BS: Torture in a civilised world

10 Feb 10 - 09:11 AM (#2834864)
Subject: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)

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?

---

10 Feb 10 - 09:20 AM (#2834874)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Rapparee

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.

---

10 Feb 10 - 12:28 PM (#2835093)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)

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

---

10 Feb 10 - 01:44 PM (#2835182)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

Civilized? Since when?

---

10 Feb 10 - 01:55 PM (#2835196)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Paul Burke

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.

---

10 Feb 10 - 02:04 PM (#2835207)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

10 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM (#2835244)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

10 Feb 10 - 09:36 PM (#2835687)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)

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.

---

10 Feb 10 - 10:14 PM (#2835720)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

11 Feb 10 - 04:21 AM (#2835827)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Richard Bridge

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?

---

11 Feb 10 - 04:32 AM (#2835832)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie

Once you cross the line there is no line.

---

11 Feb 10 - 04:37 AM (#2835834)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave the Gnome

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

---

11 Feb 10 - 07:20 AM (#2835946)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

11 Feb 10 - 08:28 AM (#2836003)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Richard Bridge

Oh, absolutely right McGrath.

---

11 Feb 10 - 08:58 AM (#2836038)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: 3refs

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.

---

11 Feb 10 - 09:25 AM (#2836057)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie

"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?

---

11 Feb 10 - 10:43 AM (#2836138)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Rapparee

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....

---

11 Feb 10 - 10:47 AM (#2836147)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: 3refs

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!

---

11 Feb 10 - 10:47 AM (#2836149)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)

What Dave MacKenzie said.

---

11 Feb 10 - 12:17 PM (#2836242)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

11 Feb 10 - 01:44 PM (#2836330)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Paul Burke

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

Rapaire: Prisoners tortured by the British.

---

11 Feb 10 - 02:31 PM (#2836377)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Art Thieme

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.

---

11 Feb 10 - 05:00 PM (#2836522)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow

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?

---

11 Feb 10 - 06:28 PM (#2836627)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Jim Dixon

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?

---

11 Feb 10 - 06:57 PM (#2836650)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

12 Feb 10 - 06:37 PM (#2837624)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)

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."

---

12 Feb 10 - 08:16 PM (#2837709)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

13 Feb 10 - 09:05 AM (#2838043)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,mauvepink

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

---

13 Feb 10 - 09:44 AM (#2838064)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,mauvepink

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

---

13 Feb 10 - 10:00 AM (#2838075)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

13 Feb 10 - 10:33 AM (#2838102)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Peter K (Fionn)

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.

---

13 Feb 10 - 11:03 AM (#2838132)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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

---

14 Feb 10 - 09:44 AM (#2838894)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Riginslinger

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.

---

14 Feb 10 - 10:14 AM (#2838919)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

War does not determine who is right!

It merely determines who is left!

Don T.

---

14 Feb 10 - 10:15 AM (#2838921)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: 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.

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.

---

14 Feb 10 - 10:21 AM (#2838925)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""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

---

14 Feb 10 - 03:04 PM (#2839166)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Paul Burke

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?

---

14 Feb 10 - 03:26 PM (#2839183)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Paco O'Barmy

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?

---

14 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM (#2839307)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston

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.

---

14 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM (#2839309)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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?

---

14 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM (#2839317)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

14 Feb 10 - 07:20 PM (#2839363)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Donuel

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.

---

14 Feb 10 - 07:24 PM (#2839367)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Donuel

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.

---

15 Feb 10 - 01:02 AM (#2839510)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

15 Feb 10 - 01:11 AM (#2839513)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

15 Feb 10 - 01:17 AM (#2839515)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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).

---

15 Feb 10 - 01:31 AM (#2839517)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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

---

15 Feb 10 - 01:40 AM (#2839521)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

15 Feb 10 - 04:14 AM (#2839574)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion

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.

---

15 Feb 10 - 05:09 AM (#2839608)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston

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?

---

15 Feb 10 - 10:14 AM (#2839874)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Riginslinger

Torture is listening to Keith Olbermann!

---

15 Feb 10 - 10:19 AM (#2839880)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: bubblyrat

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 !

---

15 Feb 10 - 10:46 AM (#2839908)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

15 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM (#2840218)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 12:03 AM (#2840596)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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

---

16 Feb 10 - 05:05 AM (#2840686)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu

"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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 06:00 AM (#2840707)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 10:40 AM (#2840884)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 11:10 AM (#2840910)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 12:15 PM (#2840972)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston

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?

---

16 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM (#2841028)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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".

---

16 Feb 10 - 01:16 PM (#2841038)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 01:19 PM (#2841041)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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

---

16 Feb 10 - 04:33 PM (#2841243)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 04:39 PM (#2841253)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 04:56 PM (#2841269)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston

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.

---

16 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM (#2841281)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,999

I'm surprised anyone thinks this world is civilised.

---

16 Feb 10 - 07:03 PM (#2841436)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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?

---

16 Feb 10 - 07:06 PM (#2841441)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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?

---

17 Feb 10 - 01:15 AM (#2841629)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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"

---

17 Feb 10 - 03:16 AM (#2841649)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston

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?

---

17 Feb 10 - 03:19 AM (#2841651)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

17 Feb 10 - 04:07 AM (#2841664)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu

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.

---

17 Feb 10 - 03:44 PM (#2842250)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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?

---

17 Feb 10 - 04:37 PM (#2842304)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston

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?

---

17 Feb 10 - 05:22 PM (#2842343)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

---

17 Feb 10 - 06:05 PM (#2842386)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

!!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.

---

18 Feb 10 - 12:04 AM (#2842643)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

18 Feb 10 - 01:17 AM (#2842661)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion

'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.

---

18 Feb 10 - 03:53 AM (#2842710)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston

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.

---

18 Feb 10 - 06:59 AM (#2842864)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""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.

---

18 Feb 10 - 09:04 AM (#2842993)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion

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.

---

18 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM (#2843652)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""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.

---

18 Feb 10 - 06:49 PM (#2843684)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

18 Feb 10 - 10:05 PM (#2843805)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion

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.

---

19 Feb 10 - 01:21 AM (#2843884)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

19 Feb 10 - 01:25 AM (#2843885)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

19 Feb 10 - 01:32 AM (#2843886)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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

---

19 Feb 10 - 05:27 AM (#2843954)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu

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.

---

19 Feb 10 - 04:57 PM (#2844495)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

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

Perfect score.

Don T.

---

19 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM (#2844504)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston

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

---

19 Feb 10 - 10:19 PM (#2844716)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

19 Feb 10 - 10:24 PM (#2844723)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,ollaimh

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

---

19 Feb 10 - 10:25 PM (#2844724)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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.

---

21 Feb 10 - 06:44 PM (#2846185)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,ollaimh

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.

---

21 Feb 10 - 07:05 PM (#2846199)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie

"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."

---

21 Feb 10 - 07:10 PM (#2846203)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

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?

---

22 Feb 10 - 10:58 AM (#2846646)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

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.

---

22 Feb 10 - 10:58 AM (#2846647)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

100 Up

---

22 Feb 10 - 11:07 AM (#2846656)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie

"evolution is about improvement" - wrong!

Evolution is about adapting changing circumstances. I'm glad I wasn't a member of any of my ancestors' generations. I'm also glad (and guilty) that I'm not a member of my children's or grandchildren's generations.

---

22 Feb 10 - 04:14 PM (#2846983)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

Point 1
"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 culture"

It amazes me the way history is taught in the schools of the UK, and the above statement just goes to prove history is written by the winners. Even the most cursory look in the activities of the Empire (start in our own Islands) shows there is another side to this tale and one we are still dealing with to this very day. The old colonialist attitudes die hard though.

Ever heard of a thing called The Commonwealth of Nations?

Point 2
"evolution is about improvement".

A popular misconception, but not actually true.

Sorry Sugarfoot but evolution can mean any of the following:

ev·o·lu·tion   /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Show Spelled[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
–noun

1.any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2.a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3.Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, andgenetic drift.

4.a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

5.a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

6.a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.

7.an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.

8.Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity.Compare involution (def. 8).

9.a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.

10.any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

Point 3.
I will continue to labour under that massive misapprehension, while fully realising that history and true life are not things I must take from anything produced in Hollywood. And to regard anyone stating that they do reflect real life as being someone who really has got to be joking. I mean come on Braveheart FFS!!!!

Point 4.
"It is now the considered opinion of the IAEA that Iran is working towards acquiring a nuclear weapon."

No shit Sherlock. The point is who are we to tell them they can't have one?

As far as I was aware WE aren't telling them anything, the United Nations via their nuclear watchdog the IAEA are reminding Iran that a few years back they signed something called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that they have to leave before they start working towards building a nuclear weapon.

Point 5.
"With the exception of Iraq it has done more to destabilise the region than any other power"

More than the US, UK and Israel? I don't think so.

Hezbollah & Hamas backed by Iran, trained by Iran, armed by Iran. Remove their attacks from the equation and peace would have come to the region decades ago. What was the butchers bill for the Iran/Iraq War again? 1,5 to 2 million. No the US, UK and Israel have not caused a tenth of the damage that Iran and Iraq have in the region.

Point 6.
Not surprised you do not wish to answer the questions asked about Child A and Child B. Too uncomfortabley close to the truth judging by what we have found out in Afghanistan. But please let me know when the father of a British child sells his daughter to someone who is going to train her to be a suicide bomber and shove her on her way with tales of God and Paradise.

---

22 Feb 10 - 04:29 PM (#2846997)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Amos

But evolution IS about improvement.

The core value in all decisions and adaptations is better survival. Even a philosophy survives or fades to the degree it aids or lessens that vector.

Humans have a complex survival computation, in that they will sacrifice the survival of one thing for the survival of another, such as giving up one's life to save babies from a fire, or sacrificing physical comforts in order to acheive an artistic goal.

So the question "Survival of what" is much more multi-faceted in humans than it is in some animals who think of little more than their instincts for self-preservation and possibly their immediate herd or offspring. But the thrust is completely similar--individuals change in order to survive the present and appear in the future in one form or another.

And that pretty much defines betterment. Part of our calculations and discussions in this forum are about large-group survival (Western civilization, or The English Way, or human life on earth. Part of it is about the balances in play in the environment (multicultural survival, saving polar bears, immigration policies, for example). When we adapt to bring about stronger survival four ourselves and our symbiotes, we are doing better (if it works).

Even the trade-offs are believed to be for better survival. The problem is in calculating them correctly.

A

---

22 Feb 10 - 05:48 PM (#2847075)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie

"evolution is about improvement" - still almost totally wrong!

Evolution is about improving one's adaptation to changing circumstances for better or worse and is thus totally amoral. I'm still glad I wasn't a member of any of my ancestors' generations. I'm also still glad (and guilty) that I'm not a member of my children's or grandchildren's generations.

---

22 Feb 10 - 06:28 PM (#2847103)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Amos

If you don't think better survival is the core of evolutionary success, then what is?

And if better survival is not the core of judgments about goodness and badness, then what is?

A

---

22 Feb 10 - 06:36 PM (#2847114)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie

"If you don't think better survival is the core of evolutionary success, then what is?"

You agree with me then.

---

22 Feb 10 - 06:38 PM (#2847116)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: akenaton

The trade offs required to allow consumerism to survive, may well lead to our complete destruction.

---

22 Feb 10 - 06:45 PM (#2847120)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

He would note that the comparison there was to general Christianbeliefs 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.

Doesn't matter whether they come from the Old Testament or not, as long as there are Christians (and there are many) who use the Old Testament as a part of their holy text.

Teribus said, 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

Teribus said, "Bible", not "New Testament". The Bible that is most commonly used by Christians includes both the New and Old Testaments. So just on the face of it, Teribus' statement is wrong. Then when we go back to his earlier statement...

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

We can see that his wrongness is not confined to just himself as a Christian, but to everyone who is not Muslim as well as everyone who is. Because as has been shown, there are many Christians whose holy text calls for the death of non-believers, the Jewish holy texts call for the death of non-believers, and so far we are still waiting for Teribus to produce a quote from the Quran that calls for the death of Christians like Teribus.

