Thread: "Absolutely torture."

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.

Ok, sorry. I spoke to soon. I do need to reply to this. In all fairness, you did ask me questions, that I'd hate to leave unanswered, but there are also a couple of things I want to address.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

My point was that whether or not something can be called off (especially by telling the torturer "ok, you're right, I'm guilty" - whether it's true or not) has no bearing on whether or not it's torture. To say so is a complete misunderstanding of the word.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Everyone knows what to expect, when you sign up for the military. They know what basic is going to be like. They know about the PT, they know about the agent (gas) training. It is voluntary. I'm not even going to address the "start a protest over it" quip.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If the judge's decision was not that the act was torture, then what is the double standard?

The double standard is that we sentenced Japanese soldiers for a "war crime" against the U.S. that the U.S. is now committing on other people.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

I'm sorry I don't see the bias.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

I'm sorry UM, but you are delusional on this. Forget that the process has been explained a million times and just watch ClouD's video. Tell me that the process they are describing (actually listen to what he has to say. Don't prepare yourself with a rebutal before actually listening) is analogous to a criminal trial. I've respectfully disagreed with you on a lot of things, over plenty of debates, but if you tell me that that process is analogous to a criminal trial, it will practically call into question every opinion you've ever expressed.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Interesting that you only show the first, as if just showing the first renders the others invalid.

Here's the seventh definition on Dictionary.com :
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind:

So what is it you're trying to say? That since definition 1 outlines physical pain, definition 7 isn't really torture? Come on, UM.

And I know you're taking off for a while, so I don't really expect any immediate answers, but your view on this is such a glaring exercise in emotion over logic that it's so hard for me to not say something.

I'll see this issue as resolved as soon as UM agrees to be waterboarded (with video).

Okay, I have a few minutes, so screw it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

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

Sure, one propaganda video changes everything. A guy said he wasn't right later. Okay, I change my mind.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'll see this issue as resolved as soon as UM agrees to be waterboarded (with video).

Only if you endure a murder charge and a five month trial.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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...

For that matter, what is talking against the U.S. government going to accomplish? Either way, you are spreading ideas and expressing how you feel. We are just a few guys talking about our opinions, so you might as well show your hatred for terrorists if you have it.

I am glad you brought up Nazis. Imagine a high percentage Jews of Europe in the 1940's NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER expressing hatred for the Nazis even though they express several times a day how pissed they are at how Nazis are being treated. "And.. and... some of the Nazis even get water up the nose, and they cough! " Think REALLY hard about that picture.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ok, sorry. I spoke to soon. I do need to reply to this. In all fairness, you did ask me questions, that I'd hate to leave unanswered, but there are also a couple of things I want to address.

My questions were really just statements in the form of rhetorical questions that you of course had the option of answering.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

My point was that whether or not something can be called off (especially by telling the torturer "ok, you're right, I'm guilty" - whether it's true or not) has no bearing on whether or not it's torture. To say so is a complete misunderstanding of the word.

I disagree. I think torture is involuntary. Wait... so do you.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Everyone knows what to expect, when you sign up for the military. They know what basic is going to be like. They know about the PT, they know about the agent (gas) training. It is voluntary. I'm not even going to address the "start a protest over it" quip.

Nobody ever majorly regrets having joined the military? Nobody is ever blown away by what it actually ends up being like? I think you need to research that a little harder.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The double standard is that we sentenced Japanese soldiers for a "war crime" against the U.S. that the U.S. is now committing on other people.

It wasn't on the grounds that it was "torture". Waterboarding is assault, which is a crime when it is not justified, but it is not torture.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm sorry I don't see the bias.

The bias is that the one person in the entire article who gets the benefit of the doubt is Khallid Fucking Sheik Muhammed.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm sorry UM, but you are delusional on this. Forget that the process has been explained a million times and just watch ClouD's video. Tell me that the process they are describing (actually listen to what he has to say. Don't prepare yourself with a rebutal before actually listening) is analogous to a criminal trial. I've respectfully disagreed with you on a lot of things, over plenty of debates, but if you tell me that that process is analogous to a criminal trial, it will practically call into question every opinion you've ever expressed.

Tell me why a criminal trial is not torture by your standards. They scare the ever living bejesus out of people for a whole lot longer than a few seconds to two minutes. They last days, weeks, months. Why are they not torture, according to you?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Interesting that you only show the first, as if just showing the first renders the others invalid.

Here's the seventh definition on Dictionary.com :
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind:

So what is it you're trying to say? That since definition 1 outlines physical pain, definition 7 isn't really torture? Come on, UM.

My point was that there are different perspectives on what torture is. According yours and some of those definitions, a criminal trial is torture, an arrest is torture, and a bad grade is torture. Do you want to outlaw all of those too, or is it only terrorists who have your sympathy?

I dunno, I just don't think anyone really likes terrorists? I mean a small percentage of people, but on this forum...

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I dunno, I just don't think anyone really likes terrorists? I mean a small percentage of people, but on this forum...

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.

Originally Posted by Skydreamer707

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.

I think initiation and retaliation are two entirely different things.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions..

What does it profit a man o gain the world but lose your soul? - Mark 8:36

just a lil bit to think about, my $.02