AP: Gitmo Soldier Details Sexual Tactics

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: tss4
Sure, but I don't think its unfair to say that if we condone this action, we will have lost some of the high ground.

I didn't say that our actions validate theirs, I said that our actions contribute (in a small way) towards validating thiers. I think that accuaretly addresses degrees of seperation. Sure, its not the same thing, but it certainly doesn't help.

Its just wrong, no matter what the enemy does. We're better than that.
I've never really bought into this whole "high ground" thing in regards to combatants in a war. War is a dirty business. There's no such thing as a good, clean war.

Besides, we are using the actions of very small and selet groups of people on both sides to define moral high ground. That's kind of myopic. If we want to determine a moral high ground, let's look at the overall and then compare. imo, in that case, we are on the same moral high ground as everyone else.

 

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
9,429
12,971
146
Originally posted by: tss4
Its just wrong, no matter what the enemy does. We're better than that.

I'd like to believe that, as I'm sure would every American who might read this. No one wants to believe that their country or people representing their country are morally or ethically unsound. The actions comitted by US military personnel that have come to light should not represent our military forces as a whole, but neither should they be ignored. Unfortunately, not every last soldier in Iraq is there because they believe they are going to help Iraq and the world. Some may be there (in their own minds) to regain control of the situation at any cost, and I think that's what were seeing: people who are frustrated at their ineffectiveness in the war using morally and ethically questionable tactics hoping to make some kind of progress.
 

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: tss4
Sure, but I don't think its unfair to say that if we condone this action, we will have lost some of the high ground.

I didn't say that our actions validate theirs, I said that our actions contribute (in a small way) towards validating thiers. I think that accuaretly addresses degrees of seperation. Sure, its not the same thing, but it certainly doesn't help.

Its just wrong, no matter what the enemy does. We're better than that.
I've never really bought into this whole "high ground" thing in regards to combatants in a war. War is a dirty business. There's no such thing as a good, clean war.

Besides, we are using the actions of very small and selet groups of people on both sides to define moral high ground. That's kind of myopic. If we want to determine a moral high ground, let's look at the overall and then compare. imo, in that case, we are on the same moral high ground as everyone else.


I'm not talking about clean war, I'm just saying there's right and wrong. This torture happened. That's dirty and will happen from time to time due to the nature of the business, but the right response is to repremand those responsible.

And if we condone such behavior then we're letting that small group of people define the moral high ground. But if we do the right thing and repremand them then we haven't let them do that.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
An interesting conversation, to say the least. :)

Could you clarify something for me Jason? Am I reading this post by you wrong...because you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Your question is misleading, though. Of COURSE I am not OK with them treating Americans that way, but the fact is that neither I nor you nor any other American has ANY choice in how they treat other people. Hell, these people don't treat WOMEN decently in THEIR OWN culture, the extremist elements don't even allow that people should be free to ELECT those who run their countries!

So NO, I'm not OK with it, but I'll admit the obvious truth no one seems to be saying here: They already do it anyway, they did it before we went to war with them, they aren't going to stop anytime soon. I see no reason to show them ANY quarter when they clearly don't even have enough CIVILIZATION in their heads to not bomb non-military persons who are just out trying to live their day-to-day lives.

Jason

Also, do these two statements in different posts by you go together?
[*] "I don't think anyone on any side is innocent of making assumptions."
[*] "None of us is completely objective; we aren't capable of it."

;)

 

mrSHEiK124

Lifer
Mar 6, 2004
11,488
2
0
I haven't read much of this thread, but I just want to point a little something out
I'm Muslim myself, and personally, I don't know anyone (i.e, myself or another muslim) that would be this angered with something like this. To me, it seems like the prisoner was over reacting. That still doesn't rule out the fact that this was really low and immoral of the interragator to do, if they torture detainees like this, and its wrong, then its still wrong if the US does it, although I have to agree, humiliation isn't nearly as bad as cold-blooded murder, but its still wrong.

EDIT: They reffering to the terrorists, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, torturing US POWs or those poor contractors or something
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
how do you break his reliance on god? um let him grow up in america, duh.................

oh and if that's torture, chain me to the wall!
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Maybe we should ask ourselves:

Whether we employed these tactics or not, would they still be using their dirty tactics?

Why on Earth should we ask ourselves that? Does that have anything to do with whether or not "these tactics" should be used? Anything at all?

 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How dare they treat people who would gladly kill us like this? Why it's just terrible.
So you're OK with Muslims treating Americans this way, since we would gladly kill them? (Never mind that I'm ignoring your presumption of guilt and your stereotyping that all of the detainees are the same.)

OK SO these terrorist should be treated like the ritz rip off their figernails if it saves 1 american life. That is the unspoken majority's view on this...

Oopps Naw it is the SPOKEN view remember the elections? If they employ ANY methods to save American lives it is worth it. Period! Tell med they would treat us any better give us a break. :roll:
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How dare they treat people who would gladly kill us like this? Why it's just terrible.
So you're OK with Muslims treating Americans this way, since we would gladly kill them? (Never mind that I'm ignoring your presumption of guilt and your stereotyping that all of the detainees are the same.)

OK SO these terrorist should be treated like the ritz rip off their figernails if it saves 1 american life. That is the unspoken majority's view on this...

Oopps Naw it is the SPOKEN view remember the elections? If they employ ANY methods to save American lives it is worth it. Period! Tell med they would treat us any better give us a break. :roll:

lol
Another person who won't answer the question. :laugh:
Hey, let's make a game of this. All you guys who condone, support, or otherwise shrug off the abuse and torture we are doing, ANSWER THE QUESTION!
"Are you OK with Americans being treated the same way these Muslims are?"

Oh, I forgot, we already got the answer from a few of you...
"Hyuck, hyuck, them thar b!tches can slap thar titties on me anytime. Hyuck, hyuck."

The point of the question...if the abuse/torture heaped on Muslims doesn't bother you, would it bother you if our boys were also subjected to like abuse/torture?

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Condor
Sounds creditable, but I'm not believing that he broke an ankle shackle. The ankle would go first. Try it at home.

Ankle shackle? Did I miss something? :)

Jason


Yeah, the OP article said that he lunged so hard that he broke loose from an ankle shackle.

"She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" ? so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle. "

Onece I read that, it sort of went into the BS file.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How dare they treat people who would gladly kill us like this? Why it's just terrible.
So you're OK with Muslims treating Americans this way, since we would gladly kill them? (Never mind that I'm ignoring your presumption of guilt and your stereotyping that all of the detainees are the same.)

OK SO these terrorist should be treated like the ritz rip off their figernails if it saves 1 american life. That is the unspoken majority's view on this...

Oopps Naw it is the SPOKEN view remember the elections? If they employ ANY methods to save American lives it is worth it. Period! Tell med they would treat us any better give us a break. :roll:

lol
Another person who won't answer the question. :laugh:
Hey, let's make a game of this. All you guys who condone, support, or otherwise shrug off the abuse and torture we are doing, ANSWER THE QUESTION!
"Are you OK with Americans being treated the same way these Muslims are?"

Oh, I forgot, we already got the answer from a few of you...
"Hyuck, hyuck, them thar b!tches can slap thar titties on me anytime. Hyuck, hyuck."

The point of the question...if the abuse/torture heaped on Muslims doesn't bother you, would it bother you if our boys were also subjected to like abuse/torture?
Obviously SOME people just don't get it whatsoever. They are so focused on indicting the US, or the soldiers, or Bush and his cronies they don't even give any sort of real equivalency test a single thought.

The Islamofascists don't even bother with torture. If they capture one of our soldiers they brutally kill them. I don't have any problem at all if they'd just pull humiliation tactics. At least our soldiers wouldn't fvcking be dead. What about you? Would you rather whine about boobs being rubbed on someone's back as the height of shame while ignoring heads being cut off?

Which goes back to - Why don't we just cut their heads off? If we did, then we'd be just like them. As it is, we aren't and it's that fvcking simple.

::sheesh!::
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Unlike you and others TLC, I don't consider 'degrees' when considerring whether something is right or wrong. The fact that you and others say that because they are doing worse, the lesser abuse that we commit is ok, says a lot about you guys.

Of couse the barbaric acts/abuse/torture that they commit is wrong, disgusting, immoral, and those that commit such acts are scum and should be harshly dealt with. EVERYBODY who commits those acts...regardless of which country you live in.

Those who say something like, "Well they do worse than 'X', so 'X' is ok in my book" are either sorely misguided or just plain assholes.

Those who condemn the barbaric acts, by anyone, have got it right, imo.

How can anyone who gives the thumbsup to any kind of abuse/torture, or just shrug it off, claim any kind of morallity?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Gaard
Unlike you and others TLC, I don't consider 'degrees' when considerring whether something is right or wrong. The fact that you and others say that because they are doing worse, the lesser abuse that we commit is ok, says a lot about you guys.

Of couse the barbaric acts/abuse/torture that they commit is wrong, disgusting, immoral, and those that commit such acts are scum and should be harshly dealt with. EVERYBODY who commits those acts...regardless of which country you live in.

Those who say something like, "Well they do worse than 'X', so 'X' is ok in my book" are either sorely misguided or just plain assholes.

Those who condemn the barbaric acts, by anyone, have got it right, imo.

How can anyone who gives the thumbsup to any kind of abuse/torture, or just shrug it off, claim any kind of morallity?
Oh. I see. Degrees of difference have no relevance in your world?

So whether someone calls your sister a "Ho" and humiliates her; or rapes her and then kills her, it's all the same to you?

It's all black and white. The crimes are the same.

I see.

You are also confusing the situation by jumping to a conclusion that I'm am not making. Both actions are wrong and I'm not condoning either. But I'm also NOT going to say what we're are doing is just as bad as what they are doing. One does not excuse the other, but this is a war. There is no moral high-ground during a war.

Did we have any moral high-ground in WW2 carpet bombing German cities? Of course not. We did it because it was a necessary tactic. Did we come out on the moral high-ground? Sure we did, because we won and the winner writes history, not the loser. As distateful as these tactics are, they could still help us win this war. Winning will provide us with all the moral high-ground we need. In war, the ends do justify the means. You may not like that but that's the way it is.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Oh. I see. Degrees of difference have no relevance in your world?

So whether someone calls your sister a "Ho" and humiliates her; or rapes her and then kills her, it's all the same to you?

It's all black and white. The crimes are the same.

I see.

You are also confusing the situation by jumping to a conclusion that I'm am not making. Both actions are wrong and I'm not condoning either. But I'm also NOT going to say what we're are doing is just as bad as what they are doing. One does not excuse the other, but this is a war. There is no moral high-ground during a war.

Did we have any moral high-ground in WW2 carpet bombing German cities? Of course not. We did it because it was a necessary tactic. Did we come out on the moral high-ground? Sure we did, because we won and the winner writes history, not the loser. As distateful as these tactics are, they could still help us win this war. Winning will provide us with all the moral high-ground we need. In war, the ends do justify the means. You may not like that but that's the way it is.
That reasoning didn't work for the Nazi's at the Nuremburg trials.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Oh. I see. Degrees of difference have no relevance in your world?

So whether someone calls your sister a "Ho" and humiliates her; or rapes her and then kills her, it's all the same to you?

It's all black and white. The crimes are the same.

I see.

You are also confusing the situation by jumping to a conclusion that I'm am not making. Both actions are wrong and I'm not condoning either. But I'm also NOT going to say what we're are doing is just as bad as what they are doing. One does not excuse the other, but this is a war. There is no moral high-ground during a war.

Did we have any moral high-ground in WW2 carpet bombing German cities? Of course not. We did it because it was a necessary tactic. Did we come out on the moral high-ground? Sure we did, because we won and the winner writes history, not the loser. As distateful as these tactics are, they could still help us win this war. Winning will provide us with all the moral high-ground we need. In war, the ends do justify the means. You may not like that but that's the way it is.
That reasoning didn't work for the Nazi's at the Nuremburg trials.
Well no sh!t.

psssst! The Nazis lost.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Oh. I see. Degrees of difference have no relevance in your world?

So whether someone calls your sister a "Ho" and humiliates her; or rapes her and then kills her, it's all the same to you?

It's all black and white. The crimes are the same.

I see.

You are also confusing the situation by jumping to a conclusion that I'm am not making. Both actions are wrong and I'm not condoning either. But I'm also NOT going to say what we're are doing is just as bad as what they are doing. One does not excuse the other, but this is a war. There is no moral high-ground during a war.

Did we have any moral high-ground in WW2 carpet bombing German cities? Of course not. We did it because it was a necessary tactic. Did we come out on the moral high-ground? Sure we did, because we won and the winner writes history, not the loser. As distateful as these tactics are, they could still help us win this war. Winning will provide us with all the moral high-ground we need. In war, the ends do justify the means. You may not like that but that's the way it is.
That reasoning didn't work for the Nazi's at the Nuremburg trials.
Well no sh!t.

psssst! The Nazis lost.
So if you win it's ok to use what ever means necessary even if it dehumanizes you?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Oh. I see. Degrees of difference have no relevance in your world?

So whether someone calls your sister a "Ho" and humiliates her; or rapes her and then kills her, it's all the same to you?

It's all black and white. The crimes are the same.

I see.

You are also confusing the situation by jumping to a conclusion that I'm am not making. Both actions are wrong and I'm not condoning either. But I'm also NOT going to say what we're are doing is just as bad as what they are doing. One does not excuse the other, but this is a war. There is no moral high-ground during a war.

Did we have any moral high-ground in WW2 carpet bombing German cities? Of course not. We did it because it was a necessary tactic. Did we come out on the moral high-ground? Sure we did, because we won and the winner writes history, not the loser. As distateful as these tactics are, they could still help us win this war. Winning will provide us with all the moral high-ground we need. In war, the ends do justify the means. You may not like that but that's the way it is.
That reasoning didn't work for the Nazi's at the Nuremburg trials.
Well no sh!t.

psssst! The Nazis lost.
So if you win it's ok to use what ever means necessary even if it dehumanizes you?
It seems the terrorists would be better suited to answer that question than I.

Considering that we're not using "what ever means necessary" it's a pretty fat red herring of a statement as well.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Oh. I see. Degrees of difference have no relevance in your world?

So whether someone calls your sister a "Ho" and humiliates her; or rapes her and then kills her, it's all the same to you?

It's all black and white. The crimes are the same.

I see.

You are also confusing the situation by jumping to a conclusion that I'm am not making. Both actions are wrong and I'm not condoning either. But I'm also NOT going to say what we're are doing is just as bad as what they are doing. One does not excuse the other, but this is a war. There is no moral high-ground during a war.

Did we have any moral high-ground in WW2 carpet bombing German cities? Of course not. We did it because it was a necessary tactic. Did we come out on the moral high-ground? Sure we did, because we won and the winner writes history, not the loser. As distateful as these tactics are, they could still help us win this war. Winning will provide us with all the moral high-ground we need. In war, the ends do justify the means. You may not like that but that's the way it is.
That reasoning didn't work for the Nazi's at the Nuremburg trials.
Well no sh!t.

psssst! The Nazis lost.
So if you win it's ok to use what ever means necessary even if it dehumanizes you?
It seems the terrorists would be better suited to answer that question than I.

Considering that we're not using "what ever means necessary" it's a pretty fat red herring of a statement as well.
I didn't say we were, I was only commenting on your opinion that it would be ok as long as it helped us win.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Oh. I see. Degrees of difference have no relevance in your world?

So whether someone calls your sister a "Ho" and humiliates her; or rapes her and then kills her, it's all the same to you?

It's all black and white. The crimes are the same.

I see.

You are also confusing the situation by jumping to a conclusion that I'm am not making. Both actions are wrong and I'm not condoning either. But I'm also NOT going to say what we're are doing is just as bad as what they are doing. One does not excuse the other, but this is a war. There is no moral high-ground during a war.

Did we have any moral high-ground in WW2 carpet bombing German cities? Of course not. We did it because it was a necessary tactic. Did we come out on the moral high-ground? Sure we did, because we won and the winner writes history, not the loser. As distateful as these tactics are, they could still help us win this war. Winning will provide us with all the moral high-ground we need. In war, the ends do justify the means. You may not like that but that's the way it is.
That reasoning didn't work for the Nazi's at the Nuremburg trials.
Well no sh!t.

psssst! The Nazis lost.
So if you win it's ok to use what ever means necessary even if it dehumanizes you?
It seems the terrorists would be better suited to answer that question than I.

Considering that we're not using "what ever means necessary" it's a pretty fat red herring of a statement as well.
I didn't say we were, I was only commenting on your opinion that it would be ok as long as it helped us win.
My personal equation for qualifying the moral high-ground is based on what we do vs. what we COULD do. We could do much, much, worse and we aren't.

Can the terrorists make the same claim?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My personal equation for qualifying the moral high-ground is based on what we do vs. what we COULD do. We could do much, much, worse and we aren't.

Can the terrorists make the same claim?
Nope. I am definately not condoning what the Terrorist do. We, however, usually hold ourselves up to higher standards. It's just disapointing when we don't follow those standards. Don't get me wrong, I could give a sh!t about those Terrorist. I jut hate to see us lower our Moral standards and I don't agree with you condoning it.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My personal equation for qualifying the moral high-ground is based on what we do vs. what we COULD do. We could do much, much, worse and we aren't.

Can the terrorists make the same claim?
Nope. I am definately not condoning what the Terrorist do. We, however, usually hold ourselves up to higher standards. It's just disapointing when we don't follow those standards. Don't get me wrong, I could give a sh!t about those Terrorist. I jut hate to see us lower our Moral standards and I don't agree with you condoning it.
As much as I'd like to believe we can maintain the highest of moral standards, it's just not possible during a war, particularly one where the enemy is using such dirty tactics.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
As much as I'd like to believe we can maintain the highest of moral standards, it's just not possible during a war

Why not chicken?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
As much as I'd like to believe we can maintain the highest of moral standards, it's just not possible during a war

Why not chicken?
Because moral stamdards prevent one from even engaging in war in the first place.

There is no such thing as a moral war, ever. War is never anything more the a necessary evil.

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
As much as I'd like to believe we can maintain the highest of moral standards, it's just not possible during a war

Why not chicken?
Because moral stamdards prevent one from even engaging in war in the first place.

There is no such thing as a moral war, ever. War is never anything more the a necessary evil.

By your logic the terrst / insurgent tactics are fine and dandy too. ;)
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
As much as I'd like to believe we can maintain the highest of moral standards, it's just not possible during a war

Why not chicken?
Because moral stamdards prevent one from even engaging in war in the first place.

There is no such thing as a moral war, ever. War is never anything more the a necessary evil.

By your logic the terrst / insurgent tactics are fine and dandy too. ;)
Again you, like others in here, would try to imply that I condone the tactics (I don't) and pretend that all tactics are the same in their degree of evil (they aren't).