A few weeks ago, Sean Hannity made a comment about waterboarding.
GRODIN: You're for torture. HANNITY: I am for enhanced interrogation. GRODIN: You don't believe it's torture. Have you ever been waterboarded? HANNITY: No, but Ollie North has. GRODIN: Would you consent to be waterboarded? We can waterboard you? HANNITY: Sure. GRODIN: Are you busy on Sunday? HANNITY: I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families.
Since then, offers have been made to pay $1,000 per second Hannity endured the technique and to double the price if he admitted he feared for his life. Hannity hasn't said a thing since this offer has been made - it's been a while, he's not likely to say anything.
BUT other conservatives have stepped up to the plate:
These guys did it just to prove a point (and managed to prove another one). Let's hope Sean Hannity does it with the incentive of money for charity. It's hard to imagine it taking more than 10 seconds for him to completely change his tune.
It's pretty terrifying to see these guys so shaken. It really drives home the point that this is not just "pouring water" - it's drowning. It's torture.
I don't think either Hitchens' or Mancow's (who Wikipedia says is a FM DJ, not conservative talk show host) testimonies mean that much, but I would LOVE to see Sean Hannity waterboarded for 30 seconds.
They force you to breathe water causing you to drown. This triggers a very strong fear of drowning since apparently that's what was hard wired into mammals to make them more successful at surviving drowning.
If you don't know where you are and blindfolded knowing people want to do some real bad things with you, it is possible you will break your own bones.
In the end you die if they don't stop. If you survive, it causes psychological damage. You will have nightmares.
It is a common form of water torture probably known as long as people torture. But once it was discovered the US used this form of torture NYT changed the name to 'waterboarding'.
On May 23 2009 07:13 Jibba wrote: I don't think either Hitchens' or Mancow's (who Wikipedia says is a FM DJ, not conservative talk show host) testimonies mean that much, but I would LOVE to see Sean Hannity waterboarded for 30 seconds.
wikipedia is right - he is a fm dj. and he is a conservative talk show host.
his show, afaik, is a morning talk show on from 9-11am.
King James I personally described the process in The Kings Booke (1606). He would, on the advice of his officers, “approve no new torture,” but he would certainly avail himself of the existing practices. In ascending order of severity they were: thumbscrews, the rack and waterboarding. That’s right. Waterboarding was considered the most severe of the official forms of torture. Worse than the rack and thumbscrews.
Wow what a jerk. How can you say something like "I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families." and then chicken out. Way to stick your own foot down your throat.
Unfortunately its still nothing compared to what most powerful nations have done in the past 50 or so years, and for which they take no responsibility themselves. So, very rich to criticize the US.
On May 23 2009 07:38 CubEdIn wrote: Wow what a jerk. How can you say something like "I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families." and then chicken out. Way to stick your own foot down your throat.
Ah, you must not know much about Hannity. He has made a living on hypocrisy and contradictions to put it mildly.
On May 23 2009 07:40 FieryBalrog wrote: It is torture.
Unfortunately its still nothing compared to what most powerful nations have done in the past 50 or so years, and for which they take no responsibility themselves. So, very rich to criticize the US.
I'm not sure what this post means. Others have done it, we can do it too?
On May 23 2009 07:40 FieryBalrog wrote: It is torture.
Unfortunately its still nothing compared to what most powerful nations have done in the past 50 or so years, and for which they take no responsibility themselves. So, very rich to criticize the US.
If your country tortures people it deserves to be criticized. Its not part of some global conspiracy to hate on the US. I think its pathetic that anyone would try and excuse it away like that
Imagine being tortured like that 183 times by people who hate you, like it happened to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Not that I pity him but I wonder if he's mental sane any more.
On May 23 2009 07:48 ghermination wrote: I almost want to have this done just to see what its like, it seems utterly horrifying.
It seems extremely easy to do (not that I recommend it). You put a rag over your nose, and pour water on it...
With the technique so easy to do and videos readily available on youtube I'm expecting to hear about some poor suburban kid getting waterboarded by his classmates in the near future
On May 23 2009 07:49 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I went into it thinking "I can do that easily."
Then I watched it.. had it explained etc.. now I KNOW I could not take that very long at all. I have a huge fear of drowning
Same, when I saw the video of Mancow being waterboarded I was thinking "damn...that looks easy", then after hearing about how he felt during it and his reaction afterwards...shit seems horrifying now.
On May 23 2009 07:48 ghermination wrote: I almost want to have this done just to see what its like, it seems utterly horrifying.
It seems extremely easy to do (not that I recommend it). You put a rag over your nose, and pour water on it...
With the technique so easy to do and videos readily available on youtube I'm expecting to hear about some poor suburban kid getting waterboarded by his classmates in the near future
yeah i had the same feeling. someone is going to say 'i can do that' and ....
k I read this before taking a bath...bad idea. Its not so much fear as a complete fucking panic attack. I could only stand about maybe 3-5 seconds before confirming what I already thought true. fuck that shit.
The water pools at the nasal nerves which causes you to feel that you're drowning. My brother was water boarded in some type of training routine when he was in the marines and they train you on how to deal with it. There's a few videos of this on youtube, one of them is a reporter being water boarded for the first time and it doesn't seem to be effecting him very badly. He lasted the length of the video and didn't make a sound so some people are able to handle it and others aren't.
On May 23 2009 08:32 Mindcrime wrote: Hitchens isn't a conservative.
just because he is a vocal atheist he is a liberal?
he is in no way your average conservative but on issues relating to the war on terrorism - torture/interrogation included - he is a hawk and he is conservative.
on other issues he holds other views, many of them more liberal.
but ill admit that im not intimately knowledgeable when it comes to hitchens' views, so feel free to let me know specifics about his views on the war on terror
ahahah mancow is such a hack with that stupid radio voice of his
The only valid argument I can understand for waterboarding is that it cant actually kill anyone because its all simulated. But I would never be stupid enough to voluneer for it like Hannity.
On May 23 2009 09:03 ktp wrote: ahahah mancow is such a hack with that stupid radio voice of his
The only valid argument I can understand for waterboarding is that it cant actually kill anyone because its all simulated. But I would never be stupid enough to voluneer for it like Hannity.
On May 23 2009 08:32 Mindcrime wrote: Hitchens isn't a conservative.
just because he is a vocal atheist he is a liberal?
he is in no way your average conservative but on issues relating to the war on terrorism - torture/interrogation included - he is a hawk and he is conservative.
on other issues he holds other views, many of them more liberal.
but ill admit that im not intimately knowledgeable when it comes to hitchens' views, so feel free to let me know specifics about his views on the war on terror
what the fuck is wrong with me? im asking if thats what you meant. it is what he is most famous for nowadays and i was wondering if that is the reason you said that. i apologize for offending your delicate sensibilities.
I think they are idiots for subjecting themselves to torture, especially methods that have been proven to be effective at cauing pain, fear or danger to physical and/or mental health. I also think it's pretty interesting that the soldiers who have been trained to withstand techniques like this claim it is not torture. I can only speculate that it is because it is not as bad when you are mentally prepared for it and have been instructed on how to withstand it. They also seem to say that it isn't torture unless it does severe physical damage to your body.
That being said, hearing about torture makes me angry and makes me want to write a thousand words on how wrong it is and how wrong its supporters are.
On May 23 2009 07:13 Jibba wrote: I don't think either Hitchens' or Mancow's (who Wikipedia says is a FM DJ, not conservative talk show host) testimonies mean that much, but I would LOVE to see Sean Hannity waterboarded for 30 seconds.
lol as wrong as that sounds, it would really make him shut his pie for a while..
It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
so its basically a cheaper way of drowning someone without turning them upside down or requiring a whole pool of water and bricks tied to the ankles so they would sink and drown. i thought they would just drip water on them instead of pour it. or is that something else?
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
I would be willing to bet that you would be an absolute pussy. I'd LOVE to see you waterboarded. You wouldn't last 5 seconds.
Do you think the people in the videos in this thread knew that they wouldn't actually drown? Yes they did. They know exactly what you know, but look at them bail after seconds and STILL talk about the fear they experienced.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
I would be willing to bet that you would be an absolute pussy. I'd LOVE to see you waterboarded. You wouldn't last 5 seconds.
Do you think the people in the videos in this thread knew that they wouldn't actually drown? Yes they did. They know exactly what you know, but look at them bail after seconds and STILL talk about the fear they experienced.
I'm sure they also haven't been put through numerous other things that, us in the military endure all the time. You see, my job entails more than getting behind a mic every day.
Why does anybody even listen to Hannity; hell this is the same guy that thinks Halloween is a liberal holiday and that it is used to teach our kids to ask for handouts. I mean seriously...
On May 23 2009 12:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why does anybody even listen to Hannity; hell this is the same guy that thinks Halloween is a liberal holiday and that it is used to teach our kids to ask for handouts. I mean seriously...
/facepalm. The only person I watch on Fox is Glenn Beck, though Hannity's radio program isn't *that* bad I like the 'ask the person on the street' stuff. Pretty eye opening.
I ask the same question. Why does anybody even listen to Olbermann and Maddow?
I'm more of a Mark Levin and Glenn Beck type of guy.
Hannity is such a bitch. He claims that waterboarding isn't torture and that he would do it from the troops families, but never goes through with it. Keith Olbermann calls him out on it and says he'll pay him an inordinate sum of money but Hannity doesn't even respond. It's astonishing how people who have no idea what they are talking about can spew nonsense simply because they are on a prominent station. It's like males being against abortion.
Glenn Beck is a bit of a douchecanoe as well. 9/12? "I fear for my country" and the forced tears? What utter nonsense.
This is probably a pretty stupid question, but couldn't you just hold your breath while they do it? I suppose you couldn't if they did it to you for twenty minutes, but it seems like they'd have to say to these people who do it for the experience, "alright, now you have to INHALE when we pour the water on your face."
On May 23 2009 12:16 ghostWriter wrote: Hannity is such a bitch. He claims that waterboarding isn't torture and that he would do it from the troops families, but never goes through with it. Keith Olbermann calls him out on it and says he'll pay him an inordinate sum of money but Hannity doesn't even respond. It's astonishing how people who have no idea what they are talking about can spew nonsense simply because they are on a prominent station. It's like males being against abortion.
Glenn Beck is a bit of a douchecanoe as well. 9/12? "I fear for my country" and the forced tears? What utter nonsense.
Oh yes, these are the worst 'people in the world'. Where on that list is Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, ad infinitum dictators and add in those responsible for genocide (Darfur). Nope...not those guys. His side buddies buddies with those guys.
I think the ultimate torture for me, would strap me down and watch MSNBC for 12 hours. I think I'd rather shoot myself.
On May 23 2009 12:25 Ancestral wrote: This is probably a pretty stupid question, but couldn't you just hold your breath while they do it? I suppose you couldn't if they did it to you for twenty minutes, but it seems like they'd have to say to these people who do it for the experience, "alright, now you have to INHALE when we pour the water on your face."
The method involved triggers the gag reflex immediately. You're trying to breathe from the go.
And to the people saying there is no risk to the participant, you're wrong. Oxygen deprivation can occur, and if you dont think theres risk in that- I don't know what to tell you.
Whoa, that's scary as hell... Especially the fact that you can't do anything about it, and have no idea what's going to come.
I mean your heart rate must already be insanely just out of anticipation and fear, not to mention the fact that you're being drowned. Definitely torture in my book.
On May 23 2009 12:34 Mindcrime wrote: His "best people in the world" also aren't. oh noez!
You aren't one of those people who think Colbert is a conservative are you?
No. I don't watch Colbert anyways. I tend to drift to the more constitutional crowd those with you know, principles and values, then create platforms around those. Arrgh, who am I kidding anyways, the people in politics now-a-days with that gumption is less than 5% and thats being generous.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
Most people in the military also lack any degree beyond a high school diploma. You may be an exception. I dont know, but I highly doubt your state of mind can immediately overpower years of evolutionary adaptation aimed at avoiding drowning. With your hands and feet and body bound, do you really believe you'll remain calm. With practice who knows what anyone can accomplish. Surely your self assured faith in your "epically fucking huge will" can help you here.
On May 23 2009 12:34 Mindcrime wrote: His "best people in the world" also aren't. oh noez!
You aren't one of those people who think Colbert is a conservative are you?
No. I don't watch Colbert anyways. I tend to drift to the more constitutional crowd those with you know, principles and values, then create platforms around those. Arrgh, who am I kidding anyways, the people in politics now-a-days with that gumption is less than 5% and thats being generous.
As opposed to the unconstitutional crowd? The one prohibited by the supreme law of the land? oh wait, wat
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
O M G!!!
This is our chance to start a fund raising campaign to watch Aegraen get waterboarded live on Mogulus!! I got 5 bucks!
On May 23 2009 11:30 Aegraen wrote: Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
Gee, and the conservatives being waterboarded didn't know that they weren't going to be killed? I really want to see how long your "epicly fucking huge will" would last. Somehow, I think attempting to "outwill" the feeling of drowning is a lot harder to "outwill" your standard pain.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
your nose and mouth fill up regardless of breathing. your lungs burn immediately. your brain flips out within seconds.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
Most people in the military also lack any degree beyond a high school diploma. You may be an exception. I dont know, but I highly doubt your state of mind can immediately overpower years of evolutionary adaptation aimed at avoiding drowning. With your hands and feet and body bound, do you really believe you'll remain calm. With practice who knows what anyone can accomplish. Surely your self assured faith in your "epically fucking huge will" can help you here.
%100 guaranteed he'll freak the first time, it has nothing to do with will power. When I did it earlier...there is really nothing to compare the feeling of panic. However I think after the first time you know what to expect and with practice you will be able to endure it.
I've been in the pool and accidentally breathed water in through my mouth and water got in to my nose at the same time (I was seeing how many forward rolls I could do underwater with one breath). I think its comparable to some degree, I wasn't completely filled up, but I can still recall the feeling over a decade later.
On May 23 2009 07:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote: ah controlled drowning basically.. fucked up.
Yeah except that it feels like your going to die right away after a few seconds because your nose fills up with water and your extremely fast heartbeat will deplete your oxygen in a matter of seconds, which causes an immense fear/panic reaction
On May 23 2009 12:34 Mindcrime wrote: His "best people in the world" also aren't. oh noez!
You aren't one of those people who think Colbert is a conservative are you?
No. I don't watch Colbert anyways. I tend to drift to the more constitutional crowd those with you know, principles and values, then create platforms around those. Arrgh, who am I kidding anyways, the people in politics now-a-days with that gumption is less than 5% and thats being generous.
As opposed to the unconstitutional crowd? The one prohibited by the supreme law of the land? oh wait, wat
:|
Yes, as opposed to the crowd who does anything for power, disregards the intent and wording of the constitution and panders to groups.
I'm sure you think taking over industries is constitutional. Never mind the fact that the founders sought to strictly LIMIT the power to the federal government.
Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist. Yes.
Progressive, which now-a-days just means socialist, marxist, etc. No.
Really, you think the (D)'s who spend every waking moment to limit the 2nd amendment and impose restrictions on the first amendment, and bypass the 10th amendment, or just skip right over it, have this immense gratitude and upholding of the you know, supreme law of the land. This same group who doesn't enforce any immigration laws at all. Yes, that group who are blatantly, un-constitutional.
Don't worry, the (R)'s are just one little step behind them.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
Most people in the military also lack any degree beyond a high school diploma. You may be an exception. I dont know, but I highly doubt your state of mind can immediately overpower years of evolutionary adaptation aimed at avoiding drowning. With your hands and feet and body bound, do you really believe you'll remain calm. With practice who knows what anyone can accomplish. Surely your self assured faith in your "epically fucking huge will" can help you here.
oh now dont bother trying to convince Aegraen through referring to evolution
one of the biggest "stories" of the last two years is "waterboarding". thats pretty telling of these times. the public debates what is and what isnt torture. as if anything the public knows has anything to do with what is done behind closed doors. waterboarding is child's play compared to what really goes on. the fact that it has even entered the public/media discourse is evidence that it is a red herring, a non-issues, just something to put on in between commercials.
If I was fighting against US army and knew stuff like that being done to my comrads, I would shoot americans like dogs :/ Except I do kinda like dogs...
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
Most people in the military also lack any degree beyond a high school diploma. You may be an exception. I dont know, but I highly doubt your state of mind can immediately overpower years of evolutionary adaptation aimed at avoiding drowning. With your hands and feet and body bound, do you really believe you'll remain calm. With practice who knows what anyone can accomplish. Surely your self assured faith in your "epically fucking huge will" can help you here.
oh now dont bother trying to convince Aegraen through referring to evolution
I think what he meant to say was 'fight or flight response'...no no...'instincts'...possibly...oh rubbish, everyone knows the things people will do for money.
I'm a pretty calm demeanored guy, so yeah there would be no reason for my heart rate to increase. It takes quite a bit to get me anxious, nervous, scared, etc.
I'm also acutely aware of the 'fear of drowning' since you know, I am part of a Sea going service.
On May 23 2009 21:11 Mah Buckit! wrote: If I was fighting against US army and knew stuff like that being done to my comrads, I would shoot americans like dogs :/ Except I do kinda like dogs...
yeah, but you forget that your supposed "comrads" prefer beheadings
edit:
This guy willingly got waterboarded for 20+ minutes. Also has some nice interviews.
