BS: Torture in a civilised world

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:09 AM

Teribus, you need to understand what the tiny minority of crack-pot murderers are actually trying to achieve. You don't have to agree, just comprehend what their fight is about.

The 'Islamic Caliphate' is not some plan for worldwide domination (even if one or two choose to see it that way). The Caliphate, as a concept, is one government for "Muslim Lands". Where Islamic states combine to remove their national borders and operate as one authority. Even the most ardent fanatics are quite happy to let those they regard as "infidels", rot in their own lands.

Now, the last Islamic caliphate was widely though responsible for an European renaissance in art, science, culture, architecture and good governance. It was certainly Muslims that kept European civilisation going during the Christian-led post-Rome dark ages. I'm not saying any medieval system is "good" or "right", but it's pretty silly to say that the last Caliphate was all bad. Go to Cordoba in Southern Spain and get a feel for what it must have been like.

When a lot of Muslims look at how we caused, and continue to support, the Israel-Palestine problem, created and propped up with weapons (including chemical WMD's) the likes of Saddam Hussein, created and armed and supported the Sordid Arabian royal family, the Shah of Iran, left Afghanistan to the Taleban (post-USSR), propped up and supported endless regime after regime of corrupt bastards and tinpot dictators in Pakistan, is it any wonder that Muslims are - to put it mildly - feeling a little aggrieved?

Then after creating a pressure-cooker of pent-up chaos with Saddam as an Anglo-American-German "lid". We just went in - for no good reason - and blew away all the controls of state, producing the chaos that was inevitable and widely predicted. Why? Because we just didn't really care that much about the inevitable victims - ordinary Iraqis. What other explanation is there?

What troubles me most, and enrages some to the point of strapping on bombs - is the way that we have a sliding scale of the value and importance of life.

So, 50 people get murdered on the London transport system in 2005 and we spend 10's of millions of pounds on soul-searching, inquiries, accusation and blame, news and media coverage, monuments, memorial services etc etc etc. When at least as many innocent people in Iraq were being slaughetered weekly or daily in the chaos that we wrought there. Their lives passed as a footnote on the evening news or at bottom column 5 of page 37 of the newspaper.

One life murdered is one too many and the loss of any innocent life should be shocking to us - so dont' glibly come back and accuse me of saying or thinking that anyone "deserved" what they got. What I'm saying and thinking is that we need to do is to look at ourselves (as nations or groups) and try to see us as others might do. It's not always a pretty sight.

I can't tolerate the concept of "keeping score" when it comes to murder, but if some people in "the west" are asking of these terrorists, "why, how, can they do this to us, what drives them?" just stop and think how many of them we have killed either directly or by way of the proxies that we installed to do it for us?

If you ever wonder why people are driven to suicide attacks, try to work it out. What would you be prepared to die for? How bad would things have to be for you to decide that there was nothing to lose? Is there no principle or value or child or loved-one that you wouldn't give your life for? European Resistance fighters 39-45 went on suicide attacks, as did soldiers: we rightly revere their sacrifices. Maybe we have pushed rather a lot of people in various parts of the world to that breaking point?

So, Teribus, when people say, in effect, of Muslims: to hell with 'em there all the same, we have to kill 'em all. Or appear to imply that any amount of "collateral damage" is fine so long as it's them and not us: don't you think that those people sound a lot like the so-called enemy?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:14 AM

Torture is listening to Keith Olbermann!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: bubblyrat
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:19 AM

It's a tricky one to call, isn't it ?? I tend to agree with the person who said that tortured people will agree to ANYTHING in order to stop the agony----I know I would ! But then,that rather defeats the object of the exercise,don't you think ?
    Of course,there are many (regrettably) rather inadequate people for whom there is a strong attraction in military service,and for whom a uniform and a gun represent an opportunity to indulge God -knows-what vile fantasies. Couple that with WEAK and INEFFECTIVE leadership, throw in some lobsters,t-bone steaks ,and a highly permissive attitude towards marijuana,etc, ( I mention no specific theatres of war, but.....) and you have the perfect breeding ground for all kinds of inhumane & uncivilised behaviour, sadly. As the world has seen all too often in the last 100 years or so.
                   No offence ,Teribus,but I think you meant "Clewed up" , as opposed to "Clued up" ,didn't you ?? Totally different meanings !

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:46 AM

MtheGM, Teribus is not making any distinctions between extremist Muslims and Islam generally. And there you go again making personal attacks in place of reasoned arguments in order to spread hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM

The popular school of thought and the one seemingly supported here opposes torture and asserts that torture is pointless because it doesn't work, but past experience shows that that is not necessarily correct torture has worked in the past. Even if we (UK or whoever) do not torture our Intelligence and Security Services cannot refuse information so obtained which could/would protect our own people. The terrorist chooses to kill and maim and can also choose not to suffer in captivity, while denying any choice to his or her victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 12:03 AM

MtheGM, Teribus is not making any distinctions between extremist Muslims and Islam generally - CarolC

Oh yes but I am CarolC:

The conflict will continue for generations Riginslinger for as long as a bunch of idiots (Al-Qaeda in the context of this thread).

1. Seek to impose not only their religion, but their particular version and systems of belief associated with that religion on the rest of the world;

2. Regard all others as infidels, kaffirs and non-believers and believe that they are perfectly at liberty and fully justified in killing everyone of them man, woman and child. - Teribus

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:05 AM

"past experience shows that that is not necessarily correct torture has worked in the past."

