Coulter Article--MUSLIMS: 'WE DO THAT ON FIRST DATES'

[SUPDOG]

MUSLIMS: 'WE DO THAT ON FIRST DATES'
April 29, 2009


Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)

If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.

The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:

Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!

So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...

Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.

Further up the torture ladder -- from Guantanamo, not Monty Python -- comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."

If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver -- the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" -- CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.

I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."

Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.

Thousands of our troops are waterboarded every year as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America -- were liberal consciences shocked.

I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.

As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.

Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care -- including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Only three terrorists -- who could have been shot -- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.

Normal human beings -- especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy -- can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.

At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.

But The New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.


Yeah, the reality is this: If you call any of these techniques "torture" you are nothing more than a left wing homer. End of story.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Don't even tell me you just posted an Ann Coulter op-ed..... are you kidding me? Ann Coulter? The same Ann Coulter that Megan McCain called "offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time."?

The same lunatic bytch who once dated Bill Maher?


Seriously dude..............

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

Classic Supdog........ mr, right wingnut radical himself, i'm not surprised that you are part of "Coulter's Cult" :)

[SUPDOG]

Don't even tell me you just posted an Ann Coulter op-ed..... are you kidding me? Ann Coulter? The same Ann Coulter that Megan McCain called "offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time."?

The same lunatic bytch who once dated Bill Maher?


Seriously dude..............

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

Classic Supdog........ mr, right wingnut radical himself, i'm not surprised that you are part of "Coulter's Cult" :)


No mention of the article?

[Nevada_Ballin]

No mention of the article?

Hell no,... if it came from Ann Coulter it's not WORTH reading.

Period.

[Gtrght77]

Ann Coulter?



The Tranny? How does she make anything relevant?

[SUPDOG]

Hell no,... if it came from Ann Coulter it's not WORTH reading.

Period.

Aren't you the guy who posts articles from Marxist websites?

Here is the reality. Coulter is a genius. End of story.

I may not agree with her on all counts, but she disposes of liberals (including Maher-who was her friend ) on a regular basis.

Watch how she leaves him speechless in these clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOi2xqrQFSI&feature=related

And here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iD-ohvTUQg&feature=related

Watch how the lib actor tries to run away before she even comes on air, and than how she dominates, Maher, the lib actor, and the crowd.

Yep, you are just like them NB, you can't handle her wit, and the reality that her humorous take brings to light.




P.S. Me thinks you read the article, but realize that you can't debate the undebatable.

[Gtrght77]

Aren't you the guy who posts articles from Marxist websites?

Here is the reality. Coulter is a genius. End of story.

I may not agree with her on all counts, but she disposes of liberals (including Maher-who was her friend ) on a regular basis.

Watch how she leaves him speechless in these clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOi2xqrQFSI&feature=related

And here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iD-ohvTUQg&feature=related

Watch how the lib actor tries to run away before she even comes on air, and than how she dominates, Maher, the lib actor, and the crowd.

Yep, you are just like them NB, you can't handle her wit, and the reality that her humorous take brings to light.




P.S. Me thinks you read the article, but realize that you can't debate the undebatable.


I think that says it for any of Sups arguments.

[SUPDOG]

I think that says it for any of Sups arguments.

Hmmmmm, pretty active on "this" thread GT. Why is that? ;)

[Nevada_Ballin]

Here is the reality. Coulter is a genius. End of story.



AH-AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

She's just another hater like you...... divisive and non-liberating. Someone who has always seeked to rip the cloth of humanity instead of being a functional weave in it.

Genius..... omg.... i can't contain myself from the laughter, that's freakin rich man.... hahahahahaha!

She's gotten more time than she deserves from me already in this thread. Have fun with your female Einstein.......


.
.

[Gtrght77]

The Reason Maher likes her is because she is a chick with a dick. :D

[SUPDOG]

AH-AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

She's just another hater like you...... divisive and non-liberating. Someone who has always seeked to rip the cloth of humanity instead of being a functional weave in it.

Genius..... omg.... i can't contain myself from the laughter, that's freakin rich man.... hahahahahaha!

She's gotten more time than she deserves from me already in this thread. Have fun with your female Einstein.......


.
.


You think I am divisive? I told you about at least two things that I approved of in Obama's term thus far....that is two more compliments than you gave Bush in 8 years. Goofball.

Anyway, Coulter sells tons of books, her opinion is sought on conservative and nonconservative networks time and time again. Please tell me that there is some common sense in La-la.

To say that Coulter, and her humor/wit is not genius is like me saying that Obama isn't any good at reading a teleprompter. ;)



























Well, he is good at it most of the time. :p

[resnor]

When someone can't refute something, they instead resort to hurling insults. Congrats, libs, you just proved that you lost.

[SUPDOG]

But back to the reality of this post. Coulter's take on what liberals consider torture is hilarious. It is amazing what a bunch of political hacks you guys on the left have become.


Bobble heads.........................:)

[Nevada_Ballin]

When someone can't refute something, they instead resort to hurling insults. Congrats, libs, you just proved that you lost.


Now if that isn't the microcosm of Coulter's entire career right there... lmao


More like thanks for summing her up for us Res! :)


.

[Nevada_Ballin]

But back to the reality of this post. Coulter's take on what liberals consider torture is hilarious. It is amazing what a bunch of political hacks you guys on the left have become.


Bobble heads.........................:)

No one gives a phluck what Coulter's take is..... no one.

Really.

Not one person really cares about anything she has to say. They follow her for the her dumb-blondeness and that's it.

Really.

[Gtrght77]

But back to the reality of this post. Coulter's take on what liberals consider torture is hilarious. It is amazing what a bunch of political hacks you guys on the left have become.


Bobble heads.........................:)

Thats not what Liberals think is torture, its what the law thinks. :p


Sorry.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," [McCain] told reporters at a campaign event.

You guys are basically for the toruture of our own soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Waterboarding is a form of torture[1][2] that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die

Classification as torture

Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][5][31] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] David Miliband, the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary described it as torture on July 19, 2008, and stated "the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture."[32] Arguments have been put forward that it might not be torture in all cases, or that it is unclear.[33][34][35][36] The U.S. State Department has recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in other circumstances, for example, in its 2005 Country Report on Tunisia.[37]

The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[38]

[Gtrght77]

Or Believe this?

