where in the hell do you get your stats from, one in a thousand my ass. you know the same type of thinking that you use, "its ok coz their brown" is what the terrorists use when they blow up places with white people... i refuse to continue an honest debate with someone so twisted and ****ed up as you... gooodbye. hopefully you never have children, and if you do i hope they dont listen to their father regarding other cultures.
We've veered off topic after some inappropriate rhetoric from Batman Jones and crew. Let's try to return to the topic at hand. Question 1: Liberals, do you view sensory deprivation as torture? What about fake drowning, sleep deprivation, hot/cold and humiliation? This is the core of the issue -- what we define torture to be. The liberals would have us believe that the terrorists are having digits sliced off as they watch their sisters being raped. Obviously, this is not activity that I am condoning, nor any other Administration member. Question 2: Despite not wearing uniforms and attacking civilians purposefully, do the liberals believe that the terrorists are covered under the Geneva Convention?
Members of al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists who wish to kill civilians and inflict terror throughout the world.
another undefined word...."terrorist." what does it mean? you used it twice, above. it's particularly important in your Question 2. because if you assume every brown-skinned guy you pick up is a terrorist, then anything goes, i guess.
nice... so what about other NON muslim extremists? do the rules apply differently to them? i personally think that kim il jong or whatever is a terrorist...
Please, you are detracting from the conversation with that type of rhetoric. Obviously that is not what I meant and you know it. Quit pandering to the liberals to try to make friends. If you want to engage in a popularity contest, please recuse yourself to the Hangout and tell everyone what's in your CD player.
you're a joke....you know exactly what he means....stop trying to goad him into saying something about middle eastern people
Oh. My. God. Pot, kettle? Edit: That's it for me - I'm done in this mockery of a "debate and discussion".
And you're not detracting with personal jabs? I'm asking an honest question. Do you assume that everyone we pick up and question...who gets tortured...is someone who is a terrorist, under the definition you posted above?? -- "Members of al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists who wish to kill civilians and inflict terror throughout the world." because my thought is that not everyone who gets rounded up, held in custody and ultimately interrogated like this is a terrorist.
i think that there is enough evidence that shows that there is a better than 50/50 chance that they are a terrorist...and thats why they are rounded up EDIT: i should have said that there is a better than 50/50 chance that they have some sort of info about potential terrorism..or perhaps are terrorists themsleves
Really I think the criteria should be expanded to include those who may have information about the terrorist cause. In that case, the ratio jumps significantly. To the libs: You are never going to round up 100% of the bad guys without catching a few who aren't. Heck, this happens even in our criminal justice system at home. Are we emptying the prisons because of it? Heck no. That's how absurd analogies like Max's are. Liberals, do you have answers to the two questions I posed? Let us return to the topic at hand.
1. sleep deprivation? Depends on how much, but in some amounts then no it isn't torture. Humiliation? No that probably isn't torture depending on the methods used to humiliate. The rest would qualify as torture 2. The Geneva Convention covers both civillians and members of a govt. military. So the answer is yes.
For those in favor of torture does it matter that the information obtained under torture isn't reliable, and more likely to be inaccurate? Should we just torture anyway? Or should we try and use something that actually works?
