Thread: "Absolutely torture."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not true. I have a challenge for you. Summarize my argument against the notion that waterboarding is torture.

Terrorism is torture. Let's prevent it.

As I see it, your argument is that waterboarding isn't torture if someone can stop it by providing the information desired. Am I right?

I say that is false. Torture is torture, no matter what is gained from it.

And yes, terrorism is torture, but again, that doesn't have very much to do with the specific conversation. We all know how you feel about terrorism, but throwing out that "terrorism is torture" in every conversation that has to do with waterboarding (or torturing terrorists) doesn't negate the fact that waterboarding is torture.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

As I see it, your argument is that waterboarding isn't torture if someone can stop it by providing the information desired. Am I right?

That is part of it. The other important part is that it does not induce agonizing pain, just the threat of agonizing pain. It causes extreme fear, as does criminal court, arrest, and awareness of being in prison. Criminal defendants claim their hearts beat so fast during trials that it is like they are on crack. Are criminal trials "torture"?

While causing mere fear, waterboarding can be called off. If you put a rubber knife up to somebody's Achilles tendon and say, "Tell me what city is about to be nuked and where I can find the person with the nuke or else I will cut your Achilles tendon," you have not tortured the person. You have scared the Hell out of him with the thought of being tortured. There is a huge difference.

American special forces are waterboarded as part of their training. Do you claim that the U.S. military has a policy of torturing its special forces? If so, then is basic training torture? Are soldiers tortured when they are forced to exercise near the point of exhaustion? Those things actually involve extreme pain in every case.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And yes, terrorism is torture, but again, that doesn't have very much to do with the specific conversation. We all know how you feel about terrorism, but throwing out that "terrorism is torture" in every conversation that has to do with waterboarding (or torturing terrorists) doesn't negate the fact that waterboarding is torture.

My point is that we need to prevent real torture even if part of doing that is scaring the Hell out of terrorists who can call off what is scaring them.

However, there do need to be very high standards concerning who gets waterboarded. I don't think every or even any minor suspect should be waterboarded. If a well known Al Qaeda leader is captured on a battle field and there is strong evidence that he knows of a pending terrorist attack, he needs to be waterboarded. So far, that is how it has been done.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is part of it. The other important part is that it does not induce agonizing pain, just the threat of agonizing pain. It causes extreme fear, as does criminal court, arrest, and awareness of being in prison. Criminal defendants claim their hearts beat so fast during trials that it is like they are on crack. Are criminal trials "torture"?

While causing mere fear, waterboarding can be called off. If you put a rubber knife up to somebody's Achilles tendon and say, "Tell me what city is about to be nuked and where I can find the person with the nuke or else I will cut your Achilles tendon," you have not tortured the person. You have scared the Hell out of him with the thought of being tortured. There is a huge difference.

Have you ever been held upside down under running water? Ever had water get up your nose? Ever been left choking and gasping for air to where, even if it's not enough to cause lasting damage or death, it's very painful and/or debilitating? I have. The sensation is not analogous to criminal court, or 'holding a knife to someone's Achilles' tendon.

And almost any form of torture can be called off (provided you actually have the information sought). Whether or not it can be called off is irrelevant. And even if you do, the time where you were being put under the procedure was still torture, by definition.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

American special forces are waterboarded as part of their training. Do you claim that the U.S. military has a policy of torturing its special forces? If so, then is basic training torture? Are soldiers tortured when they are forced to exercise near the point of exhaustion? Those things actually involve extreme pain in every case.

Yes, to all questions. You don't really seem to grasp the nature of torture.

When someone is 'jumped' into a gang, they are volunteering for the treatment, as a part of initiation. They are willfully going through with torture, to meet a goal. When someone is 'jumped' on the street, it is torture.

If someone volunteers to get a tattoo, the are volunteering for the treatment, as a right of passage, or as an appreciation for the art. If you duct tape someone to a chair and tattoo them, kicking and screaming, you are torturing them.

Put a soldier in a gas chamber, it is torturous training that they must endure if they want to be a U.S. Soldier. Shove an accomplice to a crime in a gas chamber, to get information out of them, it is torture.

It is torture, either way, but it is when it is voluntary, that the word is often replaced.

As an interesting aside: Isn't it amazing how now, all of a sudden, waterboarding isn't torture, when we (the U.S.) imprisoned a Japanese soldier for 15 years, for doing it to a U.S. soldier, during World War II?

