The people we make uncomfortable torture people.

Quote:The release of the already discredited Senate “torture report” has left liberals in a state of gleeful pearl clutching as they pretended to be shocked by the shocking revelation that enhanced interrogation can mean sleep deprivation and assorted mind games.

Meanwhile here’s a little reminder of what real torture looks like as perpetrated by the Taliban.

I was one of the Taliban’s torturers: I crucified people

Instead of just searching for criminals, the night patrols were instructed to seek out people watching videos, playing cards or, bizarrely, keeping caged birds. Men without long enough beards were to be arrested, as was any woman who dared venture outside her house. Even owning a kite became a criminal offence.

“Basically any form of pleasure was outlawed,” Mr Hassani said, “and if we found people doing any of these things we would beat them with staves soaked in water – like a knife cutting through meat – until the room ran with their blood or their spines snapped. Then we would leave them with no food or water in rooms filled with insects until they died.

“We always tried to do different things: we would put some of them standing on their heads to sleep, hang others upside down with their legs tied together. We would stretch the arms out of others and nail them to posts like crucifixions.”

“Maybe the worst thing I saw,” he said, “was a man beaten so much, such a pulp of skin and blood, that it was impossible to tell whether he had clothes on or not. Every time he fell unconscious, we rubbed salt into his wounds to make him scream.”

He was told that if he died while fighting under the white flag of the Taliban, he and his family would go to paradise. The soldiers were given blank marriage certificates signed by a mullah and were encouraged to “take wives” during battle, basically a licence to rape.

These were the monsters that liberals went out of their way to defend, whose cause they took up at Gitmo and whose interrogations they are now outraged by. What happened to detained Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Gitmo wasn’t torture. This was torture.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenf...d-torture/

Today on Fox, Eric Bolling pointed out that true torture was being a wife and knowing your husband was on the 90th floor as the WTC towers came down.

Water boarding the people responsible for terrorism like that is torture? No.

(12-13-2014 12:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Today on Fox, Eric Bolling pointed out that true torture was being a wife and knowing your husband was on the 90th floor as the WTC towers came down.

Water boarding the people responsible for terrorism like that is torture? No.

I had no idea Eric was someone's wife.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

First sentence.

Left liberals in a state of glee?


More along the lines of embarrassment, repugnance, and shame.

One man's junk is another man's treasure. The same can be said of torture. Making me look at this picture for a few hours and I'd plead for waterboarding.

(12-13-2014 02:35 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  One man's junk is another man's treasure. The same can be said of torture. Making me look at this picture for a few hours and I'd plead for waterboarding.

That witch knew about the so called "torture."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/pelosis...d-denials/

(12-13-2014 02:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  First sentence.

Left liberals in a state of glee?


More along the lines of embarrassment, repugnance, and shame.

Oh, so its 3rd rate haikus we're going with. Let me try my own.....

Machiavelli.

Really, really anti-semetic.


Would rather terrorists get cotton candy and warm hugs.

I know for a fact that someone benefited from the CIA's torture.

The psychologists who developed this "enhanced interrogation" were paid $81 million dollars by their services.

(12-13-2014 02:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I know for a fact that someone benefited from the CIA's torture.

The psychologists who developed this "enhanced interrogation" were paid $81 million dollars by their services.

There was no torture. Try again.

(12-13-2014 02:53 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 02:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I know for a fact that someone benefited from the CIA's torture.

The psychologists who developed this "enhanced interrogation" were paid $81 million dollars by their services.

There was no torture. Try again.

Lol, okay.

Mental torture is still torture. If waterboarding someone 183 times doesn't qualify as torture, I'm curious what you think does.

I find it ironic that one of the two psychologists involved in developing it was a bishop for the Mormon church here in Spokane. Nothing says man of God like charging $1800 a day to waterboard people.

(12-13-2014 02:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Mental torture is still torture. If waterboarding someone 183 times doesn't qualify as torture, I'm curious what you think does.

Taking, or threatening to take, life or limb.
Thats the classical definition.
Beheading counts, waterboarding doesn't.

(12-13-2014 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 02:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Mental torture is still torture. If waterboarding someone 183 times doesn't qualify as torture, I'm curious what you think does.

