sigh. we let lawyers fuck up our daily lives...now we let them fuck up the battlefield. ya good job. let lawyers and judges figure it out. fuck sakes.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- 20th Hijacker - No prosecution due to torture
"lack of a balanced diet"?Dilbert_X wrote:
Whatever, he was tortured and brought close to death by his captors.
According to the judge it was the torture which was the problem, not lack of a balanced diet.
You can split hairs all you like, fact is he's not going to be brought to justice thanks to misfeasance by your fellows.
GG Idiots.
Yep...that's what I said, isn't it?
You're just choosing not to understand at this point.
Maybe the EU countries that screamed so much about Gitmo can take them in...oh, wai-
Those double-standards may just be publicly exposed yet.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I still don't know what you're saying, you say it was his treatment outside the interrogation room, please elaborate.
As I pointed out, most of the softening up at Abu Ghraib was done outside the interrogation room.
As I pointed out, most of the softening up at Abu Ghraib was done outside the interrogation room.
Fuck Israel
Feeding, clothing, temperature control, medical care, sanitation...get the picture?Dilbert_X wrote:
I still don't know what you're saying, you say it was his treatment outside the interrogation room, please elaborate.
No, most of the humiliation was done outside of the interrogation room. Taking pictures of people with underwear on their head or in a frat-rush-esque naked pyramid is NOT "softening up".Dilbert_X wrote:
As I pointed out, most of the softening up at Abu Ghraib was done outside the interrogation room.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
He was in the interrogation room 20 hours out of 24 a day, pretty sure it was treatment in there which would have been the problem - as the judge found.
"His treatment met the legal definition of torture."
Get the picture?
We both know the treatment outside the interrogation room at Abu Ghraib was a good deal more serious than frat-house horseplay, a planned part of the softening up process.
"His treatment met the legal definition of torture."
Get the picture?
We both know the treatment outside the interrogation room at Abu Ghraib was a good deal more serious than frat-house horseplay, a planned part of the softening up process.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-24 21:51:52)
Fuck Israel
Doesn't change the fact that those responsible for his well-being (ie, not the interrogators--they are only responsible for questioning him) did not do their jobs. There are separate teams with separate responsibilities...get the picture?Dilbert_X wrote:
He was in the interrogation room 20 hours out of 24 a day, pretty sure it was treatment in there which would have been the problem - as the judge found.
"His treatment met the legal definition of torture."
Get the picture?
No...actually neither of us "knows" that, because neither of us is privy to the tactics and techniques used there. The photos that caused the stir had nothing whatsoever to do with the interrogation process...it was just guards doing stupid shit.Dilbert_X wrote:
We both know the treatment outside the interrogation room at Abu Ghraib was a good deal more serious than frat-house horseplay, a planned part of the softening up process.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
According to you, I've seen no evidence of this, and the judge didn't think so either.FEOS wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that those responsible for his well-being (ie, not the interrogators--they are only responsible for questioning him) did not do their jobs.
I ask again, please put forward some evidence, if you have any.
Everyone there was responsible for the detainee's welfare, haven't seen anyone charged with negligence so far either.
Yeah sure.FEOS wrote:
it was just guards doing stupid shit
According to the guards they were instructed to do it.
Fuck Israel
In order to "ask again" you have to ask the first time.Dilbert_X wrote:
According to you, I've seen no evidence of this, and the judge didn't think so either.FEOS wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that those responsible for his well-being (ie, not the interrogators--they are only responsible for questioning him) did not do their jobs.
I ask again, please put forward some evidence, if you have any.
Everyone there was responsible for the detainee's welfare, haven't seen anyone charged with negligence so far either.
And the judged didn't differentiate, therefore the story didn't report it.
I'll see what I can find.
Here's something...still looking for more.
No why would they have this if there weren't separate parties (ie, health care professionals) handling health care of detainees? Interrogators aren't health care workers. Who would this be meant for then, if not health care workers who work detainee operations?The Defense Department yesterday issued an instruction detailing the standards of medical care in detainee operations.
DoD Instruction 2310.08, titled "Medical Program Support for Detainee Operations," reaffirms the responsibility of health care personnel to protect and treat all detainees under their care humanely, said Dr. William Winkenwerder, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.
"It is a comprehensive, thoughtful policy document that's reaffirming high ethical principles and humane care and treatment for detainees and persons under the authority and control of the U.S. armed forces," Winkenwerder said in a telephone interview. "In a phrase, it's a very good document."
This instruction doesn't change any of the current practices at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or other places where the U.S. deals with detainees, but is a compilation of various policy memoranda, Winkenwerder said. The instruction reaffirms principles that will be prevalent for years to come, and it gives a single source of reference for military medical personnel who rotate in and out of places like Guantanamo, he said.
.......
First, the instruction emphasizes that humane treatment has always been and will always be the standard for detainee medical care, and health care personnel have a duty to report any possible instances of inhumane treatment or abuse, he said.
The instruction also says that health care personnel, regardless of their role, are not to supervise, conduct or direct interrogations, he said. Behavioral science consultants, who are usually psychologists, do provide consultative services to law enforcement and intelligence personnel, but only in the form of psychological assessments and advice on communications techniques, he said. The consultants cannot advise interrogators to exploit any psychological conditions or weaknesses the detainees may have, because that could result in inhumane treatment, he said.
Is that proof enough, or should I find more?
Actually, the finding was that they had no clear guidance on what to do or not to do. That's why the general responsible got fired.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yeah sure.FEOS wrote:
it was just guards doing stupid shit
According to the guards they were instructed to do it.
Last edited by FEOS (2009-01-26 03:49:11)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So again, unless you have a crystal ball you're making stuff up.FEOS wrote:
And the judged didn't differentiate, therefore the story didn't report it.
I'll go with the judges findings I think, not yours.
So prison guards, supposedly guarding dangerous insurgents, possibly AQ, have no clear guidance and are just allowed to do as they please with what are potentially highly valuable sources of intel?FEOS wrote:
Actually, the finding was that they had no clear guidance on what to do or not to do.
Puh-lease
Pretty sure any prison officer anywhere in the world would know he would get roasted for letting a detainee out a cell with authorisation or as part of a written procedure.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-26 03:57:03)
Fuck Israel
Or you could read what I posted previously. Apparently, the judge doesn't bother to read the directives that govern the cases she is reviewing (actually, not that rare an occurrence).Dilbert_X wrote:
So again, unless you have a crystal ball you're making stuff up.FEOS wrote:
And the judged didn't differentiate, therefore the story didn't report it.
I'll go with the judges findings I think, not yours.
Go back and read who was held at Abu Ghraib. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.Dilbert_X wrote:
So prison guards, supposedly guarding dangerous insurgents, possibly AQ, have no clear guidance and are just allowed to do as they please with what are potentially highly valuable sources of intel?FEOS wrote:
Actually, the finding was that they had no clear guidance on what to do or not to do.
Puh-lease
Pretty sure any prison officer anywhere in the world would know he would get roasted for letting a detainee out a cell with authorisation or as part of a written procedure.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What you posted previously is not evidence, need something besides your opinion.
Fuck Israel
No what I posted was a DoD directive on health care of detainees, for health care personnel working at Guantanamo and other locations.Dilbert_X wrote:
What you posted previously is not evidence, need something besides your opinion.
There would be no need for a separate directive if there weren't separate health care personnel. In fact, the portion I quoted specifically talks about the interaction between the health care personnel and the interrogators. That would mean that they are separate groups, with separate responsibilities...just as I stated earlier.
Let me know when you're done with the spoon I'm feeding you with. I might need it later.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
As you pointed out, the judge didn't make any distinction.
The Guantanamo organisation as a whole tortured the guy until he was at risk of death.
Precisely who is liable and who isn't doesn't really matter, you can split hairs over the minutae all you like, its irrelevant - he's not going to be prosecuted for involvement in the most serious attack on the US since Pearl Harbour - incredible fuck-up however you look at it
The Guantanamo organisation as a whole tortured the guy until he was at risk of death.
Precisely who is liable and who isn't doesn't really matter, you can split hairs over the minutae all you like, its irrelevant - he's not going to be prosecuted for involvement in the most serious attack on the US since Pearl Harbour - incredible fuck-up however you look at it
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-27 04:06:24)
Fuck Israel
No doubt.Dilbert_X wrote:
As you pointed out, the judge didn't make any distinction.
The Guantanamo organisation as a whole tortured the guy until he was at risk of death.
Precisely who is liable and who isn't doesn't really matter, you can split hairs over the minutae all you like, its irrelevant - he's not going to be prosecuted for involvement in the most serious attack on the US since Pearl Harbour - incredible fuck-up however you look at it
What I am saying is that if the judge is going to throw around torture accusations, she needs to ensure that they ID who was actually responsible for the condition of the detainee that caused her to view it as torture. It's like an accident investigation or an investigation in to a crime--you identify the proximate and contributing causes. Which requires one to differentiate roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the parties involved.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What you're trying to prove is it wasn't the interrogators fault, when it clearly was.
