Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Bush knowingly ordered torture


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#16    Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Heaven Is A Halfpipe

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Hi. My name is Spike.

Posted 17 April 2013 - 06:48 PM

View PostBama13, on 17 April 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

Just as your country came begging in WWI and WWII? Like France came begging in Vietnam? Like most of western Europe begged us to keep troops in Europe after WWII ended to help keep the Russians at bay? I see, it is OK for your country to ask us to help them in a war, but not ok for us to ask them to help us in a war.

I think Japan attacking America had just a little something to do with America entering WWII... Quite frankly America was more than happy to see Britain fall to Nazi Germany until it wasn't in their best interests. Britain did pretty damn good defending itself against a power like Nazi Germany, not a single German soldier stepped foot on British soil and that was thanks to the British Army. I won't sit here and discredit America, obviously their part in WWII swung the power of balance but to suggest Britain came "begging" for help is a ludicrous suggestion. Don't act like you did us a favour, America realised Britain falling to Germany wouldn't be good for them.

Now, if I can cast your mind back to Iraq, George Bush's exact words to Britain and other nations was that they were either with him (aka go to war) or against him. It was a desperate plea and I've got no doubts that Obama will make the very same plea when the battle lines are drawn against North Korea and Iran. My point is, the British people are sick of being dragged into wars like that. We have no problem with Iran or North Korea, nor did we with Iraq, in fact there were many riots and protests over declaring war. We also have no problem in standing by America in wars when we believe that there is just cause to send our brothers, sisters, friends, fathers, sons etc into battle. There is no just cause here, not yet, nor do the majority think we have any right to tell another nation what it can and can't do when what we say it can't do, we do ourselves.

You can go the distance, you can run the mile and you can walk straight through HELL with a smile.

My UM Credentials: http://www.unexplain...5


#17    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,861 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:04 PM

The only reason the US wanted its Coalition Of The Willing, or whatever euphemism the politicians created, was for appearances.

They wanted it to APPEAR that everybody agreed that Saddam was a Bad Boy and deserved whatever he got.  One man like Dubya might be wrong and illegal, but if Dubya, Tony and the Aussies all do it, well, 3 guys can't be wrong.


#18    Wyrdlight

Wyrdlight

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,091 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2009

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:01 AM

View PostHeaven Is A Halfpipe, on 16 April 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Ha, the west ain't been the "good guys" since World War 2.

Korean War?


#19    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,011 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:07 AM

Good job Mr. President.  I fully support your decision.

I'm sorry their actions didn't fit some of your ideals of "the good guys", but their job was to save American lives and they did what they had to do.

I wonder if some of you would be so giddy on your high horses if enhanced interrogation could have stopped the Boston bombing this week?

And what happened to the whole "if it saves just one life" mantra that we've had shoved down our throats since Newtown?

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#20    Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Heaven Is A Halfpipe

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Hi. My name is Spike.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:20 AM

View PostRafterman, on 18 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Good job Mr. President.  I fully support your decision.

I'm sorry their actions didn't fit some of your ideals of "the good guys", but their job was to save American lives and they did what they had to do.

I wonder if some of you would be so giddy on your high horses if enhanced interrogation could have stopped the Boston bombing this week?

And what happened to the whole "if it saves just one life" mantra that we've had shoved down our throats since Newtown?

Torture at will, just don't complain when the so called dictators of the world do the very same to their people, then try and justify it for war.

Has it crossed your mind that those who are tortured typically have no evidence against them? That they're plucked from their lives and put through that hell because they have the wrong skin colour? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Some of you Americans bang on about how important your constitution is until it suits you to disregard it.

Bush and his comrades should rot in a prison cell but we know *they* won't allow that. It's only naughty when we're talking about the middle east or North Korea.

You can go the distance, you can run the mile and you can walk straight through HELL with a smile.

My UM Credentials: http://www.unexplain...5


#21    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,388 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:34 AM

View PostRafterman, on 18 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Good job Mr. President.  I fully support your decision.

I'm sorry their actions didn't fit some of your ideals of "the good guys", but their job was to save American lives and they did what they had to do.

I wonder if some of you would be so giddy on your high horses if enhanced interrogation could have stopped the Boston bombing this week?

And what happened to the whole "if it saves just one life" mantra that we've had shoved down our throats since Newtown?
Torture is ineffective at gaining useful information, this is widely understood - even in the CIA. The purpose of torture is to intimidate the civilian population so that they do not offer resistance.

Torture encourages recruitment to terrorist organizations because it justifies the rhetoric of extremists in claiming that they are victims of a criminal oppressor.
Torture is a military tactic - not a intelligence gathering exercise.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 April 2013 - 11:36 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#22    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,861 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:13 PM

View PostRafterman, on 18 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Good job Mr. President.  I fully support your decision.

I'm sorry their actions didn't fit some of your ideals of "the good guys", but their job was to save American lives and they did what they had to do.

I wonder if some of you would be so giddy on your high horses if enhanced interrogation could have stopped the Boston bombing this week?

And what happened to the whole "if it saves just one life" mantra that we've had shoved down our throats since Newtown?

In a most perverse sense, I would like to 'thank you' for demonstrating complete disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law in general.  That your hero is John Yoo et al, Bush & Co, speaks volumes of your humanity.


#23    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,011 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:51 PM

View PostHeaven Is A Halfpipe, on 18 April 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Torture at will, just don't complain when the so called dictators of the world do the very same to their people, then try and justify it for war.

Has it crossed your mind that those who are tortured typically have no evidence against them? That they're plucked from their lives and put through that hell because they have the wrong skin colour? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Some of you Americans bang on about how important your constitution is until it suits you to disregard it.

Bush and his comrades should rot in a prison cell but we know *they* won't allow that. It's only naughty when we're talking about the middle east or North Korea.

What is "the wrong skin color" in the Middle East?

Three people were waterboarded for approximately 45 seconds and thousands of lives were saved, OBL was killed (Obama sure liked shouting that from the rooftops even though it was EI that got the info to find him), and who knows what else was averted.

Again, no problems with that.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#24    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,011 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:53 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 18 April 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Torture is ineffective at gaining useful information, this is widely understood - even in the CIA. The purpose of torture is to intimidate the civilian population so that they do not offer resistance.

Torture encourages recruitment to terrorist organizations because it justifies the rhetoric of extremists in claiming that they are victims of a criminal oppressor.
Torture is a military tactic - not a intelligence gathering exercise.

Br Cornelius

Which is exactly why EI is not torture.  Pulling someone's finger nails off is counter productive.  Playing mind games and creating discomfort does work.  That's why the CIA does it.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#25    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,011 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 18 April 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

In a most perverse sense, I would like to 'thank you' for demonstrating complete disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law in general.  That your hero is John Yoo et al, Bush & Co, speaks volumes of your humanity.

The US Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants, neither does the Geneva Convention.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#26    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,388 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:34 PM

View PostRafterman, on 18 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

The US Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants, neither does the Geneva Convention.
Wiki;

Quote

Geneva Conventions

The four Geneva Conventions provide protection for people who fall into enemy hands. The conventions do not clearly divide people into combatant and non-combatant roles. The conventions refer to:
  • "wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants"
  • "civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character"[54]
  • "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces"
  • "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements"
  • "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power"
  • "Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces"
  • "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory"[55]
The third (GCIII) and fourth (GCIV) Geneva Conventions are the two most relevant for the treatment of the victims of conflicts. Both treaties state in Article 3, in similar wording, that in a non-international armed conflict, "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely." The treaty also states that there must not be any "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".[56][57]
GCIV covers most civilians in an international armed conflict, and says they are usually "Protected Persons" (see exemptions section immediately after this for those who are not). Under Article 32, protected persons have the right to protection from "murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments...but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by non-combatant or military agents".
GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular, Article 17 says that "No 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." POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. Captured enemy combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW (GCIII Article 5).

The Geneva convention clearly prohibits the use of torture against Civilians and enemy combatants. Its not really ambigious on the matter. George Bush attempted to side step the Geneva convention by using the term "unlawful combatant", a term with no legal standing in international law.
If you can be so ignorant of the Geneva convention its not surprising you would support the use of torture.

The USA has openly declared in its actions over the last decade that no international treaty is binding on itself. Maybe Americans should try to remember that when they consider travel abroad.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 April 2013 - 04:38 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#27    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,375 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:42 PM

View PostHeaven Is A Halfpipe, on 17 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I think Japan attacking America had just a little something to do with America entering WWII... Quite frankly America was more than happy to see Britain fall to Nazi Germany until it wasn't in their best interests. Britain did pretty damn good defending itself against a power like Nazi Germany, not a single German soldier stepped foot on British soil and that was thanks to the British Army. I won't sit here and discredit America, obviously their part in WWII swung the power of balance but to suggest Britain came "begging" for help is a ludicrous suggestion. Don't act like you did us a favour, America realised Britain falling to Germany wouldn't be good for them.

Now, if I can cast your mind back to Iraq, George Bush's exact words to Britain and other nations was that they were either with him (aka go to war) or against him. It was a desperate plea and I've got no doubts that Obama will make the very same plea when the battle lines are drawn against North Korea and Iran. My point is, the British people are sick of being dragged into wars like that. We have no problem with Iran or North Korea, nor did we with Iraq, in fact there were many riots and protests over declaring war. We also have no problem in standing by America in wars when we believe that there is just cause to send our brothers, sisters, friends, fathers, sons etc into battle. There is no just cause here, not yet, nor do the majority think we have any right to tell another nation what it can and can't do when what we say it can't do, we do ourselves.

If America was more than happy to see England fall then explain lend lease. We certainly didn't offer lend lease to the Germans. How long would England have lasted without lend lease? Why did America extend the area patrolled by our warships to about halfway accross the Atlantic?

Are Jersey and Guernsey not considered part of England? Asking because I don't know. They were occupied by German forces so I am assuming they are like American territories.

I know Churchill tried very hard to get the US to join the war against Germany. Now don't get me wrong, I have every admiration for the way the British stood firm against Nazi Germany. It certainly was "their finest moment". And considering British history that is saying something.

I'm not getting into the debate on the latest wars. Just responding your post about pompous Americans etc.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#28    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,607 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:02 PM

View PostHeaven Is A Halfpipe, on 17 April 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Thanks for making the assumption that I would celebrate the death of anybody. This is England, not America, we don't (in masses) celebrate the death of other people.
I didnít say all English did.  But I know there are enough, we get the reports.  The Socialists were dancing on her grave symbolically.  But after reading your post, you strike me as being in that group.  And your reply doesnít do anything to persuade me otherwise.  I seem to recall some riots in Luton last year and in London two years ago.  Stabbings are rampant.  I think that you are out of touch with world events and your own people.

Quote

Especially after getting dooped over by our own country that some man in a cave co-ordinated two planes to crash into the World Trade Centers. You really think America is the "good guy" in the world right now? You're off you're freaking rocker.
Wow!  Talk about disconnect.  First of all, he wasnít hiding in a cave when the attack was planned and carried out.  So youíre saying that there is a prerequisite that one canít hide in a cave to plan an attack on this country (or any country)?  No one is denying that Bin Laden is responsible, maybe except some conspiracy theorists.  I wouldnít talk about being ďdupedĒ in your case.

And what does that have anything to do with America being the ďgood guyĒ?  If we arenít the good guy, there certainly has been plenty of opportunity in the recent past for you to have learned German or even Russian.  I guess that would have been ok with you.

Quote

I'm perfectly informed as to how the Iraq war happened and I think you'll find it was an illegal invasion.
You havenít proved to anyone that you are *informed*.  Quite the opposite.  Do we really have to go through the history and timelines and such?  Does UN Resolution 1441 ring a bell?  It basically allowed any nation to invade Iraq if they could show that Saddam violated the cease fire.  And he did, time and time again.  It is well documented.  This established the legal right to invade.  And Bush properly made the case for war.

Quote

We didn't hold a legal inquiry in Britain for nothing my friend. We had an inquiry because the British people are not sheep and know right and wrong when they see it and we demand justice.
Itís true that I donít know how you do everything there in England, but you really didnít need a legal inquiry or much of one.  The invasion was justice.

Ē I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here
alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men's
minds: methinks I could not die any where so
contented as in the king's company; his cause being
just and his quarrel honourable.Ē


Now France got upset over the invasion but it wasnít because it was illegal (which it wasnít), it was because we cut off the cash cow that Chirac had with Saddam.  The French had major interests in Iraq to build up his arsenal.  France wanted Iraq to counter Iran.  Companies like La Farge were heavily invested.  But I believe we smoothed things over by contracting out to them for rebuilding infrastructure.

Quote

I don't even know what the MSM is supposed to stand for so I guess you failed to discredit me there, too. You're not very good at these assumptions are you?
Youíre kidding right??  MSM = Main Stream Media.  The state owned media in your case.  Did you even bother to google it, if you didnít know what it was?  I havenít failed at anything.  If anything, youíve helped out to discredit yourself.  So far, my assumptions seem to be right on.

Quote

I guess your brother is an authority on the entire conflict. He's just another pawn being used for unjustified wars and I pray he doesn't die for his blind loyalty to a terrorist state.
Who is an authority of the entire conflict?  But he is more of an authority than you or I and I know quite a bit myself.  I had several contacts.  Iím not pacified by what the MSM presents.  Heís no pawn.  He served his country with distinction.  He lost men over there and he saw first hand how life for the indigenous was like under Saddam.  I am aware of this, you are not.

So youíre in the crowd that believes that America is the terrorist state.   Now, I donít blame England for being the greatest colonial power the world has seen but you are in no position to compare America to a terrorist state.  Did you even know that Saddam considered himself as the new Saladin?  Do you even understand what that means?  Or the Return of the Caliphate?  You want to talk about terrorism and colonialism combined?

Quote

I actually said it wasn't quite Hitler level yet, perhaps your American education isn't all that good,
Just making the comparison is not even close.  Thereís no perhaps about it, your English education is wrong and lacking.  When you compare something with Hitler, it needs to be pertinent and also a distinction between if it is pre ďFinal SolutionĒ or post.  In his early days, Hitler was a great statesman and he did well for his country, but it was all a faÁade to gain power.  The people were fooled.  The essence of this is what we see in our current POTUS.

Quote

but if you can't see all these invasions of middle eastern nations + potential Iran and NK as exactly what Hitler was doing having parallels,
I donít know what you are seeing but it ainít reality.  There are no parallels here.  The only thing in common is that ďinvasionĒ is part of it.  Invasion in itself carries no value of good or bad.  If England and France had invaded Germany during the Phony War, millions of lives would have been saved and hundreds of billions in dollars in property would still exist.  Our invasion of Iraq has more parallels to that.  Hitler was bent on conquest, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and NK are to beat down belligerent states that threaten the stability of the region and/or planet.

Quote

you might as well join the forces yourself and blindly serve your nation.
I did and proudly!

Quote

Of course you support torture, it's okay so long as it's America who does it, right? But it's wrong when another nation does it.
Where did I say that it was wrong when another nation does it?  I may not like it if the other side does it to my people, but what can I do about?  Thatís war.  The goal is to win not be PC.  You canít legislate war.

Reading some of the other replies, I see some are confused on the application of torture.  Torture or data mining on combatants has a wide spectrum of techniques not all are meant to utilize physical pain.  This is the form I support which is very effective.  Torture that is sadistic in nature as applied to the civilian populations to control them with fear is more mistreatment than anything else and this is what isnít effective (but for a short period of time).  This form will only cause more problems over time.  Torturing a saboteur to death to find out his compatriots is understandable and part of the game.  To torture and execute 10 civilians because one occupier was killed to instill fear doesnít work.  If weíre going to get into what torture is, letís keep this in mind.

Quote

You're just another pompous American who is going to one day realise your nation isn't as all powerful and mighty as you're taught it is.
A little envy eh?  I donít realize, I know that someday this nation will fall but that day is not yet.  We have our best days ahead and I prefer ďarrogantĒ.  The rise and fall of nations and empires is the way of Civilization.  And while here, it is their duty to leave a mark.  We have plenty of reason to be arrogant, you should know.  England had its heyday.  Great nations become great because they meet and overcome great challenges.  From the very first, we confronted a great challenge and it was well documented (Declaration of Independence).  Ever since then we have confronted and conquered each challenge.  Our next challenge is the current one in which we are battling Socialism within and leadership more divisive than any that has come before.  So how does one defeat such a great internal enemy?  With faith and arrogance.  And if we can defeat this threat when the other nations are still mired in slavery, then their perception of our arrogance will go off the scale.  That is the true Audacity of Hope.  But youíll be looking to us for help unless other Thatcher rises from among your ranks.  I really donít see the Brits finding the courage of their own declaration of independence.

Quote

I really hope America doesn't come crying to Britain for help (again) with NK and Iran because I'm sick of my nation dragged into these little fights that you can't fight yourself. Your brother might serve but I know people who serve too and they deserve better than to have their lives thrown into jeopardy over the chess game of politics America likes to play with the world.
Bama has already covered this but who has gone to who for help?  Expecting England to uphold its responsibilities is the very least.  I really donít like being the worldís policeman but if your attitude is typical of Europe (which I really doubt) itís no wonder England has lost its way.  We should just hire Gort and be done with it.  Gort wonít beg before attacking belligerents.  America wonít have to worry about doing it.

Quote

You got a problem with NK and Iran? Invade them yourself, don't expect others to help you. Though we both know the first place America is going to come begging.
Begging for England to uphold her responsibility?  Thatís pretty sad for England.  I would think that England would have more respect for herself than that.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato

#29    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,861 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:24 PM

View PostRafterman, on 18 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

The US Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants, neither does the Geneva Convention.

Kind of a 'blast from the past', eh Rafterman?

Kinda like reading a regurgitation of the Bush/Yoo sophistry.  I'm impressed, in all the wrong ways. :td:


#30    supervike

supervike

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,219 posts
  • Joined:16 May 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:32 PM

View PostHeaven Is A Halfpipe, on 17 April 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Thanks for making the assumption that I would celebrate the death of anybody. This is England, not America, we don't (in masses) celebrate the death of other people.

Seems like the 'masses' were celebrating the death of Thatcher pretty well.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users