Printable View
So we should scale back DoD spending to about 1.1% GDP, withdraw all forces to CONUS, and focus on direct self defense and never respond with violence to someone who does us harm? Defense a la Gandhi? Taking a mlitary intervention is always wrong stance isn't very practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Woah dude, I never said it was always wrong. IN extreme situations, it may be the only choice, a la WWII. Youve got to look at your enemy and why you're fighting though. Terrorism is produced by occupation and hopelessness, not by religious extremism, which is a falsity many in the West have been led to believe.
Both "sides" to this argument are "speaking past" one another while using the exact same facts/ideas/larger moral goals (an example of the Differend in Lyotardian post-modern views on communication btw).
Both major points of view expressed in this thread take as their larger goal that the betterment of the human condition is a key value. So far so good.
Both view torture (and "harsh methods") done for the purpose of causing pain, torture done as a punishment, or torture done to force a confession as an evil act and inherently wrong (as well as impractical vis-a-vis confessions). Still good.
Now for issues in divergence.
1. Views on what constitutes "torture" differ.
*One POV holds that some forms of interrogation -- "harsh methods" such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, interrogation under chemically altered states -- are not torture as they have not been demonstrated to do lasting harm or to induce levels of pain/discomfort that approach the cruelty associated with "classic" torture such as the breaking of bones, burning of flesh, electric shock, etc. Most expressing this view also reserve "harsh methods" for terrorists and do not advocate their use on a standard civilian population.
**The other POV holds that ANY form of coercion in ANY degree is wrong in ALL circumstances. Interrogation, from this perspective, must be limited solely to verbal interrogation conducted under reasonable cirmcumstances and without an "off-stage" threat by the questioners. From this perspective, "harsh methods" are exactly the same as any other "classic" torture and equally repugnant morally. As an aside, this POV would implicitly characterize as "torture" a substantial percentage of all routine police investigations done prior to 1970 or so.
2. Views on "harsh methods" as a tool for interrogation differ.
*One POV suggests that these techniques may be uniquely useful in generating information by "breaking" individuals who would -- because of fanaticism etc. -- simply not respond to standard interrogation, or who would respond so slowly that the information generated would be of limited use. Thus these methods take on role of "useful if unpleasant" tool in order to gather the information needed to protect and defend other innocents.
**The other POV, seeing these "harsh methods" as no different in nature to any other form of torture, also tend to view any information generated thereby as suspect. This argument runs thus: not only would the torturee confess to anything, but they will spew information that is unreliable just to get you to stop the torture. Thus all information generated is highly suspect and not practically useful (in addition to having been collected by immoral means).
Now, having summarized the perspectives, let me return to the central issue put forward by the Lemury one in the OP to this thread.
Do "harsh methods" work?
Answer -- we do not have (or at least have any access to) anything resembling hard data to say that they do. "Harsh methods" could only be justified morally if their use can be demonstrated to be a more effective tool in quality, timeliness, or access in getting needed information to protect innocents than would the more standard and commonly accepted techniques used by -- for example -- the FBI. Such data may exist or it may not.
I would like to think that it does and that US leadership resorted to these tools for the correct purpose. Unfortunately, neither congressional leaders tasked with intelligence oversight nor administration officials have made a clear statement on these points. I do not care to know whether or not such methods work -- I suspect they do, as anyone can be broken -- but do they work BETTER.
This concludes my rant.
If you're going to get all hot under the collar, we should take this to PM, darling. And by the way, passive-aggressive has a real definition that has nothing to do with the way you're using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Right...so the middle class people in England don't mean it when they said they killed themselves (and British transit patrons) for Islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
And all the terrorists claiming Islam as the reason to destroy the west and establish a great Muslim state are lying?
Sound reasoning, that. :rolleyes:
Crazed Rabbit
the overwhelming majority of suicide attacks from 1980 until present were not conducted by followers of any religion at all. youve got to understand the underlying causes of terrorism, specifically suicide terrorism, before you can combat it. religion can be used to promote or legitimitize it, but is not the cause.
The cause as Ive posted is their taught from childhood in school to hate and kill the infidel.
But wasnt it you who claimed that religion is bad and the cause of all this death and misery in the world?Quote:
the overwhelming majority of suicide attacks from 1980 until present were not conducted by followers of any religion at all.
Knowing a couple of former interogators (Bro is one, OSI - another retired fbi) and their attirudes towards this. I will say this: one gets more cooperation using honey, than with a stick. It isn't a matter that the stick isn't there, it is a matter that if the threat of the stick is not enough to gain information - no amount of using it will get one real usable data. Playing the game on the terms of the one being interogated, letting them believe they are in control of the situation - opens them up. If they just sit there, lie - tell him things you suspect (only give it to him as if you know it as fact) and use names that if they are the real McCoy (terrorist, enemy combatant, etal) they will blink. Be patient, be polite (not submissive, but controlled) - once you demonstrate frustration (anger, violence) - they have won. They win because it is exactly what they expected - what they were trained for - it reinforces their belief in what ever they've accepted as being the "truth".
It is not a matter of becoming their friend, as much as it is showning them that you are both humans - that you have more in common than not. Get them to talk about anything.
It's like in car sales, once the salesman has made his speal - the first one to talk ... loses.
When I was in Korea we had to attend mandatory military training courses about every other week (occasionally more frequent). One that stuck in my wee mind was about the Korean War American POWs (a group of) returned by the Chinese. They (POWs) were placed in a game room and library type of setting while they awaited processing. Now anyone familiar with how GIs respond would expect them to shoot pool, play table tennis, start card games, or just sit around bs'ing. These guys did none of these things - they stayed seperate from one another, they either read or just sat or stood around. No communications with one another. The Chinese had totally broken down the trust between them, and they did it without torture. They did it by "being nice" - by making each of these men believe that one or more of the others had betrayed them. Not a slow process, btw. By rewards to the snitches and little to no punishment for those being snitched on. At first the POWs thought they were scamming the Chinese, I mean you get a reward (cigarettes, a coke, what ever) and nothing really happens to the guy you give up - so they started making things up. But, slowly, imperceptively they realized they couldn't trust anyone - especially when guys were trying to one up others to gain a reward. Pretty devious - don't you think?
The problem we have is - patience - we don't have any. And, since our government now says torture is OK. Why bother.
There are better methods than torture to extract information. Face it, if you were being tortured what would you admit to? Anything - nothing - everything. We are just to lazy to employ real interogation methods in favor of tried and true inquisition methods that work if your aiming at getting a confession - for being a heretic.
:balloon2:
Again don't be so sure - the Gestpo tortured all kinds of folks to included escaped POW from the western allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Have been thinking on how useful torture or "enhanced interogation methods" are in the "ticking bomb" scenario. IMO something worth remember is that the guilty person in question is also aware of that ticking bomb and therefore have a deadline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If your family was in danger, but you knewed that they would be moved in the next 72 hours, while some was using "enhanced interogation methods", what would you do? We can probably assume that it's about the same level of devotion that the fanatic has to thier cause (they are fanatics after all).
IMO the conclusion is that forceful methods are far from a certain card in the ticking bomb scenario. So to be certain we would need statistical data, that we appearently won't get.
You make a good point, Ironside.
In most cases, the ticking bomb scenario is not a good example for utilisation of torture. This is because the captive is likely to know what the schedule is and when the deadline runs out. This gives him an edge, psychologically. One of the key strengths of effective torture is unpredictability - the captive not knowing when, or for how long.
If he knows that the torturers are under pressure, it gives him will to resist. He knows that a "victory" is in his hands. Even if techniques that are guaranteed to break his will are used, he can mislead. This buys time as the information is validated or proved erroneous. The torturers cannot be sure whether he is telling the truth, the half truth or sheer baloney that sounds right.
Unless one is dealing with a very low level and thus unprepared captive, it will usually be impossible to get accurate information from torture under the ticking-bomb conditions. If he is so low level, chances are he won't have a clue anyway - unless you are dealing with amateurs.
It is possible in this scenario to disorient the captive as to time, if you have long enough. People lose track of time quite quickly in stressful situations, and with more than a week to play with, one can probably get him to think the deadline has passed.
The latter however, works just as well with conventional interrogation methods, perhaps better (assuming of course, that such disorientation is not considered torture, which it is not in most jurisdictions).
Forensic interrogation by skilled persons is almost always a better bet to gain valuable information. Calm, cross-referenced questioning allows traps to be set - as Kafir pointed out very well, reward response behaviour is particularly effective.
Torture is a blunt instrument that is not worth the moral degradation that accompanies its use. It is wrong on political, utilitarian and ethical levels.
Have you ever looked at why exactly they are raised to hate the infidel as you say? There ARE reasons, you know. They didnt just wake up one day in the 70s and say, you know what, now is a good time to take on America.
I completely agree with KafirChobee, and he makes an excellent point on the honey technique. We got a lot more information with Taliban prisoners by helping them and "making friends" than we did by threatening them with Gitmo for the rest of their lives and such. I never witnessed any "subversive methods", but the best interrogators were the ones who had emphathy for their targets, hands down.
He he of course I have. Its in the Koran.Quote:
Have you ever looked at why exactly they are raised to hate the infidel as you say? There ARE reasons, you know
You would think that a simple, sensible, decent statement like this wouldn't need to be called out and highlighted. You would be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Thank you for providing everyone with the required weekly dosage of rank ignorant xenophobia. Did you have any tenable contributions, or will I have to tediously debunk you again on this ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
A real definition? I'm shocked at you now wanting to talk definitions, but will gladly take it to PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Although at first and on merit I see this statement as having value....without definitions, without the willingness to contrast cultures objectively, without actually looking at our own past present and future, and with the fast food sound byte posts it will only hold water for some, insult others and completely disregard facts for many. It is polarizing past the issue itself and onto lines of pathos at its best, therefore identifying those engaged by that alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
SH, "Western" cultures have been hard at work for the past century or so trying to take the worst barbarism off the somewhat unavoidable phenomenom of warfare (and for that matter the state machinery of legitimate violence, such as law enforcement, in general). And in spite of occasional setbacks have been fairly succesful thus far.
I fail to see how such "limits on pain" can be regarded as anything but categorically positive, and worth sticking to even if minor short-term practical benefit could be derived from breaking the taboo. As someone put it, "each generation has to be won back from barbarism"; and an seriously inferior and desperate opponent failing to display the same degree of moral integrity is hardly a valid reason (if there even is such a thing) to compromise these achievements.
And do I have to post the quotes from the Saudi text book again? Thank you for providing everyone with the required weekly dosage of rank ignorant naivety.Quote:
Thank you for providing everyone with the required weekly dosage of rank ignorant xenophobia. Did you have any tenable contributions, or will I have to tediously debunk you again on this ?
MY my we seem to be falling into personal insults here no?
I suggest you try a thing called "analysis". It sort of helps when trying to make sense out of raw data.
Do the Saudi textbooks stink ? Sure. Done so for a long time far as I know. A direct outgrowth of the way the not-so-terribly-popular oligarchy ruling the place has been buying reprieve from the local opposition (which is centered around religious movements for the simple reason even rank police states are wary about touching those in fear of public backlash) for a long time by making all kinds of little concessions to the religious nuts who have largely taken over what amounts to the local "popular front" among the Great Unwashed.
