is this torture?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
And don't forget to ask me my sexual preference. We all know that straight, white christians are never discriminated against or wrongly accused of anything. Get off your damn high and mighty righteous horse, please.
 
A_Wanderer said:


You may not be worried about your liberties at this time, you may willfully surrender them to government, but when the time comes that they do start exercising these security powers in a manner that you find offensive what will you be able to do?

Agree 100%
 
Abomb-baby said:
And don't forget to ask me my sexual preference. We all know that straight, white christians are never discriminated against or wrongly accused of anything. Get off your damn high and mighty righteous horse, please.


i don't give a shit about your sexual preference, and neither does the Patriot Act. but the Patriot Act is indeed very, very interested in your skin color and religion.

are white christians the most likely candidates to have their civil rights trampled on by the Patriot Act? you prattled on and on about how your life wasn't affected by the Patriot Act, but these things never affect you.

i'm going to ask you one more time: stop with the personal attacks, and please try and respond with something more than "i know you are but what am i arguments."

it's all i can do not to maintain a civil tone and not rip your posts to pieces and get myself in some trouble from the mods.
 
Speaking of getting into trouble with the mods, Abomb-baby consider this a warning. Please stop with the personal attacks and vitriolic tone. It is possible to debate in a civil manner. Thanks in advance.
 
That was NOT a personal attack. It was a reaction to a vitriolic attack posted to ME. I seem to be the only one ever warned here. Hmmm, is it because the people who attack me have Special rights by the mods in here? I guess because Irvine has like 4550 posts, he's special. So much for MY first amendment rights. But anyway Irvine, if I wanted to attack YOU, My tone and language would be much worse. I was attacking your post and your implied righteouness, woe is me attitude. Sad to say, but Skin color and religion do matter. Here is a multiple choice question for you:

Were the attackers on 9/11:

A. Budhists from Japan
B. Christians from Norway
C. Jews from Long Island
D. Muslims from the Middle East

We could go on for hours about personal freedoms Vs. What is best for the country as a whole. Do I believe that everything in the Patriot act is worthwhile. NO. Please site all these civil rights abuses due to the patriot act. People in America think anytime they get pulled over by a cop their civil rights are violated. People bitch about taking their shoes off at the airport. Why? Because we don't want to inconvienenced. We have forgotten all about 9/11 and what really is at stake. Our survival as a nation. Remember the number 2819. Rememember the number 3051. The first is the nuber of dead from the attacks from 9/11. The second is The number kids who will never see their mom or dad walk through the front door again. The slippery slope argument doesn't hold water. The checks and balances of our government will not allow anyone branch to gain to much power. I know the liberals are screaming like chicken little, but there is balance in this country. And balance is good. Clinton had his 8 years, Bush will have his. Then we will assess our country and decide where we want to go from there. I'm dying to read some factual, credible info on all this civil rights trampling going on. Anyone can claim anything is a civil rights abuse. It doesn't make it true however. We have courts to decide that. The Patriot Act is not the end of civil rights as we know it, is it? i mean ppl have been having their civil rights violated Waaay before 2001
 
Abomb-baby said:
Sad to say, but Skin color and religion do matter. Here is a multiple choice question for you:

Were the attackers on 9/11:

A. Budhists from Japan
B. Christians from Norway
C. Jews from Long Island
D. Muslims from the Middle East

Bullshit. Did you get that quiz from an email forward?:rolleyes:

We can have the same quiz for the Oklahoma bombings, for serial killers, or any other violent attacks and the answer will always be different. So to make a generalization like that just shows the tunnel vision so many are living in today.

Abomb-baby said:
i mean ppl have been having their civil rights violated Waaay before 2001

True, but the more you give them, the more they'll take. More than likely they won't affect you today, but the next slice out of the pie may. It's a slippery slope...it's too bad people don't see it until it affects them.
 