Actually, this article will answer to a lot of the ideas you have about water boarding...

Originally Posted by excerpts

1. "Water boarding as it is currently described involves strapping a person to an inclined board, with his feet raised and his head lowered. The interrogators bind the person's arms and legs so he can't move at all, and they cover his face. In some descriptions, the person is gagged, and some sort of cloth covers his nose and mouth; in others, his face is wrapped in cellophane. The interrogator then repeatedly pours water onto the person's face. Depending on the exact setup, the water may or may not actually get into the person's mouth and nose; but the physical experience of being underneath a wave of water seems to be secondary to the psychological experience..."


2. "How Effective Is Water Boarding?
CIA members who've undergone water boarding as part of their training have lasted an average of 14 seconds before begging to be released. The Navy SEALs once used the technique in their counter-interrogation training, but they stopped because the trainees could not survive it without breaking, which was bad for morale..."


3. "When the CIA used the water-boarding technique on al-Qaida operative and supposed "9/11 mastermind" Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he reportedly lasted more than two minutes before confessing to everything of which he was accused. Anonymous CIA sources report that Mohammed's interrogators were impressed.

Many CIA officials see water boarding as a poor interrogation method because it scares the prisoner so much you can't trust anything he tells you..."


4. "Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a POW during the Vietnam War, says water boarding is definitely a form of torture. Human rights groups agree unanimously that "simulated drowning," causing the prisoner to believe he is about to die, is undoubtedly a form of psychological torture. The international community recognizes "mock executions" as a form of torture, and many place water boarding in that category..."


5. "In 1947, a Japanese soldier who used water boarding against a U.S. citizen during World War II was sentenced to 15 years in U.S. prison for committing a war crime."


6. "In September 2006, the Bush administration faced widespread criticism regarding its refusal to sign a Congressional bill outlawing the use of torture techniques against all U.S. prisoners. That same month, the U.S. Department of Defense made it illegal for any member of the U.S. military to use the water-boarding technique. The CIA and its interrogators were unaffected by that new policy, as the CIA is not a branch of the U.S. military."

Link

And concerning more on the Japanese soldier that was sentenced:

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

Link

That is the exact same method of waterboarding that the CIA uses. I have a challenge for you: Sit right here and tell me, honestly, that that is not a double standard.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

However, there do need to be very high standards concerning who gets waterboarded. I don't think every or even any minor suspect should be waterboarded. If a well known Al Qaeda leader is captured on a battle field and there is strong evidence that he knows of a pending terrorist attack, he needs to be waterboarded. So far, that is how it has been done.

Going back to Khalid Sheik Mohammed - when putting it into context that CIA agents who were waterboarded begged to have it stop after 14 seconds - one cannot ignore the glaring possibility (and likely-hood) that K.S.M. admitted to the charges he was accused of, simply to stop the water boarding.

Even one with no sympathy for terrorists - but solid, honest logic - can't ignore that.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Have you ever been held upside down under running water? Ever had water get up your nose? Ever been left choking and gasping for air to where, even if it's not enough to cause lasting damage or death, it's very painful and/or debilitating? I have. The sensation is not analogous to 'holding a knife to someone's Achilles' tendon.

Water might get up the nose? That is not enough for my heart to bleed. I was like three years old the first time I had water up my nose. It didn't ruine my day or even my next five minutes. If they choke and gasp for air, it is out of panic. Waterboarding done the right way is not a threat to long term respiration and the life of a person's brain. You are really exaggerating. The big deal about waterboarding is the threat of agonizing pain and the anxiety the threat provokes

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Any torture can be called off. Whether or not it can be called off is irrelevant.

That is far from true. Torture is often just a form of punishment. Also, as I said, what you are talking about is only part of my point. My full point is that waterboarding induces only fear/panic AND can be called off.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Yes, to all questions. You don't really seem to grasp the nature of torture.

When someone is 'jumped' into a gang, they are volunteering for the treatment, as a part of initiation. They are willfully going through with torture, to meet a goal. When someone is 'jumped' on the street, it is torture.

Once you are in the military, you are IN, unless you find a difficult loophole. You have to do the stuff or else. By your standards, a person in the military has no choice but to be either tortured by exercise or tortured by the anxiety of being courtmarshalled.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

As an interesting aside: Isn't it amazing how now, all of a sudden, waterboarding isn't torture, when we (the U.S.) imprisoned a Japanese soldier for 15 years, for doing it to a U.S. soldier, during World War II?

It's a hardcore thing to do, but it is not torture. Also, don't you think the judge was mainly pissed that the guy fought for the Japanese in WWII?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Actually, this article will answer to a lot of the ideas you have about water boarding...

It doesn't contradict anything I have said. It is also extremely biased. It reports everything as gospel but then shows sympathy for Khalid Sheik Muhammed by calling him the "supposed 9/11 mastermind". They might as well say, "Fuck the CIA! They did this and that! Oh, but let's give poor little Khallid the benefit of the doubt." That is ridiculous. It is indicative of the misplaced outrage I have been talking about.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That is the exact same method of waterboarding that the CIA uses. I have a challenge for you: Sit right here and tell me, honestly, that that is not a double standard.

No, it is not a double standard. First of all, different individuals dealt with him. It is not like Bush himself said waterboarding is fine but waterboarding is terrible. If a judge in 1968 thought waterboarding was awful enough to sentence the guy, it does not mean individuals in the CIA today changed their minds. Different officials have different perspectives. Also, did the judge say it was "torture"? He probably hated the son of a bitch's guts for fighting against the United States. Scaring our soldiers was just one more offense on top of something unforgivable. Personally, I don't forgive any of the Japanese WWII soldiers. What they did was evil beyond belief.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Going back to Khalid Sheik Mohammed - when putting it into context that most, if not all, U.S. Seals who were waterboarded begged to have it stop after 14 seconds - one cannot ignore the glaring possibility (and likely-hood) that K.S.M. admitted to the charges he was accused of, simply to stop the water boarding.

Even one with no sympathy for terrorists - but solid, honest logic - can't ignore that.

A terrorist attack was prevented as a result of his information. Apparently, what came out of the scum's mouth was worth a great deal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Water might get up the nose? That is not enough for my heart to bleed. I was like three years old the first time I had water up my nose. It didn't ruine my day or even my next five minutes.

And therein lies the subjectivity. A kid that cuts himself for pleasure could as easily say the same thing about taking knife to someone's wrist, against their will. It doesn't change the objective fact that what is being done to the person, against their will, is torture.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is far from true. Torture is often just a form of punishment. Also, as I said, what you are talking about is only part of my point. My full point is that waterboarding induces only fear/panic AND can be called off.

Any form of torture - as in, method/technique.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Once you are in the military, you are IN, unless you find a difficult loophole. You have to do the stuff or else. By your standards, a person in the military has no choice but to be either tortured by exercise or tortured by the anxiety of being courtmarshalled.

Complete side-step of my points in that section, but I'll bite. Yes. By my standards, and the definition of torture, a person in the military has no choice but to either be tortured by exercise - and the subjection to tear-gas and, apparently waterboarding (at the time) - or tortured (to a much lesser, physical degree) by the anxiety of being courtmarshalled. This is the only conclusion one can reach, when honestly taking into consideration the actual definition of the word 'torture'. I'm sorry that you disagree.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's a hardcore thing to do, but it is not torture. Also, don't you think the judge was mainly pissed that the guy fought for the Japanese in WWII?

It is torture, actually, and whether or not the judge was mainly pissed that the guy fought for the Japanese is about as relevant as whether or not your assertion that the U.S. doesn't torture is mainly because you are pissed that these are terrorists. (See what I did there? )

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It doesn't contradict anything I have said. It is also extremely biased. It reports everything as gospel but then shows sympathy for Khalid Sheik Muhammed by calling him the "supposed 9/11 mastermind". They might as well say, "Fuck the CIA! They did this and that! Oh, but let's give poor little Khallid the benefit of the doubt." That is ridiculous. It is indicative of the misplaced outrage I have been talking about.

It says it in quotations because, given the technique, objectivity cannot make one certain that he actually was the 9/11 mastermind. Simple as that. It is the same concept as why we have scientific theories, instead of laws based on evidence alone.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, it is not a double standard. First of all, different individuals dealt with him. It is not like Bush himself said waterboarding is fine but waterboarding is terrible. If a judge in 1968 thought waterboarding was awful enough to sentence the guy, it does not mean individuals in the CIA today changed their minds. Different officials have different perspectives. Also, did the judge say it was "torture"? He probably hated the son of a bitch's guts for fighting against the United States. Scaring our soldiers was just one more offense on top of something unforgivable. Personally, I don't forgive any of the Japanese WWII soldiers. What they did was evil beyond belief.

When Senator Kennedy said "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II", it seems pretty implicit to me that it was pretty much par for the course, and not a rogue Judge. About whether or not he actually said it was torture, is much less relevant than whether or not there is a double standard of the U.S. soldiers who use the same method not being punished.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A terrorist attack was prevented as a result of his information. Apparently, what came out of the scum's mouth was worth a great deal.

Fair enough (if true), but as I said, whether or not information is gained doesn't affect whether or not something is torture. And on that note:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary > "Torture"

Main Entry:
1tor·ture Listen to the pronunciation of 1torture
Pronunciation:
\ˈtȯr-chər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date:
1540

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining[/color]

And for good measure:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary > "Agony"

Main Entry:
ag·o·ny Listen to the pronunciation of agony
Pronunciation:
\ˈa-gə-nē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural ag·o·nies
Etymology:
Middle English agonie, from Late Latin agonia, from Greek agōnia struggle, anguish, from agōn gathering, contest for a prize, from agein to lead, celebrate — more at agent
Date:
14th century

1 a: intense pain of mind or body : anguish, torture b: the struggle that precedes death2: a violent struggle or contest3: a strong sudden display (as of joy or delight) : outburst
synonyms see distress

I'm sorry UM, but bias is not a sufficient catalyst for changing (or ignoring) the definition of a word. By all accounts, water boarding (whether or not it causes intense or agonizing physical pain, which you were very careful to limit your implications to) is still torture.

So that we don't get drawn into the same endless, wordy debates we always do, feel free to reply with whatever you want, and have the last word - I don't feel that there is anything I can say, or any evidence in existence, to make you change your mind on the subject, so we will just let those reading make their own decisions. I figured I've laid it out as plainly as is humanly possible.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And therein lies the subjectivity. A kid that cuts himself for pleasure could as easily say the same thing about taking knife to someone's wrist, against their will. It doesn't change the objective fact that what is being done to the person, against their will, is torture.

My point was that it wasn't such a big deal.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Any form of torture - as in, method/technique.

In that case, I don't see the relevance of your point.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Complete side-step of my points in that section, but I'll bite. Yes. By my standards, and the definition of torture, a person in the military has no choice but to either be tortured by exercise - and the subjection to tear-gas and, apparently waterboarding (at the time) - or tortured (to a much lesser, physical degree) by the anxiety of being courtmarshalled. This is the only conclusion one can reach, when honestly taking into consideration the actual definition of the word 'torture'. I'm sorry that you disagree.

I have no idea how it was supposedly a side step. What happens to a person in the military is not voluntary once he is in. Signing up was voluntary. What happens after that is not. If you think involuntary torture is happening to our soldiers, then maybe you can start a protest over it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It is torture, actually, and whether or not the judge was mainly pissed that the guy fought for the Japanese is about as relevant as whether or not your assertion that the U.S. doesn't torture is mainly because you are pissed that these are terrorists. (See what I did there? )

If the judge's decision was not that the act was torture, then what is the double standard? The CIA is not claiming waterboarding is not something that really sucks.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It says it in quotations because, given the technique, objectivity cannot make one certain that he actually was the 9/11 mastermind. Simple as that. It is the same concept as why we have scientific theories, instead of laws based on evidence alone.

But they can be certain of all of their other claims? The article is biased... toward the 9/11 mastermind. That is absolutely nauseating.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

When Senator Kennedy said "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II", it seems pretty implicit to me that it was pretty much par for the course, and not a rogue Judge. About whether or not he actually said it was torture, is much less relevant than whether or not there is a double standard of the U.S. soldiers who use the same method not being punished.

If the torture issue is irrelevant there, why did you bring it up? What is the double standard? Waterboarding is a real son of a bitch, but it is not torture. Again, it is analogous to a criminal trial. Are you against those too?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Fair enough (if true), but as I said, whether or not information is gained doesn't affect whether or not something is torture. And on that note:

You said the asshole might have just been saying what they wanted to hear so they wouldn't drown him. That is apparently not the case.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And for good measure:

Here is the first definition on Dictionary.com.

the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm sorry UM, but bias is not a sufficient catalyst for changing (or ignoring) the definition of a word. By all accounts, water boarding (whether or not it causes intense or agonizing physical pain, which you were very careful to limit your implications to) is still torture.

I didn't claim the first part, and I beg to differ on the rest.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So that we don't get drawn into the same endless, wordy debates we always do, feel free to reply with whatever you want, and have the last word - I don't feel that there is anything I can say, or any evidence in existence, to make you change your mind on the subject, so we will just let those reading make their own decisions. I figured I've laid it out as plainly as is humanly possible.

All right. I don't have enough time for these long ass debates at work, and I am going to New Orleans after work tomorrow, so this is it for me in this thread for a while. Peace.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is part of it. The other important part is that it does not induce agonizing pain, just the threat of agonizing pain.

Didn't watch the video or read the OP, just waded right in, didn'tcha?

Then where is their outrage against them? How come I almost never see it from the people who oppose waterboarding and such and the rare occasions that I see what might be a spec it is a weak footnote like, "Eh, I don't exactly love terrorists."? Where is the passion?

I'm unsure what strong words against terrorists are going to accomplish? I hate Nazi' but talking shit about em isn't going to solve anything.

I leave the Government up to taking care of that trash.. Albeit look at them torturing...

Just because Terrorists would do worse things to you if they captured you does'nt mean we should. Torture is terrible! if we practice it, then in my opinion, we are no better then terrorists! since we are acting just like them.

Information gathering without torture.
A good read, and not too long.

(Posting from the link I inserted earlier, from which few, I assume, have read.)

Hanns-Joachim Gottlob Scharff (December 16, 1907 – September 10, 1992) was a German Luftwaffe interrogator during the Second World War. He has been called the "Master Interrogator" of the Luftwaffe and possibly all of Nazi Germany; he has also been praised for his contribution in shaping U.S. interrogation techniques after the war. Merely an Obergefreiter (the equivalent of a senior lance corporal), he was charged with interrogating every German-captured American fighter pilot during the war after his becoming an interrogation officer in 1943. He is highly praised for the success of his techniques, especially considering he never used physical means to obtain the required information. No evidence exists he even raised his voice in the presence of a prisoner of war (POW). Scharff’s interrogation techniques were so effective that he was often called upon to assist other German interrogators in their questioning of bomber pilots and aircrews, including those crews and fighter pilots from countries other than the United States. Additionally, Scharff was charged with questioning V.I.P.s (Very Important Prisoners) that funneled through the interrogation center, namely senior officers and world-famous fighter aces.

After the end of WWII, Scharff was invited by the United States Air Force to give lectures on his interrogation techniques and first-hand experiences. The U.S. military later incorporated Scharff’s methods into its curriculum at its interrogation schools. Scharff's methods are still taught in US Army interrogation schools.

Scharff was opposed to physically abusing prisoners with the intent to obtain information. Taught on the job, Scharff instead relied upon the Luftwaffe's approved list of techniques which mostly involved making the interrogator seem as if he is his prisoner's greatest advocate while in captivity.

Scharff described various experiences with new POWs, outlining the procedure most of his fellow interrogators were instructed to use. Initially, the POW's fear and sense of disorientation, combined with isolation while not in interrogation, were exploited to gain as much initial biographical information as possible. A prisoner was frequently warned that unless he could produce information beyond name, rank, and serial number, such as the name of his unit and airbase, the Luftwaffe would have no choice but to assume he was a spy and be turned over to the Gestapo for questioning. For Scharff, this technique apparently worked quite well. In addition to initially preying upon his prisoner's fears of the infamous Gestapo, he advertised himself as their closest ally in their predicament, telling them that while he would like nothing more than to see them safely onto their next position in a POW camp, his hands were tied unless the prisoner gave him the few details that he requested to help him properly identify the prisoner as a true POW.

After a prisoner's fear had calmed, Scharff continued to act as a good friend to the prisoner, including sharing jokes, homemade food items, and occasionally alcoholic beverages. Scharff was fluent in English and knowledgeable about British customs and some American, which helped him to gain the trust and friendship of many of his prisoners. Some high profile prisoners were treated to outings to German airfields (one POW was allowed to take a German aircraft for a trial run), tea with German fighter aces, swimming pool excursions, and luncheons among other things. Prisoners were treated well medically at the nearby Hone Mark Hospital, and some POWs were occasionally taken from captivity to visit their comrades at this hospital for company's sake as well as the better meals provided there. Scharff was best known for taking his prisoners on strolls through nearby woods, first having them swear an oath of honor that they would not attempt an escape during their walk. Scharff chose not to use these nature walks as a time to directly ask his prisoners obvious military-related questions, but instead relied on the POWs' desire to speak to anyone outside of isolated captivity about informal, generalized topics. Prisoners often volunteered information the Luftwaffe had instructed Scharff to acquire, frequently without realizing they had done so.

The Luftwaffe kept a vast collection of personal information about any pilot or commander within an enemy's airwing, holding that information in individual files. Scharff, when faced with a tight-lipped prisoner, usually resorted to consulting these files while in interrogation sessions. Scharff began by asking a prisoner a question he already knew the answer to, informing the prisoner that he already knew everything about him, but his superiors had given instruction that the prisoner himself had to say it. Scharff continued asking questions that he would then provide the answers for personally, each time hoping to convince his captive that there was nothing he did not already know. When Scharff eventually got to the piece of information he did not have, prisoners would frequently give the answer, assuming Scharff already had it in his files anyway, often saying so as they provided the information. Scharff made a point of keeping the Luftwaffe's lack of knowledge a strict secret so as to exploit the same tactic further in later conversations.

Please, I'd like to hear more excuses for the use of waterboarding in the name of ending torture.

to take UM's pro-abortion thing a step forward....it seems to me there are circumstances that warrant torture just as there might be extreme circumstances that warrant killing a fetus...

that to me takes a lot out of the meaning out of how exactly you want to define waterboarding....but how is it not torture again? doesnt it cause pain still?

I am not claiming too many Americans like terrorists. I am claiming too many Americans don't seem to hate terrorists. They hate the Bush Administration severely, though, which is incredibly ironic. They don't hate the groups that meet every day and discuss how to kill as many Americans as possible, but they viciously despise the groups that met every day and discussed how to save as many Americans as possible. It is one of the strangest things I have come across in my entire life. It is just as bizarre as Stockholm Syndrome.

I don't know, their was a big uproar 6 years ago About terrorists... time has passed and people aren't obsessed with talking about them anymore.

The Bush administration pretty much sucked, and now tons of Republicans are doing nothing but shit talking the Obama admin.. It's pretty much a bunch of blind motherfuckers electing two shitty parties.

This country's election system sucks.

What I don't understand is after the 7 layers of HELL terrorists have put us through over the many years, who gives a rat's ass about them being waterboarded? They can fly a plane into our buildings but we can't pour some water on someone's head??? I think we should continue to use waterboarding. If it weren't for all the bleeding heart liberals, we would still be using it.

Originally Posted by davej

What I don't understand is after the 7 layers of HELL terrorists have put us through over the many years, who gives a rat's ass about them being waterboarded? They can fly a plane into our buildings but we can't pour some water on someone's head???

What I cant understand is after the 7 layers of hell our foreign policy has put people through in the middle east over the years, who gives a rats ass about them flying planes into our buildings. We can support one totalitarian regime after another and help them kill tens of thousands of people and they can't fly a few planes into our buildings?

Originally Posted by davej

I think we should continue to use waterboarding. If it weren't for all the bleeding heart liberals, we would still be using it.

get some facts. It was stopped by the end of 2003. It was only cheney and his crew that wanted it. Powell and rice were opposed as were most people that actually knew about it. It doesn't work reliably and the Bush administration had stopped it before it seriously got public.

[QUOTE=aaronasterling;1103713]What I cant understand is after the 7 layers of hell our foreign policy has put people through in the middle east over the years, who gives a rats ass about them flying planes into our buildings. We can support one totalitarian regime after another and help them kill tens of thousands of people and they can't fly a few planes into our buildings

I am so sure you would be singing a different song if one of your family members had been in one of those buildings.

Originally Posted by davej

I am so sure you would be singing a different song if one of your family members had been in one of those buildings.

I hope I would have the intellectual honesty not to be. As oscar wilde said, "Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious." Had one of my family members died, I would probably be even more disgusted with "my" goverment for it's foreign policy. They trained the mullejedeen (sure i'm spelling it wrong) fighters that later became al quada as an attempt to give the soviet union its vietnam in the eighties. A kid named Jeremy (forget his last name, you could look it up) went on the o'rielly show and made that point. His father had died in the attacks.

So you want to defend these terrorist that come onto our soil and kill innocent Americans over the decades and you are saying we are wrong for defending ourselves. What do you think we should do, pull out our troops, run home with our tail tucked between our legs... and wait for the next attack.... is that what you want? If you are so concerned over them then why are you here?

Originally Posted by davej

So you want to defend these terrorist that come onto our soil and kill innocent Americans over the decades and you are saying we are wrong for defending ourselves.

Over the decades? are you serious dude? I'm aware of two attacks on the trade towers that both occured within ten years of each other. Is there some other terrorist attacks on american soil that I don't know about that didn't have a domestic source? Its a bit of a stretch to say that that's "over the decades"

Originally Posted by davej

What do you think we should do, pull out our troops, run home with our tail tucked between our legs... and wait for the next attack.... is that what you want? If you are so concerned over them then why are you here?

I think that we should stop being hypocrites and actually live by the values we espouse to the world on the one hand while we're selling them guns and chemical weapons with the other. If we were to actually be responsible global citizens, we would have the whole rest of the world kissing our asses instead of hating us.

I can't believe I bit at your initial post. I gotta go to bed now. Theres an intelligent debate I could be in right now on another thread. I'll check your reply in the "morning." It's gonna hurt like a bitch getting up

Originally Posted by davej

So you want to defend these terrorist that come onto our soil and kill innocent Americans over the decades and you are saying we are wrong for defending ourselves. What do you think we should do, pull out our troops, run home with our tail tucked between our legs... and wait for the next attack.... is that what you want? If you are so concerned over them then why are you here?

Nobodys defending terrorists, the simple fact is that the Islamic world has some really legitimate greivances against the West and USA in particular. Refusal to order a ceasefire when Israel was bombing the shit out of Lebanon a few years back. Israel/Palestine. US bases in Saudi Arabia. Involvement in Iraq. Until these problems are solved terrorism will continue. Obviously the people in the charge of terrorist movments like Al-Qaedea aren't too bothered about the issues above; they're fanatical islamic nutjobs who beleive that all of us in the West are infidels, but their recruitment base is found amongst the angry, youth of the Islamic world who are concerned with the issues above; solve the problems and the scumbags lose their support network.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I hope I would have the intellectual honesty not to be. As oscar wilde said, "Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious." Had one of my family members died, I would probably be even more disgusted with "my" goverment for it's foreign policy. They trained the mullejedeen (sure i'm spelling it wrong) fighters that later became al quada as an attempt to give the soviet union its vietnam in the eighties. A kid named Jeremy (forget his last name, you could look it up) went on the o'rielly show and made that point. His father had died in the attacks.

You're a fucking moron. You expect somebody who lost their husband in 9/11 to say "Oh well, it's because of the government's policy. I have the intellectual honesty (whatever the fuck you think that means) to not be upset that THE LOVE OF MY LIFE HAS DIED."

If you had any intelligence, you would realize how stupid you are.

that sort of blatent and offensive ad hominem garbage has no place past third grade. Furthermore, I cited an example of someone who did just that, albiet with a parent rather then a spouse. And I didn't say that I would not be upset. I believe that the united states government is largely responsibles for the attacks. That is to say that somebody was going to do it. It could just as easily have been a group of honduruan labor organizers that lost the love of their lives to thugs trained by US special forces at the school of the americas. What I meant by intellectual honesty in this case is not assuming that because I got hurt, somebody else is to blame. We have been picking this fight in the middle east since the end of world war 2 and in our own hemisphere since the late 1800's. Those are the facts.

EDIT: and if I had the intelligence to realize how stupid I am, then I wouldn't be stupid, now would I?

Terrorists see how sissy we are in our "torture" practices and are inspired to join the ranks of the other terrorists. I cannot see how waterboarding can be seen as a way to extract false information, as you could also give up false information if you were not tortured... So how do you know? The truth is, America is no where near the other countries' interrigation techniques. In some foreign countries, they cut off your head and broadcast it live to the world. Now why are we comparing the harmless waterboarding to cutting off the heads of Americans? One actually saves lives and the other is quite cruel, yet the former is blasted more than the latter.

Not torturing people has nothing to do with other countries. It doesn't matter how sick and twisted or cruel another country may be, we are none of that. We should never torture anyone.

Originally Posted by Alric

Not torturing people has nothing to do with other countries. It doesn't matter how sick and twisted or cruel another country may be, we are none of that. We should never torture anyone.

You are an idealist, as it is torture in some situations that saves countless lives. I cannot change the mind of someone else, but I thought I might contrast 'torture' and bring up the question. "What can be defined as torture?"