Originally Posted by highway234

l

the parallel to me is clear. cons made exploiting personal idiosyncracies and fears acceptable, as my link demonstrates. this guy is simply carrying on that philosophy. i don't see where my reasoning has gone astray here. why don't you explain to me how if this guy is listening to cons, that he's not just taking your lessons to heart. he's just applying them to someone you would rather your torture techniques not be applied to.

cons are on record saying fake drowning is an acceptable form of interrogation. ditto stress positions/being forced to be smeared in your own waste (do i need to re-post that horrific picture of the guy from abu ghraib covered in feces? that's what happens in stress positions -- you urinate and defecate yourself). ditto finding out what your victim's deepest fears are and exploiting them.

cons are on record saying all these things are ok. so sorry your disciples are applying these lessons to victims you never intended. but hey, no one ever said publicly endorsing torture would be easy, ethically.

Originally Posted by Granite

Do you realize how idiotic you sound in your last series of posts?

I suppose you would blame Conservatives if some nutcase murders a doctor who performs abortions just because Conservatives have said that abortion is bad, eh?

Do you even believe in a person being personally responsible for their actions? Or do you revel in finding ways to blame the Conservatives for everything?


Pathetic Liberals!

Originally Posted by Léon Bloy, 1904

Lack of money characterizes my life to such an extent that, even when i don't have any money at all, it seems to dwindle even further.

Originally Posted by Granite

Furthermore, Mr. Nydas, you disappoint me. As a Soldier, you should have been trained to be precise and accurate when reporting information. Tell me, when you are in a combat situation, are you going to employ similar tactics? Are you going to use hyperbole, stretch the truth and imply incorrect correlations when giving reports to your superiors?

Pathetic Liberals!

Originally Posted by Nydas

http://www.alan.com/2010/02/07/us-so...wing-alphabet/



Good for him. That will teach that little terrorist not to mess with the USA and to recite her ABCs when shes told. Its not torture, so he shouldn't get into trouble. I bet he even got WMD locations out of her.




And anyone who thinks im being serious, call your Internet provider, and cancel your connection.

Originally Posted by highway234

do you realize how idiotic the pro-torture crowd sounds when they say it's ok to use water to mock-execute people, and then when people take that lesson to heart in their private lives, suddenly these same people are offended?

publicly endorsing torture is a sickening practice. cons have been doing it for years. the fact that this guy carefully followed the bush plan for enhanced interrogation seems quite obvious. people in the story itself comment on it.

bed.

made.

lie in it.

EDIT: you have to be kidding me talking about "personal responsibility." cons blame their economic collapse on something that happened in 1977. they let the biggest attack in american history happen on their watch, and they blame it on something that happened three years before.

a con, talking about "personal responsibility." don't make me laugh.

Originally Posted by Rebellion

Do you realize how idiotic the anti-torture crowd sounds when they compare waterboarding the mastermind of 9/11 to a 4 year old? Soldiers are forced to train by ducking live fire as bullets shoot over their heads. Using the "logic" of the left it's ok to do this to a 4 year old because others don't define it as torture. At what point did people who make these leaps lose all common sense?

Originally Posted by Léon Bloy, 1904

Lack of money characterizes my life to such an extent that, even when i don't have any money at all, it seems to dwindle even further.

Originally Posted by highway234

l

the parallel to me is clear. cons made exploiting personal idiosyncracies and fears acceptable, as my link demonstrates. this guy is simply carrying on that philosophy. i don't see where my reasoning has gone astray here. why don't you explain to me how if this guy is listening to cons, that he's not just taking your lessons to heart. he's just applying them to someone you would rather your torture techniques not be applied to.

cons are on record saying fake drowning is an acceptable form of interrogation. ditto stress positions/being forced to be smeared in your own waste (do i need to re-post that horrific picture of the guy from abu ghraib covered in feces? that's what happens in stress positions -- you urinate and defecate yourself). ditto finding out what your victim's deepest fears are and exploiting them.

cons are on record saying all these things are ok. so sorry your disciples are applying these lessons to victims you never intended. but hey, no one ever said publicly endorsing torture would be easy, ethically.