Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

xyzer · Oct 19, 2005, 01:59 pm

I find some of the responses on this thread ludicrous because participants haven't settled on what acts constitute torture.
Torture can mean different things to different people. To Rick, and some other antiwar types, if means allowing a prisoner to get chilled or depriving him of his prayer mat,or from reading his Kuran. To me it means actually inflicting pain(not discomfort) injury or mutilation on a prisoner. Inflicting permanent physical damage.

So far I haven't seen any pictorial, or actual evidence, of this.I've just hear the term torture APPLIED TO ANY ACT DIRECTED TOWARDS A PRISONER. If in fact someone was tortured at Gitmo why don't we have evidence of it? If someone was physically injured at Abu Grahaib where is the evidence?
Instead we get pictures of prisones stripped nakid by a few perverted guards(who have siince been court martialed) and stories of mental abuse and ridicule which are immediately transformed by the antiwar crowd and the media into torture and followed by accusations that this torture was comdoned by all sort of people including the Secretary of Defense.

Give me a break and get back to reality. Most of these POW are incarcerated because they were plotting, trying, or actually committing murder, arson and worse on us. Us includes innocent men, women and children. They do not claim allegience to any country and don't wear military uniforms identifying them as combatants...so they don't meet the definition of a Geneva Convenbtion protected combatant.

I don't advocate torture as I define it! However, I haven't seen anyn serious evidence that it was officially allowed or countenanced generally by our military.

Oct 19, 2005, 01:59 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
xyzer Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,193	I find some of the responses on this thread ludicrous because participants haven't settled on what acts constitute torture. Torture can mean different things to different people. To Rick, and some other antiwar types, if means allowing a prisoner to get chilled or depriving him of his prayer mat,or from reading his Kuran. To me it means actually inflicting pain(not discomfort) injury or mutilation on a prisoner. Inflicting permanent physical damage. So far I haven't seen any pictorial, or actual evidence, of this.I've just hear the term torture APPLIED TO ANY ACT DIRECTED TOWARDS A PRISONER. If in fact someone was tortured at Gitmo why don't we have evidence of it? If someone was physically injured at Abu Grahaib where is the evidence? Instead we get pictures of prisones stripped nakid by a few perverted guards(who have siince been court martialed) and stories of mental abuse and ridicule which are immediately transformed by the antiwar crowd and the media into torture and followed by accusations that this torture was comdoned by all sort of people including the Secretary of Defense. Give me a break and get back to reality. Most of these POW are incarcerated because they were plotting, trying, or actually committing murder, arson and worse on us. Us includes innocent men, women and children. They do not claim allegience to any country and don't wear military uniforms identifying them as combatants...so they don't meet the definition of a Geneva Convenbtion protected combatant. I don't advocate torture as I define it! However, I haven't seen anyn serious evidence that it was officially allowed or countenanced generally by our military. Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us.