M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6193|Escea

m3thod wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


Don't be stupid M3th, he'd get his book deal and write about what happened to him, but inform his capturers that there are no hard feelings.
Oh yes, trying to blow or shoot up a group of people is so much better, especially when you get thrown back in the slammer almost straight away. Bizarre they way people turn around in these threads sometimes. Innoncent people are allowed to die because one man was wronged and should be allowed to take fiery revenge on others, awesome strategy.
Hold on there slick.  I could have sworn we were debating if it was possible a gitmo prisoner would potentially turn to terrorism as a consequence of torture.  How you derive some of think this is okay for this potential eventuality is well baffling.
Apparently exacting revenge - i.e taking lives because you were tortured - is A-OK, that's what I've picked up by some posts.
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6642|UK

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


Oh yes, trying to blow or shoot up a group of people is so much better, especially when you get thrown back in the slammer almost straight away. Bizarre they way people turn around in these threads sometimes. Innoncent people are allowed to die because one man was wronged and should be allowed to take fiery revenge on others, awesome strategy.
Hold on there slick.  I could have sworn we were debating if it was possible a gitmo prisoner would potentially turn to terrorism as a consequence of torture.  How you derive some of think this is okay for this potential eventuality is well baffling.
Apparently exacting revenge - i.e taking lives because you were tortured - is A-OK, that's what I've picked up by some posts.
It's possible, and maybe understandable.  Still doesn't mean its right.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6706|Salt Lake City

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


Oh yes, trying to blow or shoot up a group of people is so much better, especially when you get thrown back in the slammer almost straight away. Bizarre they way people turn around in these threads sometimes. Innoncent people are allowed to die because one man was wronged and should be allowed to take fiery revenge on others, awesome strategy.
Hold on there slick.  I could have sworn we were debating if it was possible a gitmo prisoner would potentially turn to terrorism as a consequence of torture.  How you derive some of think this is okay for this potential eventuality is well baffling.
Apparently exacting revenge - i.e taking lives because you were tortured - is A-OK, that's what I've picked up by some posts.
No one said it was OK.  They merely pointed out that being held in prison without formal charges (indefinately), not knowing the evidence against you with no means of defending yourself, while being tortured, could lead some to join a cause of which they were not originally a part.

In Iraq AQ managed to recruit teachers, businessmen, and professionals to carry out suicide missions.  Is it that hard to believe that if some one were treated as I noted in my first paragraph, they would be incapable of joining terrorist activities?
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6193|Escea

m3thod wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:


Hold on there slick.  I could have sworn we were debating if it was possible a gitmo prisoner would potentially turn to terrorism as a consequence of torture.  How you derive some of think this is okay for this potential eventuality is well baffling.
Apparently exacting revenge - i.e taking lives because you were tortured - is A-OK, that's what I've picked up by some posts.
It's possible, and maybe understandable.  Still doesn't mean its right.
I never said it was, its possible yes, but some seem to think they should because they would apparently.
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6642|UK
yeah that doesn't make any sense.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6193|Escea

m3thod wrote:

yeah that doesn't make any sense.
Really?

Nothing to do with this then,

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

It proves what I always though, that Gitmo doesn't work.
Also kinda proves they weren't that innocent either.
Frankly, if I'd been locked up and 'tortured' (depending of your definition of it) by the US, you can be damn sure as soon as I was released the first thing I'd go do was blow up as much American shit as possible.
Sounds like a definition of 'what I'd do if'.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5970|...

M.O.A.B wrote:

Sounds like a definition of 'what I'd do if'.
ignore it tbh, such a stupid, stupid thing to say.
inane little opines
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6620

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

yeah that doesn't make any sense.
Really?

Nothing to do with this then,

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


Also kinda proves they weren't that innocent either.
Frankly, if I'd been locked up and 'tortured' (depending of your definition of it) by the US, you can be damn sure as soon as I was released the first thing I'd go do was blow up as much American shit as possible.
Sounds like a definition of 'what I'd do if'.
I'm sure you'd be more than a touch pissed off at your captors if the same had happened to you. And yes, I'm saying if I had been tortured for 5 years I would probably be pissed off enough/mentally deranged enough to join a cause that I previously didn't agree with.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6193|Escea

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

yeah that doesn't make any sense.
Really?

Nothing to do with this then,

ghettoperson wrote:


Frankly, if I'd been locked up and 'tortured' (depending of your definition of it) by the US, you can be damn sure as soon as I was released the first thing I'd go do was blow up as much American shit as possible.
Sounds like a definition of 'what I'd do if'.
I'm sure you'd be more than a touch pissed off at your captors if the same had happened to you. And yes, I'm saying if I had been tortured for 5 years I would probably be pissed off enough/mentally deranged enough to join a cause that I previously didn't agree with.
Oh I'd be pissed off, but I wouldn't get some explosives and blow something up to show I was, and become the exact same thing that I knew I wasn't to begin with.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6620

Again, we're talking about someone in a very unstable mental state, you have no idea how they or you would react. And if they perhaps supported the AQ cause at the beginning, but did not actively get involved, this treatment would certainly be enough to push them from a passive to an active role.
jord
Member
+2,382|6648|The North, beyond the wall.

ghettoperson wrote:

Again, we're talking about someone in a very unstable mental state, you have no idea how they or you would react. And if they perhaps supported the AQ cause at the beginning, but did not actively get involved, this treatment would certainly be enough to push them from a passive to an active role.
If they support AQ then they deserve everything they get.
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

ghettoperson wrote:

It proves what I always though, that Gitmo doesn't work.
Actually, it proves Gitmo worked just fine, as these individuals never engaged in terrorism while they were detained.  Gitmo was never some kind of 're-education' facility.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526
If I was innocent and was incarcerated in Gitmo and then released you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out for revenge.
13rin
Member
+977|6450

CameronPoe wrote:

If I was innocent and was incarcerated in Gitmo and then released you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out for revenge.
And if you were guilty and incarcerated only to be set free I'd guess it's a safe bet you'd still be out for revenge?  They should feel so lucky as their enemy has shown them far more mercy and compassion than they reciprocate.  I still have yet to see the internet videos of US soldiers beheading pows.

*edit... Oh that's right.  There's none.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-01-15 10:42:32)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

DBBrinson1 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

If I was innocent and was incarcerated in Gitmo and then released you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out for revenge.
And if you were guilty and incarcerated only to be set free I'd guess it's a safe bet you'd still be out for revenge?  They should feel so lucky as their enemy has shown them far more mercy and compassion than they reciprocate.  I still have yet to see the internet videos of US soldiers beheading pows.

*edit... Oh that's right.  There's none.
We supposedly hold ourselves to a higher standard.  You know, hearts and minds, moral high ground, all that good stuff.
13rin
Member
+977|6450

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

If I was innocent and was incarcerated in Gitmo and then released you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out for revenge.
And if you were guilty and incarcerated only to be set free I'd guess it's a safe bet you'd still be out for revenge?  They should feel so lucky as their enemy has shown them far more mercy and compassion than they reciprocate.  I still have yet to see the internet videos of US soldiers beheading pows.

*edit... Oh that's right.  There's none.
We supposedly hold ourselves to a higher standard.  You know, hearts and minds, moral high ground, all that good stuff.
Gitmo then would be a higher standard than theirs.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
mikkel
Member
+383|6572

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:


And if you were guilty and incarcerated only to be set free I'd guess it's a safe bet you'd still be out for revenge?  They should feel so lucky as their enemy has shown them far more mercy and compassion than they reciprocate.  I still have yet to see the internet videos of US soldiers beheading pows.

*edit... Oh that's right.  There's none.
We supposedly hold ourselves to a higher standard.  You know, hearts and minds, moral high ground, all that good stuff.
Gitmo then would be a higher standard than theirs.
Not high enough.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


We supposedly hold ourselves to a higher standard.  You know, hearts and minds, moral high ground, all that good stuff.
Gitmo then would be a higher standard than theirs.
Not high enough.
I don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people who are found guilty of terrorism.  The only part of Gitmo I didn't like was how we'd torture people not convicted of anything.

But if someone is found guilty of terrorism...  well, anything goes under my standards.
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6508|Long Island, New York

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:


Gitmo then would be a higher standard than theirs.
Not high enough.
I don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people who are found guilty of terrorism.  The only part of Gitmo I didn't like was how we'd torture people not convicted of anything.

But if someone is found guilty of terrorism...  well, anything goes under my standards.
Eh. I'm not really into the "stooping to their level" kind of thing.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Poseidon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:


Not high enough.
I don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people who are found guilty of terrorism.  The only part of Gitmo I didn't like was how we'd torture people not convicted of anything.

But if someone is found guilty of terrorism...  well, anything goes under my standards.
Eh. I'm not really into the "stooping to their level" kind of thing.
I know what you mean.  I realize that torture isn't usually very effective, but when it is...  well, why not use it?

I think, more than anything, the biggest mistake here was that word ever got out.  If you're going to torture people, do it secretly.  Renditions at least made more sense.
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6734|d
https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/5/1231182188968/Gallery-President-George--014.jpg
31 March 2003: An Iraqi man comforts his 4-year-old son at a re-groupment centre for POWs of the 101st Airborne Division near An Najaf, Iraq. The man was seized in An Najaf with his son and the US military did not want to separate them
mikkel
Member
+383|6572

Turquoise wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people who are found guilty of terrorism.  The only part of Gitmo I didn't like was how we'd torture people not convicted of anything.

But if someone is found guilty of terrorism...  well, anything goes under my standards.
Eh. I'm not really into the "stooping to their level" kind of thing.
I know what you mean.  I realize that torture isn't usually very effective, but when it is...  well, why not use it?

I think, more than anything, the biggest mistake here was that word ever got out.  If you're going to torture people, do it secretly.  Renditions at least made more sense.
Upholding human rights is not done as a benefit to the captured, but as a principle of the captor. They aren't upheld because it's practical, but because it's an injustice to humanity to go against them. By submitting certain individuals to torture out of percieved practicality, you aren't harming the individual nearly as much as you're harming yourself as a country by letting despicable people drag you down to the point of doing despicable things.

Most people don't want torture and human rights abuses in their country, and it's the job of the government to make sure that these things don't happen. What are you going to do as a citizen when it's the government itself that's bringing that kind of behaviour to your country? When your elected representatives orchestrate and carry out precisely the kind of acts that they've been elected to keep out of the country? It's a very, very slippery slope.

Terrorist organisations, and certain Middle Eastern countries are often referred to as being medieval and uncivilised, especially with regards to their stances on human rights. Are you really suggesting that we adopt elements of this? How is a civilised world going to stand together and bring it forward, when individual countries abandon the principles that brought them forward in the first place? You need the strength to protect your principles to bring you forward as a country.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Do unto others - isn't that what the superior Christian countries are about?
I guess not.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

If I was innocent and was incarcerated in Gitmo and then released you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out for revenge.
You do know though if you were at gitmo, the probablity that you belonged there is pretty damned high.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

Lowing wrote:

You do know though if you were at gitmo, the probablity that you belonged there is pretty damned high.
You too.
Seriously, less than 10% have even been charged (I'll check that tomorrow when the bottle of red has worn off) so your statement is ridiculous.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard