Here's How Arabs INTEROGATE People....

[sealybobo]

You lied about the pictures you posted, it's really quite simple. The first picture wasn't any American torturing anyone. The second picture was considered illegal, and the people that committed the crime were tried and found guilty. Yet you are still insisting that it's a picture of the U.S. government torturing prisoners? It's a lie whether you want to call it so or not.

Your entire second paragraph is pathetic, I feel sorry for you and how you view your own country. And whose perspective was right? Ours or the terrorists?

He said "Here's *how* the US tortures people," which can mean the photo represents the technique, not that it was an actual picture of the CIA water torturing victims.

There was no lie at all. And if there is any doubt, the top one was shot outside, in broad daylight, with a protest poster in the background and a young woman sitting on a wall casually watching.

I mean, who would be so stupid as to look at that picture and actually think it was supposed to represent an actual torture scene?

So, that second picture was U.S. sanctioned torture, which was exactly what his comments implied? I'm sick of the game playing you people do with words and pictures. You can't make an argument unless you lie, imply, mislead, or take what people say or do out of context, which is what he did. When he can have an adult conversation and not be ashamed of his own country and not give what he apparently sees as rational arguments for why terrorists kill innocent people across the globe, then he might be worth listening too. But, I highly doubt it.

Bush can not sanction torture. Nixon tried to imply the same thing. He was wrong then and Bush is wrong now.

Condi basically said that it isn't illegal if the president approves it.

WRONG!!!

The President can break the law, as you right wingers know full well.

 

[sealybobo]

Holy Shit that's Joe the Plumber!!!

I had heard that Sean Hannity had volunteered to have it done to him. I thought that maybe it was Sean. I had not heard whether or not he had gone through with it.

Immie

No, he did not go through with it, nor will he.

I think we should waterboard Rummy/Condi/Cheney to get the truth out of them.

Why not? It isn't torture. It's "enhanced interrogation", not torture.

And since it is important to the safety of our nation that this not happen again.

If torturing Cheney would save one US Soldier from dying for nothing, would you do it?

 

[Immanuel]

No, he did not go through with it, nor will he.

I think we should waterboard Rummy/Condi/Cheney to get the truth out of them.

Why not? It isn't torture. It's "enhanced interrogation", not torture.

And since it is important to the safety of our nation that this not happen again.

If torturing Cheney would save one US Soldier from dying for nothing, would you do it?

Okay, I like Sec Rice so I might have a problem with that one, but Sec Rummy or VP Cheney? Hmmm, maybe my opposition to torture could be modified a little bit... just a little.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

except you know that I'm not that... particularly when it comes to issues of safety and terrorism.

but if we're as low-life as the bad guys, then they win.

that last line was directed at red more so than you

Of course it was. After all, Jillian has 387 rep points. You wouldn't offend her.

and you are a fucking moron
if you dont think i've offended her, you are also an asshole

 

[DiveCon]

Holy Shit that's Joe the Plumber!!!

I had heard that Sean Hannity had volunteered to have it done to him. I thought that maybe it was Sean. I had not heard whether or not he had gone through with it.

Immie

No, he did not go through with it, nor will he.

I think we should waterboard Rummy/Condi/Cheney to get the truth out of them.

Why not? It isn't torture. It's "enhanced interrogation", not torture.

And since it is important to the safety of our nation that this not happen again.

If torturing Cheney would save one US Soldier from dying for nothing, would you do it?

bobo, you have no interest in the truth, you prove that with every partisan post you make

 

[Iriemon]

that last line was directed at red more so than you

Of course it was. After all, Jillian has 387 rep points. You wouldn't offend her.

and you are a fucking moron
if you dont think i've offended her, you are also an asshole

I wouldn't be surprised she finds you offensive. That's not saying much.

 

[WillowTree]

Of course it was. After all, Jillian has 387 rep points. You wouldn't offend her.

and you are a fucking moron
if you dont think i've offended her, you are also an asshole

I wouldn't be surprised she finds you offensive. That's not saying much.

What happened to "ignored" you lose him?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Here Newby, here's my original post. Read the bolded words:

Here's how the US tortures people:

and...

