Is waterboarding torture? - Page 71

Billo_Really · 02-09-08, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

Yes I have traffic signals on my mind. With over 47 signalization projects going on in my district its hard to think of anything else.

But you’re wrong, sometimes you have to stoop down to your enemies level. I don’t believe we have ever faced a group like the Islamic fanatics. You pretend to live in a perfect world bill, I have news for you its not the real world.

Spend some time in the Middle East. See how they live and what they are willing do to each other then get back to me on it.

I respectfully disagree.

Bones · 02-10-08, 02:06 AM

IMO, waterboarding is torture.

People only think it's justified because of who is getting tortured - they'd have a different opinion if it was themselves.

Waterboarding is not done only to 'proven' terrorists - it's permitted on terrorism 'suspects'. So just because you think someone may have knowledge about a bomb or whatever gives you the right to practically drown the guy? I think not.
I think of the innocents who are victims of this cruel punishment. Pity they can't sue the **** out of the Government, because it's not 'torture'.

I'd love to try to this on George Bush and ask him afterwards whether he considers it to be torture or not.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-10-08, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

So you want to keep calling me names...

What name am I calling you?

Quote:

Isn't it about time you snitched up and reported somebody over a bogus issue?

What the **** are you talking about? So now instead of just ignoring the topic to troll me you have to start prevaricating (read LIE) in order to further troll?

You are such a troll. in the last 20 times I have tried to engage you in debate you resort to these trolling tactics. You are intellectually vapid and without substance.

I apologize for trying to engage you in debate. Thinking you were here to do so and willing to engage in topics was an error in my judgment.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-10-08, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

And people who lie to prove their point never had a point at all.

I have asked you 5 times at least to explain your statment that maybe the terrorists should launch more rockets.

you refuse and instead try to call me a liar.

Vapid and without substance.

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

I have asked you 5 times at least to explain your statment that maybe the terrorists should launch more rockets.

you refuse and instead try to call me a liar.

Vapid and without substance.

What 5 times? Post their links. Or post numbers. I can't remember seeing any request (for an explanation) by you at all. You deliberately take what I say the wrong way every time out. You do this because you have a specific agenda. You don't accept things at face value. You don't try to have a conversation. You just troll about and talk bull****.

You don't even know what "vapid" means!

If I'm so "un-interesting", why do you keep responding to my posts?

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

What name am I calling you?

What the **** are you talking about? So now instead of just ignoring the topic to troll me you have to start prevaricating (read LIE) in order to further troll?

You are such a troll. in the last 20 times I have tried to engage you in debate you resort to these trolling tactics. You are intellectually vapid and without substance.

I apologize for trying to engage you in debate. Thinking you were here to do so and willing to engage in topics was an error in my judgment.

You say you're trying to engage me in a debate, when all the while you keep playing these word games like "What name am I calling you?" Or are you just bad at spelling?

cherokee · 02-10-08, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I respectfully disagree.

Then we shall leave it at that............

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-10-08, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

You say you're trying to engage me in a debate, when all the while you keep playing these word games like "What name am I calling you?" Or are you just bad at spelling?

Oh I see now. Huh. Thought there was that extra I. My bad. Really wasn't anything by it.

Quote:

What 5 times? Post their links. Or post numbers. I can't remember seeing any request (for an explanation) by you at all. You deliberately take what I say the wrong way every time out. You do this because you have a specific agenda. You don't accept things at face value. You don't try to have a conversation. You just troll about and talk bull****.

Lets start with just one after you address why you ignored me here and actually address it, we can move on.

You made a big issue about us not being experts regarding the lancet study.

I posted an expert.

You responded by saying you wanted to bang the blogger who posted the study by said expert instead of addressing the substance of the analysis by the expert you requested I provide.

Quote:

You don't even know what "vapid" means!

If I'm so "un-interesting", why do you keep responding to my posts?

That is a great question....

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Oh I see now. Huh. Thought there was that extra I. My bad. Really wasn't anything by it.

Lets start with just one after you address why you ignored me here and actually address it, we can move on.

You made a big issue about us not being experts regarding the lancet study.

I posted an expert.

You responded by saying you wanted to bang the blogger who posted the study by said expert instead of addressing the substance of the analysis by the expert you requested I provide.

That is a great question....

I have said several times that no one knows for sure what the number of dead are. Not Lancet, not your expert, not Michelle, not GySgt, not Tashah, not you and certainly not me. Know one knows for sure.

With that being said, all these conclusions are on the table of possibilities. Since we don't know, it is plausible to say, that one of these could be true. My issue comes from you people that are so sure Lancet is false. Because you don't know. So why act like you do?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-10-08, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I have said several times that no one knows for sure what the number of dead are. Not Lancet, not your expert, not Michelle, not GySgt, not Tashah, not you and certainly not me. Know one knows for sure.

With that being said, all these conclusions are on the table of possibilities. Since we don't know, it is plausible to say, that one of these could be true. My issue comes from you people that are so sure Lancet is false. Because you don't know. So why act like you do?

So you don't weigh the lancet study as any more accurate or inaccurate than say iraq body count?

See we feel the lancet study is false do to its extreme difference from other more accepted studies, from the experts such as in that link which you still have not commented on (this is a debate forum right? You post the lancet study, I posted something that anihilates it yet you won't debate how that analysis is wrong, why?).