Gruesome Torturing

[Adron]

In Sweedish prisons they sing songs and hold hands while skipping merrily through the gumdrop fields and sprinkle pastures, with flowing chocolate rivers and all the children are merry.

Something like that. And they set up plays, which allows them to get outside the prison to perform, at which time they mount escapes. Yes, that has happened.

It's kinda interesting to be arguing for more conveniences in prisons in this place, and less conveniences in prisons in another place. I believe there has to be the right amount of it.

[Adron]

The reward for being good in prison would ideally be parol. If you are bad you should be punished acordingly. For example, if you throw piss on a guard you should expect the guard to turn around and mace you for doing it. Its not torture because the prisoner brought it on himself. I bet the prisoner expected to be punished for it too. If you do not want to get hit do not attack a guard, if you do not want to be maced, do not throw shit at guards.

Parole is a good reward for being good in prison, but it takes too long. I don't think the kind of people who occupy prisons typically have that much patience. There have to be quicker rewards, and quicker punishments to keep them active and aware.

Punishment needs to be controlled though. By allowing the guards to punish at their own discretion, things are likely to go out of control. And torture is torture, whether someone brought it on themselves or not. Or would you say you'd agree with Al-Qaeda torturing Americans since they brought it on themselves by consorting with the devil?

[quasi-modo]

Torture is not torture if you brought it on your self. If our guards were just going up and macing people for no reason it would be torture. But when a prisoner throws piss on a guard then it is not torture for the guard to mace him. There is a distinction.

Americans being decapitated because of a radical fundamentalist Islamic belief is very different from a man being maced because he through piss on a guard Adron.

[Adron]

But you have to stop and ask yourselves -- was al-Qaeda going after only Christians and Jews who were in the towers, or were they going after Americans, or even a larger scale, Westerners?  I think that America (and the western world) rightly rallied when the towers were attacked because it was in fact an attack on the Western world.

That's a good point. I don't think it was an attack on the western world. If it had been, they could've easier attacked the Eiffel Tower or some other highly symbolic object in Europe, where there are less checks. I think it was an attack on Americans, because America is "the big bully" to them.

Some in al-Qaeda won't, just like some Americans won't be satisfied until they see the death of all abortionists. You'll have to try harder to convince me that Saddam couldn't be satisfied until he saw the destruction of all apostate regimes though. Or the Taliban government. I think some more negotating and some bigger offers would've swayed them. Lots of money perhaps could've done it even, the cost of the war paid in cash.

I'm not making the case for the war in Iraq here.  I support it on the basis of human security, not that Saddaam was aiming to take down apostate regimes.  As states go, generally speaking I believe you are correct -- they can't handle those kinds of apolitical goals.  But I am referring to non-state actors, and I do honestly believe that some of these groups cannot be dealt with.  How does one bargain with someone who is willing to blow himself up?

That was the way of IRA for a long time. They were weakened by reducing their support amongst the common people. I think that's what you need to do to these groups as well: Make it so people don't hate America as much. Don't give them more reasons to do you ill. In a war against a state, you can win by military force, since the more you attack, the weaker they become, and eventually they will be forced to surrender and negotiate.

In a war against a group like this, consisting mostly of ideas and principles, you can never win by military force. Your enemy is the conviction that they have to kill you. And that conviction is only strengthened the more you attack.



On the war in Iraq note; what I was truly thinking of was the way the war against al-Qaeda was executed. Perhaps tearing down the government in Afghanistan wasn't really necessary? Perhaps those could've been negotiated with, even if al-Qaeda itself couldn't?

An aside: while I am vehemently against abortion, I think it's just silly that we should kill abortionists.

You're against abortion? How interesting! We need to discuss that later, when these discussions have died down.  

Let's not bring it up now though, these discussions are quite enough to try to produce good replies to.

[hismajesty]

If somebody shot one of your loved ones, would you just keep on walking because you're not a violent person?

Can you really compare someone shooting someone you love to having liquid thrown at you? I think there's quite a big fucking difference.

These guys murdered somebody elses loved ones.

[Adron]

Torture is not torture if you brought it on your self. If our guards were just going up and macing people for no reason it would be torture. But when a prisoner throws piss on a guard then it is not torture for the guard to mace him. There is a distinction.

Americans being decapitated because of a radical fundamentalist Islamic belief is very different from a man being maced because he through piss on a guard Adron.

There is a distinction, yes, but I can't quite define it. If the prisoner was taken in 1 year later by the guard, and maced, would that be different? What if he was put to the rack? Is it about the level of punishment? Is it about the proximity in time?

I don't disagree with using mace to put down a riot in prison, if that's the most efficient way of doing it. I have a problem with using it to punish though, no matter what it's punishment for.

If you (as in all Americans) were given the option to cease now, convert and become muslims today, or else know that some day you may be physically punished for practising christianity, would that be enough to make it not torture when they eventually caught you, tied you down and maced you for the rest of your short life?

[quasi-modo]

Torture is not torture if you brought it on your self. If our guards were just going up and macing people for no reason it would be torture. But when a prisoner throws piss on a guard then it is not torture for the guard to mace him. There is a distinction.

Americans being decapitated because of a radical fundamentalist Islamic belief is very different from a man being maced because he through piss on a guard Adron.

There is a distinction, yes, but I can't quite define it. If the prisoner was taken in 1 year later by the guard, and maced, would that be different? What if he was put to the rack? Is it about the level of punishment? Is it about the proximity in time?

it wouldnt happen if it were a year later for obvious reasons. It would no longer be punishment for that act, it would just be macing someone for the hell of it. You punish someone for something they have done immediatly after they have done it. Also, we do not put someone on a rack. Mace may burn, but its not lethal. Its not very severe on the spectrum of things. Our own cops have to be maced in police acadamy, etc.

I don't disagree with using mace to put down a riot in prison, if that's the most efficient way of doing it. I have a problem with using it to punish though, no matter what it's punishment for.

why?

If you (as in all Americans) were given the option to cease now, convert and become muslims today, or else know that some day you may be physically punished for practising christianity, would that be enough to make it not torture when they eventually caught you, tied you down and maced you for the rest of your short life?

Religion is not an action that harms others though. We are not punishing muslims because they are muslim. We are punishing the people in the prison because they committed terrorist acts and when they throw piss at guards we further punish them. Sure there are a lot of people who would convirt to Islam to get out of punishment. They are the luke warm people who are christian in name only or the people who do not practice any religion. I would not do that, and if I were maced for it it would be torture. The difference is me being a christian and not a muslim and being punished for it is the fact that I am not doing anything to hurt the muslims. The terrorists are doing something that hurts us though when they attack us or throw piss on a guard.

[MyndFyre]

But you have to stop and ask yourselves -- was al-Qaeda going after only Christians and Jews who were in the towers, or were they going after Americans, or even a larger scale, Westerners?  I think that America (and the western world) rightly rallied when the towers were attacked because it was in fact an attack on the Western world.

That's a good point. I don't think it was an attack on the western world. If it had been, they could've easier attacked the Eiffel Tower or some other highly symbolic object in Europe, where there are less checks. I think it was an attack on Americans, because America is "the big bully" to them.

Well -- the towers were really a major symbol of capitalism, and capitalism is what is associated most with the western world.  However, I think it was very much an attack on Americans.  My point (and I think you picked up on it) was that we're not attacking muslims, we're attacking terrorists.  It just happens in this case that a lot of the terrorists are muslims.  Notice though that we're not killing muslims in the US?

Maybe the muslim priests need to evaluate what they're teaching and how they're teaching it, so that people don't think we're going after them, and that America is the big, bad, muslim-hater that some people apparrently believe it is.

[Adron]

There is a distinction, yes, but I can't quite define it. If the prisoner was taken in 1 year later by the guard, and maced, would that be different? What if he was put to the rack? Is it about the level of punishment? Is it about the proximity in time?

it wouldnt happen if it were a year later for obvious reasons. It would no longer be punishment for that act, it would just be macing someone for the hell of it. You punish someone for something they have done immediatly after they have done it. Also, we do not put someone on a rack. Mace may burn, but its not lethal. Its not very severe on the spectrum of things. Our own cops have to be maced in police acadamy, etc.

The justice system doesn't say to punish someone for something they have done immediately after they have done it. If a policeman sees a man kill someone, he's still supposed to make an arrest, and then there'll be a legal process.

What if the piss was really thrown by someone else? In some situations it'll be obvious, but punishment will sometimes be handed out to the wrong people.

Are you saying the thing that makes it OK is the severity of the punishment? It's OK to mace someone, since on the punishment scale it's closer to the slap on the wrist than to the burning stick under your fingernails?

I don't disagree with using mace to put down a riot in prison, if that's the most efficient way of doing it. I have a problem with using it to punish though, no matter what it's punishment for.

why?

Because as soon as you start punishing people by doing things that cause them pain, you're getting into drawing lines. How hard are you allowed to punish them? Don't leave any marks? Nothing that won't heal?

If you (as in all Americans) were given the option to cease now, convert and become muslims today, or else know that some day you may be physically punished for practising christianity, would that be enough to make it not torture when they eventually caught you, tied you down and maced you for the rest of your short life?

Religion is not an action that harms others though. We are not punishing muslims because they are muslim. We are punishing the people in the prison because they committed terrorist acts and when they throw piss at guards we further punish them. Sure there are a lot of people who would convirt to Islam to get out of punishment. They are the luke warm people who are christian in name only or the people who do not practice any religion. I would not do that, and if I were maced for it it would be torture. The difference is me being a christian and not a muslim and being punished for it is the fact that I am not doing anything to hurt the muslims. The terrorists are doing something that hurts us though when they attack us or throw piss on a guard.

Oh, but does it really hurt the guard? I suppose if it was infected with some disease, and he caught it, it might, but chances are it will be just humiliating.

You're saying that being christian doesn't hurt the muslims. Yet you say you're a real christian, not in name only. I take that to mean you believe in some sort of divine or supernatural things. If you accept that there is some truth to religion, maybe their religion says that if they allow the evil christians to live, it hurts them. That would then make it OK for them to hurt you to make you stop hurting them (being christian). Christians have been hurting witches to make them stop putting the evil eye on folks.

[Adron]

Well -- the towers were really a major symbol of capitalism, and capitalism is what is associated most with the western world.  However, I think it was very much an attack on Americans.  My point (and I think you picked up on it) was that we're not attacking muslims, we're attacking terrorists.  It just happens in this case that a lot of the terrorists are muslims.  Notice though that we're not killing muslims in the US?

Maybe the muslim priests need to evaluate what they're teaching and how they're teaching it, so that people don't think we're going after them, and that America is the big, bad, muslim-hater that some people apparrently believe it is.

Yes, it could be considered an attack on capitalism. And on Pentagon, on America.

About the attacks / wars: Yes, you're attacking terrorists, but in the process of doing so, you're affecting plain simple muslims in other countries. Reasonably, since what you're doing affects them, they should've been allowed a say on whether your actions were reasonable or not. That's what the UN was doing - telling you that this isn't reasonable, you'll have to try another way. But you wouldn't listen, like a bully you went on...

If your attacking terrorists was really surgical and didn't affect anyone else, I don't think there'd be much of a concern about what you're doing


Yes, I think the muslim priests need to reevaluate their teachings. Actually you, muslims and Americans, probably need to sit in a ring together and sing songs....

Honestly, making the muslims friends is the only thing that will stop their terrorism for good.

[hismajesty]

That's what the UN was doing - telling you that this isn't reasonable, you'll have to try another way. But you wouldn't listen, like a bully you went on...

Oh please. The UN security council consists of these countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. If one of those countries veto the bill, since they're the big boys in town, the resolution is immediately terminated. That's how we were able to get into Korea. Russia was protesting the olympics and their officials weren't at the UN building so the US called an emergency meeting and got the resolution to allow the Korean War to take place. Russia, being a communist state then, would not have approved this since Korea is a communist state as well. Ever since then the Russian Federation has had ambassadors at the UN building 24 hours a day 7 days a week. France, which I mentioned is on the council, apparently had interesting connections with Saddam. No wonder they were so quick to veto this.

[Adron]

That's what the UN was doing - telling you that this isn't reasonable, you'll have to try another way. But you wouldn't listen, like a bully you went on...

Oh please. The UN security council consists of these countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. If one of those countries veto the bill, since they're the big boys in town, the resolution is immediately terminated.

Yes, that's stupid, and as you pointed out, you big bullies gladly abuse your power. There have been attempts to change that, but I don't think the US is willing to give up its veto.

France, which I mentioned is on the council, apparently had interesting connections with Saddam. No wonder they were so quick to veto this.

If it was just France, and all the other countries supported you, I'd tend to agree with you. But that wasn't the case.

[Hazard]

If it was just France, and all the other countries supported you, I'd tend to agree with you. But that wasn't the case.

These other countries are countries such as Germany and Russia, with ties to the former Iraqi regieme and countries like Syria... who, in my opinion, should be next on the castration block.

[hismajesty]

Adron, that article also mentions Saddam offering funds to officials from the Russian Federation and China. So, that's three out of the five.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

This war is Islam vs. the Western world...its a continuation of the Crusades.

I think we have an issue with fundamentalist Muslims who think that all non-Muslims must die.

Christianity used to have the same issue; Christianity started the Crusades. The major difference here is that while Christianity went through a reformation, Islam didn't. They are still often brainwashed by the clergy and complete dedication to Allah.

I'm ready for my words to be twisted into turning me into a racist, because thats what left-wingers like to do.