[maddenman1]

she is an IDIOT

Proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e33FCOnkA2U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nizVbi1GFAE&feature=related

[SUPDOG]

she is an IDIOT

Proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e33FCOnkA2U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nizVbi1GFAE&feature=related


I listened to this. With the exception of one clip, Coulter proved time and time again why she is too intelligent for the left wing media. Lauer was left scrambling, Colmes looked like a fool (she always makes poor allen look silly) and the other dude was looking for a gotcha moment, which Coulter took away from him after her explanation. Yes, when Jews become devout Christians they partake in the fullness of God. I think it is a good thing for Jews to become perfected in the Christian faith. You libs want to make it into an anti-semitic crime. This once again illustrates the pettiness and evil of the left wing.

Moral to the story? Your clips were useless, and the article is STILL spot on.

Get some courage libs and admit that the "collar grab" isn't a form of torture.

:)

[Nevada_Ballin]

I listened to this. With the exception of one clip, Coulter proved time and time again why she is too intelligent for the left wing media. Lauer was left scrambling, Colmes looked like a fool (she always makes poor allen look silly) and the other dude was looking for a gotcha moment, which Coulter took away from him after her explanation. Yes, when Jews become devout Christians they partake in the fullness of God. I think it is a good thing for Jews to become perfected in the Christian faith. You libs want to make it into an anti-semitic crime. This once again illustrates the pettiness and evil of the left wing.

Moral to the story? Your clips were useless, and the article is STILL spot on.

Get some courage libs and admit that the "collar grab" isn't a form of torture.

:)

Every on of your posts in this thread has been pure comedy... really, pretty funny stuff. Here you are trying to start a fight with liberal-minded people about torture based on what Ann Coulter thinks. Like Gtrght said, the whole torture question has nothing to do with whether we should do it or not. That is not the issue on the table.

It IS about the USA breaking international laws that we signed onto..

Of course, you and Coulter are too obsessed with tossing meaningless insults and trying to bring up points that have absolutely NO validity with the actual issue on the table. That's not intelligence, that's freakin' stupidity & ignorance. Try talking to the actual issue instead of sidestepping it in order to take cheap pot shots at people that end up making zero sense to the issue at hand.

[sanantonio]

Anybody that would consider Coulter credible is just as bat shyt insane as she is and there appears to be a lot of bat shyt insane phuggers running around.

[SUPDOG]

Anybody that would consider Coulter credible is just as bat shyt insane as she is and there appears to be a lot of bat shyt insane phuggers running around.

Well, she might be a bit on the crazy side. However, I am more than certain that she doesn't "have questions" about whether or not Bush had anything to do with 9/11!! :eek:


;)

[sanantonio]

Well, she might be a bit on the crazy side. However, I am more than certain that she doesn't "have questions" about whether or not Bush had anything to do with 9/11!! :eek:


;)

There's one :p.

[XxsourdieselxX]

i thought torture was like running a screw into some one kneecap, or punching them in the face 500 times, how is a loud noise gonna scare some on into anything? you could play a cd for days that says one word over and over, that would drive someone crazy. cops do worse things to people just for catching them. I got the beat down b4.
i had a cop stand on each shoulder, one holding my feet while one was kicking me in my ribs and another kneeling on my balls

[sanantonio]

i thought torture was like running a screw into some one kneecap, or punching them in the face 500 times, how is a loud noise gonna scare some on into anything? you could play a cd for days that says one word over and over, that would drive someone crazy. cops do worse things to people just for catching them. I got the beat down b4.
i had a cop stand on each shoulder, one holding my feet while one was kicking me in my ribs and another kneeling on my balls

Now imagine this taking place every 30 minutes over a 40 hour period (an average work week) now that would be torture.

[MonoxideChild]

I don't think supdog is praising ann coulter necessarily, but I also don't think she's really concerned with things as much as getting air time and selling books. That being said, some of the things we conside "torture", aren't really that physically troubling. However the point has already been made, that we made a pledge after WWII to not participate in any acts that would make someone mentally or physically unstable while in our custody.Do some people deserve it? Absolutely, but as a form of punishment, not as a tool to procure information. On a hunorous note, I bet coulter got all hot and bothered when she as reading the descriptions of said tortures.

[Gtrght77]

Well, she might be a bit on the crazy side. However, I am more than certain that she doesn't "have questions" about whether or not Bush had anything to do with 9/11!! :eek:


;)

Why is that crazy? IT is more then possible.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I don't think supdog is praising ann coulter necessarily, but I also don't think she's really concerned with things as much as getting air time and selling books. That being said, some of the things we conside "torture", aren't really that physically troubling. However the point has already been made, that we made a pledge after WWII to not participate in any acts that would make someone mentally or physically unstable while in our custody. Do some people deserve it? Absolutely, but as a form of punishment, not as a tool to procure information. On a hunorous note, I bet coulter got all hot and bothered when she as reading the descriptions of said tortures.

Exactly... that is the issue on the table.

And regardless of anyone else's definition of torture, waterboarding is defined in those pledges as torture. It doesn't matter whether Supdog or Ann Coulter "thinks" it is not. By definitions that we signed onto, it is. Invariably, we as a nation agreed that it is. This is what makes those arguments about what is torture and what isn't totally irrelevent.

.

[resnor]

We are dealing with people who haven't signed onto these international agreements. Now, I'm not saying that we should start lopping off fingers, but, if someone can do real torture, and then also benefit from the inernational agreements on torture, while ignoring them themselves, then it almost renders those agreements worthless. It's kinda like socialism...people benefit without having to actually do anything themselves.

[MonoxideChild]

We are dealing with people who haven't signed onto these international agreements. Now, I'm not saying that we should start lopping off fingers, but, if someone can do real torture, and then also benefit from the inernational agreements on torture, while ignoring them themselves, then it almost renders those agreements worthless. It's kinda like socialism...people benefit without having to actually do anything themselves.

It doesn't work like that resnor. That would just be us skirting our duties to uphold the same laws we help put into effect. It doesn't matter if THEY observe similar rules of conduct. Put it this way, if you get arrested with narcotics, what do you think would happen if you said, "But they're doing it too." So if anything, breaking the treaties we're part of is closer to your definition of socialism, seeing as how we'd be skirting our responsibilities.

[resnor]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying...

Terrorists don't sign onto Geneve Convention, etc. We do. Terrorists capture our guys, and they cut off their heads. We capture their guys, and we're supposed to abide by rules that they haven't signed onto. Point is, if we captured say, a British spy, we wouldn't "torture" them as Britain has signed onto the treaties, and they are a legitimate government. Terrorists aren't a legitimate government, and they haven't signed onto the treaties. So, basically, what you are saying, is that terrorists can torture all they want, and still reap the benefits of the conventions. Sounds like they get their cake, and eat it too.

[MonoxideChild]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying...

Terrorists don't sign onto Geneve Convention, etc. We do. Terrorists capture our guys, and they cut off their heads. We capture their guys, and we're supposed to abide by rules that they haven't signed onto. Point is, if we captured say, a British spy, we wouldn't "torture" them as Britain has signed onto the treaties, and they are a legitimate government. Terrorists aren't a legitimate government, and they haven't signed onto the treaties. So, basically, what you are saying, is that terrorists can torture all they want, and still reap the benefits of the conventions. Sounds like they get their cake, and eat it too.

Yes. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if anyone else has signed it, WE did. As a matter of fact, we've gotten around fair treatment before in Korea and Vietnam. The problem is that we declared WAR. If President retard had said police action or we are actively seeking so and so, it would be completely different.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Yes. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if anyone else has signed it, WE did. As a matter of fact, we've gotten around fair treatment before in Korea and Vietnam. The problem is that we declared WAR. If President retard had said police action or we are actively seeking so and so, it would be completely different.


Spot on.

If we can't hold ourselves to our own word then ????

If we can't keep that word then we need to officially opt-out of all agreements pertaining to this particular subject.

.

[SUPDOG]

Spot on.

If we can't hold ourselves to our own word then ????

If we can't keep that word then we need to officially opt-out of all agreements pertaining to this particular subject.

.

1. Interogations are not torture.

2. Terrorists do not fall under Geneva Conventions

3. If your son or daughter would die if you didn't get information, would you waterboard?

4. Obama is too much of a political sissy to release the rest of the memos. What a coward he is. Nice choice for president.

5. If Obama waterboards, you libs will be crying how much he loves his country and is doing the right thing, right NB? ;)

[Nevada_Ballin]

1. Interogations are not torture.

2. Terrorists do not fall under Geneva Conventions

3. If your son or daughter would die if you didn't get information, would you waterboard?

4. Obama is too much of a political sissy to release the rest of the memos. What a coward he is. Nice choice for president.

5. If Obama waterboards, you libs will be crying how much he loves his country and is doing the right thing, right NB? ;)

And again we have Supdog off point.... no surpise.

.

[SUPDOG]

And again we have Supdog off point.... no surpise.

.

Know, right on point as usual. You base your argument on liberal talking points that don't hold water in this conversation.

1. Terrorists do not apply to Geneva Conventions. FACT.

2. You are too cowarldy to admitn that you use this a lib bobble head talking point.

3. Terrorists who torture cut off fingers. We sprinkle water in their faces. Who is off point here me or you? I would guess you since you duck the question each time. So I will ask again.

Which is torture? Cutting off fingers one by one, or the "attention grab"? There I made it easy for you!!!

Come on NB, be a man! :)

[MonoxideChild]

Horrors of war go much deeper and get much worse than "torture", it's too bad that this is the big discussion now.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Know, right on point as usual. You base your argument on liberal talking points that don't hold water in this conversation.

1. Terrorists do not apply to Geneva Conventions. FACT.

2. You are too cowarldy to admitn that you use this a lib bobble head talking point.

3. Terrorists who torture cut off fingers. We sprinkle water in their faces. Who is off point here me or you? I would guess you since you duck the question each time. So I will ask again.

Which is torture? Cutting off fingers one by one, or the "attention grab"? There I made it easy for you!!!

Come on NB, be a man! :)

1. Enemies do not need to also be signed onto the GC. It doesn't say "we will only refrain from torture against others who signed this". And there are also other agreements we signed outside of the GC - get yourself caught up and know what you are talking about

2. Typical Supdog slur. Doesn't know what he's talking about so he uses the "cowardly" approach by calling someone a coward. Very mature.

3. Here is where you are so off point it's hilarious. Scroll up and read my post about opting out. Your definition or torture, my definition of torture, Coulter's definition of torture, Mickey Mouse's definition of torture are not important and totally irrelevent to this topic, do you not understand that? It has already BEEN defined in the agreements we signed. Geez, wake up man.

Come on Supdog, be semi-intelligent.

[sanantonio]

1. Enemies do not need to also be signed onto the GC. It doesn't say "we will only refrain from torture against others who signed this". And there are also other agreements we signed outside of the GC - get yourself caught up and know what you are talking about

2. Typical Supdog slur. Doesn't know what he's talking about so he uses the "cowardly" approach by calling someone a coward. Very mature.

3. Here is where you are so off point it's hilarious. Scroll up and read my post about opting out. Your definition or torture, my definition of torture, Coulter's definition of torture, Mickey Mouse's definition of torture are not important and totally irrelevent to this topic, do you not understand that? It has already BEEN defined in the agreements we signed. Geez, wake up man.

Come on Supdog, be semi-intelligent.

Semi-intelligent? You ask much my friend :p.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Semi-intelligent? You ask much my friend :p.

lol...

he can be intelligent about this topic if he chooses to be. But he's too wrapped up and blinded by party politics and pundits to do it.

.

[resnor]

I'm sorry, I don't agree that terrorists fall under the bounds of any of the conventions. Also, the very fact that you expect that people who torture should benefit from the conventions against torture weakens those very conventions. What incentive is there to sign onto the conventions if you can just NOT sign, and torture whoever you want, and yet receive the benefits of the conventions. It just makes no sense.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I'm sorry, I don't agree that terrorists fall under the bounds of any of the conventions. Also, the very fact that you expect that people who torture should benefit from the conventions against torture weakens those very conventions. What incentive is there to sign onto the conventions if you can just NOT sign, and torture whoever you want, and yet receive the benefits of the conventions. It just makes no sense.

Again, this has nothing to do with our "opinion" on anything. We signed the dotted line and agreed to the definitions within the agreements.

The incentive isn't really about getting incentives. It's about putting our money where our mouth is when we preach about human rights to other countries. Whether a terrorist or any other war-type is deserving of human rights under any agreement is whole other topic and most would agree they aren't deserving - but that isn't the issue here. As things stand now, any captive, regardless of affiliation, is covered by one agrement or another that we've signed over the years.

[conviction]

Again, this has nothing to do with our "opinion" on anything. We signed the dotted line and agreed to the definitions within the agreements.

The incentive isn't really about getting incentives. It's about putting our money where our mouth is when we preach about human rights to other countries. Whether a terrorist or any other war-type is deserving of human rights under any agreement is whole other topic and most would agree they aren't deserving - but that isn't the issue here. As things stand now, any captive, regardless of affiliation, is covered by one agrement or another that we've signed over the years.

Apparently we can "torture" because we did throughout the whole war. This damn little convention didn't stop us. So we can continue to do so whenever we so choose.

[maddenbowl62]

1. Interogations are not torture.

2. Terrorists do not fall under Geneva Conventions

3. If your son or daughter would die if you didn't get information, would you waterboard?

4. Obama is too much of a political sissy to release the rest of the memos. What a coward he is. Nice choice for president.

5. If Obama waterboards, you libs will be crying how much he loves his country and is doing the right thing, right NB? ;)

The arguments supporting torture could actually be used to support abortions.

Eventually, this began to dawn on people. Some began to realize that the panic-driven consequentialism of the Ticking Time Bomb fantasy is also used to justify abortion on demand ("What if Thelma and Louise both had tubal pregnancies after an incestuous rape by their fathers? Wouldn't you say that abortion was justified then?") Indeed, some of the most clear-headed realized that tubal pregnancies after an incestuous rape are actually more statistically probable than a Ticking Time Bomb scenario, yet (quite properly) no "faithful conservative Catholic" uses this to support an abortion license since they know that hard cases, let alone completely imaginary ones, make bad law.


Link (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5888&Itemid=48)

[SUPDOG]

I clicked on the link and then read that it was about a torturous act of crushing a part of the male anatomy.


I then realized how stupid the comparison you are trying to make really is.

Nice snipet though. Goofy.

[maddenbowl62]

I clicked on the link and then read that it was about a torturous act of crushing a part of the male anatomy.


I then realized how stupid the comparison you are trying to make really is.

Nice snipet though. Goofy.

Torture is torture anyway. I'm surprised you support torture considering the Catholic Church's stance on it.


btw, the link was relevant because you posted about a ticking time bomb scenario. That logic supports the idea of Abortions when necessary.


3. If your son or daughter would die if you didn't get information, would you waterboard?

[SUPDOG]

Torture is torture anyway. I'm surprised you support torture considering the Catholic Church's stance on it.


btw, the link was relevant because you posted about a ticking time bomb scenario. That logic supports the idea of Abortions when necessary.

Oh, those poor terrorists who endure the horrors of the "attention grab". Wow, Maddenbowl, I would have never thought you were such a softy. :)

Bobble, bobble. So did Bammy decide to release the rest of those dem dare memos he is hiding away from his country that discuss how many terrorist attacks were thwarted because of waterboarding? Answer please.


Waterboarding is not torture. Cutting off toes one by one is torture. I don't care what your liberal "i hate Bush" soaked mind thinks. If you deny that what they do to our troops is comparable to what we do during interrogation sessions, you are simply a dolt.


The argument of abortion in cases of rape vs. splashing a terrorist with water to save thousands of lives is beyond silly. Get a clue. Abortion is wrong in all cases.

[sanantonio]

Oh, those poor terrorists who endure the horrors of the "attention grab". Wow, Maddenbowl, I would have never thought you were such a softy. :)

Bobble, bobble. So did Bammy decide to release the rest of those dem dare memos he is hiding away from his country that discuss how many terrorist attacks were thwarted because of waterboarding? Answer please.


Waterboarding is not torture. Cutting off toes one by one is torture. I don't care what your liberal "i hate Bush" soaked mind thinks. If you deny that what they do to our troops is comparable to what we do during interrogation sessions, you are simply a dolt.


The argument of abortion in cases of rape vs. splashing a terrorist with water to save thousands of lives is beyond silly. Get a clue. Abortion is wrong in all cases.

You sir are such a closed minded moron it is beyond belief. It is shear torture just to read your replies.

Christopher Hitchens below volunteers to be waterboarded which by the way your boy Hannity said he would and hasn't mentioned it since, COWARD!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=related

[SUPDOG]

You sir are such a closed minded moron it is beyond belief. It is shear torture just to read your replies.

Christopher Hitchens below volunteers to be waterboarded which by the way your boy Hannity said he would and hasn't mentioned it since, COWARD!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=related


It is shear torture based on the replies of a bunch of:

A. Sissified liberals who are likely scared of bunny rabbits.

B. Liberal hacks who would change their minds in a hearbeat if Obama were to state that today he thought "waterboarding is not torture and saves lives"



Me thinks that you fall into both categories.

Hey, who knows, now that you have officially come out of retirement :p, you may be man enough to answer the question:

Which is worse:

1. Someone who will stick a knife in your eyeball, cut it out, and tell you that if you don't give them the information they want, they will then cut off your nose, and finally stick your head in a vice.

2. Waterboarding.


Please don't be a hack when answering the question. :p Also, if you struggle with this one, I think I can find a 4 year old who could help you out!


I agree that Hannity would be a coward if he goes back on his word.

There you have it my little Obama bot, another complete and unbiased response to a la-la liberal.:p

[sanantonio]

It is shear torture based on the replies of a bunch of:

A. Sissified liberals who are likely scared of bunny rabbits.

B. Liberal hacks who would change their minds in a hearbeat if Obama were to state that today he thought "waterboarding is not torture and saves lives"



Me thinks that you fall into both categories.

Hey, who knows, now that you have officially come out of retirement :p, you may be man enough to answer the question:

Which is worse:

1. Someone who will stick a knife in your eyeball, cut it out, and tell you that if you don't give them the information they want, they will then cut off your nose, and finally stick your head in a vice.

2. Waterboarding.


Please don't be a hack when answering the question. :p Also, if you struggle with this one, I think I can find a 4 year old who could help you out!


I agree that Hannity would be a coward if he goes back on his word.

There you have it my little Obama bot, another complete and unbiased response to a la-la liberal.:p

I'm not out of retirement I just pop in on occassion. To answer your question we the US of A have already determined what is and what isn't torture and we executed over water boarding. It doesn't matter what you and I think is torture.

[SUPDOG]

I'm not out of retirement I just pop in on occassion. To answer your question we the US of A have already determined what is and what isn't torture and we executed over water boarding. It doesn't matter what you and I think is torture.

So, your answer to the question is that I need to find the 4 year old for you?


Got it. Unfortunately, it is just what I thought I would have to do. :p

Thanks for stopping by. ;)

[Nevada_Ballin]

So, your answer to the question is that I need to find the 4 year old for you?


Got it. Unfortunately, it is just what I thought I would have to do. :p

Thanks for stopping by. ;)

No, his answer is the world does not revolve around your puppet definitions in that alternative red world you live in. Those of us who live in reality understand that the definitions has already been determined many years ago and we signed onto them.

Maybe you can resign yourself to what most Americans believe, they believe it is torture but it is ok for us to do. There ya go. Easy way out :)

But it does bring me to the only point i've had in this thread - if we are going to be ok with it as a government (not as citizens), then we need to opt-out of all the agreements we signed. Do you agree?

[sideoutshu]

I have yet to see an honest answer to this question from any of the anti-torture folks:

If your wife or child had 60 minutes to live and you had in your custody a man who knew where they were located, is there anything you wouldn't do to obtain that information? Including pouring some water over their head?

I completely fail to understand how so many of you have a first instinct to sympathize with people who intend to do us harm. It is the same problem I have with Obama and his first instainct to apologize for America rather then defend it. Do you think that if Al-Quada had you tied up in the mountains of Afghanistan and you had information they wanted that they would be providing you with an attorney? HELL NO! Why do you people think we should show these animals any type of decency when they would show us none.

Thank god there are still people out there with the courage and balls to get the job done. I am just wondering how long they will last with idiots in the Administration releasing confidential documents, thereby embarrassing us as a country in order to gain a political advantage.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I have yet to see an honest answer to this question from any of the anti-torture folks:

If your wife or child had 60 minutes to live and you had in your custody a man who knew where they were located, is there anything you wouldn't do to obtain that information? Including pouring some water over their head?

I completely fail to understand how so many of you have a first instinct to sympathize with people who intend to do us harm. It is the same problem I have with Obama and his first instainct to apologize for America rather then defend it. Do you think that if Al-Quada had you tied up in the mountains of Afghanistan and you had information they wanted that they would be providing you with an attorney? HELL NO! Why do you people think we should show these animals any type of decency when they would show us none.

Thank god there are still people out there with the courage and balls to get the job done. I am just wondering how long they will last with idiots in the Administration releasing confidential documents, thereby embarrassing us as a country in order to gain a political advantage.


You do realize that i am not an "anti-torture" person, correct?

I am, however, a person who believes in living up to your signed agreements. If there is no intention to abide by those agreements then I want us to opt-out.

As for your scenario, you do realize that even if your tortured dude with battery acid on his eyeballs, depending on his agenda, you still may not get your answer. If he's part of a group that idolizes martyrs, he'll want you to kill him without giving you that info.

[SUPDOG]

You do realize that i am not an "anti-torture" person, correct?

I am, however, a person who believes in living up to your signed agreements. If there is no intention to abide by those agreements then I want us to opt-out.

As for your scenario, you do realize that even if your tortured dude with battery acid on his eyeballs, depending on his agenda, you still may not get your answer. If he's part of a group that idolizes martyrs, he'll want you to kill him without giving you that info.


Good point, I think Obama should release the rest of the memos and we can have an honest debate. Don't you agree?

It is dirty that the snake would only release the memos that smear the Bush administration, and then play politics with the information that waterboarding gave us.

Like I said before Obama is "playing President", like little girls play Barbie. Truth.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Good point, I think Obama should release the rest of the memos and we can have an honest debate. Don't you agree?

It is dirty that the snake would only release the memos that smear the Bush administration, and then play politics with the information that waterboarding gave us.

Like I said before Obama is "playing President", like little girls play Barbie. Truth.


We don't need Obama to release any memos to have this debate. And careful what you wish for - some of those memos may incriminate some people you don't want incriminated. You don't know exactly what's in there.

There's plenty of examples to go on through human history, we don't need memos. Let's go with John McCain. Since he was tortured for years, are you saying he compromised America by giving damaging intel because "torture works"?


.

[SUPDOG]

We don't need Obama to release any memos to have this debate. And careful what you wish for - some of those memos may incriminate some people you don't want incriminated. You don't know exactly what's in there.

There's plenty of examples to go on through human history, we don't need memos. Let's go with John McCain. Since he was tortured for years, are you saying he compromised America by giving damaging intel because "torture works"?


.

1. It is not torture.

2. MJcCain gave up information, I don't think it was valuable info, but he gave up info. Why do you think that is NB?

[MonoxideChild]

1. It is not torture.

2. MJcCain gave up information, I don't think it was valuable info, but he gave up info. Why do you think that is NB?

Lol, ripping fingernails out isn't torture? BTW, I don't think Obama is actually the one who gives direct orders to release those retarded memos. Isn't there a controversy stirring as we speak about the people that are releasing certain bits of the reports?

[sideoutshu]

As for your scenario, you do realize that even if your tortured dude with battery acid on his eyeballs, depending on his agenda, you still may not get your answer. If he's part of a group that idolizes martyrs, he'll want you to kill him without giving you that info.

That is fine, but its worth a shot. It seems like the peace mongers and terrorrist apologists are making the argument of "it might not work, so why put them through such agony". My point is that I could give two sheits about the amount of pain some coward trying to kill Americans is subjected to.

If Kahlid Sheik Muhammad (sp?) had information we needed, after what he did, ANYTHING we did to him would be justified. I don't care if we went HOSTEL STYLE on his eyeball with a blow torch if it increased our chances of gaining useful information.

There is a major difference in a Prisoner of War and a terrorist, and the rights afforded to the former should not apply to the latter across the board.

