• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture

Libertie76 said:
Did you have a Problem answering the question like an aCtual adult?
Click to expand...
I did answer it like an adult.
Did you have problem reading the word "feeding" as in forced feeding?​

So do you want to keep going in circles like this?
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
UI see you want to keep going in circles huh.
It was used for feeding.
Do you really not get that?
Click to expand...
Do you know how to read or did you ignore the article
 
Libertie76 said:
Do you know how to read or did you ignore the article
Click to expand...
You do like going in circles I see.
:doh You asked me a question. I answered it. It was used for feeding.
 
Excon said:
You do like going in circles I see.
:doh You asked me a question. I answered it. It was used for feeding.
Click to expand...
" . It was identified as a means of “behavior control” by CIA medical officers"
 
Excon said:
You do like going in circles I see.
:doh You asked me a question. I answered it. It was used for feeding.
Click to expand...
Was it used for feeding solely or as a means to humiliate people
 
Libertie76 said:
" . It was identified as a means of “behavior control” by CIA medical officers"
Click to expand...
Libertie76 said:
Was it used for feeding solely or as a means to humiliate people
Click to expand...
:doh
iLOL That was secondary to it's intended purpose.

“[W]hile IV infusion is safe and effective, we were impressed with the ancillary effectiveness of rectal infusion on ending the water refusal in a similar case.”​

What is reveals is that that was a secondary (ancillary) benefit. No one wanted to refuse hydration less they be force-fed that way.

You do understand the difference between primary (your question) reason (to feed), and ancillary benefits right?
 
Excon said:
:doh
iLOL That was secondary to it's intended purpose.

“[W]hile IV infusion is safe and effective, we were impressed with the ancillary effectiveness of rectal infusion on ending the water refusal in a similar case.”​

What is reveals is that that was a secondary (ancillary) benefit. No one wanted to refuse hydration less they be force-fed that way.

You do understand the difference between primary (your question) reason (to feed), and ancillary benefits right?
Click to expand...

You're quote literally means is that iv fluid drips hydrated people safer they found that using rectel feeding was a means of again behavior control to try to humiliate people into complying with them. Should we rectal feed hospital patients or use an iv
 
Excon said:
:doh
iLOL That was secondary to it's intended purpose.

“[W]hile IV infusion is safe and effective, we were impressed with the ancillary effectiveness of rectal infusion on ending the water refusal in a similar case.”​

What is reveals is that that was a secondary (ancillary) benefit. No one wanted to refuse hydration less they be force-fed that way.

You do understand the difference between primary (your question) reason (to feed), and ancillary benefits right?
Click to expand...
an·cil·lar·y
ˈansəˌlerē/Submit
adjective
1.
providing necessary support to the primary activities or operation of an organization, institution, industry, or system.

What was the primary objective? Was it behavior control?
 
Libertie76 said:
an·cil·lar·y
ˈansəˌlerē/Submit
adjective
1.
providing necessary support to the primary activities or operation of an organization, institution, industry, or system.

What was the primary objective? Was it behavior control?
Click to expand...
You have already been given the answer.
It was for feeding/hydration purposes and had a secondary effect to it's main purpose.


an·cil·lar·y

adj.
1. Of secondary importance; subordinate: "For Degas, sculpture was never more than ancillary to his painting" (Herbert Read).
2. Auxiliary or accessory: an ancillary pump.​
n. pl. an·cil·lar·ies
1. Something that is subordinate or accessory to something else: a tripod, battery charger, and other camera ancillaries.
2. A person working in a supportive or subordinate role: school ancillaries who look after children who become sick.​
[From Latin ancilla, maidservant, feminine diminutive of anculus, servant; see kwel-1 in Indo-European roots.]​


American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

ancillary - definition of ancillary by The Free Dictionary​


Libertie76 said:
You're quote literally means is that iv fluid drips hydrated people safer they found that using rectel feeding was a means of again behavior control to try to humiliate people into complying with them. Should we rectal feed hospital patients or use an iv
Click to expand...
:doh
Just stop with the spin. It does not say safer. :doh
They found rectal feeding works and found a secondary benefit to doing it.


And again, like waterboarding, it was limited in use.
 
Excon said:
You have already been given the answer.
It was for feeding/hydration purposes and had a secondary effect to it's main purpose.


an·cil·lar·y

adj.
1. Of secondary importance; subordinate: "For Degas, sculpture was never more than ancillary to his painting" (Herbert Read).
2. Auxiliary or accessory: an ancillary pump.​
n. pl. an·cil·lar·ies
1. Something that is subordinate or accessory to something else: a tripod, battery charger, and other camera ancillaries.
2. A person working in a supportive or subordinate role: school ancillaries who look after children who become sick.​
[From Latin ancilla, maidservant, feminine diminutive of anculus, servant; see kwel-1 in Indo-European roots.]​


American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

ancillary - definition of ancillary by The Free Dictionary​


:doh
Just stop with the spin. It does not say safer. :doh
They found rectal feeding works and found a secondary benefit to doing it.


And again, like waterboarding, it was limited in use.
Click to expand...
What was the secondary motive

Would you be in favor of using rectal feeding in hospitals instead of an iv yes or no don't ignore the question
 
Libertie76 said:
What was the secondary motive
Click to expand...
And again. You are going in circles.
You already know that it was used for feeding, and they found that it had a secondary benefit.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
ANd again. You are going in cirlces.
You already know that it was used for feeding, and they found that it had a secondary benefit.
Click to expand...
Which was what

And should we use rectal feeding in hospitals instead of iv drips?

Should I use rectal feeding on you because you're acting like a small child refusing to eat their vegetables at night?
 
Libertie76 said:
Which was what
Click to expand...
:doh
And around and around we go.
And again. You are going in circles.
You already know that it was used for feeding, and they found that it had a secondary benefit.​
 
Excon said:
:doh
And around and around we go.
And again. You are going in circles.
You already know that it was used for feeding, and they found that it had a secondary benefit.​
Click to expand...
Is this really how you expand your knowledge? I'm going in circles? You're jUst acting like a child. I think it's time to induce rectal feeding to you because you sure as hell aren't complying to any respectful debate practices.
 
Libertie76 said:
Is this really how you expand your knowledge? I'm going in circles? You're jUst acting like a child. I think it's time to induce rectal feeding to you because you sure as hell aren't complying to any respectful debate practices.
Click to expand...
And again. How many times do you need to be told that this is not about me? Huh?

You had the only appropriate answer from the beginning yet you continually asked for the same thing over and over again.
It was done for feeding purposes.

And from that they found that it had a secondary benefit.

It was obviously so effective at stopping them from refusing feeding/hydration that it was only done what... five times was it?
:doh
 
Excon said:
And again. How many times do you need to be told that this is not about me? Huh?

You had the only appropriate answer from the beginning yet you continually asked for the same thing over and over again.
It was done for feeding purposes.

And from that they found that it had a secondary benefit.

It was obviously so effective at stopping them from refusing feeding/hydration that it was only done what... five times was it?
:doh
Click to expand...

The feeding was administered on 5 detainees, did the report show how it was medically necessary? Was it necessary?

Should we use it in hospitals instead of iv drips?

What was the secondary benefit?

Did the cia mislead pepple on the report?
 
Libertie76 said:
The feeding was administered on 5 detainees, did the report show how it was medically necessary? Was it necessary?
Click to expand...
:doh
Obviously, if they refused to eat or drink, yep! Perfectly acceptable.
Doesn't matter what the report showed, as we already know it was biased and did not interview all. Meaning it is incomplete and useless.

So again since you obviously do not understand what has been said.
You had the only appropriate answer from the beginning yet you continually asked for the same thing over and over again.
It was done for feeding purposes.

And from that they found that it had a secondary benefit.​
 
Excon said:
And again. How many times do you need to be told that this is not about me? Huh?

You had the only appropriate answer from the beginning yet you continually asked for the same thing over and over again.
It was done for feeding purposes.

And from that they found that it had a secondary benefit.

It was obviously so effective at stopping them from refusing feeding/hydration that it was only done what... five times was it?
:doh
Click to expand...
http://rt.com/usa/213603-torture-panel-shocking-findings/

"At least one detainee, however, was subsequently diagnosed with chronic hemorrhoids, an anal fissure, and symptomatic rectal prolapse after being rectally fed. The CIA also said that doing as much to a detainee was necessary in instances where prisoners became uncooperative, but the Senate panel found that records suggested such was done to inmates regardless of whether they were willing to cooperate."
 
Excon said:
:doh
Obviously, if they refused to eat or drink, yep! Perfectly acceptable.
Doesn't matter what the report showed, as we already know it was biased and did not interview all. Meaning it is incomplete and useless.

So again since you obviously do not understand what has been said.
You had the only appropriate answer from the beginning yet you continually asked for the same thing over and over again.
It was done for feeding purposes.

And from that they found that it had a secondary benefit.​
Click to expand...
So then it's safe to say it was probably done to more then 5 people right?

Are you going to answer my questions?
 
Libertie76 said:
10 most shocking facts we found in CIA torture report ? RT USA

"At least one detainee, however, was subsequently diagnosed with chronic hemorrhoids, an anal fissure, and symptomatic rectal prolapse after being rectally fed. The CIA also said that doing as much to a detainee was necessary in instances where prisoners became uncooperative, but the Senate panel found that records suggested such was done to inmates regardless of whether they were willing to cooperate."
Click to expand...
:doh Five times.
Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

As for this detainees ass? Prove it happened from the medical procedure and not from some other reason. You can't. And that is just another reason to dismiss this report as political hackery.
What this panel says they found is irrelevant as they did not interview all. It is nothing but biased political hackery.



Libertie76 said:
So then it's safe to say it was probably done to more then 5 people right?
Click to expand...
WTF? You are the one who has latched on to this report as if it is meaningful. How many did it say were forced fed? Five right?


Libertie76 said:
Are you going to answer my questions?
Click to expand...
I have answered all relevant questions. All those irrelevant get ignored.
 
Excon said:
:doh Five times.
Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

As for this detainees ass? Prove it happened from the medical procedure and not from some other reason. You can't. And that is just another reason to dismiss this report as political hackery.
What this panel says they found is irrelevant as they did not interview all. It is nothing but biased political hackery.



WTF? You are the one who has latched on to this report as if it is meaningful. How many did it say were forced fed? Five right?


I have answered all relevant questions. All those irrelevant get ignored.
Click to expand...

So you think jamming a long tube full of hummus and food and forcing someone to bend over and just take it while it shoots into your intestines would have absolutely no relation to the further medical problems?

No it said at least 5 with no medical reasoning

If it's a medical procedure should we use it in hospitals is a very very relevant question you're just being a child and reFusing to answer
 
Just to inject reality...rectal feeding is not a medical procedure and it makes no sense as Virtually no nutrients would be absorbed from introducing food into the distal bowel.

It's also a terrible way to hydrate someone.
 
Libertie76 said:
So you think jamming a long tube full of hummus and food and forcing someone to bend over and just take it while it shoots into your intestines would have absolutely no relation to the further medical problems?
Click to expand...
Where the **** do you get this "jamming" crap from?
It is a medical procedure.
Show they didn't use lubrication.

That is pretty much all you have done from the get. Spin what actually happened. Just stop.



Libertie76 said:
No it said at least 5 with no medical reasoning
Click to expand...
:naughty
No.
That is what you get for relying bad unquoted sources.
At least five. The five cited.
That doesn't mean more than five. :doh
Had there been more than five, this biased report would have been sure you had been informed of it. Duh!

The CIA forced the nutrient enemas on two detainees who attempted hunger strikes, a third who “partially refus[ed] liquids”, a fourth “without a determination of medical need”, and a fifth whose case details are not divulged.

Controversial 'rectal feeding' technique used to control detainees' behaviour | US news | The Guardian​

The forth and fifth have not been determined if there was a medical need.
Doesn't mean it didn't exist. And since they didn't interview all involved making it a biased, flawed and meaningless report, you can almost rest assured that there was reason.



You really need to cease with the childish personal attacks.
And no, it isn't relevant to this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom