sexual torture

i doubt we'll start sending every muslim to concentration camps.

i still have trouble accepting this as 'torture.' it's not like we're sodomizing them with broom sticks. we're just attacking their cultural resolve. and criminals don't deserve to have cultural resolve, do they?

The problem was that in the meantime the government had decided to torture everyone suspect, since statistically 10000 people where saved for everyone tortured innocently, and it would have been unjust to save the virtue of one person if you had the chance of saving the live of 10000 instead.
Click to expand...
how dostoeyevskian. i thought i'd point this out because it would make me seem learned. i know i butchered the spelling, but at least i'll get half credit. i doubt you had this on your mind, though. if 'taking the virtue' of one innocent is a bad thing, does that mean taking the virtue of a guilty is not?

i mean, it's absurd, and i can't sympathize with it at all. a bunch of murderous vegetarians are forced to eat meat in attempts to extract information about their next kill plan, and you think of this as 'unjustified' torture?


all humans should be given dignity, right? even evil criminals. that's what makes us civilized. but these vegetable eating vegetarians are the same people who beat rape victims, no?

in reality, we can't say "oh look, i commit a breach in human dignity, but it's not as bad as them, so we're cool!" we're models, no? on this level there is a schism in my brain.

in reality, the only reason i took this line of thought is because i am sexually frustrated. i thought i'd point this out as well.
 
These tactics are bad for women, quite degrading, but if things work, they work. They aren't torturing them with violence, which is not allowed. You can mentally abuse people all you want as long as its not like... making them dance naked and such.

Remember, the US treats even its own prisoners like kings. They have cable, workout rooms, libraries of books...

What happened to justice?
 
Jabbapop wrote:
i mean, it's absurd, and i can't sympathize with it at all. a bunch of murderous vegetarians are forced to eat meat in attempts to extract information about their next kill plan, and you think of this as 'unjustified' torture?
Click to expand...
It is not about torturing them that is a bad idea, but to mock their religion, since it is that, that makes others join them, who on other ocations would not.

Nocturne wrote:
I belive that if by torturing one person you can save two, then it is justifiable..... Maybe not etical, maybe not publicly acceptable, but It is the way It should be done..
Click to expand...
So if a terrorist group kills 20 persons a year, and you know for shure they are a part of a minority of 100 persons, one should butcher the minority, since you would save a group of 200 persons over 10 years, to a expence of only 100?
It is no fun living in a society treating persons like numbers.

Edit:
What happened to justice?
Click to expand...
It did exist? I always thought it was a fairytale.....
 
Nocturne said:
The rules of war are made by politicans who never saw anything worse than a papercut.....
:(
Click to expand...

You really think that? You think it's people who have never been in a war that said you have to treat POW's with a minimum of dignity? You think it's people who have never carried a rifle that said you cannot imprison people without just cause? You think it's people who have never seen people ripped to shreds by a .50 caliber rifle who say it's overkill and unacceptable?

I don't think so.

It's easy to presume all laws and ethics have been written up by scrawny, weak white-collars to protect themselves. Yet, the people who have demanded ethics and regulations in times of war are not of that kind. For starters, it takes knowlegde of a .50 caliber weapon to know what it does to a human being in the first place.

And hey, this may all seem trivial and cumbersome on the field. Why interrogate a non-american captive for hours on end, when I can just force it out of him? I mean - he's only the enemy right?

Well, I presume he is, that is. It's so easy to mistake an Arab for a terrorist these days.



I guess it takes retrospect to know just how important these things are. It's no coincidence war ethics were written by veterans, and most veterans are pacifists. It's easy to just kill them all and let God sort them out later (Dude, do you see that? This guy is pretending he's dead! *unloads his clip into an unarmed man's torso*) in the heat of combat, but it's afterwards the questions come. Was he really an enemy? Why did I kill that man? Why did I think it was fun? (I just made my first kill! Blew him away with a tank shell! Yeeehaaa!)

And then the nightmares come.

My grandfather still has them.
 
That's the problem with these zealots, but they're in a minority, it all comes down to the fact if this can prevent a second 9/11 won't it justify the means?
 
who are you, and why is this your first post?

also, you must pay the bridge fee! feetakers are usually trolls. it's kind of a strange reversal of situation.
 
Arbitratus said:
That's the problem with these zealots, but they're in a minority, it all comes down to the fact if this can prevent a second 9/11 won't it justify the means?
Click to expand...

Please read the entire discussion before smearing the thread with your mental diahrrea. If you have something to say, back it up with reasons, justified by arguments.

Thank you for using WoozTec, have a nice day.
 
Jebus said:
Nocturne said:
The rules of war are made by politicans who never saw anything worse than a papercut.....
:(
Click to expand...

You really think that? You think it's people who have never been in a war that said you have to treat POW's with a minimum of dignity? You think it's people who have never carried a rifle that said you cannot imprison people without just cause? You think it's people who have never seen people ripped to shreds by a .50 caliber rifle who say it's overkill and unacceptable?

I don't think so.

It's easy to presume all laws and ethics have been written up by scrawny, weak white-collars to protect themselves. Yet, the people who have demanded ethics and regulations in times of war are not of that kind. For starters, it takes knowlegde of a .50 caliber weapon to know what it does to a human being in the first place.

And hey, this may all seem trivial and cumbersome on the field. Why interrogate a non-american captive for hours on end, when I can just force it out of him? I mean - he's only the enemy right?

Well, I presume he is, that is. It's so easy to mistake an Arab for a terrorist these days.



I guess it takes retrospect to know just how important these things are. It's no coincidence war ethics were written by veterans, and most veterans are pacifists. It's easy to just kill them all and let God sort them out later (Dude, do you see that? This guy is pretending he's dead! *unloads his clip into an unarmed man's torso*) in the heat of combat, but it's afterwards the questions come. Was he really an enemy? Why did I kill that man? Why did I think it was fun? (I just made my first kill! Blew him away with a tank shell! Yeeehaaa!)

And then the nightmares come.

My grandfather still has them.
Click to expand...

The point is that rules of war will never be followed slavishly....
And a person who are hit by a 7.62 or a 5.56 round is as dead as a guy hit with a .50..... The thing I am saying is that most soldiers wouldn't have any qualms if they used a .50 to defend themselves against a party who surely will kill them if they have an oppertunity... And then I am not just talking about the shit that certain stupid U.S and british soldiers did........
 
But there are degrees of respect and collateral damage.

.50 calibers have a tendency to fly straight through a man and travel another half a mile or so.
 
Jebus said:
But there are degrees of respect and collateral damage.

.50 calibers have a tendency to fly straight through a man and travel another half a mile or so.
Click to expand...

And the relevance ?
So does the U.S Cluster(fuck) bombs, so does shrapnel from a mortar shell, and so does a full metal jacket 7.62.....
 
::sniffs:: Smells like this is turning into a gun thread........you all didn't happen watch the "60 Minutes" episode recently? the one on the .50 cal rifles..........overkill isnt the issue as these prisoners arnt coming out in bodybags, missing huge pieces. So please dont spread liberal bullshit in the wrong threads.


Torture by menstrual fluids.......hmmm well it could be worse we could be hooking jumper cables to their testicles.....cutting off fingers......bitch slapping them with a dildo until they beg for mercy.
i say toture the shit out of them........because after we are done with them they have the assurance the we wont light them on fire and drag their corpses through the streets, as they have done to our marines after interrogations.
 
i say toture the shit out of them........because after we are done with them they have the assurance the we wont light them on fire and drag their corpses through the streets, as they have done to our marines after interrogations.
Click to expand...

Saying that interrogating prisoners is alright because they would kill our soldiers is bullshit. There's no sense in justifying assholery with degrees of assholery.

We interrogate prisoners in order to extract information. What do you people want us to do with them, just let them rot? Because if that's the case we might as well just execute terrorists that try to surrender, as they'd be more valuable to us dead than alive. Oh but that wouldn't be the humane thing to do, right?

We can't have prisoners and just not do anything with them. We'd be missing too big an opportunity not to try and take advantage of their knowlege.
 
Basicly... Torture is a good way to get information and save lives, but the masses should always be against it.... Like a sort of security, so that torture can't be abused and used on undeserving people... the stakes should be high to use such means, but they should be used......
 
Bradylama said:
i say toture the shit out of them........because after we are done with them they have the assurance the we wont light them on fire and drag their corpses through the streets, as they have done to our marines after interrogations.
Click to expand...

Saying that interrogating prisoners is alright because they would kill our soldiers is bullshit. There's no sense in justifying assholery with degrees of assholery.

We interrogate prisoners in order to extract information. What do you people want us to do with them, just let them rot? Because if that's the case we might as well just execute terrorists that try to surrender, as they'd be more valuable to us dead than alive. Oh but that wouldn't be the humane thing to do, right?

We can't have prisoners and just not do anything with them. We'd be missing too big an opportunity not to try and take advantage of their knowlege.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that yes, even though our toture methods are degrading they are not fatal. I believe that some mental degrading is 100 times better than their methods of interogations.
they would just as soon as kill a captured troop for information then rub menstral fliuds in their faces or make them pose nude. U.S. Torture methods are bound by scrutiny from the outside world, terrorists however are not held to this standard because they are terrorists.
 
You're still justifying torture as a "Necessary Evil" by comparing it to terrorist methods of interrogation. If its already a Necessary Evil, then it doesn't need comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top