Good point T. The Gestapo was able to obtain information by torturing French terrorists in WWII after all, and the South African police routinely tortured ANC terrorists in the 1970's, and enemy combatants were fair game for the Japanese in WWII too - to the with the GC.

Let's face it, we can hardly complain about the treatment metered out to allied soldiers in the theatre when the gloves are off can we? No point in having a moral stance if the enemies is making life difficult for you is there? Best abandon it and get stuck in and sod the consequences.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

"Seek to impose not only their religion, but their particular version and systems of belief associated with that religion on the rest of the world"

Especially when it conflicts with us seeking to impose our particular version and system of economics associated with capitalism on the rest of the developing world.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:00 AM

Teribus, in this sentence, you are smearing all of Islam, not just Islamic extremists, and it was this that I was responding to. Nice attempt to weasel your way out of what you said, though...

The only repeat ONLY religion that calls for my death as an non-believer is the Muslim faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 10:40 AM

Well let me CarolC

Anywhere in the Bible that instructs me to go out and kill anybody because they are not Christians?? No not even an hint of it

It needs to be understood in this context that at the end of the mission of Muhammad when God, in his absolute Knowledge, knew that those who were rejecting faith were not rejecting because they had any confusion with regards to it, rather they were rejecting out of mere arrogance and pride, He commanded Muslims to slay down those 'infidels' from amongst the polytheists. The Jews and Christians, on the other hand, because they belonged to monotheistic faith, were to be fought against until they became politically subservient to Muslims. This was done after providing both the idolaters and the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) sufficient time to understand whether Muhammad was a real messenger of God and the message he brought forward was actually the message from God.

So as one of the people of the book I can be fought against (?? - combatted? killed??) until I am politically subservient to Muslims (any particular one or just all of them?)

Bollocks, if any body wants to fight me on the instruction of their mullah, immam or ayatollah because of what they interpret as being written in their book about their imaginary friend then they had best come loaded for bear.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 11:10 AM

Merely observing Sugarfoot that the categoric statement that torture does not work is wrong.

Now in the instance I gave "Operation Awkward"

If I have somebody who may or may not have mined my ship and I have to find out if he has or not. I am faced with risking the lives of my shipmates and messmates against infringing the human rights of the attack swimmer we have caught, then I am afraid there is no question at all that them thar human rights is going to be infringed. And the one thing he will know with absolute certainty is that he will be going down with the ship if that mine blows.

Let's face it, we can hardly complain about the treatment metered out to allied soldiers in the theatre when the gloves are off can we? No point in having a moral stance if the enemies is making life difficult for you is there?

No point at all in complaining, we have absolutley no control over what our enemies will do. My son who has now done a number of tours out in Afghanistan has always been told do not expect to survive capture, and numerous grisley videos exist to support that assumption. Should this fate befall him or any of his colleagues the torture and mistreatment will have been carried out for amusement, for entertainment and for propaganda. There would be no attempt to question for intelligence gathering or to obtain any information.

How are the Taliban that have been taken prisoner that my son has had personal experience of? They are bound and hooded, identified, photographed, given a meal, medically examined, and more often than not depending on transport they are turned loose. They will be picked up again in a couple of weeks or months and this happens regularly, my son and his mates refer to them as "frequent flyers", they do not fight very hard, they have no information to give and nine times out of ten the only reason they were with the Taliban at all was because their families were threatened if they did not turn out to fight.

Ah so all the worlds ills are down to capitalism are they Sugarfoot, funny that in country's that embraced it you find the best standard of living and quality of life. And I don't see us imposing anything on anybody, globalisation is a fact of life get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 12:15 PM

Teribus,

You ask whether there is a passage in The Bible that approves of killing non-believers. You then quote a section of text in such a way as to claim that Muslims receive such direction from the Qur'an.

But your text is not from the Qur'an

Where is it from?

Show us proof of your claims about the Qur'an.

Here are some proofs from The Bible for you

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

    Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Death to Followers of Other Religions

    Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

    1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Infidels and Gays Should Die

    So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

------------------------------------

Looking a bit of a fool now aren't you, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM

Provide a source for that copy/paste, Teribus.

And yes, the Bible does say to kill the infidels - "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:16 PM

Oops! Looks like Teribus doesn't know his Bible. Not much of a Christian, I guess...

Deuteronomy:

"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)"

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)"


As a Christian, Teribus, you are required to kill everyone who doesn't worship the God of the Bible. From the way you talk, it looks like you've been doing your best to fulfill this requirement, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:19 PM

Sorry Royston. I somehow managed to miss your post. You did a much better job than me.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:33 PM

Books of the Old Testament?? Not really big believers in the old testament over this side , being brought up as Christians:

Definition:
A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who Christians believe is the Messiah (the Christ in Greek-derived terminology) prophesied in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, and the Son of God.

Jesus of Nazareth may have been prophesised in the Old Testament but his teachings have got nothing to do with the Old Testament.

NAB = New American Bible 1998? Anyway never read it, nor will I ever read it.

NLT = New Living Translation 1996? Never read it, nor will I ever read it.

Being a bit of a traditionalist there only ever was one version of the Bible - The King James Authorised Version and in that the Old Testament was only ever used as an addendum to Admiralty Signals Publications to provide Captain 'D's and Flag Officers with witty and relevant signals for every occasion.

By the way does "doomed" mean kill??

Only New testament text appears to be taken from The Epistle to the Romans

"God's death penalty" - how does this instruct anyone to kill anybody does it not mean God's penalty in death?

Still if that is what you are reading over there in the the home of the brave and the land of the free, the land of Hollywood and Walt Disney then its no bloody wonder that so many of you are so Fucked Up.

The pillocks who jumped onboard the Mayflower should have hung around over this side for a few centuries to see how it all turned out, on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:39 PM

Apologies,

Forgot this link:

http://www.omeriqbal.com/a/21

Read through both the question and the Response, what I copied was from the response.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:56 PM

Well done Teribus shit for brains.

Your source was actually saying that Muslims cannot and must not kill others who do not follow Islam

It's just that you are a lying sod and distorted what he said which was the bit you selected, followed by:

This is God's law specific to messengers as I have explained above. Since a messenger of God is not living with us anymore, and we do not know that which is in the hearts of people, we cannot call them 'infidels' and commit such acts. In a time such as today, every soul must continue to strive to find the truth and live by it.

Thanks for proving the argument against you.

Fuck, it's like shooting fish in a barrel around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM

I'm surprised anyone thinks this world is civilised.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 07:03 PM

If the old testament is completely irrelevant to Christians, Teribus, why is it included in the Bible that Christians use?

And what about Jews? Are you saying that we should fight everyone whose holy text says that all people who believe differently than they do should be killed? If that's that case, I guess you advocate doing to Jews what you are saying we should do to Muslims, because for Jews, it's all old testament.

Or do you just think we should kill Muslims and leave everyone else whose holy text advocates killing non-believers alone?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 07:06 PM

Oh, yeah... I forgot about all of the Christian sects who believe that all of the Bible, including the old testament, is the literal word of God. You might not be one of them, Teribus, but there's lots of them here in the US. Should we start torturing and killing them also?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 01:15 AM

Just tell me Royston and a simple yes or no will do for an answer:

In the link I posted does the following passage appear as part of the response:

It needs to be understood in this context that at the end of the mission of Muhammad when God, in his absolute Knowledge, knew that those who were rejecting faith were not rejecting because they had any confusion with regards to it, rather they were rejecting out of mere arrogance and pride, He commanded Muslims to slay down those 'infidels' from amongst the polytheists. The Jews and Christians, on the other hand, because they belonged to monotheistic faith, were to be fought against until they became politically subservient to Muslims. This was done after providing both the idolaters and the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) sufficient time to understand whether Muhammad was a real messenger of God and the message he brought forward was actually the message from God.

Now as it is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel Royston, please answer the following:

So as one of the people of the book I can be fought against (?? - combatted? killed??) until I am politically subservient to Muslims (any particular one or just all of them?)


And the following by me still holds good.

Bollocks, if any body wants to fight me on the instruction of their mullah, immam or ayatollah because of what they interpret as being written in their book about their imaginary friend then they had best come loaded for bear.

I have never seen enraged groups of Christians or Jews out in the streets rioting just on the word some prat uttered at the weekly religious service. At any religious service I have never been commanded to chant for the death of a people (In Tehran it happens every week and has happened every week for the last 31 years).

I am accused by CarolC of taking the actions of a minority and applying their words, actions and interpretations of their religion to all followers of that religion. Then she herslf refers me to certain Christian religious sects.

As for those religious sects CarolC:

Still if that is what you are reading over there (NAB & NLT Old Testament Passages) in the the home of the brave and the land of the free, the land of Hollywood and Walt Disney then its no bloody wonder that so many of you are so Fucked Up.

The pillocks who jumped onboard the Mayflower should have hung around over this side for a few centuries to see how it all turned out, on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life.

The OT during instruction we were told was the story of what went before, nothing more, and the passages are stories of things that happened to the people from whom Jesus of Nazareth came.

Oh and if ever I am going to kill anybody CarolC, I would need a damn sight better reason than one that would be given to me based on religion or by the irrational rantings of the likes of youself.

Oddly enough in that link I posted, the common perception of the Muslim faith is as illustrated in the Question, that has not come to be by deliberate misinformation put about by anybody else. It is a perception arrived at by observation which gives rise to:

All Muslims are not terrorists; but all terrorists nowadays seem to be Muslims"

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:16 AM

The passage you quoted, Teribus, is one man's essay, it is a good essay. It is an essay in which he asserts that Muslims CANNOT go around causing mayhem and murder. It is the majority Muslim view. Slicing off one or two sentences and presenting them as saying something totally different is not going to work here. We are not "Sun" readers.

The complete assertion has been printed here, we both know what it says and now does everyone else. Muslims are neither commanded nor obliged to do the the things that you say.

So you still haven't found any commandments about murder in the Qur'an then?

I'm quite happy that you dismiss the entire OT. Out goes death for murder, out goes homophobia, out goes "eye for en eye". You won't have anything to back up a lot of your arguments before long.

Are there any Christians out there that believe the OT needs removing from The Bible?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:19 AM

Teribus, you said this...

The only repeat ONLY religion that calls for my death as an non-believer is the Muslim faith.

You are wrong, you have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and you don't have the grace to admit that you were wrong. You just keep shifting the goal posts to try to weasel out of your wrongness. I saw somewhere you said that unlike some other people, you at least admit when you are wrong. Well, that's bullshit. You have been shown to be wrong when you say that only the Muslim faith calls for the death of non-believers. The proof has been posted more than once in this thread. But you don't have the grace to admit when you are wrong, so you are clinging to your efforts to try to change the subject. It won't work. You are still wrong no matter how many times you try to change the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 04:07 AM

Hold on T - we must clear this up as it's a new one on me: are you seriously suggesting Christians don't take any notice or guidance from the teachings of the Old Testament? No ten commandments etc?

This is a thread all by itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:44 PM

Don't Sugarfoot best go and ask them.

All I do know with regard to Christianity is how I apply it to me, and that reflects the way it was taught.

Old Testament = Fables, Fairytales where good overcomes evil

Only part of it of relevance is the story of the Ten Commandments and even then we got it wrong.

Apparently there is no such commandment as "Thou shalt not kill". The actual translation is "Thou shalt not do murder" Which is different by a long shot.

As for no Muslim claiming that he has the right to kill me as a non-believer, I will err on the side of caution, as it all depends on who the turbaned twat has just been listening to down the Mosque.

After all, over the past twenty years and more, we have seen supposedly devote Muslims kill quite a large number of pagans, people-of-book, apostates, fellow Muslims albeit of a different sect and even some of their own. Now tell me CarolC if them as did the killing were such devout Muslims and their book, which I believe they reckon is the only book, specifically instructs and commands them not to kill, how come all those people died?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 04:37 PM

Teribus, how many of all persuasions - his own side and all others - did George Bush kill because he went to war in Iraq because God told him that Gog and Magog were doing the devil's work in Baghdad.

Bush's words. Spoken to by him to Jacques Chirac, reported by Chirac, never denied by Bush or the Whitehouse.

There are murderous cranks on all sides - you sound like a pretty good candidate. Your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:22 PM

Is there anything which our torture-friendly members would see as unacceptable, if it worked?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:05 PM

!!Come on Don T tell where they have written or decreed that what I have written above is NOT THEIR STATED AIM.""

I was talking about YOUR aim you twerp.

You make out that all muslims are a threat, when you know damn well that only a minority of fundamentalists indulge in terror tactics, and you use that lie to cover up the other lie, denying that there are terrorists on the other (Christian ) side as well.

The relevance of the history lesson (and I'd like you to tell me what part of that was untrue), was to illustrate that it would not be too surprising if the followers of Islam had some major scores to settle, given that they were among the victims.

Leaving religion aside, it is my opinion that Blair, Bush, Cheney et al were, and are, just as much terrorists as OBL. And if you want to call him my friend, you had better be able to show evidence of my ever having posted anything in his favour. Failing that, you are just proving my point about your deficiency in the thinking department.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 12:04 AM

And I Don was talking about theirs.

As far as know (AND before you dive back into the mists of time here DON I am referring to recent history) our nutters have not ordered our troops to deliberately target and kill men, women and children indiscriminately because of their religion or attempted to justify those deaths on the grounds of the beliefs of those they have killed.

I do not go to paradise because I murdered a ........... (fill in any religion, or sect of a religion you like). But judging by events there are more than enough Muslims wandering the planet who do believe that exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 01:17 AM

'Leaving religion aside, it is my opinion that Blair, Bush, Cheney et al were, and are, just as much terrorists as OBL.' DonT
                               ===========
No, they are not, not in any MEANINGFUL sense of the term. They might have behaved in politically and militarily irresponsible fashion: but that does NOT make them 'terrorists' in any semantically acceptable usage, in the same way as it can be used of OBL & his followers.

You are obviously a man of intelligence, Don; & must be aware that you are here over-defining the word 'terrorist' in a fashion sufficiently absurd as to rob it of all meaning. The trouble with such bandying of precise terms [the word 'terrorist' has a specific and accepted meaning as you are well aware] is that effective communication is thus much marred & reduced, without any really valid & worthwhile point having been made ~ no good purpose is served by using words thus Humpty·Dumpty·to·Alice fashion, as you well know.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 03:53 AM

Folks, just ignore Teribus. He really can't be for real. I'm pretty sure he must be pissing himself laughing every time he types something.

Trolls.

Only one way to deal with 'em

DNFTT

Do not feed the troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:59 AM

""No, they are not, not in any MEANINGFUL sense of the term.""

Clandestine, as well as open, attempts to force regime change in sovereign states. Menacing a large portion of the globe with their military might, and lying to their own people to justify it.

In the case of Bush and Cheney, undermining the very foundation upon which their nation was built, the Constitution.

Cynical re-defining of words, in direct contradiction if international law, in order to justify the use of torture.

What precisely, in your estimation makes them better than those they are fighting?

And, since half the world is terrified of them as a result of their actions, why pray is terrorist too strong a description, for your liking?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:04 AM

Because, Don, as you well know, the term "Terrorist" has a specific meaning ~ of someone adopting certain recognised measures aimed against random members of the public to achieve political aims by clandestine destabilisation of public feelings of security: it is a disingenuous misuse of the term, which confuses rather than enlightens, to use it simply for or of anyone who causes "Terror" of any sort: otherwise you might as well use it of a strict teacher or an overbearing husband ~ and any such use would serve to diminish the effectiveness of the word as used in its true meaning.

I am not disagreeing with you as to the culpability of some of the policies of the politicians you name; simply with your using an inappropriate term for them which serves merely to rob a useful word of its true meaning and so reduce its effectiveness when properly used. IN OTHER WORDS, TO SPELL IT OUT: MY DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU IS SEMANTIC, NOT POLITICAL. THE LANGUAGE NEEDS DEFENDING AGAINST PEOPLE WHO TENDENTIOUSLY MISUSE IT AND THUS REDUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AS A MEDIUM OF ACCURATE COMMUNICATION.

I reiterate that I think you know this really: you may pretend you don't but I think you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM

""Don, as you well know, the term "Terrorist" has a specific meaning ~ of someone adopting certain recognised measures aimed against random members of the public to achieve political aims by clandestine destabilisation of public feelings of security:""

I do understand what you are saying Mike. I'm not a fool!

Wouldn't you say though that spending two years constantly linking a terrorist act with a regime which had absolutely nothing to do with it, purely in order to scare one's own countryman into giving up many of their civil rghts and freedoms, so that you can start an illegal war, fits your definition above rather too neatly to classified as anything short of terrorism?

The only difference is in whose public is having their feelings destabilised (having the shit scared out of them).

There doesn't seem to be another simple word or phrase that fits as well.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:49 PM

Lots of definitions of "terrorism" - the simplest and best to my mind is "killing non-combatants in order to achieve political objectives".

And the people who have done this on the largest scale are governments of one sort or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:05 PM

I know you are not a fool, Don ~ that, if you look back, was my point.

I still think that, by reasonable definition, 'terrorism' cannot be applied to an act of, or approved by, government ~ ruling by terror is not the same thing ~ & that to call it so is linguistically & semantically counterproductive. There are, alas, far too many words once useful but which have now lost their effect by such over-definition. I am simply trying to defend the language, not the government.   I guess that, as in all such cases, it is a vain endeavour (as McG reemarks above, there are too many definitions]; but I still, as a well-known taxonomic pedant {"MtheGM's pedantry is legendary" wrote a correspondent on another MessageBoard site I am a regular on: she meant a putdown I suspect but I never tire of quoting it!}, think it a pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:21 AM

As for no Muslim claiming that he has the right to kill me as a non-believer, I will err on the side of caution, as it all depends on who the turbaned twat has just been listening to down the Mosque.

Still trying to weasel out of what you said, I see. I don't think anyone in this thread has said that no Muslim would claim they have a right to kill you as a non-believer. What has been said is that this statement from you is wrong...

The only repeat ONLY religion that calls for my death as an non-believer is the Muslim faith.

The Muslim faith, as a religion, does not call for your death as a non-believer.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:25 AM

Now tell me CarolC if them as did the killing were such devout Muslims and their book, which I believe they reckon is the only book, specifically instructs and commands them not to kill, how come all those people died?

Same reason, I reckon, that people get killed by Christians and Jews and Hindus who believe their interpretations of their holy texts are the right ones. And such killings do take place. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin is an example of one such killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:32 AM

Operation "Shock and Awe" perfectly fits the definition of terrorism...


Main Entry: ter-ror-ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:27 AM

Teribus' viewpoint (which comes over as a bit hysterical Daily Mail harpy) perfectly reflects the West's attitude toward the Muslim world and other cultures unfamiliar to us. It's typical of the colonialist viewpoint the West has had for the past 300-plus years; it's anachronistic and backward but it persists in all levels of society, from government downward.

This stems from two main perceptions:

1) Everything the West does, our economic systems, systems of government and cultural diversity is superior to everyone else's. We're right, they're wrong (with us, or against us). If you doubt this, then a look at mainstream Hollywood filmmaking will provide you with enough material to keep you going for a lifetime - history is altered and re-written to make the greatest democracy in the world the dominant power for good. Suggest it's a tad out of order to present history in this way and you're a 'liberal' (not in the Clegg sense), pinko, leftist etc etc. Wear a turban and suggest it, and you're an terrorist.

2) A complete inability to understand a foreign culture, a sad and rather embarrassing inability to attempt to see beyond the paper-thin stereotypes presented by government and media. This manifests itself in the fear of a people that openly express their faith; they pray five times a day, eschew alcohol and pork, dress in a certain way etc. The media loves Muslims who dress western style, young Muslims who drink and go to parties (they've become 'civilised' as they buy into a vapid consumerist culture). Moderate Muslims don't outwardly express their religion, but keep it hidden, just like us. Extremist Muslims wear turbans, hijabs, burkhas, beards etc


It's not difficult to find examples that illustrate this colonialist viewpoint, as this thread has proved. As T said, if we torture people it's a legitimate way of extracting valuable information, if they torture people it's because they are heartless and cruel and want to use it for propaganda or exacting bloodthirsty revenge. Our book, The New Testament is a fine example of how to live through the teachings of Jesus, meaning as a society "on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life." whilst the Quoran is apparently the source of universal Islamic hatred towards the west and it's people, a motivator for the conquering hordes to continue jihad "until I am politically subservient to Muslims".

T's view "All Muslims are not terrorists; but all terrorists nowadays seem to be Muslims" is so ignorant it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact people are dying because of it. T's statement ". . . over the past twenty years and more, we have seen supposedly devote Muslims kill quite a large number of pagans, people-of-book, apostates, fellow Muslims albeit of a different sect and even some of their own" illustrates the colonialist viewpoint that the savages, blinded by faith even turn on their own, a view that seems to ignore the tens of thousands of Muslims that killed because of belligerent western foreign policy. Iran, which has the temerity to attempt to defend itself when hemmed in on all sides by Western-backed and hostile regimes becomes a legitimate target for force when it doesn't do what we want it to (but then Iran is an evil state, as evidenced by the state-organised rallies that call for the demise of the US and UK, and apparently "In Tehran it happens every week and has happened every week for the last 31 years" . . . which may be true but certainly doesn't represent the views of the majority of this well-educated and modern country. Clue: it's meaningless state-run propaganda).

