"We Will Kill Your Kids and Rape His Mother!"

[RealDealNeverstop]

Sick and inexcusable. (though iam sure those who hate America will try to defend it.)

CIA pushes boundaries in terrorism questioning

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Sick and inexcusable. (though iam sure those who hate America will try to defend it.)

CIA pushes boundaries in terrorism questioning

Right you are. And many who claim to love America have been defending it for years.

 

[Axioma]

Hasn't the CIA now transferred the duty of questioning terrorism suspects to the FBI (where it should have been all along)?

 

[Grizzly]

I'm waiting for the folks with elephants and crosses to come to this thread and defend these actions.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Notice that is was an "elephant and cross" guy who started the thread and described it as "sick and inexcusable".

 

[Conservativation]

Wow, invent a Christian that will defend something, then attack said Christian vigorously......feel good?
What a joke.
The term "strawman" in overused and often wrongly used on forums. I will send those who dont get the concept here to see how that works.

 

[Grizzly]

Notice that is was an "elephant and cross" guy who started the thread and described it as "sick and inexcusable".

Realdeal is often the exception to the rule. There are also a few others. But the most vociferous defenders of torture on these boards bear the elephant and the cross.

 

[Grizzly]

Wow, invent a Christian that will defend something, then attack said Christian vigorously......feel good?
What a joke.
The term "strawman" in overused and often wrongly used on forums. I will send those who dont get the concept here to see how that works.

I have invented no one. These people are here and they will post. Are you one of them? Perhaps you would like to voice your opinion about the torture of detainees?

 

[Conservativation]

I have invented no one. These people are here and they will post. Are you one of them? Perhaps you would like to voice your opinion about the torture of detainees?

Don't bait me, I wont bite

In a thread on torture of detainees, I would, provided the discourse was more than what Im learning is the norm here which is sarcastic dismissal with semi-cute John Stewartisms, and zero factual depth. Kind of like arguing against folks that havent yet posted.

You could just do that in the quiet of your room/cubicle/office/car...and not expend the typing effort. Just create an imaginary adversary....um....lets just call him, oh I dont know, lets call him GWB, yea, then pretend he is in the car, and argue with him...insult him...make fun of him....carry his side of the dialog too....

Its fun.

 

[Grizzly]

Don't bait me, I wont bite

In a thread on torture of detainees, I would, provided the discourse was more than what Im learning is the norm here which is sarcastic dismissal with semi-cute John Stewartisms, and zero factual depth. Kind of like arguing against folks that havent yet posted.

You could just do that in the quiet of your room/cubicle/office/car...and not expend the typing effort. Just create an imaginary adversary....um....lets just call him, oh I dont know, lets call him GWB, yea, then pretend he is in the car, and argue with him...insult him...make fun of him....carry his side of the dialog too....

Its fun.

I don't blame you for dodging the question by making a strawman out of me. You can appear witty to a bunch of strangers on an internet site, without having to post anything of substance.

But the question remains. Do you support what has been done to the detainees in our name?

 

[AirPo]

Don't bait me, I wont bite

Asking you to respond to the OP is baiting? That's a new one.

In a thread on torture of detainees, I would,

It is, you haven't.

 

[AirPo]

Realdeal is often the exception to the rule. There are also a few others. But the most vociferous defenders of torture on these boards bear the elephant and the cross.

His elephant has also been called into question more than once.

 

[Conservativation]

Asking you to respond to the OP is baiting? That's a new one.

It is, you haven't.

Nope, the thread is about a SPECIFIC thing that occured. You asked about generally how i would respond to torture.

get it?

General......Specific.........they differ

 

[AirPo]

Nope, the thread is about a SPECIFIC thing that occured.

Yes, specifically the torture of detainees

You asked about generally how i would respond to torture.

get it?

General......Specific.........they differ

And yet you offer neither.

 

[chaz345]

Hasn't the CIA now transferred the duty of questioning terrorism suspects to the FBI (where it should have been all along)?

