Conquer Club

We have had a little disagreement with my honourabe friend viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53446&p=1385104#p1385104 that is a really deep philisophical divide on the question of relevant experience. Can a person form a valid opinion without relevant experience?

I am a firm traditionalist thinking the experience is necessary. My honourable friend seems to be an extreme liberal, grown on US educational system where one is instilled from the childhood that you are are unique and all your opnions are extremely valid just because you chew and poo and an exact copy of all-mighty lord....

Luckily, the corporate America is still on my side. However, such liberalism only helps to perpetuate the myth that americans are dumb which could be actually true if you consider an average american. First s(he) votes for Bush then goes to Iraq and films very traditional interrogation techniques that superiours quietly allowed to use to extract valuable intelligence. Yes I do refer to Abu Grail and I do approve of the methods used but think that it was really dumb to film it. And I am sorry but I cannot imagine an average chinese filming such thing in Tibet or an average russian filming it in Chechnya

Experience with the feedback moderators is not necessary for criticizing the rating system.

kletka wrote:Yes I do refer to Abu Grail and I do approve of the methods used but think that it was really dumb to film it.

I really hope that you don't know WTF you are talking about. Those pictures seen here in America were censored. overseas they got to see the films of rape/child torture. What are you sick or something?

kletka wrote: Yes I do refer to Abu Grail and I do approve of the methods used but think that it was really dumb to film it.

Then you are a complete retard and should leave.

And I am sorry but I cannot imagine an average chinese filming such thing in Tibet or an average russian filming it in Chechnya

Communists don't have video-cameras.

I repeat I see nothing wrong with using torture to extract military intelligence during a war. I guess it may be against some conventions but as the war itself must be outlawed It does not really make sense to stick to such pointless formalities. It is a different matter if it is done purely for sadistic pleasure.

And whatever your opinion about moral/legal sides of torture, it does not make filiming it any less stupid...

Snorri1234 wrote:Communists don't have video-cameras.

Off course, they do. Maybe, only in the dreamland of North Korea they still dont.

kletka wrote:interrogation techniques that superiours quietly allowed to use to extract valuable intelligence. Yes I do refer to Abu Grail and I do approve of the methods used but think that it was really dumb to film it. And I am sorry but I cannot imagine an average chinese filming such thing in Tibet or an average russian filming it in Chechnya

You have serious problems, buddy.

kletka wrote:I repeat I see nothing wrong with using torture to extract military intelligence during a war. I guess it may be against some conventions but as the war itself must be outlawed It does not really make sense to stick to such pointless formalities. It is a different matter if it is done purely for sadistic pleasure.

Inflict enough pain to someone and they'll admit that they killed Kennedy. I guess it may also "be against some conventions" to shoot and rape civilians of whatever age and gender in whatever country the war is taking place, but if it helps relieve stress for the soldiers it's fine. Since war itself must be outlawed it really makes no sense to stick to such pointless formalities. It is a different matter if it is done for purely sadistic pleasure.

What is wrong with me? Not that I enjoy the sadistic pleasures. But it is a matter of principle that if I have to choose lesser of two evils "torturing of a suspected enemy combatant" or "letting my soldiers die because important information has not been extracted", I wont hesitate a second which one to choose.

MeDeFe wrote:Inflict enough pain to someone and they'll admit that they killed Kennedy.

No, this is completely different matter!!! Political correctness screwed your head up. Using torture to extract evidence is wrong, not at least because such evidence is not admissible in a court of law. Military intelligence is a completely different matter. If I have to do a mock execution or waterboarding (approved as interrogation technique of "illegal combatants" in Guantanamo Bay) to learn where the guys stockpile their ammunition, off course, I would do it (but would not film it )

So KLETKA, you are saying that it is ok to rape anyone, if it gets possible enemy intelligence? It is ok to 'crush a innocent 7 year old boys testicles with a car battery, in front of his family, to extract possible intelligence from his FATHER?'

This does sound sadistic, no? I'm pretty sure you don't know what is/was going on.

BTW, the U.S. has been busted out for arming, and funding Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Sounds like the whole situation is sadistic. They could probably end the fighting there, if they weren't FUNDING AND ARMING AL-QAEDA.

kinda makes torturing innocent people seem pointless doesn't it?

Juan_Bottom wrote:BTW, the U.S. has been busted out for arming, and funding Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Sounds like the whole situation is sadistic. They could probably end the fighting there, if they weren't FUNDING AND ARMING AL-QAEDA.

You've been saying this a lot, but somehow I think I would have heard of it already... link please?

kletka wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Inflict enough pain to someone and they'll admit that they killed Kennedy.

No, this is completely different matter!!! Political correctness screwed your head up. Using torture to extract evidence is wrong, not at least because such evidence is not admissible in a court of law. Military intelligence is a completely different matter. If I have to do a mock execution or waterboarding (approved as interrogation technique of "illegal combatants" in Guantanamo Bay) to learn where the guys stockpile their ammunition, off course, I would do it (but would not film it )

It's been proven over and over that torture doesn't work because most people will admit anything and give false information just to try to get the torture to stop. It is for good reason that civilized nations have (for the most part) despised and rejected the used torture since the Geneva Conventions.

That's not something that I read on the web. General Ricardo Sanchez's new book tears Bush a new one. In all the hubbub about McClellens book, General Sanchez's slipped under the radar. And there is the strange case of Seymour Hersh...

But here is some stuff that I did find to help you peace it together.

Iran to sue U.S., U.K. in mosque blast
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2091
Iran mosque blast plotters admit Israeli, US links
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2319
U.S. indirectly funding Al-Qaeda all Seymor Hersh
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/i ... indirectly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnUWcjXvdlo
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 ... fact_hersh
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/
U.S. government uses Al-Qaeda to attack Iran
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ma ... lqaeda.htm
U.S. aiding Al-Qaeda affiliated group
http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2 ... ranian.htm

Ray Rider wrote:

kletka wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Inflict enough pain to someone and they'll admit that they killed Kennedy.

No, this is completely different matter!!! Political correctness screwed your head up. Using torture to extract evidence is wrong, not at least because such evidence is not admissible in a court of law. Military intelligence is a completely different matter. If I have to do a mock execution or waterboarding (approved as interrogation technique of "illegal combatants" in Guantanamo Bay) to learn where the guys stockpile their ammunition, off course, I would do it (but would not film it )

It's been proven over and over that torture doesn't work because most people will admit anything and give false information just to try to get the torture to stop. It is for good reason that civilized nations have (for the most part) despised and rejected the used torture since the Geneva Conventions.

Yeah, even apart from the actual infringing of human rights and stuff, torture also doesn't provide reliable information. Researching every false confession is really hard too.

InkL0sed wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:BTW, the U.S. has been busted out for arming, and funding Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Sounds like the whole situation is sadistic. They could probably end the fighting there, if they weren't FUNDING AND ARMING AL-QAEDA.

You've been saying this a lot, but somehow I think I would have heard of it already... link please?

I remember reading something about it though. Not that they're still funding them, but that they did in the past.

InkL0sed wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:BTW, the U.S. has been busted out for arming, and funding Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Sounds like the whole situation is sadistic. They could probably end the fighting there, if they weren't FUNDING AND ARMING AL-QAEDA.

You've been saying this a lot, but somehow I think I would have heard of it already... link please?

I think he means the Mujahideen who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan, the CIA funded them on the rather discredited notion that anyone who fights commies is our friend ( See also Saddam Hussein ) Unfortunately rather a lot of these Mujahideen turned out to be Islamic fundamentalists and evolved into groups such as Al -Qaeda....Ooops !

You can reason to a valid conclusion based on external experience (eg perception).
Eg you don't have to inject a lot of heroin to know that its not a very good idea. Because you can look at heroin addicts and conclude from their experience that its not a happy lifestyle.

In fact, a lot of the time we do not act on the basis of our own experience -it why books and films etc are so influential.

kletka wrote:I am a firm traditionalist thinking the experience is necessary. My honourable friend seems to be an extreme liberal, grown on US educational system where one is instilled from the childhood that you are are unique and all your opnions are extremely valid just because you chew and poo and an exact copy of all-mighty lord....

I think experience is one of the things that we use to form an opinion about how we view the world. It is bad to focus so much on experience and disregard other areas. Many times a person will harbor feelings of resentment towards a certain race or ethnicity solely based on a bad experience. The same could be said about how we view politicians. I'm sure some people hate a politician from a different party because of an experience and need someone to blame.

MeDeFe wrote: I guess it may also "be against some conventions" to shoot and rape civilians of whatever age and gender in whatever country the war is taking place, but if it helps relieve stress for the soldiers it's fine.

Juan_Bottom wrote:So KLETKA, you are saying that it is ok to rape anyone, if it gets possible enemy intelligence? It

Did I ever mention rape? You, guyz, are sex-perverts or what? Raping civilians spreads STD-s and diminishes your combat readiness. To relieve sexual of soldiers, the best way is to keep a brothel but since it is illegal in USofA, the modern crusaders will have to reserve to masturbation If raping a possible source of information, helps extract it for military, off course, it is OK. It is much more OK then to blast with a bunker buster bomb...

MeDeFe wrote:Inflict enough pain to someone and they'll admit that they killed Kennedy.

True, but we are not interested in stupid confessions but extracting valuable intelligence information. As little as I understand human psychochogy, inflicting extreme pain, rape etc. straightaway is obviously suboptimal. For the majority of people, it is better to convince them that such a possibility is real for them to start cooperation. In this regard, waterboarding is perfect: it is virtually harmless unless the subject has a heart condition or asthma but it really puts him/er under a lot of stress. Essentially the subject is convinced that s/he is diying... Another problem is that in medieval times there were specialists in inflicting extreme pain. If you do it without proper trainiing, things will go wrong with the subject dead or gone mad and all valuable information lost

Juan_Bottom wrote:It is ok to 'crush a innocent 7 year old boys testicles with a car battery, in front of his family, to extract possible intelligence from his FATHER?'

Again, the optimal thing is to convince father that this is what is going to happen unless he cooperates. The cooperation will be much more fruitful if you stop crushing in the last moment.

And I dont understand your question. What does it mean "to be OK"? Off course, it is somewhat immporal whatever standards of morality you use. But if this is the only thing that will save the lifes of 1 million people, surely it is justifiable...

As far as some of the torture aspects go, i think there are other issues that dont necessarily get discussed. No matter the justifiability of certain methods, there will always be unintended consequences. One of which, which probably will not be discussed in this fashion is the fact that you will now be sending home larger numbers of individuals back after war-time is over who have to come to grips with the fact that they have done pretty terrible things. I think we are already seeing this manifested in the large numbers of soldiers who are having mental health issues, and if you start introducing atrocities into protocol, its not going to do anything to reduce the number.

There is also the discussed issue of reliability of information. While when done optimally you can reduce this risk, the fact that the US doesnt have a consistent history using torture (as opposed to Israel who has been using certain methods for a long time and are likely better at it) you probably do not run at optimal all that often. The sheer amount of misinformation or the fact that certain individuals likely may not know anything of incredible value, means that most people who are being tortured are likely not doing so in order to save a million lives.

All of it perhaps ultimately answers the posts originally question. Experience is certainly relevant but in the same capacity as opinions being less valuable if they are poor for a variety of reasons...experience doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, is perhaps less valuable than not having experience at all. Knowing how to do the wrong thing, and learning how to do it well, does not teach one to do the right thing.

Snorri1234 wrote:

kletka wrote: Yes I do refer to Abu Grail and I do approve of the methods used but think that it was really dumb to film it.

Then you are a complete retard and should leave.

And I am sorry but I cannot imagine an average chinese filming such thing in Tibet or an average russian filming it in Chechnya

Communists don't have video-cameras.

In Soviet Russia, camera operates you.

I'm just going to point out that saying "rape is OK under certain circumstances" is patently incorrect. You can argue torture, but wow.

Frigidus wrote:I'm just going to point out that saying "rape is OK under certain circumstances" is patently incorrect. You can argue torture, but wow.

What does it mean "to be OK"?

I personally would not be able to get it up to rape a woman (or a man ) My sexuality is more of a masochistic nature, so if there are any amazons willing to rape me But I know some people "are OK with it". A late grandfather of a very good friend of mine was in the front soviet troops in WW-2. After 200 grams of vodka, he would often brag about how many polish and german women he had sex with during the liberation. I suspect that not all of it was completely consensual

Despite being morally abhorrent, mass rape has been consistently used as a weapon of war in 20th century. In civil wars in Africa it is more or less the norm. However, our talk here was about interrogation techniques, say of a suspected Al-qaeda terrorist. Not being an expert on interrogation/torture, I guess that against a subject with a certain profile (who values his/her "honour" more than life"), a (thread of) rape could be an effective interrogation tool. Dont you think so?

kletka wrote:
What does it mean "to be OK"?

I personally would not be able to get it up to rape a woman (or a man ) My sexuality is more of a masochistic nature, so if there are any amazons willing to rape me But I know some people "are OK with it". A late grandfather of a very good friend of mine was in the front soviet troops in WW-2. After 200 grams of vodka, he would often brag about how many polish and german women he had sex with during the liberation. I suspect that not all of it was completely consensual

Despite being morally abhorrent, mass rape has been consistently used as a weapon of war in 20th century. In civil wars in Africa it is more or less the norm. However, our talk here was about interrogation techniques, say of a suspected Al-qaeda terrorist. Not being an expert on interrogation/torture, I guess that against a subject with a certain profile (who values his/her "honour" more than life"), a (thread of) rape could be an effective interrogation tool. Dont you think so?

Part of the problem seems to be that your beginning to run into territory where very little distinguishes what is permissible from what we charge the enemy fighting against of. Civilized individuals are supposed to abhor things like rape, and to suggest that its utility defines its morality violates a rather simple premise of our modern social contract. If we are going to set up an us vs them mentality, to sustain any type of moral high ground (which objectively we could argue is essential to combat war weariness - something i think you could appreciate) then we must not engage in behaviors that they might not even engage in themselves. I have little recollection or knowledge of fundamentalists using rape as a weapon, though it certainly has occurred in other conflicts...as you suggest.

got tonkaed wrote: Part of the problem seems to be that your beginning to run into territory where very little distinguishes what is permissible from what we charge the enemy fighting against of. Civilized individuals are supposed to abhor things like rape, and to suggest that its utility defines its morality violates a rather simple premise of our modern social contract. If we are going to set up an us vs them mentality, to sustain any type of moral high ground (which objectively we could argue is essential to combat war weariness - something i think you could appreciate) then we must not engage in behaviors that they might not even engage in themselves. I have little recollection or knowledge of fundamentalists using rape as a weapon, though it certainly has occurred in other conflicts...as you suggest.

Bingo, man!! Very well said

But, please, dont count me as us or them. I am a bystander arguing my case from an abstract point of view (but I am ready to protect the Earth against alien invasion any minute from now)

The rest is exactly my point. If such methods (not sustainable from a moral high ground) are used (and they are as we all know from Abu Grail pics ), then individual authorising their use and using them should have enough intellect to keep it a secret, instead of filming it for a family album