Gibberish
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,339
- Reaction score
- 1,269
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
That's great if he is a terrorist. Now what situation arose that could ONLY be solved by the torture of him?That is exactly the case we are debating here; what is it about Sheikh Khalid Mohammed's admissions you do not comprehend? Was it where he clearly stated he is a terrorist and would like to see even more of our citizens killed?
I am sure a debate occurred. I just believe the act of torture was easily accepted. It was more likely a "how do we pursued the acceptance of torture" then "is there anything we can do to avoid torture".So you "perceive" that the numerous debates and internal memos of the Bush Administration was not a thoughtful effort to deliberate the ramifications of using these harsh methods on KNOWN ADMITTED terrorists?
I am sorry, but you are forcing one to prescribe to the willing suspension of disbelief if those are your arguments.
I have addressed every one of your points and reiterated them to be sure I understood them correctly.
What is fascinating is your own denial regarding your own positions on this topic, the FACTS surrounding them and your feigned morality.
I have done nothing here but attempt to understand and comprehend the points you are so desperately trying to assert.
Let me know where I said anything about Bush's "morality" or "hatred of Arabs", as you allude to below...
The notion that Bush is an immoral person therefore made immoral decisions because he hates Arabs is beyond absurd. But that is basically the idiotic argument Democrats are asserting here.