It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Torture? I went through worse in basic training

page: 22
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I can't even believe the OP would even be able to take this aproach and still stomach his lunch. These are the kind of people that never learn from their mistakes, and never think they are wrong. OP you say it is ok to torture people and you compair it to basic traing, then you truly are a fool.




posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
There's a very simple reason why torture is inherently un-American.

Simply put, we're supposed to be the good guys.

Yeah, so our "enemies" (in quotes because there's still some question as to who was really responsible for the events we're supposedly "avenging", and even if it was al Qaeda, well, we created that monster to begin with--except we called them the Mujahadeen then) are bad. They do terrible things. They rape and murder and commit all manner of atrocities. They torture people and behead them on video. Such disgusting, lowlife bastards they are.

And that's exactly why we shouldn't stoop to their level, because we're not supposed to be disgusting, lowlife bastards.

Democracy cannot be forced upon the world. Enlightenment doesn't come from the business end of a gun or the edge of a knife. Understanding isn't a result of water-boarding.

George Washington himself started the tradition of treating war prisoners with respect and considered any mistreatment of prisoners a treasonous act.

Why?

Because he understood that our true strength lies in our character. If the United States of America is to be the Beacon of Hope for the world, the world needs to be able to trust us. We need to have the moral authority that comes from good character in order to lead the world.

And besides, people who enjoy torturing others are seriously mentally ill. Jeffrey Dahmer ring a bell?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
So, since we wish to be perceived as the "good guys," we have to spot the other side fifty points?

No thanks.

Has no one on this thread ever heard of the concept of cost/benefit?

It goes something like this. You do someone wrong, they will do you much worse, which keeps you from doing them wrong.

You shouldn't give a tinker's damn whether or not your enemies hate you, but you should do everything in your power to make them fear you.

After all, waterboarding is not going to give our enemies a negative impression of us.

Are you guys really serious?

They already hate us, they already have cut off some of our soldiers heads!

And you don't want to offend them during interrogations?

This is why we'll likely lose this battle eventually.

This very thinking.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
So, since we wish to be perceived as the "good guys," we have to spot the other side fifty points?

No thanks.


It's not about "points". This isn't a game. It's about right and wrong.


Has no one on this thread ever heard of the concept of cost/benefit?

It goes something like this. You do someone wrong, they will do you much worse, which keeps you from doing them wrong.


Except that doesn't work. When you're dealing with people who have nothing else to lose and believe the afterlife will make up for all the pain they suffer in this world, they not only come back to do wrong again, but they come back with 100 of their friends and family members in tow.

We torture, they recruit. Some benefit.


You shouldn't give a tinker's damn whether or not your enemies hate you, but you should do everything in your power to make them fear you.


Or, try to avoid making enemies in the first place. This may come as a shock to you but we kinda started it.


After all, waterboarding is not going to give our enemies a negative impression of us.


Oh, but does give our allies a negative impression of us, which tends to lead to us having fewer allies.

Besides, how do you even know the people you enjoy torturing are legitimately "enemies"? How do you know they are who you think they are?


Are you guys really serious?


Are you? You've already confessed to war crimes. If I were in the DOJ I'd be tracking you down right now and throwing you in the clink to be brought up on charges.


They already hate us, they already have cut off some of our soldiers heads!


And we've dropped thousands of tons' worth of TNT on their wives, children, and elderly. Oh how much better we are!


And you don't want to offend them during interrogations?


Again, it's not about offending them. It's about having a line we won't cross because we're supposed to be better than they are.


This is why we'll likely lose this battle eventually.


The best battle is the one you never have to fight. Sad you can't understand that. Do you get off on killing? Seriously, I'm truly curious.


This very thinking.


All your thinking leads to is death and more death. But maybe that's your "thing".



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You have to understand that these interrogation methods are just one way of gaining information. They aren't pulling people off of that streets and waterboarding them. In reality they don't even care about what most people know. There are certain individuals that have key pieces of information and these are high priority targets. Why would they even waste their time interrogating people with useless information? This is not a tell us everything you know type situation. This is a we know you have this information and you are going to tell us situation.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


You're one of those. News item: we didn't start it. They dropped our Towers and killed 3,000 innocent people. They started it.

It's about right and wrong? Wrong. It's about getting the job done. Finished. Over with.

Doing my job was not a war crime, though it may have had some tint. Since you're the expert and speak with such authority, how many battles have you fought in? Firefights? How many ambushes have you pulled? How many enemy have you tracked down? How many prisoners have you personally taken?

I don't want an answer. It's a rhetorical question.

You have noble ideas. Lofty ideals. Good for you. You've been insulated by your family, your economic status, your geographical location, and your experience. Good for you. You have ideals. Noble ideas of how things should work. I do admire noble ideas.

And those noble ideas?

They don't work.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


You're one of those. News item: we didn't start it. They dropped our Towers and killed 3,000 innocent people. They started it.





Wait, Iraqi's knocked over the world trade towers? No wait, it was Afghanis.

Oh no, according to the officials story it was 15 Saudis, 2 Arabs, and Egyptian and a Lebanese.

Sorry, I just had to point out the ridiculousness of your assumptions. We illegally detain people from all over the middle east, refuse to give them trials, and then torture them as innocents. And you say "they" started it. I guess every middle easterner is now lumped in with Al-Qaeda by default.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd


We illegally detain people from all over the middle east, refuse to give them trials, and then torture them as innocents. And you say "they" started it. I guess every middle easterner is now lumped in with Al-Qaeda by default.




If "we" is referring to the US, this is not correct. Hundreds of thousands from the Middle East enter and leave the US, and are not detained or tortured. Those who are accused of crimes are given trials.

The US government and it's military deals differently with suspected perpetrators and their supporters thought to be involved in acts of war against the nation.

The country was attacked by unidentified groups who neither declared war formally, or are directly affiliated with any regime's military or government.

Extreme measure, short of torture, were employed in attempts to extract intelligence that could prevent further attacks and deaths.

War can be fought under set rules when both sides identify themselves and agree to the same terms.

Not the case here.


Mike





[edit on 27-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Hahahhahahahaha would be fun to see you playing russian roulette with a guy screaming PAI PAI PAIIIIIIII SLAP SLAP PAIIIIII PAII PAI PAI SLAP SLAP .
You would cry like a small child, even Rambo would do that. Nothing macho about torture.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper

You're one of those. News item: we didn't start it. They dropped our Towers and killed 3,000 innocent people. They started it.


Assuming, of course, 9/11 wasn't a false-flag op. The evidence is pretty damning if you ask me, and thousands, possibly millions, of others have come to the same conclusion.

Even if "they" did it, there's the simple fact these things don't happen in a vaccuum. Bin Laden didn't wake up one morning and decide to just kill Americans for the fun of it. There's a motive behind every action; unfortunately people like yourself apparently don't have the capability to look inwards and ask tough questions about what those motivations may be.


It's about right and wrong? Wrong. It's about getting the job done. Finished. Over with.


Let's deconstruct your reasoning:

Let's say I'm dirt poor. I work my butt off for a measly paycheck, and the prospects for better employment are lacking right now, not that I'm not trying. I have debts to pay and I need a new car.

By your reasoning, I should be perfectly justified in stealing whatever monies I need to pay off my debts, buy a new car, and sock some away for later. Whatever means necessary, right? Just "getting the job done", right? Who cares who gets hurt in the process, right? Innocents? There aren't any. Right?


Doing my job was not a war crime


Your "job" is not to torture people. If you tortured someone you're a war criminal. That was a good enough definition for George Washington, a good enough definition when we prosecuted Japanese and German (and American, BTW) torturers during WWII and it was a good enough definition when we denounced Vietnamese/Chinese/etc. torturers. Why isn't it good enough for you? Are you broken?


Since you're the expert and speak with such authority, how many battles have you fought in? Firefights? How many ambushes have you pulled? How many enemy have you tracked down? How many prisoners have you personally taken?

I don't want an answer. It's a rhetorical question.


None. I don't need to to understand that if we abandon our founding principles for false expediency, we don't deserve to win, or even to exist, for that matter.


You have noble ideas. Lofty ideals. Good for you. You've been insulated by your family, your economic status, your geographical location, and your experience. Good for you. You have ideals. Noble ideas of how things should work. I do admire noble ideas.

And those noble ideas?

They don't work.


I hope that's enough of an explanation to get you past St. Peter.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
The question about torture is not IF it works - because if you torture a man (or a woman or a child) long enough he or she shall admit to almost anything, which means that it kind of does not work very well, since the information you get is not reliable. Or in the other case, you can torture as long as you can an innocent man, who was at the wrong place at the wrong time and what you get then out of him? Here is the answer:


Torture? It probably killed more Americans than 9/11

Major Matthew Alexander who oversaw more than 300 interrogations in Iraq claims that more foreign fighters became members of the terrorist organization al-Qa'ida in Iraq as a result of US torture and not because of Islamic ideology.

Alexander states that "It plays into the hands of al-Qa'ida in Iraq because it shows us up as hypocrites when we talk about human rights," and claims that more suspects refused to talk when subjected to torture.

Major Alexander details how many of those sent to carry out interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan had never left the US prior to their service and had never encountered a Muslim before and points to the lack of experience as a major problem.

Can anybody see the problem here? Well I guess the majorit of Americans kind of do not. Why? Well the answer is simple: Only 25 Percent of Americans Believe Torture is Never Justified. So an old saying from a known hollywood movie says: THE CIRCLE IS COMPLETE! And the perpetual motion of violence goes on and on and on and on and on - at this very moment you people are "debating" about this issue.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
first of all. i went to Infantry Basic Training in the USA and in a european country.Yes it is harsh. But if you compare it to say military training in Europe where they can hit you and do. I have to say you got it pretty easy at BASIC training. Now you have to remember that some of the Torture Tactics that they don't tell you about look like the movie SAW. It will always be a black area because there is no way of controlling it. I am not in favor of torture but remember if we are ever captured the enemy will make sure we no what it fells like.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by portmafia]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


"They," meaning Islamic fundamentalists. Regardless of whether you find your foe in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Somalia, or Sudan, the enemy is the same, cut from the same cloth, spouting the same hate.

Muslim fanatics.

And I don't give a damn where you round them up from.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Oh my God. So 9-11 was a false flag-op? That's just great. I'm having discourse with someone who thinks the same government who can't protect their own data, close down the borders, understand basic economics, yet generated the current tax code, somehow, pulled a real-time special op, live on television?

OOOOKAA.

Anything I did, was authorized under the Geneva Conventions. We violated a few Army regulations now and then, but tried to not make a habit of it. Just a few regulations that on occasion got in the way of us carrying out our duty. Strangest thing. There's a right way, a wrong way, and the Army way. Meaning, we had three choices!

Contrary to your suggestion, no one DESERVES to win. You earn your victories. You earn every single one. Deserving has nothing to do with it. You start thinking you deserve to win, and you'll get dead real fast.

I kept my people alive. And I got the other side dead. Our little unit had the highest number of kills of any unit in country while I was there. Never lost a single man killed. Must have been doing a couple things right. And my LT knew when to turn his head or go for a walk.

Don't you worry about me getting past St. Peter.

Peter's not going to be the one doing the judging. I'll meet my Maker, just like you - with great fear and trembling in my heart.

I'll trust Him to judge me.

Not you.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Of course it's torture. What you went through was difficult, but no more so than Boy Scouts in bad weather.

I think if you had experienced waterboarding, you'd quickly change your mind about whether to endure it, or basic training. My guess is that you'd choose basic. I've seen some videos of people being waterboarded voluntarily, just to see how it feels. In both cases, they didn't last even ten seconds. These were people who had the option to stop any time they wanted - to drop the weight or say the safe word. Even knowing they could stop any time, they couldn't hang on for fifteen seconds.

Aside from one self-serving memo from 2005 claiming that an attack on LA was thwarted by using torture, there is no evidence that waterboarding (or other "extensive" interrogation methods) actually yield reliable information. This memo was put out by the same people doing the waterboarding. What do you think they'd say? Gee, it doesn't work, but we're doing it anyway? I can just imagine what would happen, were I to commit a crime, then claim that doing so saved LA from terrorists.

The United States does not torture. That is not who we are. If we violate US and international law, we descend to the level of the enemies we are fighting. The fact that we have principles, that we try to hold a higher moral ground, is one of the things that makes this country worth fighting for. When we descend into barbarity, the country dies a little.

Torture doesn't yield reliable information. If you waterboard me, I'll sing like a canary, even if I don't know anything. I'll make something up. If I were a terrorist, I'd likely have a whole alternative story in mind, names, places, dates, that were all BS. Maybe name some inconsequential terrorist, even reveal a minor plot, whatever. Never underestimate the enemy. These people are not as dumb as you might think. And their religion specifically allows them to lie to non-believers, so there's no shame or sin in them lying to us. In the olden days, women often confessed to being witches, after a few sessions of torture. The authorities never tortured an innocent woman - they *always* confessed.

Same thing with waterboarding, or any other sort of torture. What you get out of people is unlikely to be anything but what the inquisitor wants to hear.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
And my LT knew when to turn his head or go for a walk.


Why would your LT do this?

Was he aware of the crimes you were committing and attempting to establish plausible deniability? (which is quite clearly what you are implying)

Did he ever "turn his head" or "go for a walk" leaving you alone with Vietnamese prisoners?

Did you "do what had to be done to safeguard our freedom", etc?

*I have serious doubts about your persistent claims of past military involvement.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Oh my God. So 9-11 was a false flag-op? That's just great. I'm having discourse with someone who thinks the same government who can't protect their own data, close down the borders, understand basic economics, yet generated the current tax code, somehow, pulled a real-time special op, live on television?

OOOOKAA.


The Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon pulled a 7G+ turn before doing so. This maneuver is IMPOSSIBLE for said aircraft under normal circumstances; for starters that particular craft uses fly-by-wire technology (as pretty much all modern airliners do) which means the pilot's control inputs are processed through a computer, which then translates them into the correct movements of the control surfaces to actually turn the plane.

The 757 is software-limited to 1.5G for the safety of passengers and crew. The plane's airframe can handle much more, but there's no way for the pilot to make it happen. That software cannot be disabled or tampered with from inside the plane while in flight, which means there was no possible way for the hijackers of that flight to make the plane pull off a 7G+ maneuver.

And, even if they had been able to cut the safeties on the FBW system, there's some real doubt as to whether a couple of crappy "pilots" with little to no real-world flying experience in anything larger than a Cessna could pull such a thing off competently. US Air Force fighter pilots who have analyzed the Pentagon attack and the path the aircraft took have publicly stated their doubts that even they, with all their experience and specialized training, would be hard-pressed to make a 757 perform as such--but guys who spent maybe 100 real flight hours or so in small planes, and then backed that up by playing Microsoft Flight Simulator, magically can?

And do so, lining up the plane with a target barely taller than the aircraft itself, flying into that target at top speed, skimming the ground low enough that the engines should have been literally plowing through the lawn, hitting the target, and then somehow not only making a hole smaller than the plane that hit it (an impossible feat) but also making pretty much the entire plane "disintegrate" into dust, leaving no discernable wreckage from a 757? And they "just happen" to hit the least-populated section of the Pentagon during renovations? On the same day military exercises are being conducted on how to handle such an eventuality as a plane hijacking over US soil?

That's an awful big set of coincidences, and that's not even the half of it. Anyone who doesn't look deeper into this and see some very disturbing things isn't really thinking it over very thoroughly.

But I digress.


Anything I did, was authorized under the Geneva Conventions.


That's not what you've said before.


We violated a few Army regulations now and then, but tried to not make a habit of it. Just a few regulations that on occasion got in the way of us carrying out our duty. Strangest thing. There's a right way, a wrong way, and the Army way. Meaning, we had three choices!


Those regulations were put in place for a reason.


Contrary to your suggestion, no one DESERVES to win. You earn your victories. You earn every single one. Deserving has nothing to do with it. You start thinking you deserve to win, and you'll get dead real fast.


If you don't believe the US deserves to win its battles then why did you choose to serve it in wartime?

Signing up and going to war aren't enough. One has to believe that their side has some moral authority to do what it's doing, otherwise there's no reason to do it. "Just doing my duty" doesn't cut it. But, then again, you're talking about Vietnam, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.


I kept my people alive. And I got the other side dead. Our little unit had the highest number of kills of any unit in country while I was there. Never lost a single man killed. Must have been doing a couple things right. And my LT knew when to turn his head or go for a walk.


And your LT is complicit in your admitted war crimes.

All those "kills" apparently didn't amount to a hill of beans anyway, did they?


Don't you worry about me getting past St. Peter.

Peter's not going to be the one doing the judging. I'll meet my Maker, just like you - with great fear and trembling in my heart.

I'll trust Him to judge me.

Not you.


Fair enough. I'm just amazed at the fact so many people who support torture are often the same ones shoving Jesus Christ down America's collective throats when it comes to such subjects as prayer in schools, gay marriage and abortion.

For a so-called Christian nation we sure have a funny way of showing it.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by miketwosix
Directly too you 5th.

Someone you LOVE is about to have thier head cut off right before your very eyes. Your choice is to do what? A little patty cake maybe? Ah, but what if they lose at patty cake and you hurt thier feelings?

Put yourself in the positition, then answer. Would you let it happen or prevent it by any means?


No offense but this example has nothing to do with what is being discussed. What you're talking about is a person witnessing the commission of a crime involving attempted murder. At that point, it is reasonable to prevent the murder using lethal force. You have a direct cause and effect relationship and there is none between torturing people and saving lives.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
I find those who find extreme psychological dislocation abhorrent to be in the same class as those who don't believe in fighting. Oh, they'll argue that fighting for something is acceptable, but they won't generally be interested in getting their own hands dirty.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. I've fought to defend people before and myself and have no problem with it. I'm sure most people feel the same way. You're just trying to make us seem like spineless jellyfish which simply is not the case.


I find that idealists, who would deny the brutal realities of the real world, themselves are insulated and isolated from the barbarities that permeate most other regions of the world.

I find people who find excuses to commit violent acts to be repugnant.


And I find that when the thing goes tits up and they have to fend for themselves, fortunately, they drop faster than burdschitt in a downdraft.

At this point the words, "try me" come to mind



You don't like any form of torture?

You knock yourself out. But your delusions and arbitrary sensitivities are only enabled by those who do the things necessary, those things that require them to get their hands dirty.

Pray they never whiz on the fire, call in the dogs, and declare "every man for himself."

Then we'll let you show us how it's done.

oh pleeeaaaasssseeee



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Exhuberent, you have doubts about me? Well, I have serious doubts about you having a pair. I guess that makes us about even. Why do you insist on making this personal?

Nighthawk, coincidence such as your 757 concoction happen every day. Unexplained oddities. Anomalies happen all the time. Doesn't mean a conspiracy is behind every event. If you want some credibility, don't use that as an example!

Fortunately, you don't have to be a genius to figure out the Geneva Conventions. To be a combatant eligible for protections, you have to be in a recognizable uniform.

No uniform, no protections. Difficult, huh?

Do you have any idea what you are legally justified and legally permitted to do to a captured combatant out of uniform? One who upon picking up that AK just legally ceased to exist?

You're one for the rules. I stuck to the rules that I didn't have any say over. I followed them to the letter. You don't like the rules, then take it up in Geneva.

As far as Army regulations, you have no idea of which you speak. According to regulation, we were to shave every day, maintain a clean uniform, when running a fever of 101-102, we were to be under medical care, and were not to do any running once the thermometer his 98 degrees.

Well, we'd go up to three days and nights without a drop of water to drink, sometimes ten days without any water to bathe, the lot of us should have been hospitalized, and we'd get chased in temperatures exceeding 98 degrees. But we would hat up and keep going.

You want to tell me about Army Regulations? You? I really don't want to hear it.

That LT was the finest officer who ever served in uniform and was killed two weeks after my third extension was rescinded and I was shipped home. You don't have the right to call him a damned thing.

As far as whether or not those "kills" meant a hill of beans? Maybe, maybe not. Sure made me feel better though.

Besides, there's always someone keeping score. And not on your side.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join