|
|
Bunny (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} bunny) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} otf_wank,@ 2004-05-01 12:41:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Current mood: | hopeful |
The steamiest pile of wank
This wank starts wanky with:
What a bunch of charmers our allies are.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor
and it gets worse
exYank kicks it off with:
Americans are sick fucks, I should know...
Nehalem - 09:16am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#10 of 581)
"Americans are sick fucks"
Every last one of us?
----------------------------------------
Uriens - 09:17am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#11 of 581)
Americans don't seem to understand anything other than kicking the shit out of things.
Every operation they get involved in ends up awash with dead and wounded from both sides.
Iraq is going exactly the same as Vietnam.
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:18am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#12 of 581)
To be honest, whether or not this treatment was deserved depends on what the people in the photos actually did.
I mean, if they were regime interrogators, they deserve all that and much, much worse.
----------------------------------------
clover32 - 09:19am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#14 of 581)
To be honest, whether or not this treatment was deserved.
Sorry, what treatment is that?
----------------------------------------
AngHammy - 09:20am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#16 of 581)
I mean, if they were regime interrogators, they deserve all that and much, much worse.
No, if they were regime interrogators, they should be duly tried and sentenced. If we torture them, how are we any different to them?
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:21am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#17 of 581)
The treatment of the detainees.
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:23am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#18 of 581)
If you only torture torturers, you're different from them in the sense that you don't torture innocents. That makes a huge difference. I don't see any moral inconsistencies there. Obviously a judicial process is ideal, but I do think that crimes inflicted on vile people for being vile are in fact lesser crimes.
----------------------------------------
clover32 - 09:24am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#20 of 582)
The treatment of the detainees.
You are referring to the torture and sexual abuse then? Because I don't think there is ever a case for this to be 'deserved or not'. Do you disagree?
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:27am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#21 of 582)
I do disagree. For example, if someone is caught in the act of raping someone, they deserve to be raped themselves. If someone commits torture, turnabout becomes fair play. I think that's entirely morally consistent.
----------------------------------------
clover32 - 09:27am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#23 of 582)
If you only torture torturers, you're different from them in the sense that you don't torture innocents. That makes a huge difference. I don't see any moral inconsistencies there. Obviously a judicial process is ideal, but I do think that crimes inflicted on vile people for being vile are in fact lesser crimes.
This is the most juvenile old testiment drivel I have ever come across, worthy of a US president.
----------------------------------------
neko99 - 09:29am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#24 of 582)
For example, if someone is caught in the act of raping someone, they deserve to be raped themselves
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. How naive.
----------------------------------------
CaptainBlack - 09:30am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#25 of 582)
Bring back Saddam. So what if he tortured too - he ran the country better.
----------------------------------------
primrose2 - 09:30am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#26 of 582)
< For example, if someone is caught in the act of raping someone, they deserve to be raped themselves. If someone commits torture, turnabout becomes fair play. I think that's entirely morally consistent. >
So why do we have a justice system ?
----------------------------------------
raisinbran - 09:30am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#27 of 582)
Nehalem - do you know for a fact that the Iraqis being abused by brave amurcan soldiers were torturers? or do you conveniently ignore the geneva convention, just like these soldiers appear to?
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:30am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#28 of 582)
Juvenile how? It's an entirely reasonable moral stance. Let's say there were two people strapped to chairs, an Iraqi interrogator and an Iraqi teenage girl. You have to choose which one will themself be tortured, and have no way of avoiding this choice. Most people would agree that it is better if the interrogator is tortured. Now, what quality makes it 'better?'
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:31am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#29 of 582)
Of course I don't know whether or not the Iraqis in the photos are guilty of anything. That's why the military is prosecuting the people involved in their creation.
----------------------------------------
neko99 - 09:32am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#30 of 582)
You have to choose which one will themselves be tortured
You include this in your "entirely reasonable moral stance"?
slaps forehead in astonishment at the idiocy of Nehalem
----------------------------------------
exYank - 09:33am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#31 of 582)
Nehalem_all Americans supporting War/torture are sick fucks_every single last one of you, especially those laughing across the Iraqi desert with murderous intent, intimidating people in their own homes, killing for the sake of killing.
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:34am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#32 of 582)
It's a form of a 'trolley car problem.' Are you familiar with moral philosophy? The point is that if you can make a choice at all between the two people, you accept that there are reasons why torture is a 'lesser bad' when applied to some people than others. Otherwise your preferences between them would be neutral. See?
----------------------------------------
vladimirillich - 09:35am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#33 of 582)
Are you a member of the Taliban by any chance?
----------------------------------------
primrose2 - 09:36am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#34 of 582)
The premise is silly - why would you have to torture either of them ?
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:36am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#35 of 582)
#24 & #26 - I think you miss the point. The justice system exists because of the impossibility of meting out retributive justice without a lot of fuckups and atrocities along the way. That doesn't mean a perfect retributive system wouldn't be better.
----------------------------------------
teflon - 09:36am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#36 of 582)
nehalem, it's only a reasonable moral stance to someone who accepts that torture is reasonable.
Your scenario of a choice between a torturer and a teenage girl is idiotic.
That is not the choice here. The choice is, do we, the coalition, use torture, or do we not?
----------------------------------------
Nehalem - 09:37am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#37 of 582)
#34, because otherwise you could dodge the issue and avoid the core of the moral problem here.
----------------------------------------
iranoverarabbit - 09:37am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#38 of 582)
Your sophistry in defending torture does your cause no favours.
----------------------------------------
neko99 - 09:37am Apr 30, 2004 BST (#39 of 582)
The point is that if you can make a choice at all between the two people, you accept that there are reasons why torture is a 'lesser bad' when applied to some people than others.
The problem with your take on moral philosophy is that you seem to have forgotten that in this particular case the American soldiers would have had a third choice. I.e. not to torture anyone at all - in line with the Geneva Convention.
This is not Sophie's Choice, Nehalem. Grow up.
And that's just the first fourty out of six-hundred posts. Can you imagine the rest?
Post a comment in response:
