Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Torture is good.

:disgust: Remember that next time one of our brave men/women are subjected to it.

Yeah well, you libs on the left who like to claim you are so against it don't seem to make much of a fuss about Americans or other allies getting tortured.. You seem to care more about when we do it to the enemy. So don't give me that tired old line.

Piss off troll.

 

[heyheybooboo]

A new word has been invented .... illiteration. As in:

TLC and Fear No Evil show their ignorance and logical fallacy with their illiteration in this thread.

:laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does the U.S. government torture its own pilots?

Letter to the President

Those pilots all willingly submitted to the training and preparation work in order to withstand torture tactics used by Americas enemies.

Thanks to the memos being released our enemies can do the same now.

Congrats guys. What a great victory for the anti-torture crowd. Go out and have a beer to celebrate. Good fucking job.

:thumbsup:

Wow, you're still posting? Advice: create a new avatar, it's the only way you can come back from this thread (and other torture ones).

Uh huh. Are you still imagining that you proved anything at all? Why don't you pontificate some more about what's "desperate fiction" and what's not, since you're already 0 for 1 in this thread (and that's being very generous)?

 

[jonks]

Peggy Noonan laid low:

"The Democrats had long labeled the impeachment debate a distraction from the urgent business of a great nation. But the Republicans argued that the pursuit of justice is the business of a great nation. In winning this point, they caught the falling flag, producing a triumph for the rule of law, a reassertion of the belief that no man is above it, and a rebuke for an arrogance that had grown imperial," - Peggy Noonan, December 21. 1998.

"It?s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ?Oh, much good will come of that.? Sometimes in life you want to keep walking? Some of life has to be mysterious." - Peggy Noonan, April 19, 2009.



Nice. Pursuit of justice for a bj and lying in a civil law suit. But pursuit of justice for potential war crimes? Nah. Bravo Sister Noonsey.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
A new word has been invented .... illiteration. As in:

TLC and Fear No Evil show their ignorance and logical fallacy with their illiteration in this thread.

:laugh:

No doubt all your 12 year old friends think that's just hilarious.

 

[Fear No Evil]

TLC - I guess if they just keep repeating that they beat you in the argument it must be true.. :roll:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jonks
Peggy Noonan laid low:

"The Democrats had long labeled the impeachment debate a distraction from the urgent business of a great nation. But the Republicans argued that the pursuit of justice is the business of a great nation. In winning this point, they caught the falling flag, producing a triumph for the rule of law, a reassertion of the belief that no man is above it, and a rebuke for an arrogance that had grown imperial," - Peggy Noonan, December 21. 1998.

"It?s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ?Oh, much good will come of that.? Sometimes in life you want to keep walking? Some of life has to be mysterious." - Peggy Noonan, April 19, 2009.



Nice. Pursuit of justice for a bj and lying in a civil law suit. But pursuit of justice for potential war crimes? Nah. Bravo Sister Noonsey.

Come on... You know that BJ was a threat to national security. We needed justice! :laugh:

Seriously though, the hypocrisy is sickening. :disgust:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
TLC - I guess if they just keep repeating that they beat you in the argument it must be true.. :roll:

I guess if you keep repeating that water boarding isn't torture it must be true. :roll:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

And that's exactly what you don't understand about BEING an American. It has nothing to do with left or right. It has EVERYTHING to do with right and wrong.

As a matter of principle, WE have declared we will NOT engage in the evil you're so eager to commit against other human beings. Sadly, that's what your fortunately EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers did. Even worse, they did it in our name and to our everlasting shame.

If you want to torture people, go join Al Qaeda or some tin pot dictatorship, but don't spread your venom around real Americans who reject your toxic insanity for what it is.

FACT is, our country has routinely done evil things in the name of defending its people. Was the bombing of civilians at Nagasaki and Hiroshima not ultimately evil? Did we REALLY need to bomb 100's of thousands of civilians? Would the proper thing, in your mind, not have been to lose 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of more Allied lives invading the Japanese mainland?

FACT is, we (And other allies) bombed Dresden into a pile of rubble just weeks before the end of the war. Was that neccessary? Killing 10's of thousands of citizens for no other reason than perhaps to end the war a little quicker.

Thanks for the strawman. Your argument is complete and utter bullshit. All you prove is that you know absolutely nothing about anything, including and especially ethics, morals, history and law.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Obviously, you know nothing about the decision to drop nuclear weapons on Japan. As President Truman notes in these excerpts from his diary, he wasn't happy about dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.

8/9/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the second time he had publicly given reasons for using the atomic bomb on Japan:

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

"We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212).

[Even before Hiroshima was a-bombed, hundreds of thousands of civilians had been killed in the conventional bombings of over 60 of Japan's largest cities (Michael Sherry, "The Rise of American Air Power", pg. 314-315, and pg. 413, note 43). Was President Truman unaware that Hiroshima was primarily a city of civilians and that they would be the a-bomb's main victims? Note his reason (8/10/45 below) for halting the atomic bombings.]

8/9/45 Letter to Senator Richard Russell:

[In response to Sen. Russell's wish that Japan be hit with more atomic and conventional bombing:]

"I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can't bring myself to believe that, because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in the same manner.

"For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it until it is absolutely necessary...

"My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a humane feeling for the women and children in Japan." (Barton Bernstein, Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory, Diplomatic History, Spring 1995, material quoted from pg. 267-268).

[8/10/45: Japan makes surrender offer to Allies.]

[8/10/45: Having received reports and photographs of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, Truman ordered a halt to further atomic bombings. Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary on the 10th, "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (John Blum, ed., "The Price of Vision: the Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946", pg. 473-474).]

President Truman approved the use of nuclear weapons because he believed it would shorten the war and save many more American lives that would otherwise be lost in an invasion of Japan, itself.

Operation Downfall was the U.S. plan for the invasion of Japan. It didn't happen because Japan surrendered after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We will never know how many lives would actually have been lost in that invasion, but the record does include estimated losses:

Operation Downfall

Operation Downfall was the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The operation was cancelled when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan.
.
.
Estimated casualties

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population", high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes ? which included advocating for and against the invasion ? afterwards, they were reused to debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

• In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
  
• A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[38] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
  
• In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[42] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.

Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyushu would have been much more exposed.

• A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

Dresden

The first sentence in Wikipedia's entry about the Bombing of Dresden shows how full of shit you are.

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945, twelve weeks before the surrender of the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) of Nazi Germany, remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War.
.
.
(continues)

It's too late to second guess the results of not bombing Dresden, and it's too late to undo the damage. It's never too late to mourn the loss of life and to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes.

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So, your statement that we declared we will not engage in evil is just complete and utter BULLSHIT. We have slaughtered 100's of thousands of 'innocent' people to protect our interests and the lives of Americans and our allies.

If your point is that, as a nation, we have killed others in our own defense, you've proven nothing.

If your point is that, as a nation, we have comitted some terrible wrongs under the misguided or malevolent leadership of one President or another, our obligation is to learn from our mistakes, and NOTHING in that history excuses the blatantly criminal acts committed by your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang.

And the FACT is that other Presidents have done things so much worse than this torture that it makes this look like slapping a mosquito off your arm.

It will be interesting to see how far anyone gets with that argument when they're tried in Federal court and at the Hague. :roll:

*I* support torture against people who want to kill me and my family.

Acting on what you support would put you in violation of U.S. and international laws, just as it has the Bushwacko torturers, murderers and traitors.

I fully support our President's making the decision to torture when necessary to protect the American people.

You can't provide ONE (if you can count that high) instance where torture protected or saved ANY American lives. The only ones making such claims are the Bushwhacko criminals, themselves, and they haven't produced any verifiable evidence to support their claims, either.

The moral high ground does me absolutely no good if it means I am going to be DEAD. So, call me whatever name you want, call me evil, call me an idiot, call me a terrorist.. I'll take whatever label you want to give me. Ultimately this issue comes down to one thing for me:

I SUPPORT ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT TAKING ACTIONS INCLUDING KILLING, TORTURING, AND NAME CALLING OUR ENEMIES IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF ME, YOU, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN.

What will you do when you find that the person you torture is innocent? :shocked:

Don't think it could happen? Would you be suprised that it already has?