On May 23 2009 21:11 Mah Buckit! wrote: If I was fighting against US army and knew stuff like that being done to my comrads, I would shoot americans like dogs :/ Except I do kinda like dogs...
Yes, you know since 2001 it's only been used on 3, yes 3 people.
I highly doubt we are incurring the Nazi v Soviet hatred of no POW. That truly was a kill or be killed scenario with no other options.
Imagine how the Americans feel when Al'Qaeda uses beheadings instead of this.
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
Most people in the military also lack any degree beyond a high school diploma. You may be an exception. I dont know, but I highly doubt your state of mind can immediately overpower years of evolutionary adaptation aimed at avoiding drowning. With your hands and feet and body bound, do you really believe you'll remain calm. With practice who knows what anyone can accomplish. Surely your self assured faith in your "epically fucking huge will" can help you here.
oh now dont bother trying to convince Aegraen through referring to evolution
I think what he meant to say was 'fight or flight response'...no no...'instincts'...possibly...oh rubbish, everyone knows the things people will do for money.
I'm a pretty calm demeanored guy, so yeah there would be no reason for my heart rate to increase. It takes quite a bit to get me anxious, nervous, scared, etc.
I'm also acutely aware of the 'fear of drowning' since you know, I am part of a Sea going service.
So Aegraen, when did you graduate highschool and what religion were you brainwashed with?
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
Most people in the military also lack any degree beyond a high school diploma. You may be an exception. I dont know, but I highly doubt your state of mind can immediately overpower years of evolutionary adaptation aimed at avoiding drowning. With your hands and feet and body bound, do you really believe you'll remain calm. With practice who knows what anyone can accomplish. Surely your self assured faith in your "epically fucking huge will" can help you here.
oh now dont bother trying to convince Aegraen through referring to evolution
I think what he meant to say was 'fight or flight response'...no no...'instincts'...possibly...oh rubbish, everyone knows the things people will do for money.
I'm a pretty calm demeanored guy, so yeah there would be no reason for my heart rate to increase. It takes quite a bit to get me anxious, nervous, scared, etc.
I'm also acutely aware of the 'fear of drowning' since you know, I am part of a Sea going service.
So Aegraen, when did you graduate highschool and what religion were you brainwashed with?
You might want to elaborate on your thoughts here. What were you brainwashed with?
You guys are all obviously neo-liberals. This technique has saved hundreds of America lives and none of you seem to care about that? Why do you guys care what's being done to terrorists leaders in Guantanamo Bay? This technique is not used on all prisoners.
Terrorist being waterboarded is a lot better than a skyscraper falling down because some liberals couldn't see a TERRORISTS being waterboarded.
On May 23 2009 21:11 Mah Buckit! wrote: If I was fighting against US army and knew stuff like that being done to my comrads, I would shoot americans like dogs :/ Except I do kinda like dogs...
Yes, you know since 2001 it's only been used on 3, yes 3 people.
I highly doubt we are incurring the Nazi v Soviet hatred of no POW. That truly was a kill or be killed scenario with no other options.
Imagine how the Americans feel when Al'Qaeda uses beheadings instead of this.
I don't understand. Is the argument because it's been used only 3 times, it's not so bad?
Only 2 americans were beheaded in iraq, 6 foreigners total, yet I think that's pretty bad.
Legal and moral justification isn't based on numbers. There's an excess of obfuscation of two simple questions: 1) is waterboarding torture 2) is torture legally justifiable
The volunteers in the demonstrations I've seen so far are of the opinion it is torture. (And I am curious what would happen if a rogue police officer tried it on a domestic suspect. Technically shouldn't that be legal?)
Whether torture is justifiable is a separate issue
On May 23 2009 21:11 Mah Buckit! wrote: If I was fighting against US army and knew stuff like that being done to my comrads, I would shoot americans like dogs :/ Except I do kinda like dogs...
Yes, you know since 2001 it's only been used on 3, yes 3 people.
I highly doubt we are incurring the Nazi v Soviet hatred of no POW. That truly was a kill or be killed scenario with no other options.
Imagine how the Americans feel when Al'Qaeda uses beheadings instead of this.
3 people, hundreds of times.
i am an american, i don't need to imagine how i feel or how everyone i knows feel. i am a new yorker, i saw the world trade centers on fire.
On May 23 2009 22:14 ingvarb1 wrote: You guys are all obviously neo-liberals. This technique has saved hundreds of America lives and none of you seem to care about that? Why do you guys care what's being done to terrorists leaders in Guantanamo Bay? This technique is not used on all prisoners.
Terrorist being waterboarded is a lot better than a skyscraper falling down because some liberals couldn't see a TERRORISTS being waterboarded.
you have no idea what neo-liberal means and it is painfully apparent in several ways.
On May 23 2009 21:11 Mah Buckit! wrote: If I was fighting against US army and knew stuff like that being done to my comrads, I would shoot americans like dogs :/ Except I do kinda like dogs...
Yes, you know since 2001 it's only been used on 3, yes 3 people.
I highly doubt we are incurring the Nazi v Soviet hatred of no POW. That truly was a kill or be killed scenario with no other options.
Imagine how the Americans feel when Al'Qaeda uses beheadings instead of this.
I don't understand. Is the argument because it's been used only 3 times, it's not so bad?
Only 2 americans were beheaded in iraq, 6 foreigners total, yet I think that's pretty bad.
Legal and moral justification isn't based on numbers. There's an excess of obfuscation of two simple questions: 1) is waterboarding torture 2) is torture legally justifiable
The volunteers in the demonstrations I've seen so far are of the opinion it is torture. (And I am curious what would happen if a rogue police officer tried it on a domestic suspect. Technically shouldn't that be legal?)
Whether torture is justifiable is a separate issue
The military is not law enforcement. Comparing the two is futile. As libs do, as libs do, they always make every 'war' into some lawyer-esque 'law enforcement confrontation' non-sense.
Islamo-fascism is alive and deadly. Techniques that aren't horrendously abhorrable should be used to extract information that could possibly save many lives, at the very least if not civilian militarily.
Should we prosecute the soldiers on the beaches of Normandy who 'executed' german soldiers who were surrendering?
how can you justify current behaviour with what happened during world war 2? seriously? seeing as you seemingly have no moral objections to torture, and that you think any legal objections are irrelevant, how about this
torture has been proven to be a horrible and absolutely unreliable way of extracting information because people in fact tend to say whatever the torturer wants to hear rather than what actually is the truth.
On May 23 2009 22:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: how can you justify current behaviour with what happened during world war 2? seriously? seeing as you seemingly have no moral objections to torture, and that you think any legal objections are irrelevant, how about this
torture has been proven to be a horrible and absolutely unreliable way of extracting information because people in fact tend to say whatever the torturer wants to hear rather than what actually is the truth.
Who said anything about 'justifying' etc. I want to see if he'll stay consistent.
Waterboarding works. You honestly believe that the CIA just goes around and waterboards anyone, not knowing if they even have any actionable intelligence they can gleam. Naivate. Everyone who is waterboarded is verified beforehand that they do know information that is actionable.
I'll say this again. Waterboarding isn't torture. Yeah, yeah semantics, right? Well I certainly do not place waterboarding in the same definition as for example, what happened to John McCain in captivity. Do you?
On May 23 2009 22:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: torture has been proven to be a horrible and absolutely unreliable way of extracting information because people in fact tend to say whatever the torturer wants to hear rather than what actually is the truth.
He already said earlier that since the awesome infallible american intelligence can check false claims in no time. He thinks the it's more than worth the risk, the rights of some random innocent guy aren't worth as close as much as the huge threat that nonexistent weapons of mass destruction might pose to himself.
Basically you're saying that torture is (or should be) legally justifiable in a wartime setting. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion.
Of course the legally part is important, because we have a civilian government, and the military has to follow whatever restrictions the law sets for it.
I'm curious why you found it necessary to use the horrendously abhorrable classification. People like you usually don't care, since they value security far greater than individual rights.
On May 23 2009 22:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: how can you justify current behaviour with what happened during world war 2? seriously? seeing as you seemingly have no moral objections to torture, and that you think any legal objections are irrelevant, how about this
torture has been proven to be a horrible and absolutely unreliable way of extracting information because people in fact tend to say whatever the torturer wants to hear rather than what actually is the truth.
Who said anything about 'justifying' etc. I want to see if he'll stay consistent.
Waterboarding works. You honestly believe that the CIA just goes around and waterboards anyone, not knowing if they even have any actionable intelligence they can gleam. Naivate. Everyone who is waterboarded is verified beforehand that they do know information that is actionable.
I'll say this again. Waterboarding isn't torture. Yeah, yeah semantics, right? Well I certainly do not place waterboarding in the same definition as for example, what happened to John McCain in captivity. Do you?
The John McCain scale of torture: If you weren't tortured as much as this one dude 40 years ago it does not count as torture.
I wonder if William Wallace would call what happened to John McCain torture. Hell why not go back to throwing spears and skinning eachother alive, since relativation is a valid tool for justifying horrible acts, fuck human progress.
The drowning paradox. Holding your head in a bucket til the point of drowning then bringing you back up, giving you one breath then back under = torture. Doing it without the bucket = not torture.
On May 23 2009 22:14 ingvarb1 wrote: You guys are all obviously neo-liberals. This technique has saved hundreds of America lives and none of you seem to care about that? Why do you guys care what's being done to terrorists leaders in Guantanamo Bay? This technique is not used on all prisoners.
Terrorist being waterboarded is a lot better than a skyscraper falling down because some liberals couldn't see a TERRORISTS being waterboarded.
Thank god for america! Think of all they lives they saved when the invaded iraq, destroyed a country, and killed thousands. America! YEAH!
On May 23 2009 22:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: how can you justify current behaviour with what happened during world war 2? seriously? seeing as you seemingly have no moral objections to torture, and that you think any legal objections are irrelevant, how about this
torture has been proven to be a horrible and absolutely unreliable way of extracting information because people in fact tend to say whatever the torturer wants to hear rather than what actually is the truth.
Who said anything about 'justifying' etc. I want to see if he'll stay consistent.
Waterboarding works. You honestly believe that the CIA just goes around and waterboards anyone, not knowing if they even have any actionable intelligence they can gleam. Naivate. Everyone who is waterboarded is verified beforehand that they do know information that is actionable.
I'll say this again. Waterboarding isn't torture. Yeah, yeah semantics, right? Well I certainly do not place waterboarding in the same definition as for example, what happened to John McCain in captivity. Do you?
the same CIA that thought there were WMD in iraq? weren't statements gotten through torture used as part of the justification for that entire escapade?
waterboarding is torture, they're utilizing it because it's so horrible that everyone succumbs to it. there's little permanent physical damage, but a significant amount of psychological damage - hitchens reported problems sleeping because of one controlled experiment. please tell me you understand that the personal consequences would be significantly worse through it happening repeatedly, while the guys doing it are threatening you, while you are held captive and where it is done in combination for example sleep deprivation..
just because this is "less bad" than stuff that happened 50 years ago by regimes or groups USA would never even dream of comparing itself with (it's implied that the self-stated pinnacle of western democracy and freedom is morally elevated above random vietkong guerilla soldiers, or soldiers in nazi germany, or guards in Gulag camps.) does not mean it justifies it at all.
further, torture employed by american soldiers greatly increases the danger of torture being applied against american soldiers. this is common sense, come on.. torture breeds hatred.. through employing it, you're creating emotions bound to bite yourself in the ass.
I'm not at all justifying 9/11, that was a horrible tragedy. however, many people stated, somewhat distastefully, that this was payback for the USA's foreign policy, especially with regard to the middle east. you think going there and torturing people whom by many are regarded as important leader figures (and just how horrible and deserving these people in actuality are is irrelevant) / martyrs is going to improve the chances of 9/11 never being repeated? once again, seriously?
On May 23 2009 12:34 Mindcrime wrote: His "best people in the world" also aren't. oh noez!
You aren't one of those people who think Colbert is a conservative are you?
No. I don't watch Colbert anyways. I tend to drift to the more constitutional crowd those with you know, principles and values, then create platforms around those. Arrgh, who am I kidding anyways, the people in politics now-a-days with that gumption is less than 5% and thats being generous.
As opposed to the unconstitutional crowd? The one prohibited by the supreme law of the land? oh wait, wat
:|
Yes, as opposed to the crowd who does anything for power, disregards the intent and wording of the constitution and panders to groups.
I'm sure you think taking over industries is constitutional. Never mind the fact that the founders sought to strictly LIMIT the power to the federal government.
Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist. Yes.
Progressive, which now-a-days just means socialist, marxist, etc. No.
Really, you think the (D)'s who spend every waking moment to limit the 2nd amendment and impose restrictions on the first amendment, and bypass the 10th amendment, or just skip right over it, have this immense gratitude and upholding of the you know, supreme law of the land. This same group who doesn't enforce any immigration laws at all. Yes, that group who are blatantly, un-constitutional.
Don't worry, the (R)'s are just one little step behind them.
Freedom of association is a right. Their actions, when in positions of power, may be unconstitutional and they may claim authority where they have none, but the group itself is perfectly in line with the constitution.
And thanks for misjudging my political orientation.
On May 23 2009 22:14 ingvarb1 wrote: You guys are all obviously neo-liberals. This technique has saved hundreds of America lives and none of you seem to care about that? Why do you guys care what's being done to terrorists leaders in Guantanamo Bay? This technique is not used on all prisoners.
Terrorist being waterboarded is a lot better than a skyscraper falling down because some liberals couldn't see a TERRORISTS being waterboarded.
Well if you don't give a damn about morals and think it's all necessary then look from practical point of view.
Torture DID NOT extract any additional valuable information that wasn't already obtained through smart interrogation techniques. Only people saying that they did is Bush administration (especially Dick Cheney), who has yet to prove it. On the other hand, FBI lead interrogators and other people who have access to secret memos have testified that none of this is true and no such information was gathered.
Torture DID extract false information because tortured people said anything to stop it. This led to hundreds of innocent people getting jailed, wasted millions of dollars and valuable investigators time on investigations that led nowhere because information was made up.
Based on false information (from tortured detainees) on Iraq link to Al-Qaeda, a war was started which cause about 150,000 - 250,000 civilian deaths, wasted billions of dollars during disastrous economic times and worsened situation in middle east.
Torture and Iraq war DID increase potential terrorist count because fundamentalists used increased hatred towards America as its recruitment tool.
Even if you think its moral to torture terrorists, in reality it's inefficient, slow and counter-productive way to fight terrorism.
On May 23 2009 22:14 ingvarb1 wrote: You guys are all obviously neo-liberals. This technique has saved hundreds of America lives and none of you seem to care about that? Why do you guys care what's being done to terrorists leaders in Guantanamo Bay? This technique is not used on all prisoners.
Terrorist being waterboarded is a lot better than a skyscraper falling down because some liberals couldn't see a TERRORISTS being waterboarded.
We all like free markets, deregulation and globalization? How did you come to this conclusion?
On May 23 2009 10:24 HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
With adequate proof that it is you, I will literally pay you $100 for every second above 5 seconds you are waterboarded
I'll do it.
Its about a state of mind more than anything else. The intention when you are waterboarded is not to kill you. It is to extract information. Once you know this you can last as long as your will is there. Most of us in the military have epicly fucking huge wills.
How much is in your bank account?
Most people in the military also lack any degree beyond a high school diploma. You may be an exception. I dont know, but I highly doubt your state of mind can immediately overpower years of evolutionary adaptation aimed at avoiding drowning. With your hands and feet and body bound, do you really believe you'll remain calm. With practice who knows what anyone can accomplish. Surely your self assured faith in your "epically fucking huge will" can help you here.
oh now dont bother trying to convince Aegraen through referring to evolution
I think what he meant to say was 'fight or flight response'...no no...'instincts'...possibly...oh rubbish, everyone knows the things people will do for money.
I'm a pretty calm demeanored guy, so yeah there would be no reason for my heart rate to increase. It takes quite a bit to get me anxious, nervous, scared, etc.
I'm also acutely aware of the 'fear of drowning' since you know, I am part of a Sea going service.
So Aegraen, when did you graduate highschool and what religion were you brainwashed with?
You might want to elaborate on your thoughts here. What were you brainwashed with?
Sure I'll start. My brainwashing started when I was a little boy of 3. My parents made me go to church every sunday and attempted to instill the "word of god" in me. Luckily, I couldn't reconcile the teachings of religion with what I was learning in science class. Attempts at brainwashing me pretty much ended here, although I still see signs proclaiming the power of god to the depressed, tired, confused, and hopeless. It's true, christains and religious groups feed on the weak.
The waterboarding debate is really not about whether or not it is torture, or whether or not it works. Besides the fact that those questions are not even in debate to people except political hacks, the debate is about whether or not it is legal and what the potential ramifications of torturing people are. Continuously discussing the technicalities of the word torture ignorantly or maliciously sidesteps the real issues. What does an official policy of torture do to our already battered image in the middle east? How will people treat our soldiers when captured? Does the rule of law apply to the executive branch of our government? How does such a policy effect our ability to leverage foreign governments on human rights issues?
The waterboarding debate is really not about whether or not it is torture, or whether or not it works. Besides the fact that those questions are not even in debate to people except political hacks, the debate is about whether or not it is legal and what the potential ramifications of torturing people are. Continuously discussing the technicalities of the word torture ignorantly or maliciously sidesteps the real issues. What does an official policy of torture do to our already battered image in the middle east? How will people treat our soldiers when captured? Does the rule of law apply to the executive branch of our government? How does such a policy effect our ability to leverage foreign governments on human rights issues?