---

22 Feb 10 - 08:18 PM (#2847193)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Donuel

Save your colorful breath Teribus. The Afghan pro goverment forces are policemen who are often merely a gang of crooks who steal, kidnap and even murder for a buck.

---

22 Feb 10 - 08:24 PM (#2847200)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Sugarfoot are you telling everyone that "my view" perfectly reflects the majority opinion of the "West" towards the Muslim World""

I think you'll find he is referring to the majority of the uninformed, and the ineducable, such as youself.

Don T.

---

22 Feb 10 - 09:43 PM (#2847242)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: ichMael

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country." - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

---

23 Feb 10 - 12:20 AM (#2847298)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

Now Don being the educable and informed chap that you are, or at least think you are, why do you think that the "my view" was in between inverted commas?

Another of my supposed "views" in Sugarfoots rapid fire ten shots happened to be a view I did not even express.

Don'T worry sort a thing an educable man could easily miss when he's too busy rushing to "Have-a-go" and prove what a smart arse he is.

Evolution is about improving one's adaptation to changing circumstances for better or worse and is thus totally amoral.

In which case Dave MacKenzie - Embrace extinction, while guiltily enjoying and thanking whoever for benefits your forefathers bestowed on you to enable you to live the life you have lived.

But just a couple of observations:

1.   I do not believe I have ever known of anything evolving for the worse, although I am sure that there are examples. The opposite of evolution of course is revolution, which involves rapid change, often with unforeseen and possibly undesired consequences. Mankind evolved but brought about the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution.

2. For there to be evolution there does not automatically or necessarily have to be any change in circumstance, the driver can often be just a simple desire to improve things and born of an enquiring mind.

---

23 Feb 10 - 03:48 AM (#2847362)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie

That's exactly what I said.

---

23 Feb 10 - 04:24 AM (#2847372)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu

"The trade offs required to allow consumerism to survive, may well lead to our complete destruction."

Too right - the problem with unlimited growth is . . . nothing's unlimited. Resources etc are finite.

"And to regard anyone stating that they do reflect real life as being someone who really has got to be joking. I mean come on Braveheart FFS!!!!"

They don't necessarily reflect real life, but hold a mirror up to the attitudes of society. Really T, you're an intelligent bloke, try to look past the obvious. Sometimes I think you are taking the piss.

As for Braveheart, interesting choice and one which goes to illustrate my point. On the surface, BH is nothing more than pure entertainment and so far from historical fact it's risible. But . . . the whole film is a (admittedly hamfisted) big dig at the English by Mel Gibson, who has made no bones about his hatred of the past actions of 'the English'. Another colonial having a dig.

"Hezbollah & Hamas backed by Iran, trained by Iran, armed by Iran. Remove their attacks from the equation and peace would have come to the region decades ago. What was the butchers bill for the Iran/Iraq War again? 1,5 to 2 million. No the US, UK and Israel have not caused a tenth of the damage that Iran and Iraq have in the region."

Shine on - who was one of the countries that supplied Iran and Iraq with the weapons that they could blow the shit out of each other with?

---

23 Feb 10 - 05:10 AM (#2847393)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion

Well, Sugarfoot, it sure-as-shit was not Israel, was it? Can't quite see what they are doing in the equation. As far as I can see all they have done to exacerbate the situation is say to Iran, "Keep your nukes away from us, mate, or we shall surely make you regret it!"

---

23 Feb 10 - 11:19 AM (#2847692)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus

Really T, you're an intelligent bloke, try to look past the obvious. Sometimes I think you are taking the piss.

I must admit with the likes of CarolC, little hawk and DonT it's more an exercise in mindless provocation than logic, but it does help pass the time.

Problem with Hollywood doing "History" is that they can only ever reflect the attitudes of today on events of yesterday and that is where it all goes to hell in a handcart.

the whole film is a (admittedly hamfisted) big dig at the English by Mel Gibson, who has made no bones about his hatred of the past actions of 'the English'.

I suppose he feels as though he has to take it out on somebody for being vertically challenged and Australian and I dare say the English are good scapegoat as any, after all if thay hadn't colonised the place he would never have fetched up there.