Sorry BonoVox, but Oklahoma City wasn't spurred on by a religious movement, and serial killers don't kill almost 3000 ppl in a day. It matters and for you to dismiss it tells me Your head is really in the sand. Lets not forget Madrid, London, and Jordan.
 
Abomb-baby said:
Sorry BonoVox, but Oklahoma City wasn't spurred on by a religious movement
Exactly my point.

Abomb-baby said:

It matters and for you to dismiss it tells me Your head is really in the sand. Lets not forget Madrid, London, and Jordan.

My heads in the sand because I don't want to make the generalization that Muslims from the Middle East are our one and only enemy? Because that's exactly what you are saying by telling me skin color and religion do matter.
 
No one said muslims were our one and ONLY enemy. Muslim extremists do however, have a propensity to want to Blow shit up and inflict a high number of casualties on peaceful environments. Can't you at least admit that? Islam is the only religion I'm aware of that calls for the death of those who refuse conversion. and please don't reference the crusades. We are talking about present times, not something that happened a 1000 years ago. Ok, I'll give you Eric Rudolph (abortion clinic bomber) but thats like one lone nut. The fact is that these extremist clerics want me dead, and are preaching this hatred to these young men ll over the world. I'm not gonna pretend its not happening.
 
wow, Abomb, first you insinuate that i get special prefernce because i'm gay, and then you spew out a bunch of posts filled with so many stereotypes, half-truths, conspiracy theories, and general ignorance.

[q]People in America think anytime they get pulled over by a cop their civil rights are violated.[/q]

honestly, how can you use such a line of reasoning in any sort of debate? this isn't a screaming match, you aren't on Fox News.

where is this righteous woe-is-me attitude? there isn't ... except you need to create this in those who disagree with you so you can engage on an emotional, not factual level, because you have no facts you just have anger fueld by convenient stereotypes. i've been nothing but respectful to you and you've been nothing but rude to me since the beginning of this thread.



[q]Muslim extremists do however, have a propensity to want to Blow shit up and inflict a high number of casualties on peaceful environments. [/q]



yes, so many iraqis were muslim extremists who were blowing shit up. thank goodness we stopped them before they attacked us again.

gee, i wonder who else has a propensity to blow shit up and inflict a high number of casualties on peaceful environments?

Dead-Iraqi-Child.jpg


Najaqqf_6.jpg


1_145803_1_6.jpg
 
How dare you insinuate I think you get special treatment because your Gay!! That is the typical response isn't it? "I'm gay, I'm the victim." No, you get special privelege because you post on here 30 times a frekkin day. READ what I wrote. where are all my stereotypes, generalizations, half truths? Please support your words. I could give a flying fart if you're gay or not. You brought it up, not me. I guess its just another way to point the finger at me as the bad guy. I'm sure the Mods will side with you again, and accuse me of a hate crime or something. You are stereotyping me and you don't know me. I'm about as moderate as it gets, but you spout off things like FOX News, which has not a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. Oh yeah, nice PICS. Am I supposed to draw some sort of conclusion from them? Maybe I should post some pics of beheadings and burned bodies hanging from bridges. Will that support my point anymore than these PICS support yours?NO. I have stated facts here but you refuse to accept them. So please, by all means go about your life as if nothing ever happened in this country. Continue to support your left wing, liberal ideology. What exactly was 9/11 to you, an anomoly? Or was that our wake up call to clean our own house, and figure out why they hate us? That seems to be the liberal thinking. We already give more in foreign aid then any other nation in the world. What's it doing for us? I for one will not wait for more of the same to happen and then blame my own country for it. Just curious, is there anything you would physically fight to defend? Would you take up arms against an oppressor to save yourself, your loved ones, anything?
One more thing. I respect your right to think anyway you want. I also defend that right on a daily basis. I don't agree with you but I still support your right to disagree.
 
Abomb-baby said:
How dare you insinuate I think you get special treatment because your Gay!! That is the typical response isn't it? "I'm gay, I'm the victim." No, you get special privelege because you post on here 30 times a frekkin day. READ what I wrote. where are all my stereotypes, generalizations, half truths? Please support your words. I could give a flying fart if you're gay or not. You brought it up, not me. I guess its just another way to point the finger at me as the bad guy. I'm sure the Mods will side with you again, and accuse me of a hate crime or something. You are stereotyping me and you don't know me. I'm about as moderate as it gets, but you spout off things like FOX News, which has not a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about. Oh yeah, nice PICS. Am I supposed to draw some sort of conclusion from them? Maybe I should post some pics of beheadings and burned bodies hanging from bridges. Will that support my point anymore than these PICS support yours?NO. I have stated facts here but you refuse to accept them. So please, by all means go about your life as if nothing ever happened in this country. Continue to support your left wing, liberal ideology. What exactly was 9/11 to you, an anomoly? Or was that our wake up call to clean our own house, and figure out why they hate us? That seems to be the liberal thinking. We already give more in foreign aid then any other nation in the world. What's it doing for us? I for one will not wait for more of the same to happen and then blame my own country for it. Just curious, is there anything you would physically fight to defend? Would you take up arms against an oppressor to save yourself, your loved ones, anything?
One more thing. I respect your right to think anyway you want. I also defend that right on a daily basis. I don't agree with you but I still support your right to disagree.



what would be great is if you could read through this post again, pick out either the questions you have for me or the points you would like to make, and then repost it, and i'll respond.

as it stands right now, there's virtually nothing for me to say. it's a rant, where you essentially answer your questions within the questions themselves and assume that you already know what i'm going to say so that it falls in line with what you need to have me say so that you can vent just a little bit more.

i'm also out and away for Thanksgiving, not sure if i'll be checking in.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Change of focus? I am baffled, the case remains the same in both cases. Willful surrendering of whatever rights you may have in the name of security is flawed. That is not a call for doing nothing, that position cannot be taken to its extreme here because in the real world things are a lot murkier at times.

I understand now. Sorry I think I initially misread what you were saying.
 
Abomb-baby said:
Can't you at least admit that?

Did I ever say they didn't? This is my whole problem with your argument, you want to believe that those that don't support profiling somehow ignore what extremists are capable of.

My point is that if you profile you are going to overlook the next enemy. Investigate someone due to their actions not skin color or religion. People taking flying lessons and not bothering to learn to land, hello fucking red flag that should have been investigated. I don't care what religion, skin color, who you voted for this action and many others require investigation...not because you pray at such and such church down the street.


Abomb-baby said:

Islam is the only religion I'm aware of that calls for the death of those who refuse conversion. and please don't reference the crusades. We are talking about present times, not something that happened a 1000 years ago. The fact is that these extremist clerics want me dead, and are preaching this hatred to these young men ll over the world. I'm not gonna pretend its not happening.

Yes the extremists do...let's keep that clear. But any extremist is dangerous.
 
note to self - any new member of the forum naming him/herself after HTDAAB-related stuff, is likely to be craaaaaaaaazy. How's that for profiling?
 
There are some days when I really really dislike this job. I have better things to do with my day than cut and paste but since you asked…

where are all my stereotypes, generalizations, half truths?

Stereotypes

  • Okay Irvine, first of all the Muslim world is full of rumors, half truths, innuendo, speculation, and good old fashioned lies. It sort of reminds me of the New York times.
  • Is it entirely possible that we can never get along with a certain religious group that wants Israel OBLITERATED, and therefore wants us OBLITERATED because we support their right to exist?
  • Islam is the only religion I'm aware of that calls for the death of those who refuse conversion. and please don't reference the crusades.
  • Sad to say, but Skin color and religion do matter.