Would this have any connection to the little detail Saudis were noticeably numerous among Osama's generation of Al-Qaida at least ? Oh you bet. Throw in the little fact the militant-revivalist Wahhabi sect (which the Saud family allied with back at the day they took over the place and made it their very own kingdom) apparently established an outlier among the mountain tribes of what is now the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the early/mid-1800s (before the annoyed Ottomans - or rather their virtually autonomous Egyptian viceroy - stamped the sect flat in Arabia where it had been causing trouble), and the Soviets' Afghan War with duly about everyone with a beef with the USSR feeding the beardy hillmen guns and other support, and you ought to start seeing why that was.
Which nonetheless does not to my knowledge make the average Saudi citizen terribly interested in going on a jihad against the Infidel, and has absolutely no bearing on the situation in, say, Iran.
You might also ask yourself why all the international terrorism originating from what we now call the "Muslim world" before around Eighties if not Nineties, such as Gaddafi's spooks and their bombs or the aircraft hijackers extraordinaire, Palestinian militants of various stripes, were rather short on religious slogans. Especially before stating crap likewhich has about the BS content of claiming Das Kapital was the reason for the Russian Revolution.Quote:
He he of course I have. Its in the Koran.
Interesting analogy. Would you go as far as saying that the revolution would have happened even without the ideological baggage provided by Marx?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
These torture threads tend to go downhill. And this despite Seamus' and Kralizec's admirable injections of evenhandedness and empiricism, respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Of course. The Revolution happened because the Russian state and society had too many unresolved problems and too many unhappy people. Marx's writings just provided a vehicle for the irate masses (or rather their leaders - revolting peasants never having been all that good at the theory part) to articulate their disgruntlement by, as well as at least a rough scheme of a better future. Had ole Karl never existed, they'd just have found another framework to go by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The exact same thing happened with several religiously tinted peasant uprisings all over the world, such as the "Protestantic" Peasant Wars of 1500s Germany or the assorted peculiar "cult rebellions" seen in China and Japan.
I'm not quite sure what exactly the French Revolution drew on for its ideological fuel (the ideas of Enlightement presumably), but later Communist and Anarchist ideas provided the ideological framework for revolutionaries in Europe from late 1800s to as late as the Seventies or so (what with all those Red Something Armies quite a few states had trouble with). Anti-colonial popular uprisings similarly often found them inspiring - although the possibility of support from the Soviets cannot but also have factored in that.
It's all the same thing. Ideologies and beliefs by themselves do not create revolutionary activity; that comes about due to whole different pressures and circumstances. But a revolutionary without a guiding ideology is not really anything more than a bandit and hooligan; the most he will manage is doing some damage to the local hated representation of "authority" before perishing - a lot of bandits of bygone days were in fact just this, social revolutionaries without a cause, who nonetheless derived a certain degree of popular support from the common masses for no other reason that they were the enemies of the resented rulers. In a way present-day crime gangs in slums aren't too much different.
Revolutionaries who want to be even remotely succesful need something akin to a proper ideology, something they can cite to legitimize their activities and present as the supposedly better alternative to the unacceptable status quo. Revolting peasants for example almost always sought sympathetic and/or disgruntled members of both the literati (clergy in European contexts usually) to act as their ideologists and mouthpieces and the warrior class (or equivalent - junior military officers tending to be the closest modern one) to act as their war-leaders and organizers - else they would never have been more than mobs of looters wandering the countryside torching manors until a military unit came and massacred them. (To be fair it didn't really tend to be much different when leaders and thinkers were succesfully recruited, but uprisings that did tended to be far more difficult to put down than disorganized packs of bandits; major ones required long and costly military campaigns to crush, and could put up surprisingly stiff fights.)
What exactly this ideology consists of does not really matter as such, although it tends to be dictated by prevailing ideological trends and similar circumstances; the main point is that something of the sort had better be found.
Ex-interrogator discusses his feelings about enhanced interrogation techniques.
Isn't it a very standard insurgent strategy to provoke the stronger opponent into summary reprisals against the civilian populace, hence alienating them ? Particularly in situations where the guerillas win by default if they just can keep the other side from winning long enough...
Its their mindset Im speaking of. Did you see their reaction to 911? They certainly have no love for us and i doubt they feel too bad when infidels are killed. You cant have this stuff built into your culture and schools without taking effect.Quote:
Which nonetheless does not to my knowledge make the average Saudi citizen terribly interested in going on a jihad against the Infidel, and has absolutely no bearing on the situation in, say, Iran.
You want an example. to hell with the French Revolution how about Nazi Germany. The average German had no problems with England or the US. Like Germany there is no freedom of the press in most Muslim nations. We are always portrayed as the evil infidel there.
And what has all this to do with Iran? You dont think many there want to go oin jihad against us. In fact havent many already done so?
As far as your argument that if we hadnt gotten involved there we wouldnt be in this mess I said the same thing in another post. But that doesnt mean they wouldnt still hate us. We have been fighting them almost from this nations inception long before the discovery of oil. We are infidels and are not worthy to be first class citizens. It all boils down to that or you have to a Muslim who doesnt take the Koran seriously. Some of us can be almost good.
Whew, bit of a latecomer here to this yet another doozy of a Lemur thread.
First off, I think Kafir's post about the figurative "honey vs. stick" was extremely well written and truthful. Another slightly relevant quote I am reminded of is "Willing obedience always beats forced obedience."
Second, have we discussed TIMELIENESS of data that's looking to be extracted? Obviously when someone is captured or taken into custody, the value of the information they possess is going to have some realistic temporal limits on how long it's 'good' for. Surmising if the individual has the data that is being sought and how quickly it is needed I would think would have a bearing on the individual situation. My gut reaction is that even if the need for the info is immediate, I highly doubt whether the 'stick' would be more effective than the 'honey' at rapidly obtaining or even determining if the person possesses the knowledge that's being sought.
Gawain, do you honestly believe that Islamic radicals hate-- oh I dont know, lets say 1) Money, 2) Democracy and 3) "Freedom"? Its nonsense like this that will keep us involved in the ME for decades to come. I would suggest you study Deobandism and Wahabbism specificially and Islam in general before making such judgements. Do you think that the Wahabbists in Arabia all of a sudden decided that The USA embodied the Great Satan for no reason?
So ? By itself that amounts to nothing more than approval - and the reasons for that approval, in the case of the Saudis, ultimately trace back to the unpopular autocratic regime which the US just so happens to be cozy with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Not that many by what I know of it. Weren't they busy fighting the (partly US-backed) Iraqis for quite a while, while at the same time supporting the more or less same Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviets that the US also backed ? I get the impression they mostly work through various proxies, and actually rather rarely directly against the US which is really somewhat schizophrenic given the tensions between the two (conversely the US actually seems to be doing rather little directly against Iran).Quote:
And what has all this to do with Iran? You dont think many there want to go oin jihad against us. In fact havent many already done so?
And AFAIK these days the average Iranian is generally rather more irked at his or her own puritanical and somewhat autocratic governement (those tend to get unpopular pretty fast for some reason) than the distant US of A.
I do not recall saying anything of the sort.Quote:
As far as your argument that if we hadnt gotten involved there we wouldnt be in this mess I said the same thing in another post.
Nonsense. The average Muslim has far more pressing concerns than cering about some dumb infidels somewhere far away. The main reason they resent us (or rather, you) these days tends to be a feeling of being pressured and threatened, and in some cases evil-by-association due to links with the disliked local rulers. Well, and the still-unresolved mess with Israel.Quote:
But that doesnt mean they wouldnt still hate us.
...and what the Hell do you base this nonsense on, might I ask ?Quote:
We have been fighting them almost from this nations inception long before the discovery of oil.
Besides, after the Ottomans' grasping-for-straws failure before Vienna in the late 1600s, in the "West"-Muslim relations the latter have been markedly on the defensive all the way until the anticolonial uprisings after WW2 - and those were motivated by ideologies that had nothing to do with Islam. After that they mostly sat on the fence between the Cold War camps.
:dizzy2: Not this batch of xenophobia again. It has no bearing on the practical relations between Muslim countries and others; it is, indeed, nothing more than an excessively and tendentiously literal reading of a part of the Scriptures which has only had internal relevance for around a millenia or so - and it must be noted that during much of that time the Muslim attitude was by far more tolerant of "infidels" than was the case in for example Europe, where those were more often than not allowed even second-class-citizen treatment but were outright persecuted instead.Quote:
We are infidels and are not worthy to be first class citizens. It all boils down to that or you have to a Muslim who doesnt take the Koran seriously. Some of us can be almost good.
For pretty obvious reasons Muslims living outside the "House of Islam" flatly ignore that whole thing.
Nice post. I could argue your points, but probably won't since I more or less agree with the thrust of the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Is that so. I would have replied earlier and did so but the forum was downQuote:
As far as your argument that if we hadnt gotten involved there we wouldnt be in this mess I said the same thing in another post.
I do not recall saying anything of the sort.
So then what was this?
Quote:
So ? By itself that amounts to nothing more than approval - and the reasons for that approval, in the case of the Saudis, ultimately trace back to the unpopular autocratic regime which the US just so happens to be cozy with.
I dont mean to suggest that your average Muslim has plans to rule the world. You seem to be arguing against yourself here. I say it is because we got involved over there in the 50s and they look at the Koran and it told them hey dont trust these guys so they dont. But their distrust of us goes back much further than that Now do you have a different opinion? Also we have been fighting them almost from the inception of our nation , long before there was any oil they were raiding our commerce. We even had to assure them when we made peace that we were not a Christian nation.Quote:
Weren't they busy fighting the (partly US-backed) Iraqis for quite a while, while at the same time supporting the more or less same Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviets that the US also backed ? I get the impression they mostly work through various proxies, and actually rather rarely directly against the US which is really somewhat schizophrenic given the tensions between the two (conversely the US actually seems to be doing rather little directly against Iran).
It was much the same in Nazi Germany. I dont think our opinions are really that far apart but the written word is not my forte as you people can obviousy tell.:laugh4:
Dont get me wrong Im glad that many have found the good in the Koran as there is more of that than bad. Its just that its so damn easy to quote it and use it for evil. If I were a Muslim Im afraid id be a terrorist. That is if I took the Koran at its word or even behaved as Mohamed did.
Torture is an intolerable blight on society that must be eradicated.
Some people consider incarceration in any form torture.
We must abolish incarceration in any form???
I agree 110% with the arguments presented eloquently by Lemur, Watchman, Banquo KhafirChobee(some of the best writing I've seen in the 3 years I've read your posts, by ) and others in this thread. However, I must insert my definition of torture into your blanket statements.
But of all the people in this thread that I have identified with, Seamus echoes my sentiments better than any other. Again, I'm always forced to return to the misuse of the term torture. When torture is defined in light of specific actions, I can agree or disagree. But at what point does 'harsh measures' mean we're powerless to act in our own defense?
Do you on the 'mistreatment is always an absolute evil' side not recognize that 'mistreatment' is a gradient, relative term? I think it ends with causing suffering. You might think it ends with making somebody relatively uncomfortable. Somebody else might take it to mean mild discomfort. Somebody else yet might take it to mean restricing one's freedom of movement. And on the extreme edge of the gradient, wouldn't thwarting somebody's desire to commit an act be viewed as harsh and intolerable to them, from their point of view?
I mean, it's all well and good to rail against torture. It's a Mom and Apple Pie argument. But what do we mean by the word 'torture', there's the rub. The fact that I seem to have such a hard time getting a firm defintion of torture from those who continue to rail against it suggests to me that it's not a simple lack of communication.
It is all well and good to be cautious -- almost necessary, even. But truly, I personally could not find many people in this thread, or in my social circles in real life, to take such extreme positions as the one you illustrated. Viewed in that light, I find this caution to be altogether irrelevant for the time being, especially since people (not being you) seems to use that very argument to, well, advance torture as being somehow acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
There is the gray area somewhere, sure, but the real events that this debate is coming from is just so obviously torture it's not funny there's even people defending it. Unless somebody can say with a straight face they can take on waterboarding like they're just water-skiing; or stand without sleeping more than five, six hours a week -- I'll continue to disagree absolutely with the other side of the debate and agree absolutely with said people you mentioned.
'Guess I have yet to see college and meet that supposed far Leftist bias just yet. Free Tibet eh? :sweatdrop:
How many times have I said what this thread boils down to is what do you consider torture and the fact that it is subjective makes it impossible to really debate. I doubt anyone here is pro torture. It used to be entertainment.Quote:
I mean, it's all well and good to rail against torture. It's a Mom and Apple Pie argument. But what do we mean by the word 'torture', there's the rub. The fact that I seem to have such a hard time getting a firm defintion of torture from those who continue to rail against it suggests to me that it's not a simple lack of communication.
I think he did a pretty good job of representing everyones opinions :laugh4:Quote:
But of all the people in this thread that I have identified with, Seamus echoes my sentiments better than any other
I'd love to put you through a few days of sleep deprivation and light bulb technique and see what you consider torture then.
Let me remind you that you agree with me on the use of torture or do I have to go back and quote you? Besides Ive been through all that and in fact inflicted that and much more on people.Quote:
I'd love to put you through a few days of sleep deprivation and light bulb technique and see what you consider torture then.
Heck didnt you go through that in basic? :laugh4:
If you must know I was an NCO at escape and evasion school and surprise ,surprise we did not follow the Geneva conventions with our prisoners.
I think we should all just agree to accept tickle torture as an acceptable method of extracting information. Problem solved. End of discussion. Close thread. :grin:
:balloon2:
If that was directed at me, I can very quickly and promptly make a list of behaviors I personally consider acceptable and unacceptable. Sleep depravation beyond 36 hours and waterboarding would both be on the unacceptable list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
@Antiochus: Funny, I know some people I consider fairly reasonable in other ways that consider incarceration 'harsh treatment', though they refer to it as cruel and unusual punishment. See, they're members of the ACLU. You should read the details on what they consider to be inhumane. No air conditioning? No conjugal visits? The horror...
The ACLU is generally considered to be a "First Amendment extremist group," that is to say, in many senses, extreme libertarians. The coverage of their interest ranges from protecting Fred Phelps' Freedom of Speech to decrying the basic tenets of US criminology...to cases where they change from annoying extremists to admirable protectors of the Little Man's freedoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Surely not many of the org members really fit that bill?
I figure the Org represents the breath of views that I come across in real life. The ACLU fans I know aren't whackos (other than that they're ACLU fans). They have rational reasons for what they believe. I don't think my concern about what defiinition of torture we use is spurrious.
I see. Then I accept your premise. Your questions are valid, however, there is a need for definition -- at least, enough to draw a perceivable line -- and there is much need to adhere strictly to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
What, then, would be your line between barbarism and acceptable practice? Or, if a line is too strict a demand, that gray area..?
Well, I touched on it my staking out points on the gradient. Acts which are specifically designed to cause physical suffering should be avoided. Those which cause mental suffering should only be undertaken after careful consideration of the consequences and whether the goal is the suffering itself, or is tangential to the act. That is, solitary confinement may cause mental suffering. If the goal of the confinement is to cause that suffering, than it shouldn't be allowed. If the goal is to protect the safety of the inmate, or the other inmates in the prison population than it should be.
What if [and I'm just being particularly picky here] the goal is right and the method is wrong? There's talk about ends and means in this thread and I'm not sure that definition is the one I'm entirely secure on.
What if, for example, the prisoner is forced to either take to waterboarding or "fess up," and it is done to obtain information for a good cause, not because the torturer likes waterboarding people. Does that make it "right" and not torture?
Isnt being sent to the hole still practiced these days in prison? Not only are you deprived of company but of light there as well. You food ration is also substantially reduced. I guess Tito would know more about it. This would certainly be considered torture no? Its only purpose is to make one suffer. Again Im not sure if its still in practice anywhere but no offense the south would be the place to check.Quote:
hat is, solitary confinement may cause mental suffering. If the goal of the confinement is to cause that suffering, than it shouldn't be allowed. If the goal is to protect the safety of the inmate, or the other inmates in the prison population than it should be.
Hi Don, I remember posting several definitions for you in an earlier thread. You never wrote back. I felt lonely and rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
If I remember correctly, all I got for my pains was a lot of quibbling over how the federal legal definition of "torture" was irrelevant from one Orgah, and a general basting for wanting to cuddle terrorists from another. An altogether unrewarding experience.
I think you're quite right that "torture" is broad and malleable term, and it can be abused by many, many people. You can misuse it by defining it too expansively -- as with your line about incarceration being torture, which is obviously false. Likewise, you can abuse the word by defining it too narrowly, as regimes do when they want to hang people by their thumbs but not be in violation of the law.
I think that both over-expansive and over-inclusive uses of the word fail the smell test. If you're willing to be reasonable, it's not hard to say what's torture and what is not. The rather hysterical rhetoric that comes from the left and the right depends on abusing the word "torture" itself, and that same rhetoric gets in the way of having a meaningful discussion.
Would that not depend upon why you are being incarcerated and for how long and where and under what conditions just to name a few variables?Quote:
as with your line about incarceration being torture, which is obviously false.
No. The goal of waterboarding is to induce terror and a sensation of drowning. As opposed to simple stress or fear (you're gonna go away for a long time in a nasty prison if you don't confess), actual terror actually rises to my standard of physical suffering and thus isn't justifiable in my book. Similarly, sleep depravation beyond 36 hours and the induction of hypothermia would be taboo in my book. Playing offensive music or speech and forcing the recipient to listen, if I had valid information I had a reasonable expecation the target held would be allowable, as that would qualify as mental suffering but the intent is the extraction of the information, not the mental suffering itself.
