Sympathy for the Devil?

[Iceweasel]

OK libs. Who will answer honestly?

Let's say you caught someone that knew where your child was that going to be killed (for whatever purpose, let's say it's a sacrifice children to Baal cult) and you didn't have much time. How far would you go to get information?

Nutters use the ticking time bomb game......trying to equate personal anguish with national character. It is an insult to the intelligence of others.

Torture doesn't work. I'd buy the suspect a beer and a sandwich....engage him or her in discussions and try to gain trust so that he or she tells me the truth regarding what he or she knows.

If I fail....and my child was killed....I'd cut that ****** open at his neck and shit down his throat.

Good answer, dummy?

If it's an honest answer it's a good answer. But it doesn't sound like an honest answer.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK libs. Who will answer honestly?

Let's say you caught someone that knew where your child was that going to be killed (for whatever purpose, let's say it's a sacrifice children to Baal cult) and you didn't have much time. How far would you go to get information?

I would hand them over to the FBI to interrogate because they know what they are doing and I don't.

And yes, this person will subsequently be tried as an accomplice to a kidnapping and/or murder which is how the system is supposed to work.

Only a fool believes that they are a law unto themselves.

The FBI would be constrained by law, he can get lawyer up first. So the answer is that you would let your child die. OK, not me though. I wouldn't be the law, I'd be operating waaaaaay outside of the law and making him beg me to listen.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK libs. Who will answer honestly?

Let's say you caught someone that knew where your child was that going to be killed (for whatever purpose, let's say it's a sacrifice children to Baal cult) and you didn't have much time. How far would you go to get information?

Nutters use the ticking time bomb game......trying to equate personal anguish with national character. It is an insult to the intelligence of others.

Torture doesn't work. I'd buy the suspect a beer and a sandwich....engage him or her in discussions and try to gain trust so that he or she tells me the truth regarding what he or she knows.

If I fail....and my child was killed....I'd cut that ****** open at his neck and shit down his throat.

Good answer, dummy?

If it's an honest answer it's a good answer. But it doesn't sound like an honest answer.

Are you ******* kidding me? It was absolutely honest. I KNOW that torture does not work. It never has. I would never employ torture in a situation like that. Never.

 

[Derideo_Te]

OK libs. Who will answer honestly?

Let's say you caught someone that knew where your child was that going to be killed (for whatever purpose, let's say it's a sacrifice children to Baal cult) and you didn't have much time. How far would you go to get information?

I would hand them over to the FBI to interrogate because they know what they are doing and I don't.

And yes, this person will subsequently be tried as an accomplice to a kidnapping and/or murder which is how the system is supposed to work.

Only a fool believes that they are a law unto themselves.

The FBI would be constrained by law, he can get lawyer up first. So the answer is that you would let your child die. OK, not me though. I wouldn't be the law, I'd be operating waaaaaay outside of the law and making him beg me to listen.

In other words you would become a criminal yourself. A kidnapper and a murderer if needs be.

What happens if the authorities find out what you did? Then you end up behind bars where you become someone's girlfriend.

 

[Derideo_Te]

OK libs. Who will answer honestly?

Let's say you caught someone that knew where your child was that going to be killed (for whatever purpose, let's say it's a sacrifice children to Baal cult) and you didn't have much time. How far would you go to get information?

Nutters use the ticking time bomb game......trying to equate personal anguish with national character. It is an insult to the intelligence of others.

Torture doesn't work. I'd buy the suspect a beer and a sandwich....engage him or her in discussions and try to gain trust so that he or she tells me the truth regarding what he or she knows.

If I fail....and my child was killed....I'd cut that ****** open at his neck and shit down his throat.

Good answer, dummy?

If it's an honest answer it's a good answer. But it doesn't sound like an honest answer.

Are you ******* kidding me? It was absolutely honest. I KNOW that torture does not work. It never has. I would never employ torture in a situation like that. Never.

Fantasies of Jack Baer are what give them wet dreams. In real life they will be the one begging and crying on the floor.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK libs. Who will answer honestly?

Let's say you caught someone that knew where your child was that going to be killed (for whatever purpose, let's say it's a sacrifice children to Baal cult) and you didn't have much time. How far would you go to get information?

I would hand them over to the FBI to interrogate because they know what they are doing and I don't.

And yes, this person will subsequently be tried as an accomplice to a kidnapping and/or murder which is how the system is supposed to work.

Only a fool believes that they are a law unto themselves.

The FBI would be constrained by law, he can get lawyer up first. So the answer is that you would let your child die. OK, not me though. I wouldn't be the law, I'd be operating waaaaaay outside of the law and making him beg me to listen.

Yes, I'd be a criminal and probably dead when I bit the rapist's dick off. But my child would be safe.

In other words you would become a criminal yourself. A kidnapper and a murderer if needs be.

What happens if the authorities find out what you did? Then you end up behind bars where you become someone's girlfriend.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK libs. Who will answer honestly?

