Torture - Page 8 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Medmech · #**106** 10-23-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The Geneva Conventions did not exist in 1776.

B

The Iron Horse did.

Txjake · #**107** 10-23-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

OK boy wonder, see if you can summon two ounces of intellectual curiosity and listen to the GDed episode. The guy she interviewed is who is in question, not Teri Gross. The guy is no lightweigt, but I suspect you'll never know that because Hannity is damn sure not going to have him on his show.

Dude, I'm going to get you and ten of your buddies and pull an Abu Gharib on ya'all for about a month and then we'll see if your fondest ambition at that point is bashing my skull in.

Get a clue . . . .

wow, you sound kind of shrill: you don't know me and yet you insult my intellect because I disagree with you.

I did not hear that interview, but, in general, Fresh Air is a puff piece show, as are most NPR events, news crafted to fit the message they want to convey. Regarding the interviewee, one can always find somebody who was on the inside with an axe to grind who will purport that we are doing everything wrong...usually it is sour grapes because they are no longer on the inside...

regarding Abu Gharib, your point is moot: even if what we wanted to do was bash your skull in after a month there doesn't mean that you were torturing us, just that you pissed us off. actually, if you let me pick the ten guys, it might be kind of fun to see what your best effort would be: I am getting kind of old, but who knows....

Look, the point is, I have been through SERE at Ft Bragg, and the stuff we did at Abu Gharib is no worse than what we do to our own troops. Hell, what I saw on the news about AG, is no worse than college fraternity initiation..

By the way, I don't listen to Hannity........I do listen to NPR, if for no other reason that the entertainment value of hearing all the little leftists frantically trying to denouce everything regarding GWOT....

tankdriver · #**108** 10-23-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You want us to abide by rules that don't work and want us to excuse the enemy for not abiding by those rules. This is what we call a "double standard", the result of which is a higher likelihood of dead American soldiers. You're okay with that?

The Geneva Conventions did not exist in 1776.

B

We should abide by our own honor, not debase ourselves by tossing it out because it's inconvenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Word I've been hearing is that he's confessing to so much stuff as to be unrealistic. Could be at some point, the breaking becomes so complete that all you want it for the pain to stop. Hence, 'oh hell yes, I did this, that, and a whole buncha other stuff. Turn on that tape recorder, ya'all.'

Could be? I guarantee I'd spout whatever you wanted to hear if you used waterboarding on me. Probably just if you threatened to do it.

aklim · #**109** 10-23-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

We should abide by our own honor, not debase ourselves by tossing it out because it's inconvenient.

What's so honorable about following an antiquated set of rules that is not used?

Botnst · #**110** 10-23-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

1. We should abide by our own honor, not debase ourselves by tossing it out because it's inconvenient.

...
2. Could be? I guarantee I'd spout whatever you wanted to hear if you used waterboarding on me. Probably just if you threatened to do it.

What is torture?

B

tankdriver · #**111** 10-23-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What is torture?

B

tor·ture
Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object)
6.to subject to torture.
7.to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8.to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9.to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.

Bokonon · #**112** 10-23-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What's so honorable about following an antiquated set of rules that is not used?

Because it is who we are as a nation.

Because it is always who we have been, going all the way back to George Washington's command of the Continental Army in a period of dire emergency and ... yes ... facing an enemy that did not play by the same rules.

And we should also do it because it has always worked well for us in the previous conflicts we have fought.

-- Bokonon

Botnst · #**113** 10-23-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

tor·ture
Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object)
6.to subject to torture.
7.to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8.to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9.to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.

Now follow the dots.

B

Botnst · #**114** 10-23-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokonon

Because it is who we are as a nation.

Because it is always who we have been, going all the way back to George Washington's command of the Continental Army in a period of dire emergency and ... yes ... facing an enemy that did not play by the same rules.

And we should also do it because it has always worked well for us in the previous conflicts we have fought.

-- Bokonon

Were either the American colonies or Great Britain signatories of the Geneva Conventions?

B

cmac2012 · #**115** 10-23-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You want us to abide by rules that don't work and want us to excuse the enemy for not abiding by those rules. This is what we call a "double standard", the result of which is a higher likelihood of dead American soldiers. You're okay with that?

The Geneva Conventions did not exist in 1776.

More hair splitting. Whether the Geneva Conventions existed or not in 1776 has nothing to do with natural human inclinations under such circumstances.

I'm not asking anyone to excuse any enemy, just to note what is likely to happen under long established norms of human behavior. If you were a poor farmer and some foreign force invaded and your neighbors were clamoring for a force to oppose them, and tomorrow if not today, I seriously doubt you'd say, "Oh but wait neighbors, we must first sew uniforms so that we will abide by their rules of warfare."

These characters are not the well developed societies of Germany and Japan circa 1938.