Of the more than 770 individuals known to have been incarcerated for some period at Guantánamo, the U.S. government has charged only 23 with war crimes as of October 2008.16 These figures argue in favor of a full investigation to determine how and why the U.S. has held so many men for so long without adequate legal safeguards. Our qualitative data and secondary sources indicate that many detainees held in U.S. custody in Kandahar and Bagram, Afghanistan repeatedly experienced physical abuse, deprivations, humiliation, and degradation. The conditions in which detainees were held, as well as their treatment at these facilities, contravened international guidelines for the humane treatment of detainees, violated fundamental cultural and religious taboos against public nudity, interfered with religious practice, and created an environment that maximized physical and psychological discomfort and uncertainty. Respondents held at Bagram in particular reported abuses that included beatings, stress positions, prolonged hanging by the arms, sleep deprivation, intimidation, and being terrorized with dogs.

Without our ethics, morals, conscience and rule of law, there is no United States of America. You are an embarrassment to our nation and to humanity.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
TLC - I guess if they just keep repeating that they beat you in the argument it must be true.. :roll:

I guess if you keep repeating that water boarding isn't torture it must be true. :roll:

I never said it wasn't. Everyone else is hung up on the term.. I am not. I think torture is justfied in certain cases, specifically where there is an immediate threat to the lives of Americans, even if its not technically 'legal'.

If there is a school shooting occuring, and someone pulls a fully automatic M16 from their locker and puts the bastards down that are doing the killing. I'd shake their hand and thank them. I wouldn't charge them for having an illegal assault rifle in a school zone and throw them in jail for 50 years. Some of you probably would.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Uh huh. Are you still imagining that you proved anything at all? Why don't you pontificate some more about what's "desperate fiction" and what's not, since you're already 0 for 1 in this thread (and that's being very generous)?

You keep denying anyone has proven that waterboarding is torture and that torture, itself, is illegal under U.S. law. I want to thank you for helping me create my latest macro proving how full of shit you are. I promise to repost it in reply to every one of your denials from now on.

---

I'm calling you a AMORAL LIAR. I posted replies to you with legal references, and you STILL deny them.

In this thread, on 4/22/2009 at 1:07 PM pdt, I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Despite all the numerous threads on the subject not a single person in here who has been screaming "WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE" at the top of their lungs has done that yet. Not a one.

Attorney General, Eric Holder is one legal authority who disagrees with your assessment.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators
Justice Dept. Nominee Rejects Policies Of Bush Era but Stresses Bipartisanship

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009
.
.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder declared that the interrogation practice known as waterboarding amounts to torture, departing from the interpretation of his Bush administration predecessors.
.
.
(continues)

Deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage is another.

Ex-Bush official says waterboarding is torture

By PAMELA HESS ? 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A former No. 2 State Department official in the Bush administration says he hopes he would have had the courage to resign if he had known the CIA was subjecting terrorism suspects to waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, told Al Jazeera English television in an interview airing Wednesday that waterboarding is torture. However, he said he does not believe CIA officials who engaged in waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation should be prosecuted.
.
.
(continues)[/b]

Last night, on Rachel Maddow's show, Philip Zelikow, an attorney and a former under secretary of state to Condoleezza Wright, said that, in 2005, he wrote a memo disputing "THE memos" by John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, the attorneys who wrote the opinions supporting torture, and their boss, Alberto Gonzales. Full segment.

He further says his superiors tried to destroy every copy of his contrary memo. From the transcript:

MADDOW: Rather than just disagreeing with you or saying that they thought that you were wrong and the Office of Legal Counsel memos that you were rebutting were correct, why do you think they tried to destroy every copy of the memo that they knew existed? And how did you find out that they did try to destroy copies of the memo?

ZELIKOW: Well, I found out because I was told. I mean, we're trying to collect these and destroy them, and you have a copy, don't you? But I -- the -- I know copies that were retained in my building, and as I mentioned, Secretary Rice understood what I was doing on her behalf. I was her agent in these matters. And the -- so I think copies still exist.

Are you out of lies, yet, TLC? :roll:

And in this thread, on 4/23/2009 at 1:13 PM I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I can't believe you think you can explain it.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor.

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Torture includes not only the physical acts of harm. It includes the THREAT of physical harm, and it is explicitly illegal under both U.S. codes and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

Torture and the United States
.
.
Legislation and treaties regarding torture

Torture is illegal and punishable within US territorial bounds. The potential for prosecution of abuse occurring on foreign soil, outside of usual US territorial jurisdiction, is difficult.

Domestic Legislation

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
   
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

.
.
"Stress and duress"

In 2003 and 2004 there was substantial controversy over the "stress and duress" methods that were used in the U.S.'s War on Terrorism, that had been sanctioned by the U.S. Executive branch of government at Cabinet level. Similar methods in 1978 were ruled by ECHR to be inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture, when used by the U.K. in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. CIA agents have anonymously confirmed to the Washington Post in a December 26, 2002 report that the CIA routinely uses so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, which are claimed by human rights organisations to be acts of torture, in the US-led War on Terrorism. These sources state that CIA and military personnel beat up uncooperative suspects, confine them in cramped quarters, duct tape them to stretchers, and use other restraints which maintain the subject in an awkward and painful position for long periods of time. The phrase 'torture light' has been reported in the media and has been taken to mean acts that would not be legally defined as torture. Techniques similar to "stress and duress" were used by the UK in the early 1970s and were ruled to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture by the European Court of Human Rights. While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture.

Some techniques within the "stress and duress" category, such as water boarding, have long been considered as torture, by both the United States government and human rights groups. In its annual ?Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,? the U.S. State Department has described the following practices as torture:

• stripping and blindfolding of prisoners (Egypt)
• subjecting prisoners to prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures and tying of hands and feet for extended periods (Eritrea)
• sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions" (Iran)
• sleep deprivation and solitary confinement (Jordan)
• prolonged standing and isolation (Turkey)

.
.
(more)

Do you have any credible references to counter the FACT that the United States of America has considered waterboarding as torture for at least the last hundred years?

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:[/quote]

 

[Pens1566]

Maybe if someone posted one of the number of cases where we've actually tried and convicted people of waterboarding over the last hundred years ... then he might admit it? Nah, probably not.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There hasn't been any clarification as of yet, but being waterboarded 200 times doesn't necessarily imply it was done on 200 separate occassions. In this particular case I get the impression that the count was resumed every time the detainee was permitted to take the requisite amount of breaths. Since the memos permitted using waterboarding techniques for up to 20 minutes in total, with each application lasting 20 seconds, a somewhat dishonest account could claim the detainee was waterboarded 20 times or more within that 20 minutes. Since two sessions per day were permitted, that could result in the detainee being "waterboarded" 40 or 50 times (using the counting method that possibly is being used here) in a single day when in actuality, they were waterboarded twice.

At the moment it's only my suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that sort of liberal counting method was used to inflate the numbers and make them seem outrageous.

I guess you didn't get the memo. No matter how you try to distort the numbers or blame "liberals" for "inflating" them, WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE!

At the moment, your "suspicion" is as much bullshit as any of the rest of your lame attempts to excuse or deny the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

Keep screaming that mantra to yourself over and over and over curled up in a fetal position while all your friends join hands in a circle and hum Kumbya, Harvey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

TastesLikeAss lets see you go through this 183 times.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
TLC - I guess if they just keep repeating that they beat you in the argument it must be true.. :roll:

I guess if you keep repeating that water boarding isn't torture it must be true. :roll:

I never said it wasn't. Everyone else is hung up on the term.. I am not. I think torture is justfied in certain cases, specifically where there is an immediate threat to the lives of Americans, even if its not technically 'legal'.

If there is a school shooting occuring, and someone pulls a fully automatic M16 from their locker and puts the bastards down that are doing the killing. I'd shake their hand and thank them. I wouldn't charge them for having an illegal assault rifle in a school zone and throw them in jail for 50 years. Some of you probably would.

What if they pulled out a hand grenade and lobbed it at the shooter, killing the shooter and killed other people. Would that be ok with you? After all, it saved more lives than it took.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
A new word has been invented .... illiteration. As in:

TLC and Fear No Evil show their ignorance and logical fallacy with their illiteration in this thread.

:laugh:

No doubt all your 12 year old friends think that's just hilarious.

I'd make a joke about your penis but since you've been neutered in this thread it wouldn't be prudent.

See what you get when you think with your Dick ?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
TLC - I guess if they just keep repeating that they beat you in the argument it must be true.. :roll:

That's the way of things in this forum. Certain people - like Harvey, eskimospy, Robor, heyboob, and a few others - seem to be under the impression that when they bellow a pronouncement it instantly becomes undeniable fact and anyone contrarian to their pov is automatically wrong. We've seen it a thousand times in here. I guess that how perception works in their world?

