Truth, justice,

[Major Fubar 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quite possibly - so that makes it OK? If others are doing despicable things, it makes it alright for you to do them?

Why should we be bound by rules that they're not subject to?  Surely you want the US to have the upper hand fighting these terrorists, don't you?

Sure - if you want the USA to be lumped into the same category as terrorists: doing whatever they feel is necessary to achieve a goal, with no regard for human rights or the sanctity of life.

Surely the worlds #1 superpower should lead by example. It's a classic "good vs. evil" dilemma - good is bound by rules of common decency while evil is not. If "good" disregards these rules, then they become the "evil".

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sure - if you want the USA to be lumped into the same category as terrorists: doing whatever they feel is necessary to achieve a goal, with no regard for human rights or the sanctity of life.

You know, I think we already are.

Quote[/b] ]Surely the worlds #1 superpower should lead by example. It's a classic "good vs. evil" dilemma - good is bound by rules of common decency while evil is not. If "good" disregards these rules, then they become the "evil".

Lead by example? If the world did what we did simply because we were doing it they'd all be democracies.

[theavonlady 2]

No reward? Stupid socialists! Forget it!

[Major Fubar 0]

Quote[/b] ]Surely the worlds #1 superpower should lead by example. It's a classic "good vs. evil" dilemma - good is bound by rules of common decency while evil is not. If "good" disregards these rules, then they become the "evil".

Lead by example?  If the world did what we did simply because we were doing it they'd all be democracies.

True, but it doesn't mean you should give up trying.

To quote Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility". If the US wants to enjoy the benefits of being the most powerful nation on earth, it must also accept the responsibilities that come with it - such as providing an example of how civilised nations should behave.

[Warin 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quite possibly - so that makes it OK? If others are doing despicable things, it makes it alright for you to do them?

Why should we be bound by rules that they're not subject to?  Surely you want the US to have the upper hand fighting these terrorists, don't you?

what you suggest is a terrible moral quagmire.

When you rsort to inhumane methods, you yourself become what you hate.

So certainly, if you want to have history record the USA as tyranically and teriible... start executing 'terrorists' without due process and order of law. But the minute you do you become as bad as those you fight against. Expediency is not always a morally justifiable way of conductiong your business. As was pointed out near the start of this thread.

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]To quote Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility".

I think that was Spiderman's Uncle. ;)

Quote[/b] ]If the US wants to enjoy the benefits of being the most powerful nation on earth, it must also accept the responsibilities that come with it - such as providing an example of how civilised nations should behave.

Even though they hate us enough to fly airliners into our skyscrapers?  You really think these people are going to realise out of the blue that we've been right all along and suddenly see the err of their ways?

So far the nations we've been dealing with, militarilly at least, have not exactly been open to suggestions.  Saddam Hussein was not about to suddenly give up dictatorship and become a democracy.  The Taliban was not about to stop brutalizing and oppressing women.  For the most part, the people we've dealt with are either too crazy or too much of a fundamentalist to consider being civilised.

[Guest]

You can't both have the cake and eat it. You can't claim higher moral ground and then behave as barbaric as they do.

What makes those people different than any other criminal that has constitutional rights? Was Timothy McVeigh locked up in a military camp without being charged with anything, without any legal counsel? Or how about that British fellow with the shoe bomb, Richard Reid? Why wasn't he locked up in Guatanamo?

The double standards only show the racist/Nazi ideology behind it all.

Quote[/b] ]So far the nations we've been dealing with, militarilly at least, have not exactly been open to suggestions. Saddam Hussein was not about to suddenly give up dictatorship and become a democracy. The Taliban was not about to stop brutalizing and oppressing women. For the most part, the people we've dealt with are either too crazy or too much of a fundamentalist to consider being civilised.

Who gives you the right to decide what a country is allowed to do or not? I think that the death penalty is barbaric. Does this give me the right to wage war on the US?

[Schoeler 0]

Physical torture (ie. Being punched or kicked, withdrawing ESSENTIAL medications, needles under the nails, wet towel over the head etc.) is wrong no matter who it is done by.

Phsycological interrogation techniques (Sleep deprivation, continual repetition of the same questions until the interview is a blur) is however alright. Making someone exhausted, and asking them questions they have already answered correctly makes their tired mind confused, and they are then more likely to give the required information.

Also, I believe the use of SOME drugs to get answers is alright, depending on who it is used on, and why.

For example, some car thief off the street getting given mind altering drugs for information on who his gang members are, is stupid and wrong.

Using them on a senior terrorist who would have information of other terrorists, planned bombings and support networks however is alright, as it would save the lives of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of people.

As you can see, I disagree with the physical torture of anyone, but at least you know the U.S. wouldn't torture innocent people. Those people are terrorists and murderers.

Iraq simply tortures whoever they feel like. Innocent or not.

I stated that torture for NATIONAL DEFENSE OR FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE.

This philosophy comes from the  inherent belief that each state has the right to soveriegnty.

As for torturing your own citizens, that's a completely different thing.

And Warin, if Iraq were to torture some our our men, we would have the right to vilify or react to that however we deem appropriate.

That doesn't mean we can't do the same to their captured soldiers or terrorists.

Again, all states have the right to soveriegnty.

Spoken like a true realist. Nothing wrong with realpolitik, except its gone way out of fashion these days. Now, bring back the Cold War and watch how realist the Euros turn!

[Major Fubar 0]

Quote[/b] ]If the US wants to enjoy the benefits of being the most powerful nation on earth, it must also accept the responsibilities that come with it - such as providing an example of how civilised nations should behave.

Even though they hate us enough to fly airliners into our skyscrapers?  You really think these people are going to realise out of the blue that we've been right all along and suddenly see the err of their ways?

So far the nations we've been dealing with, militarilly at least, have not exactly been open to suggestions.  Saddam Hussein was not about to suddenly give up dictatorship and become a democracy.  The Taliban was not about to stop brutalizing and oppressing women.  For the most part, the people we've dealt with are either too crazy or too much of a fundamentalist to consider being civilised.

It has nothing to do with whether they are receptive to your example or not. How you treat POWs and suspected terrorists has nothing to do with any country but your own. Because some other country doesn't abide by human decency in these areas does not justify your country to act in a similar manner - at least, not if it wants to consider itself any more just or "good" than those countries. You wanna torture and execute suspected (or proven) terrorists with no regard to the law or simple human rights, go right ahead. But then your are no better than those terrorists are - can't you see that?

The schoolyard excuse of "He did it first!" doesn't really stand up when it comes the issue of human rights.

Why stop there - why not start sending assassination squads after families and children of terrorists, just to teach them a lesson. Maybe you could round up all the children of people you have in Guatanamo and execute them too - you could teach the terrorists a lesson, and wipe out the next generation of potential threats all in one blow.

Why not? Because it's against all moral laws a civilised society should live by...so is torturing people for information and executing poeple without a due trial. I seem to remember you telling us how dispicable the Saddam regime was for doing these same things...

[Schoeler 0]

I'd like to add that I don't condone the use of torture to obtain information no matter how valuable it turns out to be or how justifiable it might seem. That being said, I do understand the need to use coercion, whether through physical or mental duress. As Denoir has discussed, these techniques can be very successful and fall well below the level of torture.

