If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You're the one claiming its justified. Provide examples please. Thanks.
Surely not because if you push a person enough they will confess to anything, by any chance?
Unless you believe those people who confessed to being witches or to have a pact with the Devil were telling the truth. :rolleyes:
It shouldn't be used because:
a) It doesn't make lives
b) It makes us as bad as the people we were supposed to be fighting.
I think you'll find quite the opposite actually. I've already provided one example.
I've provided an example. Your turn. Thanks.
You can not prove your argument that torture Never ever works and i said it does sometimes, not all the time. Ergo, you can not win the argument!
Thats not an example - thats hearsay. Provide an example please. Thanks.
Hit the nail on the head. A knife, some straps to hold you down and a few days could make you confess to anything. I think John McCain said it best in the USA (he was a victim of torture) that a good torturer could make an honest man admit to being a terrorists and implicate the rest of his family too.
Actually no it doesn't.
first of all, the first link is to veteransforcommonsense, a group with their own agenda and conflcit with the government. So hardly neuatral.
secondly, even your ownlink shows no proof of the authoristaion of the insidences we have been discussing at all.
The only thin it says is that there i s amemo that General Snachez signed a memo authorising the use of dogs. Thats it. Nothing on the beating, photgraphs or sexual abuse at all.
So admittedly they may have authroised to use the dogs to intimidate, but I guess they'd argue its psychological technique and maybe seen as acceptable. Not illegal.
The second link, you only neutral link it seems, has one person who got flak because they were in charge of the police units moniting the prisions. They were held accountable because it occured ont ehri watch at their place of responisbilty, but they wer enot one of the soliders involve din the abuse. Which is what we were talking about and so they are not a whilet blower at all and nor on eof the people charged, which is what we were discussing.
So twice now you make these tedious and tenious links to your point that dont stand up. Stick to the actually issue, not areas of debate.
The last link is a joke, an obvious anti-american administration agenda lead site who alreayd made up their minds, don't know facts i.e there is no real international law, and once again no firm proof of any higher up invlovement.
Now as to your other post.
We ar eon about Iraq, not Qunatanomo, stick to the issue at hand. Quntanamo is not fundamental to this argument.
Dogs ARE used for intimidation. Why do you think they use Alsations? They are not soley deterings. They are used to intimdate, their size , their look, their noise, their bite. If you wanted a large dog as a deterint then why not use a St Beneard. Large enough and they can bring donw a man but they aren't intidating enough are they? they ar ecute and lovable. The more aggressive dog such as the doberman etc are good attack dogds buts are too wild and un ruly for the police. The Alsation dog is perfect, its large, its loud, it bites, its trainable and its INTIMDATING. Fact.
the only one who doesn;t live in the real world is you. You know it would be nice if we lived in a wolrd of peace and love and people dint' want to kill us for who wer are but we don't an dyou don't deal with terrorists by offering them cups of tea and a sit down.
Also comparing sensory deprevation and stress postions to real torture is ignorant.
Ok, what do you want?
Would you want to hear some white noise or loud music played, your eyes covered sometimes, some sleep disruption, and stand in a postion that really hurts but does not physical harm.
or
would you prefer to be beaten black and blue, have you rlegs smashed, electrocuted, given lethal poison and then the antidote repeatedly, made to sit ona glass bottle, cut a thousand times and raped?
the choice is yours.
I know which I choose.
LOL. You're not scrapping the bottom of the barrel. You're below the barrel now.
Somehow I thought you were going to choose to bury your head under the sand, ignore all the evidence, close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la! in the hope that it will go away.
And guess what? You have gone and done just that.
Go ahead and choose to believe any news, stories, facts, documents, evidence or testimonies that report wrongdoings by the US government and military are false if you want.
Go ahead and choose to believe physcological torture and the use of dogs to inflict terror on defenceless inmates is legal if you want (LOL).
Obviously you are going to refuse any evidence, any argument, any testimony, no matter how convincing or irrefutable, if it says things you don't want to hear so further waste of bandwidth would be pointless.
I have given you an example, which is what you asked. The least you can do is return the courtesy.
But thats exactly what our governments are attempting to do.
Well you gave me an example of torture for a confession to a crime carried by the police in peace-time!
I asked for an example of war-time torture for information by military!
i did give an example, of an eye witness, recorded for perminance. You wont accept it because it hasnt gone through judiciary, which i doubt Every single military decision ever made goes through, so you ask for somethign impossible, i do not.
Sometimes torture will work, sometimes it wont. Glad it is now settled.
You asked for an example where information obtained under duress turned out to be false. I provided one.
Guantanomo Bay? There's plenty of accounts of prisoners if you care to look for them.
No, you gave me some hearsay. Given the military aren't going to admit that it doesn't work, its not really a good example is it?
I've provided an example where information/confessions obtained under duress turn out to be false. Please provide an example that has "worked". Thanks.
And of course, because torture makes us as bad as the evil we claim to fight.
Yep - the man seems so blinkered that he'd probably still deny the US used torture if he was locked up in Abu Ghraib with electrodes on his nipples, dogs chewing his ankles, and receiving a buggering from Rumsfeld himself.
My teachers? You won't know them, my course is in its first year of being run.
ahahhahahaha!!!! I prove it, I take your on posts an dyour own links and show your talking boolocks and you cna rague you back but just insult me and give up?? Ahhahahahahahaha!!!! (Bender style laugh)
You truley are a joke.
I notice back on another thread you said Bernad Manning was my favorite comedian, when it was the beramand Manning image I used to INSULT you. SO your saying I'd use my favorite comedian to insult you?? Ahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! (ditto)
You have no evidence!! thats the point. You have one flimsy memo and say thats authorisation for buggery and murder with old fashion torture.
You belive every anti-usa administartiom, anti-war website you go to.
Its a joke.
Take a real facts and figures. Real knowledge. Thats evidence.
Not baked campagin slogans.
Sensory deprevation and stress postioning is not torture and not on the scale or anything liek the practice in saddams day. Fact. Get over it.
One day, hopefully you will grow up. Get all thes teenage rebellion stuff out of your system.
Making things up again eh?
I think it's for all to see who the joke is here.
Considering you want to ignore all the evidence put before you on the basis that it's "biased".
I could point out that information from the US government is also biased, but what would be the point?
Seriously. How old are you? 14?
I have posted tons of evidence. But you choose to ignore it in true neocon fashion.
You'd be soooo far more at home in deepest Jesusland.
Making things up again eh?
Sensory depravation is torture. Fact.
Get it in your head, because no matter how many times you claim otherwise it remains torture.
Sorry. :wave:
I could be your father, kid. Try again.
PS There is a feature in most word processors called 'spelling'. You'd be surprised what it can do...
If you are older, then you really should know better.