The simple fact is that none of them has responded yet with the proof I've requested, which means none of them has been able to demonstrate that our methods of interrogation equal torture. They can keep repeating over and over and over that it is torture, and link to all the talking heads and politicians bellowing forth more public proclamations they want, but billious repetiton doesn't make it so, at least to anyone with a brain or that isn't so drunk on their partisan swill that they can't think straight in the first place. *cough* Harvey *cough*

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
A new word has been invented .... illiteration. As in:

TLC and Fear No Evil show their ignorance and logical fallacy with their illiteration in this thread.

:laugh:

No doubt all your 12 year old friends think that's just hilarious.

I'd make a joke about your penis but since you've been neutered in this thread it wouldn't be prudent.

See what you get when you think with your Dick ?

Um, yeah. Assuming your friends were as old as 12 was giving you far too much benefit of the doubt.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

The simple fact is that none of them has responded yet with the proof I've requested, which means none of them has been able to demonstrate that our methods of interrogation equal torture. They can keep repeating over and over and over that it is torture, and link to all the talking heads and politicians bellowing forth more public proclamations they want, but billious repetiton doesn't make it so, at least to anyone with a brain or that isn't so drunk on their partisan swill that they can't think straight in the first place. *cough* Harvey *cough*

You're still denying that waterboarding is torture and claiming that those who committed it aren't guilty of any crime, and you still haven't replied to refute the legal references and authorities I cited so as promised, once again, I'm still calling you an AMORAL LIAR and posting my favorite new "macro." :laugh:

In this thread, on 4/22/2009 at 1:07 PM pdt, I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Despite all the numerous threads on the subject not a single person in here who has been screaming "WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE" at the top of their lungs has done that yet. Not a one.

Attorney General, Eric Holder is one legal authority who disagrees with your assessment.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators
Justice Dept. Nominee Rejects Policies Of Bush Era but Stresses Bipartisanship

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009
.
.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder declared that the interrogation practice known as waterboarding amounts to torture, departing from the interpretation of his Bush administration predecessors.
.
.
(continues)

Deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage is another.

Ex-Bush official says waterboarding is torture

By PAMELA HESS ? 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A former No. 2 State Department official in the Bush administration says he hopes he would have had the courage to resign if he had known the CIA was subjecting terrorism suspects to waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, told Al Jazeera English television in an interview airing Wednesday that waterboarding is torture. However, he said he does not believe CIA officials who engaged in waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation should be prosecuted.
.
.
(continues)[/b]

On 4-22-09, on Rachel Maddow's show, Philip Zelikow, an attorney and a former under secretary of state to Condoleezza Wright, said that, in 2005, he wrote a memo disputing "THE memos" by John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, the attorneys who wrote the opinions supporting torture, and their boss, Alberto Gonzales. Full segment.

He further says his superiors tried to destroy every copy of his contrary memo. From the transcript:

MADDOW: Rather than just disagreeing with you or saying that they thought that you were wrong and the Office of Legal Counsel memos that you were rebutting were correct, why do you think they tried to destroy every copy of the memo that they knew existed? And how did you find out that they did try to destroy copies of the memo?

ZELIKOW: Well, I found out because I was told. I mean, we're trying to collect these and destroy them, and you have a copy, don't you? But I -- the -- I know copies that were retained in my building, and as I mentioned, Secretary Rice understood what I was doing on her behalf. I was her agent in these matters. And the -- so I think copies still exist.

Are you out of lies, yet, TLC? :roll:

And in this thread, on 4/23/2009 at 1:13 PM I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I can't believe you think you can explain it.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor.

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Torture includes not only the physical acts of harm. It includes the THREAT of physical harm, and it is explicitly illegal under both U.S. codes and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

Torture and the United States
.
.
Legislation and treaties regarding torture

Torture is illegal and punishable within US territorial bounds. The potential for prosecution of abuse occurring on foreign soil, outside of usual US territorial jurisdiction, is difficult.

Domestic Legislation

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
   
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

.
.
"Stress and duress"

In 2003 and 2004 there was substantial controversy over the "stress and duress" methods that were used in the U.S.'s War on Terrorism, that had been sanctioned by the U.S. Executive branch of government at Cabinet level. Similar methods in 1978 were ruled by ECHR to be inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture, when used by the U.K. in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. CIA agents have anonymously confirmed to the Washington Post in a December 26, 2002 report that the CIA routinely uses so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, which are claimed by human rights organisations to be acts of torture, in the US-led War on Terrorism. These sources state that CIA and military personnel beat up uncooperative suspects, confine them in cramped quarters, duct tape them to stretchers, and use other restraints which maintain the subject in an awkward and painful position for long periods of time. The phrase 'torture light' has been reported in the media and has been taken to mean acts that would not be legally defined as torture. Techniques similar to "stress and duress" were used by the UK in the early 1970s and were ruled to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture by the European Court of Human Rights. While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture.

Some techniques within the "stress and duress" category, such as water boarding, have long been considered as torture, by both the United States government and human rights groups. In its annual ?Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,? the U.S. State Department has described the following practices as torture:

• stripping and blindfolding of prisoners (Egypt)
• subjecting prisoners to prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures and tying of hands and feet for extended periods (Eritrea)
• sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions" (Iran)
• sleep deprivation and solitary confinement (Jordan)
• prolonged standing and isolation (Turkey)

.
.
(more)

Do you have any credible references to counter the FACT that the United States of America has considered waterboarding as torture for at least the last hundred years?

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:[/quote]

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
repetitive bullshit snipped

[/quote]
I've already addressed your facts, toolboy. Reposting them for the umpteenth fucking time doesn't make them true. You posted US Code. Great. I have too, long before you did, btw. Merely posting what the code says doesn't say a damn thing about how that code was violated. The simple fact that you don't even seem to have comprehension of that makes me wonder if you've even got half a brain in your fat head.

Then you pull out complaints by human rights organizations and completely overlook what's contained right in your copy & paste - "While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture." I'm asking for legal arguments that our interrogations techniques violated US law, which is the only law that matters in this case.

I also don't give a flying fuck how many bobbleheads you link to that claim waterboarding is torture. So what? Truthers link to a bunch of people - PHds, engineers, scientists, even ex-CIA - who claim the Twin Towers were brought down by demolitions. I suppose you also find their argument compelling enough to become a conspriacy wacko? If not, why not? It's the identical sort of argumentation method you employ, and then like a jackass proclaim anyone disagreeing with you to be a "liar."

Now, moron, get a clue and provide some real, honest proof that addresses the question I've been asking because your unhinged, out of control rant posts aren't proof, they're merely a complete waste of bandwidth and electrons.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

repetitive bullshit snipped

I've already addressed your facts, toolboy. Reposting them for the umpteenth fucking time doesn't make them true.

[/quote]

No, you haven't, and you denying them doesn't make them anymore false. Since you're obviously both reading and intellectually challenged, as promised, I'll repost them again. Remember, I have this info saved as a text file so I can update it and post it as fast as you can keep lying and denying the truth. Here ya go...

I'm calling you an AMORAL LIAR. I posted replies to you with legal references, and you STILL deny them.

In this thread, on 4/22/2009 at 1:07 PM pdt, I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Despite all the numerous threads on the subject not a single person in here who has been screaming "WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE" at the top of their lungs has done that yet. Not a one.

Attorney General, Eric Holder is one legal authority who disagrees with your assessment.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators
Justice Dept. Nominee Rejects Policies Of Bush Era but Stresses Bipartisanship

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009
.
.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder declared that the interrogation practice known as waterboarding amounts to torture, departing from the interpretation of his Bush administration predecessors.
.
.
(continues)

Deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage is another.

Ex-Bush official says waterboarding is torture

By PAMELA HESS ? 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A former No. 2 State Department official in the Bush administration says he hopes he would have had the courage to resign if he had known the CIA was subjecting terrorism suspects to waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, told Al Jazeera English television in an interview airing Wednesday that waterboarding is torture. However, he said he does not believe CIA officials who engaged in waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation should be prosecuted.
.
.
(continues)[/b]

On 4-22-09, on Rachel Maddow's show, Philip Zelikow, an attorney and a former under secretary of state to Condoleezza Wright, said that, in 2005, he wrote a memo disputing "THE memos" by John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, the attorneys who wrote the opinions supporting torture, and their boss, Alberto Gonzales. Full segment.

