12-01-2006, 11:59 PM
|
#1
|
Guest
|
I just watched the clip of that Fox reporter being waterboarded, where after every demonstration his interrogators ask him, "are you all right?" and let him catch his breath. Afterwards he seems to have become a big fan, saying that waterboarding is ethical because it doesn't cause physical injury. This is an argument I've heard from a lot of people lately, including your friend and mine the Attorney General, who states that techniques that don't cause pain are not torture. Well, I've got the perfect idea, and I'm shocked they haven't thought of it:
RAPE
Rape is the perfect "soft" interrogation technique. Everyone hates to be raped, yet with proper technique and lubrication it doesn't cause physical harm. In fact, rape is far safer than waterboarding, which raises the chance of a stroke due to the physical exertion and inverted position, and result in water inhalation. Rape is also much less harmful than sleep deprivation, which can cause tissue damage and inflammation.
Yes, rape appears to be the perfect form of coercive interrogation for security-conscious Americans. But how would we interrogate men? Of course, there's anal rape, although we would have to prepare the subject with some anal stretching to prevent tearing or other damage. Then, the interrogator would be free to bend the subject over a filthy toilet and anally rape him to his heart's content. Even anal rape, if done with lubrication and a condom, is far safer than waterboarding.
And both sexes could be forced to engage in oral sex, which would cause neither physical pain nor physical harm. Sure, it's unpleasant, but we need to defend the country, don't we? Interrogators should be checked for venereal diseases so they can ejaculate in the subject's mouth and force them to swallow. This will increase the humiliation and make compliance more likely, all without even the possibility of physical pain.
The best part about rape is that since it causes no physical harm, we can cast a wider net of subjects. After all, even if a subject has no useful information, no physical harm has been done, the gold standard of the US interrogation policy. Since women are probably more affected by the prospect of rape and gang-rape, we should probably strive to include a larger number of them in our interrogation pool. I'm proud to contribute to the security of the US with a technique that satisfies all our strict safeguards against torture.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 12:42 AM
|
#2
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 836
|
Posts like this is why I come here. Beautifully written, and worthy of praise. I think this illustrates everything wrong with our foreign policy, from thought to practice.
If your calculator adds your inputs 2 and 3 and gets 5, but the real problem you were trying to solve was 2 plus 2, the machine gives the wrong answer for your problem. The machine isn\'t broken and yet it got the wrong answer. It was gullible and believed your lie and behaved accordingly. - Sternwallow
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 07:07 AM
|
#3
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Inklandia
Posts: 3,389
|
Quote:
Gathercole wrote
And both sexes could be forced to engage in oral sex, which would cause neither physical pain nor physical harm.
|
I also think that, in extreme cases of non-cooperation by terrorists, the president should be allowed to authorize throat fucking.
If religion were based on facts, it would be called science, and no one would believe it. -- Stephen Colbert
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 08:27 AM
|
#4
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chandler- Arizona
Posts: 14,227
|
They have it all wrong with interrogation by torture. The interrogator should first analyze the physical make up ( addictions, desires et al) of the subject. Then the senses begun to be stimulated. Taste ( giving him exquisite food of his preference). Touch (Digital manipulation of the most sensitive parts of his body). Sight ( gold or art object of high value and a naked person of his taste). Hearing ( play his most favorite sounds). This must be done few hours a day for 3 days. After that the subject must be placed in a monochromatic room of deafening properties. The interrogation can now begin with the interrogator mentioning to the subject that for each accurate confession a pleasure would be doubled His body been addicted to pleasure will want them so badly that he'll tell all for he had experienced heaven on earth for 3 days and all has been taken away because of his silence. It is ALL in the brain!!!!
One must remember the enticements of "heaven on earth" used by Hassan Sabah ( the Mahdi head of the Hashashins in the 11th Century ) from Persia. This Mahdi ( god inspired person) This man was a Shiite who created the branch of Islam ( Mahaddiyah) called today Wahabbi. He is the creator of today's suicide bombers. With PLEASURES and DRUGS ( entheogens like opium, amanita, hashish) he made his followers do ANYTHING he wanted including giving their lives for the cause. Bin Laden is doing EXACTLY the same thing tapping on the INNATE susceptibility of the brain to religious-psychosis. Here are some connections:
about Islam-psychotic Hassan ( 12th Century ce)
"It was here that young Hassan came in conference with Amira Darrab, a Rafeek, who introduced him to the Ismā'īlī doctrine. With this doctrine, Hassan was unimpressed: he considered it to be merely an aberration of thought, not at all at par with the Sunna. As he met Darrab, participating in many passionate debates that discussed the merits of Ismā'īl over Mūsā, Hassan's respect grew. Now, getting impressed with the conviction of Darrab, Hassan decided to delve deeper into Ismā'īlī doctrines and beliefs. With his characteristic dedication and fervor, Hassan spent many months oblivious to all but his inquiry: reading till late in the night and caring little for sustenance and victuals, Hassan began to see merit in switching to Ismā'īlī eyes. Hassan converted and swore allegiance to the Fatimid caliph in Cairo. His studies did not end with his crossing over. He further studied under two other Daˤiyyīn, and as he proceeded on his path, he was looked upon with eyes of respect. For his young age, Hassan had done well.
Hassan's austere and devoted commitment to the Daˤwa brought him in audience with the chief Daˤī of the region: ˤAbd al-Malik ibn Attash. Attash, suitably impressed with the young seventeen year old Hassan, made him deputy Daˤī, and advised him to go to Cairo to further his studies.It was here that young Hassan came in conference with Amira Darrab, a Rafeek, who introduced him to the Ismā'īlī doctrine. With this doctrine, Hassan was unimpressed: he considered it to be merely an aberration of thought, not at all at par with the Sunna. As he met Darrab, participating in many passionate debates that discussed the merits of Ismā'īl over Mūsā, Hassan's respect grew. Now, getting impressed with the conviction of Darrab, Hassan decided to delve deeper into Ismā'īlī doctrines and beliefs. With his characteristic dedication and fervor, Hassan spent many months oblivious to all but his inquiry: reading till late in the night and caring little for sustenance and victuals, Hassan began to see merit in switching to Ismā'īlī eyes. Hassan converted and swore allegiance to the Fatimid caliph in Cairo. His studies did not end with his crossing over. He further studied under two other Daˤiyyīn, and as he proceeded on his path, he was looked upon with eyes of respect. For his young age, Hassan had done well.
Hassan's austere and devoted commitment to the Daˤwa brought him in audience with the chief Daˤī of the region: ˤAbd al-Malik ibn Attash. Attash, suitably impressed with the young seventeen year old Hassan, made him deputy Daˤī, and advised him to go to Cairo to further his studies. "
" Here he attracted the ire of priests following a heated discussion, and Hassan was thrown out of the town he was in. He then turned south and traveled through Iraq, reached Damascus in Syria. He left for Egypt from Palestine. Records exist, some in the fragmentary remains of his autobiography, and from another biography written by Rashid al-Din Tabib in 1310, to date his arrival in Egypt at 30 August, 1078.
Connections to Bin LAden who CREATED Al Quaida which means THE BASE.
"Furthermore there have emerged traces that there was a name given to Alamut by the people with Nizarī leanings: al-Assas "the Base". It was the base for all operations that Hassan wished to effect. Members of al-Assas were known as al-Assasīn. "
The DESIRE to have these PLEASURES ( dopamine & serotonin) is sooooo STRONG in the human brain that the person will do ANYTHING to obtain them!!. There are TWO types of pleasures, Real and Delusional:
1)Real pleasures are EMPIRICAL i,e good food, good sex, owning gold coins, etc
2) Delusional pleasures are RELIGIOUS. Pleasures the "soul" will have in the afterlife. These are not unlike the pleasures that constantly plague the schizophrenia or TLE infected brain. A person under this anomaly will KILL himself to obtain these imaginary pleasures.
This occurs in ALL religious-psychosis type anomalies i,e Christian Donatist circumcellions of the 5th Century, Hindu pyres where widows are immolated with their dead husbands, and recently Jones People's temple ( CHRISTIAN) where 900 people drank poisoned Kool-Aid to go to Jesus, Doe of Heavens Gate ( CHRISTIAN) where people also took "sacraments" to board Jesus Spaceship trailing a comet, Koresh's Davidians ( CHRISTIAN) where many people barbecue themselves to join Jesus in heaven, Al Quaida ( Mahaddiyah Wahaabi Muslim) where people commit suicide to kill the invader and enjoy the rewards of heaven afterwards. All throughout the history of this type of schizophrenia innate in humans which I refer to as religious-psychosis, there has ALWAYS been immolators, willing and forced. In the Aztec empire many went WILLINGLY to be sacrificed to the sun-god.
ALL religious beliefs NO EXCEPTION have their Immolators which are firm psychotic leaders who INDUCE in their flocks deep desire to commit suicide to get "eternal pleasures" ( pleasure delusion #2).
Even BUDDHIST have their immolators. One must remember those monks that set themselves afire to protest the Vietnam war.
Religious belief systems, which by accepting delusions as if they were reality, are not much different than those created by a schizophrenic or TLE infected brain ergo.......
Christians and other folks infected with delusional beliefs think and reason like schizophrenics or temporal lobe epileptics. Their morality is dictated by an invisible friend called Jesus.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 08:47 AM
|
#5
|
Still Kate's Bitch...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,722
|
Quote:
Gathercole wrote
I just watched the clip of that Fox reporter being waterboarded, where after every demonstration his interrogators ask him, "are you all right?" and let him catch his breath. Afterwards he seems to have become a big fan, saying that waterboarding is ethical because it doesn't cause physical injury. This is an argument I've heard from a lot of people lately, including your friend and mine the Attorney General, who states that techniques that don't cause pain are not torture. Well, I've got the perfect idea, and I'm shocked they haven't thought of it:
RAPE
Rape is the perfect "soft" interrogation technique. Everyone hates to be raped, yet with proper technique and lubrication it doesn't cause physical harm. In fact, rape is far safer than waterboarding, which raises the chance of a stroke due to the physical exertion and inverted position, and result in water inhalation. Rape is also much less harmful than sleep deprivation, which can cause tissue damage and inflammation.
Yes, rape appears to be the perfect form of coercive interrogation for security-conscious Americans. But how would we interrogate men? Of course, there's anal rape, although we would have to prepare the subject with some anal stretching to prevent tearing or other damage. Then, the interrogator would be free to bend the subject over a filthy toilet and anally rape him to his heart's content. Even anal rape, if done with lubrication and a condom, is far safer than waterboarding.
And both sexes could be forced to engage in oral sex, which would cause neither physical pain nor physical harm. Sure, it's unpleasant, but we need to defend the country, don't we? Interrogators should be checked for venereal diseases so they can ejaculate in the subject's mouth and force them to swallow. This will increase the humiliation and make compliance more likely, all without even the possibility of physical pain.
The best part about rape is that since it causes no physical harm, we can cast a wider net of subjects. After all, even if a subject has no useful information, no physical harm has been done, the gold standard of the US interrogation policy. Since women are probably more affected by the prospect of rape and gang-rape, we should probably strive to include a larger number of them in our interrogation pool. I'm proud to contribute to the security of the US with a technique that satisfies all our strict safeguards against torture.
|
:bow: Wot HeathenLifer said.
One man's strawman is another man's asshole.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 09:40 AM
|
#6
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chandler- Arizona
Posts: 14,227
|
Quote:
Waddlie wrote
Quote:
Gathercole wrote
I just watched the clip of that Fox reporter being waterboarded, where after every demonstration his interrogators ask him, "are you all right?" and let him catch his breath. Afterwards he seems to have become a big fan, saying that waterboarding is ethical because it doesn't cause physical injury. This is an argument I've heard from a lot of people lately, including your friend and mine the Attorney General, who states that techniques that don't cause pain are not torture. Well, I've got the perfect idea, and I'm shocked they haven't thought of it:
RAPE
Rape is the perfect "soft" interrogation technique. Everyone hates to be raped, yet with proper technique and lubrication it doesn't cause physical harm. In fact, rape is far safer than waterboarding, which raises the chance of a stroke due to the physical exertion and inverted position, and result in water inhalation. Rape is also much less harmful than sleep deprivation, which can cause tissue damage and inflammation.
Yes, rape appears to be the perfect form of coercive interrogation for security-conscious Americans. But how would we interrogate men? Of course, there's anal rape, although we would have to prepare the subject with some anal stretching to prevent tearing or other damage. Then, the interrogator would be free to bend the subject over a filthy toilet and anally rape him to his heart's content. Even anal rape, if done with lubrication and a condom, is far safer than waterboarding.
And both sexes could be forced to engage in oral sex, which would cause neither physical pain nor physical harm. Sure, it's unpleasant, but we need to defend the country, don't we? Interrogators should be checked for venereal diseases so they can ejaculate in the subject's mouth and force them to swallow. This will increase the humiliation and make compliance more likely, all without even the possibility of physical pain.
The best part about rape is that since it causes no physical harm, we can cast a wider net of subjects. After all, even if a subject has no useful information, no physical harm has been done, the gold standard of the US interrogation policy. Since women are probably more affected by the prospect of rape and gang-rape, we should probably strive to include a larger number of them in our interrogation pool. I'm proud to contribute to the security of the US with a technique that satisfies all our strict safeguards against torture.
|
:bow: Wot HeathenLifer said.
|
Some people LOVE to get rape. This is no torture to them....many will feign disgust and fear to rape so this can be done unto them. We must take into account the male g-spot is located in the prostate gland, the anus has a large network of pleasure inducing nerves and there are some glands that provide a form of anasthesia to the area so pain is endured ( rough sex)...:)
Christians and other folks infected with delusional beliefs think and reason like schizophrenics or temporal lobe epileptics. Their morality is dictated by an invisible friend called Jesus.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 10:09 AM
|
#7
|
Guest
|
Do you do anal? If you're a prisoner at Abu Ghraib you do.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 01:26 PM
|
#8
|
Guest
|
That idea is repulsive. Good job! :thumbsup:
You could also use dildos al a Eurotrip; big, wriggling dildo guns with laser sights.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 02:13 PM
|
#9
|
Still Kate's Bitch...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,722
|
Quote:
calpurnpiso wrote
Quote:
Waddlie wrote
Quote:
Gathercole wrote
I just watched the clip of that Fox reporter being waterboarded, where after every demonstration his interrogators ask him, "are you all right?" and let him catch his breath. Afterwards he seems to have become a big fan, saying that waterboarding is ethical because it doesn't cause physical injury. This is an argument I've heard from a lot of people lately, including your friend and mine the Attorney General, who states that techniques that don't cause pain are not torture. Well, I've got the perfect idea, and I'm shocked they haven't thought of it:
RAPE
Rape is the perfect "soft" interrogation technique. Everyone hates to be raped, yet with proper technique and lubrication it doesn't cause physical harm. In fact, rape is far safer than waterboarding, which raises the chance of a stroke due to the physical exertion and inverted position, and result in water inhalation. Rape is also much less harmful than sleep deprivation, which can cause tissue damage and inflammation.
Yes, rape appears to be the perfect form of coercive interrogation for security-conscious Americans. But how would we interrogate men? Of course, there's anal rape, although we would have to prepare the subject with some anal stretching to prevent tearing or other damage. Then, the interrogator would be free to bend the subject over a filthy toilet and anally rape him to his heart's content. Even anal rape, if done with lubrication and a condom, is far safer than waterboarding.
And both sexes could be forced to engage in oral sex, which would cause neither physical pain nor physical harm. Sure, it's unpleasant, but we need to defend the country, don't we? Interrogators should be checked for venereal diseases so they can ejaculate in the subject's mouth and force them to swallow. This will increase the humiliation and make compliance more likely, all without even the possibility of physical pain.
The best part about rape is that since it causes no physical harm, we can cast a wider net of subjects. After all, even if a subject has no useful information, no physical harm has been done, the gold standard of the US interrogation policy. Since women are probably more affected by the prospect of rape and gang-rape, we should probably strive to include a larger number of them in our interrogation pool. I'm proud to contribute to the security of the US with a technique that satisfies all our strict safeguards against torture.
|
:bow: Wot HeathenLifer said.
|
Some people LOVE to get rape. This is no torture to them....many will feign disgust and fear to rape so this can be done unto them. We must take into account the male g-spot is located in the prostate gland, the anus has a large network of pleasure inducing nerves and there are some glands that provide a form of anasthesia to the area so pain is endured ( rough sex)...:)
|
Wow. Just... wow. Changes must be afoot at Calpurnpiso Towers. This is the second time in 24 hours you've said something ridiculous, and neither time did you mention christ-psychosis or those books you're so fond of...
(edit - spelling)
One man's strawman is another man's asshole.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 02:41 PM
|
#10
|
Guest
|
Quote:
joni wrote
You could also use dildos al a Eurotrip
|
Actually, I think animals would be a better idea. I'm thinking particularly dogs and monkeys, but the dogs would have to be small enough that they wouldn't damage the subject with their canine penis, since that would violate our compassionate laws on treatment of "enemy combatants". You would have to have a handler with the dog to make sure the rape session wouldn't get out of hand. But the benefit would be that you wouldn't have to give the subject birth control (if a woman) because even if a dog or monkey ejaculates inside her it can't get her pregnant. Even with a human rapist I think a handler would be a good idea, because the rapists with the most potential for intimidation will likely need control from the guiding hand of the US military.
Also, any military official who accepts the killing of innocent civilians as collateral damage should accept a much less harmful and more useful practice: raping the wives and daughters of terrorists to induce them to comply. An opponent might argue that the wives and daughters may be innocent, but that's not true; if they refuse to volunteer information they have about their husband/father's activities, they are guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. Civilians killed by collateral damage, by contrast, may in fact be truly innocent. Perhaps the most significant difference between the two cases is that collateral damage actually kills innocent people, but properly performed rape doesn't even hurt them. It's clear that anyone who is willing to accept civilian death by collateral damage should accept the much less harmful, and more useful practice of coercive rape. The Administration's guidelines for the treatment of enemy combatants are indeed ethical and complete, but I think many in that Administration have neglected to examine their full implications -- and opportunities.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 02:47 PM
|
#11
|
Alcoholic Primate
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College
Posts: 1,737
|
The problem with torture is that it is inefficient. When you get information, you stop the torture until you check up on it to verify if it is true. If you don't stop, you are still assuming that they know something important, when that may not be the case. What would you do if someone kept saying "I don't know anything"- there is no way to determine if they are lying.
People will say ANYTHING so that the torture stops. It doesn't matter if you threaten to torture them worse if they lie when all they care about is stopping the torture NOW. This can go on until it is too late. Cal's idea would work in that you can deny the pleasures until the information is verified as being good (there would be an incentive to give good information rather than any information, including false leads). Rewards are a better motivation than threat of harm, but there is no way of making someone motivated enough for a reward that they would tell you something that they don't want to. What if they value keeping their secret (and thus the outcome of the secret not being revealed) above anything else? What if they really don't know anything? Then you are just wasting time torturing someone for nothing while people who do know are still out there. There needs to be a way to get people to be truthful and for you to know for sure that they are not lying.
I think the best course of action would be to use some sort of "truth-telling" drugs that put people at ease and make them not worry about keeping their secret. You could just drug them and get real friendly and encourage them to talk. Another way would be to drug them and then put them in a situation where they think they are telling the secret to someone familiar to them that needs to know. I think I have heard of drugs like this that exist now, but they are not completely effective.
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." -Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 02:51 PM
|
#12
|
Guest
|
OMGZ!!!1! Yu guyz r rly mean! Rape is rly bad!
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 03:01 PM
|
#13
|
Guest
|
Quote:
DrunkMonkey wrote
The problem with torture is that it is inefficient. When you get information, you stop the torture until you check up on it to verify if it is true.
People will say ANYTHING so that the torture stops.
|
It's true that you get a lot of false information. But you also get true information that you would have no chance of getting without torture. So it may not be efficient, but it is effective. In any case, the reason we should oppose torture is because it violates fundamental human rights, not because it's "inefficient." If a study proved to you that torture were effective, would you start supporting it? I hope not.
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 04:09 PM
|
#14
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Gathercole wrote
Also, any military official who accepts the killing of innocent civilians as collateral damage should accept a much less harmful and more useful practice: raping the wives and daughters of terrorists to induce them to comply.
|
Aww, you beat me to it. No physical harm done to anyone, so it should be A-okay. Anyway, that would only work if you assume that the suspect cares about their wives and daughters as more than cattle.
But seriously, we're not serious about all this right?
|
|
|
12-02-2006, 04:31 PM
|
#15
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chandler- Arizona
Posts: 14,227
|
Waddlie wrote:
"This is the second time in 24 hours you've said something ridiculous, and neither time did you mention christ-psychosis or those books you're so fond of..."
Sorry you weren't able to understand it....and in case you did not notice, we are discussing torture and the use of positive or negative reinforcements not MENTAL ILLNESS. This has nothing to do with Faulty Towers...:lol:....please land.
Christians and other folks infected with delusional beliefs think and reason like schizophrenics or temporal lobe epileptics. Their morality is dictated by an invisible friend called Jesus.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 PM.
|