This is un-American and morally fucked
Moderator: EG Members
This is un-American and morally fucked
Bow to Golbez
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
Torture used to be something the "other guy" did. Americans used to fight for Truth, Justice, and mom's Apple Pie. We used to be the good guys.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union (all your conservatives out there... note that I'm not letting Clinton off the hook on this one) we've been without an evil empire to keep us honest. With no one to point at and say "they're evil - so we won't do what they do" we've been more and more willing to compromise our morals for the sake of expediency.
I've heard all the arguments from the "pro torture" contingent.*
1 - What if the terrorists have a nuclear weapon and we can find it and stop it if only we know where it is. Shouldn't we torture someone then?
In the unlikely scenario that this particular circumstance comes about I'd say that the decision would have to be made by the man on the ground. We could argue that we should make legal provisions to allow whatever means are necessary to extract information in this circumstance, but the fact remains that an interrogator will use this means reguardless of what the law says if the danger really is that great. Leaving the legal bariers in place makes the interigator weight the danger to his country against the importance of the law. If torture is to be an extreme method of interrogation and used only in extreme circumstances, I see no problem with asking that those circumstances be so extreme that the interrogator is willing to break the law when using them.
2 - Why shouldn't we use rough interrogation techniques on prisoners? These people are trying to kill us! This is war damn it!
Because war has rules. Obeying the rules of war is what distinguishes armies from terrorists. When General George Washington refused to obey the rules of war during the American Revolution, he was branded a terrorist by the English. We can not risk becoming that which we fight. If we are to convince the world that the rule of law and democratic self determination are desirable ends, we must do so by first convincing them that they are different from the totalitarian despots that so many fear. Torturing people isn't helping our case.
3 - We're talking about techniques like loud rap music, sleep deprivation, and pressure positions. It's not like we're using thumbscrews and the rack here.
Sleep deprivation has been shown to cause serious and frightening alterations to a persons mind. People forget their names. They forget that they have children, that they are married. Personalities are changed, and memories obliterated. Just because we're not physically cracking a persons head open and rooting around in it with a stick - doesn't mean the results are terribly distinguishable.
Moreover, pressure positions and the like are excruciating. The Rack was simply a primitive means of inducing similar positions. Water boarding (as we call it) is a method that dates to the Spanish Inquisition (where it was called "The Water Torture"). This is to say nothing of turning attack dogs loose on people, sodomizing them with glow sticks, raping prisoners, and the other horrid and inhumane things carried out in our name.
* Note: These could be considered straw man arguments - but I think I've done a fair job representing them.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union (all your conservatives out there... note that I'm not letting Clinton off the hook on this one) we've been without an evil empire to keep us honest. With no one to point at and say "they're evil - so we won't do what they do" we've been more and more willing to compromise our morals for the sake of expediency.
I've heard all the arguments from the "pro torture" contingent.*
1 - What if the terrorists have a nuclear weapon and we can find it and stop it if only we know where it is. Shouldn't we torture someone then?
In the unlikely scenario that this particular circumstance comes about I'd say that the decision would have to be made by the man on the ground. We could argue that we should make legal provisions to allow whatever means are necessary to extract information in this circumstance, but the fact remains that an interrogator will use this means reguardless of what the law says if the danger really is that great. Leaving the legal bariers in place makes the interigator weight the danger to his country against the importance of the law. If torture is to be an extreme method of interrogation and used only in extreme circumstances, I see no problem with asking that those circumstances be so extreme that the interrogator is willing to break the law when using them.
2 - Why shouldn't we use rough interrogation techniques on prisoners? These people are trying to kill us! This is war damn it!
Because war has rules. Obeying the rules of war is what distinguishes armies from terrorists. When General George Washington refused to obey the rules of war during the American Revolution, he was branded a terrorist by the English. We can not risk becoming that which we fight. If we are to convince the world that the rule of law and democratic self determination are desirable ends, we must do so by first convincing them that they are different from the totalitarian despots that so many fear. Torturing people isn't helping our case.
