Torture, or whatever you want to call it, "justified" by majority

[PoliticalChic]

The way questions work PC, is we take turns. I answer one of yours, you then answer one of mine. Then I'll answer your question with the new conditions and offer one of my own (same question with more restrictive conditions). You don't keep adding conditions to change the nature of your question and demanding new answers.

If you don't want to play, that is fine with me.

I'll give you some freebies in hopes that you will be honest enough to provide some answers to my questions. Do you think you can manage that or is that an overly optimistic expectation?

You've reworded your question multiple times adding new conditions. I answered your initial question - which was pretty broad - with a "No". You got that part right?

Your new conditions have created multiple new questions:

One appears to be this: if an interregator "hits a wall" with a suspect, presumably in connection with saving a bunch of children such as in the Pakistan school bombing - would I agree to torture? This implies an ideal situation that seldom exists in reality. Theoretically (I'm anticipating you will add these conditions) - we *know* the person has the information without question and all other means have been exhausted, and it's a "ticking time bomb". Of course I would answer "yes".

Now...do you have the integrity to answer a question in return - one based on the above as it tends to occur in real life?


You have a group, like Boko Haran, holding a group of kidnapped children hostage. They might be killed, raped, sold - no one knows where they are or when their fates will be decided. You know that they have "presence" in a particular area, and a lot of influence on locals and recruits amongst them. You do a general sweep, based on informants information, sharing of gossip etc which may or may not be accurate. You come down to a handful of men, 3 maybe whom you think might know something but you aren't sure. You are pressured for time but it's not battlefield critical. All deny knowledge of the whereabouts of the children no matter how pressed and threatened. Information gained from torture is known to be unreliable (people will say what ever they think will stop the torture).

You have questions:

• do these men have any information of value in the first place?
  
• if they do, how can you get it? how will you know if it's accurate or if they are saying something they think you want to hear?
  
• How much time do we have and will the process take?

You have choices:

• continue with more conventional means (which includes the threat of violence, intimidation as well as attemtping to gain trust) in hopes that some one will relent and give out useful information;
  
• resort to torture and hope that you will get useful infomation;
  
• decide that they don't have useful information and let them go

Choices have consequences:

• if you continue with more conventional means, it might take more time but provide more accurate information but the children might die in the process
  
• if you choose torture you will get the information faster but it might not be accurate, it might send you on a wild goose chase and cost you valuable time and the children might die in the process
• letting them go - same consequences as #1, you will need to continue searching for someone who knows losing valuable time

What do you choose to do?
Why do you make that choice?


Those are questions with added conditions - kind of like yours.

Then, there is my original question:
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Any answers PC or more dodging and weaseling?

So PoliticalChic - are you going to keep on dodging or show some integrity?

I've exposed you as an apologist for barbarity.

That was my intention.

There's nothing left to say, is there.

 

[Coyote]

The way questions work PC, is we take turns. I answer one of yours, you then answer one of mine. Then I'll answer your question with the new conditions and offer one of my own (same question with more restrictive conditions). You don't keep adding conditions to change the nature of your question and demanding new answers.

If you don't want to play, that is fine with me.

I'll give you some freebies in hopes that you will be honest enough to provide some answers to my questions. Do you think you can manage that or is that an overly optimistic expectation?

You've reworded your question multiple times adding new conditions. I answered your initial question - which was pretty broad - with a "No". You got that part right?

Your new conditions have created multiple new questions:

One appears to be this: if an interregator "hits a wall" with a suspect, presumably in connection with saving a bunch of children such as in the Pakistan school bombing - would I agree to torture? This implies an ideal situation that seldom exists in reality. Theoretically (I'm anticipating you will add these conditions) - we *know* the person has the information without question and all other means have been exhausted, and it's a "ticking time bomb". Of course I would answer "yes".

Now...do you have the integrity to answer a question in return - one based on the above as it tends to occur in real life?


You have a group, like Boko Haran, holding a group of kidnapped children hostage. They might be killed, raped, sold - no one knows where they are or when their fates will be decided. You know that they have "presence" in a particular area, and a lot of influence on locals and recruits amongst them. You do a general sweep, based on informants information, sharing of gossip etc which may or may not be accurate. You come down to a handful of men, 3 maybe whom you think might know something but you aren't sure. You are pressured for time but it's not battlefield critical. All deny knowledge of the whereabouts of the children no matter how pressed and threatened. Information gained from torture is known to be unreliable (people will say what ever they think will stop the torture).

You have questions:

• do these men have any information of value in the first place?
  
• if they do, how can you get it? how will you know if it's accurate or if they are saying something they think you want to hear?
  
• How much time do we have and will the process take?

You have choices:

• continue with more conventional means (which includes the threat of violence, intimidation as well as attemtping to gain trust) in hopes that some one will relent and give out useful information;
  
• resort to torture and hope that you will get useful infomation;
  
• decide that they don't have useful information and let them go

Choices have consequences:

• if you continue with more conventional means, it might take more time but provide more accurate information but the children might die in the process
  
• if you choose torture you will get the information faster but it might not be accurate, it might send you on a wild goose chase and cost you valuable time and the children might die in the process
• letting them go - same consequences as #1, you will need to continue searching for someone who knows losing valuable time

What do you choose to do?
Why do you make that choice?


Those are questions with added conditions - kind of like yours.

Then, there is my original question:
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Any answers PC or more dodging and weaseling?

So PoliticalChic - are you going to keep on dodging or show some integrity?

I've exposed you as an apologist for barbarity.

That was my intention.

There's nothing left to say, is there.

You've exposed yourself as a cheat and a dishonest debater. The topic is interesting, the questions are interesting. But you never had any real intention of discussing it did you? You have shown yourself to be little more than a troll who is too cowardly to give honest answers and exploits real, ongoing tragedies in an attempt to create an appeal to the emotions fallacy.

Troll. I never should have assumed otherwise.

 

[Meathead]

The way questions work PC, is we take turns. I answer one of yours, you then answer one of mine. Then I'll answer your question with the new conditions and offer one of my own (same question with more restrictive conditions). You don't keep adding conditions to change the nature of your question and demanding new answers.

If you don't want to play, that is fine with me.

I'll give you some freebies in hopes that you will be honest enough to provide some answers to my questions. Do you think you can manage that or is that an overly optimistic expectation?

You've reworded your question multiple times adding new conditions. I answered your initial question - which was pretty broad - with a "No". You got that part right?

Your new conditions have created multiple new questions:

One appears to be this: if an interregator "hits a wall" with a suspect, presumably in connection with saving a bunch of children such as in the Pakistan school bombing - would I agree to torture? This implies an ideal situation that seldom exists in reality. Theoretically (I'm anticipating you will add these conditions) - we *know* the person has the information without question and all other means have been exhausted, and it's a "ticking time bomb". Of course I would answer "yes".

Now...do you have the integrity to answer a question in return - one based on the above as it tends to occur in real life?


You have a group, like Boko Haran, holding a group of kidnapped children hostage. They might be killed, raped, sold - no one knows where they are or when their fates will be decided. You know that they have "presence" in a particular area, and a lot of influence on locals and recruits amongst them. You do a general sweep, based on informants information, sharing of gossip etc which may or may not be accurate. You come down to a handful of men, 3 maybe whom you think might know something but you aren't sure. You are pressured for time but it's not battlefield critical. All deny knowledge of the whereabouts of the children no matter how pressed and threatened. Information gained from torture is known to be unreliable (people will say what ever they think will stop the torture).

You have questions:

• do these men have any information of value in the first place?
  
• if they do, how can you get it? how will you know if it's accurate or if they are saying something they think you want to hear?
  
• How much time do we have and will the process take?

You have choices:

• continue with more conventional means (which includes the threat of violence, intimidation as well as attemtping to gain trust) in hopes that some one will relent and give out useful information;
  
• resort to torture and hope that you will get useful infomation;
  
• decide that they don't have useful information and let them go

Choices have consequences:

• if you continue with more conventional means, it might take more time but provide more accurate information but the children might die in the process
  
• if you choose torture you will get the information faster but it might not be accurate, it might send you on a wild goose chase and cost you valuable time and the children might die in the process
• letting them go - same consequences as #1, you will need to continue searching for someone who knows losing valuable time

What do you choose to do?
Why do you make that choice?