Fair enough, Gawain. Locking someone away for life for spitting on the sidewalk is cruel and unjust. I don't believe it is torture, however.
Me so sorry, Lemur-san. ~:pat: I usually give these threads about half a day (each time less than the last as my patience wanes) to produce somebody's view of torture. You're right, and my intent of introducing the concept of the definition of torture is not to introduce a straw-man I have the pleasure to knock down, though I understand where some might be concerned that might be my intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The reason I seek definition is because the term torture means inhumane suffering, which is a distinctly relative term. For laws and ethical principles to have any meaning, they must have some meat on their bones, i.e. objectiveness by which we may all understand the compact to which we agree.
As you fear the straw-man, I fear the unwilling bandwagon. I don't want to sign on with an absolute statement against torture, only to hear that law enforcement may no longer attempt to use verbal coercion (your partner already gave you up). Likely? No, but certainly plausible.
If we really are talking about the garden variety definition of terrorism and harsh methods, in all but the most extreme extenuating circumstances, I am opposed.
Why dont you try it for a while? See how you feel after a few months. I did a year and it was torture believe me. Hit me few times and let me go please. Then again boot camp was much worse but you volunteer for that right? :laugh4: Unless your drafted. Is making some one chew on tin foil torture?Quote:
Fair enough, Gawain. Locking someone away for life for spitting on the sidewalk is cruel and unjust. I don't believe it is torture, however.
He he Maybe we should give criminals a choice of a whipping instead of jail time :)
Gawain, I understand what you're talking about. Some conversations with dull relatives are painful as well. Putting your penis in a mouse-trap because you want to be on TV is painful. Lots of things are painful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
However, in this context, torture means the deliberate induction of mental and/or physical pain. You were put away, as I understand it, because the system was messed up. There was no deliberate intent to induce pain, beyond the natural unpleasantness of incarceration.
And I agree with you, offering corporal punishment in lieu of jail time might be a better arrangement all around, especially when you consider how much it costs to keep a body in prison. It wouldn't fly with the voters, however.
A statement as to one of the reason the average Saudi does not have all that much reason to like you too much. There's a bunch of others too, all more or less complicated naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Nobody particularly likes colonial exploiters you know. The Brits happily used mustard gas to quell uprisings in what is now Iraq between the World Wars, remember ? Religion is quite irrelevant in this regard, and indeed far as I know the post-WW2 anticolonial movements in the Muslim world were by far more often based on ideologies like nationalism and modified Socialism than anything with a particularly religious bent. I'm pretty sure the Saudis - who weren't under the colonial thumb - took a fair while longer to start disliking you, as that had to develop primarily through the distaste US policies in the region were regarded with.Quote:
I dont mean to suggest that your average Muslim has plans to rule the world. You seem to be arguing against yourself here. I say it is because we got involved over there in the 50s and they look at the Koran and it told them hey dont trust these guys so they dont. But their distrust of us goes back much further than that Now do you have a different opinion?
That's called "piracy", Sherlock. The exact only thing that made the Barbary corsairs different from most in that ancient if not respectable profession was that they could quote Scriptures to feel all warm and fuzzy about "fighting the Infidel" whenever they wanted. Well, and the fact piracy was a well-organized state-backed industry in that curious part of the North African coastline, but then you could say all that about the French Huguenots who raided the Spanish Main in the 1500s and "pirate towns" like St. Malo, nevermind now the Protestant English state-supported piracy also against the Spanish...Quote:
Also we have been fighting them almost from the inception of our nation , long before there was any oil they were raiding our commerce. We even had to assure them when we made peace that we were not a Christian nation.
You should really read up on the history of that. Might give you some perspective. Did you know, for example, that the Barbary corsairs learned the art of making very good sailing ships (like most on the Med, they'd relied entirely on galleys until then) from a Dutch renegade (who, IIRC, eventually retired to live off his ill-gotten fortune in England or something like that) in the 1500s ? The institutions and practices for ransoming prisoners, buying back captured ships, and other such practicalities of mutual large-scale piracy that developed between the Christian and Muslim sea-powers of the region were also quite interestingly sophisticated and pragmatic; the standard result of people making a living off the exact same business at different sides of the border (which tended to be more than a little fuzzy too, when it came to that).
Heck, the only bunch with genuinely religious motivations in the whole region were pretty much the Knights of St. John - and they weren't too hesitant to prey on Christian shipping either. Although they were a little unusual in that whenever they boarded a grain shipment to fill their own granaries (and duly massacred most of the crew in process) they actually usually reimbursed the owners later - most Christian navies could not be bothered to do even that; more likely the owners had to buy back their ships from those...
:inquisitive: And what the Hell do the Nazis have to do here ? Don't tell me I need to start explaining those differences too...Quote:
It was much the same in Nazi Germany.
No, I quite think they are.Quote:
I dont think our opinions are really that far apart but the written word is not my forte as you people can obviousy tell.:laugh4:
Show me a Scripture that isn't. Even Buddhists have proven quite well able to play rather fast and loose with theirs.Quote:
Its just that its so damn easy to quote it and use it for evil.
:dizzy2: Anyone would be a major war criminal if he behaved as the average Medieval European warlord did, these days.Quote:
If I were a Muslim Im afraid id be a terrorist. That is if I took the Koran at its word or even behaved as Mohamed did.
Perspective.
Thinking Medieval, aren't we ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As I recall, there have been a number of threads that discussed and debated
what constitues torture. There was no resolve in any of these, because those that condone any or limited forms of torture see it as justifiable if the ends justify the means - or even if it doesn't and the wrong person is being tortured because of clerical error, or misidentification.
It is not so much a matter of what constitutes torture, but whether or not there are other means available that are in fact more conducive to attaining verifiable information - versus, the suspect saying anything the interrogator asks them just so the "interview" ends.
Someone mentioned the ACLU's position on torture. Though it is true the ACLU is handling a number of cases that challange the interrogation techniques of more than a few Police Departments - and have suceeded in getting more than a few cases over turned because of both excessive enthusiasm (on the part of detectives) and that the interviews weren't video taped (note, those that were aided in the dismissals). However, I think the ACLU is more concerned about equal justice for all, rather than the sliding rule we have today that is based on the economic scale of an individual being prosecuted. Wealthy people do not get interrogated, their lawyers have them out of jail in a matter of hours (some times even if the charge is murder) - and sweetheart deals get cut when they are guilty. Regardless, the ACLU is not happy about GITMO - but, not based on the torture being conducted there (though it is a factor), but on the denial of basic human rights that America has always claimed to be the spine of our democratic system of government.
This ought to PO every American that believes the USA is a shining light of moral and ethical fiber that Gitmo exists under a nation of laws. But, it doesn't bother some. Those people see it as a necessity, justified because of 9/11 and reinforced out of fear. Torture is just a byproduct of that fear, whether torture is affective is actually of less consequence than that it makes the true believers feel good that something is being done. Right or wrong, something is being done - and isn't that all anyone can ask for? Who needs laws when they have the righteousness of 9/11 on their side?
Regardless, it is not a matter of using tortue, or its morality, legality, or any of the other ___tys. It is a matter that there are better methods to accomplish the goals intended (gathering information) than using torture purports to achieve, and they aren't because .... because, why exactly?
:balloon2:
Yeah like Drake. Its not Piracy when its sanctioned by the state Sherlock. Since when do we sign treaties with Pirates?Quote:
That's called "piracy", Sherlock.
Do I really have to show you the similarities?Quote:
And what the Hell do the Nazis have to do here ? Don't tell me I need to start explaining those differences too...
Your being obstinate then.Quote:
No, I quite think they are.
You could start with the New Testament. I know weve been through this countless times. You would have to read The art of war to find a book that comes close to the Koran. Dont make silly claims that all religious books are as easy to find things telling you to kill the unbeliever in them.Quote:
Show me a Scripture that isn't. Even Buddhists have proven quite well able to play rather fast and loose with theirs.
My point is that the average person looking at the Koran would come away as a terrorist. That OBLs interpretation is correct.Quote:
Anyone would be a major war criminal if he behaved as the average Medieval European warlord did, these days.
Ive always maintained that religion can and often is used as an excuse for war. It is rarely the reason for war itself. I said if we hadnt messed around over there they would still hate us but they wouldnt be attacking us. Now where exactly do we part company here? The only part I can see is you think they wouldnt hate us anyway. Maybe hate is too strong a word. Look down upon us may be a better term.
The average person reading the Torah should become a terrorist too, using your logic. The new testament is full of bigotry and violence as well, perhaps you've never studied it like you should. Jesus himself is shown to be a racist when he refuses to heal a non-Jew. "not wasting my time" as he puts it. I don't even want to get into the psychotic insanity of the "Revelation".
And please, if the "Art of War" is your nearest comparison to the Qur'an, clearly you've never read the "Old Testament" which is full of mytholgical genocides, murders, rapes, incest, and wanton destruction for no reason.
In fact, the Gospel of Judas claims that the "God" of the OT is in fact the evil one that should be avoided.
Go back a few thousand years and tell me about it.Quote:
The average person reading the Torah should become a terrorist too, using your logic.
1815? Although I think that was payment of protection money rather than a treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Edit:
A pirate attacks anyone unless they have already paid for "protection" (and sometimes will do even then).
A privateer attacks the ships and holdings of specific nations as he is contracted to act against (for example Drake and the Spanish).
Thats the one Im speaking about. It was a treaty between us and the Bey of Tripoli . In other words the ruler. You can call him a pirate if you like.Quote:
1815? Although I think that was payment of protection money rather than a treaty.
There were two revolutions: the first was the Februari Revolution wich saw the Romanovs deposed. The October Revolution was against the provisional government set up after the Tzar's fall, and was arguably more a coup d'etat by Lenin's "working class vanguard"; while they were numerous they only amounted to a fraction of the total populace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
What distinguishes revolutions from rebellions is that the former is aimed removing and reinventing the socio-political order entirely rather then changing policy or replacing the governing elite. Ideologization of the proto-revolutionaries is vital because the "masses" have to be convinced that they're opressed, or beset by infidels etc. while their objective circumstances are not nearly as relevant.
You seem to be implying that the decision to resort to terrorism comes first, followed by the need to legitimize it with something - in this case, the Qu'ran and Sura. Just like a ideology allows for a revolution instead of just a rebellion, I'd argue that Islamic currents like Wahabism and Salafism contribute significantly to sectarian terrorism.
On that note, these two have their roots in broader Islam just like Marx-Leninism has its roots in Das Kapital and the Communist manifesto. To what degree Islamic scripture is "responsible" I can't say, moreso because my knowledge of it is anecdotal, but to say it has no role in causing terrorism equals sticking your head in the sand.
Even if Iraq were a Christian nation, I'd wager you the level of violence would still be comparable to what it is now as an Islamic nation.
Im sure you can back that up LOL. I doubt many here share that opinion. For starts what would they have against Israel?Quote:
Even if Iraq were a Christian nation, I'd wager you the level of violence would still be comparable to what it is now as an Islamic nation.
You think the insurgency in Iraq has anything to do with Israel?
What has this to do with the topic ? Is terrorism and torture limited to Iraq? What brought Iraq into the conversation anyway? Iran calls for the destruction of Israel because their Jews. How clear do I need to make myslef ? Do christians nowdays call for the destruction of jews or an end to Israel.Quote:
You think the insurgency in Iraq has anything to do with Israel?