I think that many of you who support torturing enemy combatants/terrorist suspects feel angry, and that's understandable. I think you hate the people who attacked the US. I think you fear another attack, one which may directly affect you. I think this causes you to feel hatred, and therefore little remorse about how these people are treated. I suspect it has less to do with saving Americans' lives so much as it has to do with that hatred you feel. You want these fuckers to pay. You want revenge.

But that doesn't make it right. Hopefully, the people in position to do something to ensure that we never torture people again can remain more level-headed and therefore more true to the founding principles of this nation than you. That's one of the reasons there is a system of checks in balances in the government: so that even if a majority of Americans want something that isn't right, it doesn't happen.

You lied about the pictures you posted, it's really quite simple. The first picture wasn't any American torturing anyone. The second picture was considered illegal, and the people that committed the crime were tried and found guilty. Yet you are still insisting that it's a picture of the U.S. government torturing prisoners? It's a lie whether you want to call it so or not.

Once again I have to repeat myself in the hopes that I somehow get through to you:
I wrote "Here's how the US tortures people" not here IS the US torturing people. I wasn't lying. In fact, everyone else who read my post and then your post has agreed that I wasn't lying. Has that gotten through to you? I doubt it...

And the first picture is an American torturing someone, its just that the victim is a volunteer so it doesn't really count. But it is HOW the US has tortured people.

Your entire second paragraph is pathetic, I feel sorry for you and how you view your own country. And whose perspective was right? Ours or the terrorists?

Why do you feel sorry for me? Because I don't blindly believe that the US is a perfect country? That the US government and its agents are all without any flaw or fault? That the US has never done anything to piss off people of other cultures to the point that they would feel the need to attack the US? That the US has never meddled in the affairs of sovereign nations for its own interests? Why does that make you feel sorry for me?

Do you not read my posts? I said that I thought what the terrorists have done is wrong. Their actions are wrong. Their methods, I said, are wrong. Their perspective...well, that's different. Who am I to judge that the way these extremists see things is wrong? God? Whose God, yours or theirs?

I don't feel sorry for you. Perhaps if your eyes were openned and you realized that the US government has assassinated people, bombed innocent people and children, trained and armed the Taliban to fight the Russians, trained and armed Saddam's army in its war against Iran (in which many thousands, perhaps even a million people died), assisted in kicking the Palestinians out of their homeland (which had been theirs for over a thousand years), not too mention the atrocities the US has committed in its wars in Central America and Columbia, and you went through a period of intense depression upon realizing just how imperialistic (sometimes violently) the US has been in the last 150 years - perhaps then I would feel sorry for you. But, right now, I just think you're blindly nationalistic to a fault, refusing to remove your head from the sand, and ignorant of history, particularly recent US history.

So, that second picture was U.S. sanctioned torture, which was exactly what his comments implied? I'm sick of the game playing you people do with words and pictures. You can't make an argument unless you lie, imply, mislead, or take what people say or do out of context, which is what he did.

I didn't take anything out of context, Newby, you did. You have misconstrued what I said as an outright and intentional falsehood when it was neither of those, as I and others on here have attempted to convey to you. But, you refuse to believe anyone or anything you don't want to, and that's your perrogative. And it makes you, in some ways, similar to the Islamic extremists who refuse to believe that what they are doing, when they murder people, is wrong.

When he can have an adult conversation and not be ashamed of his own country and not give what he apparently sees as rational arguments for why terrorists kill innocent people across the globe, then he might be worth listening too. But, I highly doubt it.

Like I said, already once before, I don't condone, excuse, or justify the actions of those people who committed acts of terrorism, or terrorism in general. I even wrote that those convicted of committing or plotting to commit acts of terrorism should be locked away for the rest of their lives. I'm not ashamed of my country, I'm just ashamed of some of the things its done.

But you don't want, as you even admitted above, to listen to that. You'd rather believe that the US is guilt-free. You'd rather believe that the terrorists hate our freedom and have never been provoked by the US into reacting violently as they do. You'd rather believe that the people at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo aren't human beings. Ever heard of compassion? I think it talks about it in the ancient book of Jewish fairy tales that you literally believe as immutable truth. In my opinion, you could really do with a big dose of compassion. How do I know? Cause the Bible tells me so. But You'd rather believe that I am a liar and disreputable because I'm not unreasonably nationalistic. Well, people believe what they want to and there's no changing that unless that person is ready to have a more open mind about the realities of the world around them. And you, apparently, are not ready to have an open mind or to learn about things which may challenge your perception of the world.

Well, I don't feel sorry for a complacent, happy little ignoramus who judges and justifies dehumanizing people just so she can remain complacent and oblivious. Even your God doesn't approve of that.

 

[Iriemon]

and you are a fucking moron
if you dont think i've offended her, you are also an asshole

I wouldn't be surprised she finds you offensive. That's not saying much.

What happened to "ignored" you lose him?

Didn't feel like ignoring it.

 

[DiveCon]

I wouldn't be surprised she finds you offensive. That's not saying much.

What happened to "ignored" you lose him?

Didn't feel like ignoring it.

you never did ignore it
you kept responding

 

[rayboyusmc]

So if some of the Arabs torture, then so can we. Even when the people we torture turn out to be innocent and we set them free later.

What a bunch of moral losers.

 

[Iriemon]

What happened to "ignored" you lose him?

Didn't feel like ignoring it.

you never did ignore it
you kept responding

 

[Burp]

so your position is that there is no plausible alternative to protecting the country, and getting reliable intelligence, other than to torture.


That's laughable dude. Do you ever tire of defending Bush?

It's called enhanced techniques. That means the other techniques failed.

And yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it.

Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly. Attach his testicles to battery cables. Waterboard all day long.



Do what it takes to save lives.

Okay, so your a sick, twisted, sadistic fuck.

Got it.

Only a sick sadist would even think about putting a dudes balls on a battery cable.

Where do you come up with this stuff? You have a very vivid, sadistic, and sick imagination.

What exactly is your fascination with testicles?


I bet you'd LOVE to torture someone, wouldn't you?

That is the best you can come back with? I advocate doing whatever it takes to save American lives and you have nothing more than name calling?

I listed three things: fingernails, testicles and waterboarding.

Yet, in your reply, you focused on, with two statements, testicles.

Seems like you have the huevos fascination, not me.

Since your outrage is so obvious, I assume then that you would rather let thousands of Americans die rather than do something, as a last resort, when no other options are available, that would possibly save them.


Sick and twisted? You win that contest.

I suppose if you were faced with my kidnapping scenario, you'd let your child die rather than do whatever it takes to save him/her?

Is that what you are saying?

 

[Iriemon]

It's called enhanced techniques. That means the other techniques failed.

And yes, if there is no other plausible alternative to protecting the country than to torture someone to get intelligence, do it.

Tear out each fingernail one by one...slowly. Attach his testicles to battery cables. Waterboard all day long.



Do what it takes to save lives.

Okay, so your a sick, twisted, sadistic fuck.

Got it.

Only a sick sadist would even think about putting a dudes balls on a battery cable.

Where do you come up with this stuff? You have a very vivid, sadistic, and sick imagination.

What exactly is your fascination with testicles?


I bet you'd LOVE to torture someone, wouldn't you?

That is the best you can come back with? I advocate doing whatever it takes to save American lives and you have nothing more than name calling?

I listed three things: fingernails, testicles and waterboarding.

Yet, in your reply, you focused on, with two statements, testicles.

Seems like you have the huevos fascination, not me.

Since your outrage is so obvious, I assume then that you would rather let thousands of Americans die rather than do something, as a last resort, when no other options are available, that would possibly save them.


Sick and twisted? You win that contest.

I suppose if you were faced with my kidnapping scenario, you'd let your child die rather than do whatever it takes to save him/her?

Is that what you are saying?

I'd probably kill you if it meant saying my child.

You OK with legalizing that?

 

[Sinatra]

Not a one of you would not fully support doing the kind of "enhanced" methods of gaining information on someone if it meant saving the lives of your loved ones.

Those who persist in saying they would not are liars.

Each and every one.

And make no mistake, this entire debacle of a "debate" regarding these enhanced interrogation techniques has only emboldened those who very much wish to kill innocent Americans here at home. The so-called morality of the convenient pacifist is mocked by those who will unfortunately, very likely find a way to attack us again...

 

[Burp]

Okay, so your a sick, twisted, sadistic fuck.

Got it.

Only a sick sadist would even think about putting a dudes balls on a battery cable.

Where do you come up with this stuff? You have a very vivid, sadistic, and sick imagination.

What exactly is your fascination with testicles?


I bet you'd LOVE to torture someone, wouldn't you?

That is the best you can come back with? I advocate doing whatever it takes to save American lives and you have nothing more than name calling?

I listed three things: fingernails, testicles and waterboarding.

Yet, in your reply, you focused on, with two statements, testicles.

Seems like you have the huevos fascination, not me.

Since your outrage is so obvious, I assume then that you would rather let thousands of Americans die rather than do something, as a last resort, when no other options are available, that would possibly save them.


Sick and twisted? You win that contest.

I suppose if you were faced with my kidnapping scenario, you'd let your child die rather than do whatever it takes to save him/her?

Is that what you are saying?

I'd probably kill you if it meant saying my child.

You OK with legalizing that?

I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations. Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.

In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information.

But, to play along - of course I don't want to legalize that. But, if you ended up killing "me" to save your child, I would bey money (and probably win) that you wouldn't be prosecuted.


I bet you wouldn't be prosecuted.

 

[Iriemon]

I'd probably kill you if it meant saying my child.

You OK with legalizing that?

I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations. Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.

In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information.

But, to play along - of course I don't want to legalize that. But, if you ended up killing "me" to save your child, I would bey money (and probably win) that you wouldn't be prosecuted.

I bet you wouldn't be prosecuted.

That's the point. If you make it an emotional/personal issue, I'd do lots of shit that we'd both agree shouldn't be legal.

An appeal to the personal/emotional is no basis for deciding whether an act should be legal or not.

 

[Burp]

I'd probably kill you if it meant saying my child.

You OK with legalizing that?

I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations. Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.

In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information.

But, to play along - of course I don't want to legalize that. But, if you ended up killing "me" to save your child, I would bey money (and probably win) that you wouldn't be prosecuted.

I bet you wouldn't be prosecuted.

That's the point. If you make it an emotional/personal issue, I'd do lots of shit that we'd both agree shouldn't be legal.

An appeal to the personal/emotional is no basis for deciding whether an act should be legal or not.

If a terrorist is sitting there saying "Soon you shall see," it seems like a no brainer to me.

He knows something. He isn't telling. Do we do something that was deemed legal at the time and possibly save thousands of Americans?

Or do we sit there and cross our fingers and toes and hope he's lying?

 

[Iriemon]

I don't recall anybody dying due to the enhanced interrogations. Plus, those techniques were deemed legal.

In fact, I don't think anyone said anyone about legalizing killing someone to get information.

But, to play along - of course I don't want to legalize that. But, if you ended up killing "me" to save your child, I would bey money (and probably win) that you wouldn't be prosecuted.

I bet you wouldn't be prosecuted.

That's the point. If you make it an emotional/personal issue, I'd do lots of shit that we'd both agree shouldn't be legal.

An appeal to the personal/emotional is no basis for deciding whether an act should be legal or not.

If a terrorist is sitting there saying "Soon you shall see," it seems like a no brainer to me.

He knows something. He isn't telling. Do we do something that was deemed legal at the time and possibly save thousands of Americans?

Or do we sit there and cross our fingers and toes and hope he's lying?

This is repetitive at this point. This scenario has been asked and discussed many times.

My answer is that if I were the interrogator, and I really, truly had a strong reason to believe that the suspect in fact had crucial information that would lead to the death of many, and other interrogation methods didn't work, yeah I would personally put the screws to the guy.

But I wouldn't support making it legal.

 

[Burp]

That's the point. If you make it an emotional/personal issue, I'd do lots of shit that we'd both agree shouldn't be legal.

An appeal to the personal/emotional is no basis for deciding whether an act should be legal or not.

If a terrorist is sitting there saying "Soon you shall see," it seems like a no brainer to me.

He knows something. He isn't telling. Do we do something that was deemed legal at the time and possibly save thousands of Americans?

Or do we sit there and cross our fingers and toes and hope he's lying?

This is repetitive at this point. This scenario has been asked and discussed many times.

My answer is that if I were the interrogator, and I really, truly had a strong reason to believe that the suspect in fact had crucial information that would lead to the death of many, and other interrogation methods didn't work, yeah I would personally put the screws to the guy.

But I wouldn't support making it legal.

You support doing it, as a last resort, if it would lead to saving thousands of Americans, but you won't make it, under those same circumstances legal.

That makes no sense at all.