I actually agree with what you said here. The only thing I would omit is that, I don't think we should care about torture worsening our reputation with the middle east. These insurgents aren't trying to win a war. They are trying to kill Americans, they aren't asking us to withdraw, or surrender territory, or wealth... They are asking us to die for being infidels.
The most important thing that we can get out of debating this is either a new policy on PoW treatment or to make sense of the old.
that is absolutely not true. USA was never targeted because it loves the wrong god or because it allows women to walk around almost naked and work or because it loves freedom.
On May 24 2009 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: that is absolutely not true. USA was never targeted because it loves the wrong god or because it allows women to walk around almost naked and work or because it loves freedom.
and jeppew that's excellent haha.
Assuming you are talking to me, why was the US targeted then? Also I did not say anything about women or loving freedom...
The two reasons we were targetted: 1) Helping Jews 2) Worshiping the wrong god.
because the foreign policy of the american government for the past 30 years has pissed off a lot of people. just think about the fact that the only western countries targeted have been countries involved in wars against predominantly islamic countries. canada has never been targeted, norway or sweden, far more secular (and thus heretic) countries have never been targeted. (note that it is largely considered better to be christian than atheist, even amongst muslim fundamentalists, similarly to how christian fundamentalists regard muslims as preferable over atheists. ). great britain was, because of their involvement in the invasion against iraq. spain was, because of their involvement in the invasion against iraq.. there's a clear pattern in terrorist attacks worldwide for the past 50 years, and they mostly all have in common that they are in some way retaliatory, and almost never caused by ideological or religious differences by themselves.
I am by no means justifying them, but you should not believe that "the muslims hate you because you're christian" - it's not the case.
the support of israel is indeed one of the main reasons, but there's also stuff like making afghanistan a military quagmire for the soviet union (usa deliberately gave the afghani rebels enough weaponry to resist the soviet union, but also not enough to defeat them - all to make sure USSR was sufficiently entrenched in afghanistan to make it so costly for them that it would contribute to them losing the cold war). obviously this was a horrible disaster for the afghani population - as USSR waged a truly, truly horrific war. (mines disguided as dolls to kill/maim children for one. ) of course, it's not the fault of USA that USSR uses this kind of weaponry, but it's not hard to understand why someone who fought for afghanistan, who realises that USA had weaponry they did not supply them with because they wanted the war to last longer, will end up really angry and vengeful..
supporting iraq against iran following the islamic revolution that overthrew the USA-friendly shah of iran (in 1979 - this war lasted from 1980 to 1988), for then to attack iraq in 1990-91. basically, USA has been supporting whichever regime has happened to be favourable of them at the moment, without much regard for who they end up pissing off through supporting those regimes.
On May 23 2009 21:11 Mah Buckit! wrote: If I was fighting against US army and knew stuff like that being done to my comrads, I would shoot americans like dogs :/ Except I do kinda like dogs...
yeah, but you forget that your supposed "comrads" prefer beheadings
Well beheading is not torture And you still have death penalties in some states. That´s pretty much the same thing but to your own people. Or well mostly to black people...
And you must remember that Al-Qaida relies heavily on religious brainwashing so they are kinda insane people like most people happen to be. Religions alone are never a reason for war or terrorism, they´re just the way to get the easily manipulated people do whatever the leaders want for whatever political etc. reasons they have. Politics are the reason for todays mass religions. Would christianity have survived without the Roman emperors first accepting it and then made it the only religion later on? Would there be any jews if they hadn´t been wealthy merchants back in the day? This has always been and pretty much will always be as long as we have religions and stuff. But you should know this because this manipulation happens all the time in America too. Don´t you think it´s funny how none of the US presidents are considered christian prophets when they always seem to know Gods will.
Anyway torture is never justified.
And maybe I would shoot americans like dogs anyway Don´t come on my yard.
I still think everything you mentioned is covered in my two reasons. I didn't mean or say that its because we are predominantly christian. The religion hate is because we are not unified under one religion, Islam. Its lack there of, not the wrong who.
Only helping which ever regime at the moment? If you are talking middle east, regimes change fucking daily, so that doesn't mean much. At the root its always been because American policy has been on the side of the Jews since forever.
You can stretch that any act of violence is retaliatory if you work hard enough, so that argument doesn't hold any weight. Every recent act of terror with America as the victim has had some underlying religious reason. You don't blow yourself up in a crowded bank for just one reason. Hate in itself is usually a compounding of dislikes that finally reach critical mass.
the american policy has not at all been on the side of the jews since forever, only since 67 or so. usa was quite arab-friendly until this point, and the arab world was quite usa-friendly.
On May 24 2009 01:32 keV. wrote: I still think everything you mentioned is covered in my two reasons. I didn't mean or say that its because we are predominantly christian. The religion hate is because we are not unified under one religion, Islam. Its lack there of, not the wrong who.
Only helping which ever regime at the moment? If you are talking middle east, regimes change fucking daily, so that doesn't mean much. At the root its always been because American policy has been on the side of the Jews since forever.
You can stretch that any act of violence is retaliatory if you work hard enough, so that argument doesn't hold any weight. Every recent act of terror with America as the victim has had some underlying religious reason. You don't blow yourself up in a crowded bank for just one reason. Hate in itself is usually a compounding of dislikes that finally reach critical mass.
That's so true. America should vote Ron Paul and say goodbye to Israel. Everybody would be happy.
The only thing I would omit is that, I don't think we should care about torture worsening our reputation
Our reputation and relationship with the local population of Iraq and Afhganistan is currently a central focus of our strategy. Take these examples for instance:
Irregular warfare is all about achieving influence and legitimacy over the population. Here, perceptions become reality. To win the battle of perceptions, U.S. officials will need to try new tactics if they hope to outfight the Taliban's propaganda machine.
The commanders pick an area, send in troops to clear it of insurgents, and keep it secure—at which point government representatives and foreign aid workers come in and build roads, schools, whatever's needed or wanted. The example of this success spreads to other areas, where the sequence is duplicated, until gradually the country prospers, the insurgents lose favor with the population, and the central government—which has been taking credit for these successes—gains legitimacy.
The two reasons we were targetted: 1) Helping Jews 2) Worshiping the wrong god
The most simple response is that we are not the only country that fits into those two categories, so why target us over the others? My assumption is that you are not very familiar with the role we have played in the middle east.
On May 24 2009 01:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: the american policy has not at all been on the side of the jews since forever, only since 67 or so. usa was quite arab-friendly until this point, and the arab world was quite usa-friendly.
im sorry I wasted a post anyway.
Well considering weapons didn't really get spread all over the place until after WWII, I'd count that as forever.
Arab-world is a pretty loose term. Israel is certainly part of that. Certainly, Americans weren't any more or less friendly with any arab-world country at that time, before things got heated (with big bombs and tanks)
The only thing I would omit is that, I don't think we should care about torture worsening our reputation
Our reputation and relationship with the local population of Iraq and Afhganistan is currently a central focus of our strategy. Take these examples for instance:
Irregular warfare is all about achieving influence and legitimacy over the population. Here, perceptions become reality. To win the battle of perceptions, U.S. officials will need to try new tactics if they hope to outfight the Taliban's propaganda machine.
The commanders pick an area, send in troops to clear it of insurgents, and keep it secure—at which point government representatives and foreign aid workers come in and build roads, schools, whatever's needed or wanted. The example of this success spreads to other areas, where the sequence is duplicated, until gradually the country prospers, the insurgents lose favor with the population, and the central government—which has been taking credit for these successes—gains legitimacy.
The two reasons we were targetted: 1) Helping Jews 2) Worshiping the wrong god
The most simple response is that we are not the only country that fits into those two categories, so why target us over the others? My assumption is that you are not very familiar with the role we have played in the middle east.
I'm too tired to format your post.
Firstly, When you quote that one line out of context, you could rightfully post that link. But I was quoting you, so the collective context is: "They do not take many, if any PoW, and if they did, considering the beheadings that took place before water boarding was even introduced into the media, treatment of our captured troops should not be a concern."
Secondly, why are we assumed to be the last? Whose to say they won't move onto another country when they are done with us? Why would you assume that? I mentioned siding with Israel.
On May 24 2009 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: usa supported egypt against israel in 1956-57.
OK, so since then?
Also, I don't want to play: I post something, you post something then we wiki each other trying to discredit, nothing I've claimed in relation to the topic at hand is completely baseless.
I can't believe people are still arguing on subjects like waterboarding. Waterboarding has been used on rare occasions on high-profile people ie, the mastermind of 9/11. With that said, the people we are fighting today in Iraq or Afghanistan are not patriotic normal citizen trying to protect their country. These people since birth saw their families die, saw their friends being blow apart, been told the American forces beheades their people. Their mentality towards life is completely different than those who has lived in a country that take their freedom for granted, ie US, and pretty much all the EUs. So the "conventional, socially accepted interrogating tactic" does not work obviously. Hell, these same people are the ones video taping American soldiers/hostages getting beheaded and putting their heads on its chest (and I'm sure no one has seen this thanks to the media) and their penis cut off and put inside their mouths. The amount of disrespect they have towards US is overwhelming, and yet the only thing the media puts on their show is about how an American soldier teaching a young Iraqi kid some bad words or not handing out candies from their god damn MREs. For fuck's sake, the people we are waterboarding are perfectly fine with beheading your mom, dad, brother, sister, or kid with a small steak knife and video taping it in the morning, and going to the church at 5:00pm that same day and praying to their God for hours on. And yet, the fact that we pour water over their head to making them "THINK" their drowning is so so horrible and demoralize all of what America stands for.. yeah..sure.
BTW here is a little example of the terrorists' own tactics. WARNING: Viewer Discretion Advised DO NOT OPEN IF YOUR WEAK IN THE STOMACH + Show Spoiler +
On May 24 2009 02:10 RoadTrippin wrote: I can't believe people are still arguing on subjects like waterboarding. Waterboarding has been used on rare occasions on high-profile people ie, the mastermind of 9/11. With that said, the people we are fighting today in Iraq or Afghanistan are not patriotic normal citizen trying to protect their country. These people since birth saw their families die, saw their friends being blow apart, been told the American forces beheades their people. Their mentality towards life is completely different than those who has lived in a country that take their freedom for granted, ie US, and pretty much all the EUs. So the "conventional, socially accepted interrogating tactic" does not work obviously. Hell, these same people are the ones video taping American soldiers/hostages getting beheaded and putting their heads on its chest (and I'm sure no one has seen this thanks to the media) and their penis cut off and put inside their mouths. The amount of disrespect they have towards US is overwhelming, and yet the only thing the media puts on their show is about how an American soldier teaching a young Iraqi kid some bad words or not handing out candies from their god damn MREs. For fuck's sake, the people we are waterboarding are perfectly fine with beheading your mom, dad, brother, sister, or kid with a small steak knife and video taping it in the morning, and going to the church at 5:00pm that same day and praying to their God for hours on. And yet, the fact that we pour water over their head to making them "THINK" their drowning is so so horrible and demoralize all of what America stands for.. yeah..sure.
BTW here is a little example of the terrorists' own tactics. WARNING: Viewer Discretion Advised DO NOT OPEN IF YOUR WEAK IN THE STOMACH + Show Spoiler +
I agree they are savage man beasts who hate us for our freedom they would literally eat our children if they practiced good dental hygiene and wouldn't break their teeth on our sons and daughters strong american bone structures
On May 24 2009 01:00 keV. wrote: Assuming you are talking to me, why was the US targeted then? Also I did not say anything about women or loving freedom...
The US was targeted because Osama bin Laden was trying to resurrect the islamic empire. I forget the exact term, but one that used to exist. The current governments were relying on western power and basically sheep under their policy, and he thought this blasphemy. He thought if he could strike at the most powerful non-islamic nation and show that they were weak it would rally people to his cause. This was made easier by other fundamentalist's anger at the US being on holy muslim grounds (saudi arabia). He also desired the US to go to war with them.
He got us to go to war with them, but despite what he considered a "unifying cause" it didn't happen.
All the other conjecture in this thread on the quoted question is good on an abstract level, but this is why 9/11 happened.
On May 24 2009 01:00 keV. wrote: Assuming you are talking to me, why was the US targeted then? Also I did not say anything about women or loving freedom...
The US was targeted because Osama bin Laden was trying to resurrect the islamic empire. I forget the exact term, but one that used to exist. The current governments were relying on western power and basically sheep under their policy, and he thought this blasphemy. He thought if he could strike at the most powerful non-islamic nation and show that they were weak it would rally people to his cause. This was made easier by other fundamentalist's anger at the US being on holy muslim grounds (saudi arabia). He also desired the US to go to war with them.
He got us to go to war with them, but despite what he considered a "unifying cause" it didn't happen.
All the other conjecture in this thread on the quoted question is good on an abstract level, but this is why 9/11 happened.
I said it was because of our support of Israel and because we are not unified under Islam.
On May 24 2009 02:10 RoadTrippin wrote: I can't believe people are still arguing on subjects like waterboarding. Waterboarding has been used on rare occasions on high-profile people ie, the mastermind of 9/11. With that said, the people we are fighting today in Iraq or Afghanistan are not patriotic normal citizen trying to protect their country. These people since birth saw their families die, saw their friends being blow apart, been told the American forces beheades their people. Their mentality towards life is completely different than those who has lived in a country that take their freedom for granted, ie US, and pretty much all the EUs. So the "conventional, socially accepted interrogating tactic" does not work obviously. Hell, these same people are the ones video taping American soldiers/hostages getting beheaded and putting their heads on its chest (and I'm sure no one has seen this thanks to the media) and their penis cut off and put inside their mouths. The amount of disrespect they have towards US is overwhelming, and yet the only thing the media puts on their show is about how an American soldier teaching a young Iraqi kid some bad words or not handing out candies from their god damn MREs. For fuck's sake, the people we are waterboarding are perfectly fine with beheading your mom, dad, brother, sister, or kid with a small steak knife and video taping it in the morning, and going to the church at 5:00pm that same day and praying to their God for hours on. And yet, the fact that we pour water over their head to making them "THINK" their drowning is so so horrible and demoralize all of what America stands for.. yeah..sure.
BTW here is a little example of the terrorists' own tactics. WARNING: Viewer Discretion Advised DO NOT OPEN IF YOUR WEAK IN THE STOMACH + Show Spoiler +
Yes, they are brutal. But we're better than that, and we lose our stance on human rights if we pursue things like this. This is the difference between us and them. Just because they do horrible things doesn't mean we're entitled to do "less horrible" things.
On May 24 2009 02:10 RoadTrippin wrote: I can't believe people are still arguing on subjects like waterboarding. Waterboarding has been used on rare occasions on high-profile people ie, the mastermind of 9/11. With that said, the people we are fighting today in Iraq or Afghanistan are not patriotic normal citizen trying to protect their country. These people since birth saw their families die, saw their friends being blow apart, been told the American forces beheades their people. Their mentality towards life is completely different than those who has lived in a country that take their freedom for granted, ie US, and pretty much all the EUs. So the "conventional, socially accepted interrogating tactic" does not work obviously. Hell, these same people are the ones video taping American soldiers/hostages getting beheaded and putting their heads on its chest (and I'm sure no one has seen this thanks to the media) and their penis cut off and put inside their mouths. The amount of disrespect they have towards US is overwhelming, and yet the only thing the media puts on their show is about how an American soldier teaching a young Iraqi kid some bad words or not handing out candies from their god damn MREs. For fuck's sake, the people we are waterboarding are perfectly fine with beheading your mom, dad, brother, sister, or kid with a small steak knife and video taping it in the morning, and going to the church at 5:00pm that same day and praying to their God for hours on. And yet, the fact that we pour water over their head to making them "THINK" their drowning is so so horrible and demoralize all of what America stands for.. yeah..sure.
BTW here is a little example of the terrorists' own tactics. WARNING: Viewer Discretion Advised DO NOT OPEN IF YOUR WEAK IN THE STOMACH + Show Spoiler +
1. Ideology: Other countries back us because we champion freedom and human rights. Who would help us against terrorism if we also terrorized other countries and stepped on human rights? You mention that they kill at 3pm and go to church at 5pm. We're not like that right? That's the point. We can't be waterboarding at 3pm and saying our hands are not dirty and we're for human rights.
Waterboarding might be practical. Maybe it helps us. But if we use it, we have to face the consequences. This debate of whether waterboarding is torture or not is trivializing torture. To everyone else's eyes, we're torturing people and not admitting it. Where is our moral authority then?
2. Practicality: Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are used by terrorists as recruitment camps. Watch McCain's interview with Greta: http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/ (Go to ON THE RECORD section and click "Sen. McCain Uncut". They start by talking about waterboarding.)
I'll say it straightforward, waterboarding is torture. Hell, you tie a person's hands and feet to a table and start dropping water drops onto his forehead for an hour and that's torture. If "US as a country champion freedom and human rights" then might as well we should stop all the special ops/black ops going on in the Middle East. Cause what JSOC and USASOC is doing over there literally makes waterboarding a child's play. But at the end of the day, whatever they did/are doing in Middle East is stopping the terrorists from invading the US soil.
Yes, a country that praises its freedom and human rights needs to follow the guidelines on the Geneva convention and human rights, but is it practical/possible? I'm like the last person to tell you this but the world is a unfair place and there will be corruptions and US breaking the law. It will happen. It has happened in the past and no shit it will happen again and again.
But seriously in a broad picture, we're at war. People kill and people get killed. We pour some water over a few people to get some information. Is that really that bad? C'mon. At least he'll live to fight another day.
On May 24 2009 04:50 randomKo_Orean wrote: I disagree with torture in any way, shape, or form. I've never been tortured, but every single human being that has been tortured condone torture.
I think you're mixing up the words condone and condemn.
On May 24 2009 02:10 RoadTrippin wrote: I can't believe people are still arguing on subjects like waterboarding. Waterboarding has been used on rare occasions on high-profile people ie, the mastermind of 9/11. With that said, the people we are fighting today in Iraq or Afghanistan are not patriotic normal citizen trying to protect their country. These people since birth saw their families die, saw their friends being blow apart, been told the American forces beheades their people. Their mentality towards life is completely different than those who has lived in a country that take their freedom for granted, ie US, and pretty much all the EUs. So the "conventional, socially accepted interrogating tactic" does not work obviously. Hell, these same people are the ones video taping American soldiers/hostages getting beheaded and putting their heads on its chest (and I'm sure no one has seen this thanks to the media) and their penis cut off and put inside their mouths. The amount of disrespect they have towards US is overwhelming, and yet the only thing the media puts on their show is about how an American soldier teaching a young Iraqi kid some bad words or not handing out candies from their god damn MREs. For fuck's sake, the people we are waterboarding are perfectly fine with beheading your mom, dad, brother, sister, or kid with a small steak knife and video taping it in the morning, and going to the church at 5:00pm that same day and praying to their God for hours on. And yet, the fact that we pour water over their head to making them "THINK" their drowning is so so horrible and demoralize all of what America stands for.. yeah..sure.
BTW here is a little example of the terrorists' own tactics. WARNING: Viewer Discretion Advised DO NOT OPEN IF YOUR WEAK IN THE STOMACH + Show Spoiler +
So basically, theses people have not been educated in a "free" country (I am quite sure I don't share your conception of freedom, because I don't see US as a free country at all but that's not the point...), so, as they are less civilized than you, they have to be tortured because "civilized" methods of interogations don't work with them.
You are a fucking moron.
Theses people are perfectly right to fight you. You fuck up the whole world, you invade countries, you exploit whole continents, you fuck up the ecosystem, you torture and assassinate people with your superior ballistic technology, you invade the world with your messianic bullshit about democracy and freedom, your impose free-market to countries who don't want it in order to exploit them through your multinationales, you flood the planet with your disgusting mercantil sub-culture, but you are right, you are the most civilized.
I'm fed up with all this neo-fascist imperialist bullshit. What the fuck are doing the mods on this website? Is it trendy to promote torture here?
That's my fucking last post here, I'm leaving teamliquid.
Haha Biff your post is kind of ironic because your attitude there is exactly the mindset that leads to close mindedness. Don't be such a drama queen, you'll be back tomorrow.
goodbye biff. there are some retarded posts in this thread but I can't take part of a topic and then ban people who disagree with me, that should not be very hard to understand.
On May 24 2009 05:32 bdams19 wrote: can you just hold your breath before the water hits you?
That's what they do, but you gotta breathe sometime, which is when you start breathing water and people start shaking violently. They can just keep pouring forrever, they probably use a hose in real torture scenarios and are holding the dude down with chains and shit.
What these guys did is something that takes a form of idiocy and stubbornness, but also is something that they should be highly commended for doing.
It's not something most people would be willing to do. Not because it's a waste of tiem, as some might claim, but because of pure, possibly subconscious fear.
On May 24 2009 05:32 bdams19 wrote: can you just hold your breath before the water hits you?
No. Your feet are on a higher level than your head, and water is being poured down your nose. Holding your breath won't prevent water from entering your nostrils, and by then you're starting to drown. You reflexively gasp for air, your heart starts beating quickly, the oxygen supply in your lungs is exhausted, and when you try to breath all that comes in is water. And by then you feel like you're drowning and you start to freak out and panic, only your hands and your legs are tied. It's not nice.
On May 24 2009 05:22 Biff The Understudy wrote: So basically, theses people have not been educated in a "free" country (I am quite sure I don't share your conception of freedom, because I don't see US as a free country at all but that's not the point...), so, as they are less civilized than you, they have to be tortured because "civilized" methods of interogations don't work with them.
You don't think the US is a free country? Then I'm guessing you must consider that at most 100 million people in the world live in a free country, and the other 5900 million live in some form of slavery. Sorry, I think your definition of a free country sucks.
On May 24 2009 05:49 axle135 wrote: What these guys did is something that takes a form of idiocy and stubbornness, but also is something that they should be highly commended for doing.
It's not something most people would be willing to do. Not because it's a waste of tiem, as some might claim, but because of pure, possibly subconscious fear.
After watching those videos, there's no way in hell I'd accept to go through that. Mostly because it causes permanent psychological damage. I don't want to feel nauseous or dizzy when drinking a glass of water.
i dont think they have any choice to NOT acknowledge that waterboarding = drowning. If the feeling is exactly the same, and your heart starts pumping and you fear for your life, no way could you be convinced otherwise.
nothing like IRL experience + hardwired fear + pain to end an argument.
On May 24 2009 05:54 EpiK wrote: I have to hand it to this guy though. It takes guts to try it yourself and then admit you are wrong..
he is also a huge prick who accuses obama of being a secret muslim and howard dean of being a traitor amongst other things - so while this was handled well, he is overall quite an asshole.
IF I was stupid enough to believe water boarding was not torture i would at least have done what they did to prove( or in this case disprove) my claims, they are no heroes, it is however kind of funny that they are discussing a technique So effective that it takes 5-10 seconds to get you talking.
On May 24 2009 02:10 RoadTrippin wrote: I can't believe people are still arguing on subjects like waterboarding. Waterboarding has been used on rare occasions on high-profile people ie, the mastermind of 9/11. With that said, the people we are fighting today in Iraq or Afghanistan are not patriotic normal citizen trying to protect their country. These people since birth saw their families die, saw their friends being blow apart, been told the American forces beheades their people. Their mentality towards life is completely different than those who has lived in a country that take their freedom for granted, ie US, and pretty much all the EUs. So the "conventional, socially accepted interrogating tactic" does not work obviously. Hell, these same people are the ones video taping American soldiers/hostages getting beheaded and putting their heads on its chest (and I'm sure no one has seen this thanks to the media) and their penis cut off and put inside their mouths. The amount of disrespect they have towards US is overwhelming, and yet the only thing the media puts on their show is about how an American soldier teaching a young Iraqi kid some bad words or not handing out candies from their god damn MREs. For fuck's sake, the people we are waterboarding are perfectly fine with beheading your mom, dad, brother, sister, or kid with a small steak knife and video taping it in the morning, and going to the church at 5:00pm that same day and praying to their God for hours on. And yet, the fact that we pour water over their head to making them "THINK" their drowning is so so horrible and demoralize all of what America stands for.. yeah..sure.
BTW here is a little example of the terrorists' own tactics. WARNING: Viewer Discretion Advised DO NOT OPEN IF YOUR WEAK IN THE STOMACH + Show Spoiler +
So basically, theses people have not been educated in a "free" country (I am quite sure I don't share your conception of freedom, because I don't see US as a free country at all but that's not the point...), so, as they are less civilized than you, they have to be tortured because "civilized" methods of interogations don't work with them.
You are a fucking moron.
Theses people are perfectly right to fight you. You fuck up the whole world, you invade countries, you exploit whole continents, you fuck up the ecosystem, you torture and assassinate people with your superior ballistic technology, you invade the world with your messianic bullshit about democracy and freedom, your impose free-market to countries who don't want it in order to exploit them through your multinationales, you flood the planet with your disgusting mercantil sub-culture, but you are right, you are the most civilized.
I'm fed up with all this neo-fascist imperialist bullshit. What the fuck are doing the mods on this website? Is it trendy to promote torture here?
That's my fucking last post here, I'm leaving teamliquid.
You guys are not even talking abuot waterboarding. You guys are having a debate about cultural stereotypes. The debate about waterboarding should be the same if we were talking about waterboarding a bunch of Scottish people. These kind sidebars is why what is a seemingly simple issue is even a debate in the first place.
i vote to ignore all local laws. I shall also ignore the laws of physics as well. From now on I am naked and flying into banks across the country to take all of the money which is rightfully mine.
On May 24 2009 07:57 Liquid`Drone wrote: because blindness is a hilarious disability, i mean lol they use dogs for guidance when its supposed to be the other way around ha ha
also blind people cant read the internet so its impossible to directly offend anyone when making fun of them here.
HEY BLIND PEOPLE YOU SUCK BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ THIS!
Pretty sure it has something to do with the sheer absurdity of the action, coupled with the outlandish "death to old ladies" statement. If this was a systemic, legitimate, and chronic old lady punching issue, then yes, we'd be having a much more serious discussion about it.
On May 24 2009 07:57 Liquid`Drone wrote: because blindness is a hilarious disability, i mean lol they use dogs for guidance when its supposed to be the other way around ha ha
also blind people cant read the internet so its impossible to directly offend anyone when making fun of them here.
HEY BLIND PEOPLE YOU SUCK BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ THIS!
Boy will your face be red when the newest TL feature turns out to be BrailleLiquid.
If you take it as given that the USA should be the world policeman, imposing our culture and politics, getting involved in entangling alliances, and nation building... then yeah, in order to do so efficiently whilst protecting ourselves, we need to implement otherwise-unacceptable interrogation techniques. Torture, sure. Our own citizens must also come under strict control, ie, the Patriot Act and all similar legislation, throwing away individualism and becoming a Citizen of the Nation above any other instition, giving ourselves entirely to the government's mercy. From the years I've been on this forum, and from reading I've done, I know this doesn't sound too bad to Europeans. But this amount of central control is unprecedented in America, and our liberty, our defining excellence, is diminished.
We're kind of fucked. Both Republicans and Democrats advocate excessive foreign intervention, strict domestic control, and insane spending. What most of the populace fails to realize: we have a two-headed, one-party system. There is no real political competition, and when an inkling of competition arises, the "two parties" unite to disenfranchise them, eliminating public exposure.
The media is complicit in this crime. Tuning into major media outlets, the American Citizen is distracted with non-issues, while the Federal Reserve prints money non-stop, un-checked inflating to desperately lower interest rates, encouraging malinvestments, and destroying our economy. There was no real opposition to the ridiculous bailouts, and the entire procedure was disgusting; watching our legislature suck lobbyist cock, capitulating only to pork to appease special interests lobbyists, and ignoring the will of their constituency.
The problem is what I first mentioned: we need to drastically scale back our global involvement.
Aegraen has already identified himself as a non-interventionist (in another thread). If non-interventionism was embraced, we would not have to deal with this shit in the first place. I disagree with the notion that "they hate our freedom" or that they are attacking us because their religion tells them too. They hate us because we are imposing on them. We need to gtfo.
But just as strongly as I believe that, if the nation insists on maintaining intervention and nation building, then the consequence is necessarily to torture our enemies, and oppress the citizenry. That's the reality of the situation.
damn I googled a bunch of waterboarding videos on youtube and pretty much all of them gave up after less than 15 seconds. That is free will.. So imagine hours worth of on / off water boarding. Now imagine if you didn't actually even know anything.
On May 24 2009 10:57 DeathSpank wrote: protip: if you can bite the cloth on your mouth and suck on it you will last much longer.
I think you're not getting the principle of drowning here, sucking on the cloth is not gonna prevent the fact that you will need to breathe eventually, and when you do it will be mostly water, which is called drowning.
On May 24 2009 10:57 DeathSpank wrote: protip: if you can bite the cloth on your mouth and suck on it you will last much longer.
I think you're not getting the principle of drowning here, sucking on the cloth is not gonna prevent the fact that you will need to breathe eventually, and when you do it will be mostly water, which is called drowning.
no you see you suck on the cloth when they pour the water on you then you breath right after. I just did it like an hour ago it makes it a little bit more tolerable
On May 24 2009 08:49 HeadBangaa wrote: My 2 cents:
If you take it as given that the USA should be the world policeman, imposing our culture and politics, getting involved in entangling alliances, and nation building... then yeah, in order to do so efficiently whilst protecting ourselves, we need to implement otherwise-unacceptable interrogation techniques. Torture, sure. Our own citizens must also come under strict control, ie, the Patriot Act and all similar legislation, throwing away individualism and becoming a Citizen of the Nation above any other instition, giving ourselves entirely to the government's mercy. From the years I've been on this forum, and from reading I've done, I know this doesn't sound too bad to Europeans. But this amount of central control is unprecedented in America, and our liberty, our defining excellence, is diminished.
We're kind of fucked. Both Republicans and Democrats advocate excessive foreign intervention, strict domestic control, and insane spending. What most of the populace fails to realize: we have a two-headed, one-party system. There is no real political competition, and when an inkling of competition arises, the "two parties" unite to disenfranchise them, eliminating public exposure.
The media is complicit in this crime. Tuning into major media outlets, the American Citizen is distracted with non-issues, while the Federal Reserve prints money non-stop, un-checked inflating to desperately lower interest rates, encouraging malinvestments, and destroying our economy. There was no real opposition to the ridiculous bailouts, and the entire procedure was disgusting; watching our legislature suck lobbyist cock, capitulating only to pork to appease special interests lobbyists, and ignoring the will of their constituency.
The problem is what I first mentioned: we need to drastically scale back our global involvement.
Aegraen has already identified himself as a non-interventionist (in another thread). If non-interventionism was embraced, we would not have to deal with this shit in the first place. I disagree with the notion that "they hate our freedom" or that they are attacking us because their religion tells them too. They hate us because we are imposing on them. We need to gtfo.
But just as strongly as I believe that, if the nation insists on maintaining intervention and nation building, then the consequence is necessarily to torture our enemies, and oppress the citizenry. That's the reality of the situation.
Necessary? Well, I don't mind what format torture is argued on whether it is morals or practicality, it ends up losing either way. First, from what has been revealed so far this "necessary" torture has not been useful. Legal interrogation has. Then there is the problem of explaining the necessity of waterboarding a few of these guys a couple hundred times after they've already spilled everything already. Then there is the problem that this is a huge blow to our political objectives in the places we are fighting wars, as well as other areas. Looking like nazi's isn't going to help us when we try to get the cooperation of Iraqis or Afghans. And we absolutely need their cooperation to succeed, since it isn't really a matter of military. We either have enough of them cooperate, which will require a lot, or... we kill every single one of them with bombs? On every level it is not pragmatic.
On May 24 2009 11:30 Servolisk wrote: Necessary? Well, I don't mind what format torture is argued on whether it is morals or practicality, it ends up losing either way. First, from what has been revealed so far this "necessary" torture has not been useful. Legal interrogation has. Then there is the problem of explaining the necessity of waterboarding a few of these guys a couple hundred times after they've already spilled everything already. Then there is the problem that this is a huge blow to our political objectives in the places we are fighting wars, as well as other areas. Looking like nazi's isn't going to help us when we try to get the cooperation of Iraqis or Afghans. And we absolutely need their cooperation to succeed, since it isn't really a matter of military. We either have enough of them cooperate, which will require a lot, or... we kill every single one of them with bombs? On every level it is not pragmatic.
On May 24 2009 11:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: you waterboarded yourself like an hour ago?
yea it sorta sucked
Don't you think it would be different if someone else was pouring the water on though? And they seem to hold the cloth pretty tight over the person's mouth so I don't think you could bite it, I might be wrong though.
On May 24 2009 11:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: you waterboarded yourself like an hour ago?
yea it sorta sucked
Don't you think it would be different if someone else was pouring the water on though? And they seem to hold the cloth pretty tight over the person's mouth so I don't think you could bite it, I might be wrong though.
no doubt, I'm just saying if you could you should. It also would be ten times worse if I had someone do it to me rather than myself. Like I said yesterday, it immediately causes a panic attack.
On May 24 2009 11:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: you waterboarded yourself like an hour ago?
yea it sorta sucked
Don't you think it would be different if someone else was pouring the water on though? And they seem to hold the cloth pretty tight over the person's mouth so I don't think you could bite it, I might be wrong though.
no doubt, I'm just saying if you could you should. It also would be ten times worse if I had someone do it to me rather than myself. Like I said yesterday, it immediately causes a panic attack.
Ah ok, I thought you were saying that waterboarding sucked, not that waterboarding yourself sucked, lol.
On May 24 2009 11:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: you waterboarded yourself like an hour ago?
yea it sorta sucked
Don't you think it would be different if someone else was pouring the water on though? And they seem to hold the cloth pretty tight over the person's mouth so I don't think you could bite it, I might be wrong though.
no doubt, I'm just saying if you could you should. It also would be ten times worse if I had someone do it to me rather than myself. Like I said yesterday, it immediately causes a panic attack.
Ah ok, I thought you were saying that waterboarding sucked, not that waterboarding yourself sucked, lol.
Web cam it and have your roommates help out. If you don't you're just another troll. If you do it, you will be immortalized and have catch phrases named after you.
Let me get this straigh for areon or whatever his nick is... if it doesnt cause permanent physical harm is not torture right?
So you would say rape is a good interrogation technique? raping women and men in groups and extended time should be allowed since it doesnt cause any kind of permanent damage am i right?
On May 24 2009 14:25 baal wrote: Let me get this straigh for areon or whatever his nick is... if it doesnt cause permanent physical harm is not torture right?
So you would say rape is a good interrogation technique? raping women and men in groups and extended time should be allowed since it doesnt cause any kind of permanent damage am i right?
On May 24 2009 08:49 HeadBangaa wrote: My 2 cents:
If you take it as given that the USA should be the world policeman, imposing our culture and politics, getting involved in entangling alliances, and nation building... then yeah, in order to do so efficiently whilst protecting ourselves, we need to implement otherwise-unacceptable interrogation techniques. Torture, sure. Our own citizens must also come under strict control, ie, the Patriot Act and all similar legislation, throwing away individualism and becoming a Citizen of the Nation above any other instition, giving ourselves entirely to the government's mercy. From the years I've been on this forum, and from reading I've done, I know this doesn't sound too bad to Europeans. But this amount of central control is unprecedented in America, and our liberty, our defining excellence, is diminished.
We're kind of fucked. Both Republicans and Democrats advocate excessive foreign intervention, strict domestic control, and insane spending. What most of the populace fails to realize: we have a two-headed, one-party system. There is no real political competition, and when an inkling of competition arises, the "two parties" unite to disenfranchise them, eliminating public exposure.
The media is complicit in this crime. Tuning into major media outlets, the American Citizen is distracted with non-issues, while the Federal Reserve prints money non-stop, un-checked inflating to desperately lower interest rates, encouraging malinvestments, and destroying our economy. There was no real opposition to the ridiculous bailouts, and the entire procedure was disgusting; watching our legislature suck lobbyist cock, capitulating only to pork to appease special interests lobbyists, and ignoring the will of their constituency.
The problem is what I first mentioned: we need to drastically scale back our global involvement.
Aegraen has already identified himself as a non-interventionist (in another thread). If non-interventionism was embraced, we would not have to deal with this shit in the first place. I disagree with the notion that "they hate our freedom" or that they are attacking us because their religion tells them too. They hate us because we are imposing on them. We need to gtfo.
But just as strongly as I believe that, if the nation insists on maintaining intervention and nation building, then the consequence is necessarily to torture our enemies, and oppress the citizenry. That's the reality of the situation.
Necessary? Well, I don't mind what format torture is argued on whether it is morals or practicality, it ends up losing either way. First, from what has been revealed so far this "necessary" torture has not been useful. Legal interrogation has. Then there is the problem of explaining the necessity of waterboarding a few of these guys a couple hundred times after they've already spilled everything already. Then there is the problem that this is a huge blow to our political objectives in the places we are fighting wars, as well as other areas. Looking like nazi's isn't going to help us when we try to get the cooperation of Iraqis or Afghans. And we absolutely need their cooperation to succeed, since it isn't really a matter of military. We either have enough of them cooperate, which will require a lot, or... we kill every single one of them with bombs? On every level it is not pragmatic.
I accuse you of watching 24.
Hmm I read this twice and it honestly seems 98% non-sequiter to what I wrote, except the part about waterboarding being ineffective.
I don't know if torture/waterboarding is effective because I have read conflicting reports on that matter. Which leads me to believe it is at least effective some of the time.
It seems a moot point; If it is effective, then a) my post challenges opponents of coercive interrogation to also oppose big government and foreign intervention. Or if it is ineffective, b) both you and I agree, since there would be absolutely no utility in the practice, even if you accept interventionism.
I haven't read much of the thread, but I like to look at its worth depending if it saves lives. Torture like waterboarding looks like it SUCKS, but it's nowhere near the torture that terrorists use. Cutting off genitalia. fingertoes/nails, etc is nothing compared to American methods of sleep deprivation and locking them in a room with a bug or other phobia of others.
If torture reveals information that saves lives then I can't see why it should not be used. Granted it could be considered inhumane, but is the potential loss of life worth it? These terrorists already are linked and convicted of mastermind plots and horrible atrocities already. If they were tried, they'd no doubt get the death penalty anyways, so what's the difference?
On May 24 2009 14:25 baal wrote: Let me get this straigh for areon or whatever his nick is... if it doesnt cause permanent physical harm is not torture right?
So you would say rape is a good interrogation technique? raping women and men in groups and extended time should be allowed since it doesnt cause any kind of permanent damage am i right?
except rape does cause permanent physical damage.
How could rape done properly always cause physical permanent damage if regular sex doesn't cause permanent physical damage? Not that I'm condoning it.
On May 24 2009 11:38 opsayo wrote: one i cut myself with a knife, TWICE
so i could handle that whole "death by a 1000 slices" bs from the japanese
I'm surprised there are people arguing about whether or not it constitutes torture after hearing these participants claims after only enduring a few seconds of it.
To me, the more interesting question, is if torture is ever ok. Is it ok to torture a confirmed terrorist if it could save 1000 innocent lives? Not quite sure how I feel about this one.
On May 24 2009 15:34 Talith wrote: I haven't read much of the thread, but I like to look at its worth depending if it saves lives. Torture like waterboarding looks like it SUCKS, but it's nowhere near the torture that terrorists use. Cutting off genitalia. fingertoes/nails, etc is nothing compared to American methods of sleep deprivation and locking them in a room with a bug or other phobia of others.
If torture reveals information that saves lives then I can't see why it should not be used. Granted it could be considered inhumane, but is the potential loss of life worth it? These terrorists already are linked and convicted of mastermind plots and horrible atrocities already. If they were tried, they'd no doubt get the death penalty anyways, so what's the difference?
You rightfully say that waterboarding looks like it sucks. Sadly, the waterboarding of Hitchens and Mancow that were posted do not fully capture the experience. Real waterboarding would be being waterboarded multiple times, no matter what you said, while having people yelling at you in a language you didn't understand smack you around, and knowing that instead of freedom you can expect to go back to a cell after the session is over. It's absolute terror. No matter whether you are innocent (and we know that the majority of people that the US picked up after 9/11 are), you'll say whatever you want the guys torturing you to say, just to make it stop. Think about it. Really, really think about it. After the tenth time, I'd admit to being the leader of the hermaphrodite conspiracy to assassinate all female US congresswomen with exploding cigarettes, based in the basement of the White House and with the US Ambassador to the United Nations and the Vice President in on the whole thing, or something equally ridiculous, just to make it stop. And so would you.
Waterboarding isn't effective for the most part - the CIA said exactly that when they were talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was supposed to be a high-level al-Qaeda dude, and was actually more of a mid-level financier. He got waterboarded, oh, about 180 times or so, is said to have impressed his interrogators by holding out for two minutes during one of those times, and even then the CIA says that the information that was received by the use of waterboarding was "not entirely accurate". The CIA also says that 3 out of like 200 guys got this treatment. It's impossible to verify any of these numbers but the big picture should be clear.
This is a practice that was found illegal in this country (the US) in the 19th century. By waterboarding people in CIA-run prisons in far-off lands for incorrect information, Americans who get nabbed by hostiles overseas are probably, all in all, more likely to be subjected to brutal treatment, including waterboarding, than before - as now we can't say that we have the moral high ground.
What about terrorists with nuclear bombs? What if you have the terrorist who masterminded the whole thing in your hands and you need the bomb codes in the next two hours or New York City will be a smoking crater? What if you waterboarded the guy and he gives you false information/is holding out against all odds? At what point do the rack, thumbscrews, and electrodes come into play? How likely is this scenario?
And so it begins - the goalposts get moved, and the argument goes from "Waterboarding isn't torture, we don't torture" to "Well OK, maybe we torture a little, but look at the hundreds and/or/of thousands of lives that were saved"... all because it's OK when you're doing it, but not when they are.
It does bring up a lot of questions that aren't going to be easy to answer, but for right here, right now, waterboarding isn't something that should be done. Better intelligence can be gathered using less brutal techniques.
On May 24 2009 15:58 DeathSpank wrote: If I was ever tortured I would lie my ass off.
Exactly. And hence the problem with W/B or any enhanced interrogation. There's not a whole lot preventing them from making shit up.
Problem is, what if there's a language barrier and you generally believe it's the devil that's doing it to you? I agree with the statement that it furthers their resolves and simply assures them that we are infact the enemy, wishing them harm, and confirming their ideology.
I saw "we" even though I'm happily Canadian.
If that's the case, then it really is simply perpetuating their hatred and if anything, adds to their own recruitment power and determination.
On May 24 2009 15:54 Pawsom wrote: I'm surprised there are people arguing about whether or not it constitutes torture after hearing these participants claims after only enduring a few seconds of it.
To me, the more interesting question, is if torture is ever ok. Is it ok to torture a confirmed terrorist if it could save 1000 innocent lives? Not quite sure how I feel about this one.
No, the more interesting question is if performing torture is okay for the united states in this instance and how to determine and provide accountability on a legal level for that choice. I don't think anyone is going to hesitate to torture if they can provide a net reduction in total harm, but the question is whether or not that is so in this case.
The case for waterboarding as an interrogation technique over torture is a simple semantic one to make people ignore that, the more vital issue. That's why the related issues of image abroad, effectiveness, accountability, etc. are being raised. If it was purely a definitional issue, or an issue of how to approach that definition you wouldn't see these points as important, but they are. Moreso than the label you attach to waterboarding.
On May 24 2009 15:34 Talith wrote: I haven't read much of the thread, but I like to look at its worth depending if it saves lives. Torture like waterboarding looks like it SUCKS, but it's nowhere near the torture that terrorists use. Cutting off genitalia. fingertoes/nails, etc is nothing compared to American methods of sleep deprivation and locking them in a room with a bug or other phobia of others.
If torture reveals information that saves lives then I can't see why it should not be used. Granted it could be considered inhumane, but is the potential loss of life worth it? These terrorists already are linked and convicted of mastermind plots and horrible atrocities already. If they were tried, they'd no doubt get the death penalty anyways, so what's the difference?
You rightfully say that waterboarding looks like it sucks. Sadly, the waterboarding of Hitchens and Mancow that were posted do not fully capture the experience. Real waterboarding would be being waterboarded multiple times, no matter what you said, while having people yelling at you in a language you didn't understand smack you around, and knowing that instead of freedom you can expect to go back to a cell after the session is over. It's absolute terror. No matter whether you are innocent (and we know that the majority of people that the US picked up after 9/11 are), you'll say whatever you want the guys torturing you to say, just to make it stop. Think about it. Really, really think about it. After the tenth time, I'd admit to being the leader of the hermaphrodite conspiracy to assassinate all female US congresswomen with exploding cigarettes, based in the basement of the White House and with the US Ambassador to the United Nations and the Vice President in on the whole thing, or something equally ridiculous, just to make it stop. And so would you.
Waterboarding isn't effective for the most part - the CIA said exactly that when they were talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was supposed to be a high-level al-Qaeda dude, and was actually more of a mid-level financier. He got waterboarded, oh, about 180 times or so, is said to have impressed his interrogators by holding out for two minutes during one of those times, and even then the CIA says that the information that was received by the use of waterboarding was "not entirely accurate". The CIA also says that 3 out of like 200 guys got this treatment. It's impossible to verify any of these numbers but the big picture should be clear.
This is a practice that was found illegal in this country (the US) in the 19th century. By waterboarding people in CIA-run prisons in far-off lands for incorrect information, Americans who get nabbed by hostiles overseas are probably, all in all, more likely to be subjected to brutal treatment, including waterboarding, than before - as now we can't say that we have the moral high ground.
What about terrorists with nuclear bombs? What if you have the terrorist who masterminded the whole thing in your hands and you need the bomb codes in the next two hours or New York City will be a smoking crater? What if you waterboarded the guy and he gives you false information/is holding out against all odds? At what point do the rack, thumbscrews, and electrodes come into play? How likely is this scenario?
And so it begins - the goalposts get moved, and the argument goes from "Waterboarding isn't torture, we don't torture" to "Well OK, maybe we torture a little, but look at the hundreds and/or/of thousands of lives that were saved"... all because it's OK when you're doing it, but not when they are.
It does bring up a lot of questions that aren't going to be easy to answer, but for right here, right now, waterboarding isn't something that should be done. Better intelligence can be gathered using less brutal techniques.
I thank you for your lengthy response and enjoyed hearing your point of view. Just curious though not to start anything but what are your suggestions for eliciting information from them? I think we both agree that methods beyond asking please are required in order to save lives, but where do you draw the line? I've heard of chemical use and would be all for that. I'm not sure how effective truth serums are but would that be an option you'd agree would be permitted? Too bad there's no truth bugs from wrath of khan!
On May 24 2009 14:25 baal wrote: Let me get this straigh for areon or whatever his nick is... if it doesnt cause permanent physical harm is not torture right?
So you would say rape is a good interrogation technique? raping women and men in groups and extended time should be allowed since it doesnt cause any kind of permanent damage am i right?
On May 24 2009 15:34 Talith wrote: I haven't read much of the thread, but I like to look at its worth depending if it saves lives. Torture like waterboarding looks like it SUCKS, but it's nowhere near the torture that terrorists use. Cutting off genitalia. fingertoes/nails, etc is nothing compared to American methods of sleep deprivation and locking them in a room with a bug or other phobia of others.
If torture reveals information that saves lives then I can't see why it should not be used. Granted it could be considered inhumane, but is the potential loss of life worth it? These terrorists already are linked and convicted of mastermind plots and horrible atrocities already. If they were tried, they'd no doubt get the death penalty anyways, so what's the difference?
These people werent even in a trial, you cannot label somebody on such a simpleton term "terrorist" when it hasnt even proved that they are ones, plus when you do draw the line.
When some extremist muslims torture foreign soldiers they are also doing it to save the lives of their conrades, families and friends.
How can people be so dumb to not see everybody follow their idea, to you they are terrorist, to them, americans are terrorists and obviously given the circunstances, the world expected more humanity coming from a 1st world country that is suposed to be ruled by lawfulness, but turns out you are using torture like it was 500 years ago.
On May 24 2009 15:34 Talith wrote: I haven't read much of the thread, but I like to look at its worth depending if it saves lives. Torture like waterboarding looks like it SUCKS, but it's nowhere near the torture that terrorists use. Cutting off genitalia. fingertoes/nails, etc is nothing compared to American methods of sleep deprivation and locking them in a room with a bug or other phobia of others.
If torture reveals information that saves lives then I can't see why it should not be used. Granted it could be considered inhumane, but is the potential loss of life worth it? These terrorists already are linked and convicted of mastermind plots and horrible atrocities already. If they were tried, they'd no doubt get the death penalty anyways, so what's the difference?
These people werent even in a trial, you cannot label somebody on such a simpleton term "terrorist" when it hasnt even proved that they are ones, plus when you do draw the line.
When some extremist muslims torture foreign soldiers they are also doing it to save the lives of their conrades, families and friends.
How can people be so dumb to not see everybody follow their idea, to you they are terrorist, to them, americans are terrorists and obviously given the circunstances, the world expected more humanity coming from a 1st world country that is suposed to be ruled by lawfulness, but turns out you are using torture like it was 500 years ago.
You are right in pointing out they weren't put on trial, however I was meaning to convey that if they WERE put on trial, such as Saddam Hussein, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would most certainly get the death penalty. One example is from This BBC article where he personally admits to "personally decapitating kidnapped US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 and admitted to a role in 30 plots." I draw the line of terrorism once they start cutting journalists heads off and broadcasting it on TV and admitting to being involved in 30 terror plots.
I have read much of the Qu'ran and have a deep respect for their faith and belief. I feel sad for those true muslims that wish to live a peaceful life in service to Allah, yet are shunned or discriminated against.
I am not coming at this from one-sided perspective. But when the facts say someone is responsible for innocent citizens deaths, not only in America but across the world, then it is time to protect those that would otherwise be killed.
Did you know when we kill "terrorists" in Middle East, we leave their dead bodies to decay on the ground where they died with half their skull missing with their brains oozing out all the while their bottom torso is blown up missing. All so that their family in the next daylight can see what had happened to their father/brother/cousin/etc and drag their decaying body and bury them on the side of the road. Yes, United States forces does that. You know? A country that takes pride in their human rights and ethical country that should never never to anything that remotely even violates the human rights. But you know why we are not arguing why this is ethical or not? Because the general public does not know about it because the media never made it a big deal.
IDK maybe I'm being childish here but I do think its a bigger deal of giving some proper respect to the THOUSANDS of dead and their families by at least covering their body with some bag instead of just letting it decay overnight than like a handful of people being tortured by drowning.. My two cents..
You are absolutely right RoadTrippin, that is very awful and I was unaware that is the way American troops are handling dead bodies. A good book that I read was entitled Empires of Trust. It compares it to the two other major empires, that of conquest and that of commerce and details just how delicate of a situation America is in regarding it's use of power and the promise to use it morally and respectably. It compares it with the Roman empire very nicely and and shows how difficult it is to be a super power.
Now I am not excusing the soldiers that tarnish and disrespect the bodies of the deceased. Granted there are incidents from both sides where they act less than honorably. America has the greatest obligation to the world to refrain from acting impulsively so as to not present the appearance of irresponsibility. Sometimes sadly, she falls and messes up and it is very saddening when it does happen.
However, I fail to see how this correlates with the issue of stopping terrorism and the issue of water boarding.
On May 24 2009 14:25 baal wrote: Let me get this straigh for areon or whatever his nick is... if it doesnt cause permanent physical harm is not torture right?
So you would say rape is a good interrogation technique? raping women and men in groups and extended time should be allowed since it doesnt cause any kind of permanent damage am i right?