IceFire, it seems to me that you are an advocate of total warfare. War being an uncivilized and barbaric act, there are those who see no use in trying to make it civilized by drawing up rules. These people believe that doing so is delusional and only prolongs existing wars and makes future wars more likely. By humanizing what is essentially a totally inhumane act, we make it more acceptable in some ways. This is a legitimate philosophy, however you have to look at it from the higher moral perspective. As terrible as war is and should be (so we don't feel obliged to use it as a legitimate tool every time we have an international quarrel) do we as the self proclaimed righteous ones really want to stoop to animal barbarism? Can we live with the consequences of total warfare? Are we prepared to accept the wholesale slaughter of innocent third parties all in the name of making war so horrible and its cost so high that we dare not resort to it? Remember that the second world war degraded to these levels of combat towards the end and still the world saw no limit to man's inhumanity towards his fellow man. Neither did it cause the other side to relent any sooner. Despite the carpet bombing, the victims of this sort of warfare tended to fight all the more fiercely and even more cruelly. Think of how things might have turned out if the Germans developed a nuclear weapon at the same time as the U.S. did. Can we really assume that either side would have stopped using them before both were totally annihilated? I don't think so. Man's capacity for cruelty and evil knows no bounds save those we impose upon one another as members of a civilized society. Warfare needs its rules no matter how ridiculous it may seem.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

This is pretty simple: If we are going to claim to be the good guys... we must act like the good guys, no matter what. That means no torture. There are also other reasons not to use torture: for one, it has a nasty habit of only producing the results that the subject thinks you want to hear.

[Die Alive 0]

“Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death†Broadcast for the First Time Ever in the US:

Eyewitnesses Testify that US Troops Were Complicit in the Massacre of up to 3,000 Taliban Prisoners During the Afghan War

Friday, May 23rd, 2003

The film has been broadcast on national television in countries all over the world and has been screened by the European parliament. Human rights lawyers are calling for investigation into whether U.S. forces are guilty of war crimes. But no U.S. media outlet has broadcast the film.

Today, on Democracy Now!, the U.S. broadcast premiere of a documentary film called “Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death.â€

The film provides eyewitness testimony that U.S. troops were complicit in the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners during the Afghan War.

It tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to eyewitnesses, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. Eyewitnesses say when the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say US Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave.

The film has sent shockwaves around the world. It has been broadcast on national television in Britain, Germany, Italy and Australia. It has been screened by the European parliament. It has outraged human rights groups and international human rights lawyers. They are calling for investigation into whether U.S. Special Forces are guilty of war crimes.

But most Americans have never heard of the film. That’s because not one corporate media outlet in the U.S. will touch it. It has never before been broadcast in this country.

Today, Democracy Now! brings you the premiere broadcast of “Afghan Massacre†in the United States.

“Afghan Massacre†is produced and directed by award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran. Doran is has worked at the highest levels of television film production for more than two decades. His films have been broadcast on virtually every major channel throughout the world. On average, each of his films are seen in around 35 countries. Before establishing his independent television company, Jamie Doran spent over seven years at BBC Television.

The film was researched by award-winning journalist Najibullah Quraishi, who was beaten almost to death when he tried to obtain video evidence of US Special Forces’ complicity in the massacre. Two of the witnesses who testified in the film are now dead.

-=Die Alive=-

[DarkLight 0]

see next post

[DarkLight 0]

Hmmm, pretty funny stuff i read here...

America attacked Iraq, so you guys think it's all right if the Iraqi army attacks America and tortures the US soldiers?

And of course, if Iraq attacks your country and your soldiers you won't react, because it was Iraq's full right to defend...  You made the first step, iraq reacted, nothing wrong with that right?

Of course that's what you're saying:

Quote[/b] ]Yes.  Every country has the right to do what it feels is necessary in self defense, or national security.

Irak has that right, but we ALSO have the right to respond however we feel is necessary.

So Irak had really better watch what they try.

If the whole idiotic world would think like that America would probable have already been nuked to pieces, considering the fact that they have attacked A LOT of countries lately and that the whole fucking world feels the desire to nuke the good ol' West, nobody has tried to do so...

Perhaps YOU better watch out what YOU're trying, cuz if this is what you believe, then you're digging your own grave...

[DarkLight 0]

“Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death†Broadcast for the First Time Ever in the US:

Eyewitnesses Testify that US Troops Were Complicit in the Massacre of up to 3,000 Taliban Prisoners During the Afghan War

Friday, May 23rd, 2003

The film has been broadcast on national television in countries all over the world and has been screened by the European parliament. Human rights lawyers are calling for investigation into whether U.S. forces are guilty of war crimes. But no U.S. media outlet has broadcast the film.