Let's say you caught someone that knew where your child was that going to be killed (for whatever purpose, let's say it's a sacrifice children to Baal cult) and you didn't have much time. How far would you go to get information?

Nutters use the ticking time bomb game......trying to equate personal anguish with national character. It is an insult to the intelligence of others.

Torture doesn't work. I'd buy the suspect a beer and a sandwich....engage him or her in discussions and try to gain trust so that he or she tells me the truth regarding what he or she knows.

If I fail....and my child was killed....I'd cut that ****** open at his neck and shit down his throat.

Good answer, dummy?

If it's an honest answer it's a good answer. But it doesn't sound like an honest answer.

Are you ******* kidding me? It was absolutely honest. I KNOW that torture does not work. It never has. I would never employ torture in a situation like that. Never.

So you two libs would let your child die. I thought so.

 

[Interpol]

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

It isn't about garnering sympathy for the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It's about how we can't even try most of these people in court because we tortured them. Most of these people would be either serving life sentences or on death row right now, but oh no, the neo-cons just had to go about things as stupidly as possible. The only options we have now with people at Gitmo are to send them back to countries that will take them because Bush and Dick didn't think to collect evidence against these people and put them away for good, that is the guilty ones.

How we apprehended these detainees was also faulty. We paid Afghan warlords to round up bad guys. Of course, they rounded up any old random person in exchange for cash and much of those people were not terrorists. A cab driver was the subject of the doc "Taxi to the Dark Side". He was handed over for American money. Never had any involvement with terrorists, but we tortured him and he died.

If all you torture sympathizers got is, "but but but, they do worse things to us!", then you don't have much of an argument because rationalizing our behavior and saying it was only slightly less worse than terrorists is, on its face, stupid.

 

[Interpol]

After 6 years of watching the GOP vandals spray paint Scandals all over the White House walls, here's mud in your eye.

That's exactly right. This torture report reminds us of real scandals, not invented b.s. like Benghazi.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK libs. Who will answer honestly?

Let's say you caught someone that knew where your child was that going to be killed (for whatever purpose, let's say it's a sacrifice children to Baal cult) and you didn't have much time. How far would you go to get information?

Nutters use the ticking time bomb game......trying to equate personal anguish with national character. It is an insult to the intelligence of others.

Torture doesn't work. I'd buy the suspect a beer and a sandwich....engage him or her in discussions and try to gain trust so that he or she tells me the truth regarding what he or she knows.

If I fail....and my child was killed....I'd cut that ****** open at his neck and shit down his throat.

Good answer, dummy?

If it's an honest answer it's a good answer. But it doesn't sound like an honest answer.

Are you ******* kidding me? It was absolutely honest. I KNOW that torture does not work. It never has. I would never employ torture in a situation like that. Never.

So you two libs would let your child die. I thought so.

Jackass.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

Try again.

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

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

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

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

And there's yet another sidestep. Once you have been cornered, you drag good oil' Obama into the mix.

You sir, are truly an idiot.

You cannot defend your position and that makes me the idiot. Got it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

We tortured, idiot. Accept it.

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

I haven't lost anything. I've been forced to repeat facts by idiots who refuse to accept them. I'm going to keep doing so. This is a fact. The United States employed torture techniques while interrogating prisoners of war. We did it. Period.

See. DOesnt know the difference between fact and opinion.
How can anyone have a decent discussion when even the basic are beyond his grasp?

It's a fact. The United States tortured people between 2001 and 2009. It is something we as a nation did. Accept it. Then we can move on.

Merely repeating yourself makes you look stupid. Just saying.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

It isn't about garnering sympathy for the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It's about how we can't even try most of these people in court because we tortured them. Most of these people would be either serving life sentences or on death row right now, but oh no, the neo-cons just had to go about things as stupidly as possible. The only options we have now with people at Gitmo are to send them back to countries that will take them because Bush and Dick didn't think to collect evidence against these people and put them away for good, that is the guilty ones.

How we apprehended these detainees was also faulty. We paid Afghan warlords to round up bad guys. Of course, they rounded up any old random person in exchange for cash and much of those people were not terrorists. A cab driver was the subject of the doc "Taxi to the Dark Side". He was handed over for American money. Never had any involvement with terrorists, but we tortured him and he died.

If all you torture sympathizers got is, "but but but, they do worse things to us!", then you don't have much of an argument because rationalizing our behavior and saying it was only slightly less worse than terrorists is, on its face, stupid.

Sorry but what crime did they commit? They are prisoners of war, not subject to the Geneva Convention.

 

[The Rabbi]

After 6 years of watching the GOP vandals spray paint Scandals all over the White House walls, here's mud in your eye.

That's exactly right. This torture report reminds us of real scandals, not invented b.s. like Benghazi.

There is no scandal. Except that Democrats are going back to this over and over because they need to deflect from their own failures in both foreign and domestic policy.
The truth is, no one gives a shit about murdering Arab terrorists. If plucking their toenails out would save one American life most of America would be for it. Especially if that one life was theirs.
Dems are manufacturing faux outrage.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We tortured, idiot. Accept it.

