on 9/11/01 justified the breaking of any international law it chooses and justified any means of torture.

 

.....God bless America  the USA; Land of the free and hypocrisy!

Edited April 23, 2018 by SunsetT

[Kitmakmak]

2 minutes ago, SunsetT said:

.....So the USA and their foreign policies, directly and indirectly, since WW2 are not responsible for thousands, maybe millions of such civilian deaths worldwide? But, in comparison, the paltry 3000 killed on their own soil on 9/11/01 justified the breaking of any international law it chooses and justified any means of torture.

 

.....God bless America  the USA; Land of the free and hypocrisy!

Wow! Why so angry? The US has made it's share of mistakes, but there are usually good intentions. Wars, by definition, always have at least two sides.

 

Half a million Americans are buried in Europe where we helped defend our European allies in WWI and WWII. We asked nothing in return and forgave billions of debt owed to the US.

Over 35,000 Americans died defending South Koreans from an invasion by North Korea. We didn't ask for anything in return.

Over 58,000 Americans died defending the South Vietnam from communist North Vietnam. We had nothing to gain except to defend freedom from communism.

A few hundred Americans died returning freedom for Kuwait in the first Iraq War. We asked for nothing in return.

We fought a war in Afghanistan after we were attacked on 9/11.

The second Iraq War was a mistake, IMO, with the benefit of hindsight. But, Saddam Hussein had violated 16 UN resolutions and was deemed a threat to the US.

 

Which international law did the US violate in any of those conflicts?

 

 

 

[SunsetT]

13 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

Wow! Why so angry? The US has made it's share of mistakes, but there are usually good intentions. Wars, by definition, always have at least two sides.

 

Half a million Americans are buried in Europe where we helped defend our European allies in WWI and WWII. We asked nothing in return and forgave billions of debt owed to the US.

Over 35,000 Americans died defending South Koreans from an invasion by North Korea. We didn't ask for anything in return.

Over 58,000 Americans died defending the South Vietnam from communist North Vietnam. We had nothing to gain except to defend freedom from communism.

A few hundred Americans died returning freedom for Kuwait in the first Iraq War. We asked for nothing in return.

We fought a war in Afghanistan after we were attacked on 9/11.

The second Iraq War was a mistake, IMO, with the benefit of hindsight. But, Saddam Hussein had violated 16 UN resolutions and was deemed a threat to the US.

 

Which international law did the US violate in any of those conflicts?

 

 

 

Im referring to Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition which this topic is about.

 

Read this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/197782.Rogue_State

[poanoi]

33 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

Wow! Why so angry? The US has made it's share of mistakes, but there are usually good intentions. Wars, by definition, always have at least two sides.

 

Half a million Americans are buried in Europe where we helped defend our European allies in WWI and WWII.

 

 

 

<deleted> ?! good intentions for whom ?

half a million americans buried in europe ?

died during vacation or occupation then, cause it sure wasnt as casualties of war

[Kitmakmak]

The prisoners held there are enemy combatants. There has been no cessation of the war against the US. It would be foolish to release enemy combatants who are determined to kill your own troops and citizens. That, in fact, is exactly what has happened. Over 100 prisoners released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield.

[khunken]

38 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

Wow! Why so angry? The US has made it's share of mistakes, but there are usually good intentions. Wars, by definition, always have at least two sides.

 

Half a million Americans are buried in Europe where we helped defend our European allies in WWI and WWII. We asked nothing in return and forgave billions of debt owed to the US.

Over 35,000 Americans died defending South Koreans from an invasion by North Korea. We didn't ask for anything in return.

Over 58,000 Americans died defending the South Vietnam from communist North Vietnam. We had nothing to gain except to defend freedom from communism.

A few hundred Americans died returning freedom for Kuwait in the first Iraq War. We asked for nothing in return.

We fought a war in Afghanistan after we were attacked on 9/11.

The second Iraq War was a mistake, IMO, with the benefit of hindsight. But, Saddam Hussein had violated 16 UN resolutions and was deemed a threat to the US.

 

Which international law did the US violate in any of those conflicts?

 

 

 

Good intentions my backside.

 

The only thing you got half right is that the US did help in wwII and the aftermath. Unfortunately Europe got NATO - ensuring that any war with the USSR was on Europs soil.

 

The wars ans invasions in the far east & middle east killed millions of people and used chemical weapons & napalm.

Saddam wasn't any threat to the US but his lovely oil was too good to miss - lies before during and after from Bush, Blair & the neo-cons.

As well as  Iraq there was no mandate from the UN for the 2 recent bombings in Syria.

You seem like a typical arrogant American who decries US casualties without a thought for the far more casualties that the US caused, especially in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos & Iraq. Yuk.

[Kitmakmak]

13 minutes ago, poanoi said:

<deleted> ?! good intentions for whom ?

half a million americans buried in europe ?

died during vacation or occupation then, cause it sure wasnt as casualties of war

Good intentions: I explained the intention of each war above.

US casualties in Europe: over 100,000 killed in WWI. Over 400,000 killed in WWII- some of those from WWII were in the Pacific theater, but the majority were in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Evey one of the 10,000 plus crosses in the photo has an American buried under it. That's just one of many American cemeteries in Europe. None were there for a vacation.

[poanoi]

" Over 400,000 killed in WWII- some of those from WWII were in the Pacific theater, but the majority were in Europe. "

err, no, you got that in reverse

[SunsetT]

20 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

The prisoners held there are enemy combatants. There has been no cessation of the war against the US. It would be foolish to release enemy combatants who are determined to kill your own troops and citizens. That, in fact, is exactly what has happened. Over 100 prisoners released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield.

But Guantanamo Bay was opened to evade not just international law as represented by the Geneva Convention  but to evade US law itself........More hypocrisy!

 

[Kitmakmak]

10 minutes ago, khunken said:

Good intentions my backside.

 

The only thing you got half right is that the US did help in wwII and the aftermath. Unfortunately Europe got NATO - ensuring that any war with the USSR was on Europs soil.

 

The wars ans invasions in the far east & middle east killed millions of people and used chemical weapons & napalm.

Saddam wasn't any threat to the US but his lovely oil was too good to miss - lies before during and after from Bush, Blair & the neo-cons.

As well as  Iraq there was no mandate from the UN for the 2 recent bombings in Syria.

You seem like a typical arrogant American who decries US casualties without a thought for the far more casualties that the US caused, especially in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos & Iraq. Yuk.

It was Saddam Hussein who gassed his own people (Kurds), not the US. The US probably should not have used napalm in Vietnam. We could have saved a lot of American lives by dropping nukes on North Vietnam and ended the war quickly.

The US never took a drop of Iraqi oil. We probably spent half a trillion dollars fighting that war, but took nothing in return.

The two recent air strikes in Syria were in response to Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.

Regarding Vietnam casualties. You do know about the re-education camps, right? After the collapse of South Vietnam, the North communists sent 500,000 South Vietnamese to "re-education" camps where over 100,000 were worked to death.

[Kitmakmak]

10 minutes ago, SunsetT said:

But Guantanamo Bay was opened to evade not just international law as represented by the Geneva Convention  but to evade US law itself........More hypocrisy!

Gitmo prison was opened to house enemy combatants from a war that is ongoing. No US law has been violated. They are in Gitmo because, like all prisoners in wars, they are kept separately from civilian prisoners. Trump recently signed an order directing it to stay open. Obama tried to close it for 8 years, but couldn't get enough countries to take the prisoners.

[SunsetT]

42 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

Good intentions: I explained the intention of each war above.

US casualties in Europe: over 100,000 killed in WWI. Over 400,000 killed in WWII- some of those from WWII were in the Pacific theater, but the majority were in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Evey one of the 10,000 plus crosses in the photo has an American buried under it. That's just one of many American cemeteries in Europe. None were there for a vacation.

I said since WW2......Since then instead of setting a shining example of freedom and democracy as it could have, the US has overtly and covertly abused  its economic and political power and ruthlessly bullied and exploited the rest of the World to further it's own interests.

Edited April 23, 2018 by SunsetT

[khunken]

3 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

It was Saddam Hussein who gassed his own people (Kurds), not the US. The US probably should not have used napalm in Vietnam. We could have saved a lot of American lives by dropping nukes on North Vietnam and ended the war quickly.

The US never took a drop of Iraqi oil. We probably spent half a trillion dollars fighting that war, but took nothing in return.

The two recent air strikes in Syria were in response to Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.

Regarding Vietnam casualties. You do know about the re-education camps, right? After the collapse of South Vietnam, the North communists sent 500,000 South Vietnamese to "re-education" camps where over 100,000 were worked to death.

Yes Saddam did gas the Kurds and he also gassed the Iranians in a US-supported attempted invasion that thankfully failed. The US not only stole Iraqi oil but ensured companied like Haliburton (Cheney's ex) and others got lucrative contracts to remove it. But like all wars the 'defence' industries made hugs sums of money.

 

I know what the recent air strikes were all about - lies & no proof and this was a response to your incorrect claim that the US didn't break international law - they did.

I dont care what propaganda you use in trying to justify the killing fields in Vietnam it was yet another war based on arrogance in a place that the US had no business being.

Still refusing to accept that the US caused casualties are even worth a thought. Are you a racist too?

 

[SunsetT]

5 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

Gitmo prison was opened to house enemy combatants from a war that is ongoing. No US law has been violated. They are in Gitmo because, like all prisoners in wars, they are kept separately from civilian prisoners. Trump recently signed an order directing it to stay open. Obama tried to close it for 8 years, but couldn't get enough countries to take the prisoners.

But if the prison at Guantanamo Bay had been located in the USA then US law would have been broken. That was the whole point of locating it outside of the USA; to evade US law......If that is not hypocrisy then I dont know what is!

[Kitmakmak]

32 minutes ago, poanoi said:

" Over 400,000 killed in WWII- some of those from WWII were in the Pacific theater, but the majority were in Europe. "

err, no, you got that in reverse

As I previously posted, 407,300+ Americans were killed in WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

 

The number of Americans killed in the Pacific theater was 111,606

http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm

 

So, roughly 73% were killed fighting in Europe.

[poanoi]

16 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

As I previously posted, 407,300+ Americans were killed in WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

 

The number of Americans killed in the Pacific theater was 111,606

http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm

 

So, roughly 73% were killed fighting in Europe.

no

https://www.quora.com/In-the-ground-war-in-World-War-II-did-the-Americans-cause-more-German-casualties-or-did-the-Germans-cause-more-American-casualties

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Americans-were-killed-in-Europe-during-WW2

[Krataiboy]

15 hours ago, Kitmakmak said:

"A leading US newspaper renowned for its investigative reporting"? Are you serious or joking?. Open Society Foundation is not a newspaper. It is an organization dedicated to open borders and a global socialist society. It was founded and financed by George Soros who is guilty of more election collusion than the Russians ever thought of.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/22/leaked-doc-soros-open-society-seeks-reshape-census-electoral-districts/

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/soros-connected-company-provides-voting-machines-in-16-states/

 

 

Regarding torture.... which is worse? Tricking someone into believing they are drowning or actually drowning someone? Or burning them alive? Or chopping their head off? Or blowing up women and children?

Why don't you look before you leap? The original expose, as you would know if you bothered to follow up the Thai Visa report by referring to  its source, was in the Los Angeles Times. 

 

Last time I checked, the LA Times was a newspaper.

 

George Soros, a left-leaning billionaire philanthropist, makes no secret of his backing for Open Society Foundations (OSF), which "financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media"  (Wikipedia). 

 

You are surely not suggestng that this relationship automatically invalidates the findings of the OFS's very detailed and comprehensive report on torture black sites?

 

The unsubstantiated allegations of election interference you cite against Soros emanate from two clearly biased right-wing sources and, in any case, totally unrelated to the the subject under discussion.  In other words, a red herring.

 

It is hard to know quite what to make of your conflation of torture and acts of murder and terrorism - though, by implication, it does raise the often-debated question of whether torture (which I believe "tricking somebody into believing they are drowning" to be) can EVER be justified. 

 

Best save that one for another day, eh?

 

[Kitmakmak]

18 hours ago, poanoi said:

no

https://www.quora.com/In-the-ground-war-in-World-War-II-did-the-Americans-cause-more-German-casualties-or-did-the-Germans-cause-more-American-casualties

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Americans-were-killed-in-Europe-during-WW2

your links confirm my original statement that the majority of US deaths were in Europe

[Kitmakmak]

19 hours ago, khunken said:

Yes Saddam did gas the Kurds and he also gassed the Iranians in a US-supported attempted invasion that thankfully failed. The US not only stole Iraqi oil but ensured companied like Haliburton (Cheney's ex) and others got lucrative contracts to remove it. But like all wars the 'defence' industries made hugs sums of money.

 

I know what the recent air strikes were all about - lies & no proof and this was a response to your incorrect claim that the US didn't break international law - they did.

I dont care what propaganda you use in trying to justify the killing fields in Vietnam it was yet another war based on arrogance in a place that the US had no business being.

Still refusing to accept that the US caused casualties are even worth a thought. Are you a racist too?

I never said US caused casualties weren't worth a thought. Going to war should always be considered a last resort. What does race have to do with any of this discussion?

[LomSak27]

16 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

  19 hours ago, khunken said:

Yes Saddam did gas the Kurds and he also gassed the Iranians in a US-supported attempted invasion that thankfully failed. The US not only stole Iraqi oil but ensured companied like Haliburton (Cheney's ex) and others got lucrative contracts to remove it. But like all wars the 'defence' industries made hugs sums of money.

