Cheney Calls for full Release of Memos

[ABikerSailor]

Infinite Puberty is one of those kind of guys that will ignore facts in light of the truth.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, if it's torture that leaves physical scars, then it's not right, but if you don't leave anything other than fear, it's okay?

Yeah.......just like the dude that beats his wife on the body so that bruises can't be seen by the neighbors, right? I mean......if you can't see the marks, she never got hit, right?

Torture is total bullshit.

 

[HUGGY]

So, if it's torture that leaves physical scars, then it's not right, but if you don't leave anything other than fear, it's okay?

Yeah.......just like the dude that beats his wife on the body so that bruises can't be seen by the neighbors, right? I mean......if you can't see the marks, she never got hit, right?

Torture is total bullshit.

Well now you've done it! Good stand.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Who gives a fig what the enemy recognizes? Good God do we set our standards by them?

Oh its just the context... that's all, just the foundational circumstances on which the argument rests, the scope by which the discussion is framed...

Let's try it this way...

Let's say that the law provides no exception for law enforcement and the speed limit is 55mph on the road on which you're traveling... you see a sheriff's deputy fly by you at what you judge to be twice the posted 55 mph that you're traveling?

He was clearly breaking the law... The speed limit is 55 Mph... there's not exception... Doesn't that mean that the Deputy is in violation of the legal thresholds which define the safe speed for those traveling on that highway?

So... for the sake of this conversation, let's say you decide to file a grievance... call the Sheriff's office and report the officer for this gross violation of the posted legal limit...

The Sheriff recognizes your intentions are reasonable and explains that the officer was in route to the reported abduction of a child at a school bus stop just a few miles from where he passed you...

Now setting everything else aside... does the time critical nature and the severity of the circumstances, provide that this officer has a RESPONSBILITY to violate the law?

Now friends this is check mate... this member has only one potential post remaining...

If she determines that the rights of the child being abducted need to be defended immediately, and that these circumstances provide that such a law does not override the human rights of that child, that the officer has a moral obligation to get to that scene as quickly as is within his means to spare that child the horror of an abduction... then she will in effect render her former advocacy moot; as the principles are identical...

IF on the other hand she takes the position that the traffic laws do in fact, override all other considerations, then she's discredited herself and her advocacy as being little more than asinine prevarications of pedantic minutia, with no means to reason and unqualified to debate reasonably intelligent citizens on matters relevant to their well being of their culture; subject to being dismissed as a common fool and will suffer the humiliation common to such.

How can torture defend liberty when by it's very adoption into the government structure destroys what it is defending?

Torture can't defend liberty... stress induced coercive interrogation, implemented to secure time sensitive information, necessary to stop the execution of massive numbers of innocent human beings, however, defends liberty by stripping those determined to destroy the liberty, from the facade which they hide behind; a cloak of secrecy which is the only means they have to implement their liberty killing tactics... and a cloak which such interrogation techniques serves to open.

Now get to answering the question highlighted in bold font, above... you've just run out of wiggle room.

I can answer this with far less verbosity then you:

1. William Shakesphere was a wise man, who's wisdom is timeless. "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...only in this case, "cowflops, by any other name would smell as rancid" - torture is torture, regardless of semantics. Stress induced coercive interrogation was, just a few years ago, labeled "torture". Semantics don't change truth budddy.

2. Are we or are we not a nation of law? If we are not protected by law, then by what?

Gee... ya claimed you can answer it, and then failed to even speak to it...

All ya did was repeat your long discredited position that inducing stress amounts to 'TORTURE'...

Its the intellectual equivalent to referring to Cabanel's "Birth of Venus" as Child Porn...

Sure, there they are... "an adult female in the presence of and staring at nude toddlers... of course they're depicted as angels... so I guess that makes it OK!..."

Your evasion of the scenario is little more than a default CONCESSION!