3 - We're talking about techniques like loud rap music, sleep deprivation, and pressure positions. It's not like we're using thumbscrews and the rack here.
Sleep deprivation has been shown to cause serious and frightening alterations to a persons mind. People forget their names. They forget that they have children, that they are married. Personalities are changed, and memories obliterated. Just because we're not physically cracking a persons head open and rooting around in it with a stick - doesn't mean the results are terribly distinguishable.
Moreover, pressure positions and the like are excruciating. The Rack was simply a primitive means of inducing similar positions. Water boarding (as we call it) is a method that dates to the Spanish Inquisition (where it was called "The Water Torture"). This is to say nothing of turning attack dogs loose on people, sodomizing them with glow sticks, raping prisoners, and the other horrid and inhumane things carried out in our name.
* Note: These could be considered straw man arguments - but I think I've done a fair job representing them.
Honarable or "Just War" only came about from Richard the Lionheart during the Crusades.
So even in it's inception has been flawed.
Also look into Chivarly. It came about due to French aristacrats who didn't want to die, so they created rules combat so they wouldn't die. It ONLY applied to French nobles, not do anyone else. The rest are just conscripts and millitia.
War is just another tool.
So even in it's inception has been flawed.
Also look into Chivarly. It came about due to French aristacrats who didn't want to die, so they created rules combat so they wouldn't die. It ONLY applied to French nobles, not do anyone else. The rest are just conscripts and millitia.
War is just another tool.
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
Totally and completely untrue Psi -- sorry. Ok, well maybe not the phrasing or idea of "honorable" or "just" -- but standards of conduct and humane means of conducting war are OLD.
Standards of decency for POWs go back to Homeric Times (1100 BC or so) wherein captured or wounded members of an opposing army would be returned to their countries after the end of hostilities -- often times after the end of an individual battle.
Progressing forward, the use of slavery in the Greek and Roman world, while widespread and almost exclusively restricted to POWs was very civilized and extremely temporary. Slaves were almost never kept longer than 7 years and Greece even had a series of holidays in which slaves became masters for the day -- which encouraged humane treatment of slaves.
Rome, particularly under the empire, was a screwed up place. While siege operations and the suppression of rebellions were uncommonly brutal, the day to day treatment of the millions of POWs that passed through Roman hands was actually pretty tame. The Romans represented the height of inhumanity in the ancient world - and even so, their debauched cruelty limited in scale, if not scope.
The early middle ages -- ok, that I'll give you. Nothing like the collapse of civilization to bring about the worst in people.
Raziel: As to the problem of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the ethics of the Atom Bomb -- that is a topic for another thread, and one I'd love to chime in on if you want to start it. Even so, just remember that WWII was a total war, meaning that the entirety of the civilian production base was mobilized into producing war materials. As such, attacks on the civilian populations were both necessary and appropriate -- unfortunate, yes, but legitimate military targets.
The use of Atomic Bombs is horrific to us today, but to a WWII era general or politician, little separated one B-29 with a single atom bomb from the waves of B-29s with fire bombs that wiped Tokyo and Dresden off the map. What you're really highlighting is the willingness to attack civilian populations in WWII - which, in my opinion, constituted a military target, particularly in heavily industrialized cities like Hiroshima and Tokyo
Dresden and Coventry though - those were protected cities and internationally recognized as refugee camps. Bombing those was probably a war crime. Of course, when it came time to prosecute war crimes, the Allies had bigger fish to fry.
Standards of decency for POWs go back to Homeric Times (1100 BC or so) wherein captured or wounded members of an opposing army would be returned to their countries after the end of hostilities -- often times after the end of an individual battle.
Progressing forward, the use of slavery in the Greek and Roman world, while widespread and almost exclusively restricted to POWs was very civilized and extremely temporary. Slaves were almost never kept longer than 7 years and Greece even had a series of holidays in which slaves became masters for the day -- which encouraged humane treatment of slaves.
Rome, particularly under the empire, was a screwed up place. While siege operations and the suppression of rebellions were uncommonly brutal, the day to day treatment of the millions of POWs that passed through Roman hands was actually pretty tame. The Romans represented the height of inhumanity in the ancient world - and even so, their debauched cruelty limited in scale, if not scope.
The early middle ages -- ok, that I'll give you. Nothing like the collapse of civilization to bring about the worst in people.
Raziel: As to the problem of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the ethics of the Atom Bomb -- that is a topic for another thread, and one I'd love to chime in on if you want to start it. Even so, just remember that WWII was a total war, meaning that the entirety of the civilian production base was mobilized into producing war materials. As such, attacks on the civilian populations were both necessary and appropriate -- unfortunate, yes, but legitimate military targets.
The use of Atomic Bombs is horrific to us today, but to a WWII era general or politician, little separated one B-29 with a single atom bomb from the waves of B-29s with fire bombs that wiped Tokyo and Dresden off the map. What you're really highlighting is the willingness to attack civilian populations in WWII - which, in my opinion, constituted a military target, particularly in heavily industrialized cities like Hiroshima and Tokyo
Dresden and Coventry though - those were protected cities and internationally recognized as refugee camps. Bombing those was probably a war crime. Of course, when it came time to prosecute war crimes, the Allies had bigger fish to fry.
To me throwing people in jails without proof and even not chargin them with a crime is even worse than torture.
I keep thinking that maybe the next president will be one that can make things better in the world but since US is a country that has been in so many wars in 200 years that most countries hasn't been in a thousand years. Things dont look to good.
I keep thinking that maybe the next president will be one that can make things better in the world but since US is a country that has been in so many wars in 200 years that most countries hasn't been in a thousand years. Things dont look to good.
Last edited by Libaax on Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Libaax true there are a lot of american people who lost their family in Iraq and don't agree with Bush idea to war. Bush war idea come because his incompetency to manage economic ( like Clinton ), and his incapability on leadership ( as example how he handling Katrina strom ). He only can use war and religion policy to cover his incapability, but i hope he want do same mistake in Iran since Iran is very strong country.
Not really promoting this video or anything,there is a scene in this video where a rocket type thing flies out of 1 of the twin towers,can someone tell me what that thing is?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... conspiracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... conspiracy
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
Could be almost anything from a vido artifact to wing debree that was sheered off as the rest of the jet entered the tower.
Most of the debree that we see exit the building exit through the opposite side of the structure -- basicly the aircraft, explosion, and atmospheric compression blew a lot of stuff right out the window.
But if you recall, the second tower was hit at more of an angle - less of a head on strike. The wing of the aircraft would have been sheered off by the building itself and would have thus had a much greater velocity then the stuff that went all the way through the building.
As to the first image -- 13 years before, you can probably explain that away as another aircraft. It's a well known property of a zoom lens that it compresses distance.
In otherwords, if I shoot a picture of you through a powerfull telephoto lense, the lens will make it look like you're standing next to someone who's really standing behind you. In fact, that's how most of the shots of Gandalph and Frodo were done for Lord of hte Rings. By putting Frodo behind Gandalph and then shooting with a telephoto lens, you make Frodo look smaller than Gandalph and make it look like they're sitting together.
If you shot another plane passing behind the World Trade Center with a zoom, it could easily look like it's coming out of the side of the building.
Most of the debree that we see exit the building exit through the opposite side of the structure -- basicly the aircraft, explosion, and atmospheric compression blew a lot of stuff right out the window.
But if you recall, the second tower was hit at more of an angle - less of a head on strike. The wing of the aircraft would have been sheered off by the building itself and would have thus had a much greater velocity then the stuff that went all the way through the building.
As to the first image -- 13 years before, you can probably explain that away as another aircraft. It's a well known property of a zoom lens that it compresses distance.
In otherwords, if I shoot a picture of you through a powerfull telephoto lense, the lens will make it look like you're standing next to someone who's really standing behind you. In fact, that's how most of the shots of Gandalph and Frodo were done for Lord of hte Rings. By putting Frodo behind Gandalph and then shooting with a telephoto lens, you make Frodo look smaller than Gandalph and make it look like they're sitting together.
If you shot another plane passing behind the World Trade Center with a zoom, it could easily look like it's coming out of the side of the building.
-
panasonic
- Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: the place above the US
ya, i think ive seen that before. alot of ppl are claiming that a missile hit the wtc. they have proof, but im not savy enough w/ missiles and engines and planes to really know if they are lying or not
"Education is the foundation upon which you build your entire lust for cash"-Onizuka
http://www.striporama.com/edits/main.html
http://www.striporama.com/edits/main.html
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
You assume it should gain speed because you're assuming a stationary reference point. That's a logical assumption, because the towers don't appear to be moving.... but it's flawed.
Remember the camera is in an aircraft and is moving. The towers are the only things that aren't.
So what you perceive as a fixed object accelerating away from the towers is really an aircraft taking off from JFK or a military jet or any number of other things.
Camera angles, particularly when filming moving objects from moving objects with a zoon, are tricky.
More to the point, the Twin Towers were built in the 1960s. They were filled with civilian workers and featured floor to ceiling glass on every floor inside that lovely concrete latticework. If there were missiles shooting by these buildings - which were so heavily staffed as to warrant their own zip codes - it would be common knowledge.
Remember the camera is in an aircraft and is moving. The towers are the only things that aren't.
So what you perceive as a fixed object accelerating away from the towers is really an aircraft taking off from JFK or a military jet or any number of other things.
Camera angles, particularly when filming moving objects from moving objects with a zoon, are tricky.
More to the point, the Twin Towers were built in the 1960s. They were filled with civilian workers and featured floor to ceiling glass on every floor inside that lovely concrete latticework. If there were missiles shooting by these buildings - which were so heavily staffed as to warrant their own zip codes - it would be common knowledge.
-
panasonic
- Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: the place above the US
im not saying those were missiles, i was just saying that a lot of ppl r saying that they r
"Education is the foundation upon which you build your entire lust for cash"-Onizuka
http://www.striporama.com/edits/main.html
http://www.striporama.com/edits/main.html
-
panasonic
- Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: the place above the US
you can post on cellphones to this forum!?!!? gj psi
"Education is the foundation upon which you build your entire lust for cash"-Onizuka
http://www.striporama.com/edits/main.html
http://www.striporama.com/edits/main.html
-
evilester_me
- This is my new home
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:37 am
- Location: San Francisco
Considering they're quite well documented on crashing into buildings, I think it's safe to assume they did not land. Ever.
And about this "missile." While it certainly accelerates quickly away from the tower, it just stops in midair at the end of the clip in addition its size hasn't really changed much. So, I think it's either an edited clip or an illusion.
And about this "missile." While it certainly accelerates quickly away from the tower, it just stops in midair at the end of the clip in addition its size hasn't really changed much. So, I think it's either an edited clip or an illusion.
-
Shaka Zulu
- Buzkashi wannabe
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:26 pm
- Location: Zulu Land
psi29a wrote:Honarable or "Just War" only came about from Richard the Lionheart during the Crusades.
Salah-Al-Din warrants for a mention too in this regard(In some ways, even more then Richard). Which if you dont know, was Richards opponent(and which he lost to). Too bad they were an extreme rarity when it came to their warfaring.
But, maybe you meant it as in western warriors.
Until the lion learns to speak, the tales of the hunt will be(weak) told by the hunter
torture is a substitute for addressing the issue of the terrosist agenda. for example what has torturing in Iraq have to do with 9/11? its very unlikely the individuals who crashed into the twin towers have any connection with the people who are being tortured in Abu grade, the torture is more a practice government has created for soldiers in Iraq because they need to do drills/something to do?