LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshmmm beenster, that pic is dead here, can you post it in another form?
hmmm beenster, that pic is dead here, can you post it in another form?
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
How do you DARE presume that it is not true...as YOU have never been pinned down under fire, with your friends and countrymen being injured and lying screaming in puddles of their own blood?Originally Posted by nichomach
How do you DARE to presume that when a Policeman gets cornered by 3 lads with knives, and he then gives each of them a broken cheekbone and broken arms that he was BRUTAL....cos he is SURVIVING.
I am SICK of bleeding hearts who have never felt the fear.....it makes me so MAD that people DARE PRESUME they would do better....cos frankly....they'd probably be DEAD.
I have never felt the fear...not true terror.
But I believe I understand a fraction of it.....real life throws some funny things at you. And if the real fear of being in a war zone IS AS TERRIFYING as I believe it to be, then maybe, just maybe, its why I stand on the side of OUR ARMY DEFENDING MY FAMILY from the evils of this world.
Someone else is BOUND to disagree....thats life
Technically ANYTHING is a legitimate method of interogation if it gets the other person to talk...
Note the use of the word Technically, I didnt say it was morally or humainly correct...
Torture and interogation are 2 different things IMHO....
When it comes to protecting your country your saying that if you dont think the order you recieve is correct then you ignore it, then your bringing up the fight to the last cos if you surrender you'll get shot, isnt this from the same time frame that if you dont follow orders you get shot for disobeying orders...?
Who said they were doing it for a giggle, maybe there doing it because the guy they captured chucked a grenade at them and your best friend jumped on it to save you and the rest of the squad....?what the hell, let's torture him anyway...it's a giggle".
They think there the good guys we think were the good guys, our intention is to give Iraq something better than what they had, better for who exactly? What gives us the right to plow into anywhere and say well our ways better so here it is and ramming it down there throat....?
What makes it BS?Well, actually we are supposed to BE the good guys, we are supposed to believe in democracy, and human rights. I'd also point out that most of the rules against torture and inhumane treatment were created by people who had lived through periods where EVERYONE was shot at and large swathes of the world lost massive numbers of lives. This argument that "you haven't been there/done that so you can't judge" is bull****. It's always been bull****, but it's always the argument trotted out when someone objects to police brutality or military brutality or incompetence.
Different people react in different ways to stressful situations, if you've got power over someone that you believe is your enemy then its human nature to use that power.....
I know torturing people is wrong, you seem to be typing to the cord of I agree with what there doing, I dont, you seem to be taking this as I'm supporting what there doing, I'm not, everyone plays under different rules tho and until every single person on this planet believes in the same things and everyone has exactly the same income, same house and the same everything else then it'll never be an ideal world, for it to be ideal no one would have a choice, no one would have a say, we'd all be drones and that'll never happen, human nature, politics, race, religion, choice, everything that makes us unique will stop it being an ideal world, the human race however advanced we get at the end of the day is just another animal so all these people that strive for human rights and political correctness are just being naive and ignorant to what makes us what we are...Torturing people is wrong, OK? It's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when we do it. Some nebulous idea that you can make it right because you might save some lives down the line doesn't make it any less wrong.
IF it did every get to the point where everything was fine and "PC" then there would be groups popping up saying this isnt fair, we should have choice we should be able to do what we want where we want when we want but that would just lead us back to the point were at now, its a no win situation...
What makes the USUK any better than the Russian Maffia or whoever tho, whoever moves in is doing it for there own reasons not for the good of Iraq, ok so those reasons mite not be obvious now but they will become clear u can bet your left nut on it....
As for the US's reasons, think where all the oil fields in the world are, Texas, erm, thats theres already, the Atlantic, UK?, Middle East.... Where are the others? I'm not sayin oil is there reason for it but it cant be far from there mind...
And how DARE you presume that gives you the right to torture anyone that you feel like? I'm sorry if you don't accept that if you volunteer for the armed services that this entails a risk to life and limb. I've argued elsewhere for better equipment and protection for our troops, I've argued against people suggesting that we shouldn't support them. I WILL NOT accept that this gives you or any member of the armed services the right to brutalise prisoners, and remember, that's what we're talking about; people who have been detained who present no proximate threat to life or limb and indeed are likely never to have done so.
This is irrelevant crap. I have NEVER argued against the right of a soldier or policeman to defend themselves against an armed attack, and I cannot imagine the circumstances under which I would do so. What I have argued against here is the torture of unarmed prisoners, and I will continue to do so. The situations are not equivalent, and in this thread we are discussing torture and abuse of prisoners.
Yes, because an unarmed, bound and gagged person with a bag over their head is a truly terrifying threat. Why, they might bleed on you in aggressive fashion when you beat them, and the cleaning bill would be horrendous.
So don't presume to lecture us about it.
What the hell does this have to do with bleeding hearts?How do you DARE presume that it is not true...as YOU have never been pinned down under fire, with your friends and countrymen being injured and lying screaming in puddles of their own blood?
How do you DARE to presume that when a Policeman gets cornered by 3 lads with knives, and he then gives each of them a broken cheekbone and broken arms that he was BRUTAL....cos he is SURVIVING.
I am SICK of bleeding hearts who have never felt the fear.....it makes me so MAD that people DARE PRESUME they would do better....cos frankly....they'd probably be DEAD.
I have never felt the fear...not true terror.
But I believe I understand a fraction of it.....real life throws some funny things at you. And if the real fear of being in a war zone IS AS TERRIFYING as I believe it to be, then maybe, just maybe, its why I stand on the side of OUR ARMY DEFENDING MY FAMILY from the evils of this world.
Someone else is BOUND to disagree....thats life
Zak; can you show me in the prison photos where the "enemy fire" was coming from? Thanks.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
That was a quote from Zak that I was commenting on please do not attibute that piece of alarmist fantasy to me, thanks.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Zak you are coming over all emotive but not making much sense. Adding irrelevancy will not help your argument which you presently are basing on Jingoism but with no substance apart from that.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
The use of the word legitimate is a statement of moral and legal correctness. Consequently you are saying precisely that.
Yes, and what we are seeing is evidence of torture.
If this sentence EVER made sense it didn't escape onto the page that way, but to clarify; there is a duty upon all soldiers not to obey unlawful orders. Simple as that. And we're not merely talking about "incorrect" orders, we're talking exclusively about unlawful orders, which an order to commit torture is. Clear?
Unlikely, when the vast majority of said prisoners haven't done anything wrong, and even if they had torture for revenge is still unacceptable. I'd also point out that the US units managing the jails in question are NOT frontline combat units, so the situation you describe is unlikely, to say the least.
That's precisely what we ARE doing. We either believe that democracy, justice and human rights are better for the Iraqis, or we don't. If we do, we should practice what we preach. If we don't, we should get out.
Read what I wrote.
That's what makes the argument BS - the rules were written by people who had already seen what torture and murder was, had fought to stop it, had lost friends either to it or in the fight against it, and wanted to ensure that it didn't occur again.
Lots of things could be said to be human nature, but then it is also human nature to attempt to curb our baser instincts, and we regard it as being obligatory to do so.
Then you agree with me. Except you've already established that you don't and that you DO believe that torture is "legitimate".
No I can't....but I;m sure you could picture a scene where we have prisoners, and they have prisoners, and we need to find OUR men as quickly as they'd like to find theirs.
Pls dont think to blame me now for changing the subject, because in an earlier post we had a desciption of Canadians shooting Hitler Youth, and the resulting fight to the death....THAT is why I am fed up with the "Bleeding Hearts", because that is the most one sided description of something that I have ever heard. We dont know if one of those kids was armed and tried to pull a fast one? Cos if they DID then its pretty certain they all got shot for that reason. And as we then hear the Germans all fighting to the death because of this story...well it is of course possible.Feasable even. But so is the idea of the Germans in those very fights KNOWING they were gonna get strung up for something else that we dont know about..etc etc...
What I am discussing now....the pressures of war upon people. And in a fairly direct way, that is why this IS TO DO WITH INTEROGATION....because the SAME PEOPLE who were being shot at only hours before are likely to be doing some of the interogation. They keep the prisoners from escaping and delivering them back to HQ.
Is it making more sense now?
Pressure of war and combat, intense stress and soldiers "abusing" prisoners. Prisoners who only hours before were trying to kill them. THAT is why I am fed up with the "Bleeding Hearts".....because it is not seen as ONE PICTURE....it is being seen as several different unrelated stories...and its not.
I must now apologise to both Niko and Dabeen and Blub, cos I did side track and lose the way a bit there, and for that reason I shouldnt join in while Im at work cos I get sidetracked and cant finish my thought train until later...
so sorry guys.....good arguement tho
Thing is Zak that prisoners are not subjected to the same rule of law as are enemy combatants ( bad term misused by the US), I cant quote it directly but prisoners being held captive are not in the same category as people who are still in active combat, it stands to reason that they are not treated the same.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Except you can't point to a single instance of that, can you?
Actually it was pretty well recorded and I provided it as an example of a good practical, as opposed to wishy-washy liberal, reason to not mistreat prisoners. And given that it was well recorded at the time, by the Canadians, and there was no mention of a "fast one" being pulled, then it's hardly one-sided.
Claptrap. The torture was patently carried out by a military police unit responsible for guarding a jail.
It possesses some internal consistency, but is woefully divergent from observable fact.
Arrant claptrap; the units carrying out the torture are NOT frontline combat units, and they were NOT being shot at mere "hours before". And even if they were, the vast majority of the prisoners in question haven't shot at anyone. And even if they HAD it still wouldn't be right to torture them. Bear in mind that the torture in question isn't a bit of a roughing up after someone's been captured, it's a sustained policy of torture and abuse over weeks and months.
Right; opposition to torture makes one a "Bleeding Heart"...sheesh...
Look, I understand a lot of your concerns (I don't agree with them all), but a lot of the circumstances that you're raising simply do not exist in this case, OK? They just don't. It isn't the heat of battle or the immediate aftermath, the people being abused aren't terrorists (or at least the overwhelming majority aren't). They're just ordinary Iraqis.
Hmmm...I'd like to keep it on topic, though.
So it's ok for their troops to rape/sodomize/shake to death our prisoners in an attempt to find theirs?
The one picture I see is our soldiers killing, torturing raping and dehumanising other human beings.
Surely the concept of treating people as you yourself would wish to be treated would be an appropriate concept for the West to take with them as they "democratise" the rest of the world?
The majority of people in the prisons are innocent. How many people in Guantanamo bay have been charged with ANYTHING? Zero. How many have been released? Hundreds. Released. Free to go. Years of imprisonment, totally unlawfully, and then released. CLEARY THESE PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT.
Is that a way for a "civilised" society to behave?
We have killed over 10,000 people in Iraq, yet you talk of us not knowing how we will react in a firefight. Maybe we should be asking the Iraqis.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
Just as an aside that piccie is now my wallpaper on the test machine, I love it hehe.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Nope....nor can you...cos you aint there. You are relying upon JOURNALISTS....you aint there. You are relying upon one side or the other telling the truth.
My entire (badly guided and off subject) rant has been in reference to peoples inability to see that MAYBE OUR SOLIDERS ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS AND MAYBE the prisoners are.
My references to Bleeding Hearts are solid. I dislike the ability for fellow free-men to point out other peoples inadequecies without ever ever, not once, trying to sort it themselves.
I dont see you heading towards Iraq to be a Red Cross volunteer. And before you even consider telling my that I'm not either, damn right. I'm not brave enough
But our soliders ARE.....they are NOT journalists trying to attract your attention to a web page or a newspaper. The JOURNALISTS are brave....but also very one sided.
I can not see a way to argue this myself anymore (although I pray you get a more balanced debater in here soon) for two reasons.
1: I am not skill full enough to compete with the very seasoned capaigners in here. My brain works badly at this. It runs ahead and then forgets where its been. For that I am sorry. I wish I could continue but I shan't. For that I am a little shamefull, as I may have changed the direction of a very very good debate.
2: I am NOT sorry for my view point on the following fact. EVERYONE in this debate is reading news that other people have seen. Not themselves. There is so much spin in this war, that I feel only my inner person can see and ADMIT what I would be like in the same circumstances.
I feel as though I would be fairly brutal and maybe even calous. I hope and pray I would survive such conflict. I feel however, that I would die. I am not a solider born. I am not of the right stuff. But I feel that my terror in the face of what we've seen here would turn me into what you all loath.
If each of you feels that you would be a better peace keeper, and that your moral fibre is so much higher than mine, and that you would be perfect war time law abiders, then my hat is not just removed, but it is firmly doffed to you.
However.....the only fact that I can point out with any firm "historical accuracy" or fact is the following.
In war there are suckers and bastards.
Choose.
*Zak retires and wanders off, blushing at his own inability to keep his own thought train on subject*
No, I'm relying upon the evidence that has been accepted by the US government, and by the International Commission of the Red Cross.
Except the ICRC doesn't believe that, and they're about as non-political and unbiased a bunch as you could find anywhere.
No. They're not. Being opposed to torture does not make one a bleeding heart, it makes one a human being with a conscience.
So don't vote. Don't ever hold an opinion on anything.
Neither are the ICRC.
It's not a question of being a seasoned campaigner, Zak. It's simply that a lot of what you're saying is observably, factually inaccurate, and independently confirmed as being so.
But it's facts that the US govt have accepted; that independent observers have confirmed.
I don't believe that, actually. I believe that on the basis of what you're posting here, you have rather too much empathy for that; I just believe that your empathy is being misdirected toward torturers instead of their victims.
I don't claim to be perfect, but then no-one is. I don't claim to be braver or tougher than the next man (unless the next man is Dale Winton, in which case, bring it on...joke, OK?). But one doesn't necessarily have to be brave or tough to know that torture is wrong; and while I support our troops and I support the restoration of democracy to Iraq, and while I believe that the removal of the Ba'athist regime was a Good Thing (as per Sellar and Yeatman), that doesn't mean that I'm going to blindly support the torture of prisoners just because it's our (or allied) troops doing it.
Except that in most wars, all sides are composed of both, as well as of brave and dedicated people; heroes and cowards, geniuses and boobies, the great and the greatly evil jostle among the ranks of previous combatants, and they're not usually restricted to one side or the other.
And for that reason, like most of human affairs, it isn't a binary choice; but we can, and do say that some things were evil and that others were not. Torture is evil.
Last edited by nichomach; 17-05-2004 at 04:22 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
