Waterboarding Hyprocrisy

Again the comparisons in your first paragrah are not appropriate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

The Philippines casualties were comparable in number to the number of US soldiers dying in the pacific in WWII. There is no way that anywhere close to that many people had vital information. Concentration camps were used, and peaceful non-resisters were executed. Race based discrimination was the basis for both these camps and the executions. So I certainly see a strong comparison.

I was referring to Aguinaldo earlier.

Also I have no problem with using The Imperial Cruise as a source. It's certainly better than say Wikipedia (sourcing documents that change over time is problematic at best), given the authors credentials, past work, and the extensive properly sourced material throughout.

---

Providing sources? I have had others do this in the past. Provide the title of a complete book. Then complaining when that book is not found and read in order to find the segment that they purport supports their argument.
As example I earlier quoted something from a specific source. The quote is the support, which I followed with data that would allow anyone to seek it out for comparison or analysis.

All you do is present a title of several books each of several hundred pages. See the difference? See the problem in your style of listing supporting documentation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

You are finally starting to show some evidence of this. How about actually articulating your own viewpoint with sources rather than finding ways to avoid actually talking about this.

Instead of having a discussion you attack:
(i) My Sources
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
(iii) My choice of location for posting
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.

---

While she did thank you that was not the purpose of her post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

---

Kindly support this. I said that there were parallels, and I've drawn some parallels I haven't stated it corresponds exactly to how the US is acting today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

It is not a response to Sadistics view on waterboarding, other than the fact that he is choosing to use occurrences from the absolute beginning of the 20th century as proof of how the US is acting and deceiding issues today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

While she did thank you that was not the purpose of her post!

---

It's wonderful that you're such a fervent attack dog that you even have to respond to a playful attempt at humor that had nothing to do with you with criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Again the comparisons in your first paragrah are not appropriate!

---

It's a comparison made by others before me. Others with no source or substantiation tried to claim the situation in the Philippines involved waterboarding a few extremists for information. I pointed out the level of casualties and incidents were so high that that was obviously not the case.

I think we would get a lot more accomplished in this thread if we would stop talking about each other and start discussing the actual topic...It's fine to ask for sources and question points made, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Just pressing the "Thanks" button is insufficient for this posting.
I am pleased to have someone that is calling into question the propensity of the Sadistic method of positing an argument.
Along with stating the consistent refusal of providing supporting data when requested.

---

Or the DuncanONeil method of attacking an argument by avoiding to talk about the material at hand at all, but rather criticizing anything that avoids discussing the material at hand. I have responded to criticism on the sources by first providing source materials (the books involved) and some particular sources as well. You have said nothing relating to the Philippines in approximately 10 consecutive posts in a thread on the Philippines.

You also assert without any source or supporting documents that the ability to determine ones origins (or even ethnic grouping since the matter at hand is black vs asian) was not present in the early 20th century.

You state utterly absurd statements as self-evident and unsupported facts yet chastise people for commenting on historical events when they aren't willing to look up the exact page number and paragraph of a quote that you'll never look up anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

I think we would get a lot more accomplished in this thread if we would stop talking about each other and start discussing the actual topic...It's fine to ask for sources and question points made, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

---

Completely agree, unfortunately, people have started doing this in multiple threads, and if they held themselves to the same standards as they require of those who disagree with them they'd never get anything done.

Well it is a user edited encyclopedia, and some of the stuff off of the beaten path may not be entirely accurate. But, I would think that The Philippines with an English speaking national population of 92 million, a literacy rate of 94.3% of which 24 million have internet access and an additional 11 million Filipinos worldwide, someone may have made an edit if something were not as it should be. If the entry is wrong and you have proof but the author won't change it? Best thing about Wikipedia is if you want to dispute an entry you have to bring your proof, whoever has the best proof wins. It's a real annoyance to revisionists both Private and Government alike.

But you don't have to use it, feel free to link to any resource that you like. Or point out the inaccuracies. (with evidence :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

You are finally starting to show some evidence of this. How about actually articulating your own viewpoint with sources rather than finding ways to avoid actually talking about this.

Instead of having a discussion you attack:
(i) My Sources
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
(iii) My choice of location for posting
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.

---

I have been citing references, I could cite better if you could narrow down your primal scream of anti Americanism. Was there a US vs Philippines war? Yes its right here.

Philippine American War

No conspiracy exists to hide it. Did the US during that war use a method called "the water cure" Yes, its documented. Did they do it to millions as you imply in another post. No. The number that died from the war then number that died of the plague that erupted during the war? Over a million. It is there. Its not hidden.

Talking about what? Everything coherent you have posted up to this point has been properly noted or rebutted by myself or another poster, except for some rather racist lyrics (and the Taft statement and that's just too easy if you will not post sources for a counter claim.) In fact most of what you have posted was covered under "Yes that's the way it was back then"

If you are going to accuse me of not citing sources You should make sure you are not the one running into the room holding a book screaming believe this! Keep it up and the moderators will move this thread to Religion LOL

(i) My Sources
You didn't provide any.
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
Well, actually someone else said that, but yes I agree. I think it is only fair. This is an open discussion, do you expect everyone to run out and "buy the book" just to participate?
(iii) My choice of location for posting
I gave you my reasoning on this before. It still stands. But again, That's up to the moderators. Let's let them worry about that shall we?
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.
Me? I have not yet begun to "Quip" I'm a big fan of Don Rickles LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

---

Well since you seem to need some thanks, I thanked you for finally providing your reference. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I'm happy to drop the whole liberal vs conservative thing, but when you attack me for doing so I'm going to respond to it. Generally getting someone to drop a line of argument is not done by making further points about it, which is what you were doing that led me to respond.

---

Who brought it up? I have only responded to you and never labeled you. If you are actually willing to drop the Liberal/Conservative labeling fine. I already stated my feelings on that tactic in a previous post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

You accuse me of trying to change the topic.

Yet you have not mentioned a single thing relevant to the topic in this post. Instead you initiate a bunch of diversions, and when I respond to any of them you accuse me of going off topic. That's quite the double standard.

---

*looks back up the forum* Hmm, I don't even have to say how wrong that is. Yes I have. You just don't want to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

---

I thanked the post I am quoting here, but I definitely won't thank your original post because I disagree with a majority of it. What I was thanking you for was inducing me to investigate the history of waterboarding.

So what did you want to talk about? You are probably not that interested in Philippine history or you would have called me out about this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedTails

after Bonifacios execution by the Spanish for treason?

---

When he was actually executed by Aguinaldo, or rather the First Republic. Oops, My mistake. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

My point is that my source is better academically than Wikipedia. I don't mean this as an attack on Wikipedia or the use of it as a source, but rather would politely suggest that those who do choose to use Wikipedia refrain from attacking the quality of other peoples sources (but should feel free to attack arguments based on information from those sources).

---

I did not attack your source, In fact I endorsed it. As reading materiel. Not as a gospel. Other books have been written that disagree, but they too were written as reading materiel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

It's a comparison made by others before me. Others with no source or substantiation tried to claim the situation in the Philippines involved waterboarding a few extremists for information. I pointed out the level of casualties and incidents were so high that that was obviously not the case.

---

Does not matter how many people say it. The comparrison is not appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

You also assert without any source or supporting documents that the ability to determine ones origins (or even ethnic grouping since the matter at hand is black vs asian) was not present in the early 20th century.

---

First of all Filipinos would not be Asian, they are actually quite a mixed lot.
Also far from claiming any credentials I did have an anthropological course that had a section related to human genotypes. During which it was made clear that physical appearance is the worst indicator of said genotype. With this being displayed in the late 20th century it is easy to see how it could be more of an issue just barely out of the 19th!
But a bit of research indicates that the racial term may have been inappropriately to the negritos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedTails

except for some rather racist comments

---

My sincere apologies, this should read "some rather racist lyrics" if a moderator could correct this I would be gratefull.
Again, My apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

So I went to see what had been said, and I didn't even get past the third post before I had a question. Mkemse said "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent." If a person was not slanted in such a way, would the person drown? Is that the reason for the slanting, so that it would be more torturous than murderous?

---

Would they drown without the slant? Probably not. Actually the slant is what does the work, water seeks the lowest level. By angling the subject (or just the subjects head ) water runs into the nose and fills up the back of the throat. Weather it is torturous or murderous is determined by a variety of factors but primarily how much air you are allowed between pouring.

In waterboarding, water does not enter the air passages of the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedTails

Would they drown without the slant? Probably not. Actually the slant is what does the work, water seeks the lowest level. By angling the subject (or just the subjects head ) water runs into the nose and fills up the back of the throat. Weather it is torturous or murderous is determined by a variety of factors but primarily how much air you are allowed between pouring.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

First of all Filipinos would not be Asian, they are actually quite a mixed lot.
Also far from claiming any credentials I did have an anthropological course that had a section related to human genotypes. During which it was made clear that physical appearance is the worst indicator of said genotype. With this being displayed in the late 20th century it is easy to see how it could be more of an issue just barely out of the 19th!
But a bit of research indicates that the racial term may have been inappropriately to the negritos

---

I asked for a source. Anything I post based on my life experience and my courses you dismiss as irrelevant because it lacks a written source. Kindly hold yourself to the same standards you asked of others. Not I once took this course a while a go, and it had this one section and if I remember it right it said this :P

Getting a bit testy are we? I am not the one that took you to task! And at least I did qualify my statement.
Anywho!
Filipinos generally belong to several Asian ethnic groups.(Lewis, Paul M. (2009). Languages of Philippines. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.) Taiwanese aborigines migrated to the Philippines from Taiwan, displacing the earlier Negrito groups of the islands. Eventually Chinese, Spanish, and American arrivals intermarried with the various indigenous ethnic groups that had evolved.(Capelli, Christian, James F. Wilson, Martin Richards, Michael P. H. Stumpf, Fiona Gratrix, Stephen Oppenheimer, Peter Underhill, et al. (2001-02-01). "A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular South Asia and Oceania") Their descendants are known as mestizos.("The Impact of Spanish Rule in the Philippines". (2009). Tagalog at NIU. Retrieved 2009-12-19 from the Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, SEAsite Project.)
Hope you find that satisfactory, however ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I asked for a source. Anything I post based on my life experience and my courses you dismiss as irrelevant because it lacks a written source. Kindly hold yourself to the same standards you asked of others. Not I once took this course a while a go, and it had this one section and if I remember it right it said this :P

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Getting a bit testy are we? I am not the one that took you to task! And at least I did qualify my statement.
Anywho!
Filipinos generally belong to several Asian ethnic groups.(Lewis, Paul M. (2009). Languages of Philippines. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.) Taiwanese aborigines migrated to the Philippines from Taiwan, displacing the earlier Negrito groups of the islands. Eventually Chinese, Spanish, and American arrivals intermarried with the various indigenous ethnic groups that had evolved.(Capelli, Christian, James F. Wilson, Martin Richards, Michael P. H. Stumpf, Fiona Gratrix, Stephen Oppenheimer, Peter Underhill, et al. (2001-02-01). "A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular South Asia and Oceania") Their descendants are known as mestizos.("The Impact of Spanish Rule in the Philippines". (2009). Tagalog at NIU. Retrieved 2009-12-19 from the Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, SEAsite Project.)
Hope you find that satisfactory, however ....

---

I'd still argue that this shows the details were not understood, but doesn't provide a reasonable belief that the Filipino's were of African origin, as represented to the American public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I'd still argue that this shows the details were not understood, but doesn't provide a reasonable belief that the Filipino's were of African origin, as represented to the American public.

---

Did you complete miss the reference to the Negrito people?

If I were to say the US is a country of black people that would be misrepresenting the country.

The fact is there were a bunch of diverse origins and while the president may have felt negritos were of African origin, that doesn`t excuse the fact that for political gain he represented the entire country as being of that group.

Your data specifically indicates a large number of diverse groups, that existed before the Americans came on the island. You indicate, that because one particular group of people may have believed to be of African origin it is ok to represent the entire country as being of African origin, and to misrepresent its population and attitudes for political gain.

However, if that group of people are perceived as the originals in the country.... Have you ever met a Negrito, I have. They are a very interesting, and talented, people!

"The term Negrito refers to several ethnic groups in isolated parts of Southeast Asia.[2]

Their current populations include the Aeta, Agta, Ayta, Pygmies, Ita, Baluga, Ati, Dumagat and at least 25 other tribes of the Philippines, the Semang of the Malay peninsula, the Mani of Thailand and 12 Andamanese tribes of the Andaman Islands of the Indian Ocean.

Negritos share some common physical features with African pygmy populations, including short stature, natural afro-hair texture, and dark skin; however, their origin and the route of their migration to Asia is still a matter of great speculation." (Snow, Philip. The Star Raft: China's Encounter With Africa. Cornell Univ. Press, 1989 (ISBN 0801495830))
"They have also been shown to have separated early from Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans." ( Kashyap VK, Sitalaximi T, Sarkar BN, Trivedi R 2003. Molecular relatedness of the aboriginal groups of Andaman and Nicobar Islands with similar ethnic populations. The International Journal of Human Genetics, 3: 5-11.)
The term "Negrito" is the Spanish or Portuguese diminutive of negro, i.e. "little black person", referring to their small stature, and was coined by early European explorers who assumed that the Negritos were recent arrivals from Africa.

Occasionally, some Negritos are referred to as pygmies, bundling them with peoples of similar physical stature in Central Africa, and likewise, the term Negrito was previously occasionally used to refer to African Pygmies.[4]

According to James J.Y. Liu, a professor of comparative literature, the Chinese term Kun-lun (Chinese: 崑崙) means Negrito.
(Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, 1910–1911: "Second are the large Negrito family, represented in Africa by the dwarf-races of the equatorial forests, the Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others..." (pg. 851))
Liu, James J.Y. The Chinese Knight Errant. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967 (ISBN 0-2264-8688-5)
The characters 崑崙 literally mean the Kunlun Mountains.

Seems as though speaking of these peoples as HAD been done at the beginning of the 20th was not far wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

If I were to say the US is a country of black people that would be misrepresenting the country.

The fact is there were a bunch of diverse origins and while the president may have felt negritos were of African origin, that doesn`t excuse the fact that for political gain he represented the entire country as being of that group.

Your data specifically indicates a large number of diverse groups, that existed before the Americans came on the island. You indicate, that because one particular group of people may have believed to be of African origin it is ok to represent the entire country as being of African origin, and to misrepresent its population and attitudes for political gain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

However, if that group of people are perceived as the originals in the country.... Have you ever met a Negrito, I have. They are a very interesting, and talented, people!

"The term Negrito refers to several ethnic groups in isolated parts of Southeast Asia.[2]

Their current populations include the Aeta, Agta, Ayta, Pygmies, Ita, Baluga, Ati, Dumagat and at least 25 other tribes of the Philippines, the Semang of the Malay peninsula, the Mani of Thailand and 12 Andamanese tribes of the Andaman Islands of the Indian Ocean.

Negritos share some common physical features with African pygmy populations, including short stature, natural afro-hair texture, and dark skin; however, their origin and the route of their migration to Asia is still a matter of great speculation." (Snow, Philip. The Star Raft: China's Encounter With Africa. Cornell Univ. Press, 1989 (ISBN 0801495830))
"They have also been shown to have separated early from Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans." ( Kashyap VK, Sitalaximi T, Sarkar BN, Trivedi R 2003. Molecular relatedness of the aboriginal groups of Andaman and Nicobar Islands with similar ethnic populations. The International Journal of Human Genetics, 3: 5-11.)
The term "Negrito" is the Spanish or Portuguese diminutive of negro, i.e. "little black person", referring to their small stature, and was coined by early European explorers who assumed that the Negritos were recent arrivals from Africa.

Occasionally, some Negritos are referred to as pygmies, bundling them with peoples of similar physical stature in Central Africa, and likewise, the term Negrito was previously occasionally used to refer to African Pygmies.[4]

According to James J.Y. Liu, a professor of comparative literature, the Chinese term Kun-lun (Chinese: 崑崙) means Negrito.
(Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, 1910–1911: "Second are the large Negrito family, represented in Africa by the dwarf-races of the equatorial forests, the Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others..." (pg. 851))
Liu, James J.Y. The Chinese Knight Errant. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967 (ISBN 0-2264-8688-5)
The characters 崑崙 literally mean the Kunlun Mountains.

Seems as though speaking of these peoples as HAD been done at the beginning of the 20th was not far wrong!

---

So it would be acceptable to refer to the US as a country of Native Americans because they are among the ethnic groups of the country, and they are the original inhabitants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

So it would be acceptable to refer to the US as a country of Native Americans because they are among the ethnic groups of the country, and they are the original inhabitants?

---

Why not? I mean we already call it America! Of course were we to do that we would be accused of being exclusive.

Why is it that whenever I have little or no time to be online here the fun starts happening?

I swear the thought process must be something like "Tantric hasn't been online... lets whip out our dicks and measure them (dildos for the ladies involved.)"

Ok folks... time to put them away and return to discussing the OP.
(whatever the topic of the OP is.)

Yes I moved the thread, I find little News here but LOTS of philosophy.

No I am not going to go back and issue warnings for flaming ... just KNOCK IT OFF.

My opinion about citing sources: This is an opinion forum, on a BDSM site, not an academic journal or paper. Citing sources is a great way to prove your not talking out of your ass, but even if you are, who really cares? (For Ace Ventura fans you might even find it amusing.) Yes it is polite to provide sources if someone requests. If you do , please provide enough info so that your source is easy to find. However, I did not notice any mandate to use MLA format for quotations or source citing in the forums guidelines, nor would I expect posters HERE to go through the trouble to do so.

(That said, if you have a source explaining how to waterboard your sub safely, I would love to see that cited!)

Anyway its true Im not here as often as I'd like, please feel free to PM me with any moderator issues (in the editorial section that is) including editing needs of your own posts, I get emails when I receive PMs and you will get a much faster response that way.

Respectfully,
TS

I believe that as "waterboarding" is designed is actually intended to be safe. Scary but safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TantricSoul

Why is it that whenever I have little or no time to be online here the fun starts happening?

I swear the thought process must be something like "Tantric hasn't been online... lets whip out our dicks and measure them (dildos for the ladies involved.)"

Ok folks... time to put them away and return to discussing the OP.
(whatever the topic of the OP is.)

Yes I moved the thread, I find little News here but LOTS of philosophy.

No I am not going to go back and issue warnings for flaming ... just KNOCK IT OFF.

My opinion about citing sources: This is an opinion forum, on a BDSM site, not an academic journal or paper. Citing sources is a great way to prove your not talking out of your ass, but even if you are, who really cares? (For Ace Ventura fans you might even find it amusing.) Yes it is polite to provide sources if someone requests. If you do , please provide enough info so that your source is easy to find. However, I did not notice any mandate to use MLA format for quotations or source citing in the forums guidelines, nor would I expect posters HERE to go through the trouble to do so.

(That said, if you have a source explaining how to waterboard your sub safely, I would love to see that cited!)

Anyway its true Im not here as often as I'd like, please feel free to PM me with any moderator issues (in the editorial section that is) including editing needs of your own posts, I get emails when I receive PMs and you will get a much faster response that way.

Respectfully,
TS

---

Thanks Duncan, I agree with you, in truth I was only attempting to add some levity into that message.

Oh I caught that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TantricSoul

Thanks Duncan, I agree with you, in truth I was only attempting to add some levity into that message.

---

I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

Much of the enemy in the terrorist camp is Caucasian.
Perhaps the issue is that waterboarding does not do harm! And is quickly effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

---

Actually:

I should have just said white instead of cuacasian shouldnt I, guess I couldnt keep you from trying to dance around it yet again the way I worded it orginally.

The question is do we in the USA think its ok to use on other than "white" people.

Many interogators, former cia members and those who train our military to resist such means of torture have said that water boarding does not in fact produce good inteligence, in fact the victums of it have a tendency to say anything you want them too to simpley make it stop and that there are far far better ways to get real information without resorting to such criminal methods.

And water boarding can and does harm, even permamently, in fact it can kill a person.

People have suffered everything from long term phcological disorders from it (including PTSD) to in some cases broken bones (as they thrashed uncontrolabely trying to get free during the torture sesssion), and heart attacks and yes even sometimes death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

In the time it took me to prepare this page for response the language has been controlled.
However, the claim you make below it totally with out either substance or merit.
It is liberals that have driven the creation of the need for virtually every venue have signage in multiple languages, not the conservative. Such signage does nothing to bring people into the mainstream of the community in which they live, it merely serves to allow the separateness to become entrenched. Conservative position is to have all of the people that desire to come here to become a part of a homogenous whole. Such a whole is much stronger than the sum of its parts. To constantly make effort to display differences prevents the parts from melding into the unique entity it could be.
People are not label Socialist because they disagree, but because they advocate taking from those that produce and giving it to those that do not! Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down.

---

What are you...Borg? LOL

Two things, 1) Conservatives do not have the monopoly on being American and 2) Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down? Can you possibly make a more incorrect statement about the History of how U.S. came to be?

The first residents of what is now the United States immigrated from Asia prior to 15,000 years ago by crossing Beringia into Alaska. So, by your own standards, that means you are not a real American, lol.

Then came the handsome Norse fellow by the name Leif Ericson, followed by that pesky Italian working for the Spanish crown. Then came the The Thirteen British and settlements by Spain, France and Russia. Then came the steady steady flows of immigrants from Europe as well as slaves from the West Indies....etc etc.

And as any first grader knows...most of those people were rejects, independent spirits, criminals, religious folks looking for a safe way to worship...and so bent of never having to live in a country where anyone tries to homogenize them again, that they created a pesky little document called The Constitution.

But good luck with your homogeneous whole politics.....as we know historically that tends to end well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedTails

Well it is a user edited encyclopedia, and some of the stuff off of the beaten path may not be entirely accurate. But, I would think that The Philippines with an English speaking national population of 92 million, a literacy rate of 94.3% of which 24 million have internet access and an additional 11 million Filipinos worldwide, someone may have made an edit if something were not as it should be. If the entry is wrong and you have proof but the author won't change it? Best thing about Wikipedia is if you want to dispute an entry you have to bring your proof, whoever has the best proof wins. It's a real annoyance to revisionists both Private and Government alike.

But you don't have to use it, feel free to link to any resource that you like. Or point out the inaccuracies. (with evidence :) )

---

Actually that is very far from the truth. There have been numerous instances where common knowledge facts have been constantly corrected by Wikipedia because of all the cliquey games on the debates forum, it is not true that anyone can correct things, unless you are part of a clique and just a regular Joe trying to give a little something back the truth gets reverted to the party line in a matter of minutes....just as its true that its founder himself has proved that several times by abusing it himself. Wikipedia may be an ok resource to start you off on a topic, but it is a very dangerous thing the way people have started to use it as the beginning and the end of their research.

All of that is a matter for perhaps another thread on the credibility of Wikipedia...and just to clarify, this had nothing with a pointless debate on sources in this thread, but rather my distaste for all dictatorships, including Wikipedia.

1. USA employs a hypocritical double standard when it comes to the use of torture and the international rules of war. Fact.

2. You are never going to be able to have a rational discussion on that on a Forum populated by U.S. Americans who think Glenn Beck is sane, lol. Most of them have a tough time stomaching any critique on their government policies. They will never argue the issue, but rather attack you personally. There are good intelligent people here (American and any other nationality you can think of) and you can discus it rationally in private with them, but in public.....*shrugs*

3. On the other threads that water-boarding has been debated, it has been proven numerous times that it is not effective, but rather that it is counter-productive. Numerous documents have come out now that show Bush, Cheney and co. lied about its effectiveness and how it was used.

4.Water-boarding is torture. If you have a face to defend it....I can not come up with a description that would accurately describe what a disgusting, low form of life that makes you....and if I were you, I would take a very hard look at myself and my own conscience and what kind of a person you are, and how that makes you appear to whatever Divinity you believe or don't believe in. All torture is wrong. No matter who does it and when it was done. There is and never will be moral justification for it. Violence only births more violence. That is what History teaches us, just as it shows that only when we can go above petty feelings of searching for revenge that we create lasting peace and prosperous societies. But hey, that would require thinking and studying...better to succumb to baser instincts, to succumb to manipulative rethorics (weather secular or religious) of hate, blood and gore.

5. I stopped following these threads and I come rarely to this site anymore because intelligent and respectful debates are rare. I clicked on this thread because I recently read a a lot of stuff on a similar topic (The Forgotten Highlander by Alistair Urquhart) but I don't know why I bothered, cause it was so predictable that it is not even funny, the people, the reactions, the jibes...but I was disgusted by the racist comments, that was a new low.

Peace out, peeps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

---

I certainly think there is a distinct possibility. It may just be coincidence that the use of waterboarding is widespread in wars with non-whites and largely absent from wars with whites, but this appears to be the case over the history of the US. Of course attitudes on race vary hugely over that time period so its hard to get an objective standard given limited data points. This of course means people interpret the data however they want.

As for the justification "if the president does it its ok", this is highly problematic. In fact, it seems to be true only when the president happens to do something the individual agrees with (judging from all the hate against the current US president). So this is obviously circular reasoning and doesn't justify anything.