Those are questions with added conditions - kind of like yours.

Then, there is my original question:
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Any answers PC or more dodging and weaseling?

So PoliticalChic - are you going to keep on dodging or show some integrity?

Integrity is not something you should be questioning. I have been patently unimpressed with your own, although my experience with you is limited.

 

[Coyote]

The way questions work PC, is we take turns. I answer one of yours, you then answer one of mine. Then I'll answer your question with the new conditions and offer one of my own (same question with more restrictive conditions). You don't keep adding conditions to change the nature of your question and demanding new answers.

If you don't want to play, that is fine with me.

I'll give you some freebies in hopes that you will be honest enough to provide some answers to my questions. Do you think you can manage that or is that an overly optimistic expectation?

You've reworded your question multiple times adding new conditions. I answered your initial question - which was pretty broad - with a "No". You got that part right?

Your new conditions have created multiple new questions:

One appears to be this: if an interregator "hits a wall" with a suspect, presumably in connection with saving a bunch of children such as in the Pakistan school bombing - would I agree to torture? This implies an ideal situation that seldom exists in reality. Theoretically (I'm anticipating you will add these conditions) - we *know* the person has the information without question and all other means have been exhausted, and it's a "ticking time bomb". Of course I would answer "yes".

Now...do you have the integrity to answer a question in return - one based on the above as it tends to occur in real life?


You have a group, like Boko Haran, holding a group of kidnapped children hostage. They might be killed, raped, sold - no one knows where they are or when their fates will be decided. You know that they have "presence" in a particular area, and a lot of influence on locals and recruits amongst them. You do a general sweep, based on informants information, sharing of gossip etc which may or may not be accurate. You come down to a handful of men, 3 maybe whom you think might know something but you aren't sure. You are pressured for time but it's not battlefield critical. All deny knowledge of the whereabouts of the children no matter how pressed and threatened. Information gained from torture is known to be unreliable (people will say what ever they think will stop the torture).

You have questions:

• do these men have any information of value in the first place?
  
• if they do, how can you get it? how will you know if it's accurate or if they are saying something they think you want to hear?
  
• How much time do we have and will the process take?

You have choices:

• continue with more conventional means (which includes the threat of violence, intimidation as well as attemtping to gain trust) in hopes that some one will relent and give out useful information;
  
• resort to torture and hope that you will get useful infomation;
  
• decide that they don't have useful information and let them go

Choices have consequences:

• if you continue with more conventional means, it might take more time but provide more accurate information but the children might die in the process
  
• if you choose torture you will get the information faster but it might not be accurate, it might send you on a wild goose chase and cost you valuable time and the children might die in the process
• letting them go - same consequences as #1, you will need to continue searching for someone who knows losing valuable time

What do you choose to do?
Why do you make that choice?


Those are questions with added conditions - kind of like yours.

Then, there is my original question:
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Any answers PC or more dodging and weaseling?

So PoliticalChic - are you going to keep on dodging or show some integrity?

Integrity is not something you should be questioning. I have been patently unimpressed with your own, although my experience with you is limited.

Yet another person who refuses to actually discuss the issues.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The way questions work PC, is we take turns. I answer one of yours, you then answer one of mine. Then I'll answer your question with the new conditions and offer one of my own (same question with more restrictive conditions). You don't keep adding conditions to change the nature of your question and demanding new answers.

If you don't want to play, that is fine with me.

I'll give you some freebies in hopes that you will be honest enough to provide some answers to my questions. Do you think you can manage that or is that an overly optimistic expectation?

You've reworded your question multiple times adding new conditions. I answered your initial question - which was pretty broad - with a "No". You got that part right?

Your new conditions have created multiple new questions:

One appears to be this: if an interregator "hits a wall" with a suspect, presumably in connection with saving a bunch of children such as in the Pakistan school bombing - would I agree to torture? This implies an ideal situation that seldom exists in reality. Theoretically (I'm anticipating you will add these conditions) - we *know* the person has the information without question and all other means have been exhausted, and it's a "ticking time bomb". Of course I would answer "yes".

Now...do you have the integrity to answer a question in return - one based on the above as it tends to occur in real life?


You have a group, like Boko Haran, holding a group of kidnapped children hostage. They might be killed, raped, sold - no one knows where they are or when their fates will be decided. You know that they have "presence" in a particular area, and a lot of influence on locals and recruits amongst them. You do a general sweep, based on informants information, sharing of gossip etc which may or may not be accurate. You come down to a handful of men, 3 maybe whom you think might know something but you aren't sure. You are pressured for time but it's not battlefield critical. All deny knowledge of the whereabouts of the children no matter how pressed and threatened. Information gained from torture is known to be unreliable (people will say what ever they think will stop the torture).

You have questions:

• do these men have any information of value in the first place?
  
• if they do, how can you get it? how will you know if it's accurate or if they are saying something they think you want to hear?
  
• How much time do we have and will the process take?

You have choices:

• continue with more conventional means (which includes the threat of violence, intimidation as well as attemtping to gain trust) in hopes that some one will relent and give out useful information;
  
• resort to torture and hope that you will get useful infomation;
  
• decide that they don't have useful information and let them go

Choices have consequences:

• if you continue with more conventional means, it might take more time but provide more accurate information but the children might die in the process
  
• if you choose torture you will get the information faster but it might not be accurate, it might send you on a wild goose chase and cost you valuable time and the children might die in the process
• letting them go - same consequences as #1, you will need to continue searching for someone who knows losing valuable time

What do you choose to do?
Why do you make that choice?


Those are questions with added conditions - kind of like yours.

Then, there is my original question:
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Any answers PC or more dodging and weaseling?

So PoliticalChic - are you going to keep on dodging or show some integrity?

Integrity is not something you should be questioning. I have been patently unimpressed with your own, although my experience with you is limited.

Yet another person who refuses to actually discuss the issues.

"Iraq’s Ministry of Human Rights claims the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) murdered 150 women simply because they refused to marry or perform sexual acts with the terrorists.

“At least 150 females, including pregnant women, were executed in Fallujah by a militant named Abu Anas Al-Libi after they refused to accept jihad marriage,” said the Ministry. “Many families were also forced to migrate from the province’s northern town of Al-Wafa after hundreds of residents received death threats

Militants murdered 98 people from the same tribe 24-48 hours before the massacre. The tribe is Sunni, which holds the same belief of Islam as the Islamic State, but now, they view the tribe as a threat.”
ISIS Slaughters 150 Females in Iraq for Refusing to Marry Have Sex with Them - Breitbart

 

[georgephillip]

Cancer rates in Fallujah.
IS not responsible.

"The United States may be finished dropping bombs on Iraq, but Iraqi bodies will be dealing with the consequences for generations to come in the form of birth defects, mysterious illnesses and skyrocketing cancer rates.

Al Jazeera’s Dahr Jamail reports that contamination from U.S. weapons, particularly Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions, has led to an Iraqi health crisis of epic proportions.

“'[C]hildren being born with two heads, children born with only one eye, multiple tumours, disfiguring facial and body deformities, and complex nervous system problems,' are just some of the congenital birth defects being linked to military-related pollution."

Absent the US invasion in 2003 there would be thousands of fewer birth defects in Iraq and IS would not even exist.

Iraqi Birth Defects Worse than Hiroshima Dispatches from the Underclass

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Torture, or whatever you want to call it, "justified" by majority of Americans.

New poll finds majority of Americans believe torture justified after 9 11 attacks - The Washington Post

By an almost 2-1 margin, or 59-to-31 percent, those interviewed support the CIA’s brutal methods, with the vast majority of supporters saying they produced valuable intelligence.

Just goes to show how fragile our rights and liberties are that fear, not rationality, would allow us to justify torture. Saying they "believed" it produced "valuable intelligence" is not the same as actually producing "valuable intelligence".

Never trust your rights to public opinion because some day you might be on the wrong side of it.

Hey knucklehead, the rights you speak of are OUR RIGHTS. No towlehead from the Middle East that kills innocent Americans deserve OUR rights. Hell imo they give up their human rights when they kill indiscriminately like they do.

Everyone deserves the same rights and due process.

We aren't ISIS.

No they do not. Those rights are specifically for American citizens not enemy combatants.

Good lord some of you would be helpless if left to your own devices to survive

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cancer rates in Fallujah.
IS not responsible.

"The United States may be finished dropping bombs on Iraq, but Iraqi bodies will be dealing with the consequences for generations to come in the form of birth defects, mysterious illnesses and skyrocketing cancer rates.

Al Jazeera’s Dahr Jamail reports that contamination from U.S. weapons, particularly Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions, has led to an Iraqi health crisis of epic proportions.

“'[C]hildren being born with two heads, children born with only one eye, multiple tumours, disfiguring facial and body deformities, and complex nervous system problems,' are just some of the congenital birth defects being linked to military-related pollution."

Absent the US invasion in 2003 there would be thousands of fewer birth defects in Iraq and IS would not even exist.

Iraqi Birth Defects Worse than Hiroshima Dispatches from the Underclass

Re: Rania Khalek

"If Khalek doesn’t think much of the US, she obviously thinks even less of Israel, and, unsurprisingly, she is a devoted promoter of any and all anti-Israel campaigns. Her world view was presumably only confirmed when she recently found herself held up as an example of the bigotry and antisemitism that is so pervasive in the BDS movement, ...."
Racism 101 for Rania Khalek - Blogs - Jerusalem Post



And, her cousin....

Rana pipiens...

1. The northern leopard frog is a species of leopard frog from the true frog family, native to parts of Canada and United States. It is the state amphibian of Minnesota and Vermont. Wikipedia

 

[georgephillip]

Re: Rania Khalek

Rania isn't responsible for IS or cancer clusters in Iraq, is she?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Re: Rania Khalek

Rania isn't responsible for IS or cancer clusters in Iraq, is she?

Are you accusing ME of an ad hominem post you stuck up, mouth-breathing, half-witted, scruffy-looking, rotten, lying no good, four-flushing, snake-licking, sleezy, slimy, sticky, stinky, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, nerf-herding, hopeless, bug-eyed, foul-mouthed, lying, soiled-soul, sack of sewage???????

I would never behave in said manner.


I await your abject apology.

 

[Coyote]

The way questions work PC, is we take turns. I answer one of yours, you then answer one of mine. Then I'll answer your question with the new conditions and offer one of my own (same question with more restrictive conditions). You don't keep adding conditions to change the nature of your question and demanding new answers.

If you don't want to play, that is fine with me.

I'll give you some freebies in hopes that you will be honest enough to provide some answers to my questions. Do you think you can manage that or is that an overly optimistic expectation?

You've reworded your question multiple times adding new conditions. I answered your initial question - which was pretty broad - with a "No". You got that part right?

Your new conditions have created multiple new questions:

One appears to be this: if an interregator "hits a wall" with a suspect, presumably in connection with saving a bunch of children such as in the Pakistan school bombing - would I agree to torture? This implies an ideal situation that seldom exists in reality. Theoretically (I'm anticipating you will add these conditions) - we *know* the person has the information without question and all other means have been exhausted, and it's a "ticking time bomb". Of course I would answer "yes".

Now...do you have the integrity to answer a question in return - one based on the above as it tends to occur in real life?


You have a group, like Boko Haran, holding a group of kidnapped children hostage. They might be killed, raped, sold - no one knows where they are or when their fates will be decided. You know that they have "presence" in a particular area, and a lot of influence on locals and recruits amongst them. You do a general sweep, based on informants information, sharing of gossip etc which may or may not be accurate. You come down to a handful of men, 3 maybe whom you think might know something but you aren't sure. You are pressured for time but it's not battlefield critical. All deny knowledge of the whereabouts of the children no matter how pressed and threatened. Information gained from torture is known to be unreliable (people will say what ever they think will stop the torture).

You have questions:

• do these men have any information of value in the first place?
  
• if they do, how can you get it? how will you know if it's accurate or if they are saying something they think you want to hear?
  
• How much time do we have and will the process take?