In the real world, we need as a society to thunder against this old colonialist attitude and have the wit and perception to see a person beyond " who the turbaned twat has just been listening to down the Mosque.". As long as Muslims are painted as some sort of inferior beings, unable to recognise what's good for themselves as we Westerners can then conflict will persist. In truth, it's time we got our house in order and dragged our attitudes into the 21st Century, and then we might understand as a society how counterproductive it is to force our values on others who have contributed enormously to philosophy, art, science and literature, indeed to the universal culture of our species.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 04:57 PM

Ten shots, rapid fire, straight into the bull Jack.

Perfect score.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM

Very, very well said Jack! I'd like to print and frame that.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:19 PM

by reasonable definition, 'terrorism' cannot be applied to an act of, or approved by, government The basis for the Afghanistan war was surely that the de facto government of that country backed Al Qaeda in its actions on 911. So according to that "reasonable definition" 911 was not an act of terrorism...

In fact the term "terrorist" actually appears to have been coined to refer specifically to government actions by those in the French government of the time who were responsible for the Reign of Terror. True, the way we use words changes over the years - but the essential element is common to those terrorists and to modern day terrorists - a policy of killing innocent people to achieve a political effect.

If someone explodes a bomb in a railway station in order to kill passengers as a way of affecting public opinion and morale it seems perverse to deny that that is a terrorist act just because the people carrying it out might owe allegiance to some government.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:24 PM

look richard bridges justifying torture! on another discussion he was denying that anyone is responsible when british soldier murder un armed civilians. he will stoop to defend any evil

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:25 PM

It's not even necessary to kill anyone to be committing an act of terrorism. Torturing is sufficient if it is being done to terrorize people into doing what you want them to do. Or maiming, or dissapearing people. All that's necessary for an act to be terrorism is for it do be done specifically to cause people to feel the emotion of terror for the purpose of controlling their behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 06:44 PM

i have twodifferent issues.first how many realize that the uk was convicted of torture before the european court for water boarding and other ttechniques.it was british special forces units that tought the americans the techniques they used in gitmo. britain has not amended its laws to cindorm to eu human right standards and can hence not fully participate in the eu.

torture has no use for civilized society.   in bridges silly scenario that could never really hapen a soldier or police man would likely break the law, however the law should be the same for all.   powerfull regimes like the british and american empires always torture anyone once you give permission to torture the people who do it torture anyone they don't like. you cannot alow this and maintain a democratic society.

as to carol c, she is totally misleading people as many pro islamic do that the status of "people of the book" means equality. they aren't killed and they can practice their religion but they cannot have any religious symbols appear in public, they must not walk on a side walk when a muslim is on the side walk, they can't hold any job with authority over a muslim, they cannot sue a muslim in court, they can't proseltize nor can they marry a muslim and they are restricted in their business occupations from most areas of higher learning or skilled trades. all this is in the koran or the hadith. many coutries have even more restrictive rules.   oh yeah they have to pay a head tax every year for being non muslims.

all these are major human rights violatons. anyone interested should read"the legacy of jihad" an historical study that extensively quotes from the major islamic clerics and jurisat throughout history,it includes especially the liberals. you will be shocked by the positions taken by the mystic al gallali and others.   yeah they don't kill people of the book but that's a standard so low it does not pass any modern test.

i sometimes thinbk that peole who support these laws should reci8eve them in our democracies and if they want full civil rights they should have to sign a declaration of support for the human rights declaration of the united nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:05 PM

"Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism "committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived enemies," which can be directed against both domestic and external enemies. The original general meaning of terrorism was of terrorism by the state, as reflected in the 1798 supplement of the Dictionnaire of the Academie Francaise, which described terrorism as systeme, regime de la terreur. Similarly, a terrorist in the late 18th century was considered any person "who attempted to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation." The terms "establishment terrorism," "terrorism from above" (as opposed to "terrorism from below" (terrorism by non-state groups), and "structural terrorism" are sometimes used to denote state terrorism."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:10 PM

as to carol c, she is totally misleading people as many pro islamic do that the status of "people of the book" means equality.

Please show me where I said it means equality, ollaimh.

they aren't killed and they can practice their religion but they cannot have any religious symbols appear in public, they must not walk on a side walk when a muslim is on the side walk, they can't hold any job with authority over a muslim, they cannot sue a muslim in court, they can't proseltize nor can they marry a muslim and they are restricted in their business occupations from most areas of higher learning or skilled trades. all this is in the koran or the hadith. many coutries have even more restrictive rules.   oh yeah they have to pay a head tax every year for being non muslims.

Where is this the case, ollaimh?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:58 AM

A) Teribus' viewpoint (which comes over as a bit hysterical Daily Mail harpy) perfectly reflects the West's attitude toward the Muslim world and other cultures unfamiliar to us.

Sugarfoot are you telling everyone that "my view" perfectly reflects the majority opinion of the "West" towards the Muslim World and other cultures unfamiliar to us? By the way what is "The Muslim World?" when its at home??

PS: We, "the-big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west" seem to get on with the vast majority of the world, and we do not seem to be too shy in coming forward when disaster strikes or when financial assistance is required for development.

B) It's typical of the colonialist viewpoint the West has had for the past 300-plus years; it's anachronistic and backward but it persists in all levels of society, from government downward.

Really?? Haven't noticed it

C) But please let us have a good look at these perceptions you accuse the majority in the West of having:

1) Everything the West does, our economic systems, systems of government and cultural diversity is superior to everyone else's.

Astonished to hear you promote that opinion Sugarfoor Jack, I say you because I do not believe I have heard anyone other than you state that, certainly not on this thread. But let's face it that is pure supposition isn't it Jack, please do not attempt to present it as fact. Although, I would venture the opinion that in many instances on examination it may well prove to be verifiably true. One question though: how can one's cultural diversity be superior to anyone else's? As Royston is printing this and framing it, maybe he could enlighten us all on that subject.

2) We're right, they're wrong (with us, or against us).

Irrelevant rubbish, what on earth are you talking about?

3) If you doubt this, then a look at mainstream Hollywood filmmaking will provide you with enough material to keep you going for a lifetime - history is altered and re-written to make the greatest democracy in the world the dominant power for good. Suggest it's a tad out of order to present history in this way and you're a 'liberal' (not in the Clegg sense), pinko, leftist etc etc. Wear a turban and suggest it, and you're an terrorist.

Ah we are back to "Wag The Dog" are we Sugarfoot? I would suggest that anybody who forms an opinion on anything based on the output from "Hollywood" needs to have their bumps read.

Just in case you haven't cottoned on Sugarfoot:

HOLLYWOOD = PURE FANTASY = PURE ENTERTAINMENT

HOLLYWOOD IS NOT RELATED TO FACT

HOLLYWOOD HAS NEVER PRESENTED HISTORY ANYONE WITH THE SIMPLEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION COULD TELL YOU THAT.


4) A complete inability to understand a foreign culture, a sad and rather embarrassing inability to attempt to see beyond the paper-thin stereotypes presented by government and media.

OH I think history shows that Sugarfoot's "big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west" was rather good at understanding foreign culture and down through those 300 years he was wittering on about we got on rather well with foreign cultures, there again if Sugarfoot is taking Holywood as his historical reference then there would be little point in attempting to discuss this seriously. As to an inability to see beyond stereotypes, in his post Sugarfoot has shown that that very sin applies more to him than to me.

5) This manifests itself in the fear of a people that openly express their faith; they pray five times a day, eschew alcohol and pork, dress in a certain way etc.

Have I a fear of people who openly express their faith?? I cannot remember saying that or ever experiencing that in all of my travels and I have been working round the world since leaving school. Taking into account that I have spent more of my life outside the UK than living in it, I would back my experience of the world and understanding of foreign cultures against most writing here (particulary judging by what they write).

6) The media loves Muslims who dress western style, young Muslims who drink and go to parties (they've become 'civilised' as they buy into a vapid consumerist culture). Moderate Muslims don't outwardly express their religion, but keep it hidden, just like us. Extremist Muslims wear turbans, hijabs, burkhas, beards etc

Ah Sugarfoot the media, almost as reliable as Hollywood, more myth and entertainment. Do you actually believe what the media tells you Sugarfoot? If you do then all I can say is that I truly pity you, you should learn to be a bit more enquiring and question a bit more. I know that that is what you think you are doing but you are not.

This I found hilarious:

It's not difficult to find examples that illustrate this colonialist viewpoint, as this thread has proved. As T said, if we torture people it's a legitimate way of extracting valuable information, if they torture people it's because they are heartless and cruel and want to use it for propaganda or exacting bloodthirsty revenge.

Excuse me but when did I say that it is legitimate to torture people?

What was originally said and what I reacted to was the patently false statement:

That torture does not work

I merely pointed out the plain fact is that it does and has worked as a successful way of gaining vital information that has saved lives many times.

I have no idea how many of those contributing here have actually seen the decapitation videos sent out by the terrorists who proclaim themselves to be devout muslims fighting for their religion. The content of those videos can only be described as heartless and cruel, their only function was for propaganda purposes and their stated purpose was for exacting bloodthirsty revenge. The people killed in this cack-handed and particularly gruesome fashion had no information to give. So perhaps some of the apologists could offer up some other reason why those people WERE tortured.

A terrorist once caught can chose exactly how easy he wants to make it on himself, or herself, a choice he or she most certainly never gave their victims.

Our book, The New Testament is a fine example of how to live through the teachings of Jesus, meaning as a society "on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life." whilst the Quoran is apparently the source of universal Islamic hatred towards the west and it's people, a motivator for the conquering hordes to continue jihad "until I am politically subservient to Muslims".

Now if Sugarfoot Jack takes his foot out of his mouth or extracts his head from his fundament and goes back and checks the comment :

"on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life."

He would note that the comparison there was to general Christian beliefs in Europe which are more based on New Testament teachings as opposed to the Christian Sects in the USA who cling more to the Old Testament. Resulting from Royston and CarolC who rushed to list a load of bollocks from US translations of the Bible, all quotions bar one coming from the Old Testament. In short Jack you have quoted me out of context, there was no comparison to the Quran as you infer in your comment quoted above.

T's view "All Muslims are not terrorists; but all terrorists nowadays seem to be Muslims" is so ignorant it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact people are dying because of it.

Really?? Well then Jack give me figures and statistics that prove that quotation ( Yes Jack it is a quotation it is not my view) to be incorrect.

Since 1970 Jack round the world there have been some 2016 Terrorist Incidents, Muslims have been responsible for between 60 to 70% of them. Not a bad proportion considering what else was going on in the world in those forty years, but the figures serve to support the claim in the quotation not counter it.

T's statement ". . . over the past twenty years and more, we have seen supposedly devote Muslims kill quite a large number of pagans, people-of-book, apostates, fellow Muslims albeit of a different sect and even some of their own" illustrates the colonialist viewpoint that the savages, blinded by faith even turn on their own, a view that seems to ignore the tens of thousands of Muslims that killed because of belligerent western foreign policy.

Please Sugarfoot Jack by all means prove the observation, and it is just that a simple straightforward observation based on fact, wrong. In both Iraq and in Afghanistan the percentages of innocent civilians killed (majority of them being Muslims) by fellow Muslims (Iraq - Foreign Jihadists; Ba'athist Insurgents; Sectarian Militias; Criminal Gangs) 80% and (Afghanistan - Taleban and Al-Qaeda) 79% Again tends to support that which you refer to as "the colonialist viewpoint" Of course it has got nothing to do with colonialism at all, but it gives Sugarfoot something to grab hold off that his "right-on-lefty-socialist-anti-capitalist" pals can mindlessly and unquestionably accept, chant about and support in order to promote a feeling of solidarity.

Iran, which has the temerity to attempt to defend itself when hemmed in on all sides by Western-backed and hostile regimes becomes a legitimate target for force when it doesn't do what we want it to (but then Iran is an evil state, as evidenced by the state-organised rallies that call for the demise of the US and UK, and apparently "In Tehran it happens every week and has happened every week for the last 31 years" . . . which may be true but certainly doesn't represent the views of the majority of this well-educated and modern country. Clue: it's meaningless state-run propaganda).

Oh the heartfelt indignation!! The temerity to attempt to defend itself - From what FFS!!

Hemmed in on all sides by Western-backed hostile regimes!!! - Complete and utter bollocks Have a look at the states bordering Iran.

Turkey - No threat, never has been
Iraq - Definitely a threat under Saddam Hussein but that threat has now been removed by the "big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west". Iran's Revolutionary Guards engages with subversive groups intent on destabilisation of the Iraqi Government.
Kuwait - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Saudi Arabia - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Bahrain - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Qatar - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Doha - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Dubai - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Oman - No threat, never has been
Pakistan - No threat although anti-Government groups in Iran are supported from groups inside Baluchistan.
Afghanistan - Threat greatly reduced since UN intervened in 2001. The number of casualties and fatalities in cross border incidents centred mainly around smuggling of drugs and weapons is staggering.
Turkmenistan - No threat, never has been
Azebaijan - No threat, never has been
Armenia - No threat, never has been

Iran has for the last thirty years been the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the region. With the exception of Iraq it has done more to destabilise the region than any other power and of course we all know who was responsible for removing Iraq from the top of the list. Iran has signed treaties and agreed to abide by international agreements and played fast and loose with them. At last, now that "apologist-in-chief" Mohammed El-Baradei has retired, we now have someone at the Head of the IAEA who is prepared to call a spade a spade - It is now the considered opinion of the IAEA that Iran is working towards acquiring a nuclear weapon.

As long as Muslims are painted as some sort of inferior beings, unable to recognise what's good for themselves as we Westerners can then conflict will persist.

OK then Sugarfoot let us take a couple of examples shall we:

Child A: Carried to full term in pregnancy, with mother attended all the way through by a state funded free medical service. The child then grows up and enters first nursery school and then full-time education, where the child is taught to read, to write and to count. Further free education is available to that child who is computer literate and has at his/her command everything the internet can provide up to the age of eighteen. The child as he/she grows up is fully backed by the state and theoretically has every opportunity to do whatever he/she wishes.

Child B: Born premature to a child bride, with the most rudimentary attendance through pregnancy if indeed any, prohibited from receiving any medical help whatsoever. Child grows up and enters whatever education system is available, this normally is a Madrassa. If the child is female education stops at the age of seven (in a few years time she too will be a child bride and become pregnant) if a boy the education consists of learning to recite the Quran, this is a mindless chant in a language the boy will not understand, he is told what these ramblings mean by the Mullah or Imam in charge of his education. The child has no idea at all if what he has been told is the truth, he has no means or background to question or reason, he gets used to accepting what his religious leaders tell him believing it absolutely. The child as he/she grows is backed up solely by their own shadow on the floor and is to all intent and purpose a gullible fool to be manipulated as their religious betters see fit.

Extremes, yes certainly, but those conditions exist and have been documented. OK Sugarfoot which childhood would you opt for and recommend? Which childhood would any sane person opt for as being the more beneficial, not only for the child in question for mankind in general. Are you more likely to find Child A in the west?

You then have the unmitigated gall, nay the temerity to come out with this crap:

In truth, it's time we got our house in order and dragged our attitudes into the 21st Century, and then we might understand as a society how counterproductive it is to force our values on others who have contributed enormously to philosophy, art, science and literature, indeed to the universal culture of our species.

Oh by the bye Sugarfoot - you know all these supposed contributions to:

"philosophy, art, science and literature, indeed to the universal culture of our species"

It would pay you check up on how many of the ones claimed by Muslims that actually were the contributions of those the Moors conquered or pre-date the founding of their religion.

A colonialist view, anachronistic and backward?? Well Sugarfoot that sure as hell would explain the advances made over the last 300 years wouldn't it. Advances and benefits that you most certainly have taken full advantage of as evidenced in your ability to write and say what you do without fear of consequence. In comparing my life to that my ancestors of 300 years ago, have things improved? Most certainly they have, I can see that as plain as a pikestaff looking back only as far as my grand-fathers generation compared to that of my children and Sugarfoot, if you cannot do that then, basically old son, you're living in the wrong place, evolution is about improvement.

To you someone who has what you call a colonialist view and who is anachronistic and backward, is someone who, unlike you, does not believe that everything that is wrong in the world is automatically our fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:58 AM

100 Up