EWolfe Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 unconventional named genevieve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 That is indeed the percentage I was referring to, and while it was tangential to my initial point, it has conveniently become a way to avoid it addressing it by some. I agree, the soldiers in the field are doing the best they can. It's the folks in the detainment centers assuming guilt and violating the Geneva Convention on that assmption -- and the folks that agree with that behavior -- that I have a problem with. It goes against one of the founding values of this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 You aren't so "curious" that you're unwilling to check them out before using them. Â Pot. Kettle. Black. Martlet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 If this 'war' is unconventional, then why do we have to stick to conventional means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 You aren't so "curious" that you're unwilling to check them out before using them. Â Pot. Kettle. Black. Martlet. Â Are you implying I use inaccurate facts? Â Point out one time when I've backed up an assertion with facts that were wrong. Â Just one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 That is indeed the percentage I was referring to, and while it was tangential to my initial point, it has conveniently become a way to avoid it addressing it by some. I agree, the soldiers in the field are doing the best they can. It's the folks in the detainment centers assuming guilt and violating the Geneva Convention on that assmption -- and the folks that agree with that behavior -- that I have a problem with. It goes against one of the founding values of this country. Â but it certainly seems that the obviously innocent are set free no? If most are released after interrogation, it is likely that the ones getting worked over likely do have something to hide or the authorities have reason to suspect that they do. Why else would they release so many after interogation? Lets hope it isn't random. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Wasn't it mentioned that blackmail was one potential motive? Those in authority use all forms of coercion to enforce power over others. Even if the suspects were innocent of particular actions, they could be used for future purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 but it certainly seems that the obviously innocent are set free no? If most are released after interrogation, it is likely that the ones getting worked over likely do have something to hide or the authorities have reason to suspect that they do. Why else would they release so many after interogation? Lets hope it isn't random. Â One would hope. I've seen no assertions by the accused abusers that they had already filtered out the innocent. I'd think that would be the first line of defense. But guilty or not, torture isn't allowed by the Geneva Convention, and isn't a particuarly reliable means of getting information from what I've read, not to mention being rather beneath the values we supposedly preach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Informative link regarding Intl Commission of Red Cross: Â http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YRL67!OpenDocument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Are you implying I use inaccurate facts? Â Actually, you are correct. I wouldn't know if you post inaccurate facts or not, because I quit listening to you when you started using insults instead of logic in your "arguments". Which was day one. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Simple. Torture exists to terrorize a population (that opposes a dictatorship).  "Tortures range from simple but brutal blows from a truncheon to electric shocks. Often the torture is more refined: the end of a reed is placed in the anus of a naked man hanging suspended downwards on the pau de arara [parrot's perch] and a piece of cotton soaked in petrol is lit at the other end of the reed. Pregnant women have been forced to watch their husbands being tortured. Other wives have been hung naked beside their husbands and given electric shocks on the sexual parts of their body, while subjected to the worst kind of obscenities. Children have been tortured before their parents and vice versa. The length of sessions depends upon the resistance capacity of the victims and have sometimes continued for days at a time." -- Amnesty International, describing the torture suffered by Brazilians at the hands of the military in the 1960s  "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." -- A survivor of a raid by Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s  "People had been mercilessly tortured simply for being in possession of a leaflet criticizing the regime. Brutality and cruelty on one side, frustration and helplessness on the other. They were being tortured and there was nothing to be done. It was like listening to a friend who has cancer. What comfort, what wise reflection can someone who is comfortable give. Torture might last a short time, but the person will never be the same." -- James Becket, American attorney, in Greece for Amnesty International, describing the torture suffered by Greeks under dictator Papdopoulos in the 1960s  The above is what I think of when I hear the word, torture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Looks like IRC is another red herring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 An interesting point was brought up earlier. Does anyone know if the ICRC has attempted to gain access to the captives taken by the insurgents? I can't imagine that they would be given access, or that their safety could be guaranteed enough to be able to check on them, but does anyone know if they've tried? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Are you implying I use inaccurate facts? Â Actually, you are correct. I wouldn't know if you post inaccurate facts or not, because I quit listening to you when you started using insults instead of logic in your "arguments". Which was day one. Â Â Ahhh, so you were just talking out your ass again, making more ridiculous assertions without being able to back them up. Â I'm noticing a pattern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Case in point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Case in point. Â Yeah. How horrible it is when I point out that you post outright lies. You must hate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Case in point. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I know-you-are but what-am I??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Takes-one-to-know-one!!!! Sticks-and-stones-can-break-my-bones-but-words-can-never-hurt-me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 That is indeed the percentage I was referring to, and while it was tangential to my initial point, it has conveniently become a way to avoid it addressing it by some. I agree, the soldiers in the field are doing the best they can. It's the folks in the detainment centers assuming guilt and violating the Geneva Convention on that assmption -- and the folks that agree with that behavior -- that I have a problem with. It goes against one of the founding values of this country. Â IO don't think that the guards at Abu Ghraib know much at all about the GC. I think that they are just assholes. A buddy of mine spent time in the Army and told me that officers rarely know what the enlisted men are doing. So long as there are no big problems, the officers don't care. Â The enlisted men keep the prison population in line, so the officers don't care. The argument that the soldiers are doing what they are ordered is the first line of defense for any enlisted man when accused of wrong doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 You aren't so "curious" that you're unwilling to check them out before using them. Â Pot. Kettle. Black. Martlet. Â Are you implying I use inaccurate facts? Â Point out one time when I've backed up an assertion with facts that were wrong. Â Just one. Â you rarely, if ever use facts to back up assertions. most of your links are to opinion pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 You aren't so "curious" that you're unwilling to check them out before using them. Â Pot. Kettle. Black. Martlet. Â Are you implying I use inaccurate facts? Â Point out one time when I've backed up an assertion with facts that were wrong. Â Just one. Â you rarely, if ever use facts to back up assertions. most of your links are to opinion pieces. Â So the answer is no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 technically yes. if you back up an assertion with an opinion, you cannot be said to have used an incorrect fact, since opinions are not factual. but the counter-proposition, that he has only backed up assertions with valid facts, is also demonstrably false. Â do you need a venn diagram to help you with this/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Nope, cause he didn't say he used valid facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.