This Is How a Prisoner of War Feels About Torture

[Crabtownboy]

How do you justify the lies you have told about the Tea Party and gun show laws with the teachings of Christ on how we are to treat others ?

I have shown you and you will not accept the truth.

No, I won't try again as yous will simply refuse to accept the truth no matter how often you are shown.

 

[carpro]

Why, is it because you know Christ would never approve of your stance?


Find a post where I have supported abortion. Why do you continue the lie?

You don't even know what my "stance" is.

You called me a liar because I said you support those that kill babies. When did you stop defending Obama? Was it before or after you voted for him twice?

I know you say you are against abortion. It is you, sir, that is the liar. By supporting those that are in favor of, and work to facillitate the murder of the innocent, you agree to what they do.

Learn to read and stop lying to yourself. We are used to you lying to us.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I have shown you and you will not accept the truth.

Another lie. You never gave any proof.

No, I won't try again as yous will simply refuse to accept the truth no matter how often you are shown.

How do you justify the lies you have told with the teachings of Christ ? I asked a question.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The truth is nobody knows how Jesus feels about torture. His ways are not our ways. The only time he addressed it is when he told us not to fear it, the he would be with us, should we face it. Anybody who says different is adding to scripture. That goes for both sides of the issue.

 

[Revmitchell]

You called me a liar because I said you support those that kill babies. When did you stop defending Obama? Was it before or after you voted for him twice?

Not only does he support politicians that support slaughtering unborn children by the vilest of means but he supports the organizations that actually perform the slaughtering.

 

[Inspector Javert]

There is no correlation between what McCain suffered and anything like what the CIA report reveals.
To equivocate what McCain suffered to the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA is to compare apples to space-ships....
The CIA's techniques are Bush-league compared to real and genuine torture.

Torture is thumb-screws, hanging people up by their thumbs and beating their feet with rods, shoving bamboo shoots underneath fingernails.

The CIA scared a phobic guy with a harmless caterpillar........yes, an insect....they scared the poor darling with a bug.
The CIA threatened people with horrific things (none of which occured).
The CIA administered unnecessary but other-wise harmless bona-fide force-feeding medical procedures (under the scrutiny of trained medical supervision).........
once to a guy who was actually on a hunger strike.<---that's saving a man's life. All U.S. prisons will force-feed someone who refuses food or water.
They gave another poor guy 1,500 calories worth of a tasteless and bland (but nutritionally sound) meal ration. THE NERVE!
The CIA administered "insult slaps" (harmless love-taps) designed to wound pride and "face-grabs" (what your mother did when you were petulant and refused to listen to her).

Yes, these and other unspeakable horrors were inflicted upon these poor victims. (With medical personnel on site to ensure no genuine threat to their health)

McCain can't move his arms higher than his shoulder blades....and is permanently broken for life.
Because he was actually tortured.
For the most part, the CIA hurt these murderers' feelings and wounded their pride....made them uncomfortable and caused no lasting physical harm whatsoever.

It is generally true that actual torture doesn't tend to yield good intelligence, but what the CIA got was very good intelligence and lots of it.
It received intelligence which saved lives, and lots of them.
How can that possibly be if torture doesn't work???????

Glad you asked:

That's because what the CIA performed was designed to psychologically break them down (what they called "enhanced interrogation techniques")
not generate horrendous physical suffering and inflict physical pain (classically called "torture").

What the CIA got WAS very effective. Those terrorists were singing like a bird.
That's because what the CIA did wasn't torture in any classically meaningful sense.

Torture is wrong....always wrong. Also it's of limited effectiveness.

But the CIA didn't torture anybody. The premise is all wrong on it's face....and makes McCain's rants sound stupid and self-aggrandizing....Time for him to go out to pasture.

 

[Use of Time]

There is no correlation between what McCain suffered and anything like what the CIA report reveals.
To equivocate what McCain suffered to the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA is to compare apples to space-ships....
The CIA's techniques are Bush-league compared to real and genuine torture.

Torture is thumb-screws, hanging people up by their thumbs and beating their feet with rods, shoving bamboo shoots underneath fingernails.

The CIA scared a phobic guy with a harmless caterpillar........yes, an insect....they scared the poor darling with a bug.
The CIA threatened people with horrific things (none of which occured).
The CIA administered unnecessary but other-wise harmless bona-fide force-feeding medical procedures (under the scrutiny of trained medical supervision).........
once to a guy who was actually on a hunger strike.<---that's saving a man's life. All U.S. prisons will force-feed someone who refuses food or water.
They gave another poor guy 1,500 calories worth of a tasteless and bland (but nutritionally sound) meal ration. THE NERVE!
The CIA administered "insult slaps" (harmless love-taps) designed to wound pride and "face-grabs" (what your mother did when you were petulant and refused to listen to her).

Yes, these and other unspeakable horrors were inflicted upon these poor victims. (With medical personnel on site to ensure no genuine threat to their health)

McCain can't move his arms higher than his shoulder blades....and is permanently broken for life.
Because he was actually tortured.
For the most part, the CIA hurt these murderers' feelings and wounded their pride....made them uncomfortable and caused no lasting physical harm whatsoever.

It is generally true that actual torture doesn't tend to yield good intelligence, but what the CIA got was very good intelligence and lots of it.
It received intelligence which saved lives, and lots of them.
How can that possibly be if torture doesn't work???????

Glad you asked:

That's because what the CIA performed was designed to psychologically break them down (what they called "enhanced interrogation techniques")
not generate horrendous physical suffering and inflict physical pain (classically called "torture").

What the CIA got WAS very effective. Those terrorists were singing like a bird.
That's because what the CIA did wasn't torture in any classically meaningful sense.

Torture is wrong....always wrong. Also it's of limited effectiveness.

But the CIA didn't torture anybody. The premise is all wrong on it's face....and makes McCain's rants sound stupid and self-aggrandizing....Time for him to go out to pasture.

Would you care to address the man that died on the floor by freezing to death? Would you care to address the sexual assault listed in the report? Would you care to address the kidnapping of a mentally challenged family member of a suspected terrorist for leverage? Would you like to address the fact that 26 out of 113 people were held without a real reason.

Torture is torture regardless of whether it was of the same level as the Hanoi Hilton. The CIA said it was effective but we have no idea what actionable intelligence was recovered.

 

[Salty]

... The CIA said it was effective but we have no idea what actionable intelligence was recovered.

That's what it boils down to - you want to be informed of classified info....

 

[Use of Time]

That's what it boils down to - you want to be informed of classified info....

No, I don't want access to classified info. I'm just saying that taking the CIA's word on it makes me skeptical considering how far they have gone to undermine this thing. They are under fire so of course they are going to say it's effective. I just question their credibility considering their attempt to hack into the committees computers and delete files.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Torture is torture regardless of whether it was of the same level as the Hanoi Hilton.

Correct. Of course, all tautologies are correct by default. Such as:
A is A
A is not...not A
A ball is a ball
A dog is a dog
A non-dog is not a dog,
A dog is not a non-dog.
Torture is torture
(and other brilliant observations)
Which is the sum total of what this statement of yours means....
"Torture is torture"....

And I reject all torture as immoral.

The CIA does not torture.
The United States does not torture.

I reject your premise totally.....

When you understand my post and choose to "address" it

I will condescend to respond to your pet scenarios....(which are irrelevant)
This is the summation of my argument:

That's because what the CIA did wasn't torture in any classically meaningful sense.

 

[Use of Time]

Correct. Of course, all tautologies are correct by default. Such as:
A is A
A is not...not A
A ball is a ball
A dog is a dog
A non-dog is not a dog,
A dog is not a non-dog.
Torture is torture
(and other brilliant observations)
Which is the sum total of what this statement of yours means....
"Torture is torture"....

And I reject all torture as immoral.

The CIA does not torture.
The United States does not torture.

I reject your premise totally.....

When you understand my post and choose to "address" it

I will condescend to respond to your pet scenarios....(which are irrelevant)
This is the summation of my argument:

You ignored about 90% of my post to make your point as well as 90% of the intelligence committee report it would seem. All you have done is quibble on your self created narrow definition of the word torture. (yes, even in the classic sense)

Listed in the report were also the examples I challenged you with which you conveniently chose to ignore in your response to me. I guess they didn't confirm to you "classical" definition of the term torture.

All you did was cherry pick the examples and try your absolute best to minimalize the situation and marginalize what happened to these people.

Man, the hatchet job on McCain has sure taken off.

 

[Inspector Javert]

You ignored about 90% of my post to make your point

I did ignore 90% of your post...not to MAKE my point...
But because I already HAD.

You didn't ADDRESS my point.

You quoted ME...
You didn't address my premise.

Thus, I only responded in concert with how you responded to my point which was that the CIA does not torture people, neither the U.S.

as well as 90% of the intelligence committee report it would seem.

My post covered a LARGE portion of the report as well as previous revealed info about the CIA interrogations...
not 100% of course, because that would be unrealistic as it's THOUSANDS of pages THOUSANDS...

So, by your own arbitrary standards you ignored 95% (at least) of the THOUSANDS of pages of that report which neither you nor I can honestly claim to have read.

I haven't read the report.
You haven't read the report.

So what's your little game??

What percentage are you ignoring then?
85%?
80%

I suggested one argument...
I stand by it.
You haven't come CLOSE to refuting it.

All you have done is quibble on your self created narrow definition of the word torture.

I denied the premise that the CIA tortures...
I deny the premise that the U.S. tortures (at least by policy)...

You have not argued the definition I presented, refuted it, nor provided examples of U.S. policy of torture which defeats my examples.
You haven't even addressed how I defined it either to refute it nor to agree to it.

You've sniveled about it.
That isn't an argument.

Listed in the report were also the examples I challenged you with

None of them are CIA policy nor U.S. policy...

which you conveniently chose to ignore in your response to me.

I've only ignored them so far (and admitted to ignoring them) because they were beyond the scope of my initial post and therefore irrelevant to my own post (which is what you responded to).
You didn't SAY ANYTHING about those alleged scenarios....you listed them as though a list of alleged atrocities is something I have to answer for...
That's crap bush-league argument, and I ALREADY TOLD YOU
I would respond to them Right here:

When you understand my post and choose to "address" it
I will condescend to respond to your pet scenarios....

So...I acknowledged your caterwauling.....
I just gave you the conditions upon which I would respond to them...
You pretend I didn't say that.
I'm not surprised.

( I guess they didn't confirm to you "classical" definition of the term torture.

They don't...
And THAT'S the crux of my argument!!!
Thanks for addressing it!!!!

All you did was cherry pick the examples

Of course, I cherry-picked my examples...

You cherry-picked yours...
Are you gonna pretend like you didn't cherry-pick yours?
Is that what you are?

Yeah it's what you are.

and try your absolute best to minimalize the situation

I absolutely and unabashedly "minimalize" every scenario in the report I provided...
I minimalize it.

I call it not torture...
I call anyone who hyper-ventilates over any example I provided a sissy and a wimp and a girl.

Yes, I minimize it absolutely.

and marginalize what happened to these people.

As pertaining to the scenarios I provided...

I minimalize.

Absolutely.

If you call that "torture"...
then testosterone does not flow through your veins.

Man, the hatchet job on McCain has sure taken off.

McCain is a moral coward and idiot who utilizes this argument to sensationalize and self-aggrandize and trade upon (for the sake of his political power) what happened to him 50 years ago.

He's gotten decades of mileage out of it, and it's utterly incomparable to anything in the CIA report.

What happened to McCain was light-years removed from anything in CIA methodology or policy.

I stand by that.

 

[Use of Time]

I did ignore 90% of your post...not to MAKE my point...
But because I already HAD.

You didn't ADDRESS my point.

You quoted ME...
You didn't address my premise.

Thus, I only responded in concert with how you responded to my point which was that the CIA does not torture people, neither the U.S.

My post covered a LARGE portion of the report as well as previous revealed info about the CIA interrogations...
not 100% of course, because that would be unrealistic as it's THOUSANDS of pages THOUSANDS...

So, by your own arbitrary standards you ignored 95% (at least) of the THOUSANDS of pages of that report which neither you nor I can honestly claim to have read.

I haven't read the report.
You haven't read the report.

So what's your little game??

What percentage are you ignoring then?
85%?
80%

I suggested one argument...
I stand by it.
You haven't come CLOSE to refuting it.

I denied the premise that the CIA tortures...
I deny the premise that the U.S. tortures (at least by policy)...

You have not argued the definition I presented, refuted it, nor provided examples of U.S. policy of torture which defeats my examples.
You haven't even addressed how I defined it either to refute it nor to agree to it.

You've sniveled about it.
That isn't an argument.

None of them are CIA policy nor U.S. policy...

I've only ignored them so far (and admitted to ignoring them) because they were beyond the scope of my initial post and therefore irrelevant to my own post (which is what you responded to).
You didn't SAY ANYTHING about those alleged scenarios....you listed them as though a list of alleged atrocities is something I have to answer for...
That's crap bush-league argument, and I ALREADY TOLD YOU
I would respond to them Right here:

So...I acknowledged your caterwauling.....
I just gave you the conditions upon which I would respond to them...
You pretend I didn't say that.
I'm not surprised.

They don't...
And THAT'S the crux of my argument!!!
Thanks for addressing it!!!!

Of course, I cherry-picked my examples...

You cherry-picked yours...
Are you gonna pretend like you didn't cherry-pick yours?
Is that what you are?

Yeah it's what you are.

I absolutely and unabashedly "minimalize" every scenario in the report I provided...
I minimalize it.

I call it not torture...
I call anyone who hyper-ventilates over any example I provided a sissy and a wimp and a girl.

Yes, I minimize it absolutely.

As pertaining to the scenarios I provided...

I minimalize.

Absolutely.

If you call that "torture"...
then testosterone does not flow through your veins.

McCain is a moral coward and idiot who utilizes this argument to sensationalize and self-aggrandize and trade upon (for the sake of his political power) what happened to him 50 years ago.

He's gotten decades of mileage out of it, and it's utterly incomparable to anything in the CIA report.

What happened to McCain was light-years removed from anything in CIA methodology or policy.

I stand by that.

You wrote a missive to say that you are standing by the fact that they don't torture while dismissing the actual acts of torture. I was referencing the atrocities highlighted in a recent article not the entirety of the report.

And spare me the bit about everybody reacting to your examples being a sissy or a girl. Appreciate the misogyny there Mr. internet tough guy. Are you going to start taking your meals rectally? I doubt it.

You are now moving goalposts by introducing the qualifier that the U.S. doesn't torture by policy now. Well no kidding. That is kind of why this thing became a big deal right? Going beyond what is considered legal in terms of the U.S. Code and International law.

You don't get to define the term torture. You stated this position that the U.S doesn't torture and willfully omitted the acts of torture that took place. So, yeah if you want to call me a "cherry picker" for reminding you that the scope of interrogation went a little bit beyond force feeding a guy on a hunger strike then go ahead.

No, I haven't read the whole report. I'm guessing that the stuff highlighted in the article is just scratching the surface though. Remember, this thing went through years of deliberation with pieces being taken out so we are left with this "sanitized" document.

All this talk of testosterone is amusing. Are you done going full on alpha male yet? Compensating much supreme internet warrior?

 

[Inspector Javert]

You wrote a missive to say that you are standing by the fact that they don't torture while dismissing the actual acts of torture.

I deny acts of torture...
you did not submit acts of torture...
you submitted alleged criminal acts of sexual assault (your words)

you submitted alleged acts of kidnapping (your words)

You submitted alleged acts of murder (freezing people to death)
none of that really constitutes "torture" or any policy of intent to torture...as per the O.P.

I was referencing the atrocities highlighted in a recent article not the entirety of the report.

Atrocities aren't necessarily torture...
they're"atrocities".
That's one of the myriads of reasons that there are so many words in the English language...

No policy of torture...
And I stand by that.
You've done NOTHING to demonstrate otherwise.
You've cried about the fate of people you don't give a flip about.

And spare me the bit about everybody reacting to your examples being a sissy or a girl.

If you react with breathless indignation to the examples I provided...
Yes, you are in fact a sissy or a girl.

Appreciate the misogyny there Mr. internet tough guy.

I am a misogynist...
ask my adoring wife and mother of my 4 children....

She loves me for it.
Only girls like you are afraid of being called "misogynists". It's been such a liner-term for so long it no longer carries any meaning when people like you use it...
Much like the term "torture".
You have no clue what that word means...

So, why would I care if you called me a "misogynist"?

Words don't mean anything to you. So, you can use whatever estrogenated feminist term you want.
I don't care.

Are you going to start taking your meals rectally?

If I kill innocent children, I've got it coming.
If I plot to murder innocent children, I've got it coming.

If I am in fact a prisoner on a hunger strike....(something cried about in the report on torture) it will occur in any State or Federal prison in the entire U.S......it saves lives.

I doubt it.

I will never plot to murder thousands of innocent women men and children....
if I do.....
I won't necessarily think that pasta with humus provided rectally (while demeaning) is truly "TORTURE"...

And if you do...

Yes...you're just a sissy girl.

I say again.
You're a girl if you think like that.

You are now moving goalposts by introducing the qualifier that the U.S. doesn't torture by policy now.

I didn't have the time in my original post to delinieate so much (and keep it brief enough)....but, that's my only contention...

if it happens by POLICY....that's the only argument I'm interested in. Abuses are criminal acts to be treated differently.

Well no kidding. That is kind of why this thing became a big deal right?

No, that's not why it became a "big deal"...
It only became a "big deal" when people started pretending that isolated incidents and abuses were policy and conflated the two...

Please show me a policy where sexual assault (which you allege) is a matter of CIA policy........
or even correctly defined as "torture"....

You're still wrong.

Going beyond what is considered legal in terms of the U.S. Code and International law.

Only idiots believe in such a thing as "International Law" to begin with...
"International Law" is whatever the United States and Great Britain say it is...
no one REALLY cares about Holland's two cents.

They don't.
If one goes BEYOND U.S. Code (which does matter) there is no provision is U.S. Code for "torture"...

That's my argument.
It isn't there, you won't find it.
The U.S. doesn't torture people.

It doesn't exist.

You don't get to define the term torture.

True.
Unequivocally true...

But neither do you..

Your stupid examples NEVER exemplified torture did they???

Kidnapping?
Sexual assault?
Falsely or wrongly imprisoning?
Freezing someone to death?

Which one of those is "torture" Webster??? huh???

Those were the cry-baby, girly, wussy-man, sissy-man, testosterone-deficient, estrogen-infused things you wanted to self-flagellate about....but none of them are torture. And none are either U.S. or C.I.A. policy.

NONE OF THOSE ARE TORTURE

You stated this position that the U.S doesn't torture and willfully omitted the acts of torture that took place.

The U.S. doesn't torture....and torture does not take place, at least, as a matter of intelligence-gathering.

So, yeah if you want to call me a "cherry picker" for reminding you that the scope of interrogation went a little bit beyond force feeding a guy on a hunger strike then go ahead.

It's not that it goes beyond that...

It's that sissies like you don't even know the difference and include them all in the same report of supposed atrocities...

Some guys were force-fed that way because it is utterly humiliating and demeaning and psychologically ruinous and degrading....
others were force-fed that way because they were on hunger-strike...

If you don't reasonably distinguish between the two...than your entire investigation is stupid and somewhat meritless if it's supposedly about "torture".

No, I haven't read the whole report. I'm guessing that the stuff highlighted in the article is just scratching the surface though.

Possibly...
And I've no problem with further investigation and prosecution of any offenders.
There were probably abuses which are contrary to law and human decency which need to be rectified....
Meanwhile, a guy in Cleveland Ohio kept numerous women imprisoned in his basement and treated as sex-slaves for decades....
But you don't want Congressional investigation of that do you?

Nor would you call force-feeding him torture would you?

Remember, this thing went through years of deliberation with pieces being taken out so we are left with this "sanitized" document.

True.....but, if you are condemning them with their own documents....you gotta give them some credence altogether don't you?
You can't on one hand claim that they are criminals by their own admission and then dismiss them when they claim that their methods were effective can you?

You would die on the hill that when they claim their methods were effective they are suspect. (because that's what you want to hear)
But you would immediately turn around and condemn them because of the facts in their own documents...

You wouldn't do that now would you?
Condemn them from their own accounts and simultaneously deny their claim of it's efficacy?

Nah, you wouldn't do that would you??

Oh, never mind you're a liberal, yes, you would.

All this talk of testosterone is amusing. Are you done going full on alpha male yet?

WOW!!!
You are the definition of liberalism aren't you :laugh::laugh:

That was comically predictable...

 

[Use of Time]

I deny acts of torture...
you did not submit acts of torture...
you submitted alleged criminal acts of sexual assault (your words)

you submitted alleged acts of kidnapping (your words)

You submitted alleged acts of murder (freezing people to death)
none of that really constitutes "torture" or any policy of intent to torture...as per the O.P.

Atrocities aren't necessarily torture...
they're"atrocities".
That's one of the myriads of reasons that there are so many words in the English language...

No policy of torture...
And I stand by that.
You've done NOTHING to demonstrate otherwise.
You've cried about the fate of people you don't give a flip about.

If you react with breathless indignation to the examples I provided...
Yes, you are in fact a sissy or a girl.

I am a misogynist...
ask my adoring wife and mother of my 4 children....

She loves me for it.
Only girls like you are afraid of being called "misogynists". It's been such a liner-term for so long it no longer carries any meaning when people like you use it...
Much like the term "torture".
You have no clue what that word means...

So, why would I care if you called me a "misogynist"?

Words don't mean anything to you. So, you can use whatever estrogenated feminist term you want.
I don't care.

If I kill innocent children, I've got it coming.
If I plot to murder innocent children, I've got it coming.

If I am in fact a prisoner on a hunger strike....(something cried about in the report on torture) it will occur in any State or Federal prison in the entire U.S......it saves lives.

I will never plot to murder thousands of innocent women men and children....
if I do.....
I won't necessarily think that pasta with humus provided rectally (while demeaning) is truly "TORTURE"...

And if you do...

Yes...you're just a sissy girl.

I say again.
You're a girl if you think like that.

I didn't have the time in my original post to delinieate so much (and keep it brief enough)....but, that's my only contention...

if it happens by POLICY....that's the only argument I'm interested in. Abuses are criminal acts to be treated differently.

No, that's not why it became a "big deal"...
It only became a "big deal" when people started pretending that isolated incidents and abuses were policy and conflated the two...

Please show me a policy where sexual assault (which you allege) is a matter of CIA policy........
or even correctly defined as "torture"....

You're still wrong.

Only idiots believe in such a thing as "International Law" to begin with...
"International Law" is whatever the United States and Great Britain say it is...
no one REALLY cares about Holland's two cents.

They don't.
If one goes BEYOND U.S. Code (which does matter) there is no provision is U.S. Code for "torture"...

That's my argument.
It isn't there, you won't find it.
The U.S. doesn't torture people.

It doesn't exist.

True.
Unequivocally true...

But neither do you..

Your stupid examples NEVER exemplified torture did they???

Kidnapping?
Sexual assault?
Falsely or wrongly imprisoning?
Freezing someone to death?

Which one of those is "torture" Webster??? huh???

Those were the cry-baby, girly, wussy-man, sissy-man, testosterone-deficient, estrogen-infused things you wanted to self-flagellate about....but none of them are torture. And none are either U.S. or C.I.A. policy.

NONE OF THOSE ARE TORTURE

The U.S. doesn't torture....and torture does not take place, at least, as a matter of intelligence-gathering.

It's not that it goes beyond that...

It's that sissies like you don't even know the difference and include them all in the same report of supposed atrocities...

Some guys were force-fed that way because it is utterly humiliating and demeaning and psychologically ruinous and degrading....
others were force-fed that way because they were on hunger-strike...

If you don't reasonably distinguish between the two...than your entire investigation is stupid and somewhat meritless if it's supposedly about "torture".

Possibly...
And I've no problem with further investigation and prosecution of any offenders.
There were probably abuses which are contrary to law and human decency which need to be rectified....
Meanwhile, a guy in Cleveland Ohio kept numerous women imprisoned in his basement and treated as sex-slaves for decades....
But you don't want Congressional investigation of that do you?

Nor would you call force-feeding him torture would you?

True.....but, if you are condemning them with their own documents....you gotta give them some credence altogether don't you?
You can't on one hand claim that they are criminals by their own admission and then dismiss them when they claim that their methods were effective can you?

You would die on the hill that when they claim their methods were effective they are suspect. (because that's what you want to hear)
But you would immediately turn around and condemn them because of the facts in their own documents...

You wouldn't do that now would you?
Condemn them from their own accounts and simultaneously deny their claim of it's efficacy?

Nah, you wouldn't do that would you??

Oh, never mind you're a liberal, yes, you would.

WOW!!!
You are the definition of liberalism aren't you :laugh::laugh:

That was comically predictable...

So much strawman here. No one at anytime claimed that the stuff I listed was U.S. policy. Yet these things still occurred right? If that is all you intersted in (the policy) then shouldn't you, I don't know...be upset that it was circumvented? What good is the policy when people ignore it?

You said the U.S. doesn't conduct torture yet apparently it happened regardless of what the policy was. You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend like that is a good thing all you want but it still happened.

Call me crazy but I would think being sexually assaulted would be a tortuous experience. I would think prolonged exposure to the elements without any clothing on but a cloth diaper would be torturous but who knows I'm just a big sissy girl right?

Doesn't it bother you that that 26 out of the 113 were found to be wrongfully detained. I mean some of those people were found to be working for us for crying out loud. Whoops! It sounds like a completely inept system to me and I don't think those guys want to be lumped with all these people plotting "mass murder." Did the mentally challenged relative of a suspected insurgent deserve to be detained to be used as leverage?

Misogyny is what it is. You keep calling me a sissy girl for some reason as a derogatory remark. Why is the female sex considered an insult? Interesting. I'm not afraid of being called that but it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

Anyways, you seem to be coming slightly unhinged here so why don't you pop a Xanax and take a nap or something. I'm going to get back to doing...sissy girl things I guess.

 

[InTheLight]

Wow, my internet access goes down for 7 hours and this place explodes!

 

[Use of Time]

Wow, my internet access goes down for 7 hours and this place explodes!

Seven hours! Are you OK? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Wow, my internet access goes down for 7 hours and this place explodes!

Yeah, we missed ya.

 

[Use of Time]

Yeah, we missed ya.

I gotta go bring in the search party. Be right back.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

They're probably cold, by now.:thumbsup: