Moderateman Moderateman

What is Torture?

▼

What is Torture?

Reprisal of an older article

from JoeUser Forums
 

Add To Watch List Email Article Print Article

 Definition of torture:

2 entries found for torture.
To select an entry, click on it.
torture[1,noun]torture[2,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING

now please do not make me define anguish and agony cause I will........

again I say for the dense..

Making a room 95 degrees is not TORTURE.... its damn uncomfortable.

Playing loud music (90 decibels} is not Torture is just mind numbing

Making a room cold 40 degrees is not TORTURE... it is very uncomfortable.

Making someone stand in place is NOT TORTURE.

Putting a blindfold on someones head is not torture... its scary period.

I am tired of the left twisting my words so the outcome is as they choose../

for the fainthearted I will now list some torture beware your bleeding heart might rupture.

Slamming slivers of bamboo on fire under your toenails is torture

Pulling your tongue out and cutting it off is torture.... Saddam did this on a constant basis. So do the Terrorists we are fighting and worse.

Cutting someone hands off in stages from the fingers upwards is torture... Saddam also did this. We have proof that the Muslim lunatics do this also.

Gassing someone with chemical agents is torture Saddam did this also

Cutting off someones ears is torture Saddam also did this. We have proof the Muslim Terrorists do this too.


Can any of you  name one instance in THIS WAR where we did anything approaching the true definition of torture?

Do any of you have proof that America has done anything besides a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors that we have engaged in any of this kind of horrendous behavior?


 


40,920 views 146 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
"oh please Mr. terrorist that hates all things western and not Muslim please please tell us your next plan to kill us?"


You didn't say pretty please so I WILL not crack!
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Oh all right, just one plot." "Yay, everyone, gather round, Mr. Terrorist is going to tell us a plot!"

"Once upon a time.."
Star Control: Origins
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
a bottle of 20 year old scotch?!?


no that would be torture. they don't drink.
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
no that would be torture. they don't drink.


Good point. Give me the Scotch, I'll...err...dispose of it!
Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Adventure-DudePosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
He was turned over to US authorities, but was a German national, so he was neither a POW or an enemy combatant. If he were a spy, the legal thing would have been to try him in a court of law.


Sodaiho,

I agree with you here. The problem is we only know what NY Times published.

If this actually happened, there was found no connection, then two things should happen: The innocent should be compensated and the guilty should be punished.

Among leading newspapers the N.Y. Times has done more to damage the war effort than any other [paper, leaked more information about what tactics we use, has been the harshest critic of the Bush administration, has been shown time and time again to lie and mislead, why would any one want to use them as a reliable source is beyond me.

Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
If "we" believed he was a suspected "terrorist" why not arrest him and try him in a court of law?


The 10 cent reason is simple. As he was not arrested in the US, he is not subject to the laws of the US. If indeed he was suspected of being a terrorist, he was captured in a war zone, making himn either a POW (doubtful from the suspects account) or an non uniformed enemy combatant - i.e. a spy. IN the latter case, the "legal" thing to do would have been to shoot him.

But dead men tell no tales, so he could not have been shot, right?

And finally, there is a HUGE misconception about what the role of the Supreme court is (propigated by the democrats looking to legislate from the bench what they cannot pass through congress). They are not there to MAKE law, They are there to determine the rules of the laws on the books. As such, unless there is a procedural error in a lower court ruling, there is nothing they can do. Notice (if you read further), that they did not RULE on his case, only refused to hear it. In other words, they found no procedural errors in any of the lower court rulings.

For years the left has been use to using SCOTUS as their way of legislating things they wanted to have done, now they cannot due to the court being a little more balanced and they are pissed at this.

Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: lulapilgrimPosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I will also add that while I do not have a primer on what exactly is and is not torture, I will say that the screams of torture in most of these cases only serve to cheapen the true torture and desensitize people for when the real stuff happens. It is the "Boy who Cried Wolf" syndrome. Yell it enough times when it is not true, and no one is going to listen when it is true.



Doc, as I said before, it comes down to terms..those who govern the culture's language govern the culture.

Try to remember the poor terrorists complaining about someone eating a ham sandwich while interrogating them as 'TORTURE' AND having a female talk to them as torture too!!

Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)Adventure-DudeOctober 10, 2007 14:44:16


Oh all right, just one plot." "Yay, everyone, gather round, Mr. Terrorist is going to tell us a plot!"

"Once upon a time.."


pretty please with sugar on top?, Oh I am sorry was I talking to loud?
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
The man in question was not a terrorist. He was an unemployed used car salesman for goodness' sake.

Moderateman, how have I missed your point? You asked for one example. I gave you one example. You attack its source. You talk the talk, hate whiners, but its the right that whines the loudest every time they get shown for the crazy warmongers you are. If you take a look at the blogs here at JU we really could call it a Right Wing Whiner's Club. All ya'll do is take cheap shots at liberals and Democrats.

Wasn't it you who bad-mouthed me because I characatured Fox news some time ago? Its not only the N. Y. Times that has trouble with the Bush administration, its at least two thirds of the United Statres citizenry if we are to believe the polls. Most Americans as I understand it, want us out of this war. Its a few hard heads like yourself that create the real trouble in America. You conservative knuckleheads have ruined our reputation for fairplay, reduced us to a fearbased culture by suggesting there's a terrorist in every friggen corner...hell even little old ladies in wheelchairs are being searched on the chance thay are there to blow up a plane...and you guys go Hooray! You seem to distrust the very thing you profess to hold dear, our government, its citizens, a free press, and our constitution. Give me a break.
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)So Daiho HilbertOctober 10, 2007 18:51:22


The man in question was not a terrorist. He was an unemployed used car salesman for goodness' sake.

Moderateman, how have I missed your point? You asked for one example. I gave you one example. You attack its source. You talk the talk, hate whiners, but its the right that whines the loudest every time they get shown for the crazy warmongers you are. If you take a look at the blogs here at JU we really could call it a Right Wing Whiner's Club. All ya'll do is take cheap shots at liberals and Democrats.

Wasn't it you who bad-mouthed me because I characatured Fox news some time ago? Its not only the N. Y. Times that has trouble with the Bush administration, its at least two thirds of the United Statres citizenry if we are to believe the polls. Most Americans as I understand it, want us out of this war. Its a few hard heads like yourself that create the real trouble in America. You conservative knuckleheads have ruined our reputation for fairplay, reduced us to a fearbased culture by suggesting there's a terrorist in every friggen corner...hell even little old ladies in wheelchairs are being searched on the chance thay are there to blow up a plane...and you guys go Hooray! You seem to distrust the very thing you profess to hold dear, our government, its citizens, a free press, and our constitution. Give me a break.


wow, chastised to the max, and for good reason, from your point of view anyways, I accept this and will not respond in kind.

I do thank you for pointing out what you see as where I have gone wrong and you are right I did ask for one example, you gave it to me and then I trashed it. apologies for that. You responded in good faith and did not deserve it.
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about this then, you get three terrorist, you take them up in a helicopter, you ask the oldest one a question, just one, when he refuses to answer you just toss him out of the copter, then land where his mangled body is, show it to the other two then take off again, ask the second oldest a question, if he refuses to answer, you toss him out of the copter wrapped in pigskin, you land, show it to the youngest then take off again, by then I am sure you will get your information, without any torture at all. How does that work for you?
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
you get three terrorist, you take them up in a helicopter, you ask the oldest one a question, just one, when he refuses to answer you just toss him out of the copter, then land where his mangled body is, show it to the other two then take off again, ask the second oldest a question, if he refuses to answer, you toss him out of the copter wrapped in pigskin, you land, show it to the youngest then take off again, by then I am sure you will get your information, without any torture at all. How does that work for you?


just as an aside, am i correct in recalling you describing this technique and suggesting you had reason to believe it was employed in southeast asia (perhaps as comment on a thread shortly after you first arrived at ju)?

would not all three consider this their ticket to martyrdom and dozens of virgins--pig skin or no pig skin?

Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
wow, chastised to the max, and for good reason, from your point of view anyways, I accept this and will not respond in kind.

I do thank you for pointing out what you see as where I have gone wrong and you are right I did ask for one example, you gave it to me and then I trashed it. apologies for that. You responded in good faith and did not deserve it.


Moderateman, I'm speechless! Well not quite. Congrats on keeping your cool though!

In regards to your next point-

How about this then, you get three terrorist, you take them up in a helicopter, you ask the oldest one a question, just one, when he refuses to answer you just toss him out of the copter, then land where his mangled body is, show it to the other two then take off again, ask the second oldest a question, if he refuses to answer, you toss him out of the copter wrapped in pigskin, you land, show it to the youngest then take off again, by then I am sure you will get your information, without any torture at all. How does that work for you?