Today, on Democracy Now!, the U.S. broadcast premiere of a documentary film called “Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death.â€

The film provides eyewitness testimony that U.S. troops were complicit in the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners during the Afghan War.

It tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to eyewitnesses, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. Eyewitnesses say when the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say US Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave.

The film has sent shockwaves around the world. It has been broadcast on national television in Britain, Germany, Italy and Australia. It has been screened by the European parliament. It has outraged human rights groups and international human rights lawyers. They are calling for investigation into whether U.S. Special Forces are guilty of war crimes.

But most Americans have never heard of the film. That’s because not one corporate media outlet in the U.S. will touch it. It has never before been broadcast in this country.

Today, Democracy Now! brings you the premiere broadcast of “Afghan Massacre†in the United States.

“Afghan Massacre†is produced and directed by award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran. Doran is has worked at the highest levels of television film production for more than two decades. His films have been broadcast on virtually every major channel throughout the world. On average, each of his films are seen in around 35 countries. Before establishing his independent television company, Jamie Doran spent over seven years at BBC Television.

The film was researched by award-winning journalist Najibullah Quraishi, who was beaten almost to death when he tried to obtain video evidence of US Special Forces’ complicity in the massacre. Two of the witnesses who testified in the film are now dead.

-=Die Alive=-

Shocking but true...

[FallenPaladin 0]

Doesn`t surprise me too much. The captured ones were AQ terrorists.

[NurEinMensch 0]

[sarcasm]Yea they'd probably do the same to us if they could, wouldn't they?[/sarcasm]

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

darklight- "The film has sent shockwaves around the world. It has been broadcast on national television in Britain, Germany, Italy and Australia. It has been screened by the European parliament."

Has been broadcast already? I must have missed it. I would like to see this documentary before commenting.

[Jinef 2]

Hmm, well the overview can't be far off, do we need to see it?

This sounds a bit too horrific to be true, i'm getting sort of concentration camp/Austwich images in my head.

[Die Alive 0]

You can watch it online!!!!!!!!!!!1

I gave you the link!!!!!!!!!1

You scrotum scratchers, there's a 56k feed (realplayer), the first one hour is of a FUGLY looking woman talking, then at around 1:05 there's the documentary.

After watching the first 5 minutes of it, I can say it's really boring. Guy should of made it fun, like bowling for columbine.

-=Die Alive=-

[FSPilot 0]

Look, I'm not saying that what the US did was right. I certainly wouldn't want to be tortured, so I wouldn't do it to anyone else. But lets look past the news report here. Shouldn't we do everything possible to stop terrorists from killing more civilians? Why should we give a terrorist the same rights we give an innocent person when that very same terrorist wants to kill the innocent person? Don't you think innocent peoples lives outweigh an evil person's rights?

And about that "Afghan Massacre" thing, of course I don't trust it. I'd like to see some evidence before I put any stock in it. I think I'd heard about it before, don't remember well but I heard it was BS.

Essentially the opposite is what I'm getting from reading that article. They heard it happened, so of course they made a movie about it and broadcast it in as many countries as they could.

[DarkLight 0]

Shouldn't we do everything possible to stop terrorists from killing more civilians?  Why should we give a terrorist the same rights we give an innocent person when that very same terrorist wants to kill the innocent person?  Don't you think innocent peoples lives outweigh an evil person's rights?

The problem is that these days everyone is a terrorist, if i forget to put the milk back into the fridge i'll probable get nuked... becaaaauuuuse, if i refuse to put the milk back into the fridge it'll be 'bad' after some days. Now of course my family doesn't know that and because they don't realize what's going on, they'll drink the milk and be ill.

DEAR FUCKING GOD, TERRORIST ALARM, TERRORIST ALARM!!!!!!!

CODE PINK CODE PINK!!!! EVERYBODY TAKE COVER!!!

AAAAH, MODS QUICKLY, SEARCH MY IP ADRESS AND SEND IT TO THE US GOVERNMENT, I MUST BE ELEMINATED EMMEDIATLY (sp?), JUST IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I'D DO THE SAME THING TO THE WHOOOOLE WESTERN WORLD!!!

ITS HORRIBLE, SAVE OUR DEAR CHILDREN!!!!

*sigh* *rolls eyes*

A man (who doesn't speak english) and who doesn't obey when someone tells him to stop in english is a terrorist, every fuckign idiot in this world that has done something wrong or might do something wrong (pre-emptive, gotta love it) is a terrorist.

Now that's ok, i personally don't give a fuck if you or any of your friends call ME a terrorist, but the case gets a bit less fun when you start torturing me cuz i'm a "terrorist".

Fuck the word terrorist, i bet a lot of innocent ppl have been killed every since this terrorist bullshit started, war on terror my ass!

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that these days everyone is a terrorist, if i forget to put the milk back into the fridge i'll probable get nuked... becaaaauuuuse, if i refuse to put the milk back into the fridge it'll be 'bad' after some days. Now of course my family doesn't know that and because they don't realize what's going on, they'll drink the milk and be ill.

DEAR FUCKING GOD, TERRORIST ALARM, TERRORIST ALARM!!!!!!!

CODE PINK CODE PINK!!!! EVERYBODY TAKE COVER!!!

AAAAH, MODS QUICKLY, SEARCH MY IP ADRESS AND SEND IT TO THE US GOVERNMENT, I MUST BE ELEMINATED EMMEDIATLY (sp?), JUST IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I'D DO THE SAME THING TO THE WHOOOOLE WESTERN WORLD!!!

ITS HORRIBLE, SAVE OUR DEAR CHILDREN!!!!

*sigh* *rolls eyes*

Are you rolling your eyes at your melodrama?

Quote[/b] ]A man (who doesn't speak english) and who doesn't obey when someone tells him to stop in english is a terrorist, every fuckign idiot in this world that has done something wrong or might do something wrong (pre-emptive, gotta love it) is a terrorist.

Now that's ok, i personally don't give a fuck if you or any of your friends call ME a terrorist, but the case gets a bit less fun when you start torturing me cuz i'm a "terrorist".

Like you know what's going on in the procedures when they choose who to interrogate? You're acting like they just pick random people out of the crowd of prisoners.

Quote[/b] ]Fuck the word terrorist, i bet a lot of innocent ppl have been killed every since this terrorist bullshit started, war on terror my ass!

A lot of innocent people have been killed by terrorists. You just don't care because America didn't do the killing.

[Oligo 1]

But lets look past the news report here.  Shouldn't we do everything possible to stop terrorists from killing more civilians?  Why should we give a terrorist the same rights we give an innocent person when that very same terrorist wants to kill the innocent person?  Don't you think innocent peoples lives outweigh an evil person's rights?

How do you propose we can tell whether a person is "good" or "bad"? How can you be 100% certain that somebody is a terrorist and thus should be tortured in order to obtain intel? Please enlighten us.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And about that "Afghan Massacre" thing, of course I don't trust it. I'd like to see some evidence before I put any stock in it. I think I'd heard about it before, don't remember well but I heard it was BS.

Essentially the opposite is what I'm getting from reading that article. They heard it happened, so of course they made a movie about it and broadcast it in as many countries as they could.

BS ?

You once again have no idea of what you are talking about. Prior to the US invasion in Iraq there were plans to send a UN investigation team to the region. I was planned in there also.

The problem is that the issue got nearly swept away by the Iraq crisis. The investigation can only be done with miltary protection of the eye witnesses and the UN inspection team itself.

You say it´s BS ? I say you should investigate unpleasant issues a bit more before you claim such things.

WARNING : Links contain irritating images of human remains.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/afghanistan/report_graves.html

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4799415.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,791840,00.html

You could update your lack of knowledge easily by entering

"Afghan massacre" in Google, but well this seems to be to unpleasant to do.