Yes CIA BAD BAD BAD - however .....

First the US forwarded satellite photos of Iranian positions when Iraq seemed on the verge of crumpling. That is it, no military supplies or money. SA, Kuwait and gulf states were bankrolling Saddams war. Meanwhile the Brits and Israelis were selling weapons; The Supergun and Phantom spare parts to both Iraq and Iran - Of course eastern block but natch.. Thats called profiitng on blood, and very euro of them. Iraqi oil could NOT be taken over by American companies ... if you bother to look you will notice a RUSSIAN companies have the major distribution rights for Iraqi crude. Miss that did you?

Any other popular euro/antipodean political conspiracy theories to peddle today?

Cheers

[khunken]

15 minutes ago, Kitmakmak said:

I never said US caused casualties weren't worth a thought. Going to war should always be considered a last resort. What does race have to do with any of this discussion?

I didn't accuse you of saying US caused casualties weren't worth a thought - but did say you didn't give them a thought in your posts. You still don't.

Race comes into it when, for example, Vietnamese are described as 'only Gooks' or Iraqis are described as 'only Arabs', the sort of attitude those who only consider one side as having any worth have.

BTW I agee that war should be a last resort but it wasn't in Vietnam & Iraq the second time.

[khunken]

6 minutes ago, LomSak27 said:

Yes CIA BAD BAD BAD - however .....

First the US forwarded satellite photos of Iranian positions when Iraq seemed on the verge of crumpling. That is it, no military supplies or money. SA, Kuwait and gulf states were bankrolling Saddams war. Meanwhile the Brits and Israelis were selling weapons; The Supergun and Phantom spare parts to both Iraq and Iran - Of course eastern block but natch.. Thats called profiitng on blood, and very euro of them. Iraqi oil could NOT be taken over by American companies ... if you bother to look you will notice a RUSSIAN companies have the major distribution rights for Iraqi crude. Miss that did you?

Any other popular euro/antipodean political conspiracy theories to peddle today?

Cheers

As far as oil is concerned your post is rubbish. Before the war Iraqi oil companies were nationalised & the oil was sold on open markets & contracts to any takers. During the war they were opened up to US (& allied) companies - see the following.

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN - CNN.com

Even Greenspan, as right-wing as they come, admitted the war (invasion in reality) was all about oil. It's also not hard to find details of the neo-cons plotting the invasion well before 9-11.

[LomSak27]

"Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades"

 

Ooops - It's  a big thing in Aussie land and Euro land  BUT NO that was  not the main reason.  Guess again - - -hey the reason and results are stupid as heck but I am amazed that you guys seem to have NO REAL CLUE about the reason the war was fought ------Oil is always good BUT no it was not the main reason.

[nausea]

The problem here is moral supremacy. Were the benefits from this "black site" sufficient to lose that? 

[LomSak27]

You guys just dont get it do you?

If it is not oil what could it be ...........what were the Neo Cons trying to do? andf why could it not be said
You know this isn't rocket science, but I always think you guys think yourself into a hole.

Cheers

 

[khunken]

6 minutes ago, LomSak27 said:

"Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades"

 

Ooops - It's  a big thing in Aussie land and Euro land  BUT NO that was  not the main reason.  Guess again - - -hey the reason and results are stupid as heck but I am amazed that you guys seem to have NO REAL CLUE about the reason the war was fought ------Oil is always good BUT no it was not the main reason.

Straw man.

 

No one but you is writing about now, as when the US & its 'coalition of the lying' withdrew most of their forces from Iraq, control was handed over to the Iraqi government (if that's what one could call it) and the US companies lost their control. The Haliburtons & Chevrons had made their blood billions by then. Seems you can't grasp that things do change over 17 or so years.

[LomSak27]

They knew that would happen. They knew their was no way they could just take over their oil - win, lose or draw. I know Americans are thick but I always underestimate how thick the rest of the world is.
 

Edited April 24, 2018 by LomSak27

[yellowboat]

On 4/23/2018 at 9:30 AM, BuaBS said:

Which Thai government allowed the cia to have black sites in Thailand from 2002 on ? And allowed it to torture on Thai soil ?

Thaksin : in office from 9 February 2001 to 19 September 2006.

A damning statement.  Was the Thai military ever under Thaksin's authority ?  When it comes to the Thai army one may rightfully doubt they listen to elected officials.  They are not sworn to defend a government of the people as we have seen.