Plime/1Torture? Naw. : ATOM 0.3www.plime.complime@plime.com2008, www.plime.com.2008-11-18T14:56:42+01:0042313

2007-11-22T18:23:11+01:002007-11-22T18:23:11+01:00disturbing? I meant to say, "Hells yeah, do whutever it takes to git them terrists!"

Not safe for work or children.]]>

comments (15)   related   share   edit history (1)

< 1 >

146651

« ImNotBlue
You know what they say, "If you want an omelet, you're going to have to break a few eggs." Well, I'm worried that we'r...]]>

2007-11-27T17:58:16+01:002007-11-27T17:58:16+01:00« ImNotBlue
You know what they say, "If you want an omelet, you're going to have to break a few eggs." Well, I'm worried that we're going to get to a point where we just sit around, waiting for our omelets... because we too afraid to touch the eggs at all.And I am afraid that we might be in a situation where people will begin to break eggs when it is not required.]]>145723

« gammerus : Psychological torture is still torture, there are many Vietnam vets that can tell you that.Well, I agree that psychologica...]]>

2007-11-26T10:24:24+01:002007-11-26T10:24:24+01:00« gammerus : Psychological torture is still torture, there are many Vietnam vets that can tell you that.Well, I agree that psychological torture can be torture... but this is where things start to get really hazy.

How do we define what is or isn't torture?

Was I tortured playing high school sports... I mean, my coach sometimes made me feel like I was no good, and then made me run laps as a punishment. That felt like torture.

I once bought a girlfriend a Cher CD because she really wanted it... then she made me listen to it. That felt like torture.

And now, my boss makes me do some of the most boring and stupid tasks, because they're technically my job and need to get done... all while sitting in a room that's about ten degrees colder than it needs to be (lots of technical equipment... has to stay cool). And it frequently feels like torture.


My point isn't to mock or put down the idea that torture is out there, but is to point out that torture to one person, may not really be torture to another. You could call all those situations physical exhaustion torture, sensory overload torture, or temperature torture... or they could just be part of my daily life.

I'm worried that in our effort to prevent really bad things, we're going overboard... afraid to do any little thing because it might stress our prisoner out.

You know what they say, "If you want an omelet, you're going to have to break a few eggs." Well, I'm worried that we're going to get to a point where we just sit around, waiting for our omelets... because we too afraid to touch the eggs at all.]]>145160

« ImNotBlue:I fail to understand why you think it has to be that black and white. "Either we do it always, or we do it never..." Why?...]]>

2007-11-25T00:30:39+01:002007-11-25T00:30:39+01:00« ImNotBlue:I fail to understand why you think it has to be that black and white. "Either we do it always, or we do it never..." Why?

Why can't we entrust a little bit of common sense, of judgment, to those working in the particular field?

Blanket statements never work... they're a bad idea, and produce results that are totally unacceptable.

The question for me becomes, which is worse, "Violence towards one person to save XYZ number of people... or violence towards XYZ number of people, because we didn't want to be directly responsible for the violence towards one."

Of course, all this is really moot... being that much of the "torture" debate has been defined very very loosely. We're not talking about ripping off fingernails and beating people with sticks... we're talking about loud music, sensory deprivation, fear (with no actual violence), etc.

I think a lot of us are hearing torture, and thinking the movie "SAW"... when we should be really thinking "The Breakfast Club." Sit there, don't move, don't talk... two very different animals.Psychological torture is still torture, there are many Vietnam vets that can tell you that.]]>144894

« Galoot : For every hypothetical "but what if it was a stadium full of nuns and poor crippled children?" scenario someone comes up with...]]>

2007-11-23T15:35:35+01:002007-11-23T15:35:35+01:00« Galoot : For every hypothetical "but what if it was a stadium full of nuns and poor crippled children?" scenario someone comes up with, I can come up with a borderline case where the idea of doing violence to another makes them uncomfortable. Your personal limits are different than mine. In fact, I can guarantee that our limits are different unless we both agree that:
a) Doing violence to others is always okay
b) Doing violence to others is never okay

Those are the only two real places you can draw a line. Would you torture someone to learn where they've hidden a firecracker? A cherry bomb? A grenade? A truck full of ANFO? What about three barrels of ANFO? One barrel? A small plastic beach bucket full of ANFO? Would it depend on how much damage the weapon could do? Define how much is too much and how much is not enough.

The only way to ensure that you and someone else (someone like, say, your elected officials) sees eye-to-eye on the issue is to either agree that torture is okey-dokey under all circumstances, or that it's illegal under all circumstances. You can't do "just a little violence" to someone. You're either doing violence or you're not.


/only beats his wife "a little bit"I fail to understand why you think it has to be that black and white. "Either we do it always, or we do it never..." Why?

Why can't we entrust a little bit of common sense, of judgment, to those working in the particular field?

Blanket statements never work... they're a bad idea, and produce results that are totally unacceptable.

The question for me becomes, which is worse, "Violence towards one person to save XYZ number of people... or violence towards XYZ number of people, because we didn't want to be directly responsible for the violence towards one."

Of course, all this is really moot... being that much of the "torture" debate has been defined very very loosely. We're not talking about ripping off fingernails and beating people with sticks... we're talking about loud music, sensory deprivation, fear (with no actual violence), etc.

I think a lot of us are hearing torture, and thinking the movie "SAW"... when we should be really thinking "The Breakfast Club." Sit there, don't move, don't talk... two very different animals.]]>144671

2007-11-23T04:00:22+01:002007-11-23T04:00:22+01:00guarantee that our limits are different unless we both agree that:
a) Doing violence to others is always okay
b) Doing violence to others is never okay

Those are the only two real places you can draw a line. Would you torture someone to learn where they've hidden a firecracker? A cherry bomb? A grenade? A truck full of ANFO? What about three barrels of ANFO? One barrel? A small plastic beach bucket full of ANFO? Would it depend on how much damage the weapon could do? Define how much is too much and how much is not enough.

The only way to ensure that you and someone else (someone like, say, your elected officials) sees eye-to-eye on the issue is to either agree that torture is okey-dokey under all circumstances, or that it's illegal under all circumstances. You can't do "just a little violence" to someone. You're either doing violence or you're not.


/only beats his wife "a little bit"]]>144603

I would never want to personally hurt someone, but if it came down to hurting and/or killing one person to save whatever number of innocent people I w...]]>

2007-11-23T01:30:36+01:002007-11-23T01:30:36+01:00
I would never want to personally hurt someone, but if it came down to hurting and/or killing one person to save whatever number of innocent people I would do what had to be done.

Of course this is a decision that should not be made lightly. I feel I have look to the greater good on this; protect the innocent. Sometimes it takes dirty work to get the job done.

What I think it comes down to is; if you had to choose, would you choose the safety of many or the safety of the few?]]>144593

« Galoot : I disagree that this is common sense. In fact, I find that viewpoint dangerously insane. As insane as the idea that someone mi...]]>

2007-11-23T00:34:32+01:002007-11-23T00:34:32+01:00« Galoot : I disagree that this is common sense. In fact, I find that viewpoint dangerously insane. As insane as the idea that someone might feel it "necessary and called for" to inflict mass casualties to get their message across. Both ideas are two sides of the same disgusting coin.What if it is necessary to torture someone to prevent the infliction of mass casualties?

Call it in the air, heads or tails?]]>144524

« Alton : 2manyusernames, please provide one example where someone from the US tortured an enemy about when a bomb was about to be set off, or info...]]>

2007-11-22T20:32:03+01:002007-11-22T20:32:03+01:00« Alton : 2manyusernames, please provide one example where someone from the US tortured an enemy about when a bomb was about to be set off, or information such as where the "weapons of mass destruction" were.

If you think our government has only used torture, and I'm not talking about the embarrassing kind, to get this type of information, you are being very naive. Stop making excuses for our government's disgusting behavior.

My principles are the same as Galoot's. I never see a reason, and I'm not only disgusted with my government for doing it, but I'm disgusted with my fellow Americans who turn a blind eye to their evil behavior.

I'm sure you, and those that believe like you, would be the first to cry foul when it's our troops being tortured. You do realize, in stating your beliefs, that you are saying you also understand when our troops are tortured.Please provide me one example of where I talked about our government and their use and non-use of torture. I certainly did not say we only used such tactics in immediate situations.

Of course I "understand" why someone will torture our troops. The difference is the current enemy tortures people for the fun of it. They torture civilians. They torture their own people for not practicing their version of their religion.

Can you honestly tell me you would rather see tens, hundreds, thousands of people die than to hurt another human?

What if it was you child who was kidnapped by terrorists. (either her alone or as part of a large number of students)

She is sick, perhaps a heart condition and needs her medication.

It has been quite some time since any medication she had on her would have been taken. She does not have long to live unless she receives her medicine. Problem is you don't know where she is at. One of the terrorist is captured and no matter how nicely you ask, no matter how many Big Macs you offer he won't tell you.

So do you stick to your principles and tell your daughter to cancel christmas or do you allow the prisoner to be convinced to give the location of where the children are being held?

Answer that question. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is. That isn't the point. I merely said that contrary to what you may claim, there are times when you would be willing to get rough.]]>144519

If you think our government has only u...]]>

2007-11-22T20:14:28+01:002007-11-22T20:14:28+01:00
If you think our government has only used torture, and I'm not talking about the embarrassing kind, to get this type of information, you are being very naive. Stop making excuses for our government's disgusting behavior.

My principles are the same as Galoot's. I never see a reason, and I'm not only disgusted with my government for doing it, but I'm disgusted with my fellow Americans who turn a blind eye to their evil behavior.

I'm sure you, and those that believe like you, would be the first to cry foul when it's our troops being tortured. You do realize, in stating your beliefs, that you are saying you also understand when our troops are tortured.]]>144513

2007-11-22T19:51:13+01:002007-11-22T19:51:13+01:00144511

« Galoot : I disagree that this is common sense. In fact, I find that viewpoint dangerously insane. As insane as the idea that someone might feel i...]]>

2007-11-22T19:38:48+01:002007-11-22T19:38:48+01:00« Galoot : I disagree that this is common sense. In fact, I find that viewpoint dangerously insane. As insane as the idea that someone might feel it "necessary and called for" to inflict mass casualties to get their message across. Both ideas are two sides of the same disgusting coin.They may be "two sides of the same disgusting coin", but surely you can't say is insane that you might have to be forceful to get information in certain situations.

Actually one is for defense, to stop and prevent the actions which are insane.

Let's forget for the moment that idiotic definition of torture being anything humiliating or embarrassing.

The sanity or lack thereof is a moot point. It simply has no bearing. The question is it needed.

If someone is about to set off a nuclear bomb, or even a bomb at some place where there are lots of people, maybe the school where your children attend. If someone is planning on releasing a toxin into the air, water, food supply, whatever. If someone is planning an attack on civilians, perhaps an embassy, hospital, shopping mall, etc.

If any of this is happening, insane or not, is it not needed or at least desired to be stopped?

If you have someone who you know has the knowledge you need to try and prevent this from happening how do you extract it? You can say please. You can say pretty please. You can't say "pretty please, I'll be your best friend" because that would be untruthful and might offend the person's sensitivities and that would be torture.

How do you get it? Do you get a bit violent? Do you threaten? Well it's too late, while you were trying to get over the moral dilemma of hurting someone the bomb went off.


The main problem lies in defining torture. There are psychological and physical methods that can be quite effective without resorting to the image that torture brings to mind such as bamboo shoots under the fingernails and whatnot.

If the police had to contend with the same guidelines as advocated by organizations such as Ammensty International the crime rate would skyrocket.

Even something as common as going undercover to get intel, to pretending that you are on their side and share their ideology is considered Evil by such people.]]>144503

« 2manyusernames : I was reiterating the common-sense point that there are times when torture is necessary and called for.I disagree tha...]]>

2007-11-22T19:15:12+01:002007-11-22T19:15:12+01:00« 2manyusernames : I was reiterating the common-sense point that there are times when torture is necessary and called for.I disagree that this is common sense. In fact, I find that viewpoint dangerously insane. As insane as the idea that someone might feel it "necessary and called for" to inflict mass casualties to get their message across. Both ideas are two sides of the same disgusting coin.]]>144493

« Galoot : I stopped reading your response when you stopped watching the video.My response has nothing to do with the video. However sinc...]]>

2007-11-22T19:01:50+01:002007-11-22T19:01:50+01:00« Galoot : I stopped reading your response when you stopped watching the video.My response has nothing to do with the video. However since they are the ones reenacting it is will be biased even if it is based on testimony.

If I supplied a video of the same reenactment made by the CIA or Bush, you would question the validity and neutrality of it.

I didn't watch the video because I am on dial-up


No, I was talking about the torture argument in general. How just about everything is considered torture. By the definition of some simply locking them up or stopping them from fulfilling their mission is torture.

I was reiterating the common-sense point that there are times when torture is necessary and called for.

There are also times when torture is wrong and the torturers should be held accountable. I am just stating that we can't say that no torture of any sort no matter how broad of a definition will be accepted at any time. We can not say that it is better to suffer mass casualties no matter how many or how innocent than to make on prisoner embarrassed.]]>144486

« 2manyusernames : please can we get a slightly less biased source.

"reenactment" = phony made up crap. Haven't seen the video

2007-11-22T18:50:54+01:002007-11-22T18:50:54+01:00« 2manyusernames : please can we get a slightly less biased source.

"reenactment" = phony made up crap. Haven't seen the videoI stopped reading your response when you stopped watching the video.]]>144484

"reenactment" = phony made up crap. Haven't seen the video, but they can twist it to whatever they want it to appear as.

It is crazy enough when simply embarrassing or humiliating...]]>

2007-11-22T18:46:36+01:002007-11-22T18:46:36+01:00
"reenactment" = phony made up crap. Haven't seen the video, but they can twist it to whatever they want it to appear as.

It is crazy enough when simply embarrassing or humiliating the prisoner is labeled equal to making them cut of their own testicles.

When belittling them is made equivalent to raping their daughter in front of them something is wrong.

Even when giving them a lap dance is labeled the same as waterboarding, there is something dreadfully and shockingly wrong.

Amnesty international goes even further.

Merely to separate the prisoners is considered torture.
This is common sense policy. A policy even the local cops in the most liberal part of San Francisco would do.

If you pick up a group of prisoners or criminals, you do not place them together so that they can confer with each other, make sure they tell the same story and that they prop each other up to stick to the story.

We bow so much to the prisoners rights that they are the only prisoners of war that put on weight.

We actually wear gloves when we hand them their Qur'an so as not to defile the Sacred book with our infidel germs.

As stated previously and is common sense, torture does not work and is counter-productive for long term intel. It isn't effective at all.

HOWEVER, for short term intel. Information that is vital to know NOW, it is effective. No one, no HONEST person can say that there is *never* a time when torture is called for.

This is info that is needed in the field for the most part. Information that is needed to stop an imminent attack. One example is to gain access to a compound where weapons of mass destruction including bio-weapons is being held, secured, manufactured, whatever.

Obviously using torture to get confessions, to get names of other terrorists is asinine and should be criminal. Using torture to stop the pending demolition of a school, church, mosque, embassy, etc just might be needed.]]>