posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69
Talk about lack of reading comprehension.
I'll ask for the second time...
Where have I denied the CIA's involvement?
I called out the case in question and pointed out how you've completely sidestepped what I've written now for the third time about all the other
European countries [And Canada's] participation in the actuall overthrowing of Gaddafi AND also, still can't make a legitimate case that the Muslim
Brotherhood [Even though they have been active for decades] are a CIA creation or are supported [other than your theory and conjecture]
Nobody here has rose colored glasses about torture and CIA involvement.
You denied the CIA's involvement in your post, when you insinuated the CIA was not involved, and that this story was false -
You wrote in your first post:
So let me get this straight...
The U.S. is demonized for supposedly helping the Gaddafi regime against Libyan protesters but are also equally demonized for supposedly helping those
very same Libyan protesters against Gaddafi.
I think some are just happy demonizing the U.S. for whatever reason.
Just admit it...
By claiming "some are happy demonizing the U.S. for whatever reason," you imply the story is false and nothing more than an excuse to demonize the
Then you wrote:
We can both agree that torture is wrong and I wont argue against the fact that the CIA are and have been involved with cases such as this but
here again, there is no way to know if this case is even true or if the CIA were involved.
That's the problem with Blogs as sources. They can creatively write whatever the hell they want and someone will eat it up without being objective.
Again, by first incorrectly claiming the story came from a blog source, where anyone can "write whatever the hell they want", without recognizing
the source of the OP is the Human Rights Organization (which has cited a large number of sources in their report, as well as having conducted many of
the interviews with the former detainees).
This is another deflection tactic you employed - by belittling the source, implying it was written to demonize the US for whatever reason.
Is it too much to ask people actually read the source of the OP, then comment on that information, and not immediately launch into personal attacks
(like PvtHudson does in virtually every thread topic)? Or, as you have done, go off on a pro-USA rah rah rant about how these threads are just some
snide attack on the US, completely ignoring the evidence given, or trying to take the post off topic?
Even your comment:
I called out the case in question and pointed out how you've completely sidestepped what I've written now for the third time about all the
other European countries [And Canada's] participation in the actuall overthrowing of Gaddafi
Here you go off on a tangent, in that this topic
was about torture and rendition between the CIA and Gaddafi's regime long BEFORE Nato got involved in supporting the Libyan rebels. So I'm afraid it
is you who are sidestepping the issue - the "U.S. Used This Torture Box to Interrogate Gadhafi’s Enemies" and commited human rights violations