It's called "torture" Mr. Bush

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 15:55
VIEWED: 24944
PAGE 6 of 14

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Aren't you being a hypocrite right now? I mean, you speak of people polluting this board with political discussions yet you contribute.

I didn't start this thread. Me not contributing to it won't make it go away. If lies ,distortions and absurdities are going to be posted here that are in reference to my country, I will make a choice on whether to respond or not, according to the terms of this board.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

I never said you started the thread.

I wasn't referencing the terms of the board. I was referencing the terms that you stated in your post in another thread that you think people should abide by.

I find it funny that you would defend your choice to post on this thread (which I didn't challenge by the way) and not the little detail that you are being a hypocrite by doing so.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 8, 2004 1:53 AM

Quote:
...you are being a hypocrite by doing so.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PBI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
A non sequitur. We didn't shock anyone, Saddam did. That is the point I'm making. We don't know in what context those pics were taken. We see a prisoner standing w/ electrodes connected to him at one end....and the other end..nothing. The wires weren't connected up to a car battery ...there was no electrode shock therapy going on. That is my point. It was psychological. I didn't say it was pretty, and I DID say bounds were overstepped by some US Reservist guards.[bold] But this IS war.[/bold] Sorry, but I'd rather strip a prisoner naked and make them BELIEVE something bad was going to happen if they didn't give us information that would save 1 American life. If that's sick , then fine by me. Better harrass 1 prisoner w/ psychology than to allow 10's of civillians / US Soldiers die from a car bomb. I'll make that choice EVERY time.

I hear what you're saying, and there is some justification in it in that stress, physical or mental, can be used during interrogation, but what those pictures show went across the line. In fact, I remember a report stating that the electrodes were not hooked up to anything, but the threat violated the Conventions.

It's worth noting that the Geneva Conventions were developed, at least in part, in order to protect prisoners as an attempt to break from the past where prisoners were often executed on the spot, if they were given the chance to surrender at all.

The other question that must be posed to those that say this episode is nothing major is, how would you react if it was US soldiers on the receiving end? Adhering to the Geneva Conventions is done as much because of enlightened self-interest, perhaps more, than it is for pure humanitarian reasons.

If you can survive death, you can probably survive almost anything.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
...you are being a hypocrite by doing so.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hypocrite

hypocrite
n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold

Since you say you don't think that people should have political discussions on this board (follow the link I provided above for your post that says this), yet do so, you have professed a belief (or opinion) that you clearly contradict by posting to this thread. Therefore you are a hypocrite. That is unless you don't think that you yourself are bound by your own statements.

So, you will have to explain further if you still don't think I know what the word means.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:02 AM

SigmaNunki: [bold]You must think I'm stupid.[/bold]
AURaptor: [bold]In every way possible.[/bold]

I realize in some contorted way you really wish there was some hypocricy here on my part, but there just isn't.

I didn't stat the thread. Never suggested you said I did, but it's a matter of fact that bears repeating. I didn't start it, thus it came about w/ out MY input.

Take all my comments out, the thread STILL exists. Are you following me? So far, that's me no start, me no maintain....

Me wishing it wouldn't be here doesn't make it so. I happen to agree the sentiment that political chats should not infiltrate this board. Since said threads are already here, you can't accuse me of being a hypocrite unless I started a thread or kept reposting answers over and over and over while no one else did. This is the last time I answer you on this. ( Re-read this post slowly, or have it read TO you, if that's what it takes for you to GET what I'm saying.)

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ZORIAH

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:19 AM

Some news articles for those who care to look more into it. I admit I'm only scratching the surface here. Googled it all.

I'm particularly upset at the idea that this has probably been known about for some time, but only now been made public. If Rumsfeld knew about it and kept mum then he should be fired. If the President knew about it and did nothing then he should be impeached. That's just my opinion.

Article about a Spain Bombing arrest, YES it's about an american arrested in possible connection but he wasn't a mercenary:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-05-06-spain-arrest_x.htm

Investigation of the death of a prisoner at Abu Ghurayb - not for the squeamish:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Iraq_abuse_death_040507-1.htm
l

International Red Cross had already warned the US Govt of possible incidences of prisoner torture and mistreatment:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040507_449.html

More details on the alleged torture and abuse (not just Abu Ghurayb) including some quotes from Brig. Gen Karpinski and talk of possible CIA involvement:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4881156/

BBC article (mention of the 2003 ICRC report which was leaked to the Wall Street Journal):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3692507.stm

Again some corroborating info on the fact that the Red Cross told Washington about this back in 2003:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-06-rumsfeld-usat_x.htm

Bush admitted he knew about this back in January and Congress wasn't informed??? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1210520,00.html

My disgust continues.

FLYINFREE

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:43 AM

Is AURaptor is rabid Republican who would defend Bush to his dying breath? Yes.

Is Bush a fascist idiot about 1 goose step away from Hitler? Maybe.

But AURaptor does have a point, the "atrocities" are blown out of proportion by a sensationalist media, and are the actions of a few sick soldiers. They are not a commentary on the American people (although it IS a commentary on us all as human beings in general) or on the Bush administration.

The media is blowing it out of proportion, not because the media is a left-wing propaganda machine as AURaptor and other defensive Bushists (just made that word up, I kinda like it ) like to believe, they do it because sensationalism sells papers. The press routinely crucifies people in order to sell more papers and make more money. The media in general are all no better than the sleazy rag mags you pass in the supermarket lineups. They would just as quickly skewer a left-winger if they could sell a couple more copies of their sensationalist, scandal-mongering crap.

As for the CIA guys not having to follow the rules, that is kinda what you guys hired them for (yes, I'm not American, I'm American Lite (Canadian)). The CIA's job is to fight the dirty hidden wars against dirty people who don't follow the rules, they can't fight with their hands tied. In any fight you have to play by the same rules as your opponent or you lose. Terrorists and extremists don't follow the Geneva Conventions, or any other set of rules, so if you want the CIA to be able to do it's job (and you love to bitch when they don't) you need to realize they need to play outside the rules too. It's an ugly truth, but then it's an ugly world and we are an ugly species.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
SigmaNunki: [bold]You must think I'm stupid.[/bold]
AURaptor: [bold]In every way possible.[/bold]

I realize in some contorted way you really wish there was some hypocricy here on my part, but there just isn't.

I didn't stat the thread. Never suggested you said I did, but it's a matter of fact that bears repeating. I didn't start it, thus it came about w/ out MY input.

Take all my comments out, the thread STILL exists. Are you following me? So far, that's me no start, me no maintain....

Me wishing it wouldn't be here doesn't make it so. I happen to agree the sentiment that political chats should not infiltrate this board. Since said threads are already here, you can't accuse me of being a hypocrite unless I started a thread or kept reposting answers over and over and over while no one else did. This is the last time I answer you on this. ( Re-read this post slowly, or have it read TO you, if that's what it takes for you to GET what I'm saying.)

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

What because you didn't start the thread you aren't a hypocrite? The logical train of thought states that Of course you are. You only need participate to be one.

You also clearly have some sort of problem with people that hold a different view as you - insulting as you were. Perhaps it is best if you steered clear of these threads because participating in them seems to make you see red.

And also, if you reply to me again, lets try to keep it civil. The tone of your last post was everything but.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
...you need to realize they need to play outside the rules too.

This one sings a world of truth, I'll trust that you can get what I mean here.

Quote:
Originally posted by WEERWOLF:
"How we treat our dead is part of what makes us different from those that did the slaughtering."

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 8, 2004 5:30 AM

Maugwai:

Your post had a couple of interesting points. The first is the use of "science" and "research". What you call "research", scientists call a "literature search". What you call science, we call "research". Not important, just interesting that two endeavors would use the word "research" in such different ways.

The second point- bias- actually gets a lot of discussion in science. Some bias, such as pharmas burying 19 out of 20 contracted studies, is an obvious perversion of science, just as it would be an obvious perversion of journalism.

The OTHER kind of bias- unconscious bias- is actually more interesting. It can be anything from unconsciously selecting data to failing to see the OBVIOUS patterns because of pre-conceived notions, For example, for years mathematicians believed that you could only form so many patterns from four colors, until a housewife from San Diego starting tiling her kitchen... This crosses over with philosophy.

If you want to read a very good book on assumptions and how they color our thinking, get "Man Against Myth" by Dr. Barrows Dunham, philosophy- Princeton, Temple.

If you want to read a great book on unconscious bias in science, read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Dr Stephen J Gould, paleontologist Harvard.

There is another good book that proposes a very unusual theory of human evolution called "Descent of Woman" by Elaine Morgan who is, I believe, a journalist in Britain.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE