BS: Torture!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 05:14 PM

Feel free to delete my last post as it has no bearing on the thread-Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 05:39 PM

"Teribus, since this thread is about torture, tell me how many of those you listed above have been tortured?"

Exactly so, irishenglish!

I have noted in the past that Teribus has a tendency to pad his "refutations" wiht a lot of extraneous and irrelevant information, apparently attempting to stun by the sheer volume of his post.

And by the way, irishenglish, I agree with the rest of your post, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 06:15 PM

Please understand Teribus is harmless, a little imaginative maybe. You find those that served in a support capacity in the armed services tend to regret they were not more mainstream, handled weapons, saw overseas service, stories to tell grandchildren. This poor guy has only menu sheets to show.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:57 AM

Well, well. An Army cook, eh ?

Who called the cook a bastard ?

Who called the bastard a cook ?

After dicussion in the Mess, following the Cream of Cockroach soup, and the Ptomaine Curry, who durst say that an Army cook knows naught of torture ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Gervase
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM

As far as I know Teribus has never claimed to have been in the Army. And I'm sure he would probably be most insulted if anyone made that assumption, as - to the best of my knowledge - he had the misfortune to serve in the Navy.
Do you have a serious point to make, Guest WK, or do you just get your thrills from gadding about and making snide remarks?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 06:19 AM

In her post of 23 Apr 08 (04:45 PM) irishenglish had some questions for me:

1)Teribus, tell me how many of those you listed above have been tortured?
2) Tell me how many were tortured that provided names and locations for us to be able to capture them?
3) Can't do that?

Out "my" list of 37 persons, Irishenglish, involved in 1993 WTC Bombing (8); 1998 US Embassy Bombings (21) & the USS Cole Bombing (8):

-   33 have not been "tortured"
-   3 may have been subject to "waterboarding".
-   1 who has been "waterboarded"

-   4 have definitely been killed
-   4 are currently held at Guantanamo
-   17 are definitely in custody
-   12 are presumed still at large

Or put in simple terms two-thirds of those involved in those attacks no longer pose a threat, or can do any harm to anyone. One third are still at liberty and are being hunted.


Your answers are as follows:
1) One definite and three probables if "waterboarding" is considered as torture.
2) As they were already being "tortured" I take it they had already been captured - can't do one without the other as the song goes.
3) Yes, to a reasonable degree of certainty.

During the Presidency of "Peanut" Carter, on his instruction, the security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America, junked human-intel as being too suspect, from that point on they were to rely on electronic means of gathering information and on visual/sensor information gathered by instrumentation mounted in satellites or aircraft. This was a grave error, it was monumental in its idiocy, apart from what was given the US by Mossad and other "friendly" security services in the region the US went "blind" with regard to real intelligence in the middle-east region shortly after the Shah was overthrown.

Irishenglish in her post states that - "...our human intelligence has been improved (as well as physically having lots of soldiers around, that kind of helps too),aiding the capture of these men."

Really, Irishenglish? Now who are you going to give credit for putting all this in place? I'll give you a hint - In the wake of 911, who was it that said to the world community, "You are either with us or against us" - Once the world community had made up its mind the US Intelligence Services were no longer blind, they had access to human-intel from hundreds of different sources. You seem to imply that, "having lots of soldiers around, that kind of helps too". Who put them there Irishenglish?

"Your initial response to this thread came from a sheer sense of outrage at protesters actions against the police, yet you seem to be mouthpiecing the Bush administrations mantra of the standard rules don't apply after 9/11."

My initial response to this thread pointed out the hypocrisy typified by the left when viewing any situation - "The other side must be bound what I say, not as I do".

As for, "the standard rules don't apply after 9/11." - all three instances of terrorist attack that I have mentioned predate 9/11, most of those brought to book for those attacks predate 9/11. The notion that there are "rules" in war is fanciful nonsense at best.

Your contention that either US or UK Forces initiation of "torture" has lead to the terrorists adopting such practices is ludicrous:

"Let's capture some American or British soldiers and torture them, if they can change the rules, why can't we."

Irishenglish find out when this was written and by whom:

"When you're lyin' out there on Afghanistans Plains
And their women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your God like a soldier"

Before my son went out to Afghanistan this was drummed into those about to deploy:

"Capture is not an option; If you do get captured you will be tortured and executed, neither the Taleban, or Al-Qaeda holds prisoners, they will not hold you hostage, because they know we will not bargain with them. Do not get captured, do not leave anyone behind."

In Borneo and Northern Ireland we were read pretty much the same scipt. Terrorists do not take prisoners. Hostages are only held if they believe they can be of use.

If you are engaged in a war, you fight it to win, irrespective of what it takes, you fight it to win. I may not like that, I may not agree with that, but I cannot deny the reality of it, nor the possible necessity of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:33 PM

Teribus, not enough time at the moment to break down your post, except for the following:First, I am male, not female. Second, in response to,"Capture is not an option; If you do get captured you will be tortured and executed, neither the Taleban, or Al-Qaeda holds prisoners, they will not hold you hostage, because they know we will not bargain with them. Do not get captured, do not leave anyone behind."

Don't you think that our fair treatment of prisoners, ie, not stripping them naked, making them get in dogpiles, photographing them just might result in them treating our own POW's with decency? "Your contention that either US or UK Forces initiation of "torture" has lead to the terrorists adopting such practices is ludicrous." Is it really? It's not necessarily for the "now" Teribus. These things are remembered. When Abu Graibh hit the news, did you not think to yourself, uh oh, this can't be good for our guys? I know I did.



Also, "Terrorists do not take prisoners". Who was it that held hostages in Lebanon in the 80's then? Oh that's right, they were just harmless militia that had no ties to terrorists.No, wait, they did have ties to terrorism,such as Imad Mughniyah. And "Hostages are only held if they believe they can be of use" So university professors like David Dodge, ministers like Benjamin Weir and Terry Waite, and journalists like Terry Anderson were of great importance and were useful to these guys?

My point about it being easier to have captured some of these guys with our troops came out a little fuzzy ( I do realize that the offenders and incidents you mentioned were mostly pre-9/11). I also meant that our troops were of course looking for people yet to be captured, not ones that had already been captured. My point will remain the same though, no matter what-if you, Teribus believe on the one hand, "
If you are engaged in a war, you fight it to win, irrespective of what it takes, you fight it to win. I may not like that, I may not agree with that, but I cannot deny the reality of it, nor the possible necessity of it," and on the other, "just for the record, I neither A) Support torture, or B) Am awfully keen on it." then you are definitely at odds with yourself. SO military superiority and diplomacy don't get us a victory in this war,but rather, lies and degradation, and torture, and economic ruin, and a failure to plan ahead for the future of the region is what gets us that victory? Then we have sunk to a new low more than I ever had thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:58 PM

Never mind the usual ranting Teribus, answer the question. You were a cook and worked in the kitchen of a ship.People above are asking you to confirm this.

Is your delay in answering some form of torture ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:14 PM

And tell us Windsor Knot how you come by such info yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:31 PM

"Waterboarding" is torture, when used for real.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:56 PM

Go through his old threads freestater like the rest of us do and you will find it there.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 02:42 PM

Ah, Windor, I am pleased that you have turned up.

This threat is about torture isn't it?

Well Irishenglish, old Windor would know quite a bit about torture, or the people he supports (or should that be supported) and continually defends, not as Guest Windor Knot, there's lots of names been used, haven't there Windor. You see irishenglish, Windor is a stout defender of the "bold" Provisional IRA, my mention of Mrs Jean McConville must have hit a thread in their little web, so an "attack" had to be launched.

Tell us about Mrs Jean McConville Guest Windor Knot, tell us all about why she was tortured. If you are a bit reluctant I'll repeat the tale I've told before:

Jean McConville was a Belfast-born mother of 10 who was abducted from her home and killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in or around Christmas of 1972.

McConville's family contend that she was killed as a punishment for aiding a dying British soldier in West Belfast following a fierce gun battle with the IRA, but the IRA claimed that they had discovered she was passing information on local republicans to the security forces via a secret radio transmitter. A claim that has been discounted by the Police Ombudsman Nuala O'Loan whose office carried out a full investigation, no transmitter ever existed and none has ever been brought forward by the PIRA - twelve "brave and bold heroes" of the PIRA abducted this 5 ft tall widow from her house, dragging her from her bath in front of her screaming and hysterical children, and we are expected to believe that they left the radio behind???

