Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sad indeed. It's a small world, and getting smaller. And our doors have no lock, and our windows don't shut.....and we live in a VERY tough neighborhood. "Little House on the Prairie" was a long time ago.
Wow. What a myopic but pretty analogy.
My father murdered AVH and Soviet troops to defend freedom in his country. I would be proud to carry that proud tradition should the government repeat that mistake domestically.
But, if you'd rather roll over and play dead, be my guest. Gubmint LOVES a good lap dog.
18 posts thus far, and not one person has told me how it is torture, just ad hominem attacks, as expected.
Again, water is poured down a terrorists nose, making him think he is drowning, yet he can not drown from water boarding. To reiterate, it can't even do any damage to his nasal passages. Heck people pay $19.99 for a neti pot, which is the same thing on a miniscule scale, obviously. YouTube - neti pot
So please tell me how it is torture. Thanks
Well, the United Nations Torture Convention of 1984 says, in part, that torture is "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession..."
Websters online dictionary provides three definitions, the forst of which is 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
The act of pouring water down ones nose, to make him feel like he is drowning, seems to fit both of those definitions.
Water is poured down the nose, making the criminal believe that he is drowning, yet he can not drown, as a matter of fact no damage is even done to his nasal passages. That being said, the fear that they are drowning compels them to sing like songbirds, in order for their captor to stop.
How is this torture? I'd like this to be a civil discussion and not devolve calling people Nazis and such; just a spirited discussion on how and why they do or don't consider water boarding torture when no harm is done.
Definitions of torture on the Web:
anguish: extreme mental distress
unbearable physical pain
agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
torment: torment emotionally or mentally
distortion: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean
subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible"
the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"
By the dictionary's definition waterboarding is torture.
Let's stop trying to twist the definition to rationalise the use of it by renaming it something else.
More to the point, those are prisons run by the CIA under cooperation with those countries. Speaking of which, are these secret prisons something you're proud of?
I have no problem with it.
Quote:
Torture PRISONERS OF WAR.
Silly RINOs.
Surely you realize that captured AQ members are not classified as POW's?
anguish: extreme mental distress
unbearable physical pain
agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
torment: torment emotionally or mentally
distortion: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean
subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible"
the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"
By the dictionary's definition waterboarding is torture.
Let's stop trying to twist the definition to rationalise the use of it by renaming it something else.
Their definition is ......if the USA does it, then it's not torture.......[Aren't you glad these friggin kooks are out of power?]
Doesn't matter whether you do or not. Only matters what the Geneva convention says.
Quote:
Surely you realize that captured AQ members are not classified as POW's?
They are prisoners in a war.
Sounds like prisoner of war to me.
But if you want to use loopholes concerning insignias and such, don't forget there was never a declaration of war, so you can't use "war on terror" anymore. Sorry.
By the dictionary's definition waterboarding is torture.
Let's stop trying to twist the definition to rationalise the use of it by renaming it something else.
No doubt the dictionary is correct. Does it have any thoughts on what happened on 9-11? Any suggestions on how to get the word on what might happen next? Does the dictionary explain 'cooperation' or 'answering questions', to avoid the 'torture' it defines?
Lastly..(and perhaps most ironically), if the 'terrorists' ever succeeded in their plans, would the dictionary continue to exist? Or does it get into that subject?
My father murdered AVH and Soviet troops to defend freedom in his country. I would be proud to carry that proud tradition should the government repeat that mistake domestically.
But, if you'd rather roll over and play dead, be my guest. Gubmint LOVES a good lap dog.
Well, I'm glad he was able to murder them humanely, rather than drip water up their noses !! Good for him.
Well, I'm glad he was able to murder them humanely, rather than drip water up their noses !! Good for him.
Actually, he lynched them after stuffing money in their mouths (a testament that secret police were paid 10x more than a laborer). I wouldn't be so kind to any domestic secret police here.
Doesn't matter whether you do or not. Only matters what the Geneva convention says.
You asked the question - I answered.
Quote:
They are prisoners in a war.
Sounds like prisoner of war to me.
But if you want to use loopholes concerning insignias and such, don't forget there was never a declaration of war, so you can't use "war on terror" anymore. Sorry.
No. They are enemy combatants, not POW's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