You have choices:

• continue with more conventional means (which includes the threat of violence, intimidation as well as attemtping to gain trust) in hopes that some one will relent and give out useful information;
  
• resort to torture and hope that you will get useful infomation;
  
• decide that they don't have useful information and let them go

Choices have consequences:

• if you continue with more conventional means, it might take more time but provide more accurate information but the children might die in the process
  
• if you choose torture you will get the information faster but it might not be accurate, it might send you on a wild goose chase and cost you valuable time and the children might die in the process
• letting them go - same consequences as #1, you will need to continue searching for someone who knows losing valuable time

What do you choose to do?
Why do you make that choice?


Those are questions with added conditions - kind of like yours.

Then, there is my original question:
...if you could save the 80-90 children slaughtered by the savages, and information could be gained either with or without torture but you couldn't be sure which would work - would you have acquiesced to torture?

Any answers PC or more dodging and weaseling?

So PoliticalChic - are you going to keep on dodging or show some integrity?

Integrity is not something you should be questioning. I have been patently unimpressed with your own, although my experience with you is limited.

Yet another person who refuses to actually discuss the issues.

"Iraq’s Ministry of Human Rights claims the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) murdered 150 women simply because they refused to marry or perform sexual acts with the terrorists.

“At least 150 females, including pregnant women, were executed in Fallujah by a militant named Abu Anas Al-Libi after they refused to accept jihad marriage,” said the Ministry. “Many families were also forced to migrate from the province’s northern town of Al-Wafa after hundreds of residents received death threats

Militants murdered 98 people from the same tribe 24-48 hours before the massacre. The tribe is Sunni, which holds the same belief of Islam as the Islamic State, but now, they view the tribe as a threat.”
ISIS Slaughters 150 Females in Iraq for Refusing to Marry Have Sex with Them - Breitbart

We are well aware of what ISIS is doing.

Why are you continuing to deflect and derail?

Can't answer a simple question?

 

[bodecea]

Re: Rania Khalek

Rania isn't responsible for IS or cancer clusters in Iraq, is she?

Are you accusing ME of an ad hominem post you stuck up, mouth-breathing, half-witted, scruffy-looking, rotten, lying no good, four-flushing, snake-licking, sleezy, slimy, sticky, stinky, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, nerf-herding, hopeless, bug-eyed, foul-mouthed, lying, soiled-soul, sack of sewage???????

I would never behave in said manner.


I await your abject apology.

/\

 

[High_Gravity]

Cancer rates in Fallujah.
IS not responsible.

"The United States may be finished dropping bombs on Iraq, but Iraqi bodies will be dealing with the consequences for generations to come in the form of birth defects, mysterious illnesses and skyrocketing cancer rates.

Al Jazeera’s Dahr Jamail reports that contamination from U.S. weapons, particularly Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions, has led to an Iraqi health crisis of epic proportions.

“'[C]hildren being born with two heads, children born with only one eye, multiple tumours, disfiguring facial and body deformities, and complex nervous system problems,' are just some of the congenital birth defects being linked to military-related pollution."

Absent the US invasion in 2003 there would be thousands of fewer birth defects in Iraq and IS would not even exist.

Iraqi Birth Defects Worse than Hiroshima Dispatches from the Underclass

Jesus! this is like the Hills Have Eyes.

 

[Claudette]

Wars will always be fought and civilians will always die in those wars and only an idiot like you would believe otherwise.

War could be exterminated just like chattel slavery, but not if its demise depends on slaves like you.

Hope you ain't holding your for that to happen because if you then your are already dead.

I don't know anyone who's a slave and I doubt I ever will.

 

[CowboyTed]

Navy Seals do water boarding after a few beers
Heck I bet you some college fraternities did worse in hazing

Yes they did muppet...

TIL Navy SEALs used to be waterboarded as a part of their training but the process was stopped when no SEAL could pass it leading to bad morale. todayilearned

I can't understand some of the sick fucks on this board. Innocent people were tortured, that is simple...

Some fucking idiots think that was OK. Well suppose it was one of your loved ones it happened to... Would that be OK.

You scared pieces of shit... Have a backbone, you're lead by fear, bunch of cowards who sell American principles at the first sign fear.

These fucks want Osama Bin Laden to win... They surrender by torturing people...