McConville's children reject this claim and have called on the IRA to clear her name. In January 2005, Sinn Féin party chairman, Mitchel McLaughlin, claimed that the killing of Jean McConville was not a criminal act. Now it is extremely important that they (The PIRA) hold to that line because the man who had to have sanctioned this beating, abduction, torture and execution of an entirely innocent woman had to have been the PIRA Officer Commanding in Belfast at the time - a certain Gerry Adams - embarassing or what?

In response to McLaughlin's statement, Social Democratic and Labour Party Justice Spokesperson Alban Maginness suggested that the IRA were culpable for War crimes as Jean McConville was "killed 'without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognised as indispensable', and that constitutes a war crime in the definition of the International Criminal Court". A second war crime occurred by the IRA's ' refusal to acknowledge deprivation of [her] freedom or to give information on [her] fate or whereabouts'".

To elaborate on something stated above. In July 2006, Police Ombudsman Nuala O'Loan stated after an investigation by her office that there is no evidence that Jean McConville ever passed information to the security forces. Mrs O'Loan said she would give the family more details of the findings of her investigation in the near future and would make those details public.

Mrs O'Loan said it was not her normal role to confirm or deny the identity of people working as agents for the security services. "However, this situation is unique. Jean McConville left an orphaned family, the youngest of whom were six-year-old boys. The family have suffered extensively over the years, as we all know, and that suffering has only been made worse by allegations that their mother was an informant. As part of our investigation we have looked very extensively at all the intelligence available at the time. There is no evidence that Mrs McConville gave information to the police, the military or the security service".

In August 2006, Northern Ireland's chief constable Sir Hugh Orde said he is not hopeful anyone will be brought to account over the murder. Sir Hugh said: "Any case of that age, it is highly unlikely that a successful prosecution could be mounted." This I believe is a "deal" being offered obliquely to Mr Adams and his former associates.

Oh, yes Guest Windor Knot, I forgot about the "torture" part, didn't I.

On December 6, 1972, a gang PIRA "volunteers" sent a false message into a social club where Mrs McConville was playing bingo that her daughter Helen had been knocked down by a car. Once lured outside Jean McConville was pounced upon, interrogated, abused and battered.

The following night she suffered another dose of mob rule. A gang of 12 masked members of the PIRA — eight men and four women - burst into her home and dragged her from the bathroom. She was bundled screaming into a car as some of her children watched. It was the last picture of their mother they have in their minds. The terrified mother of ten, still in pain from the previous night's beating, was tortured, her fingers were cut off to extract the "confession" that she was an informer and once that had been obtained she was finally forced to kneel, whereupon a "hero" of "the cause" murdered her with a single shot in the back of the head.

And here Guest Windor Knot is the finale of the whole sorry business, I'll not go into the catalogue of lies and hand-on-heart denials of involvement in the death of Jean McConville issued by the PIRA by non-other than Gerry Adams himself in the ensuing years. But finally it was Bill Clinton involvement that got them to come part-way clean.

McConville's body was buried secretly on a beach in County Louth, approximately 50 miles from her home. The IRA did not admit their involvement until over 20 years later, when they passed information on the whereabouts of the body.

After a prolonged search, co-ordinated by the Garda Síochána - during which the search area and time involved was expanded by the Gardaí - the search was abandoned, as no body could be located in the area specified by the IRA.

In August 2003, her body was accidentally found by members of the public while they were walking on Shelling Hill beach.

"A Garda escort accompanied the cortège to the border from where it made its way to Crumlin in County Antrim to be waked at the home of her son Michael. The funeral took place on Saturday with Requiem Mass at St. Mary's Church in Belfast. In his homily, Bishop of Down and Connor, Dr Patrick Walsh referred to Mrs. McConville's killing as touching "the depths of depravity". Monsignor Tom Toner, a friend of the McConville family, said, "Jean McConville and the other disappeared will forever stand in judgement on the shame and guilt of their murderers". A Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Ruth Patterson, read out comments from Mrs. McConville's children. "Among the mourners were Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) leader Mark Durkan and some of his colleagues. The Ulster Unionist Party was also represented but Sinn Féin politicians decided not to attend."

