MI5 cover up torture

[Gfted1]

Im getting off tangent here as I was only disputing "torture doesnt work" but I'll answer your question. For the sake of this conversation, lets say it was the only method. Time is of an essence and you either torture the information out of him or people will die. What do you do?

 

Didn't Numbers already cover this?

 

 

Dunno, I didnt review the last 8 pages before replying. I must have missed it, why dont you bring me up to speed since you seem to have nothing better to do.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Gfted1

[lord of flies]

Too Elite For You made up an absurd situation for no apparent reason, since the only actually sensible reason (justification of torture) was vehemently denied by him.

 

Honestly, who gives a ****? Maybe torture works sometimes. You know what else works? Fascism. Doesn't mean we should all hop on the fascism train.

[Sand]

I am just against the political correctness. Just call it for what it is. They torture and killed their captives. Should we not do the same?

[lord of flies]

I am just against the political correctness. Just call it for what it is. They torture and killed their captives. Should we not do the same?

The Nazis committed genocide against ethnic Russians in occupied territories. Should we not do the same?

[Orogun01]

I am just against the political correctness. Just call it for what it is. They torture and killed their captives. Should we not do the same?

The Nazis committed genocide against ethnic Russians in occupied territories. Should we not do the same?

They did.

[lord of flies]

They did.

Uh, no, they didn't. There were some "revenge war crimes," but the Soviet Union never engaged in organized campaigns of genocide in occupied territories. Sorry.

[213374U]

If the people wish equality in front of the law, then the state should be able to torture them, which is counterproductive since no one really wants to be tortured. Subsequently, the state has to torture people that are not of the state or sovereign. This implies that torture is conducted by those who can on those who can not defend themselves, might makes right and all. That concludes, for me, that torture is a form of tyranny that benefits only benefits strong, which has no place in a western society.

That hinges on the circumstance that torture is illegal and therefore must be carried out without supervision and in secret. Nobody wants to be fined, imprisoned, conscripted, have their property confiscated, lose custody over their children, etc. And yet, those are apparently acceptable, by most standards. Isn't that for all intents and purposes institutionalized "tyranny"? Is it better or worse than torture?

 

Do you support the concept of a tyranny of a majority controlled by mass media? History suggests that the only thing preserving our treasured inalienable human rights is economic prosperity. If that fails, it's the national razor all over again. That's a Western invention, btw - and one without which we couldn't afford our current mindset... but I digress. Tyranny is one of those words with a very strong emotional charge. Even if it wasn't your intention, using it to strengthen your point is an appeal to emotion that distorts and misleads.

 

In the end, what you have is the state ****ing with the individual, one way or another, by virtue of powers which have a basis in force. The line in the sand can be drawn anywhere.

 

 

Too Elite For You made up an absurd situation for no apparent reason, since the only actually sensible reason (justification of torture) was vehemently denied by him.

 

Honestly, who gives a ****? Maybe torture works sometimes. You know what else works? Fascism. Doesn't mean we should all hop on the fascism train.

I made a hypothetical scenario with the intention of examining the moral aspect of torture without prejudices. It's funny to see you freaking out over this, considering your posting history. Let's not forget that, rhetoric aside, bourgeois pigs are people too.

 

But yeah, let's bring up the fascist bogeyman, that never fails!

 

 

They did.

Uh, no, they didn't. There were some "revenge war crimes," but the Soviet Union never engaged in organized campaigns of genocide in occupied territories. Sorry.

K Edited February 18, 2010 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

Im getting off tangent here as I was only disputing "torture doesnt work" but I'll answer your question. For the sake of this conversation, lets say it was the only method. Time is of an essence and you either torture the information out of him or people will die. What do you do?

 

EDIT: No, I wouldnt torture someone to protect child-rapists, who would? Not all pigs are created equally after all.

 

EDIT2: Ah, "potential" child-rapists. Well, thats just too abstract to answer clearly. Thought crime, so far, still isnt illegal so "potential" doesnt factor in.

 

Ok, now i have some time.

 

The "morally right" thing to do is not to torture. My reasoning comes as follows: You have to choose which life is more worth than the other. The possibility lies in the persons saved are people who have murdered, or will murder/cause harm to others. And what if the person to be tortured is only the provider of information, but nothing else? It hasn't killed anyone or harmed anyone before or even actively supported terrorists. What if the subject is the little sister of the mastermind that withholds information because it would risk her brothers life?

 

In the end, the morality of torture becomes like f*****g for virginity.

 

Of course, if we are talking about an actual scenario in active warfare, things become quite different.

[Meshugger]

If the people wish equality in front of the law, then the state should be able to torture them, which is counterproductive since no one really wants to be tortured. Subsequently, the state has to torture people that are not of the state or sovereign. This implies that torture is conducted by those who can on those who can not defend themselves, might makes right and all. That concludes, for me, that torture is a form of tyranny that benefits only benefits strong, which has no place in a western society.

That hinges on the circumstance that torture is illegal and therefore must be carried out without supervision and in secret. Nobody wants to be fined, imprisoned, conscripted, have their property confiscated, lose custody over their children, etc. And yet, those are apparently acceptable, by most standards. Isn't that for all intents and purposes institutionalized "tyranny"? Is it better or worse than torture?

 

Now you're getting difficult. Neither you or me can objectively quantify on whose suffering is worse than the other. Maybe we should go back to define what torture really is.

 

Do you support the concept of a tyranny of a majority controlled by mass media? History suggests that the only thing preserving our treasured inalienable human rights is economic prosperity. If that fails, it's the national razor all over again. That's a Western invention, btw - and one without which we couldn't afford our current mindset... but I digress. Tyranny is one of those words with a very strong emotional charge. Even if it wasn't your intention, using it to strengthen your point is an appeal to emotion that distorts and misleads.

 

In the end, what you have is the state ****ing with the individual, one way or another, by virtue of powers which have a basis in force. The line in the sand can be drawn anywhere.

 

Maybe i am a bit too idealistic in this case of realpolitik, but the state cannot exists without its people. The balances of power have to be check, there has to be line drawn in the sand where the individual is protected against the majority. If the people are rotten and corrupt, then the state is corrupt. Corruption is heavily fueled by the search of greater power, thus, the state have to have as little power as possible.

 

Now look what you have done, now i sound like I was a member of the Tea Party or something

[lord of flies]

They did.

Uh, no, they didn't. There were some "revenge war crimes," but the Soviet Union never engaged in organized campaigns of genocide in occupied territories. Sorry.

K

[Sand]

No one has done it like the Nazis did, LoF. Not before and not after, thank Joe Pesci.

[Walsingham]

Ukrainian famine not intentional, Cossacks not ethnic group. No matter what you think about their behavior during the last years of WW2, the Red Army never engaged in organized acts of genocide like the Nazis did.

 

I am perfectly content to direct forum readers to make their own minds up on this point with reference to any reputable historian of their choice.

[lord of flies]

Ukrainian famine not intentional, Cossacks not ethnic group. No matter what you think about their behavior during the last years of WW2, the Red Army never engaged in organized acts of genocide like the Nazis did.

 

I am perfectly content to direct forum readers to make their own minds up on this point with reference to any reputable historian of their choice.

Okay, which part of my statement do you disagree with? You'd have to be pretty silly to disagree with any, since every one is true (unless, I guess, you think that Stalin purposely orchestrated the death of huge numbers of Soviet nationals in its breadbaskets for no reason before he'd even done the Great Purge).

[Walsingham]

Ukrainian famine not intentional, Cossacks not ethnic group. No matter what you think about their behavior during the last years of WW2, the Red Army never engaged in organized acts of genocide like the Nazis did.

 

I am perfectly content to direct forum readers to make their own minds up on this point with reference to any reputable historian of their choice.

Okay, which part of my statement do you disagree with? You'd have to be pretty silly to disagree with any, since every one is true (unless, I guess, you think that Stalin purposely orchestrated the death of huge numbers of Soviet nationals in its breadbaskets for no reason before he'd even done the Great Purge).

 

I am perfectly content to direct forum readers to make their own minds up on this point with reference to any reputable historian of their choice. laughing.gif

[Orogun01]

Ukrainian famine not intentional, Cossacks not ethnic group. No matter what you think about their behavior during the last years of WW2, the Red Army never engaged in organized acts of genocide like the Nazis did.

 

I am perfectly content to direct forum readers to make their own minds up on this point with reference to any reputable historian of their choice.

Okay, which part of my statement do you disagree with? You'd have to be pretty silly to disagree with any, since every one is true (unless, I guess, you think that Stalin purposely orchestrated the death of huge numbers of Soviet nationals in its breadbaskets for no reason before he'd even done the Great Purge).

 

I am perfectly content to direct forum readers to make their own minds up on this point with reference to any reputable historian of their choice. laughing.gif

May you recommend one?

[213374U]

May you recommend one?

Solzhenitsyn? Robert Conquest? Nah, too easy.

 

Vasily Grossman? Alexander Shtromas?

 

Really, it doesn't matter. When you are a convinced Marxist, you can just wave your hand and make facts go away!

 

Hint: do some Google searches on "German forced labor in USSR" and "Sovietization of the Baltics", to get started. Remember: Soviets preferred to work people to death rather than kill able-bodied fascist pigs, counter-revolutionaries, saboteurs, rootless cosmopolitans and other undesirables.

[lord of flies]

Solzhenitsyn? Robert Conquest? Nah, too easy.

 

Vasily Grossman? Alexander Shtromas?

 

Really, it doesn't matter. When you are a convinced Marxist, you can just wave your hand and make facts go away!

 

Hint: do some Google searches on "German forced labor in USSR" and "Sovietization of the Baltics", to get started. Remember: Soviets preferred to work people to death rather than kill able-bodied fascist pigs, counter-revolutionaries, saboteurs, rootless cosmopolitans and other undesirables.

The Soviet Union's treatment of prisoners and subject populace was not as bad as that of the Nazis, except for the most insane of anti-communist children, who vehemently deny "history" and invent atrocities on ludicrous scales, like Stalin killing (as a portion of the population) as many Soviet nationals as Democratic Kampuchea. The Gulag was not a "genocide camp," it was (like many countries in WW2's lowest segments, such as British India) merely the part of the USSR which bore the brunt of malnutrition and disease caused by war conditions.

[213374U]

Hahaha. I cite specific sources, and lof counters with... rhetoric. How predictable.

 

BOR-ING

[lord of flies]

Hahaha. I cite specific sources, and lof counters with... rhetoric. How predictable.

 

BOR-ING

You can look up Gulag death rates in any reputable (i.e. not "100 million deaths") you like and find that the death toll was quite subdued outside of 1942-1944 and one outlier in 1933. Here's one graph:

 

I have this information on recall; I don't Google for "someone who at some point said something good about the Soviet Union" and then put their name on a vague and undefined list.

[Orogun01]

Hahaha. I cite specific sources, and lof counters with... rhetoric. How predictable.

 

BOR-ING

You can look up Gulag death rates in any reputable (i.e. not "100 million deaths") you like and find that the death toll was quite subdued outside of 1942-1944 and one outlier in 1933. Here's one graph:

Maybe they ran out of people during the subdued years?

 

BTW, you keep Russian death toll graphs?

[213374U]

I have this information on recall; I don't Google for "someone who at some point said something good about the Soviet Union" and then put their name on a vague and undefined list.

Ah, of course.

 

I have some information of my own, as well. Here:

 

 

Serious business!

 

 

 

The math involved in calculating that one is far too complex for you to grasp.

 

And last but not least:

 

 

That should settle it!

[Walsingham]

I have this information on recall; I don't Google for "someone who at some point said something good about the Soviet Union" and then put their name on a vague and undefined list.

Ah, of course.

 

I have some information of my own, as well. Here:

 

 

Serious business!

 

 

 

The math involved in calculating that one is far too complex for you to grasp.

 

And last but not least:

 

 

That should settle it!

 

Best post this year.

[I want teh kotor 3]

:lol: :lol:

[lord of flies]

Ah, of course.

Is this where we're going? Posting random images we made? Do you even have any ability to defend your side? Googling "soviet dissenters" doesn't tell you anything about the Gulag. If you would care to cite some actual sources and offer some actual data rather than "hey, check out these fifteen different authors I just googled up," I'd be more than willing to go into depth.

Maybe they ran out of people during the subdued years?

The measurement on the left is percentage of Gulag prisoners who died that year. Since the highest was a little less than 25%, that doesn't work logically.

[213374U]

Ah, of course.

Is this where we're going? Posting random images we made?

Oh, sorry about that. Maybe I should have added some cyrillic to make it more credible? I assure you, I didn't google that. "I have that information on recall".

 

Googling "soviet dissenters" doesn't tell you anything about the Gulag. If you would care to cite some actual sources and offer some actual data rather than "hey, check out these fifteen different authors I just googled up," I'd be more than willing to go into depth.

What, you mean that if Google can find it, it's not a valid source? That's is a new low, even for you, tovarisch. Let me remind you, that ALL the evidence you have come up with so far is your own weak rhetoric ("they didn't cause the famines on purpose!"), a chart that as far as I'm concerned you made yourself, and some links in the past to the web of the "people's party of somethingorother". And now you demand that others deliver academic historiographical sources, when your own are merely one click removed from "I'm getting lucky". Pathetic.

 

I pointed you to Conquest's book "The Great Terror", which gives a figure of ~14 million murdered by the Soviet state. A figure that doesn't include unlawful killings by the RKKA in wartime, or various deportations including (but not limited to) that of Germans (Against their Will, p.279) or Latvians.

 

You also claimed that the RKKA didn't engage in any active genocide, which is a patent lie. Even if we write off the all too common unlawful killings, mass rapes and general mayhem as "lack of discipline", the mass deportations to labor camps ARE genocide.

Edited February 24, 2010 by 213374U