Since you're making the claims, the burden is on you to provide the evidence. Afterall, you keep demanding sources but could do your own google search. Besides, I merely asked which document you were specifically citing. Is that too hard for you perhaps?
I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the finer points of espionage. I don't need to cite sources for my argument, but perhaps you should actually do more extensive reading on the subject yourself.
"First, have you ever noticed how little drops of water dripping over the same spot on the asphalt will eventually dig holes (about one cm deep) in the asphalt? Water is a rather painful affair, if applied correctly. Imagine it slowly drilling a one centimeter-deep hole in your forehead. Second, due to the way you're tied up, you see every drop coming, and can do nothing to stop it. You can't retreat into yourself, as your concentration is fully on the drops."
This no doubt explains why people in asia walk around with multiple multicentimeter holes on their body because of all the rain in monsoon season. Hypothetical extrapolations like your scenario are laughable. Show me the bodies of people who've been subjected to Chinese water torture that demonstrate your point. I guess it's a good thing you don't have testicles to test your theory.
Also, pleae define, if you can, what you mean about entering combat. If you mean becoming a participant by picking up arms or even just being in a combat zone.
" 'I wonder if in fact they've done much research on torture or just complain b/c it's one of the methods cited as being used in the "war on terror".'
It is? I knew about the sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, beatings, attack dogs, sexual abuse, and what the Heck not, but not water torture. Source, please."
If you're saying Chinese H2O torture is not being used, then why bring up the subject at all? I was wondering what all the fuss was about unless they (the "anti Chinese H20 torture people")were citing that it was actually being used. If it's not being used, then the point is in fact moot and I'm not clear why you brought it up at all.
On the surface, your argument about innocent civilians is that so far some have died in US attacks vs the terrorists and "insurgents". You have yet to demonstrate, in spite of your claims to the contrary, that the US is deliberately targeting civilians with no concern as to if there are enemies in the designated target zone. The thrust of your argument has in essence been that the US was purposefully targeting civilains just to kill civilians. As I recall from the news coverage, it was well known that the Marines were going in and that "innocent civilians" had time to be evacuated and there were concentrations of "fighters" content and intent to turn the city into a killing zone. I don't contest that civilians may have been/were killed in the city fighting, but find your claim to be baseless that said civilians were killed just for the sake of killing them. If taken to it's logical conclusion, you argument would also condemn the allies in WW2 for allowing innocent french civilians to die in the invasion.
Your thinking on this issue can reasonably lead one to conclude that you believe in peace at any price, lest any civilians be hurt. It's not a straw man argument b/c you don't like it's implications. Simply put, both you and them are focusing exclusively on the idea that there were civilians in/near the target zones and that that should have exempted those targets from being hit despite their legitimate military value. That doesn't cut it anywhere in the real world and is actually very dangerous thinking in a wartime situation.
I think that we should refrain from further discussion w/one another on this topic as we'll probably never agree on anything. Let's just agree to disagree.