McConville, a Catholic convert, was buried beside her husband, Arthur, a British Army soldier who died in 1971, in Holy Trinity graveyard, Lisburn, County Antrim.

What Mrs Jean McConville suffered was torture. The two and a half minutes "waterboarding" that Khaled Shaik Mohammed endured doesn't even come close in comparison.

And finally Guest Windor Knot to answer your question:

"...answer the question. You were a cook and worked in the kitchen of a ship.People above are asking you to confirm this."

I have never served in the British Army, or anybody else's army for that matter.

As Gervase (24 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM) quite rightly points out in his post I served in the Royal Navy, where I was most definitely was not a cook and the only time I ever saw the inside of a "kitchen" was during rounds.

By the bye Guest Windor Knot, your terminology demonstrates more than anything your lack of real knowledge regarding myself. But just for future reference when you pop up as "Guest Something-else":

There is no such thing as a "kitchen" in the Royal Navy - They are all called Galleys even in shore establishments.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 03:04 PM

A ghastly story indeed, Teribus.

But I would ask you this, then:   knowing all this, how can you continue to defend the use of torture as being "perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 03:29 PM

What the hell are you talking about Terius.

From your earlier comments I thought, here is a guy with problems. Now I am convinced of it !

For what reason would I know or care about something that happened in Ulster in the 1970's ?

I can only assume this ridiculous rant is to deflect from the questions other members have put to you, including myself.

I will repeat it, Teribus were you an army cook ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 04:01 PM

Hey Teribus, I hope you believe me, when I say that I believe you HAVE answered Windsor Knot's question about being an Army cook. Now we can say that he is the one with problems!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 04:05 PM

It's true what they say, Crackpots tend to find eachother.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Gervase
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:48 PM

Windsor Knot, the needle's stuck. Find another sock to worry, there's a good fellow. Your posts here show you to be an excitable and easily deluded sort - there are plenty of other internet forums out there where you can meet like-minded types. Try some of the Diana conspiracy sites, or the Illuminati nutters. You'll be among friends there, and - more importantly - you'll stop being a childish pain in the arse here.
And, for what it's worth, I've known some Army cooks whose boots you wouldn't be fit to shine (even if they were crap cooks who burned everything in sight).

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 06:02 PM

To the resident bore above, GO BOIL YOUR HEAD.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 07:20 PM

Hey! C'mon, Windsor Knot, don't be a moron.

Teribus can be dead wrong even if he isn't an Army or Navy cook.

Now, back to our regular broadcast.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:12 PM

Don I looked through some of his old posts the other day and there was a thread in which he was involved in and he spoke about his service history. In one of the threads there a discussion involving him and his position as a cook.

I really can't be bothered now trawling through them again.

Read his post tonight (25 Apr 08 - 02:42 PM) the guy has completely flipped. He directed questions at me to answer about a lady being tortured in Ulster thirty years ago !!

And you call me a moron, read that post of his and re-think your slur.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:15 PM

The following was Guest Windor Knot (25 Apr 08 - 03:29 PM)

"I can only assume this ridiculous rant is to deflect from the questions other members have put to you, including myself.

I will repeat it, Teribus were you an army cook ?"

Now that little passage refers to my post of 25 Apr 08 - 02:42 PM in which I stated the following quite clearly:

"I have never served in the British Army, or anybody else's army for that matter."

and also

"I served in the Royal Navy, where I was most definitely was not a cook"

Now if you have any trouble deciphering that Guest Windor, take it to one of the Doctors, yes they're the people with the white coats and ask them to explain it all to you. Maybe they should put your jacket back on while they do that, then we don't have to read the utter drivel you type.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:57 PM

Teribus, I accept what you now say that you were not a cook, but in fact a sailor. As you are aware there IS a thread you were involved in which a discussion took place and it was said you were a cook on board a ship. I saw no denial or correction from you on that thread.

I apologise to you as I was clearly wrong. Now would you please do me the courtesy of explaining your outburst towards me earlier and your request for an explanation regarding a lady being tortured in Ulster ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 10:39 PM

And my apologies to you, Windsor Knot. I wasn't calling you a moron, but it's possible for an otherwise intelligent person to act like a moron. This in response to telling Gervase to "go boil his head."

