|
Sweden33719 Posts
@Incontrol
You are saying the US isn't the only one to have done this, or indeed, doing it right now - which is true, but being in the company of the nazis, communist russia, the chinese and 3rd world countries isn't exactly where I think the US wants to be.
You are saying that it's not about Bush, and it's not, sure, but he's the one doing it now and should be the one punished for it now. You impeached clinton over a fucking blowjob, I dare say this is a fair bit worse of a breach than that was so people have every right to get pissed off - just as they had when any other president did this.
Others doing it does not make it right, which you agree to, but then you say it's a fact of war or something? What? We know it's wrong. We know it shouldn't be done. But we should do it anyway, just because others have before us?
It is not a fact of war, it's true that horrible things are done during war but if you think the situation you are in is even close to what a real war is, then you are crazy-- And even during a real war (you know, like, world war 2) these things are unacceptable and should be avoided.
On September 08 2006 13:21 Kwark wrote:
I'm with inc here. And the US doesn't harm these people. They use sleep deprivation, loud annoying noises (and I mean really loud), bright lights blaring into your eyes etc.... Shit that I'd hate to be faced with admittedly. But in the end if you tell them what they want to know you'll end up in court with nothing but bad memories to show for it. And what they want to know is where the terrorists trying to kill innocent US citizens are. The question is reasonable enough imo. Sure it's not nice but it's not torture as such.
Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING
IMO, that's torture. And eh, just because that's what they say they are doing doesn't mean that's the whole truth.
|
i don't believe you really can justify torture in any way because it in itself is extremely inhuman, even though it may save more lives. it's kind of the same thing as death penalty, you might save some lives by killing the criminal so that he won't take more lives when he's released from prison, but does that justify killing him in turn?
edit: and yeah lol, if loud noises, sleep deprivation etc isn't torture, then what is it? just a simple little annoyance? i'd rather call it "alternative torture", sure, you don't rip their bodies apart and eviscerate them, but what they do is still fucking horrible.
|
secret prison AKA concentration camp
|
United States43473 Posts
At FA.
Amnesty International calls those methods torture. The US doesn't. So don't give me all that shit about the pronounciation of torture. Ok? I am way ahead of you here. Kk?
Given the dispute about what torture is defined as I jumped straight to the methods involved to avoid any argument. And the methods involved are in my opinion justified.
So instead of treating me like an idiot you could presume that I was attempting to make a point, then listen to the point I made instead of dismissing it out of hand.
|
On September 08 2006 13:28 NSDAP wrote:
secret prison AKA concentration camp
I haven't opened a history book in a while, but wasn't the NSDAP the nazi party? And if so, doesn't this make the fact that you made this comparison unbelievably ironic?
|
United States43473 Posts
National Socialist German Workers Party.
Spot on. lol.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2006 13:37 Kwark wrote:
At FA.
Amnesty International calls those methods torture. The US doesn't. So don't give me all that shit about the pronounciation of torture. Ok? I am way ahead of you here. Kk?
Given the dispute about what torture is defined as I jumped straight to the methods involved to avoid any argument. And the methods involved are in my opinion justified.
So instead of treating me like an idiot you could presume that I was attempting to make a point, then listen to the point I made instead of dismissing it out of hand.
What the fuck? I wasn't trying to dismiss it out of hand, but after you say 'the US doesn't consider it torture'..
Well, no shit? You don't think they, being the perpetrators, are a weeeee bit too biased for their opinion on this matter to be taken seriously?
I love your sig btw.
|
United States43473 Posts
Thanks. The word torture has connotations beyond what the US are doing here though. This is not tearing out fingernails or stuff like that. This is loud noises and bright lights. Even if you'd define that as torture I still would say it was justified. I want to clarify that doesn't mean I agree with torture as a whole. I agree with torture such as the methods listed above which causes no physical harm to the subject. This is why myself, and the US, draw that distinction about it not being torture. If I was speaking to amnesty international I'd be forced to say I'd agree with torture, if speaking to the US Government I'd say I wasn't. So sure, the US give media spin to it, say it isn't torture. You're entirely right, they're baised there. Well I support it, torture or no. If they worked with US investigators in stopping terrorist attacks the issue wouldn't come up. But the distinction the US has drawn is a useful one, it is the line between harming the terrorist and making him uncomfortable.