The Judges role in this case is solely to determine if the guy will be prosecuted, she's determined he won't, her job is done.
If there is to be an enquiry thats up to someone else to set up.
The Judges role in this case is solely to determine if the guy will be prosecuted, she's determined he won't, her job is done.
If there is to be an enquiry thats up to someone else to set up.
Fuck Israel
No. All I have done is take the judge's and article's words and analyze them.Dilbert_X wrote:
What you're trying to prove is it wasn't the interrogators fault, when it clearly was.
The Judges role in this case is solely to determine if the guy will be prosecuted, she's determined he won't, her job is done.
If there is to be an enquiry thats up to someone else to set up.
The techniques used were not torture according to statute that the judge herself passed.
The judge said the detainee's medical condition/treatment was what amounted to torture.
The interrogators are not responsible for the detainee's medical condition/treatment.
The medical team is responsible for the detainee's medical condition/treatment.
The medical team's failure is the proximate cause.
The interrogation team's failure to stop interrogations when the detainee's health was clearly compromised is a contributing factor.
See how that works?
I'll need that spoon back now...I'm sure I'll need it later.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Contributing factor? They were the sole cause of the detainees poor health.FEOS wrote:
The interrogation team's failure to stop interrogations when the detainee's health was clearly compromised is a contributing factor.
Again, please point out where thats been said, I've not seen it.FEOS wrote:
The judge said the detainee's medical condition/treatment was what amounted to torture.
Try reading the OP.
"The techniques they used were all authorised, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent,"
As explained before, if I keep you awake for five minutes its not torture, if I keep you awake for a month it is torture. Application is relevant.
"His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case,"
Note 'treatment' not 'lack of treatment'
"If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques?" - Doesn't sound like a welfare issue to me, sounds like an issue with the techniques used.
Yes they are, he is in their custody, they are responsible, I don't care what some DoD memo says.The interrogators are not responsible for the detainee's medical condition/treatment.
They are responsible for causing him harm in the first place, they are responsible for his condition, less so the medical team for failing to patch him up and deliver him for more torture.
Well thats strange, you just said cause and blame hadn't been apportioned yet.The medical team's failure is the proximate cause.
You carry on with the pompous ass insults, its usually a good indicator you've lost the argument.FEOS wrote:
What I am saying is that if the judge is going to throw around torture accusations, she needs to ensure that they ID who was actually responsible for the condition of the detainee that caused her to view it as torture.
Edit: Added 'pompous ass' in an effort to win 'Best Quarrel 2009'
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-27 04:35:35)
Fuck Israel
I did. Perhaps you should.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, please point out where thats been said, I've not seen it.FEOS wrote:
The judge said the detainee's medical condition/treatment was what amounted to torture.
Try reading the OP.
And you've chosen to skip key pieces of the article. How surprising.Dilbert_X wrote:
"The techniques they used were all authorised, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent,"
As explained before, if I keep you awake for five minutes its not torture, if I keep you awake for a month it is torture. Application is relevant.
Left in a "life-threatening condition".OP wrote:
Susan Crawford told the Washington Post newspaper that Mohammad al-Qahtani had been left in a "life-threatening condition" after being interrogated.
The medical staff can intercede (and is expected to intercede) at any point in the interrogation to protect the health of the detainee. That clearly didn't happen. The interrogators rely on the medical staff to tell them when the detainee can't take any more. If the medical staff doesn't do that, the interrogators continue. It's really quite simple.
It is the same thing.Dilbert_X wrote:
"His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case,"
Note 'treatment' not 'lack of treatment'
That's because it's convenient to your torture argument.Dilbert_X wrote:
"If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques?" - Doesn't sound like a welfare issue to me, sounds like an issue with the techniques used.
The techniques used were legal. The care of the detainee outside of interrogation was flawed.
It doesn't really matter what you care or don't care about. DoD directives "direct" (hence the name) how things will be done.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes they are, he is in their custody, they are responsible, I don't care what some DoD memo says.The interrogators are not responsible for the detainee's medical condition/treatment.
He wasn't in the interrogators' custody. He was in the custody of the facility, of which the interrogators and medical staff are a part. And each group has to execute their role. If one doesn't, things break down. The key is finding what broke down when and how.
Or you could just choose to point fingers and not worry about what actually went wrong. That would require objectivity and effort...two things you lack when it comes to anything involving issues you've already made your mind up about (which is pretty much every issue).
His health wouldn't have been an issue if the medical team had done their job.Dilbert_X wrote:
They are responsible for causing him harm in the first place, they are responsible for his condition, less so the medical team for failing to patch him up and deliver him for more torture.
