Republicans have a hard on for torture

[molly bloom]

What does the Easter Bunny say about that?

Another of your invisible friends ?

Or is it a time-sharing deity type thang ?

[loinburger]

I didn't think you would defend the article.

I don't think that anything short of being tortured by Americans would convince you that torture conducted by Americans is a bad thing

[Kidlicious]

You might try reason anyway. There really is no point to your continuous insane ramblings anyway.

[molly bloom]

You might try reason anyway. There really is no point to my continuous insane ramblings anyway.

I concur.

[loinburger]

You might try reason anyway.

I don't think that anything short of being tortured by Americans would convince you that torture conducted by Americans is a bad thing

Every time somebody has tried to reason with you, you have either ignored them, insulted them, gone off on an insane Easter bunny tangent, or some combination of the three. You are either an excellent troll, a terrible human being, or some combination of the two.

[Kidlicious]

If you use reason, as you claim, why did you quote that article?

[loinburger]

If you use reason, as you claim, why did you quote that article?

First off, why would it be unreasonable in general to quote the article. Presumably you have some objections to it that you haven't posted other than your usual trite "durr article says something contrary to what I believe therefore it's automatically crap" - I'd ask you to voice your objections in a sane coherent manner, but we all know that's not going to happen.

And secondly, you asked if the article said anything about sadism. I quoted parts about sadism. What the hell is wrong with you.

So nothing about how people who aren't liberal deriving sexual pleasure from causing pain to others?

The Americans who engaged in this sadism should not necessarily be considered sadists. As their Republican defenders point out, they lived in terror of another mass-casualty attack. Their brutality arose from an attempt to prevent brutality on an even wider scale.

The failings of the torture regimen were, in fact, every conservative nightmare of a failed, out-of-control government program come to life. Through banal bureaucratic dysfunction, the torturers stumbled into a practice that lacked any sound empirical basis. (The CIA—which simply reverse-engineered the resistance training its own elite soldiers underwent, which tought them to withstand torture from communist regimes attempting to solicit propagandist false confessions—never considered that a practice designed to elicit false confessions is poorly suited to drawing out true ones.) Officials covered up their own mistakes; soldiers carried out practices haphazardly—some subjects were tortured for weeks before being interrogated. These are all acts of cruelty that Republicans would surely find terrifying—evil, even—if enacted by foreign governments, or Democratic administrations. And yet a fixation on evil abroad rendered invisible the most egregious abuses of government powers at home.

[loinburger]

If you are just trolling, then please come out of the closet, because this is getting really depressing. You're at Giancarlo levels of stupid, but old enough that you ought to know better, and without the twink pictures.

[Kidlicious]

So you don't know what's wrong with that article? And you don't know why you don't understand my posts (think I'm crazy or trolling)?

There's a term used by the writer, cognitive dissonance. The thing is that the writer suffers from this debilitation, just like you do.

Is it a possibility that this is the result of sadism? Is it because Cheney is just pure evil, and he has secret tapings of the torture that he masturbates to every night? It's a possibility, but not likely. Not just not likely, but it's not a reasonable thing to believe without any evidence.

So there's another possibility that isn't considered by either you or the writer. That is, this is not the result of sadism, but the result of people doing their job (people who actually know their job unlike you, the writer and senators like Fienstien).

It's called reason.

There are contradictions in that article that hopefully don't need to be addressed. It's a piece of ****. Why is it a piece of ****? Because the writer is the worst kind of liberal, the kind that ....

1). Say everything that can possibly be called a War on Women should be called so...
2). When a thug is shot by police it has to be because he's black. There are no other possibilities.
3). There is no reason to not let people go to sleep when they want to, not even to protect women and children. Whoever does so derives sexual pleasure from it.

[ricketyclik]

Your "argument" seems to be that the ends justify the means, without exploring the idea of what other means there may be.

[C0ckney]

[a load of unreasonable nonsense]

It's called reason.

[Kidlicious]

Your "argument" seems to be that the ends justify the means, without exploring the idea of what other means there may be.

They weren't dealing with 18 year old gang bangers protecting their friend who shot someone. These people had training on resisting interrogation. Also, this was a matter of national security. Again, you're running the assumption that they had no good reasons to do this. They could possibly be tried as war criminals. They took a big risk. They didn't do it to get an erection.

[loinburger]

So there's another possibility that isn't considered by either you or the writer. That is, this is not the result of sadism, but the result of people doing their job (people who actually know their job unlike you, the writer and senators like Fienstien).

The writer does consider this, it's actually the paragraph that I quoted that you asked me to quote and then got upset that I quoted. Again, what the hell is wrong with you - if you're going to dismiss an article as liberal lies without even reading it (for that matter, without even reading the specific parts that were quoted that you asked to have quoted) then you're going to come off like, at best, an ignorant *******.

[loinburger]

You've avoided this question in the past because you're ridiculously dishonest, but let's try this again. The CIA is trying to prevent Another 9/11, and to do this they want to engage in the following activities. Which if any do you consider to be immoral ("children" refers to children who are under 18 years of age)

1. Depriving suspected terrorists of sleep
2. Physically maiming suspected terrorists
3. Killing suspected terrorists via firing squad
4. Killing suspected terrorists via a torturous method (e.g. burnt alive)
5. A female interrogator fellating a male suspected terrorist
6. A male interrogator fellating a male suspected terrorist
7. A male interrogator receiving anal sex from a male suspected terrorist
8. Depriving suspected terrorists' children of sleep
9. Physically maiming suspected terrorists' children
10. Killing suspected terrorists' children via firing squad
11. Killing suspected terrorists' children via a torturous method (e.g. burnt alive)

[Kidlicious]

The writer does consider this, it's actually the paragraph that I quoted that you asked me to quote and then got upset that I quoted. Again, what the hell is wrong with you - if you're going to dismiss an article as liberal lies without even reading it (for that matter, without even reading the specific parts that were quoted that you asked to have quoted) then you're going to come off like, at best, an ignorant *******.

Lack of empirical evidence is not an indication that they got boners from torturing people. WTF?! How would you get empirical evidence for that?