Taking, or threatening to take, life or limb.
Thats the classical definition.
Beheading counts, waterboarding doesn't.

Why ignore every other definition in favor of the classical definition? Because it suits your argument?

Even legal definitions differ: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

Quote:• CIA headquarters approved waterboarding on Aug. 3, 2002, under the conditions that only Mitchell and Jessen “were to have contact with” Zubaydah, and CIA officials would simply observe. Over the next 19 days, Zubaydah was subjected to enhanced interrogation on a “near 24-per-hour-per-day basis.” He was slammed against walls, struck, hooded, placed in a coffin-like “confinement box” – and waterboarded for hours on end. By the sixth day, CIA officials decided that the techniques were not producing the information about future attacks and were not likely to. The interrogations continued. Observing these sessions run by Mitchell and Jessen had a “profound” effect on CIA personnel, “some to the point of tears and choking up,” the report quotes one CIA employee saying. Zubaydah was eventually waterboarded 83 times. The report concludes the interrogations were “brutal and far worse than the CIA represented” to officials and the public. At one point, the report says, Zubaydah became “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.”

Quote:• The men also assisted in the 183 waterboardings of Mohammed in 2003, perhaps the most well-known of all the torture cases. Among the assertions in the report is that the two men threatened the lives of Mohammed’s children on the first day of their interrogations. At one point, as the intensity of the waterboarding sessions increased, they used their hands to maintain a 1-inch pool of water around his mouth. At another stage, they would wait for him to begin speaking, then pour water into his mouth.

Is there a way to spin the above into not being torture? It seems obvious to me that we have tortured terrorists, even if it wasn't as extreme as traditional methods.

Iiik

(12-13-2014 03:55 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 02:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Mental torture is still torture. If waterboarding someone 183 times doesn't qualify as torture, I'm curious what you think does.

Taking, or threatening to take, life or limb.
Thats the classical definition.
Beheading counts, waterboarding doesn't.

Why ignore every other definition in favor of the classical definition? Because it suits your argument?

No, because you asked me what I thought and I told you what I thought. And as the classical definition, there is considerable historic authority in support of it, like a few millennia worth. By the way, you'd have gotten the same answer from me in 2014 or 2004 or 1994 or 1984 or 1974.

By the way, do you know what the UN Convention on Torture actually says? Have you ever actually read it? Could you explain what part of that convention explicitly includes waterboarding as torture? In fact, why don't you give us YOUR definition of torture, based upon the provisions of the convention? Where do YOU draw the line?

(12-13-2014 01:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 12:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Today on Fox, Eric Bolling pointed out that true torture was being a wife and knowing your husband was on the 90th floor as the WTC towers came down.

Water boarding the people responsible for terrorism like that is torture? No.

I had no idea Eric was someone's wife.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Can you please think outside the box just once?

You think in two dimensions in a 3-D world.

(12-13-2014 03:55 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 02:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Mental torture is still torture. If waterboarding someone 183 times doesn't qualify as torture, I'm curious what you think does.

Taking, or threatening to take, life or limb.
Thats the classical definition.
Beheading counts, waterboarding doesn't.

Why ignore every other definition in favor of the classical definition? Because it suits your argument?

Even legal definitions differ: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

Quote:• CIA headquarters approved waterboarding on Aug. 3, 2002, under the conditions that only Mitchell and Jessen “were to have contact with” Zubaydah, and CIA officials would simply observe. Over the next 19 days, Zubaydah was subjected to enhanced interrogation on a “near 24-per-hour-per-day basis.” He was slammed against walls, struck, hooded, placed in a coffin-like “confinement box” – and waterboarded for hours on end. By the sixth day, CIA officials decided that the techniques were not producing the information about future attacks and were not likely to. The interrogations continued. Observing these sessions run by Mitchell and Jessen had a “profound” effect on CIA personnel, “some to the point of tears and choking up,” the report quotes one CIA employee saying. Zubaydah was eventually waterboarded 83 times. The report concludes the interrogations were “brutal and far worse than the CIA represented” to officials and the public. At one point, the report says, Zubaydah became “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.”

