Sympathy for the Devil?

[BlindBoo]

Get it right just once. No one is giving sympathy to anyone. Its about who has higher standards.
Obviously you have no standards other than slip into the gutter with the rest of the snipes.
TY!

So the Dems, trying to deflect from Obama's unmitigated record of failure and disaster, are once again beating the dead horse of Bush-era interrogations. You'd think 6 years of this crap would be enough.
Does anyone else here just find themselves unable to garner sympathy for the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his pals in the face of such horrors as being fed Ensure? Compare what we did to what they would have done to Americans given half the chance and I just fail to be outraged.

So you're arguing that a nation that murders 1.3 million babies a year can establish a moral high ground?

Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby.

Not according to Islam. Evil religion yes, but they didn't murder 50 million babies.

So what? This is the United States. Supernatural deities are having diminishing influence. Here terminating a pregnancy is not equal to murdering a baby.

 

[The Rabbi]

Handcufffs induce pain. Your definition of torture was inducing pain. Go back and rethink what torture means and we'll go from there.

Cops will cuff perps. Do they then go and waterboard them too? Do the cops put perps into stress positions for hours at a time? Do they insert probes into various body orifices?

Do you actually believe that handcuff and water boarding are not different?

How much scrambling should I let you try before I call you on the bullshit you're slinging?

I am trying to get you to understand that your definition of "torture" would include things routinely done in police work, and thus the definition sucks.
Try again.

Apprehension, detention and control are not interrogation. You seem confused as usual. Try again.

No, you are the one who is confused.
I ask what your definition of torture is, and reply anything that inflicts pain.
I point out routine police work falls under that definition and you need a better defintion. ANd you punk out and deflect to something else.
See the problem here?

My definition, which is still plain to see, had you the guts, integrity and smarts to do so, say torture is using physical pain as a means of interrogation.

You, confused and befuddled as you usually are, are trying to put words ion my mouth at best, demonstrating an acute lack of comprehension at worst.

Try again.

OK. Let's go with that. So about half of what the CIA did was not physical torture at all. Keeping people awake. Pretending to threaten to kill them. Pretending to threaten their families. Nothing physical there. Are you OK with that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Get it right just once. No one is giving sympathy to anyone. Its about who has higher standards.
Obviously you have no standards other than slip into the gutter with the rest of the snipes.
TY!

So the Dems, trying to deflect from Obama's unmitigated record of failure and disaster, are once again beating the dead horse of Bush-era interrogations. You'd think 6 years of this crap would be enough.
Does anyone else here just find themselves unable to garner sympathy for the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his pals in the face of such horrors as being fed Ensure? Compare what we did to what they would have done to Americans given half the chance and I just fail to be outraged.

So you're arguing that a nation that murders 1.3 million babies a year can establish a moral high ground?

Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby.

Not according to Islam. Evil religion yes, but they didn't murder 50 million babies.

So what? This is the United States. Supernatural deities are having diminishing influence. Here terminating a pregnancy is not equal to murdering a baby.

Because we exist in some alternative universe?
Actually it is. Try hitting a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage and see what you get charged with.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Get it right just once. No one is giving sympathy to anyone. Its about who has higher standards.
Obviously you have no standards other than slip into the gutter with the rest of the snipes.
TY!

So the Dems, trying to deflect from Obama's unmitigated record of failure and disaster, are once again beating the dead horse of Bush-era interrogations. You'd think 6 years of this crap would be enough.
Does anyone else here just find themselves unable to garner sympathy for the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his pals in the face of such horrors as being fed Ensure? Compare what we did to what they would have done to Americans given half the chance and I just fail to be outraged.

So you're arguing that a nation that murders 1.3 million babies a year can establish a moral high ground?

Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby.

Not according to Islam. Evil religion yes, but they didn't murder 50 million babies.

So what? This is the United States. Supernatural deities are having diminishing influence. Here terminating a pregnancy is not equal to murdering a baby.

So with no deities there's no moral high ground because there's no standard by which to judge. Either way your argument fails.

 

[Nosmo King]

Cops will cuff perps. Do they then go and waterboard them too? Do the cops put perps into stress positions for hours at a time? Do they insert probes into various body orifices?

Do you actually believe that handcuff and water boarding are not different?

How much scrambling should I let you try before I call you on the bullshit you're slinging?

I am trying to get you to understand that your definition of "torture" would include things routinely done in police work, and thus the definition sucks.
Try again.

Apprehension, detention and control are not interrogation. You seem confused as usual. Try again.

No, you are the one who is confused.
I ask what your definition of torture is, and reply anything that inflicts pain.
I point out routine police work falls under that definition and you need a better defintion. ANd you punk out and deflect to something else.
See the problem here?

My definition, which is still plain to see, had you the guts, integrity and smarts to do so, say torture is using physical pain as a means of interrogation.

You, confused and befuddled as you usually are, are trying to put words ion my mouth at best, demonstrating an acute lack of comprehension at worst.

Try again.

OK. Let's go with that. So about half of what the CIA did was not physical torture at all. Keeping people awake. Pretending to threaten to kill them. Pretending to threaten their families. Nothing physical there. Are you OK with that?

You are in a rhetorical minefield, ain't ya? The last thing you want to address is the ACTUAL TORTURE. Water boarding, probes inserted, mock executions. Dance around, simpleton, dance! You don't have what it takes to discuss the actual torture because either you know in whatever recesses of your being you keep your honesty, it was indeed torture. Or you are too dense to comprehend what torture really is.

I'll leave it to others to make that determination on their own. It should not be tough for anyone with more guts than you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Get it right just once. No one is giving sympathy to anyone. Its about who has higher standards.
Obviously you have no standards other than slip into the gutter with the rest of the snipes.
TY!

So you're arguing that a nation that murders 1.3 million babies a year can establish a moral high ground?

Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby.

Not according to Islam. Evil religion yes, but they didn't murder 50 million babies.

So what? This is the United States. Supernatural deities are having diminishing influence. Here terminating a pregnancy is not equal to murdering a baby.

Because we exist in some alternative universe?
Actually it is. Try hitting a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage and see what you get charged with.

The key point you gloss over is her choice.

 

[BlindBoo]

Get it right just once. No one is giving sympathy to anyone. Its about who has higher standards.
Obviously you have no standards other than slip into the gutter with the rest of the snipes.
TY!

So you're arguing that a nation that murders 1.3 million babies a year can establish a moral high ground?

Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby.

Not according to Islam. Evil religion yes, but they didn't murder 50 million babies.

So what? This is the United States. Supernatural deities are having diminishing influence. Here terminating a pregnancy is not equal to murdering a baby.

So with no deities there's no moral high ground because there's no standard by which to judge. Either way your argument fails.

There is no argument. You said we murder 1.3 million babies. We don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am trying to get you to understand that your definition of "torture" would include things routinely done in police work, and thus the definition sucks.
Try again.

Apprehension, detention and control are not interrogation. You seem confused as usual. Try again.

No, you are the one who is confused.
I ask what your definition of torture is, and reply anything that inflicts pain.
I point out routine police work falls under that definition and you need a better defintion. ANd you punk out and deflect to something else.
See the problem here?

My definition, which is still plain to see, had you the guts, integrity and smarts to do so, say torture is using physical pain as a means of interrogation.

You, confused and befuddled as you usually are, are trying to put words ion my mouth at best, demonstrating an acute lack of comprehension at worst.

Try again.

OK. Let's go with that. So about half of what the CIA did was not physical torture at all. Keeping people awake. Pretending to threaten to kill them. Pretending to threaten their families. Nothing physical there. Are you OK with that?

You are in a rhetorical minefield, ain't ya? The last thing you want to address is the ACTUAL TORTURE. Water boarding, probes inserted, mock executions. Dance around, simpleton, dance! You don't have what it takes to discuss the actual torture because either you know in whatever recesses of your being you keep your honesty, it was indeed torture. Or you are too dense to comprehend what torture really is.

I'll leave it to others to make that determination on their own. It should not be tough for anyone with more guts than you.

I should have known you were in no way fit to have a serious discussion. Perhaps if the topic was toilets you might do better. Maybe.
We are trying to determine what you think "the actual torture" is. So far it seems anything the Bush Administration did was actual torture, while anything the Obama Administration does is okey dokey.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you're arguing that a nation that murders 1.3 million babies a year can establish a moral high ground?

Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby.

Not according to Islam. Evil religion yes, but they didn't murder 50 million babies.

So what? This is the United States. Supernatural deities are having diminishing influence. Here terminating a pregnancy is not equal to murdering a baby.

Because we exist in some alternative universe?
Actually it is. Try hitting a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage and see what you get charged with.

The key point you gloss over is her choice.

Choice is irrelevant in determining murder.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you're arguing that a nation that murders 1.3 million babies a year can establish a moral high ground?

Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby.

Not according to Islam. Evil religion yes, but they didn't murder 50 million babies.

So what? This is the United States. Supernatural deities are having diminishing influence. Here terminating a pregnancy is not equal to murdering a baby.

So with no deities there's no moral high ground because there's no standard by which to judge. Either way your argument fails.

There is no argument. You said we murder 1.3 million babies. We don't.

You're right. "We" don't. You do. I defend the rights of the unborn and do not share in the blood guilt of a society that sacrifices its own children on the altar of convenience. Nobody who advocates abortion will escape eternal punishment for it. That's you all, not me.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

Hmmmmmm. There was definitely torture here. You would do well to accept that fact.

You think the invention is due to entertainment value? How very simple of you.

I'm thinking the constant invention is an attempt to find something that actually works. Since we know that torture does not work....it makes total sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

Hmmmmmm. There was definitely torture here. You would do well to accept that fact.

You think the invention is due to entertainment value? How very simple of you.

I'm thinking the constant invention is an attempt to find something that actually works. Since we know that torture does not work....it makes total sense.

There was no torture. Merely repeating it makes you look stupid.
We know that torture does work. If it didnt work, people would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

Hmmmmmm. There was definitely torture here. You would do well to accept that fact.

You think the invention is due to entertainment value? How very simple of you.

I'm thinking the constant invention is an attempt to find something that actually works. Since we know that torture does not work....it makes total sense.

There was no torture. Merely repeating it makes you look stupid.
We know that torture does work. If it didnt work, people would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

Nope. It doesn't work. And....yep...we sure used it in the war on terror.

https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

Hmmmmmm. There was definitely torture here. You would do well to accept that fact.

You think the invention is due to entertainment value? How very simple of you.

I'm thinking the constant invention is an attempt to find something that actually works. Since we know that torture does not work....it makes total sense.

Then we better start prosecuting everyone who "tortures" starting with every police station in the nation. I'll even have to turn myself in for scaring my kids with the Travelocity gnome statue. (You don't want to make it angry) Because if we start with the absurd notion that mental anguish is torture, then every teacher, drill sergeant, and police detective will end up in jail.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

Hmmmmmm. There was definitely torture here. You would do well to accept that fact.

You think the invention is due to entertainment value? How very simple of you.

I'm thinking the constant invention is an attempt to find something that actually works. Since we know that torture does not work....it makes total sense.

Then we better start prosecuting everyone who "tortures" starting with every police station in the nation. I'll even have to turn myself in for scaring my kids with the Travelocity gnome statue. (You don't want to make it angry) Because if we start with the absurd notion that mental anguish is torture, then every teacher, drill sergeant, and police detective will end up in jail.

We tortured, idiot. Accept it.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

Hmmmmmm. There was definitely torture here. You would do well to accept that fact.

You think the invention is due to entertainment value? How very simple of you.

I'm thinking the constant invention is an attempt to find something that actually works. Since we know that torture does not work....it makes total sense.

There was no torture. Merely repeating it makes you look stupid.
We know that torture does work. If it didnt work, people would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

Nope. It doesn't work. And....yep...we sure used it in the war on terror.

https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

Again, repeating yourself makes you look stupid.
And your proof as always is, "Heres some guy saying just what I said." Thst's a fail.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

Hmmmmmm. There was definitely torture here. You would do well to accept that fact.

You think the invention is due to entertainment value? How very simple of you.

I'm thinking the constant invention is an attempt to find something that actually works. Since we know that torture does not work....it makes total sense.

There was no torture. Merely repeating it makes you look stupid.
We know that torture does work. If it didnt work, people would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

Nope. It doesn't work. And....yep...we sure used it in the war on terror.

https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

Again, repeating yourself makes you look stupid.
And your proof as always is, "Heres some guy saying just what I said." Thst's a fail.

I'm providing documented evidence that torture is ineffective from a number of sources. We know that torture doesn't work. We know that it isn't legal. We know that even if it DID work...we have decided as a nation not to use it.

You are denying the facts over and over again. Just like the idiot nutter you are.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I have a question for those who promote the use of torture in interrogations.

Why are there so many different methods of torture? I mean....throughout history, man has invented one method of torture after another. From the earliest rack to spiked helmets to waterboarding.

Why is that? Is this invention necessary?

There was no torture in interrogations here. You missed the point.
As to your question, I suppose variety is the spice of life and for people who committed actual torture, as opposed to what our CIA did, the desire to inflict pain in multiple ways on one's fellow human beings presented a certain attraction for some sick people.

Hmmmmmm. There was definitely torture here. You would do well to accept that fact.

You think the invention is due to entertainment value? How very simple of you.

I'm thinking the constant invention is an attempt to find something that actually works. Since we know that torture does not work....it makes total sense.

Then we better start prosecuting everyone who "tortures" starting with every police station in the nation. I'll even have to turn myself in for scaring my kids with the Travelocity gnome statue. (You don't want to make it angry) Because if we start with the absurd notion that mental anguish is torture, then every teacher, drill sergeant, and police detective will end up in jail.

We tortured, idiot. Accept it.

Repetition punctuated by a pejorative. You sound desperate. Do you always get a panicky feeling when you lose arguments?