Do you support torture?

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Does the word "PREDICTABLE" sound familiar?

But. Since fj must be doing something else by now.

There's always tomorrow, and the PREDICTABLE aspect to look forward to, as usual.

None-the-less. "Isn't this a Hoot?"

Hilarious, in its way, Aboutime ...

Back later 'today' (.. as it is in my timezone, anyway ..).

[revelarts]

I do feel compelled to come back at least this one time.

One of the things i was trying to point out to you earlier about the POV you've promoted drummond, AboutTime and Tyr is that it is dehumanization. and that it's dangerous.

there are a few videos you might want to check out by Phillip Zimbardo. he did the famous Standford Prison Study. Which showed how easy it is for normal people to slip into doing and justifying evil behavior.

here's a quote from His Lucifer effect website.

At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives. Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a “cortical cataract” that clouds one’s thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation. ...

http://www.lucifereffect.com/dehumanization.htm

"The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.....

Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary."
http://www.beyondintractability.org/...dehumanization

Zimbardo, was on the defense team of a U.S. soldier from Abu Graid and mentions some of that in his talks about WHY humans end up doing evil....
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OsFEV35tWsg?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[jafar00]

You conveniently ignore the great difference between Hitler's designation of 'Untermensch', as he applied it to Jews, and the fact that terrorists earn the 'Subhuman' categorisation because of what they DO. I have already pointed out that Hitler's racism was EXACTLY THAT, because the Jews he insulted had committed none of the acts of wanton subhumanity that your terrorist chums are pleased to mete out virtually every day of the year !!

So your claim that the two extremes are 'exactly the same' is utterly false, and well you know it.

The Nazis believed that the Jews earned the title as well. It is exactly the same!

The US and Britain have tortured many innocent people, not just terrorist suspects and even less actual terrorists.

... I take this to be an accusation of racism. DO NOT DARE TO EVER TRY THIS AGAIN.

Do you see Muslims as terrorists? Or potential terrorists? Do you believe that Islam breeds and supports terrorism?

I have considered reporting your post, but decided on balance not to .. since I'm well capable of answering your own display of bigotry.

You lack the slightest reason to make such an accusation, and well you know it.

My many posts here have been concerned with advancing the argument that terrorists earn the 'subhuman' label because of what they DO, and what their actions say about their worth as so-called 'humans'. This is light years away from any suggestion of racism.

You know it. Other participants here know it. Your insult to me is without foundation, and I have no interest in entertaining any further attempts of yours to tar me with that insult. Be duly warned.

And here's a little something for you to chew over. Richard Reid was a white caucasian Brit, but he was ALSO a would-be 'shoebomber', who attempted to blow up a plane he was travelling on. Reid was an Islamic terrorist, dedicated to the very same subhumanity that your revolting Hamas chums revel in. Let me assure you that I regard Reid in just the same light as them ... Reid, too, is classifiable as subhuman trash, just as his other Muslim terrorist buddies are. His being caucasian is not remotely relevant. He IS what he IS .. TERRORIST SCUM, Jafar.

I don't care that he was British. His skin colour matters not in the slightest. Let the filthy scum rot in hell, just as I wish all other terrorists like him to do.

Is this clear to you ? Have you got that message ?.

Fair enough. But don't refer to terrorists as "Islamic" terrorists since that is an Oxymoron. Sure treat them as criminal scum, but don't dehumanise them in order to justify despicable acts like torture or the killing of many innocent people as "collateral damage".

Dehumanising to justify torture is the same as Der Untermensch being used to justify the persecution of the Jews.

[aboutime]

The Nazis believed that the Jews earned the title as well. It is exactly the same!

The US and Britain have tortured many innocent people, not just terrorist suspects and even less actual terrorists.




Do you see Muslims as terrorists? Or potential terrorists? Do you believe that Islam breeds and supports terrorism?



Fair enough. But don't refer to terrorists as "Islamic" terrorists since that is an Oxymoron. Sure treat them as criminal scum, but don't dehumanise them in order to justify despicable acts like torture or the killing of many innocent people as "collateral damage".

Dehumanising to justify torture is the same as Der Untermensch being used to justify the persecution of the Jews.

jafar. You, and your words only lead to the Dehumanization of those you defend so much. You speak nothing of the torture those who come from Arab speaking nations, with beards, darker skin tones, and get angry when they are called terrorists. But...you are offended whenever someone uses the TRUTH, rather than using specific words that are fitting for known murderers?

Your double standards JUMP OUT, and you still pretend you are angry because the TRUTH cannot be disputed...no matter how much you deny either Islamic, or Muslim human beings are the primary top of the list for Terrorists, Terrorism, and Terror.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I do feel compelled to come back at least this one time.