No, I didn't. She has already done that without differentiating. I am arguing that a differentiation should be made to determine where the fixes need to be implemented.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well thats strange, you just said cause and blame hadn't been apportioned yet.The medical team's failure is the proximate cause.
And just how is that insulting in any way?Dilbert_X wrote:
You carry on with the pompous ass insults, its usually a good indicator you've lost the argument.FEOS wrote:
What I am saying is that if the judge is going to throw around torture accusations, she needs to ensure that they ID who was actually responsible for the condition of the detainee that caused her to view it as torture.
Edit: Added 'pompous ass' in an effort to win 'Best Quarrel 2009'
Finding insults where there are none may win you "Biggest Paranoid of 2009", but you'll likely be in the running for that one, regardless.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You're reading more into that than is there.FEOS wrote:
Susan Crawford told the Washington Post newspaper that Mohammad al-Qahtani had been left in a "life-threatening condition" after being interrogated.
Using Occam's razor, the interrogation left him in a life threatening condition -> the interrogation was the problem, not some lack of action by the medical personnel.
If you can find something to back your argument please do so.
His health wouldn't have been an issue if he hadn't been tortured either.FEOS wrote:
His health wouldn't have been an issue if the medical team had done their job.
See how that works?
Its not, suggest you re-read my post, then you'll see which sentence refers to which quote, and so on.FEOS wrote:
And just how is that insulting in any way?
FEOS wrote:
Finding insults where there are none may win you "Biggest Paranoid of 2009", but you'll likely be in the running for that one, regardless.
Since your arguments fail you're just making yourself look dumber with your patronising hogwash.FEOS wrote:
Let me know when you're done with the spoon I'm feeding you with. I might need it later.
I'll need that spoon back now...I'm sure I'll need it later.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-27 23:24:52)
Fuck Israel
Using Occam's razor, it says no such thing. Occam's razor is not what you used. You used simple deductive reasoning, ignoring information already provided to inform said reasoning. You choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're reading more into that than is there.FEOS wrote:
Susan Crawford told the Washington Post newspaper that Mohammad al-Qahtani had been left in a "life-threatening condition" after being interrogated.
Using Occam's razor, the interrogation left him in a life threatening condition -> the interrogation was the problem, not some lack of action by the medical personnel.
In fact, Occam's razor, when given the additional information provided, would lead one away from your conclusion. Detainee's health is the responsibility of the medical troops. Detainee's health was compromised. Therefore, medical troops did not do their jobs.
The fact that you refuse to accept the reality of roles and responsibilities of the parties involved does not obviate their existence.
Already done. The fact that you refuse to accept it is your problem, not mine.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you can find something to back your argument please do so.
And as has been stated before, you are making a correlation where there is none. If someone is fed steak every single meal and not allowed to exercise, their health will suffer. They haven't been tortured, but they have been mistreated in that they weren't properly cared for from a health perspective.Dilbert_X wrote:
His health wouldn't have been an issue if he hadn't been tortured either.FEOS wrote:
His health wouldn't have been an issue if the medical team had done their job.
See how that works?
The techniques described were not torture (sleep deprivation, loud music, temperature control) then, nor are they torture now.
Don't need to re-read, unless you edited afterward. There was no insult quoted or referenced. Hence the question.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not, suggest you re-read my post, then you'll see which sentence refers to which quote, and so on.FEOS wrote:
And just how is that insulting in any way?
Here is what you made the comment in reference to:
Please point out the insult.FEOS wrote:
What I am saying is that if the judge is going to throw around torture accusations, she needs to ensure that they ID who was actually responsible for the condition of the detainee that caused her to view it as torture.
Just because you won't accept them doesn't mean they fail. It means you are doing your typical dance: "I don't like your argument and refuse to accept it because--even though it is based in fact and sourced--it doesn't support my conspiracy theory. Therefore I reject it and accuse you of name calling."Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Finding insults where there are none may win you "Biggest Paranoid of 2009", but you'll likely be in the running for that one, regardless.Since your arguments fail you're just making yourself look dumber with your patronising hogwash.FEOS wrote:
Let me know when you're done with the spoon I'm feeding you with. I might need it later.
I'll need that spoon back now...I'm sure I'll need it later.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Nope, detainees health is the responsibility of his captors, the judge, correctly, didn't make any distinction between torturers and medical personnel. If they chose to divide responsibility and absolve some people thats up to them - but not legal.
'Well thats strange, you just said cause and blame hadn't been apportioned yet.'
