George Bush is right: Water-boarding terrorists saves innocent lives.
Con Coughlin, the Telegraph's executive foreign editor, is a world-renowned expert on the Middle East and Islamic terrorism. He is the author of several critically acclaimed books. No, he isn't, they're shit, tittle tattle, humbug and tub-thumping. His new book, Khomeini's Ghost, is published by Macmillan will be just as bad. Bloated pisshead looks as though he escaped from telly's Ballykissangel, one step ahead of the Gardai. I mean, he is drunk in this picture, isn't he? Probably always drunk.
Coughlin is vying with Simon Heffer for the title of stupidest, most pointless columnist in Western letters, as they would probably describe their whoring, cocksucking of Power and Money, letters, indeed; scummy rodents; clinging to the wreckage of the Dead Tree Press.
Here is the Filth-O-Graph's world-renowned expert, on the subject of torture."Whether or not water-boarding constitutes torture is very much an issue for debate. Mr Bush says his legal team approved the technique, whereby suspects are subjected to simulated drowning, while his opponents – including Barack Obama - have banned its use.
But when you are dealing with fanatics who glorify in the murder of thousands of innocent civilians – as happened during the September 11 attacks – simply offering them a cup of tea and a good book to read is hardly going to persuade them to tell reveal their darkest secrets."
Even the usually redneck, sexist, wog-bashing expatriots on the Filth-O-Graph boards deplore this fucking rubbish. Some say, pragmatically, that it delivers useless information to the torturers, others ask how you know in advance that the person you are drowning, sorry Con, you revolting drunken slob, the person whose drowning you are simulating - Jesus fucking wept, what kind of minds are at work here? - is a bad guy, anyway; whilst others, surprisingly, for the Filth-O-Graph's horde of ancient angry masturbators, insist on the rule of law, some even going so far as to enquire of others, including the babbling Coughlin, how they would feel were their children to be subjected to such obscene procedures. It's worth a look, for a change, if only to come away feeling that the ethically revisionist, Ruinous march of putrid filth such as Coughlin is not entirely unopposed.