On May 24 2009 14:25 baal wrote: Let me get this straigh for areon or whatever his nick is... if it doesnt cause permanent physical harm is not torture right?
So you would say rape is a good interrogation technique? raping women and men in groups and extended time should be allowed since it doesnt cause any kind of permanent damage am i right?
except rape does cause permanent physical damage.
it does????? oh please elaborate
It causes permenant mental damage. Just as bad.
So extreme psychological distress is also torture and not acceptable right?
And drowning somebody triggering his fear of death is not traumatizing? lol.
Oh and for the record somebody trained could easily easily withstand long sessions of rape, just to make obvious that the fact that some trained people can take waterboarding doesnt make it any less brutal or somehow it makes it not torture.
On May 24 2009 15:24 HeadBangaa wrote: I don't know if torture/waterboarding is effective because I have read conflicting reports on that matter. Which leads me to believe it is at least effective some of the time.
There are no credible studies that show torture is effective. End of story.
The potential mechanisms and effects of using coercive techniques or torture for gaining accurate, useful information from an uncooperative source are much more complex than is commonly assumed. There is little or no research to indicate whether such techniques succeed in the manner and contexts in which they are applied. Anecdotal accounts and opinions based on personal experiences are mixed, but the preponderance of reports seems to weigh against their effectiveness.
U.S. personnel have used a limited number of interrogation techniques over the past half-century, but virtually none of them — or their underlying assumptions — are based on scientific research or have even been subjected to scientific or systematic inquiry or evaluation.
The accuracy of educed information can be compromised by the manner in which it is obtained. The effects of many common stress and duress techniques are known to impair various aspects of a person's cognitive functioning, including those functions necessary to retrieve and produce accurate, useful information.
Psychological theory and some (indirectly) related research suggest that coercion or pressure can actually increase a source’s resistance and determination not to comply. Although pain is commonly assumed to facilitate compliance, there is no available scientifi c or systematic research to suggest that coercion can, will, or has provided accurate useful information from otherwise uncooperative sources.
- anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You forget to include hypocrite, since America condemned the North Vietnamese for waterboarding our soldiers about three decades ago. And anyone who has not gone through the technique has any authority to claim that it is not torture. It's easy to sit behind your cameras or computer screens and denounce the "liberal agenda" and claim that to challenge any government action is to be unpatriotic and downright un-American. It's not so easy to walk in step behind former Vice-President Dick Cheney's statements and sanctimoniously ask for government transparency once you experience these techniques for yourself.
Looks pretty aweful :S. And these guys have the power to make it stop whenever they want. Imagine being put throught this without an end. For years. What has the Bush regime done to the american ways?
On May 25 2009 05:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Not only that a 2006 report by the Government stated that Waterboarding was being done in Sri Lanka and advocated it as torture.
Also the the "ticking time bomb" has never happened even counter terrorism experts have stated this.
Lol, what terrorist would set up a bomb and put on a timer longer than maybe a minute to get out of the area?
The whole hollywood shit of having a bomb with like 10 minutes or an hour left that needs to be defused or the code needs to be given from the terrorist is such bullshit.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
/thread
because if physician said it, it must be true
because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote.
The point physician made about domestic implications is actually one I never bothered to think about (since there are like 99 other reasons to already conclude my opinion on torture). But if torture can be applied to suspected terrorist (and this is often very weak suspicion), why not on suspected Americans? More people die from domestic crime than terrorism. Let's start with the DHS suspects, the right-wingers at "tea-parties".
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
/thread
because if physician said it, it must be true
because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote.
nothing to discredit really.
physician shits and like ten tons of stupid opinions came out. just feelings, though, you know? emotions. preference. you don't really discredit it or credit one way or another. just agree or disagree and go on with your day.
look i can do the same thing:
anyone who disagrees with my opinions is unintelligent or evil or an alien being devoid of the capacity to recognize valid opinion. take your pick.
Except Physician's opinion has been supported numerous times already in this thread (and in the Condoleezza thread). Heck, you only need to scroll up one post to see evidence. On the other hand, the torture advocates have provided not a single shred of credible evidence (in either this or the Condoleezza thread) to support their claims that torture (or waterboarding) is effective, or that waterboarding is not torture.
1. The enemy finds out you're using waterboarding 2. Trains their people to resist it 3. Gives them false information to feed to the Americans 4. And have Americans feel that the information must be valid because it was extracted under torture
So now I have shown that it is sometimes effective. But don't forget my original post. I claimed that torture-interrogation is only necessary when we commit other evil acts. I am a non-interventionist, and I don't think we'd need to protect ourselves so aggressively if we just backed off.
To argue in favor of nation building and excessive american hegemony, but not to condone any-and-all means of interrogation, is literally promoting the harm to Americans. It is a force we create that we protect ourselves against. The source of that force must be stopped before we undue the heinous means of protection we have implemented.
On May 25 2009 16:14 Syntax Lost wrote: Except Physician's opinion has been supported numerous times already in this thread (and in the Condoleezza thread). Heck, you only need to scroll up one post to see evidence. On the other hand, the torture advocates have provided not a single shred of credible evidence (in either this or the Condoleezza thread) to support their claims that torture (or waterboarding) is effective, or that waterboarding is not torture.
fizzician has a grand total of 1 opinion that can, even theoretically, be factually supported. i.e.: that torture or enhanced interrogative metals are counterproductive. the rest of them are things like "this patient has a case of poor convictions" or "this patient is retarded and that cannot be corrected." while he is probably a brilliant diagnostician an all that, being a physician and all, he still wasn't saying anything that can be factually corroborated or disproved. and you either agree with me or you are basically admitting that you are a douche, ignorant, or an imbecile.
Bwahahahahaha! Did you even check your first link? (Your second is only a reference to the first, by the way.) Here, let me link you to the last page of the interview.
The money quote says... UPDATE: U.S. Government documents released in April 2009 indicate that Kiriakou's account that Abu Zubaydah broke after only one water boarding session was incorrect. According to a footnote in newly released, previously classified "Top Secret" memos, the CIA used the water board "at least 83 times during August 2002 in the interrogation of Zubaydah."
Following the release of the documents, Kiriakou said: "When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being water boarded on one occasion. It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques."
Remember boys and girls, reading is an important skill in life.
Well I did NOT read the update, but the ORIGINAL article DID support EXACTLY what I said. I am only guilty of reading what the media put out originally, I do not go back and re-read articles looking for amendments
you could point it out without being such a fucking douche. oh but then you wouldn't be Servolisk, would you?
And anyways, that doesn't disprove anything I said. It just leaves it as unsubstantiated and honestly I already broke my rule of never engaging you in General, so I'll leave you to your static, unchangeable opinions (despite, two seconds later, more google dumps could easily prove this, but you still dodge my original post, and my first follow up, in typical servolisk style. fuck off)
On May 25 2009 16:39 tinman wrote: fizzician has a grand total of 1 opinion that can, even theoretically, be factually supported. i.e.: that torture or enhanced interrogative metals are counterproductive. the rest of them are things like "this patient has a case of poor convictions" or "this patient is retarded and that cannot be corrected." while he is probably a brilliant diagnostician an all that, being a physician and all, he still wasn't saying anything that can be factually corroborated or disproved. and you either agree with me or you are basically admitting that you are a douche, ignorant, or an imbecile.
You do realise that his comments were based on the fact that the torture advocates don't have a leg to stand on, right? And that's very obvious from this thread since they never provide any credible evidence to support their case (in either this thread or the Condoleezza thread).
On May 25 2009 16:39 tinman wrote: fizzician has a grand total of 1 opinion that can, even theoretically, be factually supported. i.e.: that torture or enhanced interrogative metals are counterproductive. the rest of them are things like "this patient has a case of poor convictions" or "this patient is retarded and that cannot be corrected." while he is probably a brilliant diagnostician an all that, being a physician and all, he still wasn't saying anything that can be factually corroborated or disproved. and you either agree with me or you are basically admitting that you are a douche, ignorant, or an imbecile.
You do realise that his comments were based on the fact that the torture advocates don't have a leg to stand on, right? And that's very obvious from this thread since they never provide any credible evidence to support their case (in either this thread or the Condoleezza thread).
apparently you are a douche, ignorant, or an imbecile. i'm leaning toward imbecile.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
This well expressed and with less swearing i would have used.
On May 25 2009 16:34 HeadBangaa wrote: I said: I have read conflicting reports about its efficacy. Servo, Phys, and co. have said: no, there is NOTHING showing it is effective.
But it looks like it got some useful information out of Abu Zubaydah very quickly, undoubtedly saving lives.
So now I have shown that it is sometimes effective. But don't forget my original post. I claimed that torture-interrogation is only necessary when we commit other evil acts. I am a non-interventionist, and I don't think we'd need to protect ourselves so aggressively if we just backed off.
To argue in favor of nation building and excessive american hegemony, but not to condone any-and-all means of interrogation, is literally promoting the harm to Americans. It is a force we create that we protect ourselves against. The source of that force must be stopped before we undue the heinous means of protection we have implemented.
Hey guys, my name is HeadBangaa,
I support non-intervention because I feel that committing evil acts will necessitate aggressive and inefficient forms of self-defence. Nation building and excessive american hegemony are to be fought against, because it isn't in our best interest.
But if we're going to do it, torture the fuckers regardless of the fact that it is committing an evil act that will necessitate aggressive and inefficient forms of sel- wait a second.
On May 25 2009 17:16 HeadBangaa wrote: Well I did NOT read the update, but the ORIGINAL article DID support EXACTLY what I said. I am only guilty of reading what the media put out originally, I do not go back and re-read articles looking for amendments
Well, just let it serve as a reminder that you should take a little time to check your facts before you end up putting your foot in your mouth.
you could point it out without being such a fucking douche. oh but then you wouldn't be Servolisk, would you?
Well, firstly, I'm not Servolisk... (Reading, boys and girls. Reading...)
Secondly, I take the extra time to verify my facts and check sources which you sadly don't seem to take the effort to do. And when somebody calls you out on it, you start crying foul rather than address the point at hand?
And anyways, that doesn't disprove anything I said. It just leaves it as unsubstantiated
Otherwise known as being not credible.
But hey, since I'm feeling especially nice, I'll go the extra mile and lets look up information from somebody who actually participated in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Taken from Newsweek.
Newsweek wrote: Last week [Ali] Soufan, 37, now a security consultant who spends most of his time in the Middle East, decided to tell the story of his involvement in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations publicly for the first time. In an op-ed in The New York Times and in a series of exclusive interviews with NEWSWEEK, Soufan described how he, together with FBI colleague Steve Gaudin, began the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. They nursed his wounds, gained his confidence and got the terror suspect talking. They extracted crucial intelligence—including the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the architect of 9/11 and the dirty-bomb plot of Jose Padilla—before CIA contractors even began their aggressive tactics.
"I've kept my mouth shut about all this for seven years," Soufan says. But now, with the declassification of Justice memos and the public assertions by Cheney and others that "enhanced" techniques worked, Soufan feels compelled to speak out. "I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he says. "We were able to get the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a couple of days. We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way."
HeadBangaa continues: and honestly I already broke my rule of never engaging you in General, so I'll leave you to your static, unchangeable opinions (despite, two seconds later, more google dumps could easily prove this,
Which is, of course, why you're complaining about your hurt feelings rather than post any real evidence illustrating the effectiveness of torture.
but you still dodge my original post, and my first follow up, in typical servolisk style. fuck off)
Hmmm... I'm not Servolisk, but lets look up your first post in this thread, shall we? It does contain a point that should be addressed.
Once upon a time, HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
Fun fact: Waterboarding is performed specifically because it induces the gag reflex (as opposed to just shoving someone's head in a bucket of water). It's easy to say that you have control when you're sitting in front of your PC, but the reality is once you lose physical control of your body (which is what the gag reflex will do), attempting to breathe (automatically) and find yourself taking in water you'll quickly enter a state of panic. Simply put, holding your breath will not work.
On May 25 2009 17:45 tinman wrote: apparently you are a douche, ignorant, or an imbecile. i'm leaning toward imbecile.
Wow! You can throw insults. I'm most impressed! It's a pity that making a well-informed post substantiated by actual logic, reasoning and evidence is a little bit too demanding for you, but keep trying.
This post has been purposely removed at the request of baal, since he confused me with HeadBangaa but wanted to leave his question there open for answer.
On May 25 2009 17:16 HeadBangaa wrote: Well I did NOT read the update, but the ORIGINAL article DID support EXACTLY what I said. I am only guilty of reading what the media put out originally, I do not go back and re-read articles looking for amendments
Well, just let it serve as a reminder that you should take a little time to check your facts before you end up putting your foot in your mouth.
you could point it out without being such a fucking douche. oh but then you wouldn't be Servolisk, would you?
Well, firstly, I'm not Servolisk... (Reading, boys and girls. Reading...)
Secondly, I take the extra time to verify my facts and check sources which you sadly don't seem to take the effort to do. And when somebody calls you out on it, you start crying foul rather than address the point at hand?
And anyways, that doesn't disprove anything I said. It just leaves it as unsubstantiated
Otherwise known as being not credible.
But hey, since I'm feeling especially nice, I'll go the extra mile and lets look up information from somebody who actually participated in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Taken from Newsweek.
Newsweek wrote: Last week [Ali] Soufan, 37, now a security consultant who spends most of his time in the Middle East, decided to tell the story of his involvement in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations publicly for the first time. In an op-ed in The New York Times and in a series of exclusive interviews with NEWSWEEK, Soufan described how he, together with FBI colleague Steve Gaudin, began the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. They nursed his wounds, gained his confidence and got the terror suspect talking. They extracted crucial intelligence—including the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the architect of 9/11 and the dirty-bomb plot of Jose Padilla—before CIA contractors even began their aggressive tactics.
"I've kept my mouth shut about all this for seven years," Soufan says. But now, with the declassification of Justice memos and the public assertions by Cheney and others that "enhanced" techniques worked, Soufan feels compelled to speak out. "I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he says. "We were able to get the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a couple of days. We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way."
HeadBangaa continues: and honestly I already broke my rule of never engaging you in General, so I'll leave you to your static, unchangeable opinions (despite, two seconds later, more google dumps could easily prove this,
Which is, of course, why you're complaining about your hurt feelings rather than post any real evidence illustrating the effectiveness of torture.
Once upon a time, HeadBangaa wrote: It's a damn good thing nobody offered me $1000 per second to be waterboarded. I would certainly die.
Hey is anybody else surprised neither of these guys could last longer than 3 seconds? I mean, even if their air supply were completely eliminated, I don't understand how they only lasted that long.
It does make me want to try. I promise to record and post it if I do, but only if you bastards promise to rate it 5/5. =D
Fun fact: Waterboarding is performed specifically because it induces the gag reflex (as opposed to just shoving someone's head in a bucket of water). It's easy to say that you have control when you're sitting in front of your PC, but the reality is once you lose physical control of your body (which is what the gag reflex will do), attempting to breathe (automatically) and find yourself taking in water you'll quickly enter a state of panic. Simply put, holding your breath will not work.
Clearly he confused you with somebody else so you don't have to act like a douche
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
/thread
because if physician said it, it must be true
because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote.
nothing to discredit really.
physician shits and like ten tons of stupid opinions came out. just feelings, though, you know? emotions. preference. you don't really discredit it or credit one way or another. just agree or disagree and go on with your day.
look i can do the same thing:
anyone who disagrees with my opinions is unintelligent or evil or an alien being devoid of the capacity to recognize valid opinion. take your pick.
see? not difficult.
the thing is that it's a pretty common "trick"
Person A makes a statement, person B agrees. Person C in the opposition questions B's agreement, if B can't defend his posture that means A is wrong right?
if it's just opinionated garbage then why not pick it apart instead?
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
/thread
because if physician said it, it must be true
because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote.
nothing to discredit really.
physician shits and like ten tons of stupid opinions came out. just feelings, though, you know? emotions. preference. you don't really discredit it or credit one way or another. just agree or disagree and go on with your day.
look i can do the same thing:
anyone who disagrees with my opinions is unintelligent or evil or an alien being devoid of the capacity to recognize valid opinion. take your pick.
see? not difficult.
the thing is that it's a pretty common "trick"
Person A makes a statement, person B agrees. Person C in the opposition questions B's agreement, if B can't defend his posture that means A is wrong right?
if it's just opinionated garbage then why not pick it apart instead?
that was his point: you can't pick apart an opinion
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulated them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
/thread
because if physician said it, it must be true
because picking on the guy who agreed with him is much better than actually discrediting what physician wrote.
nothing to discredit really.
physician shits and like ten tons of stupid opinions came out. just feelings, though, you know? emotions. preference. you don't really discredit it or credit one way or another. just agree or disagree and go on with your day.
look i can do the same thing:
anyone who disagrees with my opinions is unintelligent or evil or an alien being devoid of the capacity to recognize valid opinion. take your pick.
see? not difficult.
the thing is that it's a pretty common "trick"
Person A makes a statement, person B agrees. Person C in the opposition questions B's agreement, if B can't defend his posture that means A is wrong right?
if it's just opinionated garbage then why not pick it apart instead?
that was his point: you can't pick apart an opinion
it's a series of statements, ofcourse you can. and if it's just based on feelings as he claims it will be even easier.
On May 25 2009 16:19 The Storyteller wrote: What is really scary is what happens when
1. The enemy finds out you're using waterboarding 2. Trains their people to resist it 3. Gives them false information to feed to the Americans 4. And have Americans feel that the information must be valid because it was extracted under torture
Because, as i imagine, the torture won't stop for every lie you made up. If your tortures don't believe you, you have to keep up with your lie for a long time and many "sessions".
On May 25 2009 23:35 Velr wrote: Because, as i imagine, the torture won't stop for every lie you made up. If your tortures don't believe you, you have to keep up with your lie for a long time and many "sessions".
Thats why lying requires training.
Wait so if the terrorists tells them something they will automatically think its a lie? What if they tell the truth first and they assume thats a lie, and then they keep torturing them until he tells a lie and they believe that?
thats why torturing is so unreliable. also "truth serums" cant really work. if you pump to much into the victim he wont remember shit if you dont pump enough he is conscious enough to not tell you. btw. truth serums are stuff like acid.
a lot of torture/truthfinding methods were scientifically researched by the germans in the 1930's and 40's. the CIA took over that knowledge and continued some of it.
On May 24 2009 11:33 Frits wrote: looks like waterboarding is the new 'in' thing right now, someone did it on dutch tv as well pretty recently
christ, maybe it really isnt torture after all
there was a norwegian who pulled out his own toenail on tv
and there was a German guy who voluntared to have his penis cut off until he bleed to death on camera, then his body was eaten after he died. lolz.
Don't know where you get that story from, how it is relevant to this thread, and, what's so funny about it?
If you are referring to the Cannibal of Rotenburg, they both wanted to eat the penis of the victim, he did not bleed to death but was killed by the cannibal and the recorded video was obviously not meant for TV. It is a pretty gruesome story though....
On May 25 2009 19:45 BlackJack wrote: Clearly he confused you with somebody else so you don't have to act like a douche
He didn't bother to check his sources at all (which is clearly illustrated by the fact that he posted two links which both reference claims made by the same CIA agent). I mocked him for it. He then cried foul and didn't check the author of the post when making a reply. In his reply, he doesn't once make any actual argument or present any real evidence, he merely proclaims that it can be found easily through Google and that the issue is unresolved (even after it's obvious that the CIA agent is talking out of his arse), essentially just trying to be evasive. So I mocked him again.
Otherwise, it should be noted that HeadBangaa has said through the rest of this thread that the US shouldn't intervene so much in global affairs. This isn't so relevant to the topic of the thread, and I mostly agree with in conclusion (though not necessarily with parts of his reasoning) so I haven't made any actual response to it.
how in the hell is it NOT torture!? you can't survive that, it's IMPOSSIBLE it's not like they can if they have mind over matter. you're lungs are gonna fill up with water regardless.. so what the fuck is up with this not being "torture" and just invoking a fear? can a human survive water being poured down his nose and into his lungs? i admire the technique of course, but that's just ridiculous that it's so blown up.. it's like putting fire to someone when the volunteer says "yeah, i'm a fireman and I've been around a while and through house fires, I'm used to it"
The site seems to sell a bunch of pro-war/anti-liberal shirts, but then they have this one:
Do people actually agree with this? "We should take what's not ours, kill those who oppose us, and then force everyone to believe what we believe."
I hate you Ann Coulter.
edit: as for the whole torture discussion, I read every post in here, and I'm not getting involved. My personal opinion is that waterboarding is torture and we shouldn't do it. But trying to convince someone that they're wrong on an internet message board is harder than ZvZ against Jaedong.
I don't get it... If he is pouring water on a towel that is on you, then technically it's it seriously sufficating you? Isn't it that just plain like... hurting you? Kno what I mean? O__O
Sooo when's Hannity getting waterboarded. (Waterboarded correctly). Every time we see someone survive past 5 seconds of waterboarding it is being done incorrectly without the proper positioning of the body / legs / head etc.
On May 23 2009 07:14 Kwark wrote: Always good to see someone have the balls to test on themselves in order to validate what they believe to be true. Respect.
On May 26 2009 03:12 Archerofaiur wrote: Remember when slavery was nessesary to protect our way of life. How if we didn't have slaves it would destroy our economy and claim countless lives.
Whoa... are you trolling, or are you just an asshole?
Hope it's the first one, but really. Don't even make jokes about slavery... one of the absolute worst things that the USA has ever done, even though the list is long.
On May 26 2009 03:12 Archerofaiur wrote: Remember when slavery was nessesary to protect our way of life. How if we didn't have slaves it would destroy our economy and claim countless lives.
Whoa... are you trolling, or are you just an asshole?
Hope it's the first one, but really. Don't even make jokes about slavery... one of the absolute worst things that the USA has ever done, even though the list is long.
While his post was a bit of a hyperbole, he is somewhat correct. Slavery is a terrible thing that shouldn't have ever happened, but the USA wouldn't have happened without it. Every country's has a stain on their record that helped them achieve what they are today.
No your right chobo (embrace you read it the completly wrong way). One of the main arguements for slavery was that it was critical for our country's future. It was nessisary and America would be destroyed if slavery was abolished.
Now dont get me wrong 9/11 was absolutly terrible and I would hope it would never happen again. But you dont sacrifice what makes you human if 100 people die or 1000 or a million. All in all the death toll for ridding the country of slavery was 200000 Americans. Our ancestors were willing to make that kind of sacrifice for the beliefs this country was founded. And we are willing to throw them away at the threat that more people may die.
On May 26 2009 07:28 Archerofaiur wrote: No your right chobo (embrace you read it the completly wrong way). One of the main arguements for slavery was that it was critical for our country's future. It was nessisary and America would be destroyed if slavery was abolished. All in all the death toll for ridding the country of slavery was 200000 Americans. Our ancestors were willing to make that kind of sacrifice for the beliefs this country was founded. And we are willing to throw them away at the threat that more people may die.
Now dont get me wrong 9/11 was absolutly terrible and I would hope it would never happen again. But you dont sacrifice what makes you human if 100 people die or 1000 or a million. America was willing to lose 200,000 to end slavery. And because of it our children have a better future.
I think you read me wrong as well. I said what he wrote was an exaggeration. This country would not crumble if slavery hadn't been instantiated, but it definitely made it a lot easier and arguably the reason why the U.S. shot up so fast compared to the rest of the world.
However, slavery is clearly a terrible thing, and our ancestors decided to abolish it. We are all glad that they did.
I hope you don't think I'm glad we had slavery, that's not what I'm saying. It's merely a fact that when over half your country's population is free labor -- that's quite a boost to your production.
On May 26 2009 07:28 Archerofaiur wrote: No your right chobo (embrace you read it the completly wrong way). One of the main arguements for slavery was that it was critical for our country's future. It was nessisary and America would be destroyed if slavery was abolished. All in all the death toll for ridding the country of slavery was 200000 Americans. Our ancestors were willing to make that kind of sacrifice for the beliefs this country was founded. And we are willing to throw them away at the threat that more people may die.
Now dont get me wrong 9/11 was absolutly terrible and I would hope it would never happen again. But you dont sacrifice what makes you human if 100 people die or 1000 or a million. America was willing to lose 200,000 to end slavery. And because of it our children have a better future.
I think you read me wrong as well. I said what he wrote was an exaggeration. This country would not crumble if slavery hadn't been instantiated, but it definitely made it a lot easier and arguably the reason why the U.S. shot up so fast compared to the rest of the world.
However, slavery is clearly a terrible thing, and our ancestors decided to abolish it. We are all glad that they did.
I hope you don't think I'm glad we had slavery, that's not what I'm saying. It's merely a fact that when over half your country's population is free labor -- that's quite a boost to your production.
Oh ok I see what your saying. And just because something appears nessisary doesnt mean you can do it. Thats what I really dont get. When has one human being tortured another and not felt it was absolutly nessesary? (Hanabal Lector aside)
On May 26 2009 03:12 Archerofaiur wrote: Remember when slavery was nessesary to protect our way of life. How if we didn't have slaves it would destroy our economy and claim countless lives.
Whoa... are you trolling, or are you just an asshole?
Hope it's the first one, but really. Don't even make jokes about slavery... one of the absolute worst things that the USA has ever done, even though the list is long.
While his post was a bit of a hyperbole, he is somewhat correct. Slavery is a terrible thing that shouldn't have ever happened, but the USA wouldn't have happened without it. Every country's has a stain on their record that helped them achieve what they are today.
and without the holocaust, (which artosis survived, HEH), modern medicine would be seriously backwards than it is now.
I quess everything bad has something good in it ;_;
On May 26 2009 07:28 Archerofaiur wrote: No your right chobo (embrace you read it the completly wrong way). One of the main arguements for slavery was that it was critical for our country's future. It was nessisary and America would be destroyed if slavery was abolished. All in all the death toll for ridding the country of slavery was 200000 Americans. Our ancestors were willing to make that kind of sacrifice for the beliefs this country was founded. And we are willing to throw them away at the threat that more people may die.
Now dont get me wrong 9/11 was absolutly terrible and I would hope it would never happen again. But you dont sacrifice what makes you human if 100 people die or 1000 or a million. America was willing to lose 200,000 to end slavery. And because of it our children have a better future.
I think you read me wrong as well. I said what he wrote was an exaggeration. This country would not crumble if slavery hadn't been instantiated, but it definitely made it a lot easier and arguably the reason why the U.S. shot up so fast compared to the rest of the world.
However, slavery is clearly a terrible thing, and our ancestors decided to abolish it. We are all glad that they did.
I hope you don't think I'm glad we had slavery, that's not what I'm saying. It's merely a fact that when over half your country's population is free labor -- that's quite a boost to your production.
Oh ok I see what your saying. And just because something appears nessisary doesnt mean you can do it. Thats what I really dont get. When has one human being tortured another and not felt it was absolutly nessesary? (Hanabal Lector aside)
I don't really get it. I guess you can say that, but it's not like Hitler got out of bed and said "alright time to do some evil". I mean, everyone thinks they're right, but that doesn't make it right.
By the way, a quick thought experiment.
First: Assume that a runaway mine cart is about to go down a lane with 4 workers in it, and they will all die. If you could switch the cart to a different lane with only one person in it, would you do that?
Second: Same situation, but you are at the side of the track. If you jump in and try to stop the cart, it won't work, but you can push someone in to stop it at the cost of their life. Would you do that?
Basically, if you answer "no" in the second case, your argument about necessary evils doesn't hold up. Er, if that's the argument you're trying to make.
On May 26 2009 07:28 Archerofaiur wrote: No your right chobo (embrace you read it the completly wrong way). One of the main arguements for slavery was that it was critical for our country's future. It was nessisary and America would be destroyed if slavery was abolished. All in all the death toll for ridding the country of slavery was 200000 Americans. Our ancestors were willing to make that kind of sacrifice for the beliefs this country was founded. And we are willing to throw them away at the threat that more people may die.
Now dont get me wrong 9/11 was absolutly terrible and I would hope it would never happen again. But you dont sacrifice what makes you human if 100 people die or 1000 or a million. America was willing to lose 200,000 to end slavery. And because of it our children have a better future.
I think you read me wrong as well. I said what he wrote was an exaggeration. This country would not crumble if slavery hadn't been instantiated, but it definitely made it a lot easier and arguably the reason why the U.S. shot up so fast compared to the rest of the world.
However, slavery is clearly a terrible thing, and our ancestors decided to abolish it. We are all glad that they did.
I hope you don't think I'm glad we had slavery, that's not what I'm saying. It's merely a fact that when over half your country's population is free labor -- that's quite a boost to your production.
Oh ok I see what your saying. And just because something appears nessisary doesnt mean you can do it. Thats what I really dont get. When has one human being tortured another and not felt it was absolutly nessesary? (Hanabal Lector aside)
On May 26 2009 08:16 Zozma wrote: I don't really get it. I guess you can say that, but it's not like Hitler got out of bed and said "alright time to do some evil". I mean, everyone thinks they're right, but that doesn't make it right.
Exactly my point. Every country that tortures does it for a reason (national security, they are evil so its ok to torture them, if we dont torture them something bad will happen). The whole reason you have international "Dont Torture" laws is because torture does so often seem like the right and nessisary course of action. But its not.
On May 26 2009 08:16 Zozma wrote: First: Assume that a runaway mine cart is about to go down a lane with 4 workers in it, and they will all die. If you could switch the cart to a different lane with only one person in it, would you do that?
Second: Same situation, but you are at the side of the track. If you jump in and try to stop the cart, it won't work, but you can push someone in to stop it at the cost of their life. Would you do that?
Basically, if you answer "no" in the second case, your argument about necessary evils doesn't hold up. Er, if that's the argument you're trying to make.
If I came from a country with founding principles that said "Don't every kill people with a cart" then no I wouldn't actively take another persons life.
On May 26 2009 08:16 Zozma wrote: I don't really get it. I guess you can say that, but it's not like Hitler got out of bed and said "alright time to do some evil". I mean, everyone thinks they're right, but that doesn't make it right.
Exactly my point. Every country that tortures does it for a reason (national security, they are evil so its ok to torture them, if we dont torture them something bad will happen).
On May 26 2009 08:16 Zozma wrote: First: Assume that a runaway mine cart is about to go down a lane with 4 workers in it, and they will all die. If you could switch the cart to a different lane with only one person in it, would you do that?
Second: Same situation, but you are at the side of the track. If you jump in and try to stop the cart, it won't work, but you can push someone in to stop it at the cost of their life. Would you do that?
Basically, if you answer "no" in the second case, your argument about necessary evils doesn't hold up. Er, if that's the argument you're trying to make.
If I came from a country with founding principles that said "Don't every kill people with a cart" then no I wouldn't actively take another persons life.
I see a lot of people may be taking things the wrong way. This isn't about choosing between lesser evils. It's about looking at evils of the past, and learning interesting things about them.
It's just speculation. The holocaust gave us valuable medicine -- fact. The land I live on used to be owned by Native Americans that my ancestors wiped out -- fact.
It's all quite fascinating, but don't judge people's morals simply because of facts. The Holocaust was wrong, slavery was wrong, genocide is wrong.
But if you benefited from any of these things in any way, it's not morally wrong to accept that.
On May 26 2009 08:16 Zozma wrote: I don't really get it. I guess you can say that, but it's not like Hitler got out of bed and said "alright time to do some evil". I mean, everyone thinks they're right, but that doesn't make it right.
Exactly my point. Every country that tortures does it for a reason (national security, they are evil so its ok to torture them, if we dont torture them something bad will happen). The whole reason you have international "Dont Torture" laws is because torture does so often seem like the right and nessisary course of action. But its not.
On May 26 2009 08:16 Zozma wrote: First: Assume that a runaway mine cart is about to go down a lane with 4 workers in it, and they will all die. If you could switch the cart to a different lane with only one person in it, would you do that?
Second: Same situation, but you are at the side of the track. If you jump in and try to stop the cart, it won't work, but you can push someone in to stop it at the cost of their life. Would you do that?
Basically, if you answer "no" in the second case, your argument about necessary evils doesn't hold up. Er, if that's the argument you're trying to make.
If I came from a country with founding principles that said "Don't every kill people with a cart" then no I wouldn't actively take another persons life.
I didn't understand what you were saying. If I've got this right, you're actually saying that just because people think torture is necessary, that's no excuse, and that we shouldn't actually torture someone.
What I thought you were saying is that we should torture people if it was necessary.
Okay. Uh, that was a pretty pointless argument. My bad!
Man this stuff is pretty intense, I was actually discussing this with some buddies till I saw this topic. Lotta similar stuff was brought up in our discussion o.O.
On May 26 2009 09:38 Clasic wrote: Well, my opinion is war is war. You do what you do.. no rules..
rules are important in wars, but as were not even fighting a standing army, this isn't really a "war." do i support torture of insurgents? no. do i understand the people who do it? yes.
when your fighting enemies who dress like civilians, who raise the white flag of surrender only to gun you down -- well, i'd be driven to do some terrible things as well.
On May 26 2009 08:48 Archerofaiur wrote: Lol its ok. Its uplifting to meet people willing to argue that torture is wrong no matter how nessisary it may appear.
I'm sure the Spanish inquisition believed torture was nessisary against evil
The site seems to sell a bunch of pro-war/anti-liberal shirts, but then they have this one:
Do people actually agree with this? "We should take what's not ours, kill those who oppose us, and then force everyone to believe what we believe."
I hate you Ann Coulter.
edit: as for the whole torture discussion, I read every post in here, and I'm not getting involved. My personal opinion is that waterboarding is torture and we shouldn't do it. But trying to convince someone that they're wrong on an internet message board is harder than ZvZ against Jaedong.
I know she gets a lot of flak from liberals, but I used to dismiss it as political bickering. Reading that quote...
She's a zealot. And not the nice kind with psi shields and a speed upgrade.
here is why torture doesnt work. i start ripping your fingernails out. you dont tell me the truth, you only tell me what you think will make me stop ripping out your fingernails. give me some rusty plyers and 10 mintutes i could have you telling me you were mickey mouse sent by hulk hogan to fight the ninja turtles.
also- it makes you the bad guys. but that is just an opinion of course.
It is quite obvious for anyone that the information extracted under torture is extremely unreliable, so no one would use it for this purpose. There are other purposes though, to make someone say something beneficial to your propaganda, to enhance your image with your own people by "doing whatever is necessary to protect them", to make your enemies fear, or just to receive sadistic pleasure, which is I guess not the least of the reasons torture is still used today.
On May 25 2009 18:14 baal wrote: headbanga would you be kind enough to elaborate if rape counts as an enhanced interrogation technique or is it immoral and shouldnt be done?
Please also state why and how its different from waterboarding since none of them cause any physical damage, just psychological.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
You're assuming torturing the guy will give you the information. EVERY piece of information entered into this thread has consistently shown that interrogation techniques which aren't flat out torture obtained higher quality information, even those pieces of information entered by the pro-torture side.
No one disputes that if there was a net benefit to torture that it would be moral to perform it, but we simply don't have the evidence showing that.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
You're assuming torturing the guy will give you the information. EVERY piece of information entered into this thread has consistently shown that interrogation techniques which aren't flat out torture obtained higher quality information
On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote: Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.<
I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt.
Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two.
EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote: Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.<
I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt.
Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two.
EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
Oooo I see, Ann Coulter isn't just an idiot, she's weaving a saavy social commentary by lowering the level of political discourse to rock bottom and then starting to dig. Are you sure you understand what satire is? Satire means you are attacking something that you disapprove by being sarcastic or overly ridiculous. What about Coulter fits that exactly? Over the top, yes. Are you saying that she is satirizing extreme right-wing Republicans? Somehow I don't think you would like her if that was the case. Because that's what Colbert does, and it's pretty clear to most people what he's doing.
So I don't understand why rational Republicans would ever listen to her. For entertainment value? If she's satirizing anybody, it's YOU. Because she exists "solely to antagonize the left"? Ok, wouldn't it be better to listen to someone who can argue your points in a rational and respectable way? So it's fun to get "liberals" (and I use this term loosely because I don't think most democracies would call Democrats liberals) riled up? That's just shameless mudslinging and, again, dragging the level of discourse down to pathetic levels.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
On May 26 2009 09:38 Clasic wrote: Well, my opinion is war is war. You do what you do.. no rules..
Im sure thats exacly how the terrorists felt.
Think for a seccond, what the fuck could Al-Qaeda really hope to achieve ? They barely have the manpower to blow an embassy once a month or whatnot, for a powerfull organization, they are pretty much lame without a mechanized army, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, etc...
So they cant really hurt your society on a large scale(911 was bound to happen, like the terrorist big bang, feel free to disagree).
The only tangible place where you would be affected is the direction that you guys would take the country after this happened.
And because of fucktards like you, the lower road was chosen, millions have died for what ? for the USA lowering themselves to the status of fucking terrorists ? of tortures ? of no higher than life principles ?
you cant believe in the end justifies the means, in torture, and in america at the same time, because even tho the amoral ones now call themselves conservatives, there was a time where the US was a country of principle and morals, always illuminating the road towards rights and freedom, not the other way around.
On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote: I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs
The opposite is true, in a superficial way. Prior to 1950, there was no such thing as a conservative America. By the time of Ronald Reagan's inauguration, more Americans identified themselves as Conservative than Liberal, a fact which remains true down to this day.
Perhaps it is not too early to pass the judgement that the age of liberalism may have been an transitory and ephemeral phenomenon in the history of the Western Modern Age. Her triumphs, the removal of her traditional grievances from secular western society, has relegated her to representing increasingly absurd and uninspiring causes, kept buoyant by her traditional reservoir of idealism. This reservoir however, seems to be nearly empty.
It's also disturbing how the liberal cause has become decoupled from private standards of behaviour. In that respect, a modern Liberal may be the diametric opposite of a Jane Austen liberal.
In the long-run, it doesn't matter; when it comes to personal behaviour, mores, beliefs, modes of thought, the differences between the American left and right are insignificant. Everywhere in Europe the American tourist is immediately recognizable by his unpostured, self-assured, incurious stride.
On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote: I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs
Just like christianity is eventually going to die?
As long as the US two-party system exists, republicans and democrats will be around. You may get them in different flavors, but they'll still be around.
lol unless you've been waterboarded before you should just shut up. You have zero idea what you are talking about. "waterboarding yourself" does not count.
On May 27 2009 02:12 MoltkeWarding wrote: The opposite is true, in a superficial way. Prior to 1950, there was no such thing as a conservative America. By the time of Ronald Reagan's inauguration, more Americans identified themselves as Conservative than Liberal, a fact which remains true down to this day.
I highly doubt that polls from before 1950, if they existed, would be all that different from the polls that have been conducted since1980. Prior to 1950 we had Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and then a Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress for over a decade. Yeah, FDR won four terms and then Truman won one in his own right, but much of their success came because they had the support of unions and the working class who are, their own economic self-interests aside, typically conservative.
On May 26 2009 09:38 Clasic wrote: Well, my opinion is war is war. You do what you do.. no rules..
Im sure thats exacly how the terrorists felt.
Think for a seccond, what the fuck could Al-Qaeda really hope to achieve ? They barely have the manpower to blow an embassy once a month or whatnot, for a powerfull organization, they are pretty much lame without a mechanized army, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, etc...
So they cant really hurt your society on a large scale(911 was bound to happen, like the terrorist big bang, feel free to disagree).
The only tangible place where you would be affected is the direction that you guys would take the country after this happened.
And because of fucktards like you, the lower road was chosen, millions have died for what ? for the USA lowering themselves to the status of fucking terrorists ? of tortures ? of no higher than life principles ?
you cant believe in the end justifies the means, in torture, and in america at the same time, because even tho the amoral ones now call themselves conservatives, there was a time where the US was a country of principle and morals, always illuminating the road towards rights and freedom, not the other way around.
Millions have died? I think that is a bit of an overstatement -_- I agree with your post for the most part (except 911 was bound to happen), is that like a "you had it coming" type thing?
On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote: I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs
The opposite is true
Meh it's swings and roundabouts. Majority of the voting public is moronic. Whichever popular cause is most emotive for them will determine the voting, no political ideology or whatever. Everyone votes for a better life for themselves and it's not like one party has a monopoly on that.
Prior to 1950 we had Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and then a Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress for over a decade.
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover especially were not conservative in the classical sense, and more importantly in the American context, did not consider themselves to be conservatives. Eisenhower was the first American president to label himself a conservative, and succeeding him, Reagan, Bush&Bush. This hardly meant a thing; since an American conservative is, in the context of American political history, something of an oxymoron.
Prior to 1950 we had Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and then a Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress for over a decade.
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover especially were not conservative in the classical sense, and more importantly in the American context, did not consider themselves to be conservatives. Eisenhower was the first American president to label himself a conservative, and succeeding him, Reagan, Bush&Bush. This hardly meant a thing; since an American conservative is, in the context of American political history, something of an oxymoron.
I had thought that you were talking about a shift in ideology and not in definitions.
On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote: Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.<
I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt.
Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two.
EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
Oooo I see, Ann Coulter isn't just an idiot, she's weaving a saavy social commentary by lowering the level of political discourse to rock bottom and then starting to dig. Are you sure you understand what satire is? Satire means you are attacking something that you disapprove by being sarcastic or overly ridiculous. What about Coulter fits that exactly? Over the top, yes. Are you saying that she is satirizing extreme right-wing Republicans? Somehow I don't think you would like her if that was the case. Because that's what Colbert does, and it's pretty clear to most people what he's doing.
So I don't understand why rational Republicans would ever listen to her. For entertainment value? If she's satirizing anybody, it's YOU. Because she exists "solely to antagonize the left"? Ok, wouldn't it be better to listen to someone who can argue your points in a rational and respectable way? So it's fun to get "liberals" (and I use this term loosely because I don't think most democracies would call Democrats liberals) riled up? That's just shameless mudslinging and, again, dragging the level of discourse down to pathetic levels.
How is that a reflection on me? She's over the top just to get people's goats. I gave you a prime idea of how Michael Savage does the same thing. It's basically "shock jocking" but on a political stage. I don't see where you're drawing the line between my belief that she is amusing and taking what she says literally. I think you're coming up with some pretty baseless accusations, frankly. When I hear Ann Coulter say "we should convert them to Christianity" I'm not saying "yeeeah lits set fahr ta them tahwelheads", I'm saying "that's Ann Coulter!" The fact that you're not seeing the distinction is more than a little unsettling.
On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote: Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.<
I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt.
Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two.
EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
Oooo I see, Ann Coulter isn't just an idiot, she's weaving a saavy social commentary by lowering the level of political discourse to rock bottom and then starting to dig. Are you sure you understand what satire is? Satire means you are attacking something that you disapprove by being sarcastic or overly ridiculous. What about Coulter fits that exactly? Over the top, yes. Are you saying that she is satirizing extreme right-wing Republicans? Somehow I don't think you would like her if that was the case. Because that's what Colbert does, and it's pretty clear to most people what he's doing.
So I don't understand why rational Republicans would ever listen to her. For entertainment value? If she's satirizing anybody, it's YOU. Because she exists "solely to antagonize the left"? Ok, wouldn't it be better to listen to someone who can argue your points in a rational and respectable way? So it's fun to get "liberals" (and I use this term loosely because I don't think most democracies would call Democrats liberals) riled up? That's just shameless mudslinging and, again, dragging the level of discourse down to pathetic levels.
How is that a reflection on me? She's over the top just to get people's goats. I gave you a prime idea of how Michael Savage does the same thing. It's basically "shock jocking" but on a political stage. I don't see where you're drawing the line between my belief that she is amusing and taking what she says literally. I think you're coming up with some pretty baseless accusations, frankly. When I hear Ann Coulter say "we should convert them to Christianity" I'm not saying "yeeeah lits set fahr ta them tahwelheads", I'm saying "that's Ann Coulter!" The fact that you're not seeing the distinction is more than a little unsettling.
The problem is not that there are conservative windbags spewing ridiculous opinions on the air. You get that from both sides. The problem is that these fuckingmorons are seriously considered by many to be "leaders of the Republican party".
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
That is why I said that it's best for the society for torture to be illegal. You perfectly explained WHY it should be like that. I was just arguing the point of Physician saying you're a douche etc. if you support torture under ANY circumstance. To make my example more government related: A terrorist plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in a couple of hours. The government have tried everything they could, but couldn't get the information to stop the bomb. In this case I would say torture the guy, even if there is a small chance of getting the information.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
That is why I said that it's best for the society for torture to be illegal. You perfectly explained WHY it should be like that. I was just arguing the point of Physician saying you're a douche etc. if you support torture under ANY circumstance. To make my example more government related: A terrorist plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in a couple of hours. The government have tried everything they could, but couldn't get the information to stop the bomb. In this case I would say torture the guy, even if there is a small chance of getting the information.
You can't just jump to a conclusion from a fictional never occurring scenario and apply it to reality.
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
That is why I said that it's best for the society for torture to be illegal. You perfectly explained WHY it should be like that. I was just arguing the point of Physician saying you're a douche etc. if you support torture under ANY circumstance. To make my example more government related: A terrorist plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in a couple of hours. The government have tried everything they could, but couldn't get the information to stop the bomb. In this case I would say torture the guy, even if there is a small chance of getting the information.
You can't just jump to a conclusion from a fictional never occurring scenario and apply it to reality.
Every philosophy class I've taken has said otherwise. In fact, that's what most moral principles are based on. The most outrageous situations you could think of, and then stepping backwards less and less extreme and seeing if there is some "line," etc. to distinguish what is moral and what is not.
And what he referred to is the "ticking time bomb dilemma"
On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote: - anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking: retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick.
You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family?
I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”.
I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
That is why I said that it's best for the society for torture to be illegal. You perfectly explained WHY it should be like that. I was just arguing the point of Physician saying you're a douche etc. if you support torture under ANY circumstance. To make my example more government related: A terrorist plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in a couple of hours. The government have tried everything they could, but couldn't get the information to stop the bomb. In this case I would say torture the guy, even if there is a small chance of getting the information.
You can't just jump to a conclusion from a fictional never occurring scenario and apply it to reality.
This, when a nuclear bomb is about to detonate we can have a thead about it, but there is no nuclear bomb, so stop watching 24 and have a reasonable discussion without making dumb examples
for the second time, his policies relating to the war on terror are conservative and he is absolutely a hawk. agreed, he is not a conservative in other areas. should the title of the thread have been 'conservative waterboarded also hitchens who is a total hawk but not conservative in other areas - voluntarily'?
no. you're retarded (boo hiss). he has said he and the neocons have the same foreign policy goals. who the fuck are you? we're 18 pages in and this is the best you can contribute? read the thread before calling me names or shut up.
What's all the fuss about waterboarding anyway? Wasn't it only used on three detainees, who very bad people i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to extract critical information; Immediately after 9/11?
On May 28 2009 21:09 choboPEon wrote: for the second time, his policies relating to the war on terror are conservative and he is absolutely a hawk. agreed, he is not a conservative in other areas. should the title of the thread have been 'conservative waterboarded also hitchens who is a total hawk but not conservative in other areas - voluntarily'?
no. you're retarded (boo hiss). he has said he and the neocons have the same foreign policy goals. who the fuck are you? we're 18 pages in and this is the best you can contribute? read the thread before calling me names or shut up.
Hitchens says he's not a conservative of any type:
Hitchens is a vociferous supporter of human rights and most of his views on foreign policy stem from that. While he does agree with neoconservatives on some policy issues, his views on foreign policy are shaped by his intense support for human rights and opposition to autocracy and oppression. Regional power and potential economic gain aren't very important for him. Does this sound like a neoconservative's views on foreign policy?
Equating hawkish stances and conservatism is just plain wrong.
On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote: Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.<
I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt.
Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two.
EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
Oooo I see, Ann Coulter isn't just an idiot, she's weaving a saavy social commentary by lowering the level of political discourse to rock bottom and then starting to dig. Are you sure you understand what satire is? Satire means you are attacking something that you disapprove by being sarcastic or overly ridiculous. What about Coulter fits that exactly? Over the top, yes. Are you saying that she is satirizing extreme right-wing Republicans? Somehow I don't think you would like her if that was the case. Because that's what Colbert does, and it's pretty clear to most people what he's doing.
So I don't understand why rational Republicans would ever listen to her. For entertainment value? If she's satirizing anybody, it's YOU. Because she exists "solely to antagonize the left"? Ok, wouldn't it be better to listen to someone who can argue your points in a rational and respectable way? So it's fun to get "liberals" (and I use this term loosely because I don't think most democracies would call Democrats liberals) riled up? That's just shameless mudslinging and, again, dragging the level of discourse down to pathetic levels.
How is that a reflection on me? She's over the top just to get people's goats. I gave you a prime idea of how Michael Savage does the same thing. It's basically "shock jocking" but on a political stage. I don't see where you're drawing the line between my belief that she is amusing and taking what she says literally. I think you're coming up with some pretty baseless accusations, frankly. When I hear Ann Coulter say "we should convert them to Christianity" I'm not saying "yeeeah lits set fahr ta them tahwelheads", I'm saying "that's Ann Coulter!" The fact that you're not seeing the distinction is more than a little unsettling.
I remember when she wrote about how we should attack France there were a lot of people thought she meant it. I mean yeah, she was serious about the reasons she gave for disliking them, but not the military attack. And yet you'd get people saying "of course she meant it! She seems so serious!" and totally not being able to distinguish what was said sincerely and what was exagerration to make a point. It was a really good troll. But I think I'd agree if someone were to say that politics is not the best place for a troll. Fortunately she isn't a politician.
Ann Coulter is a real life troll in a traditionally serious field of discussion. The responses in this thread to her show that people have issues distinguishing what she says and what she meant. Don't take her literally, don't take her seriously, just listen and think about what she just said.
I am no means a AC supporter, I actually despise her, but I have had the opportunity to hear her speak in person and she isn't what most people think she is.
On May 30 2009 01:25 Warrior Madness wrote: What's all the fuss about waterboarding anyway? Wasn't it only used on three detainees, who very bad people i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to extract critical information; Immediately after 9/11?
YAAAAHHH What so wrong with just alil torture? Like if we promise to only torture people if they really deserve it.
You dont torture. Period. Not if there is a war. Not if there is a nuke in new york city. Not after a nuke has gone off in new york city. You dont torture.
Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."
On May 30 2009 01:25 Warrior Madness wrote: What's all the fuss about waterboarding anyway? Wasn't it only used on three detainees, who very bad people i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to extract critical information; Immediately after 9/11?
YAAAAHHH What so wrong with just alil torture? Like if we promise to only torture people if they really deserve it.
I like your wording. Too bad it ain't mine. It's not a matter of whether they "deserve" it or not. It's whether or not it's morally justified to use waterboarding if we have good grounds for doing so. I'd say "they" have done a pretty good job so far of judging when to use waterboarding and on who. Especially considering the fact that, only three detainees have been waterboarded so far (It's been six years since any detainee has been waterboarded). And above all, they got the critical information out of Mohammed and his two chiefs needed to foil a terrorist plot in LA.
You dont torture. Period. Not if there is a war. Not if there is a nuke in new york city. Not after a nuke has gone off in new york city. You dont torture.
On May 30 2009 10:35 Warrior Madness wrote: It's whether or not it's morally justified to use waterboarding if we have good grounds for doing so.
It is never morally justified to torture.
There is a reason that the international anti-torture laws don't say "You can't torture...unless you have a really good reason."
And see heres the other thing. Its hard to show how this happens cause it takes place over a long period of time. But when you become a nation that tortures you lose something. And that something is more important then your life or mine or all of New York city.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i42.tinypic.com/1t9f1t.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-coulter.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.txroadrunners.com/images/pics/Funny6/redneck_swiss_army_gun.jpg)