Behaving in such a way as to insure a centuries long animosity from people for whom vengeance is like mother's milk is likely to result in "a higher likelihood of dead American soldiers." Doesn't sound preferable to me.

You apparently think we can insure peaceful compliance with force alone. I do not.

cmac2012 · #**116** 10-23-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

wow, you sound kind of shrill: you don't know me and yet you insult my intellect because I disagree with you.

I did not hear that interview, but, in general, Fresh Air is a puff piece show, as are most NPR events, news crafted to fit the message they want to convey. Regarding the interviewee, one can always find somebody who was on the inside with an axe to grind who will purport that we are doing everything wrong...usually it is sour grapes because they are no longer on the inside...

regarding Abu Gharib, your point is moot: even if what we wanted to do was bash your skull in after a month there doesn't mean that you were torturing us, just that you pissed us off. actually, if you let me pick the ten guys, it might be kind of fun to see what your best effort would be: I am getting kind of old, but who knows....

Look, the point is, I have been through SERE at Ft Bragg, and the stuff we did at Abu Gharib is no worse than what we do to our own troops. Hell, what I saw on the news about AG, is no worse than college fraternity initiation..

By the way, I don't listen to Hannity........I do listen to NPR, if for no other reason that the entertainment value of hearing all the little leftists frantically trying to denouce everything regarding GWOT....

I sound shrill?! I know enough about your intellect from your lame attempt to conflate Teri Gross and Jerry Springer to conclude that you haven't the barest clue about either show or probably much of anything else.

Springer runs a freak show, where Ginny Sue gets in a lather cuzzin' Billy Bob was a diddlin' her cousin whilst she was in the horspital cuzzin' Billy Bob done knocked her up whilst she was still recoverin' from the broken hip she got fightin' off Billy Bob's daddy. And of course Ginny Sue tries to whop her cousin with all 270 pounds of her fightin' self.

Gross interviews people who have some stature in the world. There is absolutely no comparison. I'm guessing the comparison you made sounded cute when Rush or Savage pulled it out.

If I had a choice, I'd prefer an 'Abu Gharibing' to having my fingernails pulled out and tougue cut off, I'll grant you. Still, in a country like Iraq, it comes real close to pyschological torture -- one thing is clear, it is not going to help with any heart-felt cooperation from any Iraqi or Arab with US forces.

Any college fraternity dick tried to do that to me, I'd bust him hard and live in the dormitory. Lessee, have you ever had a large G. Shepherd type dog bark and snarl inches away from your family equipment, you with your hands and ankles shackled such that you had to squeeze your jewels tween your legs in hopes the dog wouldn't make a quick snack of them? Give me a break.

When you got the training at Ft. Bragg, you could be well assured that no permanent harm was going to befall you. The dumb savages we torment have no such assurance.

cmac2012 · #**117** 10-23-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Were either the American colonies or Great Britain signatories of the Geneva Conventions?

whoop, whoop, whoop . . . . . .

cmac2012 · #**118** 10-23-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

I caught that show--good show. Guy wouldn't say whether waterboarding was considered torture though, remember?

Just in time John.

I'll have to listen to it again. I don't recall that part about not saying regarding water boarding. Sure you're not thinking of the new AG?

Botnst · #**119** 10-23-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

More hair splitting. Whether the Geneva Conventions existed or not in 1776 has nothing to do with natural human inclinations under such circumstances.

I'm not asking anyone to excuse any enemy, just to note what is likely to happen under long established norms of human behavior. If you were a poor farmer and some foreign force invaded and your neighbors were clamoring for a force to oppose them, and tomorrow if not today, I seriously doubt you'd say, "Oh but wait neighbors, we must first sew uniforms so that we will abide by their rules of warfare."

These characters are not the well developed societies of Germany and Japan circa 1938.

Behaving in such a way as to insure a centuries long animosity from people for whom vengeance is like mother's milk is likely to result in "a higher likelihood of dead American soldiers." Doesn't sound preferable to me.

You apparently think we can insure peaceful compliance with force alone. I do not.

Go reread the line of argument that you attempted to advance in which you excused the bloody murder of whomever the Al Qaedistas could capture because the American colonies behaved in the same fashion against the English soldiers during the Revolutionary War for Independence.

Ignoring the part about Washington's men behaving in a similar fashion to Bin Laden's (I don't recall the precise number of civilians that Washington tortured, I expect you must have the figures or you wouldn't have advanced such a specious argument), you opined that they colonies didn't follow the Geneva Conventions. Well no shirt, Sherlock, there wasn't any Geneva Conventions back then. Asking them to abide by that which wouldn't exist for another 50 years (in it's early form) is a high bar, indeed.

B

tankdriver · #**120** 10-23-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Now follow the dots.

B

They lead to the end of #9.