My understanding of how that works is that generally the FBI deals domestically and the CIA internationally. Obviously there's going to be overlap when the suspect was found overseas but was planning a domestic attack. But I believe your assertion that the FBI alone should be handling all terrorism suspects is incorrect.

 

[JustOneWay]

Nope, the thread is about a SPECIFIC thing that occured. You asked about generally how i would respond to torture.

get it?

General......Specific.........they differ

You are clearly scanning, and not reading.
In the OP link, there are multiple specific things which occurred, not one as you state.
Its explains alot. I can pick the scanners out right away.

 

[Conservativation]

You are clearly scanning, and not reading.
In the OP link, there are multiple specific things which occurred, not one as you state.
Its explains alot. I can pick the scanners out right away.

Oh this is bad. YOU ARE CORRECT! I did scan. Guilty as charged.

Sorry about that. I was basing my responses on the title and not the post.

So, glad you acknowledged this issue of scanning.....my bad.

 

[Conservativation]

You are clearly scanning, and not reading.
In the OP link, there are multiple specific things which occurred, not one as you state.
Its explains alot. I can pick the scanners out right away.

Oh hold on a minute....there is a catch. You were too clever.

texas Lynn (who you are defending by proxy for some reason) DID scan my actual typed words.

I see now that there is a link in the OP.

Shux I didnt even scan it, I didnt even CLICK it. I responded EXACTLY to the Original Post. Yep, i omitted the article.

You can see the difference, surely, uh, cant you? Please oh please tell me you see it.....Im ruined.

 

[Conservativation]

I don't blame you for dodging the question by making a strawman out of me. You can appear witty to a bunch of strangers on an internet site, without having to post anything of substance.

But the question remains. Do you support what has been done to the detainees in our name?

What has been done to the detainees in our name? Do you mean ALL detainees, or the tortured detainees? Are you against detention in the first place?
the question you asked cannot be answered because there is no thing that "has been done to the detainees in our name" as such.

I will answer the question, when it is asked. I won't engage further beyond that because this is not a factual debate. Its a moral preference debate. I cannot objectively PROVE for example that it was OK to do something. No amount of convoluted moral comparison can prove OBJECTIVELY that it was NOT OK. Therefore, I fully respect your opinion. Fully, and I mean that.

I have said nothing of substance because there is nothing of substance TO say. We could go round and round that 7 detainees were tortured or 44 detainees were tortured. and though I do not know it, a REAL answer to that does exist. But that I agree or disagree with what factually was done is pointless to debate. There indeed ARE certain hypocrisies and inconsistencies in holding a so called "pro-torture" stance (even though thats a misstated description)....much as there is when debating any all all moral things of similar flavor such as death penalty and abortion. We all believe as we do. Thats it. I agree to disagree.

On other issues where there are facts, pros, cons, etc....THEN there are substantive things to say. for example, playing lose with facts like your signature line....THATS factually wrong. Its not a moral issue, or an agree to disagree....it IS or it ISNT. In this case it ISNT. But it persists. So be it.

Back on the OP.....so, whats the question again?

 

[hsilgne]

Perhaps 'pretty please with a cherry on top' will get these terrorists to talk about how they plan on murdering us.

terrorist... 'Ha, you stupid infadels will die soon'

cia... 'do you know of a plot'

terrorst... 'yes, and your family will burn and die like they deserve, HA!'

cia... 'tell us when and where this will be taking place'

terrorist... 'no, you infadel pig'

cia... 'please tell us, here have a hamburger, it's from McDonalds buddy'

terrorist... 'gobble, gobble, slurp,'

cia... please tell us, pretty please'

terorist... 'burn in hell you dirty pigs'

cia.... oh, c'mon, pretty PRETTY please'

terrorist.... 'soon you will be in hell where you deserve you dirty scumbag infadel'

cia... 'c'mon buddy, pretty pleeeeeaaasse.... with a cherry on top?'

terrorist.... 'well ok, since you put a cherry on top... the bombs are planted at....'



Silly people. Use your common sense.