The line above refers to the line below
'FEOS wrote:
What I am saying is that if the judge is going to throw around torture accusations, she needs to ensure that they ID who was actually responsible for the condition of the detainee that caused her to view it as torture.'
'You carry on with the pompous ass insults, its usually a good indicator you've lost the argument.'
The line above refers to your previous post about needing to be spoon-fed, not your line above.
Got it now? I don't plan to paste pasta every single one of your lines which I refer to, I can't be bothered, if you can't keep up too bad.
If you choose to resort to insults instead of arguing the points thats up to you.
Where exactly? Your DOD memo is meaningless, the judge didn't apportion blame, until blame is apportioned you have nothing.FEOS wrote:
Already done. The fact that you refuse to accept it is your problem, not mine.
The judge found that they were torture, and stated so very specifically, repeatedly, go argue with her.The techniques described were not torture (sleep deprivation, loud music, temperature control) then, nor are they torture now.
As you seem to need to be spoonfed everything:Don't need to re-read, unless you edited afterward. There was no insult quoted or referenced. Hence the question.
'Well thats strange, you just said cause and blame hadn't been apportioned yet.'
The line above refers to the line below
'FEOS wrote:
What I am saying is that if the judge is going to throw around torture accusations, she needs to ensure that they ID who was actually responsible for the condition of the detainee that caused her to view it as torture.'
'You carry on with the pompous ass insults, its usually a good indicator you've lost the argument.'
The line above refers to your previous post about needing to be spoon-fed, not your line above.
Got it now? I don't plan to paste pasta every single one of your lines which I refer to, I can't be bothered, if you can't keep up too bad.
I didn't accuse you of name calling, I accused you of being insulting, do try to keep up.Therefore I reject it and accuse you of name calling.
If you choose to resort to insults instead of arguing the points thats up to you.
Fuck Israel
It is most certainly legal to determine who is actually at fault...not who is blamed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nope, detainees health is the responsibility of his captors, the judge, correctly, didn't make any distinction between torturers and medical personnel. If they chose to divide responsibility and absolve some people thats up to them - but not legal.
The DoD memo is most certainly NOT meaningless. You choose to call it that because it's convenient in your attempt to apply a broad swath of blame instead of being concerned about what actually happened.Dilbert_X wrote:
Where exactly? Your DOD memo is meaningless, the judge didn't apportion blame, until blame is apportioned you have nothing.FEOS wrote:
Already done. The fact that you refuse to accept it is your problem, not mine.
No, the judge found the overall treatment of the prisoner to be torture--and stated so very specifically. Repeatedly. In the article.Dilbert_X wrote:
The judge found that they were torture, and stated so very specifically, repeatedly, go argue with her.The techniques described were not torture (sleep deprivation, loud music, temperature control) then, nor are they torture now.
That overall treatment consists of many facets, and each must be examined to determine what actually happened and who is actually at fault.
You should work on your spoonfeeding then, because you've completely missed the point.Dilbert_X wrote:
As you seem to need to be spoonfed everything:Don't need to re-read, unless you edited afterward. There was no insult quoted or referenced. Hence the question.
'Well thats strange, you just said cause and blame hadn't been apportioned yet.'
The line above refers to the line below
'FEOS wrote:
What I am saying is that if the judge is going to throw around torture accusations, she needs to ensure that they ID who was actually responsible for the condition of the detainee that caused her to view it as torture.'
If you read what I actually wrote (try it--it's helpful when debating), you would see that I never once said or implied that "cause and blame hadn't been apportioned yet". In fact, I'm saying the opposite: the judge is apportioning cause and blame without investigating the true cause, applying a broad brush when there are specific roles and responsibilities of separate groups involved.
It's not an insult when it's true. It's just an observation at that point. The fact that you got offended by an observation is really irrelevant.Dilbert_X wrote:
'You carry on with the pompous ass insults, its usually a good indicator you've lost the argument.'
The line above refers to your previous post about needing to be spoon-fed, not your line above.
If you're going to accuse someone of insulting you, you'd best be bothered or else STFU. No insult was given. The fact that you took it as an insult says far more about you than it does about me.Dilbert_X wrote:
Got it now? I don't plan to paste pasta every single one of your lines which I refer to, I can't be bothered, if you can't keep up too bad.
If only this were the only thread where you've resorted to that tired tactic, you'd have a point. It's not...so you don't.Dilbert_X wrote:
I didn't accuse you of name calling, I accused you of being insulting, do try to keep up.Therefore I reject it and accuse you of name calling.
If you choose to resort to insults instead of arguing the points thats up to you.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- 20th Hijacker - No prosecution due to torture