One of the things i was trying to point out to you earlier about the POV you've promoted drummond, AboutTime and Tyr is that it is dehumanization. and that it's dangerous.

there are a few videos you might want to check out by Phillip Zimbardo. he did the famous Standford Prison Study. Which showed how easy it is for normal people to slip into doing and justifying evil behavior.

here's a quote from His Lucifer effect website.

http://www.lucifereffect.com/dehumanization.htm

"The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.....

Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary."
http://www.beyondintractability.org/...dehumanization

Zimbardo, was on the defense team of a U.S. soldier from Abu Graid and mentions some of that in his talks about WHY humans end up doing evil....
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OsFEV35tWsg?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Your argument would stand better and be more valid where you defending people wrongly accused of these atrocities. Or defending against an organised movement, by government to falsely demonise these people for selfish goals. That not being the case I do not find it convincing myself.
You see for it to be a proper defense we must be guilty of attempting that which it so clearly condemns, WE ARE NOT! Additionally , those we accuse must be falsely accused of the actions we use to justify our reasoning, THEY ARE NOT!
Then you must show how we are promoting that violence should be extended past those specific people we accuse onto other innocent people, WHICH WE DO NOT!
Just because its dangerous doesn't invalidate it . Isn't it also dangerous not to point out their threat, their true character and their actions? --Tyr

[fj1200]

Sir Drummond. Another case of someone so angry, frustrated, and filled with hate. They simply WILL NOT ACCEPT anything but the
Attachment 4265 .

So if I'm here, then I will only accept the "last word."

Sir Drummond. Does the word "PREDICTABLE" sound familiar?

But. Since fj must be doing something else by now.

There's always tomorrow, and the PREDICTABLE aspect to look forward to, as usual.

None-the-less. "Isn't this a Hoot?"

But if I'm not here then what? You should try harder at not contradicting yourself.

[fj1200]

Well, so much for THAT ... I've returned here, thinking there would be a likelihood of something on this thread from 'Fj' to consider, and to answer. BUT THERE'S NOTHING !

.. I should've guessed - eh ?

So I don't respond for five hours between your posts and there's NOTHING? My God your desperate to have your argument win.

I'm leaving this forum for a little while. Not to 'dodge' anything, but just because I have a LIFE, with things going on in it ...

But while I'm gone, let me set you the challenge of finding some way of presenting something intelligible from the barely understood charge you've just tossed in my direction ?

.. What ARE you going on about ?? Care to cite examples, or better yet, build your 'case' ?

So why would you admit to "dodging" now? You've been dodging all year starting from when James first raised the issue to where I brought it up as well. Tell me which post of mine that you've been 'dodging' you would like me to recycle so that you can intelligently respond?

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fCXnZUu3o1E?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Drummond]

I do feel compelled to come back at least this one time.

One of the things i was trying to point out to you earlier about the POV you've promoted drummond, AboutTime and Tyr is that it is dehumanization. and that it's dangerous.

there are a few videos you might want to check out by Phillip Zimbardo. he did the famous Standford Prison Study. Which showed how easy it is for normal people to slip into doing and justifying evil behavior.

Sorry, revelarts, but your entire premise is flawed.

I'm going to deal with this fairly speedily, I think, because the issue is easily resolved.

Zimbardo's experiments, and conclusions reached, dealt with what he considered was true from conditions and reactions addressing impermanence. Zimbardo lacked any means to judge permanent conditions and scenarios, and terrorists are such, PERMANENTLY.

If they do evil, they haven't been seduced into it by something impermanently induced .. they don't just 'slip into terrorist mode'. They haven't had qualities subverted, held in abeyance, skewed, ready to re-emerge when a greater 'normality' influences them. No, they LACK human qualities as a PERMANENT condition.

When I call a terrorist 'subhuman' no effort is either involved, nor required, to apply a process that can be called 'dehumanization'. I'm just DESCRIBING, AND RECOGNISING, A FACT.

You, by total contrast, are doing something rather more dangerous. As I see it, you're discounting entirely even the possibility that anyone COULD be subhuman. And that, simply, means that you're blinding yourself to a reality that needs to be seen and understood for what it IS.

So tell me. Is America better served by fighting an enemy she wholly FAILS to understand .. or, one recognised for exactly what it IS ??

[Drummond]

So I don't respond for five hours between your posts and there's NOTHING? My God your desperate to have your argument win.

There you go, with the 'desperation' accusation again. Fj, don't kid yourself. I have total confidence in myself, and my arguments. Desperation is not involved .. and besides, I don't attach the importance to interacting with you that you doubtless consider fitting.

... sorry if that bursts a bubble or two ...

So why would you admit to "dodging" now?

I haven't. What ARE you blathering on about ??

Look. If you really can't string an intelligible argument together, why not just give up, and be done with it.

[aboutime]

There seems to be only ONE, LOGICAL method any of us, or all of us could use to help decide whether you Honestly support what has been called torture, or whether you do not support torture.

And, that ONE, LOGICAL way can only be. If you are the victim of someone who uses what you describe as torture. Or, you learn that someone you know, or love is the victim. And the only remedy to insure the safety of the victim is...to use a form of torture in order to assure their release from harm, or death.

In other words. NOT ONE OF US here on this forum, nor anywhere else in this World is capable of determining HOW WE...would personally react if a Loved-one, a friend, or WE...ourselves become a victim that can only be saved with the use of torture.

That is why I will not change my opinion on torture. All of you have your own opinions, and not one of us can change it.

[Drummond]

The Nazis believed that the Jews earned the title as well. It is exactly the same!

You persist with that claim. Refuted, and for reasons already expressed. Trying once MORE to say this .... Jews did not commit subhuman acts that terrorists do. They were labelled 'Untermensch' by a racist, ruling a racist empire, out of bigoted convenience .. and not because of what they'd proved themselves to BE, as terrorists do !!!

The US and Britain have tortured many innocent people, not just terrorist suspects and even less actual terrorists.

Now, you're trying to change the goalposts, and with a charge that lacks supportive context.

Do you see Muslims as terrorists?

I see the truth that others see. Not all Muslims are terrorists. I'm at least reasonably certain that the Muslim who runs his corner shop just a few minutes' walk away from me has never committed a terrorist act. Admittedly, I'm not COMPLETELY certain .. but I don't think so.

Or potential terrorists?

A baffling question to pose, since the truth is all too obvious.

Muslims, obviously, may be potential terrorists. If this definitely wasn't the case, then further recruitment of any future Muslims to terrorist groups would be rendered an utter impossibility !!!! No, such groupings need to recruit, and recruitments, yes, DO happen. I lack reason to suppose they're all Hindus who happen to be using the wrong name !!!!

Do you believe that Islam breeds and supports terrorism?

Honestly ... isn't this a pointless question, Jafar ? You know that I've posted evidence that Islam does this, through its teachings. Not only myself, but others on this forum, have also done that.

And there's no need to in any case. The very fact that there are so MANY Islamic terrorists tells its own story ... as does the mass jubilation the world has witnessed from Arab countries following a successful major terrorist attack.

And anyway, I suggest you take this up with your Hamas buddies, and not before you've studied the Hamas Charter. Jafar, there's no mistaking the Islamic grounding that THEY consider underpins all the terrorism they not only commit, but encourage OTHERS to commit.

But don't refer to terrorists as "Islamic" terrorists since that is an Oxymoron.

Completely rejected, Jafar. Besides, I refer you to the answer I just gave. Check this out with Hamas, then have a rethink.

Sure treat them as criminal scum, but don't dehumanise them in order to justify despicable acts like torture or the killing of many innocent people as "collateral damage".

I have not 'dehumanised' them !! They ARE what they ARE (... how many MORE times .. ?). So tell me, Jafar, of the wonderful 'human qualities' that a Hamas official possesses, the next time he feels like strapping a bomb on to a child !!!!

Dehumanising to justify torture is the same as Der Untermensch being used to justify the persecution of the Jews.

Dehumanising isn't involved. Terrorists ARE what they ARE, and as subhumans, it just DOESN'T MATTER if they're treated as less than human.

Jews, however, were ordinary people who happened to be Jewish, and who a certain dictatorial nutter felt like exterminating. And I'm talking about the one before Ahmadinanutjob ...

[Drummond]

There seems to be only ONE, LOGICAL method any of us, or all of us could use to help decide whether you Honestly support what has been called torture, or whether you do not support torture.

And, that ONE, LOGICAL way can only be. If you are the victim of someone who uses what you describe as torture. Or, you learn that someone you know, or love is the victim. And the only remedy to insure the safety of the victim is...to use a form of torture in order to assure their release from harm, or death.

In other words. NOT ONE OF US here on this forum, nor anywhere else in this World is capable of determining HOW WE...would personally react if a Loved-one, a friend, or WE...ourselves become a victim that can only be saved with the use of torture.

That is why I will not change my opinion on torture. All of you have your own opinions, and not one of us can change it.

Impossible to credibly disagree !!!! Brilliant post, and thanks !

[Robert A Whit]

A few ponderable points.
1. The CIA waterboarded 3 men. And the law of the land at the time was it was not torture.
2. Said waterboarding never took place on USA administered lands. The point being that the laws of the other lands had to be obeyed. Let me give you the argument on this. Suppose we tried to enforce Arab laws in the USA. Suppose our law had to recognize their law say to stone women to death. Would that fly? No. Beause of where the act happened. Jurisdiction is everything. The CIA was not in our jurisdiction. And they had full approval by the law of the USA.
3. Why is waterboarding NOT torture? We don't torture our own Navy. But a group of them must endure waterboarding. It would be illegal to waterboard seals were it torture.

I get a kick out of the non logic of the media.

A good one is the CA law on marriage we voted into our constitution.

What does the media call the law?

A ban on homosexuals from marrying.

Why?

I dunno. The law makes no mention of homosexuals. The law is intended to define marriage.

Seems to me it would have to use homosexual in the law were it for the purposes of the Media.

We had not approved of homosexuals marrying ever. So I would say the then current law could be lied about the same way. If something banned them, then we have always had such a law. But the media never used to say that.

The media is all fregged up. We should all beware of the media.

They spin and spin.

[revelarts]

I tried, well parting shots...

Your argument would stand better and be more valid where you defending people wrongly accused of these atrocities. Or defending against an organised movement, by government to falsely demonise these people for selfish goals. That not being the case I do not find it convincing myself.
You see for it to be a proper defense we must be guilty of attempting that which it so clearly condemns, WE ARE NOT! Additionally , those we accuse must be falsely accused of the actions we use to justify our reasoning, THEY ARE NOT!
Then you must show how we are promoting that violence should be extended past those specific people we accuse onto other innocent people, WHICH WE DO NOT!
Just because its dangerous doesn't invalidate it . Isn't it also dangerous not to point out their threat, their true character and their actions? --Tyr

to your 1st point , look people dehumanized others for all kinds of reasons. some items were true some where false.
the thing is they all end up trying to justify the idea that other people are/were sub-human.
that's the point.

Women were considered by some learned folks in Europe in the 1900s not only "not the human race they were not half the human race, but a sub-species set apart".
Because of various aspects of their femininity.
Some true some false it doesn't matter.
THEY REAL WERE FEMALES IT'S TRUE so they are not really Human. Does that fly?

Sexual sadism was committed in the 1990's in Yugoslavia by some Serbs who claimed they were “not doing these things to fellow human beings, but to Muslims."
They Really were Muslims, So it's OK then? As long as some aspect of the Description is True THEN its OK?

Aristotle’s defense of slavery, where he said the human essence is characterized by the capacity for reason,
but in non-Greeks this is present only in a rudimentary form, thus making them slaves by nature. Well How did Aristotle KNOW that Non Greeks only had Rudimentary form or Reason? WELL it was just obvious to him. As Obvious as the "terrorists MIND/HEART" is to you and the crew here.
Why should i consider your description of the real human essence any better than Aristotle’s?
Your criteria is weaker than his. And By his criteria all of Us are sub-human, PROVE HIM WRONG.

There was a theory that Native Americans were not human. This attractive notion was debated in the courts and coffeehouses of Europe for over a century before the Pope came out with his famous bull. Later on, the idea was embroidered. Indians were members of the human race but they didn’t have souls. Based on there looks and Real TRUE actions I suppose.

With Abortion People argue that the unborn is not human because it doesn't LOOK like a baby for some time before it's born. Or it can't Think. Both are True but they are not relevant to the fact that you don't just up and kill Human beings no matter what they look like.
But they claim that they are not a "a real person" or "fully Human".

The Factor X
Souls, reason, the proper gender, the proper religion, the proper race, don't look right,

You guys say "the terrorist" Don't act right and Have PERMANENTLY corrupt hearts . Which you KNOW by your mind reading powers and not really viewing or understanding my last video w the FBI interrogator.

Actions And you guys imagined terrorist heart is just another in a long line of histories FILL IN THE BLANK excuses to dehumanize.

Sorry, revelarts, but your entire premise is flawed.

I'm going to deal with this fairly speedily, I think, because the issue is easily resolved.

Zimbardo's experiments, and conclusions reached, dealt with what he considered was true from conditions and reactions addressing impermanence. Zimbardo lacked any means to judge permanent conditions and scenarios, and terrorists are such, PERMANENTLY.

If they do evil, they haven't been seduced into it by something impermanently induced .. they don't just 'slip into terrorist mode'. They haven't had qualities subverted, held in abeyance, skewed, ready to re-emerge when a greater 'normality' influences them. No, they LACK human qualities as a PERMANENT condition.

When I call a terrorist 'subhuman' no effort is either involved, nor required, to apply a process that can be called 'dehumanization'. I'm just DESCRIBING, AND RECOGNISING, A FACT.

You, by total contrast, are doing something rather more dangerous. As I see it, you're discounting entirely even the possibility that anyone COULD be subhuman. And that, simply, means that you're blinding yourself to a reality that needs to be seen and understood for what it IS.

So tell me. Is America better served by fighting an enemy she wholly FAILS to understand .. or, one recognised for exactly what it IS ??

I don't know what to say to this,
I guess the only things i would ask are
How do you know it's a permanent condition?
And are they born terrorist?

I'm sure the answers will be distressing.
And I have nothing left to offer here except prayers