Nice point, and one of the larger concerns I have. Unlike you, in times of war (side note: I wish the Bushies had had the stones to ask for and get such a full-on declaration btw), I am willing to have some limited "ends justifying means" come into play (e.g. individuals held in mental hospitals during WW2). But I am VERY concerned that we have the wrong end goal "feel tough/get revenge" in mind. That would be torture for torture's sake -- :shame: -- and would be a blot on our record.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Where is the data to suggest that these means are better than more normal means at producing the only worthwile/moral end -- valuable information? Have any of you seen such data? Any former interrogators out there who can confirm these tools as valid?
Having spoken with several who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan, I know of a minority sentiment among our troops that would obviate the need for Guantanamo Bay's incarceration facility. I admire their restraint in very difficult circumstances. Are tales of "harsh measures" being used to placate this sentiment? Would that be a good thing?
Err, the recent debate on torture has come about due to US actions in the WoT which, like it or not, somehow involves Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Besides which you brought Israel into the discussion.
My mistake was my bad old eyes i read Iraq as Iran :oops:Quote:
You could have saved a bit of time by simply typing "I agree Kralizec"!
But how can anyone support his statement
On what basis? Its mere conjecture. Woulndt most here wager against him?Quote:
Even if Iraq were a Christian nation, I'd wager you the level of violence would still be comparable to what it is now as an Islamic nation.
Uh, because popular resentment to occupation is a UNIVERSAL effect, not religious. I thought you were somewhat of a student of history...
More than some what. I agreed that it was , whats your problem? Of course though we should ignore Muslim occupation because it was good.Quote:
Uh, because popular resentment to occupation is a UNIVERSAL effect, not religious. I thought you were somewhat of a student of history...
Actually, you could make an argument that resistance to Muslim aggression was one of the catalysts for the rise of nationalism in Europe that led to European domination of global affairs for more than 400 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Your statement Sir GoO would indicate that you are wagering against Mr Z and not agreeing with him. I'll take the wager that Zaknafien is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Lets use WWII as an example.
French Resistance (Secular/Catholic state)
Okinawa (Shinto/Buddhist state)
Britain (Secular/Anglican state)... wasn't taken over but Churchill's speech was pretty much a description of what would have happened.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
What a laugh. Comparing our invasion of Iraq to Germanys attack in ww2 is ludicrous. Its almost as bad as comparing our invasion of Iraq to the Invasion of Normandy. I hate to say it but its one of the craziest positions Ive ever witnessed here.Quote:
Your statement Sir GoO would indicate that you are wagering against Mr Z and not agreeing with him. I'll take the wager that Zaknafien is correct.
You also have no basis to make such a statement. I could claim if it were a christian nation it would be paradise and have just as much credabilty since I have no idea if it would or would not. Looking at the world today most people would imagine it allmer under christians. Its just about the most violent place on earth for Petes sake. It cant get much worse. I am not saying their right. Just Ill bet most people would side with me. Few see Islam as more peacful than christianity these days except select members of these boards and Rosie Odonell.
Are you insane? Come on now.. was Vietnam a fanatical religious country? Is Tibet? (Ok, arguable) :) ... Out of the hundreds of popular insurgencies throughout history, how many have been Islamic? Out of all the wars in history, how many have been fought by Christians and how many by Muslims? Im not saying that Islam is necessarily more peaceful or less peaceful than Xtianity, both are equally evil. I'm saying that fighting for one's country and liberty are universal values, religion is only a factor in motivating patriots to fight their oppressors.
Well if you can show me 78 calls for war in the bible go ahead. Islam is a violent and emperialist religion, and no that doesn't necesarily mean all muslims are violent. No appeasement, people need to realise that the dhimmi-award is a price you pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Well I dont know where you did your study of the Qur'an but it sounds like it came from Fox news or something. In actuality, a large part of the Qur'an is essentially the same as the Torah. And wheras the Qur'an does promote war agianst oppressors, the Torah promotes complete genocide in more verses than the "just war" promoted in the Quranic verses. Christianity and Islam have both been used as motivators for imperialistic expansion, but Islam's doesnt even compare to the Western Christian version which conquered most of the world. I suggest you check your facts.
Well, you could. But I don't really see how you could make it stick. Europeans developed their proto-nation-states and later national ideologies expressly by fighting increasingly destructive and costly wars against each other, often under the fig-leaf excuse of sectarian differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Why do you think modern sovereign nation-states are called "Westphalian" ?
Oh yeah, the sugarcoated 1001 nights version the intehellactuals love so much, the just war :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
here, a piece of peace
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51
Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)
Your's sincerily,
Allah.
uh, there is only one version of the Qur'an, dude, while there are many versions of the Bible and all are equally violent. The Bible in fact promotes killing of entire races of people, not just religious enemies. I mean, for Jeebus sake,the Christian God killed hundreds of thousands of innocent children in one night in Egypt for no reason! LOL
Old testament thingie (and god does most of the killing not his followers), christians follow the new one remember? That jezus fellow, maybe you have heard of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
ps: only one version, uh-huh, those quotes are from it.
Oh please, if thats true why dont you get rid of the OT altogether? Not to mention Jesus agreed that all aspects of the revelation of Moses and Abraham applied to his followers as well. Acts of the Apostles confirms this as well, and sais all Mosaic law must be followed to the letter. I dont know what kind of watered-down Christianity you're talking about. Either take it or leave it, you cant have it both ways, since the "Good Book" is all inspired by God, right?
Well that would be a good idea, just as it would be a good idea to tear out at least half of the pages from the Qu'ran as my favorite dutch politician once said. Sadly won't happen. But you said equally evil, gave you plenty evil, and I am desperate for balancing all this. But do consider, in the bible it is god who kills, the Qu'ran tells his followers to kill. So gimme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien