rvg, some couple of years later?

[Xiahou]

To me it appears that you're merely trying to restrict the meaning of the word "torture" because you're unwilling to challenge the notion that all torture is bad.

I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

[rvg]

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

Terrorists are neither civilians nor military. Those rules do not apply to them.

Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war

Read again: "and largely ignorant of".

Ignorant how?

Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.

It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.

The thing is that you already think that you know everything you need to know about the Middle-East. Everything that differs from or seems to disagree with this opinion is immediately disregarded as wrong.

I do? They are? What makes you think that I think I know everything? I yield to arguments, provided that they are logical.

[Fragony]

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

Who is that world you are talking about, it's certainly not me

[Hax]

That's Israel, not us.

Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Being insensitive to public opinion <> "characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East"

Read again: "and largely ignorant of".

Like Hamas?

Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.

It's not worth $26.00

Yes well, y'know, it's your choice. You do realise that's exactly what's wrong with the world, right? By the way, it was written by this guy.

The thing is that you already think that you know everything you need to know about the Middle-East. Everything that differs from or seems to disagree with this opinion is immediately disregarded as wrong.


EDIT: By the way, remember that thing I said about the Ba‘ath party executing children a couple of threads back? I found the passage:

Warning: graphic descriptions

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The next pages, therefore, belong to dr. Shahristani: [...]"One prisoner told me he was seventeen and he was the youngest prisoner and so they made him sweep the corridors of the internal security headquarters every morning at seven o'clock. He saw a peasnt woman from the south with tattoos, he said, a woman from the marshes with a girl of ten and a boy of about six. She was carrying a baby in her arms. the prisoner told me that as he was sweeping, an officer came and thold the woman: 'Tell me where your husband is - very bad things can happen.' She said: "Look, my husband takes great pride in the honour of his woman. If he knew I was here, he would have turned himself in.' The officer took out his pistol and held the daughter up by the braids of her hair and put a bullet into her head. The woman didn't know what was happening. Then he put a bullet into the boy's head. The woman was going crazy. He took the youngest boy by the legs and smashed the baby's brain on a wall.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

[Hax]

It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.

Which is still not the only Islamist organisation.

[QUOTE]Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war[/QUOTE]

And yet she said this thing about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.

I do? They are? What makes you think that I think I know everything? I yield to arguments, provided that they are logical.

How about the presumption that Islamist movements are legitimate. Let's start there.

[rvg]

Which is still not the only Islamist organisation.

It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.

Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.

Something? What something?

How about the presumption that Islamist movements are legitimate. Let's start there.

Why should I presume that?

[Hax]

It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.

Citation required.

Furthermore, all these "offshoots" that you mention are nowadays as far removed from the Muslim Brotherhood as the Marlboro Baptist Church is from the Vatican, theologically speaking.

Something? What something?

You tell me, I'm not an expert on what the Secretary of State can and can't or should and shouldn't say.

Why should I presume that?

I could just go the easy way and say: "read Cleveland's book, maybe just maybe you'd understand why."

The hard way, of course, will be the one to take: the rise to power of secularist and authoritarian regimes largely went hand-in-hand with an increase in unemployment and corruption, which led to widespread disillusionment with the ruling regimes, which in turn led to the formation of political opposition parties which were then more often than not (violently) suppressed. As a result of these crackdowns, the only remaining form of domestic political opposition was through religious opposition.

Examples of a dramatic increase of unemployment can be seen in countries as diverse and with completely different policies as Iran (the Shah vis-à-vis the Tudeh party), Indonesia (the failure of secular parties), Turkey (the rise of the AKP) and more recently Egypt and Tunisia, in which the two dominating political parties were Islamist in nature. The only places so far where we've seen the reverse are Libya and Lebanon, the latter primarily because a sectarian civil war that has lasted more than thirty years has made the people sick and tired of sectarian mumbo-jumbo, to put it mildly.


Basically, Islamism was a logical consequence of the dominating policy concerning political opposition in many different countries. And it should be treated, in my opinion, as a completely legitimate political current.

[rvg]

Citation required.

Furthermore, all these "offshoots" that you mention are nowadays as far removed from the Muslim Brotherhood as the Marlboro Baptist Church is from the Vatican, theologically speaking.

Certainly:
The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمون‎, often simply: الإخوان المسلمون, "the Muslim Brotherhood", transliterated: al-ʾiḫwān al-muslimūn) is the Arab world's most influential[1] and one of the largest Islamic movements,[2] and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.[which?] Founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna,[3][4][5][6] by the end of World War II the MB had an estimated two million members.[7] Its ideas had gained supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups with its "model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work".[8]

That's wikipedia.

You tell me, I'm not an expert on what the Secretary of State can and can't or should and shouldn't say.

You're the one accusing her of being involved in the 2006 campaign...

I could just go the easy way and say: "read Cleveland's book, maybe just maybe you'd understand why."

Yeah, let's do it the hard way.

The hard way, of course, will be the one to take: the rise to power of secularist and authoritarian regimes largely went hand-in-hand with an increase in unemployment and corruption, which led to widespread disillusionment with the ruling regimes, which in turn led to the formation of political opposition parties which were then more often than not (violently) suppressed. As a result of these crackdowns, the only remaining form of domestic political opposition was through religious opposition.

Yes, yes, so far so good...

Examples of a dramatic increase of unemployment can be seen in countries as diverse and with completely different policies as Iran (the Shah vis-à-vis the Tudeh party),

From what I'm hearing out of Iran, people are fed up with the ayatollahs much more than they were with the Shah.

Indonesia (the failure of secular parties),

Failure? Could you elaborate on this?

Turkey (the rise of the AKP)

And their recent cleansing of the military is very troubling...

and more recently Egypt and Tunisia, in which the two dominating political parties were Islamist in nature.

And there already are some troublesome signals coming from Tunisia. Still, too early to judge either one.

The only places so far where we've seen the reverse are Libya and Lebanon, the latter primarily because a sectarian civil war that has lasted more than thirty years has made the people sick and tired of sectarian mumbo-jumbo, to put it mildly.

Libya was a pleasant surprise indeed. Nonetheless, it's too early to tell.

Basically, Islamism was a logical consequence of the dominating policy concerning political opposition in many different countries.

Oh, it's certainly logical. The question is: is it positive?

And it should be treated, in my opinion, as a completely legitimate political current.

Up until the Arab spring islamism manifested itself via Hamas, Hesbollah, and the dear Islamic Republic of Iran. Needless to say, I have a healthy skepticism when looking at islamist movements.

[Kadagar_AV]

We don't torture our own people, so torturing other people is crossing an obvious and easy-to-see moral line in the sand.

Don't know what else to say, really. Apologists gonna apologize.

That's kind of the same as:

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

But yeah. I actually would have less against it if the US didn't simultaneously try to picture themselves as "the good guys".

IF, and only when and IF the states and its people come out saying "Yeah, we are as bad as the rest, and the world is filled with grey scales" - I can somewhat have some understanding.

It's the damn "We are gonna lead the civilized world against the horrors" that gets to me. As the US is very VERY much part of what other people find horrific.

[rvg]

We don't torture our own people, so torturing other people is crossing an obvious and easy-to-see moral line in the sand.

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

[Kralizec]

I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

I think it's pretty obvious. Information can be given:

A) freely, voluntarily, free of any duress or coersion
B) under the conditions imposed, the subject calculates that it isn't worth the hassle
C) blackmail or other forms of coersion not considered torture (broad, and not particulary relevant here)
D) inflicting pain, or other stimuli severe enough to be considered equal or worse, that causes so much stress that the subject mentally breaks and begins to talk

Everything under category D is torture in my view. I can imagine situations where there the distinction between pressure and torture becomes blurred, such as sleep deprivation with intermittent interrogations. Waterboarding is, by definition, a procedure that causes your body to "believe" it's in the process of dying, and should always be considered torture. Wether it can ever be acceptable is, of course, another question.