Generalizations and Half-truths

  • And don't give me the old, " there is no evidence BS either."
  • Why in the hell should we hold these bastards under the laws of the Geneva Convention?
  • Are you serious? I guess we should just bow down to the hague now. Gimme a frekkin break. Maybe we should just disband our entire judicial system. why do we need it? We can just have the Europeans show us how to run our country.
  • We already treat our enemies BETTER. Last time I checked we weren't cutting people's heads off or burning them to a crisp and hanging them from bridges.

Personal attacks
  • I guess my "neanderthalic thinking" is just beneath you.
  • Well, I guess YOU value all opinions as long as they agree with YOUR way of thinking. Sorry, but I don't and never will.
  • Someday it will all become abundantly clear to you bleeding heart mamby pambys that we are fighting a war against an enemy who wants you DEAD!!
  • Typical Liberal Hypocricy. I love how you refuse to debate me and instead just throw your little flames at me.
  • I don't need anyone to come to my defense, unlike the majority of liberals here who find someone with a difference of opinion and then bully and beat them down until they leave the forum.
  • Oh thats right, I'm not drinking your Kool-aid so I'm not welcome, is that it?
  • I guess if you call NOT agreeing with your twisted Urban Utopian ideology belligerant, than I'm guilty as charged.
  • The liberals would Scream KANGAROO COURT faster than a speeding car bomb.
  • Your head is really in the sand.
  • Many on the left wish the whole Iraq issue would fail miserabley simply because they have such a seething hate for Bush. Just so they have the right to say 'look, I told you so."
  • And don't forget to ask me my sexual preference. We all know that straight, white christians are never discriminated against or wrongly accused of anything. Get off your damn high and mighty righteous horse, please.
  • I know the liberals are screaming like chicken little, but there is balance in this country.
  • That is the typical response isn't it? "I'm gay, I'm the victim."
  • So please, by all means go about your life as if nothing ever happened in this country. Continue to support your left wing, liberal ideology.

Finally these last comments are completely uncalled for and quite frankly insulting to me and everyone on the mod team. I asked you very politely to engage in a more civil debate and this is your response?

  • I seem to be the only one ever warned here. Hmmm, is it because the people who attack me have Special rights by the mods in here?
  • I guess because Irvine has like 4550 posts, he's special.
  • So much for MY first amendment rights.
  • No, you get special privelege because you post on here 30 times a frekkin day.
  • I'm sure the Mods will side with you again, and accuse me of a hate crime or something.

If you are being singled out for warning it is because of the long list of rudeness above. Post count has nothing to do with it. I don’t care if you’ve been posting here for one day or 2000. You will be respectful to other users and abide by the rules of the forum or you will be out. Simple. Now I’ll ask you for the last time to please cut the insults and if you want to debate try to do so in a civil manner.
 
Antilarry said:
note to self - any new member of the forum naming him/herself after HTDAAB-related stuff, is likely to be craaaaaaaaazy. How's that for profiling?

Antilarry, personal insults aren't helpful. Please refrain. :|
 
Irvine511 said:
also, isn't there something to be said for being "better than" the insurgant/terrorist? we prove that our way of life is worth defending and is "better" than their religious alternative through treating the captured better than they might expect, or even deserve, to be treated? the idea of moral authority, something we once had, is of paramount importance when it comes to the "heart and minds" debate, which, as i initially understood it, was going to be a huge component of the GWOT.

I believe this principle becomes more effective on the micro level - nearing perfection on an individual basis.

On a global scale, it seems that the concept of moral authority may be just illusionary as it can disappear in an instant.

And when fighting a completely different mindset - we may never be able to convince another group of a higher moral ground when they may define morals by different standards.
 
nbcrusader said:


I believe this principle becomes more effective on the micro level - nearing perfection on an individual basis.

On a global scale, it seems that the concept of moral authority may be just illusionary as it can disappear in an instant.

And when fighting a completely different mindset - we may never be able to convince another group of a higher moral ground when they may define morals by different standards.



very interesting.

however, it seems to me that we need less to prove our moral superiority to the terrorists/insurgents themselves, and more to both our allies and then to those populations from which the terrorists come from.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

"According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War, the water board technique is a "very exquisite torture" that should be outlawed.

"Torture is defined under the federal criminal code as the intentional infliction of severe mental pain or suffering," said John Sifton, an attorney and researcher with the organization Human Rights Watch. "That would include water boarding."

On "Good Morning America" today, Goss told ABC News' Charles Gibson that the CIA does not inflict pain on prisoners.

Yet, in response to Gibson's inquiry if water boarding would come under the heading of torture, Goss simply replied, "I don't know." :|
 
deep said:


no organ failure, permanent damage, or death

so a gang rape is not torture ?

so proud to have a president that has restored honor and dignity



how about bamboo chutes under the fingernails?

i hear the Hanoi Hilton specialized in this treatment.
 
One could only hope.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1653936,00.html
Cheney 'may be guilty of war crime'

· Vice-president accused of backing torture
· Claims on BBC by former insider add to Bush's woes

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday November 30, 2005
The Guardian

Vice-president Dick Cheney's burden on the Bush administration grew heavier yesterday after a former senior US state department official said he could be guilty of a war crime over the abuse of prisoners.
Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, singled out Mr Cheney in a wide-ranging political assault on the BBC's Today programme.

Mr Wilkerson said that in an internal administration debate over whether to abide by the Geneva conventions in the treatment of detainees, Mr Cheney led the argument "that essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions".

Asked whether the vice-president was guilty of a war crime, Mr Wilkerson replied: "Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is ... an international crime as well." In the context of other remarks it appeared he was using the word "terror" to apply to the systematic abuse of prisoners.
The Washington Post last month called Mr Cheney the "vice-president for torture" for his demand that the CIA be exempted from a ban on "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees.

Mr Wilkerson, a former army colonel, also said he had seen increasing evidence that the White House had manipulated pre-war intelligence on Iraq to make its case for the invasion. He said: "You begin to wonder was this intelligence spun? Was it politicised? Was it cherry-picked? Did, in fact, the American people get fooled? I am beginning to have my concerns."

Mr Cheney has been under fire for his role in assembling evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Mr Wilkerson told the Associated Press that the vice-president must have sincerely believed Iraq could be a spawning ground for terrorism because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard".

Such charges have kept the Bush administration on the defensive for several months. Mr Bush yesterday repeated his earlier assertion that the US "does not torture and that's important for people around the world to realise". He is also due to make the first of a series of speeches today, outlining his plan to defeat the insurgency and pave the way for US withdrawal. The White House will also publish a declassified version of its war plan.

But it has now emerged that two justice department memos listing permissible interrogation methods have been kept secret by the White House, even from the Senate intelligence committee. The New Yorker recently quoted a source who had seen a memo as calling it "breathtaking".

"The document dismissed virtually all national and international laws regulating the treatment of prisoners, including war crimes and assault statutes, and it was radical in its view that in wartime the president can fight enemies by whatever means he sees fit," the magazine reported.

One technique allegedly used by the CIA in questioning suspects is "waterboarding" (strapping a detainee to a board and submerging it until the prisoner believes he or she is drowning). The White House is accused of defining "torture" so narrowly as to exclude such methods. But James Ross, a legal expert at Human Rights Watch said such a narrow definition was at odds with international norms.

"Waterboarding is clearly a form of torture. It has been used since the Inquisition. It was a well-known torture technique in Latin America," Mr Ross said.

Human Rights Watch this year called for a special counsel to investigate any US officials - no matter their rank or position - who took part in, "ordered, or had command responsibility for war crimes or torture, or other prohibited ill-treatment against detainees in US custody".

The report focused on the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, for his alleged command responsibility for abuses at Abu Ghraib, but Mr Wilkerson argued Mr Cheney was ultimately responsible.

The US is a signatory to the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture, which bans inflicting "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental". Such practices are also a crime under US federal law.
 
Back
Top Bottom