Oh, and sorry for overreacting if you didn't mean the pronouciation thing to be patronising. I guess I took offence to easily.
|
On September 08 2006 14:15 Kwark wrote:
Thanks. The word torture has connotations beyond what the US are doing here though. This is not tearing out fingernails or stuff like that. This is loud noises and bright lights. Even if you'd define that as torture I still would say it was justified. I want to clarify that doesn't mean I agree with torture as a whole. I agree with torture such as the methods listed above which causes no physical harm to the subject. This is why myself, and the US, draw that distinction about it not being torture. If I was speaking to amnesty international I'd be forced to say I'd agree with torture, if speaking to the US Government I'd say I wasn't. So sure, the US give media spin to it, say it isn't torture. You're entirely right, they're baised there. Well I support it, torture or no. If they worked with US investigators in stopping terrorist attacks the issue wouldn't come up. But the distinction the US has drawn is a useful one, it is the line between harming the terrorist and making him uncomfortable.
Oh, and sorry for overreacting if you didn't mean the pronouciation thing to be patronising. I guess I took offence to easily.
How many people were released from guantanamo without any charge?
Do you have an idea how the us army is used in afghanistan by the local warchiefs to erase eachother?
Don't you know that psychological pain cause often way more problem than physical pain?
So you have no problem torturing people as soon as you think it reinforce your protection. You know, if you kill 100 random people, you are likely to kill someone who may have, one day, a car accident. Why don't you go kill them then, since it reinforce your protection?
Or maybe agreing to torture people just so that you gain a little bit of security just make you a little bastard that doesn't worth more than those "terrorists"?
|
United States43473 Posts
I'd agree to the torture of these people, and we're talking torture by amnesty international definition, not physical harm, if it defended the ideal of people living free from the threat of terrorism simply for being a citizen of the wrong state. If 9/11 could have been stopped by the use of this 'torture' I'd be all for it. I believe there is a moral difference between the state securing a peaceful way of life for it's innocent citizens and a terrorist, seeking to kill those innocents. However you believe I'm a bastard for thinking that. In fact you put me on the same level as the terrorists who commit these atrocities. How exactly does that add up? I want people to be free to live their lives without fear of unwarranted terrorist attacks... Terrorists want to kill innocents for their ideal...... I'm as bad as them...... Explain.
|
On September 08 2006 14:48 Kwark wrote:
I'd agree to the torture of these people, and we're talking torture by amnesty international definition, not physical harm, if it defended the ideal of people living free from the threat of terrorism simply for being a citizen of the wrong state. If 9/11 could have been stopped by the use of this 'torture' I'd be all for it. I believe there is a moral difference between the state securing a peaceful way of life for it's innocent citizens and a terrorist, seeking to kill those innocents. However you believe I'm a bastard for thinking that. In fact you put me on the same level as the terrorists who commit these atrocities. How exactly does that add up? I want people to be free to live their lives without fear of unwarranted terrorist attacks... Terrorists want to kill innocents for their ideal...... I'm as bad as them...... Explain.
"innocent citizens" is a fucking myth that people developped to not face their responsability.
A state is made of citizens, and citizens are responsible for the action of their state.
By agreeing with the use of torture, you are just a torturer. You agree with the fact that some people didn't respect the most basics rights of other people so that they could live better. That's exactly what "terrorists" do. So yes you are just a reflect of what you pretend to fight. At least "terrorists" don't try to lie to themselves.
Not to even mention that you way of fighting terrorism is actually developping it. If USA respected other people and didn't helped the talibans to grew strong there would not have been 11 septembre. So yeah, continue the cycle so that more people can die...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2006 14:15 Kwark wrote:
Thanks. The word torture has connotations beyond what the US are doing here though. This is not tearing out fingernails or stuff like that. This is loud noises and bright lights. Even if you'd define that as torture I still would say it was justified. I want to clarify that doesn't mean I agree with torture as a whole. I agree with torture such as the methods listed above which causes no physical harm to the subject. This is why myself, and the US, draw that distinction about it not being torture. If I was speaking to amnesty international I'd be forced to say I'd agree with torture, if speaking to the US Government I'd say I wasn't. So sure, the US give media spin to it, say it isn't torture. You're entirely right, they're baised there. Well I support it, torture or no. If they worked with US investigators in stopping terrorist attacks the issue wouldn't come up. But the distinction the US has drawn is a useful one, it is the line between harming the terrorist and making him uncomfortable.
Oh, and sorry for overreacting if you didn't mean the pronouciation thing to be patronising. I guess I took offence to easily.
Ah no, it was a copy paste out of Merriam-Webster dictionary haha, just highlighted it all =]
On September 08 2006 14:48 Kwark wrote:
I'd agree to the torture of these people, and we're talking torture by amnesty international definition, not physical harm, if it defended the ideal of people living free from the threat of terrorism simply for being a citizen of the wrong state. If 9/11 could have been stopped by the use of this 'torture' I'd be all for it. I believe there is a moral difference between the state securing a peaceful way of life for it's innocent citizens and a terrorist, seeking to kill those innocents. However you believe I'm a bastard for thinking that. In fact you put me on the same level as the terrorists who commit these atrocities. How exactly does that add up? I want people to be free to live their lives without fear of unwarranted terrorist attacks... Terrorists want to kill innocents for their ideal...... I'm as bad as them...... Explain.
I think torture infringes on many of americas great ideals, as does terrorism, but if you let the terrorists scare you into breaking your own laws - your ideals - then you've lost, I think.
And yeah, torture (let's call it 'torture') probably does more harm than it does good. Yes, you'll get a few names, but you'll also torture a few innocent persons and enrage large groups of people, from whom new terrorists (and more legal forms of anti-americanism) will emerge.
|
United States43473 Posts
Ah. So 9/11 was the fault of the people in the towers. I see now. There are no innocent citizens. Terrorism is the blame of the state which is attacked and therefore the fault of the citizens. So thats ok then.
WAIT A SECOND!!!
What if someone in the twin towers didn't vote? In fact, what if a terrorist killed a child who couldn't vote? In fact, what if holding every innocent civilian who has died due to a terrorist attack responsible for it, claiming them not to be innocent (which is of course a myth) but in fact entirely to blame for being bombed, is a completely fucktarded thing to do? How can you possibly say that? And you call me a torturer.
To FA, in my heart I'd agree with you. But I want less people to die. I cringe at the idea of holding the rights of one man above another, even if that man is a suicide bomber. But in the real world, I believe these things must be done. But hey, I hope you'd agree in my attack against the last post. 
|
On September 08 2006 15:01 Kwark wrote:
Ah. So 9/11 was the fault of the people in the towers. I see now. There are no innocent citizens. Terrorism is the blame of the state which is attacked and therefore the fault of the citizens. So thats ok then.
WAIT A SECOND!!!
What if someone in the twin towers didn't vote? In fact, what if a terrorist killed a child who couldn't vote? In fact, what if holding every innocent civilian who has died due to a terrorist attack responsible for it, claiming them not to be innocent (which is of course a myth) but in fact entirely to blame for being bombed, is a completely fucktarded thing to do? How can you possibly say that? And you call me a torturer.
So for you all is black or white? Too hard to think otherwise?
When a country arms and strenghtens terrorists it is partially responsible for their actions yes. That doesn't mean that those terrorists have not any responsability. They have their own.
Did you just discover than when a country make a choice it has some consequences? Or can't you understand that a choice has sometime several consequences?
True innocence doesn't exist. You are a part of a system, learn to live with it; And if you deny your responsability (by not voting for example), that doesn't make you an innocent, just a man that have let the thing be done.
|
United States43473 Posts
Ah. So now you call me stupid. Fine. The argument was over when you blamed terrorism on the victims. When you said that if an "ENTIRELY GUILTY FOR NO MAN IS INNOCENT" child is killed by a bomb he is to blame. Thats when you lost the argument. Understand? I see no point in replying further to one such as you.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:10 Agone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2006 15:01 Kwark wrote:
Ah. So 9/11 was the fault of the people in the towers. I see now. There are no innocent citizens. Terrorism is the blame of the state which is attacked and therefore the fault of the citizens. So thats ok then.
WAIT A SECOND!!!
What if someone in the twin towers didn't vote? In fact, what if a terrorist killed a child who couldn't vote? In fact, what if holding every innocent civilian who has died due to a terrorist attack responsible for it, claiming them not to be innocent (which is of course a myth) but in fact entirely to blame for being bombed, is a completely fucktarded thing to do? How can you possibly say that? And you call me a torturer. So for you all is black or white? Too hard to think otherwise? When a country arms and strenghtens terrorists it is partially responsible for their actions yes. That doesn't mean that those terrorists have not any responsability. They have their own. Did you just discover than when a country make a choice it has some consequences? Or can't you understand that a choice has sometime several consequences? True innocence doesn't exist. You are a part of a system, learn to live with it; And if you deny your responsability (by not voting for example), that doesn't make you an innocent, just a man that have let the thing be done.
Like what, 30% of the US voted Bush? 30% voted Kerry? 40% didn't vote?
|
On September 08 2006 15:13 Kwark wrote:
Ah. So now you call me stupid. Fine. The argument was over when you blamed terrorism on the victims. When you said that if an "ENTIRELY GUILTY FOR NO MAN IS INNOCENT" child is killed by a bomb he is to blame. Thats when you lost the argument. Understand? I see no point in replying further to one such as you.
Ah so typical. I blamed terrorism partialy on the people that helped it to develop. And yes, sometimes those are ironicaly the victims of it.
Note also how you try to pass from someone who acknowledge and agree with the action of their state to a little child.
Too hard to face your responsability? You are not the little innocent that you would like to be? You can't stand to be for the torture of people and to be called a torturer.
Continue to flee and deny your responsability, you don't have the strenght of mind to assume them.
|
On September 08 2006 15:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2006 15:10 Agone wrote:On September 08 2006 15:01 Kwark wrote:
Ah. So 9/11 was the fault of the people in the towers. I see now. There are no innocent citizens. Terrorism is the blame of the state which is attacked and therefore the fault of the citizens. So thats ok then.
WAIT A SECOND!!!
What if someone in the twin towers didn't vote? In fact, what if a terrorist killed a child who couldn't vote? In fact, what if holding every innocent civilian who has died due to a terrorist attack responsible for it, claiming them not to be innocent (which is of course a myth) but in fact entirely to blame for being bombed, is a completely fucktarded thing to do? How can you possibly say that? And you call me a torturer. So for you all is black or white? Too hard to think otherwise? When a country arms and strenghtens terrorists it is partially responsible for their actions yes. That doesn't mean that those terrorists have not any responsability. They have their own. Did you just discover than when a country make a choice it has some consequences? Or can't you understand that a choice has sometime several consequences? True innocence doesn't exist. You are a part of a system, learn to live with it; And if you deny your responsability (by not voting for example), that doesn't make you an innocent, just a man that have let the thing be done. Like what, 30% of the US voted Bush? 30% voted Kerry? 40% didn't vote?
So? We don't speak here about a raise of taxes or some minor political actions. We speak of actions that negate some fondamental rights and generate a lot of murders/violence/terrorism just because some people think it will benefit them.
If the majority were really against it, there would have been some serious demonstration and the government would have been empeached since a long time.
When you let something be done, you are not as responsible as if you have encouraged it but you have still some serious responsabilities.
Holy shit, the USA have no problem demanding economical sanctions against the Iranians (for their nuclear research and their support to Hezbollah). By the same logic the Iranians are total innocents that just work in their towers, so why should they get punished?
|
United States43473 Posts
On September 08 2006 15:26 Agone wrote:
Ah so typical. I blamed terrorism partialy on the people that helped it to develop. And yes, sometimes those are ironicaly the victims of it.
What exactly did the American citizens do that justified 9/11? That was bad enough that 3000 of them had to die. You seem to feel that it was their fault. That they caused it. That the Muslims were justified in attacking. So tell us, what did they do wrong?
On September 08 2006 15:26 Agone wrote:
Note also how you try to pass from someone who acknowledge and agree with the action of their state to a little child.
Terrorists kill children too. However unlike US Marines, terrorists try and kill children. They deliberately set out to do so. And there are countless examples of Jewish school buses in Israel being suicide bombed if you even try and dispute that.
Oh, and Iran is led by a man who wishes the destruction of Israel. A man who, while denying the holocaust, says he'd have been happier had it really happened. A man who will proudly say that if he had the means, he'd kill every Jew alive. And a man who will shortly have access to nuclear material. Unless someone does something.... But of course you're opposed to those sanctions. Because the Jews deserve to die right? Because there's no such thing as an innocent.....
And second oh, far better a torturer of a terrorist using methods that may or not be torture depending on your definition to obtain information that will save innocent lives than a terrorist. I endorse torture in that context, you endorse terrorism. And then you bitch at me.....
|
On September 08 2006 14:48 Kwark wrote:
I'd agree to the torture of these people, and we're talking torture by amnesty international definition, not physical harm, if it defended the ideal of people living free from the threat of terrorism simply for being a citizen of the wrong state. If 9/11 could have been stopped by the use of this 'torture' I'd be all for it. I believe there is a moral difference between the state securing a peaceful way of life for it's innocent citizens and a terrorist, seeking to kill those innocents. However you believe I'm a bastard for thinking that. In fact you put me on the same level as the terrorists who commit these atrocities. How exactly does that add up? I want people to be free to live their lives without fear of unwarranted terrorist attacks... Terrorists want to kill innocents for their ideal...... I'm as bad as them...... Explain.
First of all your definition of torture as physical harm doesn't just ignore the "Amnesty International " definition, you are ignoring the common sense definition. Physical harm is assault. Torture is meant to cause excruciating pain with the psychological effect of breaking the victim's will. Whether it causes any permanent effects is not even central to the idea of torture. The very fact that your starting to resort to such Orwellian twists on words shows that your state cannot be going down a good path..
And this brings me to the second point, which is if you are contesting the Geneva convention or the Amnesty International's ideas, come right out and admit it. Say you disagree that torture is wrong and declare that it is now standard practice. Don't pay lip service to it while candlestinely carry it out. It is shameful and insincere to couch behind legalistic definitions such as "enemy combatants" or attempts to redefine "torture". Vaguely reminiscient of "the Jewish Solution", isn't it? Actions like these by are not only cowardly, but they also erode political and civil ideals by promoting doublespeak and hypocrisy.
Lastly, many of those ppl in Guantanamo aren't even convicted terrorists or even charged; they are simply "suspected" of terrorists organizations. United States and the 'free nations of the world' prides themself on 'innocent before proven guilty', and while you might argue it only applies to citizen of 'civilized and free nations', it started out as a moral philosophy which embraced all of mankind. Are you about to endanger the spiritual and philosphical underpinnings of your Constitution for the temprorary relief it brings you now. If you are, then maybe you aren't as free as you think you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