Maybe we should all count ten a couple of times before hitting the "Submit" button. And that goes for Gervase, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 03:18 AM

Haven't looked at this thread lately - surprised to see it still happening.
Seems that the last statement on topic (before all that fascinating stuff about culinary occupations) implied that as long as somebody in Ulster does it, it's ok for the rest of the world to use torture - do I have that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 08:19 PM

irishenglish, your post of 25 Apr 08 - 12:33 PM, intriques me slightly:

"Don't you think that our fair treatment of prisoners, ie, not stripping them naked, making them get in dogpiles, photographing them just might result in them treating our own POW's with decency? "Your contention that either US or UK Forces initiation of "torture" has lead to the terrorists adopting such practices is ludicrous." Is it really? It's not necessarily for the "now" Teribus. These things are remembered. When Abu Graibh hit the news, did you not think to yourself, uh oh, this can't be good for our guys? I know I did."

Eh, irishenglish, don't know where you were brought up, or what age you are. But for my generation in the UK there were many POW tales and "escape" stories abounded. So many in fact that our US cousins actually believe that a Steve McQueen character did all that marvelous stunt riding of motor-cycles during what was in fact the "Greatest Escape" ever made.

Now please irishenglish, please regale us all of POW escapes by the Russians in Afghanistan. Hells teeth, they maintained an Army of over 175,000 men there for the best part of a decade. There must have been some of them taken prisoner? How were they treated irishenglish? All this pre-dates Bush so their treatment could not have been predicated by what US forces have ever done.

Tell you what irishenglish you will not be able to come up with one single story. Do you know why? Because the other side simply did not take prisoners - rather scary isn't it.

So please do not in any way shape shape or form attempt to lecture those at the sharp end of things. They are fighting for survival, the strongest instinct known to mankind, they react as required and do whatever is necessary. That I understand, that is reality for those actively engaged, where the US Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, the European Bill of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention don't matter a shit if you happen to get caught by the opposition.

What happened in Abu Ghraib was absolute "peanuts" to what went on there in Sadddam's day - there are plenty survivors tales to testify to that if you care to read them. The treatment of prisoners is a damn site better that any of our troops could expect to receive at their hands and that has been a known factor since day one.

Expect the usual responses from those who tend to theorise and have never themselves ever been in harms way on the behalf of others for one second in their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 09:39 AM

So I guess Andy McNabb and his SAS men weren't captured and brought to Abu Ghraib during the first Iraq war Teribus. I guess they weren't tortured either.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 10:58 AM

Oh they were captured and taken to Abu Ghraib while it was under Saddam's control. Also captured were some downed RAF crews and an ex-SBS Officer who was doing some survey work in the Shat-al-arab. He was accused of spying. All those taken were mistreated, threatened, tortured. They were taken as Prisoners of War and as such covered supposedly by the Geneva Convention, as were the 605 Kuwaiti Nationals abducted from Kuwait and taken to Iraq and murdered.

Now which particular example of abuse by either British or American Armed forces caused Saddam to act that way irishenglish.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 11:34 AM

who's murderer is worst. Ridiculous basis for an arguement!
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:46 PM

Not my point at all Barry and you know that very well.

There are some here suggest that treatment doled out is reciprocal fact of the matter is that it is not. Instances of abuse and torture of prisoners under the custody of US or UK Forces is very much in the minority. The same cannot be said for those that those troops are currently engaging.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:50 PM

I fail to see that if one side of a conflict uses torture and brutality, that is a moral justification for the other side to do the same.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Impressed
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 02:57 PM

Excellent accounts and so much inside information. Clearly we are in the company of either an ex Special Boat Squad member or 00 Teribus.

For Teribus's Eyes Only.

Live and let Teribus.

Dr.Teribus.

The Teribus who loved me.

Gold Teribus.

On Teribus's Secret Service.

Teribus with the Golden Gun.

Casino Teribus.

Thunderballs Teribus.

Moonraker Teribus.

From Teribus with Love.

Never Say Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 03:52 PM

On the subject of titles Guest - You don't impress me much

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Impressed
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 04:09 PM

Come on buddy, you have been talking out of the side of your mouth all through this thread. If your position involved direct contact with individuals involved in interrogation or you were yourself say so, this "is he or isn't he involved" cloak and dagger stuff is annoying.

People want to know your role, if you had a role at all !

You are now past the point in this thread in which you are expressing an opinion as a civvie.

I myself think torture is wrong, it's uncalled for in civilised society.
Why or how can you post here in support of it ?

By the way please answer this question.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM

People want to know your role, if you had a role at all !

I rather think that most people aren't the least bit interested in that kind of stuff, which is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:24 PM

Previous post of mine on this thread (Teribus 20 Apr 08 - 07:23 AM)

"..just for the record, I neither A) Support torture, or B) Am awfully keen on it."

So then Guest Impressed it looks as though we are in full agreement.

As to your question - you know where you can file it. Guest "Whatever-you-chose-to-call-yourself-next-time"

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 10:01 PM

But c) find it acceptable in certain circumstances. Quite some weasel room there.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:14 AM

"justifiable"
adjective
Her actions were quite justifiable (= there was a good reason for them) in the circumstances.

"acceptable"
adjective
satisfactory and able to be agreed to or approved of:
Clearly we need to come to an arrangement that is acceptable to both parties.
So what is an acceptable level of radiation?
This kind of attitude is simply not acceptable.

See any difference in those two Guest TIA???

Now what was it I said Guest TIA???

"perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances?" (Hint - Teribus)

or:

"perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances?" (Hint - Guest TIA)

Pay attention to detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:36 AM

I fully understand the distinction between "justifiable" and "acceptable." In this context, however, the distinction is more academic and semantic than actual, and trying to hide behind that doesn't really cut it.

Please refer to my post above ~ 27 Apr 08 - 01:50 p.m.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:28 AM

even teribus under torture would confess to being a perpetrator of Sep 11, if the right technique was used.

Barry finn - 'it was noted that every Dictatorship that used torture on their enemies eventually somewhere going down the lined ended up using torture on their own citizens.'

that says it all.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:17 AM

And where exactly Don have I ever put forward the arguement that:

"I fail to see that if one side of a conflict uses torture and brutality, that is a moral justification for the other side to do the same." - Don Firth's Post of 27 Apr 08 - 01:50 p.m.

I do not believe that I have have. Others have ventured the option that if "we" use "torture", the otherside is then more likely to use it against any of our troops captured. I believe that that is a complete red-herring.

Generally "we" do not use "torture", the cases reported so far have represented a tiny number of instances compared to the number of prisoners handled in the case of US Forces (Abu Ghraib). In the instances of accusations against UK Forces, Piers Morgan of the "Daily Mirror" actually went ahead and published articles about UK "torture" of Iraqi prisoners including beautiful photographs all of which were phoney, specially staged and all taken in the UK. Immediately they were published the discrepancies and errors were glaring. He should have had them verified of course but what the hell he's in the business of selling news papers - fuck the lives of the soldiers he was deliberately putting at risk by publishing them in an attempt to inflame the situation in order to sell even more copy.

By the bye, I was rather hoping that Guest TIA would acknowledge the difference and refrain from putting words into my mouth and then try to take me to task for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:44 PM

Teribus, it's not always about you.

I have often heard the argument put forth that "if they do it, we should be able to do it, too." In fact, it is implied several places in this and other threads in which the subject has come up for discussion.

It should be obvious that that kind of "moral" or "ethical" principle opens up a Pandora's Box of barbarism.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Egan
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:02 PM

Teribus seems to hop on and over the fence quite often on this thread. He says he does not support the use of torture, then finds reasons for the use of it. As ex service personal he doesn't seem to want to let the side down. How nice it would be to see a post from him uttering condemning the use of any kind of torture be it slapping, pushing, deprivation of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

During discussions about these enhanced interrogation techniques he makes reference to several countries and individuals, yet there is always an absence of the phrase "I totally condemn this".

Sorry Teribus, fence hopping has to stop sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:22 PM

You know what, I'm done with this thread. Teribus, we're not going to change each others minds, you're still going to believe on the one hand that you're not very fond of torture, and on the other that it is justifiable in circumstances, while I am going to adhere to the fact that it should never be used. I believe I also made some remarks that should have been debated more, but were left by the wayside (and not just by yourself Teribus, but such is the nature of threads, especially when they get longer). As a closing I will just say that torture is an awful, evil concept. Human rights groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch fight every day for the rights of those that are tortured. They do so in a broad based manner generally, keeping an eye on all of those nations that engage in the activity. And I remember in the 80's hearing first hand accounts from victims of torture from all over, and I remember reading the reports that chronicled the nature of the torture in those countries. At that time, it included countries in Latin America, and Africa, in China and the Soviet Union, as well as those from Europe, and incidents in Northern Ireland, such as Teribus pointed out, and isolated incidents from the US as well. What I realized at the time was that the greater number of incidents were not from my country, the US, but from countries of which I knew very little about-Congo, Chile, Nicaragua. And even learning the nature of the reason people were wrongfully imprisoned or tortured in a nation like Burma, for example, I still couldn't fully grasp how anything could be so bad, any words could be so dangerous, any union meeting so inciendiary, that you had to kidnap someone off the street, and place them in a deep dark prison somewhere, cut off from their families, and proceed to torture them. But now, years later, I understand how the words that "someone" deems dangerous, and inciteful brings a government to seek to arrest, imprison, and torture.I know, because my country is doing it. Now I know, that is going to stir up something, because there are those on here who will argue that organizing a trade union in Guatemala is a far cry from setting off a bomb, and it is a fair distinction, to be sure. But if my government, the US, can rightfully capture, sentence, and imprison TRUE perpetrators or planners of terrorist acts, why resort to torture? Why haul people off to a deep dark prison, cut off from their families, and in come cases torture them? An question I didn't have 20 years ago, is still out there waiting to be answered, but instead of it being somewhere else, it is now my own country doing it, along with the others. That is why I will never, ever support torture.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Egan
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:36 PM

Excellent post Irishenglish,

Teribus any chance of a reply of full condemnation of the use of torture ?

Please no more going into a "cut and paste" tangent.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: TIA
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:15 PM

Oh, I am quite interested in detail.
Therefore, I would like to know which of the following phrases Teribus feels apply to torture:

Torture is...
Excusable
Hunky-dory
Venial
Unobjectionable
Satisfactory
Acceptable
Forgivable
Justifiable
Unexceptionable
Defensible

By the reasoning of his 28 Apr 08 - 01:14 AM post, some of these statements are true, while others are outrageous.



I happen to believe that they are all outrageous. Makes my position way easier to defend without a lot of arm waving.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:37 PM

I see that you are still attempting to put words into my mouth TIA, or Guest TIA, or GUEST "Whoever".

I believe that my stance on "Torture" has been stated quite clearly on this thread and repeated by me a number of times.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:40 PM

Sorta like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Ye Teri Odin
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 07:09 PM

Teribus I have read through the comments above and there are more questions lying out to you than it would appear you have answered !

Since you refuse to state your total abhorrence against the use of torture I can only surmise that you feel the use of torture is justified against certain groups who stand against what you believe is right and just. On the other hand, as an ex member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, you have never condemned Britain's use of torture on suspects.

To clear up any confusion here, please state you condemn the use of torture against any human being by any country including Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 07:19 PM

I'm afraid that a quote from your very own post pretty much sums up what we've been saying:

"The terrified mother of ten, still in pain from the previous night's beating, was tortured, her fingers were cut off to extract the "confession" that she was an informer and once that had been obtained..."

Someone being tortured is likely to agree to anything or make anything up to satisfy their torturers, whether they know actual information or not.

And on another point, I take issue with anyone dismissing anyone's opinion based upon what they did for a living. Talk about Elitist bull! I worked as a frame and matt maker at an art shop. Does that make my words worth less? What about my working at Jiffy Lube? What someone has done in the past is not the sum and total of who that person is or what that person can accomplish.

Not that I want to invite comparison, but I believe Hitler was a sad sack private in WWI...look what happened when he was ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 10:36 PM

"See any difference in those two Guest TIA???"
Not really.


Do you see any differences in my list of words above?

I will give you a hint. Half are synonyms for acceptable. Half are synonyms for justifiable. Now since you are so keen on the detailed difference between the two, go sort them out. If you truly have a consistent point, you must agree with half, and disagree with the other half. I am not putting words in your mouth, I am trying to understand the jumble that actually does come from your mouth.