Sigh, more lies about abuses

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
nimh wrote:
You havent seen all of the pictures.

None of us have.

But some Congressmen have. And here's what Republican Congressman Lindsey Graham had to say about it, at the time, when he saw all those photos that have still not been publicly released:

"We're talking rape and murder here."

(As McGentrix was already told, for one, two years ago.) [..]

Every one that was guilty of "torturing" prisoners has been punished and pretty much their futures are done in any meaningful way.

You're being told that even a Republican Congressman admitted that what happened there involved rape and murder, and you still insist on putting "torture" in quotation marks? You should be ashamed of yourself.

I put "tirture" in quotation marks because I doubt we agree on what the definition of torture is. I do not consider sleep deprivation, stress positions, cold showers or humiliation to be torture. Yet there are those that do believe these to be "torture".

Ashamed? Hardly.

0 Replies

Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

War is hell, as they say. Probably atrocities have been committed since the beginning of time - on both sides - in all wars. No one excuses it. I sure don't. On the other hand, I'm not there and who knows exactly what happened and whose version is to be believed. We can be sure that those involved and those handing down the punishments will have to live with it until they themselves die. Maybe that, and the unspeakable horrors they've had to witness, will be their ultimate punishment.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

DO you somehow think that would make a difference?

Words have to mean something, otherwise what's the point of bothering to write them?

Are you able to distinguish between torture and abuse? I doubt it, because to you, they are one and the same.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

The same thing we'd call it when it's done to and by Australians.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Words have to mean something, otherwise what's the point of bothering to write them?

Are you able to distinguish between torture and abuse? I doubt it, because to you, they are one and the same.

Well, the thing is that people in Western countries as well as Western governments usually have no problem identifying certain "interrogation methods" as torture when it was done by others. Let me give you a few examples:

This was a room where prisoners were made to stand for a couple of hours. The room would be filled with freezing water, reaching up to the knees of the detainee. Other than that, the prisoner would not be harmed in any way. Nevertheless, most signed whatever confession the officers wanted them to sign after being subdued to that treatment.

The room was located in the basement of the detainment centre in Hohenschönhausen, run by Ministry of State Security in the GDR.

This is a cell for solitary confinement of prisoners, but its main purpose was sleep deprivation. The detainee was made to stand on the pedestal in the centre of the cell. The bottom of the cell was then filled with ice water. If the prisoner would fall asleep and step of the pedestal, he would wake back up instantly. Other than that, the prisoner would not be harmed in any way.

The cell is located in the basement of the KGB prison in Vilnius/Lithuania. Sleep deprivation was one of the favoured methods of the KGB, as it would leave no physical marks.

This is a water tank. Its usage is depicted on the image in the background. A prisoner's feet would be chained to the bottom of the tank and his hands would be shackled to the top of it, so that he would be facing the floor. Then, the tank would be filled up with water until the level would reach the top of the tank, right underneath the chin of the prisoner - as long as he struggled and kept his head above the water.

This technique was used by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Even though lives of their prisoners meant nothing to them, killing them outright was discouraged, for it was much more important to get confessions on paper first. About 17,000 people passed through this facility in Tuol Sleng/Phnom Penh.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

The same thing we'd call it when it's done to and by Australians.

I assume you would thus call it "a little hazing"? Something like that?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Just a request on behalf of myself and (I would like to believe) the general A2K public:

Can we please ban the insipid use of "SIGH" in post titles and text?

Especially, if the user is a male.

No.

Now stop being a jerk. If possible.

Cheers
Cycloptichorn

What a surprise your response!

Save yourself, and the masculinity (such as it is) of your personae Cyclops --- stop using "Sigh!'

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

DO you somehow think that would make a difference?

Words have to mean something, otherwise what's the point of bothering to write them?

Are you able to distinguish between torture and abuse? I doubt it, because to you, they are one and the same.

Yes, of course I think it would make a difference.

I think you would label such treatment of Americans as torture and a war crime and a cause to invade the country perpetrating it, and inhuman, and evidence that those doing were animals and a whole heap of other stuff.

Yes, you appear to excuse and deny the most obvious facts because you refuse to acknowledge that America can do any wrong.

I think this wilful blindness to be a tragic and dangerous and pathetic flaw shared by all too many people around the world, including those you are very ready, rightly, to condemn, and which allows people to support and defend the most disgusting behaviour by their country and those they support.

I think this blindness one of the most dangerous factors existing in human history...this terrifying denial of empathy to any but those one identifies with.

It drives terrorists, torturers, people who invade others without cause and all manner of evil in the world, from the domestic to the international.

I think it something we should all, from Moslem extremists, to African dictators, to American and Australian leaders, to kids tormenting others on the playground, strive to overcome.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

Spoken (with accompanying insipid emoticon) like a true self-defeating, cowardly, Liberal.

If "it" were done to Americans it would be no difference, in application, to what we might apply to Arab Jihadists.

The "difference" would be that the sane would not argue moral equivalence between Americans (diplomats, journalists, soldiers) and rabid Jihadists.

But that's our dlowan...

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

Spoken (with accompanying insipid emoticon) like a true self-defeating, cowardly, Liberal.

If "it" were done to Americans it would be no difference, in application, to what we might apply to Arab Jihadists.

The "difference" would be that the sane would not argue moral equivalence between Americans (diplomats, journalists, soldiers) and rabid Jihadists.

But that's our dlowan...

I rest my case.

THAT is EXACTLY how the jihadists would argue the same case....but simply with the players reversed.

And would believe their case to be just as true as Finn and his ilk do.....

And so it goes on.......

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

DO you somehow think that would make a difference?

Words have to mean something, otherwise what's the point of bothering to write them?

Are you able to distinguish between torture and abuse? I doubt it, because to you, they are one and the same.

Yes, of course I think it would make a difference.

I think you would label such treatment of Americans as torture and a war crime and a cause to invade the country perpetrating it, and inhuman, and evidence that those doing were animals and a whole heap of other stuff.

Yes, you appear to excuse and deny the most obvious facts because you refuse to acknowledge that America can do any wrong.

I think this wilful blindness to be a tragic and dangerous and pathetic flaw shared by all too many people around the world, including those you are very ready, rightly, to condemn, and which allows people to support and defend the most disgusting behaviour by their country and those they support.

I think this blindness one of the most dangerous factors existing in human history...this terrifying denial of empathy to any but those one identifies with.

It drives terrorists, torturers, people who invade others without cause and all manner of evil in the world, from the domestic to the international.

I think it something we should all, from Moslem extremists, to African dictators, to American and Australian leaders, to kids tormenting others on the playground, strive to overcome.

I am sure people like Daniel Pearl would have loved to have been merely sleep deprived and humiliated, Instead they cut off his head. People routinely turn up in Iraq showing signs of actual torture. Holes drilled in them, burns, fingers, hands, arms cut off, throats slit, etc.

Abuse is different then torture. We abuse prisoners, which we should not be doing, we do not torture people. A couple of prisoners have been killed and that is a terrible thing. But, that does not mean Bush is Hitler and our armed forces are no better then the Nazi's.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

Spoken (with accompanying insipid emoticon) like a true self-defeating, cowardly, Liberal.

If "it" were done to Americans it would be no difference, in application, to what we might apply to Arab Jihadists.

The "difference" would be that the sane would not argue moral equivalence between Americans (diplomats, journalists, soldiers) and rabid Jihadists.

But that's our dlowan...

I rest my case.

THAT is EXACTLY how the jihadists would argue the same case....but simply with the players reversed.

And would believe their case to be just as true as Finn and his ilk do.....

And so it goes on.......

Brilliant retort....if it is fathomable to anyone in this wide world.

Dlowan" "I know you are, but what am I?"

But you feel oh so good about your snappy repartee and that's all that matters --- right?

0 Replies

SIGH....

What fools these Liberals be.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Abuse is different then torture. We abuse prisoners, which we should not be doing, we do not torture people. A couple of prisoners have been killed and that is a terrible thing. But, that does not mean Bush is Hitler and our armed forces are no better then the Nazi's.

So where do you draw the line between abuse and torture, McG?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Be interesting to see what they call it when it is done to Americans.

Spoken (with accompanying insipid emoticon) like a true self-defeating, cowardly, Liberal.

If "it" were done to Americans it would be no difference, in application, to what we might apply to Arab Jihadists.

The "difference" would be that the sane would not argue moral equivalence between Americans (diplomats, journalists, soldiers) and rabid Jihadists.

But that's our dlowan...

I rest my case.

THAT is EXACTLY how the jihadists would argue the same case....but simply with the players reversed.

And would believe their case to be just as true as Finn and his ilk do.....

And so it goes on.......

Brilliant retort....if it is fathomable to anyone in this wide world.

Dlowan" "I know you are, but what am I?"

But you feel oh so good about your snappy repartee and that's all that matters --- right?

Nope.

But I gather you are incapable of understanding an argument which I cannot imagine could possibly be clearer, so you choose instead, as is common with you, to attempt to insult and denigrate.

I truly cannot think of any way to be clearer.

Nemmind.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

nimh wrote:
You're being told that even a Republican Congressman admitted that what happened there involved rape and murder, and you still insist on putting "torture" in quotation marks? You should be ashamed of yourself.

I put "tirture" in quotation marks because I doubt we agree on what the definition of torture is. I do not consider sleep deprivation, stress positions, cold showers or humiliation to be torture.

Jesus Christ, do you just blind out everything that is posted to you that does not fit with your belief that "Americans do not torture"?

Lindsey Graham said there was "rape and murder" going on at Abu Ghraib. That we dont know about because they never released more than a small selection of the photos/evidence.

Rape and murder. How does that fit your definition that "we do not torture people"?

Or what about those two Afghans? They chained them up to the ceiling for days until their legs couldnt bend anymore, then beat their legs on and on until they were reduced to pulp, and they died as a direct consequence of the beatings.

Beating people's legs until they would have to be amputated; until the people in question die; how does that fit your definition that "we do not torture people"?

You casually remark that "A couple of prisoners have been killed and that is a terrible thing. But, that does not mean Bush is Hitler."

And no, it does not mean Bush is Hitler, and neither has anyone said that Bush is Hitler here - all they said was that some of those "enhanced interrogation techniques" of yours were used by Hitler's Nazis as well, and named by the exact same euphemism.

It does not mean that Bush = Hitler, no. But how can you simultaneously confirm that "a couple of prisoners" were beaten to death, and then say, "we do not torture people"? How can you possibly square that with each other.

If beating people to death is not torture, then what in heavens name would be?

If Al-Qaeda folks would beat an American GI to death, would you not say he was tortured?

0 Replies

Here, let me try this.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT TORTURE PEOPLE. IT IS NOT LEGAL TO TORTURE, IT IS NOT CONDONED BY ANYONE AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A GOVERNMENTALLY APPROVED METHOD OF INTERROGATION.

You are hung up on the actions of the few Nimh. The same nimrods that probably flicked bi-polars ears in Algebra class went on to join the service. Not all soldiers are west point cadets and some have crossed the line. They have been found guilty of their crimes, but that isn't good enough for liberal assclowns like you. What would you have happen to them? Firing squad? Hanging? Having to read the continual drivel of BS on A2K?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

They have been found guilty of their crimes, but that isn't good enough for liberal assclowns like you. What would you have happen to them?

MCGentrix. Listen for a moment. They tied up people and beat them up to death. The highest punishment any one of them got was 75 days in prison. 75 DAYS.

Does one really have to be a "liberal assclown" to consider that a miscarriage of justice?

Let me ask you an honest question. Two honest questions.

[list][1] What would you have had the sentence be, just hypothesizing that you were the judge?

[2] And what would you have had the sentence be if a group of enemy soldiers had beaten two Americans, presumed innocent, to death?[/list]Can you just answer these questions, finally, after two years of dodging straight answers on this topic? Please?

McGentrix wrote:

You are hung up on the actions of the few Nimh. The same nimrods that probably flicked bi-polars ears in Algebra class went on to join the service. Not all soldiers are west point cadets and some have crossed the line.

US soldiers - individual US soldiers, yes - have beaten prisoners (who were presumed innocent already at the time, mind you!) - to death.

How can you then insist that "we do not torture"?

You can limit what you say to, "it is not condoned", yes, or, "it is not policy", yes. On that you'd get an argument too, but at least it would be a halfway rational stance.

But how can you say, "we do not torture", when a bunch of your soldiers have been proven to have done exactly that?

0 Replies

Gee, I guess if you print it in really big red letters, that means it's true.

0 Replies

Sigh, more lies about abuses

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know