This last week on our TV has been a series of documentaries documenting the use of turture on innocent people and prison inmates by USA and UK authorities

So for all you dreamers imagining that good ole USa is trying to spread good old homemade democracy to the evil world, think again
I cant show you the hoorrs i've seen--ie., transmit the images but you can get a bit of an overview here www.channel4.com/torture

for example, USA abduct people with brown skin going on innocent business trips, be cause they may have an aquantence who knows someone who knows an Islamic activist. Form there the abuductees are not allowed to make ANY phonecalls, and have a lawyer, and are then maincled and tortured, for days and weeks, etc

Also they hand over 'suspects' to countries that are well known for extreme forms of torture, and then get any information (which is agreed is bogus. that people will say anything when suffering torture) for them selves, yet DENY their involvement with the whole sorry process.....

In your prisons very fat ugly prison wardens regularly beat up prisoners seriously. and get away with murder, and have weapens that shoot extremely toxic pepper spray at prisoners. You should see what it does to the skin. it ilooks like mangled raw meat

we say fottage of you young boy of about 19 in a cell, and the ugly evil fat screw spray him through the door vent, then the boy is in agony with his eyes

So. you DO this, and yeyt you right wingers who love Bush (not that the rest of the suits are any good) pretend that you are the 'good guys'?? please explain. do you agree with torture or not? please elaborate

It's a fine line between torture and duress. Torture is a pointless information gathering technique, but duress is decent for getting information. Making someone uncomfortable is probably an acceptable practice, but when does it become torture?

Stress positions and verbal abuse... is that torture? Unless they are profuse, I'd say no.

Torture however, is not acceptable practice... though it's bound to happen because there are bastards in the world. That doesn't make Bush a bastard or America "the bad guys". There are bad guys in every group of people calling themselves good.

oh dear....rationalizing and explaining it all away as usual. call it 'duress' and you can sleep at night...?
maybe ?YOU should have a taste of your 'duress' and see how you like it. what do you say?

I say you're a dumbass who refuses to engage the issue intellectually. You put shit up like you want to have an intelligent conversation, then resort to a completely unintelligent accusational tone when there's a response you don't like. I'll stop responding to questions you pose, as obviously you're not interested in discussing anything. You simply want to point the finger and say "that's bad!". Why the fuck do you post then? You're just looking to yuck it up with your hater buddies?

oh dear....rationalizing and explaining it all away as usual. call it 'duress' and you can sleep at night...?
maybe ?YOU should have a taste of your 'duress' and see how you like it. what do you say?


for the sake of arguement.you are a police officer and you are holding someone you know has information about a bomb that is going to go off in less then an hour in a shopping centre,is his discomfort worth it to find out where that bomb is?i know its a fairly unlikely situation and perhaps a stupid example,but i i dont think this arguement is as clear cut as you would like to think.obviously holding someone for 3 years without charge is inexusable,but you should try to look at this from different angles.

oh dear....rationalizing and explaining it all away as usual.

How the fuck do you know what's usual? You asked for discussion of the issue, so isn't explaining it par for the conversation? Who "explained it away"? The thing is that there are bastards out there on either "team". How you gonna stop that? You think you can change it? Please bang your worthless fucking skull against that brick wall for the rest of your life. You'll spend it confused wondering "why won't people just do what I say?". Good luck.

call it 'duress' and you can sleep at night...?

No, because there's a difference between duress and torture. That's why they are different words. Dumbass.

maybe?

Maybe you're retarded.

YOU should have a taste of your 'duress' and see how you like it.

I wouldn't like it, that's the fucking point you moron.

what do you say?

I say you're really not very bright, yet are arrogant enough to think that everyone should do what you think is right.

o god this is despairing.
look, have you looked at the website info?

you admit you haven't even SEEN the documentary?

yet here you are alREADY justifying TORTURE>>>!!!!!!!!!

see it! see what you R doing!

even if we take your ad hoc implausible dramtic apoligetic cal justification for T O R T URE. yes torture on another human being, it doesn't hold up. for the obvous reason--which i explained in the beginning and is well-known, and anyone who is human and familiar with pain would intuit. confession BY torture is NOT reliable

think about it. imAGINE. yo are being tortured. severe pain. over and over. you dont kow where the next pain's coming from. wouldn't you say ANYthing to stop that pain

please dont give me a silly answer back!

As I said before, torture is pointless and unnacceptable. Those who do it should be punished and not permitted to do it anymore. They shouldn't have the power to do it. You can't necessarily keep them from doing it in the first place is the point. It would be nice, but sadistic bastards do as sadistic bastards do because they're sadistic bastards. All you can do is try to identify them for what they are and try to minimize the damage they can do.


You apparently aren't awake enough to delineate a difference between condoning torture and condoning making someone uncomfortable.


Please show how you think I've "justified torture".

for the sake of arguement.you are a police officer and you are holding someone you know has information about a bomb that is going to go off in less then an hour in a shopping centre,is his discomfort worth it to find out where that bomb is? How do you know all this?i know its a fairly unlikely situation and perhaps a stupid example,but i i dont think this arguement is as clear cut as you would like to think.obviously holding someone for 3 years without charge is inexusable,but you should try to look at this from different angles.It is much more likely that you will have inaccurate information, torture the wrong man, and both neother save the people you want to save and alienate people too.
Torture works very well as a way of getting information. It caught millions of saboteurs in Stalin's Soviet Union; an astonishing feat as it was incompetence and bad administration that caused most of the damage. As a way of getting reliable information it is useless. Other methods- bribery, ideological dissuasion, decent treatment- work much better. Torture has unpleasant side-effects: the people who apply it acquire a taste for torture and begin to use it as a hobby outside work as well as professionally. They find it gets quick results and- because it blunts their consciences- they are indifferent as to whether the results they get are the right results. It also affects the people who receive it: if they are opponents of the torturers already they are confirmed in their hatred; if they are not they are made into enemies. This does not apply only to full-scale torture- casual brutality, "stress" and mistreatment of any kind affects people, their family, their friends and creates more people who are indifferent or opposed.

The USA certainly does torture and outsource torture to countries like Syria and Egypt.