Quote:• The men also assisted in the 183 waterboardings of Mohammed in 2003, perhaps the most well-known of all the torture cases. Among the assertions in the report is that the two men threatened the lives of Mohammed’s children on the first day of their interrogations. At one point, as the intensity of the waterboarding sessions increased, they used their hands to maintain a 1-inch pool of water around his mouth. At another stage, they would wait for him to begin speaking, then pour water into his mouth.

Is there a way to spin the above into not being torture? It seems obvious to me that we have tortured terrorists, even if it wasn't as extreme as traditional methods.

It can be argued that certain medical and dental procedures are torture. The left would argue that tossing these scumbag's Korans in the crapper is torture.

(12-13-2014 04:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 03:55 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 02:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Mental torture is still torture. If waterboarding someone 183 times doesn't qualify as torture, I'm curious what you think does.

Taking, or threatening to take, life or limb.
Thats the classical definition.
Beheading counts, waterboarding doesn't.

Why ignore every other definition in favor of the classical definition? Because it suits your argument?

Even legal definitions differ: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

Quote:• CIA headquarters approved waterboarding on Aug. 3, 2002, under the conditions that only Mitchell and Jessen “were to have contact with” Zubaydah, and CIA officials would simply observe. Over the next 19 days, Zubaydah was subjected to enhanced interrogation on a “near 24-per-hour-per-day basis.” He was slammed against walls, struck, hooded, placed in a coffin-like “confinement box” – and waterboarded for hours on end. By the sixth day, CIA officials decided that the techniques were not producing the information about future attacks and were not likely to. The interrogations continued. Observing these sessions run by Mitchell and Jessen had a “profound” effect on CIA personnel, “some to the point of tears and choking up,” the report quotes one CIA employee saying. Zubaydah was eventually waterboarded 83 times. The report concludes the interrogations were “brutal and far worse than the CIA represented” to officials and the public. At one point, the report says, Zubaydah became “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.”

Quote:• The men also assisted in the 183 waterboardings of Mohammed in 2003, perhaps the most well-known of all the torture cases. Among the assertions in the report is that the two men threatened the lives of Mohammed’s children on the first day of their interrogations. At one point, as the intensity of the waterboarding sessions increased, they used their hands to maintain a 1-inch pool of water around his mouth. At another stage, they would wait for him to begin speaking, then pour water into his mouth.

Is there a way to spin the above into not being torture? It seems obvious to me that we have tortured terrorists, even if it wasn't as extreme as traditional methods.

It can be argued that certain medical and dental procedures are torture. The left would argue that tossing these scumbag's Korans in the crapper is torture.

We're not talking about what the left thinks, we're talking about the CIAs practices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-13-2014 01:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 12:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Today on Fox, Eric Bolling pointed out that true torture was being a wife and knowing your husband was on the 90th floor as the WTC towers came down.

Water boarding the people responsible for terrorism like that is torture? No.

I had no idea Eric was someone's wife.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I have a friend whose wife died in the WTC during the attacks. I'm glad you think this is funny.

(12-13-2014 02:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 02:53 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 02:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I know for a fact that someone benefited from the CIA's torture.

The psychologists who developed this "enhanced interrogation" were paid $81 million dollars by their services.

There was no torture. Try again.

Lol, okay.

Mental torture is still torture. If waterboarding someone 183 times doesn't qualify as torture, I'm curious what you think does.

I find it ironic that one of the two psychologists involved in developing it was a bishop for the Mormon church here in Spokane. Nothing says man of God like charging $1800 a day to waterboard people.

Jamming a knife under someone's fingernails and removing said nail.

Lopping off fingers and/or toes.

Beheading someone.

Using cattle prods, or some type of electrical device.

Watching a family member, or really close friend, jump from the top of the WTC on 9/11 so they don't burn to death.


Pouring water over some a-holes head, or depriving them of sleep is NOT torture. At all.

(12-13-2014 04:56 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Pouring water over some a-holes head, or depriving them of sleep is NOT torture. At all.

Plus the "torture" stops if the scumbag ups the info.

Picture of the week

Quote:

While Americans debate the ethics of using enhanced
interrogation techniques on mass murderers, pious
Muslims are casually tossing homosexuals from rooftops.