I think this is called a war crime. It's the same tactic that's been employed by many different armies down through the ages to instill fear of death in the vanquished "kill a few of the bastards to show em' who's in charge!!" Usually, people who do this are called bad guys and history tends to take a dim view of them. But to be fair, definitions are important. May I ask what your definition of a terrorist is? If any old Iraqi decides to take up arms against uniformed U.S forces does that automatically make him a terrorist, or is he an insurgent? If he is an insurgent, should he be treated differently from a terrorist? Because if there is no distinction, that would then mean that if the U.S was invaded and you decided to put up resistance to the invading army you would then be a terrorist as well! (in the eyes of the occupying army)

Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
May I ask what your definition of a terrorist is? If any old Iraqi decides to take up arms against uniformed U.S forces does that automatically make him a terrorist, or is he an insurgent? If he is an insurgent, should he be treated differently from a terrorist? Because if there is no distinction, that would then mean that if the U.S was invaded and you decided to put up resistance to the invading army you would then be a terrorist as well! (in the eyes of the occupying army)


Excellent response, Arty, and one reason I question our current course of action.

A terrorist is one who deliberately selects and attacks civilian targets for the purpose of causing the population to live in fear. The WTC attacks were terror attacks. The USS Cole, while requiring a response on our part, was not a terror attack any more than was John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. It was guerilla warfare, and falls into a different class of action entirely.

By calling anyone who dares strike at us in military OR civilian capacity (or worse, by calling anyone who dares SPEAK against us) a terrorist, cheapens the word and devalues the lives truly lost at the hands of terrorists.

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold insurgents until the end of hostilities. But I AM saying that an Iraqi defending his tiny patch of sand does not deserve to be lumped in the same class as the militant who blew up a shopping mall!
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
You seem to distrust the very thing you profess to hold dear, our government, its citizens, a free press, and our constitution.


I'm one who feels BOTH sides have sold out our Constitution. It's about time we take it back!
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
now they cannot due to the court being a little more balanced and they are pissed at this.


Sad and true. During the years when the court leaned left, the right bitched and moaned, but the last I saw, no one was wishing cancer on Ginsberg, and a painful death. Now that the court is more balanced (they would say tilting right), they are coming out of the woodwork and declaring the death of all mankind type of doom and gloom. Even Sodaiho, not a loon on the left (just left leaning), seems to think that all ills of society can be cured by court activism. That was never the intent of the courts, I hope we can prevent it from happening. There is a reason that the founders created 3 co-equal branches of government. Not one overarching one that ruled the other 2.
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
You seem to distrust the very thing you profess to hold dear, our government, its citizens, a free press, and our constitution.


I'm one who feels BOTH sides have sold out our Constitution. It's about time we take it back!


10 years ago, I would have argued with you. Today, I am sorry to say I agree with you.
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not if I wanted to ADVANCE in the workforce rather than work crappy jobs the rest of my life.


You could have quit nonetheless. Nobody held you in cuff and forced you to stay for months into that crappy jobs, water-boarding you.

Anyway, I'm sorry to see your utter lack of a sense of humour.


Oh, I'm sorry if I do not have a sense of humor when people are joking about torture. About actual torture.

My point is, being forced to stand around is not torture, nor are many of the other things described (for the record, I'm of the opinion that waterboarding IS torture!). How are we SUPPOSED to interrogate these guys, sitting in a barcolounger with a couple of Cuban cigars and a bottle of 20 year old scotch?!?


Then again the joke, stupid. You really think that there is no middle ground between psychological torture and a 4-star hotel?
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
obviously you have not read the comment section where I mentioned that Kalil Sheik Mohammed the number three man in Al Qaeda broke from water boarding and gave up tons of useful information.


Actually, I said this exactly because of your example.

1 example where it works doesn't make it right. You sounds like Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun 2 1/2:

"In honnesty, I got the last two while parking my car. Luckily, they were drug dealers"

Yhea, you got a lucky shot. Actually, it wasn't a lucky shot, because you actually capture one of the brain of Al-Qaeda.

But torturing field soldiers, found in Afghanistan, is both immoral and ludicrous! What informations would you get out of a lowly field operative of any organisation?

Now, the only thing you get out of it is a perverse sense of satisfaction, a sense of revenge. Psychologists usually agree that this reason is usually *the* reason governement use torture, since the information you get out of it is usually unreliable.
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about this then, you get three terrorist, you take them up in a helicopter, you ask the oldest one a question, just one, when he refuses to answer you just toss him out of the copter, then land where his mangled body is, show it to the other two then take off again, ask the second oldest a question, if he refuses to answer, you toss him out of the copter wrapped in pigskin, you land, show it to the youngest then take off again, by then I am sure you will get your information, without any torture at all. How does that work for you?


Why not another idea: Let's undust the crematorium used by the Nazis, and use that equipment for your example.

That way, it will be even clearer that you are commiting crimes against humanity. I don't care if it's 1 man or 10 000. I don't care if it's a jew or a muslim, a civilian or a terrorist. It's WRONG.
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
you get three terrorist, you take them up in a helicopter, you ask the oldest one a question, just one, when he refuses to answer you just toss him out of the copter, then land where his mangled body is, show it to the other two then take off again, ask the second oldest a question, if he refuses to answer, you toss him out of the copter wrapped in pigskin, you land, show it to the youngest then take off again, by then I am sure you will get your information, without any torture at all. How does that work for you?


just as an aside, am i correct in recalling you describing this technique and suggesting you had reason to believe it was employed in southeast asia (perhaps as comment on a thread shortly after you first arrived at ju)?

would not all three consider this their ticket to martyrdom and dozens of virgins--pig skin or no pig skin?

pig skin, no martydom, and yes this was something done in Vietnam, not by me of course.

Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top

[

Reply By: ArtysimPosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
wow, chastised to the max, and for good reason, from your point of view anyways, I accept this and will not respond in kind.

I do thank you for pointing out what you see as where I have gone wrong and you are right I did ask for one example, you gave it to me and then I trashed it. apologies for that. You responded in good faith and did not deserve it.


Moderateman, I'm speechless! Well not quite. Congrats on keeping your cool though!

In regards to your next point-

Thank you, I can admit being wrong, and I am wrong quite a bit.

 

quote] think this is called a war crime. It's the same tactic that's been employed by many different armies down through the ages to instill fear of death in the vanquished "kill a few of the bastards to show em' who's in charge!!" Usually, people who do this are called bad guys and history tends to take a dim view of them. But to be fair, definitions are important. May I ask what your definition of a terrorist is? If any old Iraqi decides to take up arms against uniformed U.S forces does that automatically make him a terrorist, or is he an insurgent? If he is an insurgent, should he be treated differently from a terrorist? Because if there is no distinction, that would then mean that if the U.S was invaded and you decided to put up resistance to the invading army you would then be a terrorist as well! (in the eyes of the occupying army)

It is a war crime and I was just fucking around some, yank a chain or two.

 

Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top

My point is, being forced to stand around is not torture, nor are many of the other things described (for the record, I'm of the opinion that waterboarding IS torture!). How are we SUPPOSED to interrogate these guys, sitting in a barcolounger with a couple of Cuban cigars and a bottle of 20 year old scotch?!?


Then again the joke, stupid. You really think that there is no middle ground between psychological torture and a 4-star hotel?
Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Thursday, October 11, 2007

would you care to define it, instead of skirting the issue.

Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
now they cannot due to the court being a little more balanced and they are pissed at this.


Sad and true. During the years when the court leaned left, the right bitched and moaned, but the last I saw, no one was wishing cancer on Ginsberg, and a painful death. Now that the court is more balanced (they would say tilting right), they are coming out of the woodwork and declaring the death of all mankind type of doom and gloom. Even Sodaiho, not a loon on the left (just left leaning), seems to think that all ills of society can be cured by court activism. That was never the intent of the courts, I hope we can prevent it from happening. There is a reason that the founders created 3 co-equal branches of government. Not one overarching

to the left, if you are not totally with them, you are against them. period, no middle ground.

Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top

But torturing field soldiers, found in Afghanistan, is both immoral and ludicrous! What informations would you get out of a lowly field operative of any organisation?

Now, the only thing you get out of it is a perverse sense of satisfaction, a sense of revenge. Psychologists usually agree that this reason is usually *the* reason governement use torture, since the information you get out of it is usually unreliable.
Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Thursday, October 11, 2007

Again with the torturing everyone, so far I have been shown proof of one or two being tortured, how does that translate to everyone?