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

I haven't lost anything. I've been forced to repeat facts by idiots who refuse to accept them. I'm going to keep doing so. This is a fact. The United States employed torture techniques while interrogating prisoners of war. We did it. Period.

See. DOesnt know the difference between fact and opinion.
How can anyone have a decent discussion when even the basic are beyond his grasp?

It's a fact. The United States tortured people between 2001 and 2009. It is something we as a nation did. Accept it. Then we can move on.

Merely repeating yourself makes you look stupid. Just saying.

I've got to. I'm conversing with idiots. You need shit pounded into your thick nutter skull.

I wonder what it's like to have daily "arguments" with someone who is obviously more intelligent than you are? I'm not the smartest person here....but I don't go around trying to best those who are smarter than me. You do that every day with several people. Does it work for you?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

I haven't lost anything. I've been forced to repeat facts by idiots who refuse to accept them. I'm going to keep doing so. This is a fact. The United States employed torture techniques while interrogating prisoners of war. We did it. Period.

See. DOesnt know the difference between fact and opinion.
How can anyone have a decent discussion when even the basic are beyond his grasp?

It's a fact. The United States tortured people between 2001 and 2009. It is something we as a nation did. Accept it. Then we can move on.

Merely repeating yourself makes you look stupid. Just saying.

I've got to. I'm conversing with idiots. You need shit pounded into your thick nutter skull.

I wonder what it's like to have daily "arguments" with someone who is obviously more intelligent than you are? I'm not the smartest person here....but I don't go around trying to best those who are smarter than me. You do that every day with several people. Does it work for you?

Yes, yes, let the butthurt flow through you.

If anyone needed confirmation you are way, way, out of your league this is it. You merely repeat your position and when called on it, quote some other asshole who said the same thing and then when called on that you repeat your position a few more times.
Here's a hint: if you find yourself doing that, you don't have an argument that can be defended.

 

[Rozman]

Don't you think we should be holding ourselves to a higher standard than our enemy?

We need to wake up and use whatever means necessary to defend this country and it's citizens.
Are we looking to score points with the evil that wants to kill us at any chance they get.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I haven't lost anything. I've been forced to repeat facts by idiots who refuse to accept them. I'm going to keep doing so. This is a fact. The United States employed torture techniques while interrogating prisoners of war. We did it. Period.

See. DOesnt know the difference between fact and opinion.
How can anyone have a decent discussion when even the basic are beyond his grasp?

It's a fact. The United States tortured people between 2001 and 2009. It is something we as a nation did. Accept it. Then we can move on.

Merely repeating yourself makes you look stupid. Just saying.

I've got to. I'm conversing with idiots. You need shit pounded into your thick nutter skull.

I wonder what it's like to have daily "arguments" with someone who is obviously more intelligent than you are? I'm not the smartest person here....but I don't go around trying to best those who are smarter than me. You do that every day with several people. Does it work for you?

Yes, yes, let the butthurt flow through you.

If anyone needed confirmation you are way, way, out of your league this is it. You merely repeat your position and when called on it, quote some other asshole who said the same thing and then when called on that you repeat your position a few more times.
Here's a hint: if you find yourself doing that, you don't have an argument that can be defended.

I'm still waiting for your argument.

You say torture works. Prove it. *****.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Don't you think we should be holding ourselves to a higher standard than our enemy?

We need to wake up and use whatever means necessary to defend this country and it's citizens.
Are we looking to score points with the evil that wants to kill us at any chance they get.

What did Washington, Lincoln and Eisenhower have to say about how prisoners should be treated?

You are invested in following George W Bush's lead. I'm going with the real heroes.

 

[Camp]

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

It isn't about garnering sympathy for the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It's about how we can't even try most of these people in court because we tortured them. Most of these people would be either serving life sentences or on death row right now, but oh no, the neo-cons just had to go about things as stupidly as possible. The only options we have now with people at Gitmo are to send them back to countries that will take them because Bush and Dick didn't think to collect evidence against these people and put them away for good, that is the guilty ones.

How we apprehended these detainees was also faulty. We paid Afghan warlords to round up bad guys. Of course, they rounded up any old random person in exchange for cash and much of those people were not terrorists. A cab driver was the subject of the doc "Taxi to the Dark Side". He was handed over for American money. Never had any involvement with terrorists, but we tortured him and he died.

If all you torture sympathizers got is, "but but but, they do worse things to us!", then you don't have much of an argument because rationalizing our behavior and saying it was only slightly less worse than terrorists is, on its face, stupid.

Sorry but what crime did they commit? They are prisoners of war, not subject to the Geneva Convention.

Like always, you just make shit up in your head and spout it out, exposing yourself as a partisan agenda driven low information fool. Why would anyone believe your nonsense is a mystery to me. Now explain this concept of yours that makes the terrorist that are not members of a nations military and captured on the battlefield qualify for prisoner of war status. When you are finished that one, explain how civilians captured or coming under control in a war zone by an occupying or controlling force during warfare do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention.