Torture or intertainment

Post Reply New Topic

psych said

Maybe, and maybe it's my AS mind misinterpreting Roman... no offence meant either way, I'm sure...

well... d/mmit, I can't be sure. Because when Roman writes (in caps in the original) < If I were a prisoner I would really enjoy it because it will put some light to otherwise gloom prison > ... perhaps it's an AS failure of imagination on my part to be unable to believe that of all experiences, the one depicted in the pic being undergone by the prisoner would not be particularly terrifying to an Aspie. Leaving aside the context which I can't even bring myself to set down, and leaving aside the question of sexual perversion, how could it possibly be imagined to be pleasurable to be pawed by a bunch of guys like that? They're laughing? Aren't Aspies often subject to bullying? Has Roman never been bullied or seen it? Doesn't he know that bullies usually laugh? That it adds to the humiliation? And if he really is so innocent of experience... as an Aspie, is he being honest when he says he would enjoy having his privacy violated like that? As for "putting light into a gloomy prison," Aspies, if they're reasonably well-adjusted, like their gloomy prison - it may be gloomy but it's safe.

I've been following the torture/rendition subplot of the US Imperium for five years now, since the early months of the Afghan adventure, when the stories first came out of Baghram where prisoners were kept for months at a time chained head to feet in long trenches three feet wide, left suspended by their wrists for days on end, deprived of water, tied up by the messroom door for everyone to kick as they came in until they died. My horror was as much for what was being done to the minds of the boys and men who perpetrated these barbaric acts as for the ostensible victims, who, as "intelligence sources" admitted at the time and the perps themselves knew (certainly in the case of the taxi driver kicked to death for fun over 48 hours), were for the most part taxi drivers, market traders, guys just in the wrong place at the wrong time, turned in by bad luck or for reward money. I don't rate my imagination very high, but I imagined being a kid going back to Arkansas or somewhere to his God-fearing community and family, and trying to live with the things he had done. A third of returnees from Iraq are suffering severe mental health problems, and for the most part they haven't been involved in the kind of stuff the torturers were doing.

If I thought for one moment that Roman was treating this topic as a joke or a troll (and no offence, Roman: I'm not familiar with your posts and haven't checked your profile yet; as requested, I'm focussing on that pic and this thread), then I would have to jump on it, albeit as tersely as possible, more for the sake of Roman's own mental health than to protest any offence done to my sensibilities. In any case, and notwithstanding, whether or not Roman's interpretation is "honest", I still have to say:

the pic scares the sh/t out of me, and so does his thought process.

(Btw, I usually like to provide links and references for my assertions, but in the case of the torture allegations, you'll have to google them yourselves - they're all out there on the web and were for years before being brought to the public's attention. I'm about to eat, my stomach's turned enough already. )
_________________________
__homage to hans asperger__

McJeff said

ancientofdaze said

Edit 1: corrected incomplete quote from McJeff
_________________________
__homage to hans asperger__

Last edited by ancientofdaze on 01 Mar 2006, 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How has Al Quaeda won ancientofdaze? This is warfare between 2 opposing groups. Victory is one group quashing the other.

Are you talking about some form of morality? or do you think that this attitude helps Al Quaeda recruitment?

Wars are won by destroying the enemy. Al Quaeda cannot win unless they can physically destroy the United States of America, or destroy our economy and internal unity to the point that we are effectively destroyed. For these reasons I don't think that Al Quaeda can ever win. Whether or not we can win is another matter, we have to shatter their terrorist group which is a very difficult task and it may be as difficult for us to destroy them as it is for them to destroy us.

Awesomelyglorious politely enquired

Yes. And Yes.

Awesomelyglorious observedThanks only in part to the predictable and predicted enormous expense and total failure of the Iraq fiasco, your economy is effectively destroyed. You are mortgaged to the Chinese, didn't Fox News tell you? At the moment of their choosing, your famous Way of Life will alter overnight.

As for internal unity, I cannot think of a country so torn down the middle as yours was after the last election. And today: internally united behind the President? I think not. Today's paper told meI know it's only < The Guardian > but it's still true.

And as for the physical destruction of the United States of America, while Mr Bush has been distracting you all with his futile waste of American lives and those of many times more of less fortunate nationality, global warming has been racing away. It's looking like that is going to destroy not just you, but all of us. AlQuaeda will have won.

My Guardian told me yesterday, reporting < here > on the draft of the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reportWell, the doubling of CO2 is a given, and to give you an idea of what the temperatures are going to mean (we're talking by the end of the century), when the dinosaurs stomped the earth in those king-size jungles, it was just two degrees warmer than it is now. The official estimate is now "between 2 and 4.5 degrees" /qu, and each year's worst-case estimate has been revised upward every year for a decade. At 6 degrees warmer, Earth would be hotter than it's ever been since there's been life anywhere near as we know it. This is far more urgent and important than living out a Tom Clancy fantasy.

Awesomelyglorious, I risk being misunderstood in Europe because I state that I am a true friend, indeed a lover, of America and Americans and have been for many years. Ultimately, it deeply saddens me to have to point out, in getting back on topic, Yes.

__________________________
it's the global warming gonna getya..

ancientofdaze,
Uh.... the Chinese wouldn't destroy our economy because it would destroy their economy too. In fact, no stable nation would even want to destabilize our economy due to its massive influence on the global market. In short, we go down everyone goes down. Besides, there are other countries with public debts that are a larger percent of their GDP. Japan has a much larger public debt as a percent of their GDP, for them it is 170% of their GDP, the German public debt is 66.8% of their GDP, the Canadian public debt is 68.2% of their GDP, the French public debt is 66.5% of the GDP, the UK's public debt one of the smaller 42.2% of their GDP. Our public debt is 64.7% of our GDP, a smaller percent than 4 of the 5 economically powerful countries I have mentioned. 64.7% is a massive amount but in the past we have had a public debt of about 120% of our GDP and recovered from that. Besides, it is the percent of GDP that matters for debts anyway.
If you want to check my public debt percentages here is the CIA factbook. Just use it to look up whatever country you would like to check.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html

We don't like our president, that hardly constitutes what I was speaking of in terms of internal unity. We don't have to like our president at all in order to have internal unity, we just have to not be killing ourselves which is why I mentioned the destruction of internal unity. We are successfully not in civil war at this moment, therefore we have internal unity. I don't forsee a civil war in the future unless a complete economic collapse occurs. Complete economic collapses are sort of rare though and probably would not happen. So, yes, we currently have an acceptable amount of internal unity.

Actually, if all of mankind dies then nobody wins. Dead people technically cannot be victors and Al Quaeda would be dead by your worst case estimate. I doubt that global warming will destroy mankind. We do need to make more policies to account for the dangers of global warming of course but I doubt that global warming will be our destroyer. Mankind is the most resilient creature to have lived on the earth other than the cockroach. I don't really see what your concerns about global warming really have to do with this matter anyway, a massive percent of global warming is from industry and things of that nature not from Al Quaeda.

Morality hardly applies to human affairs as absolute moral standards cannot be devised or agreed upon. Really, most of the stuff I have responded to has nothing to do with the torture of terrorists. In fact, you only briefly mentioned the torture only saying briefly that it helped Al Quaeda recruit which is true and part of why I oppose our current practice of torture. I oppose it for practical reasons, not moral reasons, McJeff stated the same as well. The moral duty of nations is only to their own wellbeing. You have not even stated any moral ideology in that last post despite quoting my

twice. Also, by the way, I don't listen to, read, or watch Fox news so there is no need to stereotype.

The global market is about to change before your very eyes since the energy supply/demand tipping point has been reached.

If the vision of intelligent young Americans streches no further than "not actually killing each other = national unity," I am even sadder at the state of the nation.


Quite. I am aware of that. But the AlQuaeda guys think they're going to go to heaven for having destroyed satanic evil. From their p.o.v. they will have won.

Well, it's a bit of a tangent, but not that much of one from my p.o.v. If G.W. hadn't distracted everyone's attention in the hunt for the chimera, AQ, people's minds might have been concentrated more on g.w., the most urgent and catastrophic threat ever to have faced mankind, if not the planet. If the cockroaches regain their position as top of the evolutionary heap, I would (if I were floating around on a cloud overlooking the mess) only shrug. Still, I wouldn't be able to resist feeling that it was a bit of a waste of all that time, all those gazillions of years, and that in the early 21stC we could, even while realising that actually it really is too late to repair the damage ourselves, at least have been slightly more aware of what is happening as a result of what we have done and are doing. A forlorn hope, given the attractions and clearly greater importance of celebrity culture and life as advertised that "the market" in its wondrous perfection has ordained for us.

But I fear I'm going OT again. Before I go OTT, on your last points about the morality of torturing another human beingandI can only say, OK, well, thanks for the debate.
____________________________
it's the global warming gonna getya...

I should probably resist this, but it's so topical, I can't.

Today's Guardian contains a < story > about PM Blair's wife Cherie Booth, a leading lawyer, headlined

Torture by the state is terrorism. Terrorism is what AQ does.
If the US does it and condones it, US = AQ and AQ have won.
As far as I and most of the rest of the world see it.

Again, thanks for the debate.
I don't really want to get into a debate about morality,
since apparently we would be starting from first principles.
______________________________
it's the global warming gonna getya...

When kids bully you they are typically laugh over the fact that you are much weaker than them. On the other hand, when you are angry at terrorists you are mad at all the damage they made (september 11, etc. etc) which can't be done by someone weak. So I view anger and bullying as two completely incompatible things.

And this isn't just about terrorists. I say it in general. I can't imagine bully someone I am mad at, or being mad at someone whom I normally bully. The two are like two opposite poles.

Yes photos DO look like bullying. But this only implies that they aren't trully angry. Hence my post.



When I was 5 year old playing with other kids sometimes they would put something over my eyes and do something I can't see. I did the same to them. And we both enjoyed it.

But isn't it what you would expect given that you are talking about terrorists?



1)People who are arrested don't cause you pain or suffering

2)As the other person mentioned, they look like bullies. By definition, when you bully someone, you don't view that person as a threat. He has to be STRONG to be a threat and he has to be WEAK for you to want to bully him. These are two opposites.

3)If you look at the WAY in which they smile, there "might" be some "ingredient" of hostility in the way man smiles but definitely NOT in a way woman smiles. The smile that the woman has looks totally friendly. So if you focus your attention on the second photo from the top, at the left, which has only one woman and one prisoner and no body else, I just can't help but notice how friendly and playful her smile is.

Hi Roman

I saw your post above. I read your intro thread. OK. Understood. Respect. I owe you a reply.
I don't want to make you upset, but I hope I can make you understand why I'm so upset by your thread.
No ping pong, I'm just as bad at it as you are. I hope you'll be patient with me.
Right now, I have to go: I'll try to get back tomorrow, ok?
Catch you later.
______________________________
it's the global warming gonna getya...

I try not to use the term 'terrorist'. terrorism is a loaded word - some people would regard the allied soldiers as terrorists and the insurgents as freedom fighters. In an age of asymettrical warfare, the term terrorist loses some of its meaning.


Perhaps not, but look at the overall situation the US soldiers find themselves in - a warzone, seperated from their family & home life. They are suffering, and their captives (in their eye) can become dehumanized, and a focus by which they let off steam.



I think were conflating two issues here. torture refers more to the effect upon the recipient. Bullying refers to the motivations of the aggressor. Torture victims ive met have been targetted for their threatening (to the establishment) political views, and i think the intent has been to traumatize them so severly they are rendered harmless, but sometimes people are just tortured randomly.



Shes not alone with the prisoner - What about the person holding the camera? Other soldiers outside the frame, but in the same room. or even the friends she thinks will see the pictures later - they are likely to be in her thoughts.

Last edited by psych on 02 Mar 2006, 6:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Well, ok I will respond to earlier comments.

Yeah, the global market is changing as there is never a completely stable situation, however, the US will still have much power for many years. I truly doubt that the US will lose all power and fall into the 3rd world.


Disagreement has always been a part of national politics. The fact of the matter is that we usually have disagreement. Not killing each other and not on the brink of it is national unity because the majority of Americans support the nation even if they don't support the current politician. Americans believe in America and they have for years so even though current politics show a great divide it ends up being rather meaningless in the greater scheme of things.


The US does not equal Al Quaeda because we are a different institution. That is like saying that the Irish terrorists = Al Quaeda or that China = Al Quaeda. It does not follow logically at all because those groups have different goals and are comprised of different people. The idea is similar to saying that dogs are people because they both defecate.

I just had to address some issues I had with your statements.

Im not convinced that Al-Quaida really exists in the popular sense of the word. It may be a propaganda term invented by the CIA & used to label various groups of unrelated militant islamists. I think the origins of the word are actually from a US quote.

Regarding the stability of the US economy - The great economic power currently enjoyed by the US is totally dependant on the demand for US currency around the world. This, in turn is totally dependant on the major OPEC nations continuing to deal in US dollars as opposed to Euros.

This is the real reason for the takeover of Iraq - Iraq had recently switched over to the Euro. Its also a major factor in the recent escalation of tensions between US and Iran. Iran also wishes to adopt the Euro.

I didn't choose one word or the other on purpose. The point I was trying to make, is that whoever they were, one would expect soldiers to be ANGRY at them. Yet their facial expression didn't look angry.



That might be possible. But in such a context it MIGHT WELL be entertainment. When I have too much stress at school, sometimes I want to entertain myself. When I do so, sometimes I would pursue my favorite routine (web surfing, long walks, etc); other times I would send flaming emails. When I do the latter, I am NOT letting off anger. Rather, I am trying to make life easier for myself by giving myself something to laugh at. Meaning I can send something rude and then laugh at myself. Perhaps the soldiers did the same. In such a case, their MOTIVATION is entertainment rather than torture.



May be I was using wrong words, but the meaning I was applying to the word torture was also a motivation. Namely, in my mind the motivations for torture would be

1)anger
2)trying to get something out of the other people
3)something else alone these lines

Once again, I am not saying I used a right word. What I do say is that it seems like most people assume these people in pictures were really mad at the prisoners. I seem to be the only person who notice that they were just making fun of them, which is VERY DIFFERENT from the motives that are ascribed to them.





Please note: you used the word INTENT in the above sentence -- you said "the INTENT has been to traumatize them so severely ... " So you agree with me that torture has intent to it.

Now if the intent of that woman was to traumatize a soldier, why was she playing with him this silly game? Yes, perhaps it violates his privacy. But it also intertains him. So why can't she choose something more tough? I suspect her intent was to intertain herself as opposed to traumatizing a soldier.



Well if there is camera, friends, etc. this suggests intertainment, doesn't it. When I am mad at someone I typically wouldn't want to show to all of my friends exactly what I did to that other person. If I want to entertain myself, then yes I will put it on camera and show it to my friends.

Torture is entertaining for the people comitting the acts. Stanley Milgram experiments.
Everyone has the ability to comit torturous acts and the ability to achieve pleasure (some sort) from those acts. That is scary but true.