On the one hand wingnuts are saying that the torture techniques weren't really torture and were really no big deal. Just a little standing and a little bit of water they say. On the other hand wingnuts say that these "harsh interrogations" techniques were super duper effective at making detainees give up information to stop terrorist attacks. Both simply can't be true.
Either the interrogation techniques were a piece of cake that only pansies would call torture
OR they inflicted a lot of pain and anquish which led the detainees to finally break and give up the information.
The truth is neither premise is right. Harsh interrogation was torture and it wasn't effecitive at getting real confessions. Still you have to think that the wingnuts are quite confused on whether or not they should argue that torture wasn't so bad at all or that torture was so bad ass that KSM was singing like a bird.
I think I am going to badger a troll with this inconsistency very very soon. I love to see their heads explode.
The Last Post
1 month ago