He further says his superiors tried to destroy every copy of his contrary memo. From the transcript:

MADDOW: Rather than just disagreeing with you or saying that they thought that you were wrong and the Office of Legal Counsel memos that you were rebutting were correct, why do you think they tried to destroy every copy of the memo that they knew existed? And how did you find out that they did try to destroy copies of the memo?

ZELIKOW: Well, I found out because I was told. I mean, we're trying to collect these and destroy them, and you have a copy, don't you? But I -- the -- I know copies that were retained in my building, and as I mentioned, Secretary Rice understood what I was doing on her behalf. I was her agent in these matters. And the -- so I think copies still exist.

Are you out of lies, yet, TLC? :roll:

And in this thread, on 4/23/2009 at 1:13 PM I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I can't believe you think you can explain it.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor.

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Torture includes not only the physical acts of harm. It includes the THREAT of physical harm, and it is explicitly illegal under both U.S. codes and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

Torture and the United States
.
.
Legislation and treaties regarding torture

Torture is illegal and punishable within US territorial bounds. The potential for prosecution of abuse occurring on foreign soil, outside of usual US territorial jurisdiction, is difficult.

Domestic Legislation

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
   
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

.
.
"Stress and duress"

In 2003 and 2004 there was substantial controversy over the "stress and duress" methods that were used in the U.S.'s War on Terrorism, that had been sanctioned by the U.S. Executive branch of government at Cabinet level. Similar methods in 1978 were ruled by ECHR to be inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture, when used by the U.K. in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. CIA agents have anonymously confirmed to the Washington Post in a December 26, 2002 report that the CIA routinely uses so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, which are claimed by human rights organisations to be acts of torture, in the US-led War on Terrorism. These sources state that CIA and military personnel beat up uncooperative suspects, confine them in cramped quarters, duct tape them to stretchers, and use other restraints which maintain the subject in an awkward and painful position for long periods of time. The phrase 'torture light' has been reported in the media and has been taken to mean acts that would not be legally defined as torture. Techniques similar to "stress and duress" were used by the UK in the early 1970s and were ruled to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture by the European Court of Human Rights. While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture.

Some techniques within the "stress and duress" category, such as water boarding, have long been considered as torture, by both the United States government and human rights groups. In its annual ?Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,? the U.S. State Department has described the following practices as torture:

• stripping and blindfolding of prisoners (Egypt)
• subjecting prisoners to prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures and tying of hands and feet for extended periods (Eritrea)
• sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions" (Iran)
• sleep deprivation and solitary confinement (Jordan)
• prolonged standing and isolation (Turkey)

.
.
(more)

Do you have any credible references to counter the FACT that the United States of America has considered waterboarding as torture for at least the last hundred years?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Eric Holder the Attorney General of the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Richard Armitage, the former Deputy secretary of state the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the experiential opinion of John McCain, a former POW and torture survivor that waterboarding is torture?

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:[/quote]

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:

[/quote]
Those in charge of the Inquisition thought it was a perfectly fine form of torture.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped more bullshit with nothing that shows the our interrogation methods were illegal

[/quote]
I've already dealt with your questions previously in here. If you didn't notice my answers, reread the fucking thread. They are there.

Now answer my question, troll.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

snipped more bullshit with nothing that shows the our interrogation methods were illegal

I've already dealt with your questions previously in here. If you didn't notice my answers, reread the fucking thread. They are there.

Now answer my question, troll.

[/quote]

I'm calling you an AMORAL LIAR. I posted replies to you with legal references, and you STILL deny them.

In this thread, on 4/22/2009 at 1:07 PM pdt, I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Despite all the numerous threads on the subject not a single person in here who has been screaming "WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE" at the top of their lungs has done that yet. Not a one.

Attorney General, Eric Holder is one legal authority who disagrees with your assessment.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators
Justice Dept. Nominee Rejects Policies Of Bush Era but Stresses Bipartisanship

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009
.
.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder declared that the interrogation practice known as waterboarding amounts to torture, departing from the interpretation of his Bush administration predecessors.
.
.
(continues)

Deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage is another.

Ex-Bush official says waterboarding is torture

By PAMELA HESS ? 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A former No. 2 State Department official in the Bush administration says he hopes he would have had the courage to resign if he had known the CIA was subjecting terrorism suspects to waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, told Al Jazeera English television in an interview airing Wednesday that waterboarding is torture. However, he said he does not believe CIA officials who engaged in waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation should be prosecuted.
.
.
(continues)[/b]

On 4-22-09, on Rachel Maddow's show, Philip Zelikow, an attorney and a former under secretary of state to Condoleezza Wright, said that, in 2005, he wrote a memo disputing "THE memos" by John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, the attorneys who wrote the opinions supporting torture, and their boss, Alberto Gonzales. Full segment.

He further says his superiors tried to destroy every copy of his contrary memo. From the transcript:

MADDOW: Rather than just disagreeing with you or saying that they thought that you were wrong and the Office of Legal Counsel memos that you were rebutting were correct, why do you think they tried to destroy every copy of the memo that they knew existed? And how did you find out that they did try to destroy copies of the memo?

ZELIKOW: Well, I found out because I was told. I mean, we're trying to collect these and destroy them, and you have a copy, don't you? But I -- the -- I know copies that were retained in my building, and as I mentioned, Secretary Rice understood what I was doing on her behalf. I was her agent in these matters. And the -- so I think copies still exist.

Are you out of lies, yet, TLC? :roll:

And in this thread, on 4/23/2009 at 1:13 PM I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I can't believe you think you can explain it.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor.

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Torture includes not only the physical acts of harm. It includes the THREAT of physical harm, and it is explicitly illegal under both U.S. codes and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

Torture and the United States
.
.
Legislation and treaties regarding torture

Torture is illegal and punishable within US territorial bounds. The potential for prosecution of abuse occurring on foreign soil, outside of usual US territorial jurisdiction, is difficult.

Domestic Legislation

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
   
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

.
.
"Stress and duress"

In 2003 and 2004 there was substantial controversy over the "stress and duress" methods that were used in the U.S.'s War on Terrorism, that had been sanctioned by the U.S. Executive branch of government at Cabinet level. Similar methods in 1978 were ruled by ECHR to be inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture, when used by the U.K. in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. CIA agents have anonymously confirmed to the Washington Post in a December 26, 2002 report that the CIA routinely uses so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, which are claimed by human rights organisations to be acts of torture, in the US-led War on Terrorism. These sources state that CIA and military personnel beat up uncooperative suspects, confine them in cramped quarters, duct tape them to stretchers, and use other restraints which maintain the subject in an awkward and painful position for long periods of time. The phrase 'torture light' has been reported in the media and has been taken to mean acts that would not be legally defined as torture. Techniques similar to "stress and duress" were used by the UK in the early 1970s and were ruled to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture by the European Court of Human Rights. While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture.

Some techniques within the "stress and duress" category, such as water boarding, have long been considered as torture, by both the United States government and human rights groups. In its annual ?Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,? the U.S. State Department has described the following practices as torture:

• stripping and blindfolding of prisoners (Egypt)
• subjecting prisoners to prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures and tying of hands and feet for extended periods (Eritrea)
• sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions" (Iran)
• sleep deprivation and solitary confinement (Jordan)
• prolonged standing and isolation (Turkey)

.
.
(more)

Do you have any credible references to counter the FACT that the United States of America has considered waterboarding as torture for at least the last hundred years?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Eric Holder the Attorney General of the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Richard Armitage, the former Deputy secretary of state the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the experiential opinion of John McCain, a former POW and torture survivor that waterboarding is torture?

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:[/quote]

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped more of Harvey's tremendously billious bullshit

I already asked the question, troll. Answer it. Stop trying to evade and avoid.

You know what? It's obvious that you have no answer. That's why you feel compelled to continually repost your ridiculous assfest of links instead. You can't give a straight answer because you don't have one, Harvey.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped more of Harvey's tremendously billious bullshit

I already asked the question, troll. Answer it. Stop trying to evade and avoid.

You know what? It's obvious that you have no answer. That's why you feel compelled to continually repost your ridiculous assfest of links instead. You can't give a straight answer because you don't have one, Harvey.

The only one dodging is you, and you've done it more than once in this thread. Coward.