Oddly enough though our Mel is about to do a historical epic on the Vikings. Now that should be interesting, either he will have to strap two beer crates to his feet or everybody else will have to run around in trenches. But what he apparently said was he wants evryone to come out of this new move absolutely scared stiff of Vikings, which would be true to form even if a bit stereotypical.

To address your question:

who was one of the countries (USA, UK, Israel) that supplied Iran and Iraq with the weapons that they could blow the shit out of each other with?

Well the Iran/Iraq War took most people by surprise not least the Iranians. US foreign policy towards the Persian Gulf area is simple. The USA does not rely on oil from there but lots of her allies do. Healthiest situation for the US and her allies is that no one country in the area dominates it. When the Iran/Iraq War kicked-off nobody (The world and its dog with the exception of course of Iraq and Iran) wanted either side to win.

In the beginning everything was going Iraq's way, Iraq and Saddam had no problems they got all their weapons from the USSR/Russia, China and France. Iran on the other hand was in shit street, as the only weaponry she had dated back to the Shah's time and was all from either the US or from the UK. And recently having held US diplomats hostage and yelling death to the Great Satan every Friday since meant that things were none too rosey. The US has to balance this war up and the US talks to Israel and deal is struck whereby, unlikely as it may seem, Israel provides the military hardware and spares that keeps Iran in the fight (Iran-Contras Scandal, arms for release of hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon)

Into the second phase and Iraq's offensive momentum slows and halts, Irans human wave attacks start taking effect and the Iraqi's are pushed back. Saddam starts losing equipment that he finds hard to replace.

To ensure that no side wins and that the war will end in a negotiated settlement and a stalemate, Iran was getting supplies from countries such as North Korea, Libya, and China. The Iraqis had more suppliers such as the USSR, the NATO nations, France, United Kingdom, Brazil, Yugoslavia, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States (US's main contribution was intelligence not chemical weapons as most fondly but falsely believe). Soviet Union however - Between 1986 and 1988, the Soviets delivered to Iraq arms valued at roughly $8.8 to $9.2 billion, comprising more than 2,000 tanks (including 800 T-72s), 300 fighter aircraft, almost 300 surface-to-air missiles and thousands of pieces of heavy artillery and armored personnel vehicles.

So which country gave most the USSR without any shadow of a doubt.

---

23 Feb 10 - 11:25 AM (#2847702)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,Neil D

In the U.S. there are actually politicians (Republicans and Teapartiers) running for office on a platform of support for "enhanced interrogation techniques".

---

23 Feb 10 - 12:44 PM (#2847802)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC

I must admit...it's more an exercise in mindless provocation than logic

Precisely how I would characterize your posting history as well, Teribus. Nice to see you man up and admit it.

---

23 Feb 10 - 02:05 PM (#2847873)
Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""1.   I do not believe I have ever known of anything evolving for the worse, although I am sure that there are examples. The opposite of evolution of course is revolution, which involves rapid change, often with unforeseen and possibly undesired consequences. Mankind evolved but brought about the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution.

2. For there to be evolution there does not automatically or necessarily have to be any change in circumstance, the driver can often be just a simple desire to improve things and born of an enquiring mind.""

Thank you T, for taking the trouble to prove my point.

1. Revolution is not the opposite of evolution. That would be regression, or devolution.
2. The agricultural, and industrial, revolutions were in fact technological in nature. They took place against the background of ensuring survival of the burgeoning populations of humanity.
3. Evolution, by definition, is the action on species of survival enhancing mutation.

It is not a conscious, or rational, process.

In terms of mother nature, she is monumentally indifferent to the needs of individual species. She just doesn't care.

Mutation happens, and if the change is advantageous, a species thrives. If not, it dies.

What you describe as evolution is nothing more than technical innovation. It has enhanced human life, undoubtedly, but it hasn't enabled us to make even a noticeable dent in, for example, the population of unpleasant and harmful pests e.g. Locusts, Termites, Killer bees etc. etc.

They have evolved, we have advanced, but right now they look like a better bet for the future.

Don T

---