BS: Torture in a civilised world

Subject: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:11 AM

Can anyone explain how any government could come to think that the kind of behaviour evidenced in this case might help in the struggle to contain terrorism?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:20 AM

I give up. Why?

Torture is a stupid way to elicit information anyway -- the victim just tells you what you want to hear just to make the pain stop for a while. The Spanish Inquisition, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Great Britain, Germany, France, and even the US eventually learned that, too late for a lot of folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 12:28 PM

I'm afraid that some of those countries so far seem to have learnt very little.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:44 PM

Civilized? Since when?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:55 PM

I'd always thought We British Weren't Like Those Foreigners. Till I discovered what they'd done to some German prisoners after WWII. Some of them were guilty of war crimes; others certainly were innocent. The methods they used would have made Dominicans wince. Of course, useful war criminals were protected.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:04 PM

My assumption has been that the real story here has been that the apparent reluctance of the US authorities to come clean about this has largely been a way of doing a favour to the British government, who wanted to cover up the British role in this kind of torture.

Maybe now we'll find out. But I have a suspicion there'll still be continued efforts to cover up stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776750618788792499&hl=en#

Pay particular attention to the footage that starts at around 1:24:50 to see how the US and Britain aren't so different from each other. But watch the whole video.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 09:36 PM

As far as torture is concerned, CarolC, it would be hard to deny now that Westminster turns out to be guilty, at least by association.

The particular incident you've drawn attention to in the video is a different matter. This is further proof, were it needed, that people put in power over others will sometimes abuse that power to the point of depravity. The tendency is so pronounced and seems to be so widespread as to be part of the human condition.

What is sickening about the Binyam Mohamed case is what it tells us not about the behaviour of thug squaddies on the front line in the heat of the night, but about the behaviour of democratically accountable governments in the cold light of day, with time and distance to reflect.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 10:14 PM

One thing we can say though is that at least the government of the UK is holding the hearings. Here in the US, we're acting like we think there's no such thing as the rule of law.

However, I expect that the soldiers in question weren't an example of people who have power over others abusing it to the point of depravity. I think it much more likely that they were behaving in a way that they believed they were expected to behave by their superiors.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:21 AM

The problem is the old "what if"?

What if you have captured someone who admits having kidnapped a child and imprisoned her in a small airtight hidden chamber and is saying "The child will now die. She will die if I stay here, and since I cannot trust you to ignore my crimes, I will take my revenge on the world by letting her die even if you release me now. And no, I will not tell you where she is, purely to prevent you rescuing her".

Do you then use torture to extract the information of where the child is, or do you leave the child to die?

And if you will use torture then, what if you are sure, but the captive does not admit?

How sure do you have to be?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:32 AM

Once you cross the line there is no line.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:37 AM

Even without the torture I find it quite disturbing. Along with many hundreds of others this man was held, without trial, for 7 years before being released without charge.

This could happen to me, you or anyone without so much as nod toward innocent until proven guilty.

Sickening.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:20 AM

Those kind of made-up scenarios Richard gave there don't reflect the real situations where torture appears to have been routinely used on random captives like Binyam Mohammed.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:28 AM

Oh, absolutely right McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:58 AM

Richard Bridge

"What if you have captured someone who admits having kidnapped a child....."

I brought up the same scenario quite some time ago.

I'm against wholesale torture, much the same as I'm against wholesale capital punishment. Although, I strongly believe that circumstances have, are and will present themselves where both of these extreme measures should be used!!!
Many against execution want them locked up for the rest of their lives and I wonder if these same people are aware of the other people they've murdered after being incarcerated. There is one way and one way only to ensure that they never commit the same crime again!
John Wayne Gacey, Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Henry Lee Lucas......are the kind of people who should not be permitted to live out their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:25 AM

"John Wayne Gacey, Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Henry Lee Lucas......are the kind of people who should not be permitted to live out their lives."

The biggest problem I have with that, is who do we trust to make the decision about who gets executed and who doesn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:43 AM

I'd always thought We British Weren't Like Those Foreigners. Till I discovered what they'd done to some German prisoners after WWII.

Right. Only after WW2. There was no bowstring, no "peine forte et dure", no Little Close, no boiling, no branding, no whipping at the tail of the cart, no burning, no racking, no brank, no ducking stools, no drawing and quartering, no pillory, no stocks....

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:47 AM

That's a tough one to answer, but to steal a line from another country: "We The People"!
"The Preamble serves solely as an introduction and does not assign powers to the federal government".

I'm not a big fan of The United Nations. As a Canadian, my emotions are mixed, mostly because of the following about Lester Bowles(Mike Pearson;

Pearson drafted the speech in which Prime Minister St. Laurent proposed the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), signed the enabling treaty in 1949, headed the Canadian delegation to NATO until 1957, and functioned as chairman of the NATO Council in 1951-1952. Pearson also headed the Canadian delegation to the UN from 1946 to 1956, being elected to the presidency of the Seventh Session of the General Assembly in 1952-1953. As chairman of the General Assembly's Special Committee on Palestine, he laid the groundwork for the creation of the state of Israel in 1947. In the Suez crisis of 1956, when the United Kingdom, France, and Israel invaded Egyptian territory, Pearson proposed and sponsored the resolution which created a United Nations Emergency Force to police that area, thus permitting the invading nations to withdraw with a minimum loss of face. For this he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize!

Gotta start somewhere!

You have to find out what you can agree on first. I'm not a big fan of "reasonable doubt". I don't think I'd ever want anyone executed solely on eyewitness testimony(most unreliable evidence that can be presented in court), physical evidence(can be planted), DNA can be screwed up(not to mention corrupted).

Some people walk this planet that really don't deserve to take one more breath!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:47 AM

What Dave MacKenzie said.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:17 PM

Richard: The "ticking-clock" example that you outlined was not really very realistic was it?

Dave MacKenzie: Once you cross the line there is no line. Very black and white and a bit simplistic.

The "ticking-clock" that I, and many others, used to be faced with during my time in the Navy was centred around a thing called "Operation Awkward".

This covers an attack on ships at anchor, or in harbour, by divers. Now with the ship in harbour it is not so bad, as immediate evacuation of the ship is possible. But at anchor it becomes slightly more serious.

Anyway you capture one of the divers (Normally they muster 12 attack swimmers and they draw straws to find out which ones are to get captured, its normally about 6 of them). What the interrogating Officers onboard the ship needs to know and know quickly is:

- What ships have been attacked, which ships have mined.

- Number of targets, size and types of mines laid.

- When are the mines set to detonate.

Under such circumstances would enhanced interrogation be appropriate?

Once you cross the line there is no line. Eh?

Without a seconds hesitation pal.

Every ship that goes through work-up prior to joining the Fleet goes through this exercise and I have had experience of those exercises from the point of view of divers onboard the target ship tasked with carrying out hull searches, and as an attack swimmer actually planting mines.

According to the latest reports our little Ethiopian "back-packer" instead of having his genitals carved and sculpted as previously reported apparently was:

- Deprived of sleep;

- Verbally abused in that it was hinted at that he might be disappeared;

- Plus while all this was going on he was hand-cuffed to a chair.

This was deemed by some Judge to be "torture"

Where can I fill out my claim forms, because the treatment described above was absolutely bugger all to what we had to endure in a bloody training exercises for an extra tot.

As for Rapaire's

Torture is a stupid way to elicit information anyway -- the victim just tells you what you want to hear just to make the pain stop for a while.

Complete and utter rubbish of course. There are a number of very good examples throughout history where vital information was obtained under torture. One of the most notable being the Seige of Vienna in 1529, the city was saved as a result of information wrung from two spies by torture. It was the first defeat ever inflicted on Suleiman the Magnificent, the second of course came a few years later in 1565 in Malta. But his defeat before the gates of Vienna was credited with saving Europe from conquest by the Turks, was it worth it?? Absolutely.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 01:44 PM

Just sod off you bloody barbarian. Your mind is trashed.

Rapaire: Prisoners tortured by the British.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Art Thieme
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 02:31 PM

Even Al Capone was thought to be deserving of his legal rights and his day in court before he was put away in prison. But now, assassination without any due process is the new norm for those who are haphazardly designated as enemies in this civilized world.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:00 PM

So if we are imagining scenarios, how about the one where you bring in the captives child and you torture her, or stick a gun to her head, as a way of getting information from the father? That one OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:28 PM

Hey, CarolC! That's an hour-and-a-half video. Before I commit to watching it, can you tell me what it's about? Or point me to a summary?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:57 PM

You can watch it in increments by clicking on the video frames below the main viewing screen. You don't have to watch it all at once.

It examines the track record of the US in the context of its wars and its global ambitions. It covers a lot of material, which is why it's so long.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 06:37 PM

That Teribus chose the military is just one more example of how prone the armed services are to attracting "the wrong sort" - ie the sort who lack the brainpower to do anything else and like hurting people.

The link provided by Paul Burke recounted British atrocities carried out within a year of the UK and its WW2 Allies executing among others a decent soldier, General Jodl, following a travesty of a trial at Nuremberg. More proof, were it needed, that victors' justice is at best rank hypocrisy, and that war-crime courts and tribunals invariably stand on shaky ethical foundations. (The more so when the strongest nation on earth places itself above them.) As Solzhenitsyn said (possibly quoting someone else?) "the line between good and evil passes through every man's heart."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 08:16 PM

The problem isn't that war crimes by people on the losing side are treated as crimes, it's that crimes carried out by the winning side are not.

Wars of aggression are criminal whether you win them or lose them.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 09:05 AM

I suspect that many, while feeling it is morally and ethically rerehensible to torture anything, have a deep down feeling that somehow they may show a little lenience if someone was holding a child who may die. I do not like confessing I am guilty of such thoughts BUT I would not go through with them nor allow them. It's just that basic instinct I suspect to help try save the child. The reason I could not and cannot accept it is that if I/we do, just once, then we subscribe to the whole idea of torture for truth. We could have someone who knows when a bomb is going off so we have to save lots of people. So we torture to get the truth again. We simply cannot.

The idea expressed that "one the line is crossed there is no line" is quite correct and chillingly so.

So I will take no moral high ground here and say I an against torture without at least admitting that, in some scenarios, I have thought it *may* be okay. Of course, morally and ethically I know we should not and that is how it has to be no matter how much the other side would do it. We are trying to show our way as right and proper. Questions as above touch a darker side to me sadly.

All that said....

what of so called-truth drugs? Any harm there?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 09:44 AM

Truth drugs are apparently illegal too and seen as a torture technique


I found the above: it's a no no though I cannot find why it is seen as torture

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 10:00 AM

As far as torture is concerned, CarolC, it would be hard to deny now that Westminster turns out to be guilty, at least by association. - Peter K ("the right sort" Fionn)

With what has been reported and trotted out by both sides in this affair so far I would say that it has all but become impossible for Binyam Mohamed to prove his case against MI5.

BM left UK (on false papers??) in June 2001 he went to Pakistan and then went to Afghanistan where he went to the Al-Qaeda, Al-Farouq camp where he was trained in the use of small arms, explosives, use of terrain, simple coding and falsifying of documents.

On 10th April 2002 he was arrested in Karachi Airport attempting to leave the country on a false Passport (He obviously had "dipped" the falsifying of documents part of his Al-Qaeda finishing school). Considering the events happening in that neck of the woods around this time, old Binyam could not be described as being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Considering where he had been and what he had been doing, his preferred route home travelling on the papers he had appears to have been as sensible as and somewhat akin to somebody sticking their head in a lions mouth and kicking it in the bollocks.

Held by the ISI he told told them that he had been trained to go and fight in Chechnya and had no intention of attacking Americans. Exactly how he thought that that would get him off the hook I do not have the foggiest notion.

He is held in Karachi from April to July being interrogated (we have no idea of the frequency of the interviews) and at some time in those three months he is interviewed by an official from either MI5 or MI6 (although I think it has now been established it was MI5)

There was only that one single interview and until he landed back in the UK last year to leap onboard the gravy train that is NULiebour-PC-wracked Britain nobody from MI5 saw Binyam Mohamed again.

Back to our tale as told by the ACLU. Binyam is now flown out of Karachi to Morocco where he is held for 18 months. It was in Morocco that he details graphically for the benefit of public opinion the torture undergone during his stay.

18 months on from July 2002 brings us to January 2004 when Binyam Mohamed is flown to Bagram Air Base Afghanistan. Where according to his account to ACLU interrogations took place on almost a daily basis. As part of the interrogation process he was shown pictures of Afghanis and Pakistanis and was interrogated about the story behind each picture. Although Mohamed knew none of the persons pictured, he would invent stories about them so as to avoid further torture. - Absolutely the very last thing that he should have done, definitely the very worst thing could have done.

His stay in Afghanistan lasted until September 2004 when he was flown to Guantanamo.

Exactly how this non-British Subject and non-British Passport Holder (his forged one doesn't count) ended up back in the UK could only be explained by either Cherie Blair, High Court Judge, or some gormless NULiebour politician, he certainly had no rightful claim to return, being after all an Ethiopian citizen, but none-the-less he clues up on our shores in 2009 and starts this circus.

The charge against MI5 is that they colluded in his torture:

Definition: To collude - to agree or co-operate secretly for a fraudulent or otherwise illegal purpose.

Did MI5 agree to Binyam Mohamed's torture? Were they ever told about it? More importantly did they know of any torture prior to that single interview? Binyam Mohamed and his legal team of course have to prove that they did know it for fact, and that will be hard for them to do. MI5 on the other hand being the defendant do not have to prove anything.

Did MI5 co-operate in the torture of Binyam Mohamed? Hardly the only time they ever saw him was during the course of one single interview in Karachi weeks before he was spirited off to Morocco and torture (according to what Binyam Mohamed told the ACLU).

As Binyam Mohamed was an Ethiopian travelling on a forged British passport were the British Authorities in Morocco, the FCO and MI5 kept informed by the US, or the Moroccans about the Binyam Mohamed?? I do not think so.

Questions put to Binyam concerning his time in the UK while he was in Morocco he claims could only have come from MI5, but no-one from MI5 interrogated him in Morocco the questions put to him came from the US who had received them in written form from MI5, so exactly how on earth could MI5 know how Binyam Mohamed was being treated let alone have colluded with his interrogators. The whole thing is a complete and utter nonsense, apart from the aspect of it seriously damaging the sharing of intelligence between the USA and the UK in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 10:33 AM

Sadly for the US spooks, they need British intelligence, so Teribus may rest assured that the relationship is completely unaffected, notwithstanding a little bit of huffing and puffing here and there.

Knowing that it takes only a handful of words from me to provoke poor T into an interminable ramble that keeps him out of trouble for an hour or two conveys a great sense of power. I must be careful not to abuse it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 10 - 11:03 AM

Rather think that we need them more than they need us Right Stuff

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 09:44 AM

Actually, the use of torture will ensure that the conflict will continue--for generations. It's the best thing going for Blackwater and the military-industrial-complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:14 AM

War does not determine who is right!

It merely determines who is left!

Don T.

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

The conflict will continue for generations Riginslinger for as long as a bunch of idiots.

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.

Seems odd that those rushing to defend these clowns gather together talking on what is supposed to be a music site - That would go to the wall for a start wouldn't it if the Taliban had their say.

So far as can be seen both sides have used torture and one side has a very good track record of ritualistic slaughter of those who fall into its hands. But all of that Riginslinger is just a side show and a complete irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:21 AM

""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.

Yeah, T.

It's a bugger innit, trying to find a way to make them sound worse than the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the conquistadores, and the Phelps family?

So you fall back on the good old Hitlerian ploy of tarring all of them with the fundamentalist brush, and ignoring the fact that a small minority of extremists are the problem,.......ON BOTH SIDES!

You are a very sick individual.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM

It's a bugger innit, trying to find a way to make them sound worse than the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the conquistadores, and the Phelps family?

trying to find a way to make them sound worse than

What on earth are you talking about??

Are we ever likely to embark on a "Crusade" of over 800 years ago. No of course we are not so what is the relevance? None at all. Oh by the way in the current stramash it was your good friend OBL or his second-in-command who first mentioned the word "Crusade" in the mid 1990's.

The Spanish Inquisition?? Well you have moved forwards about 500 years in time but equally as irrelevant and you bloody well know it. Were Al-Qaeda and Wahabbist Islam were to behave as introvertedly as the Spanish Inquisition the world would be in a damn sight better shape than it is today. When you come out with crap like this at times I wonder if you really know what you are talking about.

The Conquistadores?? the English learned their lessons on how not to behave from the Conquistadores over 400 years ago. Good God Don T have you ever read, or studied ANY HISTORY????

So I am:

ignoring the fact that a small minority of extremists are the problem,.......ON BOTH SIDES!

Bollocks mate, you tell me where and when Christians, Hindus, Shikhs, Bhuddists or whatever other religion on this earth hijacked and crashed aeroplanes into buildings.

You tell me which religions on this earth declare that anyone who does not follow their faith can be slaughtered.

You state that in your opinion that I am:

"a very sick individual

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion

You on the other hand are a complete and utter Fucking Idiot and when terror does come knocking at your door and you personally have felt the pain and loss occaisioned by their intolerance. Whatever you do DON T please do not broadcast on any forum that I might read your pain and anguish, because if you do I will laugh in your face and tell you in no uncertain terms that you have reaped what you have sown by ignoring every warning that you and yours were given. Bloody well live with it and be thankful.

Now tell me what I have written and what you have quoted is not true:

"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."

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

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 03:04 PM

Bollocks mate, you tell me where and when Christians

Rge crusades

Hindus

Try Indian partition

Shikhs

Golden Temple

Bhuddists (your spelling, ignorant shite)

Indonesia 1960s- gamelans playing while they burned communists alive

or whatever other religion on this earth hijacked and crashed aeroplanes into buildings.

Why is that the only criterion, apart from the fact that you are a barbarian turd?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 03:26 PM

Could we now just pack this chap up with some sandwiches, and a Thermos flask of weak lemon drink, and put him on a plane back to Ethiopa where he belongs? Or do English solicitors wish to rung another few hundred thousand pounds out of our legal aid system on his behalf?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM

Teribus:

"The conflict will continue for generations Riginslinger for as long as a bunch of idiots.

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.

Swap "Religion" for "Economic Imperialism", and you could be talking about the Anglo-America neo-con pact.

Al Qaeda's immediate wishes are pretty simple - fuck off out of the Middle East, stop arming lunatic despotic religious cranks to subjugate their people (the house of Saud) and leave us alone.

The war in Afghanistan / Pakistan is the real deal for freedom and the safety of ordinary, innocent people. The Taliban must be stopped. But to replace them with Karzai - WTF is that about? And just look at how we have failed our troops there.

Iraq / Iran / Sordid Arabia - oil and gas. There's nothing else to it. And the slaughter that we have caused in Iraq is beyond shameful. Compared to that carnage, 9/11 and 7/7 barely register.

Civilised world? Really?

I find it hard at times to differentiate the two sides on this terror war - very apt name for it.

In answer to the OP, some things are black and white and must be so. If all this fighting is for a world where the rights of the individual are sacred, then there can never be a reason for breaching the rights of any individual. It really is as simple as that. No ifs, no buts. No negotiations.

The alternative is that you decide rights are limited, the limits are arbitrary and can be set at the whim of more powerful individuals who only need justify their acts to themselves.

And then we are the same as the people we claim to be opposed to.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM

Burke, no better name for someone who spouts the absolute complete and utter crap that pours forth from your mouth.

The bloody crusades were over 800 years ago the world has moved on apace since then please do try and catch up your fucking prat. Do you honestly expect me or anyone else to creep round this world wearing sackcloth and ashes in penitence for something that happened 800 years ago? If you are looking for me to do so you can Fuck Off -Got the message.

No Hindu has ever threatened me or mine or challenged my right to believe in whatever faith I may hold dear.

Same thing can be said for Buddhist (that better, let me refer Bobert to you when he needs his spelling corrected); Shikhs; or any other religious sect under the sun.

The only repeat ONLY religion that calls for my death as an non-believer is the Muslim faith. Now please, Great Burke (and I mean that sincerely because I do believe that you are indeed a great Burke) corrector of spellings tell me I am wrong. Tell me that I can import bibles into Saudi Arabia, tell me that I can carry out Christian missionary work there amongst the poor. Tell me that I can build in that fair land a Christian House of prayer. If you do you would be lying from your back teeth, attempt any of that old son and you would be strung up. Likewise tell me it was not a collection of misbegotten sons of bitches, and followers of the Muslim faith, who hijacked four aircraft on the 11th September 2001 and crashed them into buildings killing nearly 3000 people.

Why is that the only criterion, apart from the fact that you are a barbarian turd?

Just one question for you Burke old son:

Do people ever comment on the fact of what a shame it was that your father never settled for the blow-job your mother offered him the night you were conceived?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM

Royston if Al-Qaeda's immediate wishes are as you suggest what do you think their long term aims are? Or are you too bashful to put those down in print?

If you are in any doubt as to what they are look them up as written and declared in 1998 by their great leader Osama bin Laden.

Perhaps you could also explain exactly how the appeal to all muslims to kill US citizens, men, women and children everywhere and anywhere in the world promotes the appeal to, as you say:

fuck off out of the Middle East, stop arming lunatic despotic religious cranks to subjugate their people (the house of Saud) and leave us alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 07:20 PM

Psychological studies and experiments have shown that about 50% of any population will participate in administering torture when told to do so by authority figures.

That means there is a 50-50 likelyhood that you are willing and capable of torture under the right circumstances even if you think differently at this moment.

If you have noticed that there is a lot of cruel people out there you can see why. There is about 10& who always take an evil delight in torturing but the other 40% feel they are just following orders, but after awhile even more of that 40% begin to enjoy their authority to inflict cruelty pain and even death.

Politicians that preach that there are two Americas or that the JEWS are to blame for Germany's economic woes or that the HUTU's are to be executed or that the Sunnis are evil and the Shiites good and vice versa, are all using the same proven basic human failings to do their neighbor harm.

By year 5 of the George Bush years we came damn close to a regieme that supported harm and violence against the "less patriotic" Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 07:24 PM

Tereibus you will be happy to learn that Ossama Bin Ladens approval ratings are down compared to 2 years ago. They are down by about the same margin that Sarah Palin's approval ratings have dropped.
Obama's approval ratings are also down but only 1/3 as much as Palin and bin Laden.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 01:02 AM

Jews and Christians are not considered to be "infidels" by Muslims. They are considered (and this is in the Quran), to be Muslims' "brothers and sisters of the Book" (Bible), and they are commanded by their Prophet to treat their brothers and sisters of the book with respect and kindness. The people who are referred to in the Quran as "infidels" are Pagans. The Bible is considered to be a foundational document of the religion of Islam. So the Christians and Jews have nothing to worry about (and I suspect that most Pagans aren't particularly worried, either). People who say otherwise are promoting a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 01:11 AM

Donuel, Iraq and Afghanistan have proved to be nothing like the "Recruiting Sergeants" for Al-Qaeda that most here claim and the reason for that is simple. In both places the insurgency found that the Pro-Government Forces fought back quite successfully when attacked so the insurgents resorted to terrorising civilians and killing them in large numbers. Quite naturally it then became relatively easy for the PGF to demonstrate that they were protectors and the populations turned to them. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's second in command criticised Zarqawi actions in Iraq and blamed him for Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq's failure there. Al-Qaeda's poll ratings in the "Muslim World" started to plummet when it was seen that all Al-Qaeda was doing was killing fellow Muslims.

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

Oh CarolC the Quran is the most ambiguous Book ever written and what it says depends on how the person reading it wants to interpret it.

Very nice to know that Christians, Jews and Pagans have nothing to worry about, nothing to worry about at all if they convert to Islam, or if they pay their tax to their world wide Islamic Caliphate (Pssst Royston, old son the establishment of that last bit in Italics IS their long term goal).

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 01:31 AM

The Quran is very clear that the "brothers and sisters of the Book" are to be treated with respect and kindness.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 01:40 AM

Also, there is no ambiguity whatever about the Bible being a foundational document of Islam. It absolutely is. And all of the people in the Bible who are revered by Christians and Jews are also revered by Musilms. Islam is seen by Muslims as being an outgrowth of Judaism and Christianity. Islam is built on the foundations of Judaism and Christianity, and this is how Muslims see it. According to Islam, the Prophet took the holy books of the Jews and the Christians, and added to them further communication from God (Allah is nothing more than the Arabic word for "God"). Trying to separate the Bible from Islamic belief would be like cutting off your legs and then trying to stand up.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 04:14 AM

Teribus - a word of advice. Don't try to argue with CarolC ~ her only talent is to contrive to combine the narrowest of credulity (like believing ~ or purporting to believe ~ that the Koran has one single unambiguous meaning thruout which all Muslims understand completely) with disingenuous constant groundshifting evasiveness of the main point. You might as well try to stop a bandersnatch; or spend a constructive hour or two bashing your head against a brick wall.