In the fall of 2002 Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, suddenly found himself caught up in the cruel mockery of justice that the Bush administration has substituted for the rule of law in the post-Sept. 11 world. While attempting to change planes at Kennedy Airport on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities, interrogated and thrown into jail. He was not charged with anything, and he never would be charged with anything, but his life would be ruined.

Mr. Arar was surreptitiously flown out of the United States to Jordan and then driven to Syria, where he was kept like a nocturnal animal in an unlit, underground, rat-infested cell that was the size of a grave. From time to time he was tortured (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/opinion/25herbert.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and% 20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fBob%20Herbert).

I wasn't aware of torture going on on prisons, but I can't say I'm too surprised. Isn't prison punishment enough? It's very scary when the police feel they can justify violence and intimidation. I'm not willing to give them that power. It's arbitrary, not decided by a judge or jury, subject to the whims of people already volnerable to the intoxication of power. I'm sure if the wes were under "duress" he wouldn't be too happy about it, and would probably think about sueing someone.

Torture however, is not acceptable practice... though it's bound to happen because there are bastards in the world. That doesn't make Bush a bastard or America "the bad guys". There are bad guys in every group of people calling themselves good.
The bastard is the Bush administration, particularly Rumsfeld, Gonzoles, and Bush, who are responsible for deliberately creating a climate in which torture is allowed. America isn't "the bad guys", unless we do nothing about it, but the present administration certainly are very bad, amoral people. They put up a front of morality, but their actions are completely different.

How do you know all this?It is much more likely that you will have inaccurate information, torture the wrong man, and both neother save the people you want to save and alienate people too.
Torture works very well as a way of getting information. It caught millions of saboteurs in Stalin's Soviet Union; an astonishing feat as it was incompetence and bad administration that caused most of the damage. As a way of getting reliable information it is useless. Other methods- bribery, ideological dissuasion, decent treatment- work much better. Torture has unpleasant side-effects: the people who apply it acquire a taste for torture and begin to use it as a hobby outside work as well as professionally. They find it gets quick results and- because it blunts their consciences- they are indifferent as to whether the results they get are the right results. It also affects the people who receive it: if they are opponents of the torturers already they are confirmed in their hatred; if they are not they are made into enemies. This does not apply only to full-scale torture- casual brutality, "stress" and mistreatment of any kind affects people, their family, their friends and creates more people who are indifferent or opposed.

it was a hypothetical but if you want details,they found bomb making equipment in his house and a plan of a shopping centre and a note saying "im gonna bomb that shopping centre good".i didnt say it was a good thing at all,and i dont think i would be comfortable doing it but i can see extenuating circumstances under which someone would deem it necessary.

Hell, no. Torture is never the right thing for the United States Government or it's representatives to do. The whole point of anti-torture laws, particularly during wartime, is that in extreme circumstances, when people are all hyped up, it is all the more tempting to torture someone. When there is nothing important at stake, the danger of engaging in this reprehensable act is slight.

It's a fine line between torture and duress. Torture is a pointless information gathering technique, but duress is decent for getting information

And there's a fine line btwn a idiot, and a retard and you've passed that line.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/images/abu-ghurayb-prison-abuse21-s.jpg

Explain?

That's torture, duh - moron.

All prisoners should be treated humanely. While they are in your custody, they can no longer do harm. This policy helps you avoid having to kill people, you want to give your enemy an alternative to fighting, not force them to fight to the death, as they would if they thought they would be humiliated or worse if captured.

The enemy is going to demonize the hell out of us anyway so they will still fight to the death. People think that Americans get their unholy power through satanic rituals involving newborn infants dipped in crude oil. Its perception that makes the difference, not truth.

Wesmorris:

Torture however, is not acceptable practice... though it's bound to happen because there are bastards in the world. That doesn't make Bush a bastard or America "the bad guys". There are bad guys in every group of people calling themselves good.[/I]


I love this, the irrational rationale for why torture is good and bad at the same time, you are sounding so schizoid here it raises many questions about your mental health (and to this I am not joking). Firstly u say that torture is not acceptable, yet it is bound to happen and because its “bound to happen” its ok, and Bush cannot be blamed for it. So then didn’t u just justify Osama as well here? I mean he isn’t there chopping off people’s heads, and since chopping off heads is wrong it is ok because it is bound to happen to those “bastards” in the world, (who would be westerners) its pretty damned obvious you have no idea about ethical theory, because if your going to spew idiocy at least make it into a universal maxim reject.

That's torture, duh – moron

So then why did the US do it? No reason according to your schizoid logic, yet at the same time according to your logic because it is bound to happen? Sorry but this has to be the MOST IDIOTIC thing I’ve heard come from your mouth in a long time. The only moron here is you trying to justify American actions which are overtly wrong…I hope one day u’ll be that bastard…

I love this, the irrational rationale for why torture is good and bad at the same time, you are sounding so schizoid here it raises many questions about your mental health (and to this I am not joking).

Luckily, I don't have to worry about your analysis of my mental state. It's not my fault you can't see clear, simple logic.

Firstly u say that torture is not acceptable, yet it is bound to happen and because its “bound to happen” its ok, and Bush cannot be blamed for it.

I think torture is a bad idea because people will say whatever you want them to in order to make you stop torturing them - not to mention the cruelty. A little discomfort though and it's simply motivation. The difference is that you're not taking it to extremes, so the likelihood that they'll just make shit up is lower with simple discomfort as opposed to straight up torture. Someone who is uncomfortable is not necessarily desperate for their life. When someone gets into that mindset, they'll do anything to make it stop. That's unreliable information.

So then didn’t u just justify Osama as well here?

I didn't justify anyone doing it. I just said it will happen because sadist assholes exist and seek positions that they'll get to fulfill their desires.

I mean he isn’t there chopping off people’s heads, and since chopping off heads is wrong it is ok because it is bound to happen to those “bastards” in the world, (who would be westerners) its pretty damned obvious you have no idea about ethical theory, because if your going to spew idiocy at least make it into a universal maxim reject.

How charming and educated of you. You're not too bright kid, that you cannot differentiate idiocy from coherence.

So then why did the US do it?

Can you show me the US policy that endorses torture? Remember, every side that claims to be 'good' has at least some bad people. I understand that asking you to comprehend that is probably asking too much.

No reason according to your schizoid logic, yet at the same time according to your logic because it is bound to happen?

Yes, reason. It could be any number of reasons, but it was certainly from someone who either wasn't intent on extracting good information, or didn't understand why torture is a bad idea. It was probably the former, as there are any number of sadistic fucks in any country... like for instance those head choppers... and the fucks at abu graib.

Sorry but this has to be the MOST IDIOTIC thing I’ve heard come from your mouth in a long time.

You're not sorry, and you're very immature.

The only moron here is you trying to justify American actions which are overtly wrong…I hope one day u’ll be that bastard…

Same to you little one.

Luckily, I don't have to worry about your analysis of my mental state. It's not my fault you can't see clear, simple logic.

Sorry nothing you said was logically, its contradictory.

I think torture is a bad idea because people will say whatever you want them to in order to make you stop torturing them - not to mention the cruelty. A little discomfort though and it's simply motivation.

Then the US what it did was wrong to unknown number of men around the world?

The difference is that you're not taking it to extremes, so the likelihood that they'll just make shit up is lower with simple discomfort as opposed to straight up torture.

I don’t see the distinction torture starts when u lay a hand on someone, or deprive them of the basics of life.

Someone who is uncomfortable is not necessarily desperate for their life.

They don’t have too, they are being coerced against their will that is torture you are putting B.S qualifications that really don’t exist.

I didn't justify anyone doing it. I just said it will happen because sadist assholes exist and seek positions that they'll get to fulfill their desires.

And one of them who justified the torture is your attorney general…sick.

How charming and educated of you. You're not too bright kid, that you cannot differentiate idiocy from coherence.

Ever hear of Kant? Yes I am educated, and I show it. I don’t u to tell me differently.

Can you show me the US policy that endorses torture? Remember, every side that claims to be 'good' has at least some bad people. I understand that asking you to comprehend that is probably asking too much.

Talking shit is not going to get u anywhere, the memo from Gonzalez to Bush in which Bush endorsed is evidence enough.

Yes, reason.

Yes that means nothing…get an argument please.

It could be any number of reasons, but it was certainly from someone who either wasn't intent on extracting good information, or didn't understand why torture is a bad idea.

Well we know according to those who were there that military intelligence officers were directing the torture, so it must have been something important.

It was probably the former, as there are any number of sadistic fucks in any country... like for instance those head choppers... and the fucks at abu graib.

Too bad they were only following orders from the sadist fucks you elected. What ever happened to the “buck stops here?”

You're not sorry, and you're very immature.

I have no respect for you, so I could give less of a shit about your opinion.

Same to you little one.

I’m not American…chances are u’ll die before me.

my $.02: countries from which terrorists come are lucky we are as nice as we are. we could stop terrorism easily, just like the Nazis did. however, we are somehow supposed to stop terrorism without ever hurting an innocent person. It’s just ridiculous to think we can defend against something like that without innocent people being hurt. I think America is doing an ok job at it, not great mind you, but ok given the circumstances.

.you are a police officer and you are holding someone you know has information about a bomb that is going to go off in less then an hour in a shopping centre,is his discomfort worth it to find out where that bomb is?

No.

Notice how you use "discomfort" for euphemism.

Just because he does it doesn't mean the policeman can do it too.

Tu quoque?

"I don’t see the distinction torture starts when u lay a hand on someone, or deprive them of the basics of life."

Exactly like the pussy you are to resort to this kind of complete BS. Torture is one end of a continuum of displeasure. If I hit your shoulder lightly, that's NOT fucking torture. If you think it is, you're a giant douche. Maybe it's shit sandwich. Either way.

Try the dictionary, wuss.

"Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.

It's pathetic that you bend the language to suit your sordid little need to skewer those who disagree with you. I bet under the right circumstances, you'd be chomping at the bit to torture someone you hypocritical little bitch.

Exactly like the pussy you are to resort to this kind of complete BS.

Call me names, but the fact remains that laying ur hands on someone for the purpose of extracting information is torture imo.

Torture is one end of a continuum of displeasure. If I hit your shoulder lightly, that's NOT fucking torture.

It is because the motive is.

If you think it is, you're a giant douche. Maybe it's shit sandwich. Either way.

Don't confuse me with ur conception.

Could you please, please use complete words in your sentances. You keep writing 'ur'... What does an ancient Babylonian city have to do with anything?

Wes:


It's a fine line between torture and duress. Torture is a pointless information gathering technique, but duress is decent for getting information. Making someone uncomfortable is probably an acceptable practice, but when does it become torture?

Sounds to me like someone is trying to engage in weasel word fallacy.

And placing PoW under 'duress', or humiliating them, is also against the Geneva Conventions. So trying to draw a line between 'torture' and 'abuse' is rather pointless. Neither should be occurring to prisoners of war.

web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004

Thus, for instance, according to the Third Geneva Convention,
"[N]o physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (181)



A little discomfort though and it's simply motivation.

Really, Wes? I hear the Bush Administration using the same excuses.
Funny, they were singing a different tune when the same things were happening to THEIR soldiers.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004

Each year the US State Department issues reports on human rights practices in other countries. Under each entry there is a section on "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". These entries show that the USA has been practicing what it condemns in other countries. Examples from the latest report(759) include:
· China: "prolonged periods of solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, beatings, shackles, and other forms of abuse."
· Egypt: "Principal methods of torture reportedly employed by the police and the SSIS included victims being: stripped and blindfolded …"
· Indonesia: "psychological torture cases reportedly included food and sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation ".
· Iran: "Some prisoners were held in solitary confinement or denied adequate food or medical care to force confessions."
· Jordan: "The most frequently reported methods of torture included beatings; sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement, and physical suspension."
· Burma (Myanmar): "They routinely subjected detainees to harsh interrogation techniques designed to intimidate and disorient. There were reports in past years that prisoners were forced to squat or assume stressful, uncomfortable, or painful positions for lengthy periods."
· Pakistan: "sexual assault; prolonged isolation…denial of food or sleep…public humiliation."
· Turkey: "Human rights observers said that, because of reduced detention periods, security officials mostly used torture methods that did not leave physical traces, including repeated slapping; exposure to cold; stripping and blindfolding; food and sleep deprivation; threats to detainees or family members... "


So, please clear up the confusion which is now evident amongst the audience, Wes. Why is stripping, sexual humiliation, food deprivation, solitary confinement, exposure to cold etc. considered TORTURE when it is inflicted on American soldiers and non-Iraqis, yet is considered 'ABUSE' when performed by Americans?

my $.02: countries from which terrorists come are lucky we are as nice as we are. we could stop terrorism easily, just like the Nazis did. The nazis were terrorists. they only stopped terrorism after they were nealy all killed. however, we are somehow supposed to stop terrorism without ever hurting an innocent person. The US behaves in a terrorist's way: hurt enough innocent people and you'll get the ones you want. It is a method which produces more terrorists, so the US can justifiably hurt... It’s just ridiculous to think we can defend against something like that without innocent people being hurt. I think America is doing an ok job at it, not great mind you, but ok given the circumstances.Given that the circumsatnces include the US's habit of supporting or intalling murderous dictators who obey the US government the US is acting to encourage terrorism. How far the US government needs terrorism and how far its encouragement is conscious or unconscious is another matter. Far fewer Americans have been killed by terrorists than by Americans exercising their right to drive cars. The one is acceptable; the other is not.

this is kinda off topic but i was just wondering why there is such outcry from governments (that still practice capital punishment) about public beheadings,is it because of the people who are killed or the manner in which they are killed cause i'd much rather be beheaded than electrocuted.

Sounds to me like someone is trying to engage in weasel word fallacy.

Perhaps then, you could demonstrate it. Sounds to me like someone is lazy, suspiscious and incapable of backing up their accusations. Fuck you and your weasel.

And placing PoW under 'duress', or humiliating them, is also against the Geneva Conventions.

Yeah, but these bitches aren't covered under the Geneva Conventions bright boy.

So trying to draw a line between 'torture' and 'abuse' is rather pointless. Neither should be occurring to prisoners of war.

They are not prisoners of war, they don't wear uniforms.

Really, Wes? I hear the Bush Administration using the same excuses.

"excuses"? Show me an "excuse". I offer reasons and comprehension. I don't make excuses.

Funny, they were singing a different tune when the same things were happening to THEIR soldiers.

Our soldiers if capture, are prisoners of war. We wear uniforms. Of course we'll bitch if our guys are treated like shit.

So, please clear up the confusion which is now evident amongst the audience, Wes.

Be more specific.

Why is stripping, sexual humiliation, food deprivation, solitary confinement, exposure to cold etc. considered TORTURE when it is inflicted on American soldiers and non-Iraqis, yet is considered 'ABUSE' when performed by Americans?

Unless any of that shit is done to an extreme it's not torture regardless of which side does it. It's presented as you say by the powers that be because it's politically advantageous to do so. It manipulates appearance in a manner advantageous to them. Were you in their position, you'd almost surely do it too. On a fundamental basis, authority figures are almost bound to do it to compensate for the variety of interpretations that can be surmised from any information that comes from them. The more people the authority reports to, the more pronounced the variety and thus, stronger compensation.

this is kinda off topic but i was just wondering why there is such outcry from governments (that still practice capital punishment) about public beheadings,is it because of the people who are killed or the manner in which they are killed cause i'd much rather be beheaded than electrocuted.

Nothing but hypocrisy of course. Speaking of which:

From China lashes out at U.S. on human rights (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/krwashbureau/20050303/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_uschina_wa_1):
China issued a tit-for-tat report card Thursday on human rights in the United States that lambasted the Pentagon for "wanton slaughters" abroad, belittled American elections as awash in special-interest cash and accused U.S. courts of deep-seated racial bias.

I notice in this thread the typical sentiment that assumes detainees are guilty of something, despite no charges due to lack of evidence. Disgusting.

The US subjects people to "stress positions and verbal abuse" and outright torture, just to see if they have some info from which the Republican elite can profit. The rest of us Americans will no doubt pay for that.

The next time you insult a member, you will be banned permanently. This is the
second time under this name and it happened multiple times under the name of Nico.

There is no basic line between torture and what ever else you can call caping peoples knees wes, and yes it makes bush an asshole for letting it happen. what pisses me off is that the law system either consists of retards or corupt bastards... they send the perpetrator to prison but dont go up the ladder to take care of the one giving the order to torture.

Another thing is the idea of causing discomfort... I would rather be living my life than sitting in a cell for years getting beaten for information I dont have, also in that photo undecided posted I think either the vain in the knee was cut or he was shot in the lower leg... dosnt sound like discomfort sounds alot like abuse or torture.

And wes why are the prisoners not covered under the geneva convention? it applys to all humans, if some american burocracy sais that it isnt so then it just proves that that fag who runs your country supports it.

Oh this is great: "their not prisoners of war they dont wear uniforms" I dont know you served in the fucking army, a POW dosnt have to be a solider.

This guy I respect:
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3953&stc=1

You and the fags who treat prisoners like that I dont.

Oh this is great: "their not prisoners of war they dont wear uniforms" I dont know you served in the fucking army, a POW dosnt have to be a solider.

Gotta love that logic, huh? All civilians are subject to torture to elicit info they might have, or summary execution, because they don’t wear a uniform. I’m sure they’ll love us once “democracy” takes hold.

If they manage to open their mouths to complain without getting shot in the knees.

and goofyfish both sides are just as insulting, thats politics.

Perhaps then, you could demonstrate it. Sounds to me like someone is lazy, suspiscious and incapable of backing up their accusations. Fuck you and your weasel.

Ad hominem. Please attack the arguments, not the man.

I am quite justified in calling you on your weasel word fallacy. You have failed to actually draw the line between torture and 'abuse', hence your attempts to weasel word are quite sad.


Yeah, but these bitches aren't covered under the Geneva Conventions bright boy.

Another ad hominem. What a pity that the posting is so sub-par here.

And for your information, since the majority of the prisoners were actually considered civilians, they are covered by the Geneva Conventions. The rest had not been before a competent military tribunal to determine their status, hence they are also covered by the Geneva Conventions.

I suggest you actually go to the effort of reading the relevant parts of the Geneva Convention, instead of parroting Bush lies. It really hurts your credibility.

They are not prisoners of war, they don't wear uniforms.

Can you prove that every inmate in Abu Gharib was an enemy combatant who didn't wear a uniform?

You are aware that many prisoners were just plucked off the street at various check points, and that many were not considered a threat, aren't you? From:
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2004/may/sadistic_blatant_and_wanton_criminal_abuses_at_abu _ghraib.htm

General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. “This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses,” he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers “routinely” rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners. [/quote

[quote]
"excuses"? Show me an "excuse". I offer reasons and comprehension. I don't make excuses.

No, you have offered nothing of the sort. You have failed to support your assertions with evidence, and are merely resorted to logic fallacies and the same, tired old arguments used by conservative handwavers.

Please provide evidence that every inmate in Abu Gharib was an enemy combatant who was not in uniform. If you cannot, then please retract the statement that the prisoners are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, because if their status as a POW is in doubt, then they gain protection until their status is decided before a competent military tribunal.


Our soldiers if capture, are prisoners of war. We wear uniforms. Of course we'll bitch if our guys are treated like shit.

Red herring. Please actually address the issue.

I pointed out the double standards relating to the definition of torture. When American Soldiers and Non-Iraqi's were stripped, sexually humiliated, exposed to cold, etc., the American admin. defined this as torture. Yet when it happens to Iraqis, it is 'persuasion'.

A perfect example of weasel word fallacy, and Bush double-speak.


Unless any of that shit is done to an extreme it's not torture regardless of which side does it

You continue to dodge the principal question. If you can't give a satisficatory answer, then just say so, and admit that you have been proven to be wrong.

Explain why the American Administration regards stress positions, exposure to cold, sexual humiliation etc. as torture when it is inflicted on non-Iraqis, but 'abuse' or 'persuasion' when it is inflicted by American forces.

Just a bit of advice. I suggest you read my post in its entirety before rushing to hit the reply button. It is impossible to have a satisfying debate when the opponent refuses to read, or reply to, your actual arguments.

Yeah, but these bitches aren't covered under the Geneva Conventions bright boy.
But the United States is subject to other laws besides the Geneva Conventions, laws against torture that George Bush Sr. signed during his presidency, too bad :(

here you go:
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

Ad hominem. Please attack the arguments, not the man.

Had you done so, you wouldn't have been attacked. It's childish of you to pretend that "Sounds to me like someone is trying to engage in weasel word fallacy." is not an ad hominem, no matter how justified you think it is.

I am quite justified in calling you on your weasel word fallacy.

So you say, but can you back it up?

You have failed to actually draw the line between torture and 'abuse', hence your attempts to weasel word are quite sad.

I never compared the terms. I compared the terms "duress" and "torture" and showed how they are not equivalent by quoting the dictionary above. Perhaps you didn't read it, or cannot accept its validity.

Another ad hominem. What a pity that the posting is so sub-par here.

You come at me calling me a weasel and don't expect to get railed for it? You are the reason the posting is sub-par.

And for your information, since the majority of the prisoners were actually considered civilians, they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Do you have a report regarding the status of the prisoners? Can you base your assertion in fact? Sounds like conjecture to me.

The rest had not been before a competent military tribunal to determine their status, hence they are also covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Got a source on that?

I suggest you actually go to the effort of reading the relevant parts of the Geneva Convention, instead of parroting Bush lies.

So now you call Bush a liar without establishing the fact too. What a wonderful ad-hominem attack. Instead of me, you attack someone who isn't involved in the conversation to defend themselves. How big of you.

It really hurts your credibility.

I'm not particularly concerned with your poor impression of me or my credibility. You have demonstrated clearly IMO, that you're not really looking to discuss this, but instead you want to get in on insulting me because you find yourself superior. Nicely done. I'm a weasel. Thanks.

Can you prove that every inmate in Abu Gharib was an enemy combatant who didn't wear a uniform?

No. Can you prove they did?

You are aware that many prisoners were just plucked off the street at various check points, and that many were not considered a threat, aren't you?

Can you prove it? :rolleyes: Why should I take your source as credible when the title reads "sadistic_blatant_and_wanton_criminal_abuses_at_abu _ghraib.htm". Is the term "sadistic, blantant or wanton" generally used in an objective sense?

Regardless, I haven't said that no one tortured anyone. I figure that some sadistic bastards were almost certainly torturing innocents. I explained to you why the term "abuse" is used instead of "torture".

General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. “This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses,” he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers “routinely” rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners. [/QUOTE]

Okay.

No, you have offered nothing of the sort. You have failed to support your assertions with evidence, and are merely resorted to logic fallacies and the same, tired old arguments used by conservative handwavers.

If you don't like what I'm saying, please address something specific. Writing it off cart blanche as a "tired old argument" is as lacking in support and fallacious as you accuse me of being. Note that you offered nothing to support any of your claims prior to the statement above. You make a number of claims regarding prisoner's status and eligibility under the geneva convention, but do not support them. Then you cite me doing what you've just done. That doesn't lend much to the credibility you seem to be concerned with does it? Believe it or not, I DID read the geneva convention several months ago and gathered from it at the time that those who did not wear uniforms but were capture on the battlefield were not eligible for protections. Perhaps I didn't understand what I read perfectly clearly. Instead of bashing me, you could easily get me on your side about their eligibility by citing the pertinent text from the convention with a link to the source. Instead, you resort to the same old fallacious kneejerk liberal whining that my argument is tired and unsupported. No less supported than your own.

Please provide evidence that every inmate in Abu Gharib was an enemy combatant who was not in uniform.

Pardon, but when I made the assertion I was referring to those captured on the battlefield. I was not referring particularly to abu-gharib, just to "capture enemies". I do not doubt that a number of innocents have been severely mistreated.

If you cannot, then please retract the statement that the prisoners are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, because if their status as a POW is in doubt, then they gain protection until their status is decided before a competent military tribunal.

I'll modify the statement to apply only to those who were attacking US troops or conspiring to do so. It didn't occur to me to specify the first time around because I failed to consider those being "plucked off the street". I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the "screening process". I only had a vague notion that they were detaining "innocents" just walking down the street.

Red herring. Please actually address the issue.

Perhaps you could actually demonstrate how you see it as a red herring. I don't see it that way or I wouldn't have said it. Without an explanation, your complaint remains unfounded no? Perhaps then you could specify what issue you think I've avoided?

I pointed out the double standards relating to the definition of torture. When American Soldiers and Non-Iraqi's were stripped, sexually humiliated, exposed to cold, etc., the American admin. defined this as torture.

Of course the administration chooses the most politically advantageous position.

Yet when it happens to Iraqis, it is 'persuasion'.

Perhaps you've read way too much into what I've said. You're missing a point somewhere. I haven't agreed with that assertion. I maintain that severe pain, or terrific psychological abuse is indeed torture regardless of which side it's on. That the administration calls it something else is perspective, expected. I think that they are obligated to minimize the political damage incurred by people disobeying the law. You seem to presume them guilty and call them liars. I see no evidence of lies. I don't think the administration endorses torture of prisoners. If you do, please cite the evidence.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. If you'll notice, I never said "the US and UK don't torture". I said it's not their policy to do so but no matter what your policy is, there will always be people within the system that break it. I further stated that duress is an acceptable tactic for getting information from people... I meant those who qualify as spies or terrorists. If they conspire to destroy the occupying force, I think they are candidates for interrogation with duress - NOT torture. Torture is duress in the extreme. Thus "moderate duress" is acceptable. What comprises moderate duress should be discerned by a court if necessary. I think the administration has done a very poor job of clearly dilineating the rules in this regard.

You continue to dodge the principal question. If you can't give a satisficatory answer, then just say so, and admit that you have been proven to be wrong.

You're not paying attention. You may not like the answer, but I ADRESSED IT IN THE PRIOR POST:

"It's presented as you say by the powers that be because it's politically advantageous to do so. It manipulates appearance in a manner advantageous to them. Were you in their position, you'd almost surely do it too. On a fundamental basis, authority figures are almost bound to do it to compensate for the variety of interpretations that can be surmised from any information that comes from them. The more people the authority reports to, the more pronounced the variety and thus, stronger compensation."

Explain why the American Administration regards stress positions, exposure to cold, sexual humiliation etc. as torture when it is inflicted on non-Iraqis, but 'abuse' or 'persuasion' when it is inflicted by American forces.

See above. As clockwood noted, it's not about truth, it's about perception.

Just a bit of advice. I suggest you read my post in its entirety before rushing to hit the reply button.

I suggest that you consider potential hypocracy on your part before telling me what I should consider.

It is impossible to have a satisfying debate when the opponent refuses to read, or reply to, your actual arguments.

Ha. Okay well how about you retract your assertions that I avoided the issue then eh?

Is it duress you call it now-a-days?

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib1.jpg

http://idblog.tqhosting.com/wp_blog/Images/OGAAbuGharib.jpg

http://www.svd.se/images/ettan2004/040511/sabrina120x162.jpg

WOW it looks NOTHING like torture... i now compleatly agree with you the techniques used by the us military should be regarded as Duress not Torture as the two are compleatly different... :bugeye:

"i now compleatly agree with you the techniques used by the us military should be regarded as Duress not Torture as the two are compleatly different... "

It's unfair of you to mischaracterize what I've said. Perhaps you've gotten the wrong impression. I think duress is acceptable, but have made no claims that duress is the only technique being utilized. In fact I beleive I've stated more than once that I'm sure some sadistic bastards have probably tortured some innocents in all this.

Ok good we have cleared that up :)

Had you done so, you wouldn't have been attacked.
I did not engage in any ad hominems.

t's childish of you to pretend that "Sounds to me like someone is trying to engage in weasel word fallacy." is not an ad hominem, no matter how justified you think it is

No, it is not an ad hominem to point out that the opposition is engaging in a logic fallacy. I did not call you a weasel, I claimed that you were using the weasel word fallacy.


Do you have a report regarding the status of the prisoners? Can you base your assertion in fact? Sounds like conjecture to me.

Yes, I posted a report which clearly established that over 60% of the prisoners in Abu Gharib were civilians.


“ Can you prove that every inmate in Abu Gharib was an enemy combatant who didn't wear a uniform? ”

Wes replies: No.

Thank you. By openly admitting that you can't determine whether they were enemy combatants who weren't wearing a uniform, you have merely supported my argument, and weakened your credibility. Your belief that ALL of the prisoners were enemy combatants who were not wearing uniforms is nothing more than conjecture. Hence, your belief that they are not protected under the Geneva Conventions is conjecture.

While I agree that enemy combatants who are not in uniform are not granted protection under the Geneva Convention, the burden of proof rests with the you to show that they are indeed enemy combatants.

Can you prove it? Why should I take your source as credible

My source makes references to independant studies performed by various human rights agencies. Unless you can show why my article is false, then I strongly suggest you don't assume that it is, merely because it contradicts your beliefs.



Regardless, I haven't said that no one tortured anyone.

Thank you. At least we are in some agreement.

I explained to you why the term "abuse" is used instead of "torture".

It comes down to personal opinion. However, I feel that it is hypocritical that when 'abuse' occurs to American soldiers, it is labelled as 'torture'.


Pardon, but when I made the assertion I was referring to those captured on the battlefield. I was not referring particularly to abu-gharib, just to "capture enemies". I do not doubt that a number of innocents have been severely mistreated.

But herein lies the problem.

The majority of people 'abused' (for the sake of the argument, we will call it abuse, not torture) are civilians, and have not had their status determined by a competent military tribunal.

Whether it is correct to 'abuse' an enemy combatant is a question of morality, and something which I do not want to get into. I am merely pointing out that to even ABUSE, or HUMILIATE, someone whose status is in doubt is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

By allowing any abuse, we risk violating the Geneva Conventions, as innocent civilians may be victims. Let's be realistic, a war zone is messy, and sometimes a civilian may be mistaken for a soldier out of uniform.


Perhaps then you could specify what issue you think I've avoided?

In your previous post, you seemed to avoid the double standards regarding 'torture' of Americans vs. 'abuse' of Iraqis. No matter, you've addressed it in the most recent post which I am responding to, although I find the answer less than satisfactory.


"It's presented as you say by the powers that be because it's politically advantageous to do so. It manipulates appearance in a manner advantageous to them. Were you in their position, you'd almost surely do it too.

Correct. It is politics at work as usual, using double-speak to justify actions which in the past they have condemned.
But this still doesn't annihilate or excuse the double standards.

If stripping an American is torture, then stripping an Iraqi is torture, not abuse.
If stripping an Iraqi is abuse, then stripping an American is abuse.

Please tell me simply, is stripping an America and subjecting him to sexual humiliation, exposing him to cold, threatening his relatives, denying him food, and placing him in solitary confinement for extended periods of time, abuse, or torture? This is all I want to know.

The Bush Administration is being hypocritical if it labels what has occurred to the Iraqis 'abuse', yet squealed 'torture' when the exact same things were done to American soldiers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

They need to make up their minds, and get their definitions down pat. No more double-speak, just give clear definitions of abuse, and torture. If the Iraqi prisoners were not abused, then many cases of Americans being 'torture' were actually cases of them being abused.

I did not engage in any ad hominems.

Obviously, it appeared differently to me.

No, it is not an ad hominem to point out that the opposition is engaging in a logic fallacy.

I didn't intend to imply that it is. I'm sure you can understand how someone who hasn't heard that term might see it as a cheap dig. I'm unfamiliar with the term and stand corrected. Given the passive aggressive tendencies of many of the members of this site, I hope you understand. It sounded pretty much like a cheap shot to me.

Yes, I posted a report which clearly established that over 60% of the prisoners in Abu Gharib were civilians.

Incorrect. Read again please, slower this time: "more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society"

It's not sixty percent of the whole, but sixty percent of the civilian population at abu grahib. That of course in no way establishes the civilian population's percentage of the total number of prisoners. Perhaps you should reconsider your crack at me about what I should read and understand.

Thank you. By openly admitting that you can't determine whether they were enemy combatants who weren't wearing a uniform, you have merely supported my argument, and weakened your credibility.

And by saying that after having incorrectly interpreted your source, your argument is weakened and credibilty damaged as well. Criticizing each other's credibility and how well our arguments are supported doesn't seem very productive eh?

Your belief that ALL of the prisoners were enemy combatants who were not wearing uniforms is nothing more than conjecture.

I didn't say I believed they were all not wearing uniforms. I ammended my statement to clarify that they were whom which I was referring. I realize I did state "they weren't in uniform" but at the time I'd simply failed to expand my consideration. I appreciate your assistance in that matter.

Hence, your belief that they are not protected under the Geneva Conventions is conjecture.

But it's already been established I was only referring to those not in uniform who were attacking the occupying force. You're incorrect to continue argument along the lines of civilians, as I've conceded your point regarding them. Hence it's not conjecture. If you insist I'll look up the rules I read and post them such that you can see where I got it from.

While I agree that enemy combatants who are not in uniform are not granted protection under the Geneva Convention, the burden of proof rests with the you to show that they are indeed enemy combatants.

Not since I've conceded your point. I agree that civilians not wearing uniforms are covered by the convention. I think there's a gray area regarding those who are suspected to be spies or in conspiracy to kill members of the occupying force.

My source makes references to independant studies performed by various human rights agencies. Unless you can show why my article is false, then I strongly suggest you don't assume that it is, merely because it contradicts your beliefs.

But I already showed a problem with your interpretation of your source. No need to attempt to discredit it.

Thank you. At least we are in some agreement.

You're welcome.

It comes down to personal opinion. However, I feel that it is hypocritical that when 'abuse' occurs to American soldiers, it is labelled as 'torture'.

I agree, but find hypocracy a seemingly unfortunate necessary in politics.

The majority of people 'abused' (for the sake of the argument, we will call it abuse, not torture) are civilians, and have not had their status determined by a competent military tribunal.

Competent by whose standard? There's some gray area for you. I'd imagine lawyers on either side would push the requirements to the extreme to justify their position. Such is the way it seems.

Whether it is correct to 'abuse' an enemy combatant is a question of morality, and something which I do not want to get into. I am merely pointing out that to even ABUSE, or HUMILIATE, someone whose status is in doubt is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Agreed. It seemed to me that the convention states that "major forces" or whatever they call it have to hold themselves to the standard even against a guerilla army.

By allowing any abuse, we risk violating the Geneva Conventions, as innocent civilians may be victims. Let's be realistic, a war zone is messy, and sometimes a civilian may be mistaken for a soldier out of uniform.

Agreed.

In your previous post, you seemed to avoid the double standards

To me you seemed to avoid that I addressed it.

No matter, you've addressed it in the most recent post which I am responding to, although I find the answer less than satisfactory.

You agree with me, yet find the answer less than satisfactory?

Correct. It is politics at work as usual, using double-speak to justify actions which in the past they have condemned. But this still doesn't annihilate or excuse the double standards.

Agreed, but it also doesn't keep them from being a necessity at times. You can't please everyone and to someone it's always going to seem you're using a double standard in politics - even if you aren't. As was said, perception becomes more important than truth. It's good though that there are people more concerned with truth than perception to balance the equation. If it sways too far either way, the system blows up and resets. Much death and despair ensue.

If stripping an American is torture, then stripping an Iraqi is torture, not abuse.
If stripping an Iraqi is abuse, then stripping an American is abuse.

I haven't contended otherwise.

Please tell me simply, is stripping an America and subjecting him to sexual humiliation, exposing him to cold, threatening his relatives, denying him food, and placing him in solitary confinement for extended periods of time, abuse, or torture? This is all I want to know.

Is it torture, or is it allowed under the geneva convention? Which are you asking? I see what you stated, but you've changed subjects at a seemingly odd time.

The Bush Administration is being hypocritical if it labels what has occurred to the Iraqis 'abuse', yet squealed 'torture' when the exact same things were done to American soldiers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

But it's generally the nature of man to try to do so. In politics, it's damn near a necessity.

They need to make up their minds, and get their definitions down pat. No more double-speak, just give clear definitions of abuse, and torture.

Yes that would be good.

If the Iraqi prisoners were not abused, then many cases of Americans being 'torture' were actually cases of them being abused.

Agreed. I don't think our agreement will quell the hypocracy though, as saving face is apparently fundamental to politics. If you don't appease your constituency, you don't stay in office. Most politician types won't accept failure and much of the time I'd say the constituencies impression of the real circumstances their politician type has to deal with is horrifically inept. With ridiculous expectations from every direction, it's no wonder politicians play to perception rather than truth. Until the general populous generally has realistic expectations of their representatives, I can't see how things will change except to perhaps blow up and start again through the cycle until it blows up again.

Wes,

I just noticed that I did misread my source. As you correctly pointed out, it was 60% of civilians who were not considered a threat, not 60% of prisoners being civilians. My apologies. :(

Anyhow, my source does make it clear that many prisoners in Abu Gharib were civilians. I'll snoop around the net to see if I can find a rough estimate of how many prisoners were considered civilians.

As for the issue about hypocracy, I see now that we are both in (partial) agreement. You agree that the double-speak is hypocracy, but is necessary. I honestly do not feel it is necessary, and see it as rather deceptive and dishonest (once again, I understand the very purpose of it is to deceive the layman).

Mainly, what I am contending is that a policy of 'abuse' to extract confessions is dangerous, and prone to disaster. As we have seen here, where does one draw the line between torture and abuse?
And how do we know we aren't abusing an innocent, which is strictly against the Geneva Conventions?

The more power you give authorities such as the police/military, the more likely it is to be abused.

It seems another pertinent statistic might be, how many of the civilian prisoners were exposed to 'the treatment' as they coined it in this article (http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact). Hey is that the same article? It also contained the quote regarding 60%.

I belive one of the things on mountain's list was long periods of solotry confinment and imprisionment without oversite or limits

ummm doesnt 3 years in solotry count as "long"?????

ok maybe they wernt in SOLOTRY for that long but how would we know? they certainly were incomunicardo arnt they????

so under US definition guantanimo bay IS torcher

We do extradite terrorists to countries that do torture people. We've shippe doff some innocents that way.

so under US definition guantanimo bay IS torcher

Correct. That is what I was so strongly contending. In the past, America's definition of torture included extended periods of solitary confinement.

P.S. Asguard, check your PM's.

I have not read all the posts but generally speaking I will add one thing:

Let those without sin, cast the first stone

Apparently a biblical quotation which I abhor using in this site but relevant in this one instance.

how about love your nabor as yourself?

i find most "christans" fail to even TRY to live up to the basis of there own beliefs. Just look how "christans" treat gays, or "those evil towl heads"

everyone LOVES to hate. That is about the only common denomiatior in humanity. Those who are different are fair game

I am not Christian, nor any other but I agree. I also hate so called gays, but that diff subject.

I have not read all the posts but generally speaking I will add one thing:

Let those without sin, cast the first stone

Apparently a biblical quotation which I abhor using in this site but relevant in this one instance.
I don't know about you, Red Devil, but I have never tortured anyone and I am delighted to cast the first stone.

I speak figuratively as a member of a certain country. Is there any US citizens out there who think their country has done no wrong, or English, Scottish, German, French, Indonesian, etc etc etc

Asguard im not christian but im not a big fan of gays either.

what makes either of you better than them? really why should you have more rights than they do. This doesnt just go for gays but ANYONE. It NEVER hurts you to see an argument from the other persons point of view and it STOPS alot of hate crimes and genral hatred. Why do you think osama can get people to fly planes into buildings? because your so great? even if you were its because he can demonise you to the people brainwashing them that your not even human anymore so its ok to kill you. The same thing that your millatry does to the "enermy" whoever they happen to be this hour. If you can demonise someone and put a devide between us and THEM then people will think its ok to kill, maim and torcher them because "they dont count". This is the argument bush is using to bich about the US solders being torchered while doing it himself. This is the argument homophobes use to justify beating gays to a pulp and this is the argument that the KKK uses to survive.

The sadiest thing is that some of these people proclame that they follow religions of peace but they dont show it

Not too sure who your getting at there, or why, but my dislike of so called "gays" has got nothing at all to do with the thread title. Lets keep on topic eh?

im not saying i hate them... i just hate it when they protest and prance around like their better than normal people... live your life how ever you want to just dont rub it in my face thinking i care or agree.

I speak figuratively as a member of a certain country. Is there any US citizens out there who think their country has done no wrong, or English, Scottish, German, French, Indonesian, etc etc etc
Are you saying that a country that has done wrong in the past is perfectly entitled to continue doing wrong without condemnation? If not, what are you trying to say?

You read words that are not there

You said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." This was used as a reason for doing nothing when first it was said. If you didn't use those words to justify inaction against torturers, why did you use them?

Well, i startd this threead. I am Queer, and it upsets me when people say they hate me and people like me.....and Odin'Ism, it shoked me you feel that way too. didn't you pm me a while back with compliments?

Asguard is spot on with his/her insights. It all begins when you demonize a group. scapegoat them. call them a label, and then it's easy to want to torture and even kill them.

You should rather look at you SELF. what it is about TOU that makes you project your fear and hatred onto other human beings

I like people with artistic skills , so you I respect not to mention agreeing on alot of points. I had a very bad experience with a gay person once in a bar... so im slightly homophobic, other than that let them do what they want aslong as im not involved... i have a few gay friends but we respect eachothers viewpoints making it a non hostile enviroment.

I still hear/feel hurt there

i have had callous etc treatment from some so-called straights through my life, but i know that 'striaghts' is a reductive label...there are so many different types of people
,,,,,,but i dont want to derail the subject too mucch. maybe we might carry this on athread particular to this issue!

good idea , back to torture.