I want to be there to lend a hand.  Maybe 30-40 sessions.  Maybe Sean will end up
like my step-father: bat shit crazy dangerous for the rest of his life.

AladdinSane wrote:

Someone please tell me why we should care about whether sandniggers in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo were waterboarded in the first place?

I'm dead fucking serious...Why should I care if we torture America's enemies?

Because it wasn’t our business to invade the sandniggers' nest in the first place!  They became our enemies because America disrupted their lives.  No disruption, no sworn enemies, no reason for waterboarding to have occurred.  It’s that simple.

Last edited by fnord (2009-04-23 23:45:15)

AladdinSane wrote:

Someone please tell me why we should care about whether sandniggers in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo were waterboarded in the first place?

I'm dead fucking serious...Why should I care if we torture America's enemies?

I agree with you there, the people housed at Gitmo now are the most dangerous of the whole lot.  Most of the lower level detainees have been released and many of them caught or killed a short time later for additional attacks.  I have nothing wrong with killing or torturing people who would kill or torture me if they had the opportunity.  These people are religious fundamentalists, they aren't reasonable or rational and their entire goal in life is murdering infidels.  The people performing the waterboarding are doing what they feel is necessary in a military prison situation to gain information.  The people getting waterboarded are not low level drug dealers, petty larcenists or burglars.  They are a group of people who would kill you in a heartbeat if they had a chance and convert the government into a theocracy.  Fuck em, I hope it hurts like a motherfucker and the psychological damage is permanent.

orangeplus wrote:

How do you know that?

You didn't get the memo?

I remember a set of laws the US, the UK and the rest of the allies swore to uphold.  When I read shit like what Aladdin read, I am embarrassed to consider that there is that much ignorance being displayed by someone who I usually consider to be a good person.

I grew up with someone who was tortured.  It was not a pleasant life he lived, and he died in terror.  Lad, you have no idea what you promulgate.

Just Sayin'

Dirckman wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

You didn't get the memo?

I did, however everyone I got it from was the same motherfuckers that said we had to invade Iraq because Saddam was BFF with Osama and was mere days away from a Strangelovecraftian doomsday. I was thinking Dirckman might have some better insight that he might share into the guilt of people held incommunicado, without trial, subject to horrendous treatment, in a location (how do you describe gitmo?) I mean, seriously, how can you say who these guys are and what they're about in these conditions? The virgin birth has better data.

First off, I'm against the Iraq war and didn't think a war was necessary in the first place.  I am 100% for wiping out radical Islam or any other group of people that will not let me live my life as I see fit, that's one of the things besides printing money that the federal government is for.  I agree with you that not a lot of information regarding specifics about the different individuals housed at Gitmo has been made public.  I can't be positive here, but I seriously doubt the military is rounding up innocent people at random then waterboarding them for the lulz....

Forgotten Abu Graibh already, eh?

orangeplus wrote:

Do you actually believe that those guys know what the hell they are doing? I have seen little to suggest so. We have trials, rules of evidence, standards of conduct of military and legal professionals. We have those things because all government has a habit of running out and locking people up for no other crime but dissent and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Since we have denied these people these basic human rights we, as a society of people who recognizes primacy of law, we have no right to declare that these guys are criminals or guilty of anything. All you are doing is buying into the propaganda put out by the government, because it's your only source. And since it's demonstrable that these guys will lie and destroy evidence on this subject, then how can you just take their word for it and say, "go ahead and torture them, I hope they're fucked for life!" That's immoral.

I'm just nihilistic enough that I won't take moral issues into account unless they directly affect me.  I could give a fuck or less about the comfort or freedoms of Gitmo detainees.  I spend more than enough time concerning myself with my comfort and my freedom to worry about some asshole from halfway around the world.  It's absolutely retarded to think that there aren't religious funditards out to destroy my way of life.  I know this because I deal with them locally and they're called Christians.  This is not a world of "right and wrong" it's a world of risk management and siding with the winners  There truly is no standardized system of morals, it's nothing more than pro-social anti-social, and neutral behavior.  All social dealing regardless of its nature has both pro-social, anti-social and neutral aspects because no decision benefits all parties.  I've picked the group which I feel benefits me the most and hurts me the least.  The Gitmo detainees are so far astray from my philosophical beliefs that they are nothing more than just yet another risk factor in my life that I don't need...  Fuck em....

libertarian wrote:

I'm just nihilistic enough that I won't take moral issues into account unless they directly affect me.  I could give a fuck or less about the comfort or freedoms of Gitmo detainees.  I spend more than enough time concerning myself with my comfort and my freedom to worry about some asshole from halfway around the world.  It's absolutely retarded to think that there aren't religious funditards out to destroy my way of life.  I know this because I deal with them locally and they're called Christians.  This is not a world of "right and wrong" it's a world of risk management and siding with the winners  There truly is no standardized system of morals, it's nothing more than pro-social anti-social, and neutral behavior.  All social dealing regardless of its nature has both pro-social, anti-social and neutral aspects because no decision benefits all parties.  I've picked the group which I feel benefits me the most and hurts me the least.  The Gitmo detainees are so far astray from my philosophical beliefs that they are nothing more than just yet another risk factor in my life that I don't need...  Fuck em....

When they decide to lock up all the radical libertarian separatists, I'll keep that in mind.

Last edited by orangeplus (2009-04-24 01:28:10)

I always thought it was a lot simpler than that: If you condone torture on your own prisoners of war, then the other side will do it too. This was at the crux of the Geneva Convention. Of course, there was nothing stopping them from torturing, beheading, stoning, or drowning in the first place. We've all seen the pictures of our own servicemen kidnapped, decapitated or hung, burnt, from a pole in the town square. All of which tend to make simulated drowning look quaint. It still doesn't make us the better people for not going that far.

Some of you may buy into the idea that a high-level target is more likely to "break" and reveal salient information under duress, but there are many different kinds of duress, and far more psychologically persuasive interview methods. There is also a limit to what any given individual may know about the larger scope of terrorist operations. Many of these groups are successful primarily because of their deliberately loose/weak relationships to each other; i.e., one doesn't know what the other is doing, and many members within a group can't tell you what's happening at other levels of their own cell or sub-organization.

While we seem to realize this fundamentally, it doesn't stop us from "stressing" our prisoners [of war] until they'll say just about anything to make it stop. Keep in mind, as well, that if we did this to unsentenced prisoners in our OWN jails, there'd be lawsuits, mistrials, and overturned verdicts flying everywhere. Is it not just as important to extract from an arms middleman or a drug dealer the sources of their goods, the extent of their criminal organization? The only way we seem to have of threatening them--according to our Stateside judicial system--is by rewarding them with plea deals, lighter sentences, and even new identities for a full life elsewhere.

There's a lot more to being an American than the flag-waving fucktards singing Lee Greenwood's 'Proud to be An American' and not just condoning, but cheering on the torture of anyfuckingone..

Really.

How do you know that that is what they are?

Dirckman wrote:

It's simple, war is hell.  Occasionally war will be fought over something tangible like property, but for the most part it's fought over an idea or security.  To put it bluntly, I DO NOT FEEL SECURE IN A WORLD OCCUPIED WITH RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS. Religious fundamentalists do not function under the same peaceful mindset as you and I.  They do not understand reason or any deep philosophical truth, they only understand unbearable pain and death (which many of them welcome).  These are people who are willing to murder for something less tangible than the Easter bunny or Santa Claus.  People of this mindset are a danger to the entire world and should be taken out of the gene pool as quickly as possible.  I personally am not capable of torturing another human to any degree because I just couldn't handle it.  I'm also not denying the necessity of certain techniques used by the modern military.

Your not willing or able to, but you approve.  Nice.