1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

American POW, water boarding and .....

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by gworld, Jul 19, 2009.

  1. #1
    There is a news that an American soldier has been captured in Afghanistan which bring what I previously used as hypothesis to the realm of reality.
    I have always said that any prisoner of war should be treated according to International laws and it is never acceptable to torture prisoners under the disguise of different excuses that things like water boarding, sensory deprivation (holding in dark, awake for long hours), making the prisoner uncomfortable by heat, cold, or putting them in uncomfortable positions are not really torture.
    On the other hand the neo-cons who are usually cowards that never dare to actually join the army, have always cheered these methods and the administration that for many years found all kind of excuses for torture.
    Since during these years you have said that these methods are not torture, do you agree that talibans have the all the rights to use the same method on this American soldier?
    Do you finally understand how cowards like you, put the real honorable soldiers in danger by trying to make such methods acceptable?
    SEMrush
    Torture is not acceptable in a civilized world, no matter who uses it.
     
    gworld, Jul 19, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. imad

    imad Peon

    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    after what happened, I do not think anybody can tell Taliban what is their right, and what is not their right, but still, I believe it is not their right to treat POW's badly, and I m sure they won't, and this is not because of the International laws that excluded them from any "rights", but because they do not learn from U.S. or any hypocrisy based nation.
     
    imad, Jul 19, 2009 IP
  3. ChaosTrivia

    ChaosTrivia Active Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    40
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    65
    #3
    There is a hidden assumption in your text, suggesting that you believe that if the American soldier will be tortured or not or how much, depends on torture put on taliban members by the americans.

    The american soldier will be tortured even if every terrorist held by the U.S. forces was given a leading role in holiwoo, a porsche, and a room in "neverland".
    This is why they call them "terrorists". And they are not part of what you call "civilized" world.
     
    ChaosTrivia, Jul 19, 2009 IP
    browntwn and Rebecca like this.
  4. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #4
    It is not about Taliban or what they do, it is about establishing the norms in conducting wars and treatment of POWs. When USA weakens the Geneva convention by changing the definition of torture and then actually torturing prisoners, it gives a blank card to any other nation to use the same arguments for torturing prisoners which in some cases can be American soldiers.
     
    gworld, Jul 19, 2009 IP
  5. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #5
    The Taliban was a bad choice to make your point in this thread. I agree with ChaosTrivia when he said, "There is a hidden assumption in your text, suggesting that you believe that if the American soldier will be tortured or not or how much, depends on torture put on taliban members by the americans."

    If it's not about the Taliban and what they do, why not make your case using an example of an actual legit government, rather than a terrorist group that buys kids for suicide missions and beheads hostages? They don't care about the Geneva Convention, or examples of how to treat prisoners with loving kindness.
     
    Rebecca, Jul 20, 2009 IP
  6. imad

    imad Peon

    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    It is expected to blame Taliban now for the U.S.'s lowness and lack of morals because with the lack of these morals it would be much easier to blame others for that lowness than admitting it, I do not blame you because it is the only excuse left, but I do not think this excuse is valid because torture in U.S. prisons, is not a post-9/11 only, it has a long history in U.S., so you can't blame Taliban for it:

    besides, if what the propaganda machine said was true about Taliban, and if we to believe that U.S. torture is something new that came after 9/11, then it means Taliban succeeded in becoming an example for U.S. and not the contrary, while U.S. failed in becoming an example for Taliban, or their supporters in Afghanistan, in the battle of winning hearts and minds

    the soldier appeared in good conditions, sitting on a chair instead of standing on a tiny box, having a meal of food instead of electric shocks, let's hope things will stay like this, and Taliban won't learn from U.S. how to be free from any moral guide, and their treatment to POW's won't depend on U.S. treatment to POW's or even to other prisoners including American prisoners themselves.

    [​IMG]
     
    imad, Jul 20, 2009 IP
  7. Bakai

    Bakai Guest

    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    If we need to extract information we must be persuasive. War is hell. Be that as it may, water boarding is hardly considered torture (except by bleeding heart obama drones)
     
    Bakai, Jul 20, 2009 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #8
    So according to you if other countries decide to try water boarding on American POW that is OK by you since it is not torture and doesn't conflict with POW rights under Geneva convention? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jul 20, 2009 IP
  9. eric8476

    eric8476 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,547
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #9
    Then you are saying the terrorists have won.

    Water boarding is torture, constant physical manipulation is torture.
     
    eric8476, Jul 20, 2009 IP
  10. Bakai

    Bakai Guest

    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    If all they did was waterboard like we do then yeah, it is no big deal. They can hack it.
     
    Bakai, Jul 20, 2009 IP
  11. soniqhost.com

    soniqhost.com Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    96
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #11
    Assuming that our enemies follow the International laws of war then yes we should follow them also in regards in how we treat captured combatants. However, if our enemies don't follow the international rules of war why should we.
     
    soniqhost.com, Jul 20, 2009 IP
  12. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #12
    Have you ever served in the army or do you intend to? :rolleyes:

    So according to your logic, if the members of Mafia don't follow the law the why should other citizens and police follow the law? Do you see how stupid your line of reasoning is? :rolleyes:
    Civilized people and countries obey by laws and conventions because in the long run it is beneficial to everyone.
     
    gworld, Jul 21, 2009 IP
  13. PHPGator

    PHPGator Moderator Staff

    Messages:
    4,437
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #13
    I'm in the middle, I don't think you can have "rules" in war. That's just retarded. It's a war. At the same time, I don't think we need to be cruel just for the sake of being cruel. But i'm not opposed to using various tactics to gain information as the soldiers see fit.

    During the Revolutionary War, it was actually considered cowardly to not stand in a line and take bullets from muskets to the face. We only won that war because we were willing to do what we had to to ensure a victory. We no longer have that desire, and we won't "win" a war (this one or future ones) without it.
     
    PHPGator, Jul 21, 2009 IP
  14. soniqhost.com

    soniqhost.com Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    96
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #14
    What about in police car chases, say the person who the police are pursuing is speeding as they often are, if the police followed the speed laws, the purchase who they were chasing would be long gone. They have to be on the same playing field to win.
     
    soniqhost.com, Jul 21, 2009 IP
  15. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    To go by this, PHP, there should never have been any Nuremberg trials on the grounds of abrogating "commonly understood principles" of behavior. If you honestly believe that "war is war," and there are no limits, then you'd certainly have to beg off on punishing a losing state for the methods it used in a war it just happened to lose. In other words, is the only measure victory?

    This view was long ago espoused by our friend, Machiavelli:

    "When it is absolutely a question of the safety of one's country, there must be no consideration of just or unjust, of merciful or cruel, of praiseworthy or disgraceful; instead, setting aside every scruple, one must follow to the utmost any plan that will save her life and keep her liberty."

    One problem should come to mind, and that is that "Rules of War" are usually drafted by nations secure in their place; a desperate nation, or group, says to hell with rules when those rules limit the ability to win. So, to go with this notion in some way gives moral legitimacy to the very thing we say we fear: a world awash in lawlessness, without any sense of common understanding when it comes to resolving conflicts. If anything, I'd argue that the advanced industrial nations of the globe should be the paragons of scruple, as they can afford to be, if that makes sense. Basically, we have very little room to argue "civilized behavior" when we ourselves engage in beastliness to achieve our ends.

    Which leads to a second point; anbd I've wrestled with this one a long time. As many arguments as there were for the Bomb, the one glaring thing it showed the world, to me, is precisely what you're arguing: any means, any tool - it's war. We therefore said, anything goes.

    For me, "War is war?," I'm afraid I can't agree.
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 21, 2009 IP
  16. soniqhost.com

    soniqhost.com Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    96
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #16
    The Nazis who were put on trail in Nuremberg weren't put on trail for what they did to other soldiers, but what they did to civilians.
     
    soniqhost.com, Jul 21, 2009 IP
  17. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    Actually, Sonig, they were put on trial for many things, and one of them was for "waging aggressive war," a first in human history.

    My point is that the Trials were precisely about this issue. To the basic question, "are their limits to what a state may do in seeking to achieve its ends," or, "is there a commonly understood principle of laws with respect to humanity," the answer, by definition and by purpose, was an unqualified yes. I'd argue one can't say, literally, "well, war is war," and at the same time argue for norms in international jurisprudence. The two cannot possibly co-exist, in my opinion.
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 21, 2009 IP
  18. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #18
    The police doesn't break the law, there is another law that gives them right to drive faster than speed limit when they are following criminals. They would be breaking law, if instead of collecting evidence and sending people to court, they decide to make their life easier and kill anybody that they suspect of crime.

    Have you even looked at Geneva convention? If Soldiers could do anything they want to enemy soldiers, there was no need for so many regulations regarding the treatment of POWs.
     
    gworld, Jul 21, 2009 IP
  19. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #19
    The Taliban are filthy animals and the only cure for them are bullets, they need to be put down like any other sick animal. They are in the business of demanding the impossible at gun point and then acting like psychotic savages the second they don't get their own way.

    We can expect them to act like bloodthirsty barbarians because that's frankly what they are.
     
    stOx, Jul 21, 2009 IP
    Rebecca likes this.
  20. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #20
    And how is this related in any way to the subject of this thread? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jul 21, 2009 IP