Which is duly noted and as always summarily accepted.... YOU HAVE established your advocacy as being little more than an asinine prevarication and yourself as the purveyor of pedantic minutia; you've established yourself as a person with no means to reason and who is unqualified to debate reasonably intelligent citizens on matters relevant to their well being of their culture; subjecting yourself to being dismissed as a common fool and no doubt you're now suffering the humiliation common to such.


The fact is that for a law to be valid, it must serve justice... thus where a law fails justice it is invalid and thus not morally enforceable...

Law is little more than the civil means to defend human rights... thus where the law prevents such, it fails justice....

If you woke up tomorrow and the legislation had been passed into law which allowed the wholesale slaughter of leftists... wherein a list in support of such was provided within that legislation providing your name right on top; listing your physical description, home address; with the enumerations and description of your wife and children, their school address and so on... I doubt you'd be prone to driving up the nearest police station and surrendering yourself and family for execution... 'in the name of the law.'

Odds are that you'd seek some remedy to avoid execution until such time that reasonable people again found the power to change that law; and I suspect you'd feel that such a law failed to serve justice, thus wasn't valid; thus you'd likely encourage whoever you came into contact with not to enforce that law.

The principles surrounding coercive interrogation of mass murders who are intent upon and are actively plotting the murder of massive numbers of innocent people; interrogation designed to cull from those mass murderers the time sensitive information necessary to STOP that MASS MURDER... and laws which would serve to prevent such, are the same...

Torture is a concept wherein gruesome injuries which induce incomprehensible pain, are committed against the innocent, the defenseless, often for the purposes of sadistic pleasure and punishment...

Slapping someone in the face, preventing them from sleeping, inducing audible discomfort and cognitive distress; stressing to induce non-injurous, instinctive fears, etc... are not gruesome... They're uncomfortable... they're painful... but they're at a level which is FAR AND AWAY distinct from TORTURE; and while it's possible to make such a crime and while it may be reasonable to designate that implementing such against another human being, as a crime, in MOST CIRCUMSTANCES; the CONTEXT wherein circumstances would provide that such would reasonably serve justice would be a necessary element for justice to be served; meaning Albert... that when the Cops are heading to the donut shop... IT's A CRIME FOR THEM TO DRIVE 110MPH TO GET THERE... BUT WHEN HE IS DRIVING 110 MPH TO SAVE A LIFE... ITS NOT A CRIME... So the intellectual equivilent: "COURTS HAVE DETERMINED THAT DRIVING 110MPH IS A CRIME" does not speak to the CONTECT WHEREIN CIRCUMSTANCES REASONABLY REQUIRE ONE TO DRIVE 110MPH, DESPITE THE POSTED LIMIT of HALF THAT VELOCITY.

Where such is applied for the purposes of SAVING INNOCENT LIFE... where the application is induced upon those guilty of seeking to MURDER THOSE INNOCENT LIVES... the context of inducing NON-lethal stress upon such people is well within the boundary of acceptable limits.

You disagree... which is fine. All we've established here is that your disagreement, as is the case with every single human being that adheres to your position, without exception, is BASELESS... You've just CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that you have NO understanding of even the most rudimentary functions of justice... you've stated that 'we're either a nation of laws of we're not'... with ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE VALIDITY OF A LAW WITH REGARD TO A GIVEN LAW'S MEANS TO SERVE JUSTICE.

Thus
.
.
.
.
You're argument fails...

time and time again...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Puberty.....if you support torture, then you're not American.

You're a Taliban posing fucking asshole.

 

[Iriemon]

...

Nope... there is not a single instance wherein ANY Japanese was prosecuted for All types of waterboarding... as there is ONLY ONE TYPE of waterboarding... with the distinction being the SEVERITY WITH THICH IT IS APPLIED AND THE CAUTION TAKEN TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL to which it is being applied.

Again, you want to equate the VICIOUS application used by the Japanese which resulted in the DEATHS of THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS... to the exacting and highly supervised protocols used by US Interrogators.

Which is beyond absurd...

I haven't heard of any cases in which US soldiers were killed from waterboarding. Cite that waterboarding resulted in the DEATHS of THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS? Or is this another "fact" you've just pulled out of your ass?

 

[Iriemon]

...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless...

LMAO! Where'd you come up with that definition. Other than pulling it out your ass, I mean.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...

Nope... there is not a single instance wherein ANY Japanese was prosecuted for All types of waterboarding... as there is ONLY ONE TYPE of waterboarding... with the distinction being the SEVERITY WITH WHICH IT IS APPLIED AND THE CAUTION TAKEN TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL to which it is being applied.

Again, you want to equate the VICIOUS application used by the Japanese which resulted in the DEATHS of THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS... to the exacting and highly supervised protocols used by US Interrogators.

Which is beyond absurd...

I haven't heard of any cases in which US soldiers were killed from waterboarding. Cite that waterboarding resulted in the DEATHS of THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS? Or is this another "fact" you've just pulled out of your ass?

ROFL...

Do whuh?

What color is the sky in your world? Aren't you the gal that VOCIFEROUSLY DENIED equating the US techniques of coersive interrogation with those used by the Imperial Japanese and found youserfelf humiliated by the litany of posts wherein you are found doing just that?

What form of delusion are you suffering that provides your lack of sufficient decency to refrain from even discussing this issue in public?

And FTR: you're demanding a citation in support of an assertion which you've not demonstrated as having been advanced...

Now find go do something which might generate some measure of self esteem... and out of my sense of fairness... here's a clue: THIS AIN'T THAT...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless...

LMAO! Where'd you come up with that definition. Other than pulling it out your ass, I mean.

Aren't you the one that defines 'torture' as reading the posts of your ideological opposition on message boards?

If you want the Webster's definition:

tor·ture [táwrchər]
(past and past participle tor·tured, present participle tor·tur·ing, 3rd person present singular tor·tures)
n
1. inflicting of pain: infliction of severe physical pain on somebody, e.g. as punishment or to persuade somebody to confess or recant something
2. methods of inflicting pain: the methods used to inflict physical pain on people
3. anguish: mental or physical anguish


Which brings us back to what? Context...

You actually used the word toture to defining the same activity which everyone on this board willingly subjects ourselves to, through the simple process of participation; and you want to use the same word to define the unspeakable acts purpetrated by the Imperial Japanese against their presumed enemies in WW2... and the SAME word to describe slaps to the face of MASS MURDERERS who possess information which is being sought to SAVE INNOCENT LIVES...

If you set aside context and simply determine that any act which induces pain is 'torture'... and declare torture to be illegal, you just outlawed the physical fitness business... and RAP... Whose going to clean out the worlds sewers? Whose going to listen to Rosie Odonell, or that smug little Janeane Garofalo... (who for some strange reason... pushes my horn-dog button... and while I am a happily married man of nearly 30 years... It's the most twisted, inexplicable thing... that little wench just appeals to me... then she speaks... and I'm good for a few months... but, using your I'd 'torture that little minx ... oh yeah... ) ...er Um... never mind... Now where was I? Oh yes... Context and how important it is....

Get the picture?

 

[Newby]

...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless...

LMAO! Where'd you come up with that definition. Other than pulling it out your ass, I mean.

Aren't you the one that defines 'torture' as reading the posts of your ideological opposition on message boards?

If you want the Webster's definition:

tor·ture [táwrchər]
(past and past participle tor·tured, present participle tor·tur·ing, 3rd person present singular tor·tures)
n
1. inflicting of pain: infliction of severe physical pain on somebody, e.g. as punishment or to persuade somebody to confess or recant something
2. methods of inflicting pain: the methods used to inflict physical pain on people
3. anguish: mental or physical anguish


Which brings us back to what? Context...

You actually used the word toture to defining the same activity which everyone on this board willingly subjects ourselves to, through the simple process of participation; and you want to use the same word to define the unspeakable acts purpetrated by the Imperial Japanese against their presumed enemies in WW2... and the SAME word to describe slaps to the face of MASS MURDERERS who possess information which is being sought to SAVE INNOCENT LIVES...

If you set aside context and simply determine that any act which induces pain is 'torture'... and declare torture to be illegal, you just outlawed the physical fitness business... and RAP... Whose going to clean out the worlds sewers? Whose going to listen to Rosie Odonell, or that smug little Janeane Garofalo... (who for some strange reason... pushes my horn-dog button... and while I am a happily married man of nearly 30 years... It's the most twisted, inexplicable thing... that little wench just appeals to me... then she speaks... and I'm good for a few months... but, using your I'd 'torture that little minx ... oh yeah... ) ...er Um... never mind... Now where was I? Oh yes... Context and how important it is....

Get the picture?

PI, your posts crack me up.... I hope others appreciate your humor as much as I do...

 

[Iriemon]

...

Nope... there is not a single instance wherein ANY Japanese was prosecuted for All types of waterboarding... as there is ONLY ONE TYPE of waterboarding... with the distinction being the SEVERITY WITH WHICH IT IS APPLIED AND THE CAUTION TAKEN TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL to which it is being applied.

Again, you want to equate the VICIOUS application used by the Japanese which resulted in the DEATHS of THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS... to the exacting and highly supervised protocols used by US Interrogators.

Which is beyond absurd...

I haven't heard of any cases in which US soldiers were killed from waterboarding. Cite that waterboarding resulted in the DEATHS of THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS? Or is this another "fact" you've just pulled out of your ass?

ROFL...

Do whuh?

What color is the sky in your world? Aren't you the gal that VOCIFEROUSLY DENIED equating the US techniques of coersive interrogation with those used by the Imperial Japanese and found youserfelf humiliated by the litany of posts wherein you are found doing just that?

What form of delusion are you suffering that provides your lack of sufficient decency to refrain from even discussing this issue in public?

And FTR: you're demanding a citation in support of an assertion which you've not demonstrated as having been advanced...

Now find go do something which might generate some measure of self esteem... and out of my sense of fairness... here's a clue: THIS AIN'T THAT...

It was another so-called *fact* you pulled out of your ass. I thought so, miss.

 

[Iriemon]

...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless...

LMAO! Where'd you come up with that definition. Other than pulling it out your ass, I mean.

Aren't you the one that defines 'torture' as reading the posts of your ideological opposition on message boards?

If you want the Webster's definition:

tor·ture [táwrchər]
(past and past participle tor·tured, present participle tor·tur·ing, 3rd person present singular tor·tures)
n
1. inflicting of pain: infliction of severe physical pain on somebody, e.g. as punishment or to persuade somebody to confess or recant something
2. methods of inflicting pain: the methods used to inflict physical pain on people
3. anguish: mental or physical anguish


Which brings us back to what? Context...

You actually used the word toture to defining the same activity which everyone on this board willingly subjects ourselves to, through the simple process of participation; and you want to use the same word to define the unspeakable acts purpetrated by the Imperial Japanese against their presumed enemies in WW2... and the SAME word to describe slaps to the face of MASS MURDERERS who possess information which is being sought to SAVE INNOCENT LIVES...

If you set aside context and simply determine that any act which induces pain is 'torture'... and declare torture to be illegal, you just outlawed the physical fitness business... and RAP... Whose going to clean out the worlds sewers? Whose going to listen to Rosie Odonell, or that smug little Janeane Garofalo... (who for some strange reason... pushes my horn-dog button... and while I am a happily married man of nearly 30 years... It's the most twisted, inexplicable thing... that little wench just appeals to me... then she speaks... and I'm good for a few months... but, using your I'd 'torture that little minx ... oh yeah... ) ...er Um... never mind... Now where was I? Oh yes... Context and how important it is....

Get the picture?

You did pull the definition out of your ass.

I thought so, miss.

I think we see a pattern here.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I haven't heard of any cases in which US soldiers were killed from waterboarding. Cite that waterboarding resulted in the DEATHS of THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS? Or is this another "fact" you've just pulled out of your ass?

ROFL...

Do whuh?

What color is the sky in your world? Aren't you the gal that VOCIFEROUSLY DENIED equating the US techniques of coersive interrogation with those used by the Imperial Japanese and found youserfelf humiliated by the litany of posts wherein you are found doing just that?

What form of delusion are you suffering that provides your lack of sufficient decency to refrain from even discussing this issue in public?

And FTR: you're demanding a citation in support of an assertion which you've not demonstrated as ever having been advanced...

Now find go do something which might generate some measure of self esteem... and out of my sense of fairness... here's a clue: THIS AIN'T THAT...

It was another so-called *fact* you pulled out of your ass. I thought so, miss.

LOL...

You really don't understand the nature of text forums/message boards do ya sis?

What fact are you denying? Because I wouldn't want to misjudge you... Be specific: what is it that you are denying is a FACT?

 

[Iriemon]

ROFL...

Do whuh?

What color is the sky in your world? Aren't you the gal that VOCIFEROUSLY DENIED equating the US techniques of coersive interrogation with those used by the Imperial Japanese and found youserfelf humiliated by the litany of posts wherein you are found doing just that?

What form of delusion are you suffering that provides your lack of sufficient decency to refrain from even discussing this issue in public?

And FTR: you're demanding a citation in support of an assertion which you've not demonstrated as having been advanced...

Now find go do something which might generate some measure of self esteem... and out of my sense of fairness... here's a clue: THIS AIN'T THAT...

It was another so-called *fact* you pulled out of your ass. I thought so, miss.

LOL...

You really don't understand the nature of text forums/message boards do ya sis?

What fact are you denying? Because I wouldn't want to misjudge you... Be specific: what is it that you are denying is a FACT?

Missy, you need reading classes. I did not deny anything. I challenged you to back up your own assertion. I even put it in bold.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

LMAO! Where'd you come up with that definition. Other than pulling it out your ass, I mean.

Aren't you the one that defines 'torture' as reading the posts of your ideological opposition on message boards?

If you want the Webster's definition:

tor·ture [táwrchər]
(past and past participle tor·tured, present participle tor·tur·ing, 3rd person present singular tor·tures)
n
1. inflicting of pain: infliction of severe physical pain on somebody, e.g. as punishment or to persuade somebody to confess or recant something
2. methods of inflicting pain: the methods used to inflict physical pain on people
3. anguish: mental or physical anguish


Which brings us back to what? Context...

You actually used the word toture to defining the same activity which everyone on this board willingly subjects ourselves to, through the simple process of participation; and you want to use the same word to define the unspeakable acts purpetrated by the Imperial Japanese against their presumed enemies in WW2... and the SAME word to describe slaps to the face of MASS MURDERERS who possess information which is being sought to SAVE INNOCENT LIVES...

If you set aside context and simply determine that any act which induces pain is 'torture'... and declare torture to be illegal, you just outlawed the physical fitness business... and RAP... Whose going to clean out the worlds sewers? Whose going to listen to Rosie Odonell, or that smug little Janeane Garofalo... (who for some strange reason... pushes my horn-dog button... and while I am a happily married man of nearly 30 years... It's the most twisted, inexplicable thing... that little wench just appeals to me... then she speaks... and I'm good for a few months... but, using your I'd 'torture that little minx ... oh yeah... ) ...er Um... never mind... Now where was I? Oh yes... Context and how important it is....

Get the picture?

You did pull the definition out of your ass.

I thought so, miss.

I think we see a pattern here.

Webster's Collegiate 2009...

Isn't it cool how no definition of torture can be said to be accurate for these fools?

Now again, it is a mistake to believe that if the Lord of the Idiots, herself, were on this board, with her entire cabinet backing her up... if CHARLIE ROSE were on this board... or the entire staff of NPR were here... they would be giving you that exact same species of reasoning; the same obtuse responses and they would not be able to advance ANY ARGUMENT which on any level would be superior to the idiocy that these morons are working with...

The simple fact is that there reasoning is based upon myth and the spurious reasoning of disinformation... they are intellectual dullards and the mental equalivent of a ham sandwich...

 

[Iriemon]

Aren't you the one that defines 'torture' as reading the posts of your ideological opposition on message boards?

If you want the Webster's definition:

tor·ture [táwrchər]
(past and past participle tor·tured, present participle tor·tur·ing, 3rd person present singular tor·tures)
n
1. inflicting of pain: infliction of severe physical pain on somebody, e.g. as punishment or to persuade somebody to confess or recant something
2. methods of inflicting pain: the methods used to inflict physical pain on people
3. anguish: mental or physical anguish


Which brings us back to what? Context...

You actually used the word toture to defining the same activity which everyone on this board willingly subjects ourselves to, through the simple process of participation; and you want to use the same word to define the unspeakable acts purpetrated by the Imperial Japanese against their presumed enemies in WW2... and the SAME word to describe slaps to the face of MASS MURDERERS who possess information which is being sought to SAVE INNOCENT LIVES...

If you set aside context and simply determine that any act which induces pain is 'torture'... and declare torture to be illegal, you just outlawed the physical fitness business... and RAP... Whose going to clean out the worlds sewers? Whose going to listen to Rosie Odonell, or that smug little Janeane Garofalo... (who for some strange reason... pushes my horn-dog button... and while I am a happily married man of nearly 30 years... It's the most twisted, inexplicable thing... that little wench just appeals to me... then she speaks... and I'm good for a few months... but, using your I'd 'torture that little minx ... oh yeah... ) ...er Um... never mind... Now where was I? Oh yes... Context and how important it is....

Get the picture?

You did pull the definition out of your ass.

I thought so, miss.

I think we see a pattern here.

Webster's Collegiate 2009...

Isn't it cool how no definition of torture can be said to be accurate for these fools?

Now again, it is a mistake to believe that if the Lord of the Idiots, herself, were on this board, with her entire cabinet backing her up... if CHARLIE ROSE were on this board... or the entire staff of NPR were here... they would be giving you that exact same species of reasoning; the same obtuse responses and they would not be able to advance ANY ARGUMENT which on any level would be superior to the idiocy that these morons are working with...

The simple fact is that there reasoning is based upon myth and the spurious reasoning of disinformation... they are intellectual dullards and the mental equalivent of a ham sandwich...

Now missy, there is no reason to start fabricating and lying. That only makes they hole you're in deeper. You've been caught in two fabrications already in just this thread this afternoon; lying more isn't going to help you.

I never said I didn't accept the Webster's definition. That kind of lie is called a "straw man".

You said: "...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless..."

And as your own definitions proved, that was something you just pulled out of your ass.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It was another so-called *fact* you pulled out of your ass. I thought so, miss.

LOL...

You really don't understand the nature of text forums/message boards do ya sis?

What fact are you denying? Because I wouldn't want to misjudge you... Be specific: what is it that you are denying is a FACT?

Missy, you need reading classes. I did not deny anything. I challenged you to back up your own assertion. I even put it in bold.

So you can't specify what it is you're denying... NOr can ya specify what point it is you want 'backed up...' Nor can you define what you would accept as 'back-up'... because you have no point... you've evolved into the simple and lamentable TROLL... with no point, no argument, nothing substantive to add... you just know ya don't like being refuted, so you post purely to see yourself text...

Either get specific about what it is ya want, or stfu.

 

[Iriemon]

LOL...

You really don't understand the nature of text forums/message boards do ya sis?

What fact are you denying? Because I wouldn't want to misjudge you... Be specific: what is it that you are denying is a FACT?

Missy, you need reading classes. I did not deny anything. I challenged you to back up your own assertion. I even put it in bold.

So you can't specify what it is you're denying... NOr can ya specify what point it is you want 'backed up...' Nor can you define what you would accept as 'back-up'... because you have no point... you've evolved into the simple and lamentable TROLL... with no point, no argument, nothing substantive to add... you just know ya don't like being refuted, so you post purely to see yourself text...

Either get specific about what it is ya want, or stfu.

Now Missy, lying even more isn't going to help you. I never denied anything, that is a lie called a "straw man". The statement you made was bolded above, I linked it to your post, anyone can see it. And the ad homs only prove you've been frustrated because you've been caught in yet another lie.

Best thing is probably to admit that you just pulled it out of your ass, that would be the only thing to improve your credibitiliy.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You did pull the definition out of your ass.

I thought so, miss.

I think we see a pattern here.

Webster's Collegiate 2009...

Isn't it cool how no definition of torture can be said to be accurate for these fools?

Now again, it is a mistake to believe that if the Lord of the Idiots, herself, were on this board, with her entire cabinet backing her up... if CHARLIE ROSE were on this board... or the entire staff of NPR were here... they would be giving you that exact same species of reasoning; the same obtuse responses and they would not be able to advance ANY ARGUMENT which on any level would be superior to the idiocy that these morons are working with...

The simple fact is that there reasoning is based upon myth and the spurious reasoning of disinformation... they are intellectual dullards and the mental equalivent of a ham sandwich...

Now missy, there is no reason to start fabricating and lying. That only makes they hole you're in deeper. You've been caught in two fabrications already in just this thread this afternoon; lying more isn't going to help you.

I never said I didn't accept the Webster's definition. That kind of lie is called a "straw man".

You said: "...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless..."

And as your own definitions proved, that was something you just pulled out of your ass.

ROFL... OH!

Ok.. so you were just ignoring the argument, so you could refer back to a point where you felt more comfortable...

Gotcha...

Well, here's the thing...

"...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless..." is not a citation of a reference definition, it is a statement wherein I laid out my understanding of torture... A statement which seeks to apply valid context to the meaning of the word, as it applies to SADISTIC CRUELTY...

Below you'll find four examples wherein such cruelty is demonstrated... where actual "TORTURE" is being implemented... and below that a photo of a stress technique, wherein the subject is required to stand and balance for extended periods without the benefit of a means to rest... Compare and contrast and when you're ready, post the similarities wherein you can show that Us interrogation techniques are at equity with that demonstrated in those videos...

WARNING: The video is quite graphic... it is not suitable for children or those with weak constitutions... these videos demonstrate the cruelty which is typical of actual torture and may well be quite disturbing to some members.



http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/1.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/2.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/3.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/4.wmv


Compare that to stress induced interrogation techniques used by the US Military...

Judge for yourself...

 

[Iriemon]

Webster's Collegiate 2009...

Isn't it cool how no definition of torture can be said to be accurate for these fools?

Now again, it is a mistake to believe that if the Lord of the Idiots, herself, were on this board, with her entire cabinet backing her up... if CHARLIE ROSE were on this board... or the entire staff of NPR were here... they would be giving you that exact same species of reasoning; the same obtuse responses and they would not be able to advance ANY ARGUMENT which on any level would be superior to the idiocy that these morons are working with...

The simple fact is that there reasoning is based upon myth and the spurious reasoning of disinformation... they are intellectual dullards and the mental equalivent of a ham sandwich...

Now missy, there is no reason to start fabricating and lying. That only makes they hole you're in deeper. You've been caught in two fabrications already in just this thread this afternoon; lying more isn't going to help you.

I never said I didn't accept the Webster's definition. That kind of lie is called a "straw man".

You said: "...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless..."

And as your own definitions proved, that was something you just pulled out of your ass.

"...Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless..." is not a citation of a reference definition, it is a statement wherein I laid out my understanding of torture... A statement which seeks to apply valid context to the meaning of the word, as it applies to SADISTIC CRUELTY...
...[/I]

In other words, you just pulled that definition of torture out of your ass to suit your argument. That was what I thought.

Had you admitted that 4 posts ago you would have saved everyone some time.