Thread: "Absolutely torture."

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.

Hey, Imran. It looks like we're back to our age old debate.

I do think the United States has done some stuff that was messed up while attempting to handle the extremely irrational clusterfuck that is the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's not easy. The 1948 invasion was a terrible idea, for example. Our defense of Israel at this point in time gets really confusing too. Also, we should have never allied with the Hussein regime even though we had a common enemy and clearly should not have given them WMD's, but hindsight is 20/20. However, a lot of the complaints the Islamofascists have are illegitimate. Having a base in Saudi Arabia is consentual. The terrorists are just being xenophobic assholes on that one. Hating us for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan is something they can screw themselves with. All nations deserve freedom, and totalitarian governments have no business existing. If they do, then does the American government have a right to be totalitarian? Hell no. No government has that right. Totalitarianism is illegitimate, and I support ending it wherever it exists, just like I support ending slavery and child abuse wherever they exist.

As I have told you before, I think you are leaving some major stuff out of the equation. The Islamofascists despise us for reasons way beyond our meddling in the Middle East. They also hate us because we not only do not have an Islamic government but also influence the rest of the world with our MTV lifestyles. They HATE that about us.

I again refer you and everybody to this thread...

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...n+laden+letter

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hey, Imran. It looks like we're back to our age old debate.

I do think the United States has done some stuff that was messed up while attempting to handle the extremely irrational clusterfuck that is the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's not easy. The 1948 invasion was a terrible idea, for example. Our defense of Israel at this point in time gets really confusing too. Also, we should have never allied with the Hussein regime even though we had a common enemy and clearly should not have given them WMD's, but hindsight is 20/20. However, a lot of the complaints the Islamofascists have are illegitimate. Having a base in Saudi Arabia is consentual. The terrorists are just being xenophobic assholes on that one. Hating us for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan is something they can screw themselves with. All nations deserve freedom, and totalitarian governments have no business existing. If they do, then does the American government have a right to be totalitarian? Hell no. No government has that right. Totalitarianism is illegitimate, and I support ending it wherever it exists, just like I support ending slavery and child abuse wherever they exist.

As I have told you before, I think you are leaving some major stuff out of the equation. The Islamofascists despise us for reasons way beyond our meddling in the Middle East. They also hate us because we not only do not have an Islamic government but also influence the rest of the world with our MTV lifestyles. They HATE that about us.

I again refer you and everybody to this thread...

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...n+laden+letter

Hey UM, good to see your still around, alot of the old faces seemed to have disappeared.
In response to opposing totalitarianism and promoting democracy abroad, I would tend to agree, but not when liberation is blatantly being used as a front for deeper rooted vested interests. Its no conspiracy that the government and those at the top of America's economy have benifitted from the occupation; where the average citizen hasnt, the oil companies, the arms industry and the government all have. I find it hypocritical that the United States believes it neccesary to liberate Iraq but not any one of the number of African countries suffering under incompetent, corrupt, totalitarian, tinpot dictators. The simple fact is that the United States government couldn't give two shits about those people. The American government has a history of aligning itself with everything it seeks to oppose; for political or economic reasons. You can't seriously believe the US of Iraq was motivated by moral reasons?

In response to the deeper rooted hate that Islamofacists harbour towards us in the West I would agree that there are a hardcore minority that believe they truly are carrying out a holy war against the West; however, in general the terrorist organisations in the Middle East, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, are concerned with specific issues. Al Qaedea would struggle to provide a breeding ground for its hateful ideology were some of the USA's foreign policy desicions made with more care; something that hopefully can be adressed with Obama in White House.

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?

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

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.

They attacked first, so we didn't make them lose anything. It's not our fault at all. they attacked us because that they hate that we have freedoms to commit what the Koran says are sins. And that kid must be seriously messed up or something to blame the government for the death of his parent. And how have we been picking a fight with the middle east since WWII? Unless you consider Russia the Taliban...but they aren't. I really don't see what you are trying to say here.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

They attacked first, so we didn't make them lose anything. It's not our fault at all.

Why the fuck do I keep getting drawn into this thread. I was bored with this shit five years ago. Look up like three posts up and you will see a beginning of what we have done in the middle east (and greater islamic world) since the end of world war 2.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

they attacked us because that they hate that we have freedoms to commit what the Koran says are sins.

No, the religious whackjobs that are running shit put them up to attacking us because they hate the freedoms that we have. If it wasn't for the stuff referenced a few posts up, they wouldn't have reasons to convince the people that are actually going to sacrifice their lives to do so. The people that are actually going to sacrifice their lives need good reasons to do so. The desperation induced by living in poverty under a totalitarian government make abstract reasons look pretty good.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

And that kid must be seriously messed up or something to blame the government for the death of his parent. And how have we been picking a fight with the middle east since WWII? Unless you consider Russia the Taliban...but they aren't. I really don't see what you are trying to say here.

No, he must be intellectually honest: He (and his father) believed that this countries government is the worlds largest terrorist organisation prior to the attacks and there is no intellectual reason that the attacks should have changed that belief. If you are not aware of the history of your own countries foreign policy, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

I apologize to OP, this is so far off the topic of if waterboarding is torture. Start a new thread and we can play there.

Or we can start over here.

Waterboarding is not torture. Three reasons why it's not:
- Everybody gets water up their nose in the pool. It's the same.
- One guy got waterboarded for three months. If it really was torture, wouldn't he have said something to make it stop earlier?
- Torture includes stuff like stretching people until they rip, shooting their limbs, ripping open their jaw, isolation chambers, stoning to death, beatings, getting set on fire, starving, cutting a person whilst he/she is awake, and so on. All of those include physical harm, besides an isolation chamber. However, an isolation chamber can cause permanent mental damage. Does waterboarding cause any physical harm or permanent mental damage? Not really. You get scared a little.

Now, I never said it was a good way to get information out of people. I'm sure it gets annoying after a while, and you give false information just to make it stop after a while, ie. Three-months-guy. There are better ways, but this is not torture.

Proof: I just poured water up my nose, over a sink, and a full glass. My nose burns a little, and sure I was a little scared to do it, but I don't think I just tortured myself.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

Or we can start over here.

Waterboarding is not torture. Three reasons why it's not:
- Everybody gets water up their nose in the pool. It's the same.
- One guy got waterboarded for three months. If it really was torture, wouldn't he have said something to make it stop earlier?
- Torture includes stuff like stretching people until they rip, shooting their limbs, ripping open their jaw, isolation chambers, stoning to death, beatings, getting set on fire, starving, cutting a person whilst he/she is awake, and so on. All of those include physical harm, besides an isolation chamber. However, an isolation chamber can cause permanent mental damage. Does waterboarding cause any physical harm or permanent mental damage? Not really. You get scared a little.

Now, I never said it was a good way to get information out of people. I'm sure it gets annoying after a while, and you give false information just to make it stop after a while, ie. Three-months-guy. There are better ways, but this is not torture.

Proof: I just poured water up my nose, over a sink, and a full glass. My nose burns a little, and sure I was a little scared to do it, but I don't think I just tortured myself.

You have a seriously distorted view of both waterboarding and torture.

All you three points are naive, getting water up in your nose is not slightly comparable to waterboarding. What if the guy were innocent and had nothing to say? He can't say, hey I have had enough let's stop..

Your examples of torture is just that, a very little collection of existing torture methods.

And yes waterboarding as torture will most likely result in a permenent mental damage (You don't get a little scared, you have trauma).

Your little proof is laughable!! You did it yourself, you were not constrained, you were not in a hostile facility, you poured water over your nose!!! that is not waterboarding, you have no idea!!



The damage done:

"In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death. Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years."

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

Or we can start over here.

Waterboarding is not torture. Three reasons why it's not:
- Everybody gets water up their nose in the pool. It's the same.
- One guy got waterboarded for three months. If it really was torture, wouldn't he have said something to make it stop earlier?
- Torture includes stuff like stretching people until they rip, shooting their limbs, ripping open their jaw, isolation chambers, stoning to death, beatings, getting set on fire, starving, cutting a person whilst he/she is awake, and so on. All of those include physical harm, besides an isolation chamber. However, an isolation chamber can cause permanent mental damage. Does waterboarding cause any physical harm or permanent mental damage? Not really. You get scared a little.

Neither of these is a reason why waterboarding isn't torture.

- " Everybody gets water up their nose in the pool." Yeah, and when you get enough of it, you drown. Tell you what, next time you're in a pool with your friend, push his head under the water, and don't let him up until he inhales a breath-full of water through his nose. When you let him back up, tell him that what you did wasn't torture because "everybody gets water up their nose in the pool."

- Yes - for the simple reason that different people have different tolerances to pain/torture. Plenty of people cut themselves on a daily basis, as a source of masochistic pleasure, does that mean pinning someone down and slicing their arms isn't torture?

- The definition of torture (which has been displayed plenty of times) is neither limited to physical harm, nor permanent mental damage. Those are two very important adjectives, that you simply chose to include in your misrepresentation of the word's definition. The word "injury" includes stuff like a meat cleaver blow to the shoulder, severe head trauma, impalement, dismemberment, etc. Does that mean that a paper cut is not an injury? Does it mean that bruised rib is not an injury? Is a small laceration not an injury, simply because the word "injury" includes things like 3rd degree burns?

My point is that just because a word carries with it thoughts of the more extreme versions of itself (Injury = disembowelment, Torture = chopping off of fingers), it doesn't mean that the 'lesser' versions of that word are somehow outside the scope of that definition (Injury = paper cut, Torture = water boarding).

Just because something isn't an example of "extreme" torture, doesn't mean it's not torture. You can't expect to shed something of its definition, simply because there are versions of it that you find more barbaric.

O', what you have described there is injury. I never said that a papercut isn't an injury, but injury != torture. What you have just said implies that injury is torture. Now, I wouldn't like to get waterboarded, and I wouldn't like to get papercuts daily, but is that really qualified to be torture?

If my friend threw something at me and it hit my arm, resulting in a bruise, then that is not torture. However, it is injury.

It is true that current views on torture express ideas of extreme humiliation or extreme pain. That is torture. Small amounts of injury are not torture.

According to the UN Convention Against Torture, torture is:
" ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
—UN Convention Against Torture

Notice in the beginning: "...severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..."

Is a bit of water going up the nose "severe...suffering"?

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

Is a bit of water going up the nose "severe...suffering"?

Ask anyone who's ever drowned, or come close to drowning.

You know what else would qualify as torture? Throwing a plastic bag over somebody's head and threatening them with suffocation, tying the bag off and depriving them of air, right up to the point of near-unconsciousness - to where their kicks and screams have begun dying down, and they are showing signs of being deprived of oxygen - and then removing the bag, giving them the air they need. This process would then be repeated until the person either tells you what they know, or admits to whatever it is you've accused them of.

The problem is, what most people think of torture are the most extreme cases of torture. They forget that countless other methods of torture (that don't quite add up to the most extreme of the lot) are still torture, by definition. Drowning has been a method of torture for centuries (the most basic method being simply dunking someone's head under water for extended periods of time, and then lifting it just long enough for them to make a few gasps for air), and it has always been considered torture. It is the method by which it is being used, and the potential risks and physiological effects that coincide with the technique, which qualify it as torture. It always has been, and it always will be, even if we continue to lie to ourselves, simply because calling it torture seems to imply that we are sympathetic to those whom we are doing it to.

I have come close to drowning. Was it scary? Yes.

But: Was my whole head underwater, upside-down? Yes. In waterboarding, you are put on a board, belly up. They dump a bucket of water on your face. That's not pushing somebody's head underwater for extended periods of time.

As far as the plastic bag goes, I don't see how that's relevant. We're talking about waterboarding, not shoprite-bagging.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

I have come close to drowning. Was it scary? Yes.

But: Was my whole head underwater, upside-down? Yes. In waterboarding, you are put on a board, belly up. They dump a bucket of water on your face. That's not pushing somebody's head underwater for extended periods of time.

If you're trying to imply that you can't drown (or at least suffer from loss of oxygen) by being put on a board, belly up, inverted, while water is being pumped over your nose and mouth, you're wrong.

And I know they aren't exactly the same, just as I know they differ in severity, but not to a degree that one amounts to torture and the other doesn't. They are both potentially fatal actions, if not done with care.

As far as the plastic bag goes, I don't see how that's relevant. We're talking about waterboarding, not shoprite-bagging.

It's relevant because of your point that something must cause severe physical or mental suffering, to be labeled 'torture.' I'm making the point that water boarding can cause just as much physical and mental damage as any other form of suffocation, and that both are methods of torture.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

injury != torture

Is torture not deliberate and repeated/sustained injury for the purposes of obtaining information? I would suggest that waterboarding is indeed torture if subjecting terrorists to it without their consent can make them reveal everything they know...

Or to put it differently, waterboarding must be pretty damn severe if it can break a terrorist...

It's not a constant flow, and it's not pumped into you. It's not an extended period of time. It also doesn't cause physical harm. The most it will cause is annoyance and a little bit of fear.

Getting your head pushed into a pool of water for extended periods of time, let up for a few gasps, and pushed again, is torture. That wil case pain in the lungs, serious fear, and so on.

There is a huge difference there. I think that the difference in severity is large enough to accuse one as an act of torture, and the other not.

Once again, your final point is the same as the dunking. Pigglywiggly-bagging, the way you described it, is constant. Essentially, it's the same as dunking, without water.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Is torture not deliberate and repeated/sustained injury for the purposes of obtaining information? I would suggest that waterboarding is indeed torture if subjecting terrorists to it without their consent can make them reveal everything they know...

Or to put it differently, waterboarding must be pretty damn severe if it can break a terrorist...

The jihadis should be cool with it: They did it to us, we do it to them. Is that not what the Koran is based off of?

And the guy was waterboarded for THREE MONTHS before he said anything. If it really scared him/hurt him, he would have said something the first time. Besides, what he gave us was probably false info anyway. I never said waterboarding was an accurate way to get information, but it is not torture.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

It's not a constant flow, and it's not pumped into you. It's not an extended period of time. It also doesn't cause physical harm. The most it will cause is annoyance and a little bit of fear.

Getting your head pushed into a pool of water for extended periods of time, let up for a few gasps, and pushed again, is torture. That wil case pain in the lungs, serious fear, and so on.

There is a huge difference there. I think that the difference in severity is large enough to accuse one as an act of torture, and the other not.

Once again, your final point is the same as the dunking. Pigglywiggly-bagging, the way you described it, is constant. Essentially, it's the same as dunking, without water.

Your description of the act is different from the accounts of those who have undergone the procedure - and, indeed, those who are hired by the U.S. government to perform the procedure and teach conditioned resistance to others. It doesn't have to be constant, as with dunking underwater. Enough deprivation of oxygen, in spurts, is enough to labor breathing to the point that full breaths of air not possible. This induces drowning, as deeper gasps are made to compensate for the deprivation. With increased panic and deprivation, more water is likely to be ingested, compounding the physical trauma that had already begun.

In all objectivity, it amounts to torture. Even placed beside the definition (taking all definitions into account), it amounts to torture. I can completely understand why people would hate to admit this, but I'm afraid it's pretty open and shut.