[sideoutshu]

Here's the other problem with these boneheads in the Obama administration releasing these memos that I haven't seen addressed in the media.

Obama has bascially cut the balls off of our intelligence agencies and then PUBLISHED the fact to the rest of the world. It is one thing if he wanted to issue a directive that no more torturing be done.....BUT DON'T TELL THE ENTIRE WORLD ABOUT IT! It's called leverage.

Now....in addition to not being able to use these techniques, the terrorists KNOW we can't use them, so any fear that may have been generated by the THREAT of their use is gone too.

There is a big difference in the effect of pointing a gun at someone once the target knows there are no bullets in the gun.

[Nevada_Ballin]

That is fine, but its worth a shot. It seems like the peace mongers and terrorrist apologists are making the argument of "it might not work, so why put them through such agony". My point is that I could give two sheits about the amount of pain some coward trying to kill Americans is subjected to.

If Kahlid Sheik Muhammad (sp?) had information we needed, after what he did, ANYTHING we did to him would be justified. I don't care if we went HOSTEL STYLE on his eyeball with a blow torch if it increased our chances of gaining useful information.

There is a major difference in a Prisoner of War and a terrorist, and the rights afforded to the former should not apply to the latter across the board.


My whole view on this thing has been all about thes 5 or 6 agreements we've signed that deal with the treatment of captives. As an attorney, I would think that you'd understand where I'm coming from more than most. It doesn't matter who thinks what is "torture" - the only definition that matters are the ones in the agreements we signed, they are clearly outlined in each of them.

If it was decided that we needed to go against the things we signed onto, then we should have opted-out of them before proceeding. Why did we not do that?


.

[sideoutshu]

My whole view on this thing has been all about thes 5 or 6 agreements we've signed that deal with the treatment of captives. As an attorney, I would think that you'd understand where I'm coming from more than most. It doesn't matter who thinks what is "torture" - the only definition that matters are the ones in the agreements we signed, they are clearly outlined in each of them.

If it was decided that we needed to go against the things we signed onto, then we should have opted-out of them before proceeding. Why did we not do that?


.

Why should we adhere to the international agreements we have signed when no one else does?

[GodSon20]

Hope the man upstairs forgive me for sayin this but if there was one person, who I'd look the other way if they were about to get hit by a Truck....

I'm so not lying either.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Why should we adhere to the international agreements we have signed when no one else does?

lol.. the "crybaby" theory, "Tommy doesn't listen so why should I? wah!" while answering my question with a question.

But that is my point, if we aren't going to uphold our end of agreements, then we should officially opt-out of them. All of them. Do you agree? (seriously, do you agree? if not, why not?)

We should make it official, our word means nothing. It holds zero credibility. We will behave the same as our enemies.

.

[dsteve]

Every on of your posts in this thread has been pure comedy... really, pretty funny stuff. Here you are trying to start a fight with liberal-minded people about torture based on what Ann Coulter thinks. Like Gtrght said, the whole torture question has nothing to do with whether we should do it or not. That is not the issue on the table.

It IS about the USA breaking international laws that we signed onto..

Of course, you and Coulter are too obsessed with tossing meaningless insults and trying to bring up points that have absolutely NO validity with the actual issue on the table. That's not intelligence, that's freakin' stupidity & ignorance. Try talking to the actual issue instead of sidestepping it in order to take cheap pot shots at people that end up making zero sense to the issue at hand.



what international laws? dur...uh duh.....theyre not soilders, theyre terrorist. they dont follow the "international laws" so why the **** should we? I'd be for all kinds of tourture but what they went through is very far from it and nothing we wouldnt do to our own guys when training them. the whole thing is a distraction anyway. they want to throw out bush in the media to save their *** in the 2010 elections because the economy is not going to recover and when the people realize that hes converting us to fascism through government control of the private sector, theres going to be a revolt.



Don't let these vampires brainwash you....don't let these mother****ing politicians brain wash you. They LIE in the truth, they lie...they lie....RISE UP!



(hed) pe what?

[Nevada_Ballin]

what international laws? dur...uh duh.....theyre not soilders, theyre terrorist. they dont follow the "international laws" so why the **** should we?



Another crybaby theory.......


.

[resnor]

lol.. the "crybaby" theory, "Tommy doesn't listen so why should I? wah!" while answering my question with a question.

But that is my point, if we aren't going to uphold our end of agreements, then we should officially opt-out of them. All of them. Do you agree? (seriously, do you agree? if not, why not?)

We should make it official, our word means nothing. It holds zero credibility. We will behave the same as our enemies.

.

1. We did not "behave the same as our enemies." If we did, I'd like to see the video footage of us sawing someone's head off with a knife. I'd like to see the footage of us breaking arms, fingers, etc. I'd like to see that. We poured water on and around their face, which had zero chance of them actually drowning, and suddenly we are "the same as our enemies???" WHAT?

2. We don't opt out of the treaties and conventions because we aren't violating the treaties against people who have also signed onto them. I still hold to what I said: if we MUST stand behind these treaties when dealing with groups who, independent of governments, are carrying out attacks, and torturing people themselves, and have not signed onto the treaties and conventions that we have, then the whole point of the treaties is meaningless. There is no incentive for any government to sign the treaty if it means that they will still receive the benefits of the treaty if they don't sign. It would be like if you're insurance carrier said that they would extend insurance benefits to people who didn't sign up for their insurance. If they did that, who would sign up for insurance? NO ONE. Just the same, if you expect to receive the benefits of a treaty or convention against torture, then you damn well better have signed onto that treaty or convention yourself.

[Nevada_Ballin]

1. We did not "behave the same as our enemies." If we did, I'd like to see the video footage of us sawing someone's head off with a knife. I'd like to see the footage of us breaking arms, fingers, etc. I'd like to see that. We poured water on and around their face, which had zero chance of them actually drowning, and suddenly we are "the same as our enemies???" WHAT?

.

Do you really think the USA has never done those things to anyone?


.

[resnor]

Have they? I don't know. However, since you claim that we are "just like our enemies," then the burden of proof is on you. Give me solid proof that we are "just like our enemies." If you can't, then quit claiming that. I really doubt that they have sawed prisoners heads off with knives.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

This is a good debate. I don't know the answers and I am sure I never will but I do have a few things that I have been thinking about on this topic:


Are current CIA and justice office people going to be afraid to do their jobs because they think that in 4 years when (or whenever there is a change of political power) what they have been told is legal to do could come back to haunt them and they could find themselves on the cover of the NYT?

What does this mean for the next Administration? I always thought there was this unwritten rule that when you came in you didn't release memos from the last administration. If republicans get into power next will they come in and try to dig up some stuff on the Obama administration and try to use that to to tarnish him?

How can "legal opinion" on things like this change from administration to administration? That seems very mecurial and also very scary that one president can say something isn't torture that used to be called torture and then the next president and say it is torture.

If the president appoints judges to the bench can we trust them to give him legit legal advice? This stuff just seems too incestuous for my taste...


Just thinking out loud...

-TS

[Nevada_Ballin]

Have they? I don't know. However, since you claim that we are "just like our enemies," then the burden of proof is on you. Give me solid proof that we are "just like our enemies." If you can't, then quit claiming that. I really doubt that they have sawed prisoners heads off with knives.

If you think we haven't then you're being very naive, i don't need to prove anything. Just rest assured that over the years, the USA has engaged in such acts :)

And there are people who think we should be just like our enemies - just see the many "they do it to us" comments in this thread.


.

[SUPDOG]

If you think we haven't then you're being very naive, i don't need to prove anything. Just rest assured that over the years, the USA has engaged in such acts :)

And there are people who think we should be just like our enemies - just see the many "they do it to us" comments in this thread.


.

Goofy. Drama. Nevada Ballin.


Yep, I am sure you can find the tortures in your stockpile of Marxist bookmarks. I am sure they are "all good" too, huh?

Just like your truther/alien websites, no? :)

[sideoutshu]

What does this mean for the next Administration? I always thought there was this unwritten rule that when you came in you didn't release memos from the last administration. If republicans get into power next will they come in and try to dig up some stuff on the Obama administration and try to use that to to tarnish him?


Exactly. Obama is playing politics at the expense of our global reputation and intelligence efficacy. I'm not surprised at all.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Goofy. Drama. Nevada Ballin.


Yep, I am sure you can find the tortures in your stockpile of Marxist bookmarks. I am sure they are "all good" too, huh?

Just like your truther/alien websites, no? :)


1. Are you saying the USA has never engaged in torturing people for information? Not just during the Iraq war but throughout modern history.

2. Nothing sensible to say so let's make something up part 1 (since i don't own any Marxist books)

3. Nothing sensible to say so let's make something up part 2 (since sideout hates websites like www.factcheck.org and is confusing me with Mr. YouTube/Ann Coulter cultist SupDog for some strange reason)

But answer the question, are you saying the USA has never engaged in torturing people for information?

[Nevada_Ballin]

Exactly. Every President since George Washington has played politics at the expense of our global reputation and intelligence efficacy. I'm not surprised at all.

Fixed that for you........


.

[Gtrght77]

I can't beleive this retarded thread is still going.

[MonoxideChild]

The fact of fthe matter is, Bush, said we were at WAR with the terrorists. We have a WAR on TERROR. He didn't say, we were at war with this government, or this one, he said we are in a war with terrorists and the countries that harbour them. The word WAR has a literal meaning. Oncethat word is used by the President, it's a war, not a conflict, a WAR. Now, once we (USA) are engaged in a war, we must abide by the acts which we've agreed to. Precisely the same reason we are not in Darfur. If certain words were spoken about Darfur, we'd be leagally obligated, by the UN, to send support, along with NATO. Btw, how many instances do we all know, exactly, of torture ever actually being helpful? I mean, Khalid was tortured, what, like 180 something times? And then what happened? Oh, thats right, he gave us information we had already gathered from other intelligence sources.

[sideoutshu]

there is no way to support Obama's actions, so I am going to contradict myself by saying "its ok since other Presidents have done it too" even though I have specifically argued in this very thread that the above rationale is childish and stupid.
.
Fixed it for you.

[SUPDOG]

1. Are you saying the USA has never engaged in torturing people for information? Not just during the Iraq war but throughout modern history.

2. Nothing sensible to say so let's make something up part 1 (since i don't own any Marxist books)

3. Nothing sensible to say so let's make something up part 2 (since sideout hates websites like www.factcheck.org and is confusing me with Mr. YouTube/Ann Coulter cultist SupDog for some strange reason)

But answer the question, are you saying the USA has never engaged in torturing people for information?

Probably, but none ordered by the Bush administration. :)

[FootballMecca]

Torture terrorists. F*ck em. Sparing them from waterboarding isn't going to make them tolerant to the west. Westerners are cattle to them, only to be slaughtered. We can offer our hand in a diplomatic manner only to have it cut off too. These people only understand one thing. And that is lead.

[resnor]

If you think we haven't then you're being very naive, i don't need to prove anything. Just rest assured that over the years, the USA has engaged in such acts :)

And there are people who think we should be just like our enemies - just see the many "they do it to us" comments in this thread.


.

Nevada...you claim that we, the U.S., has or does engage in real torture, yet give no proof. Then you ask me to trust you that they have? If you believe we have, you must have proof, our you would not assure me that we have. So, put the proof out there, or stop with your claims.

[MonoxideChild]

Nevada...you claim that we, the U.S., has or does engage in real torture, yet give no proof. Then you ask me to trust you that they have? If you believe we have, you must have proof, our you would not assure me that we have. So, put the proof out there, or stop with your claims.

My father was forced to eradicate a village in Vietnam, men, women, children and animals. When they were interviewed about what happened, the Army told them not to worry about prosecution of anyone, and that they will pay for any health expenses caused to them from the war, which they later rescinded. So....sounds like torture on both ends to me, much worse that waterboarding or the "Comfy Chair".

[resnor]

My father was forced to eradicate a village in Vietnam, men, women, children and animals. When they were interviewed about what happened, the Army told them not to worry about prosecution of anyone, and that they will pay for any health expenses caused to them from the war, which they later rescinded. So....sounds like torture on both ends to me, much worse that waterboarding or the "Comfy Chair".

Right...and you can prove that the orders for that came from the top...i.e., the President? I can't help it if there were soldiers who were given orders to do things in a war that they didn't like. Course, I also don't know all the facts, nor do you, nor did probably your father, about why the village was destroyed. Of course, we know that many things happened in Vietnam, that shouldn't have, specifically because there was a lack of control by the officers and higher ups.

Course, this wasn't exactly the same thing as torture that we were talking about. You can call it war crimes...but it's not the same as torture.

[MonoxideChild]

Right...and you can prove that the orders for that came from the top...i.e., the President? I can't help it if there were soldiers who were given orders to do things in a war that they didn't like. Course, I also don't know all the facts, nor do you, nor did probably your father, about why the village was destroyed. Of course, we know that many things happened in Vietnam, that shouldn't have, specifically because there was a lack of control by the officers and higher ups.

Course, this wasn't exactly the same thing as torture that we were talking about. You can call it war crimes...but it's not the same as torture.

My point is that there's a psychological toll on both sides of this thing. What happens is that thesee "interrogators" minds equate this type of behavior to getting information. This is how things get drastically perverted. Take what happened in Abu Ghraib as a perfect example. You spend enough time acting as a monster, soon enough you'll become one. And yes, they are told to act aggressively and violent.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Nevada...you claim that we, the U.S., has or does engage in real torture, yet give no proof. Then you ask me to trust you that they have? If you believe we have, you must have proof, our you would not assure me that we have. So, put the proof out there, or stop with your claims.

lol.. dude, come on.... we are not that righteous behind closed doors. Of course, maybe this comes down to what your definition of "torture" is.... one man's torture could be another man's sex fantasy, right? lol

.

[resnor]

lol.. dude, come on.... we are not that righteous behind closed doors. Of course, maybe this comes down to what your definition of "torture" is.... one man's torture could be another man's sex fantasy, right? lol

.

All I'm saying is that YOU are equating U.S. interrogators to terrorists who saw off people's heads with knives. You have no proof to substantiate this claim, only that YOU think that we "aren't that righteous behind closed doors." come on, man, you're better than that. I suppose next you'll be telling us that you believe that the government has been flooding inner cities with coke, and that we never landed on the moon, and that we assassinated JFK.

[conviction]

All I'm saying is that YOU are equating U.S. interrogators to terrorists who saw off people's heads with knives. You have no proof to substantiate this claim, only that YOU think that we "aren't that righteous behind closed doors." come on, man, you're better than that. I suppose next you'll be telling us that you believe that the government has been flooding inner cities with coke, and that we never landed on the moon, and that we assassinated JFK.

Lol i read this article in Time, obviously against torture and it said that persuasion techniques are more effective than torture techniques. Good luck getting a terrorist to give us information through persuasion HAHA.

[MonoxideChild]

All I'm saying is that YOU are equating U.S. interrogators to terrorists who saw off people's heads with knives. You have no proof to substantiate this claim, only that YOU think that we "aren't that righteous behind closed doors." come on, man, you're better than that. I suppose next you'll be telling us that you believe that the government has been flooding inner cities with coke, and that we never landed on the moon, and that we assassinated JFK.

Sooooooo, Iran-Contra never happened???

[maddenman1]

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss295/bobmighty/anncoulterbible.jpg


hhahaha OWNED

[Nevada_Ballin]

All I'm saying is that YOU are equating U.S. interrogators to terrorists who saw off people's heads with knives. You have no proof to substantiate this claim, only that YOU think that we "aren't that righteous behind closed doors." come on, man, you're better than that. I suppose next you'll be telling us that you believe that the government has been flooding inner cities with coke, and that we never landed on the moon, and that we assassinated JFK.

I don't have to prove it, just know that it's happened behind closed doors. I mean, i'm sorry that Hildawg won't give me clearence to search those records to give you the proof you seek but please, don't act like the USA has been the angel of countries on this planet.... cuz it hasn't.

meh on those conspiracy thoeries, when have you ever seen me say something along those lines? ........ Never :)

.

[dsteve]

lol.. the "crybaby" theory, "Tommy doesn't listen so why should I? wah!" while answering my question with a question.

But that is my point, if we aren't going to uphold our end of agreements, then we should officially opt-out of them. All of them. Do you agree? (seriously, do you agree? if not, why not?)

We should make it official, our word means nothing. It holds zero credibility. We will behave the same as our enemies.

.



there is no agreement between us and terrorist. look up the word agreement and get back to me.

[resnor]

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss295/bobmighty/anncoulterbible.jpg


hhahaha OWNED

Just on the off chance that you're being serious...those verses apply WITHIN a local church, not outside of the church.

Monoxide...what did Iran/Contra have to do with our government flooding our inner cities with coke?

Nevada...you can feel free to believe that our government saws people's heads off with knives, but I don't. I have a really hard time believing that that has happened, and no one went crazy about it, when you've had tons of people going crazy over enhanced interrogation tecniques.

[MonoxideChild]

Just on the off chance that you're being serious...those verses apply WITHIN a local church, not outside of the church.

Monoxide...what did Iran/Contra have to do with our government flooding our inner cities with coke?

Nevada...you can feel free to believe that our government saws people's heads off with knives, but I don't. I have a really hard time believing that that has happened, and no one went crazy about it, when you've had tons of people going crazy over enhanced interrogation tecniques.

They confiscated ridiculous amounts of cocaine, and distributed it to street dealers(see: "Freeway" Ricky Ross). Using CIA operatives, they would exchange the coke, crack at this point, and use the money to help fund the guerilla movement in Colombia and costa rica, and whatever other south american revolutionary armies there were, i.e. "The Contras". This is actually well documented by the way, it's not one of those Alex Jones conspiracies.

[Nevada_Ballin]

there is no agreement between us and terrorist. look up the word agreement and get back to me.

You may want to look up THE agreements i'm talking about and get back to me. Here's a hint - they aren't simply relevent to only those who signed them.


.

[Nevada_Ballin]

They confiscated ridiculous amounts of cocaine, and distributed it to street dealers(see: "Freeway" Ricky Ross). Using CIA operatives, they would exchange the coke, crack at this point, and use the money to help fund the guerilla movement in Colombia and costa rica, and whatever other south american revolutionary armies there were, i.e. "The Contras". This is actually well documented by the way, it's not one of those Alex Jones conspiracies.

Nice nutshell, that's exactly what happened.

.