NationStates Jolt Archive

Not ALL my ideas are garbage, some are pretty good, this here is one of them I'd like to share that has to do with American war crimes.

In the Gitmo many POWs were raped and sexually abused , the soldiers involved in their defense claimed that since Muslim men have certain beliefs on gender roles and being treated like a woman mentally tortures them that these sick atrocities would get them to spill their guts. But why do that then if there's a probably more effective alternative that won't get US troops labeled as sick rapists? Why not just take pig fetuses, like the kind for dissections and rub it in the POW's face until he decided to talk? People would then say "serves those wackjob fundy terrorists right!" rather than "Ewwww American troops will do anything to anything. " And if this is too expensive then they can make the POWs think that the thing the US troops are rubbing int their face or injecting in them is somehow pork-related. Hell there should also be a false propaganda campaign saying that the US military for some reason now has pork blood or fat on all their bullets even though they don't. That really bruise enemy morale.

You think rubbing pig foetuses in hostages faces is a way to stop people think US troops are sick?

Not ALL my ideas are garbage, some are pretty good, this here is one of them I'd like to share that has to do with American war crimes.

In the Gitmo many POWs were raped and sexually abused , the soldiers involved in their defense claimed that since Muslim men have certain beliefs on gender roles and being treated like a woman mentally tortures them that these sick atrocities would get them to spill their guts. But why do that then if there's a probably more effective alternative that won't get US troops labeled as sick rapists? Why not just take pig fetuses, like the kind for dissections and rub it in the POW's face until he decided to talk? People would then say "serves those wackjob fundy terrorists right!" rather than "Ewwww American troops will do anything to anything. " And if this is too expensive then they can make the POWs think that the thing the US troops are rubbing int their face or injecting in them is somehow pork-related. Hell there should also be a false propaganda campaign saying that the US military for some reason now has pork blood or fat on all their bullets even though they don't. That really bruise enemy morale.

This better be satire.

Yeah... the US doesn't look bad enough yet. Let's be worse than the terrorists and win the worlds trust...

I got an effective method. Just file down the teeth of the one you want information from. Very effective.

Problem is, information extracted through torture is pretty damn unreliable. If you are in enough pain you'll say just about anything to stop it. Even false things. Think about that for a moment.

Assaulting Muslim prisoners with pig fetuses is a vile form of torture and is hopefully forbidden under American laws against cruel and unusual punishment.


Pity those laws carry little weight these days.

Torture should be for entertainment purposes only. *nod*

Not ALL my ideas are garbage, some are pretty good

alright....where's the good one? Cause, frankly, I'm still waiting on the good idea.

In the Gitmo many POWs were raped and sexually abused

Source?

You think rubbing pig foetuses in hostages faces is a way to stop people think US troops are sick?

Which would you rather be labelled, a sexual predator who predetates POWs or someone who says the thing he's rubbing in the guy's face is a pig fetus or that the things he is exposing to the POW have pork in or on them?

Which would you rather be labelled, a sexual predator who predetates POWs or someone who says the thing he's rubbing in the guy's face is a pig fetus or that the things he is exposing to the POW have pork in or on them?

I defy labels. :)

Which would you rather be labelled, a sexual predator who predetates POWs or someone who says the thing he's rubbing in the guy's face is a pig fetus or that the things he is exposing to the POW have pork in or on them?

so who would I rather be labeled as, a torturer or a torturer?

Gee....tough...

Source?

History Channel, news on the radio and in magazines, images, some of which were posted here, and articles, many of which were posted here.

I'll search them now.

Which would you rather be labelled, a sexual predator who predetates POWs or someone who says the thing he's rubbing in the guy's face is a pig fetus
I don't think anyone is going to differentiate between sick fuck and sick fuck.

so who would I rather be labeled as, a torturer or a torturer?

Gee....tough...

One causes STDs, is immoral, and makes the US look bad. The other however makes you someone who pretends to be a torturer, the rest is in the enemy's mind. So hmmmmm?

Real torturer who does actual damage to the body but somehow the enemy keeps a secret or fake torturer who makes the enemy think he's being tortured so he spills his guts?


Hmmmmmm.....

so who would I rather be labeled as, a torturer or a torturer?

Gee....tough...

I hardly think rubbing a small fetus in a face is torture. It's no way near as bad as rape.

I have a better idea that is in no way sick, yet still abuses Islamic repulsion to unclean pork - make them wear the ham helm until they talk.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=60

One causes STDs, is immoral, and makes the US look bad. The other however makes you someone who pretends to be a torturer, the rest is in the enemy's mind. So hmmmmm?
There's nothing to hmmmmmm about at all. They're both torture, and they're both immoral. And frankly, I don't see why anyone should give a shit about the feelings of torturers.

Real torturer who does actual damage to the body but somehow the enemy keeps a secret or fake torturer who makes the enemy think he's being tortured so he spills his guts?
You've never heard of psychological torture, no? And what makes you think that the information obtained with this form of torture will be any more accurate than information obtained under other forms of torture?

I hardly think rubbing a small fetus in a face is torture. It's no way near as bad as rape.

And getting a rib broken isn't as bad as getting a leg broken. It doesn't mean you weren't assaulted.

Problem is, information extracted through torture is pretty damn unreliable. If you are in enough pain you'll say just about anything to stop it. Even false things. Think about that for a moment.

That's why you have to torture more than one person.

That's why you have to torture more than one person.

They should have lie detectors hooked to them while torturing them.

you know, I'm still waiting for the good idea I was promised. But given your past posting history, I won't hold my breath. If you manage to have a good idea the forums might implode.

There's nothing to hmmmmmm about at all. They're both torture, and they're both immoral. And frankly, I don't see why anyone should give a shit about the feelings of torturers.


You've never heard of psychological torture, no? And what makes you think that the information obtained with this form of torture will be any more accurate than information obtained under other forms of torture?



And getting a rib broken isn't as bad as getting a leg broken. It doesn't mean you weren't assaulted.

1)One is immoral than the other, and technically the pork torture does no physical harm whatsoever so they wouldn't look as bd as they would when sexually abusing them. The rapists in the military are making America look bad, if they just used this pork torture method than more people would be saying "at least the prisoners aren't physically harmed". The pork idea would make the US look less evil if they used that instead of what they chose.

They should have lie detectors hooked to them while torturing them.

um, that's.....really stupid.

um, that's.....really stupid.

Why?

That's why you have to torture more than one person.
That's just despicable. Have you no regard for human life?
They should have lie detectors hooked to them while torturing them.

Have you no understanding of how lie detectors work? Stress will give false readings. Everything the victim said would register as a lie.

The pork idea would make the US look less evil if they used that instead of what they chose.

No it would not.

Fail.

um, that's.....really stupid.

You sound surprised.

And getting a rib broken isn't as bad as getting a leg broken. It doesn't mean you weren't assaulted.

I really don't care if doing something which the convict finds disgusting is assualt, that's irellavent. It's still legal and it's not torture, that's all that matters.

no no no, it's not my job to explain why your idea won't work, it's your job to establish that it would.

Go figure out how lie detectors work, then figure out why it's a stupid idea.

In debates one must back up every tiny claim. As much as it is my job to back up my claims it is yours to back up your claim on why its stupid otherwise it comes off as inane bias.

Why?

no no no, it's not my job to explain why your idea won't work, it's your job to establish that it would.

Go figure out how lie detectors work, then figure out why it's a stupid idea.

I really don't care if doing something which the convict finds disgusting is assualt, that's irellavent. It's still legal and it's not torture, that's all that matters.

If it's assault then it's illegal so it's very relevant.
In debates one must back up every tiny claim. As much as it is my job to back up my claims it is yours to back up your claim on why its stupid otherwise it comes off as inane bias.
Happily, I've explained why it's a terrible idea.

I really don't care if doing something which the convict finds disgusting is assualt, that's irellavent. It's still legal and it's not torture, that's all that matters.

actually I'm pretty sure it would violate quite a few parts of the geneva convention.

So...no, it's not legal.

No it wouldn't. The geneva convention doesn't require you to treat the inmates like royalty, rubbing meat in someones face is hardly even psychological torture.

It is when the meat is pork and the face belongs to a muslim.

actually I'm pretty sure it would violate quite a few parts of the geneva convention.

So...no, it's not legal.

No it wouldn't. The geneva convention doesn't require you to treat the inmates like royalty, rubbing meat in someones face is hardly even psychological torture.

In debates one must back up every tiny claim.

Which you have failed to do. And since you have failed to back up your claim, it is unsubstantiated, and considered wrong, and thus stupid, until you do substantiate it. I don't have to disprove your claims, that's not my job. It is your job to substantiate them. Until you do so, it's assumed wrong.

And since you haven't, it's wrong.


As much as it is my job to back up my claims it is yours to back up your claim on why its stupid otherwise it comes off as inane bias.

Wrong again, you have failed to back up your claims, so it is assumed wrong until you demonstrate that it's a good idea.

If it's assault then it's illegal so it's very relevant.


You mean if they are charged with assualt. Being charged with assault, and merely calling something assault are two very different things. The former actually having definitions, that latter being completely meaningless.

no no no, it's not my job to explain why your idea won't work, it's your job to establish that it would.

Go figure out how lie detectors work, then figure out why it's a stupid idea.

because lie detectors typically work by detecting stress in relation to the answered question. so as long as your calm, thats fine, assume its true. if your pulse spikes etc. it MIGHT be a lie. but then again, it might not.

since the circumstances you describe are somewhat stressful. the test would be useless.

whilst were on the subject of VG cats (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=63)

No it wouldn't. The geneva convention doesn't require you to treat the inmates like royalty, rubbing meat in someones face is hardly even psychological torture.

yet it does require one to recognize human dignity, which it would violate.

Of course, let's play a little game, shall we? Either the experience is not something a muslim would find disgusting, abhorent and something that causes them great indignity and mental suffering, in which case, why would you advocate doing it as it would accomplish nothing, or it IS something that would do so, in which case it's torture.

You can't play it both ways here, if it's something that is considered bad enough to compel someone to speak against his will, it's probably bad enough to violate the geneva convention.

You mean if they are charged with assualt.

You mean to say that something's not a crime unless osmeone's charged with it?

That's pretty stupid.

You mean if they are charged with assualt. Being charged with assault, and merely calling something assault are two very different things. The former actually having definitions, that latter being completely meaningless.

I think a decent lawyer could make the case that rubbing meat in someone's face is assault.

Which would you rather be labelled, a sexual predator who predetates POWs or someone who says the thing he's rubbing in the guy's face is a pig fetus or that the things he is exposing to the POW have pork in or on them?

Neither please?

This is treating Islam rather than terrorists as the enemy, and it's fucking stupid. We'd piss off a ton or people who've done us no harm, and possibly give them cause to wonder why they haven't.

You mean to say that something's not a crime unless osmeone's charged with it?

That's pretty stupid.

If someone shouted in public and I went "Hey, you're disturbing the peace", thats not the same as if the police arrested someone with the offense of "disturbing the peace".

you know, I'm still waiting for the good idea I was promised. But given your past posting history, I won't hold my breath. If you manage to have a good idea the forums might implode.

*NSG begins to implode* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12767182&postcount=37)

Your breathing privileges have been restored. ;)

If someone shouted in public and I went "Hey, you're disturbing the peace", thats not the same as if the police arrested someone with the offense of "disturbing the peace".

and yet, that person could still have actually been disturbing the peace, regardless of whether he was arrested for it or not, yes?

Whether the police arrest someone for it or not does not change whether an act is factually a crime or not. So I really don't know why your'e going down this yellow brick road of inanity.

yet it does require one to recognize human dignity, which it would violate.


Of course we can't even debate this without present some actual geneva laws relavent to this.


Of course, let's play a little game, shall we? Either the experience is not something a muslim would find disgusting, abhorent and something that causes them great indignity and mental suffering, in which case, why would you advocate doing it as it would accomplish nothing, or it IS something that would do so, in which case it's torture.


I'm not advocating, i'm just saying how naive it is to think how raping someone is equal to rubbing meat in their face. Just because it's disturbing to them, doesn't make it torture. Would you think rubbing dog shit on a cross is torture to a christian?

and yet, that person could still have actually been disturbing the peace, regardless of whether he was arrested for it or not, yes?

Whether the police arrest someone for it or not does not change whether an act is factually a crime or not. So I really don't know why your'e going down this yellow brick road of inanity.

You have totally misunderstood. I'm saying that the offense of disturbing the peace, is different to me saying "disturbing the peace". The former has a strict definition of what is and isn't disturbing the peace, the second is subjective to the opinion of the accuser, that makes it meaningless.

History Channel, news on the radio and in magazines, images, some of which were posted here, and articles, many of which were posted here.

I'll search them now.

I googled it and nothing came up.

Neither please?

This is treating Islam rather than terrorists as the enemy, and it's fucking stupid. We'd piss off a ton or people who've done us no harm, and possibly give them cause to wonder why they haven't.

We're[the USA] at war with fundy terrorists groups that are Muslim, all the POWs caught that have been confirmed terrorists for these fundy groups have to be Islamic or else they wouldn't be fundy and thus would have no reason for being terrorist. Why would innocent Muslims be in POW camps? Its only confirmed fundy terrorist group members that are there so logistically only Muslim terrorists would be tortured and the innocent Muslims would not be arrested unless they were doing something suspicious.

No it wouldn't. The geneva convention doesn't require you to treat the inmates like royalty, rubbing meat in someones face is hardly even psychological torture.

Geneva Convention? Hell, we don't even need it to show this is illegal. Even if we take the standard U.S. view and assume most of these people aren't subject to the Geneva Convention, there's still a little something called the UN Convention Against Torture. That one protects anyone and covers "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental."

I googled it and nothing came up.

try "gitmo" and "sexual abuse" or something along those lines.

Geneva Convention? Hell, we don't even need it to show this is illegal. Even if we take the standard U.S. view and assume most of these people aren't subject to the Geneva Convention, there's still a little something called the UN Convention Against Torture. That one protects anyone and covers "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental."

Notice the word severe. Anyone whos hung around with Al Qaida is hardly going to find that particularly mentally disturbing.

We're[the USA] at war with fundy terrorists groups that are Muslim, all the POWs caught that have been confirmed terrorists for these fundy groups have to be Islamic or else they wouldn't be fundy and thus would have no reason for being terrorist. Why would innocent Muslims be in POW camps? Its only confirmed fundy terrorist group members that are there so logistically only Muslim terrorists would be tortured and the innocent Muslims would not be arrested unless they were doing something suspicious.

You'll forgive my skepticism about your claims that, of a group of people who don't even get trials, 100% are guilty. We have enough trouble ensuring that with trials here in the United States. But that's beside the point.

The point is that "interrogation methods" like this show the Muslims who aren't our enemies that we don't respect their religion, and they lend credence to bin Laden's claims that the United States and other Western countries are "Crusaders" and "the enemies of Islam." Feeding that propaganda is going to cost us more lives than we could hope to save by torturing these suspects.

Back to the pig thing. Anyway, it has historical precedent, whether or not the writer knew that.

After the US took the Philippines, there was a great deal of Islamic unrest (If you didn’t know, more soldiers died from their attacks than in the Spanish-American War). One of the military attaches was General John Pershing, a captain at the time, who was essentially the military governor for that sector. Anyway, his decision, after trying to suppress the revolt was to bury those Muslims in pig intestine. Needless to say, it did drastically slow down, if not completely stop the revolt.

Notice the word severe. Anyone whos hung around with Al Qaida is hardly going to find that particularly mentally disturbing.

If that's the case, it's not particularly useful as an interrogation technique, is it? Illegal or ineffective, it's a terrible idea either way.

*NSG begins to implode* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12767182&postcount=37)

Your breathing privileges have been restored. ;)

you know...still waiting for you to say something that's a good idea.

you know...still waiting for you to say something that's a good idea.

you didn't even read my idea did you? I already stated the pros now you do your part and state the cons, if any.

All i found was this

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/hicks-sexually-abused-says-father/2005/10/31/1130720481657.html

but the Australian government has said there was no evidence to support the claims.


try "gitmo" and "atrocities" or just "gitmo" alone

Notice the word severe. Anyone whos hung around with Al Qaida is hardly going to find that particularly mentally disturbing.

then it's hardly going to work then will it? As I said, you can't have it both ways, either it's not severe...in which case it's just not going to do shit, or it is severe, in which case it violates a whole bunch of charters and treaties.

If it doesn't bother them, how is it an interogation technique?

try "gitmo" and "sexual abuse" or something along those lines.

All i found was this

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/hicks-sexually-abused-says-father/2005/10/31/1130720481657.html

but the Australian government has said there was no evidence to support the claims.

If that's the case, it's not particularly useful as an interrogation technique, is it? Illegal or ineffective, it's a terrible idea either way.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, i'm just saying it's no way as near as bad as rape.

you didn't even read my idea did you? I already stated the pros now you do your part and state the cons, if any.

no, the stupid idea you posted in another thread isn't relevant to the topic of this thread, which is an entirely seperate stupid idea of yours which has already been debunked.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, i'm just saying it's no way as near as bad as rape.

well....ok. And grabbing someone, tying them up and then shooting them in the head isn't as bad as grabbing someone, tying them up and slowly killing them by peeling their skin off in strips.

Doesn't mean we should DO it though.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, i'm just saying it's no way as near as bad as rape.

Sure. I'll accept that. I was just responding to your statement that the Geneva Convention didn't apply by pointing out that it didn't have to for this kind of thing to be illegal.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, i'm just saying it's no way as near as bad as rape.

That depends entirely on the person you're doing it too. An especially devout muslim might prefer to be raped. I dare say most other people would prefer the pig fetus.

In the Gitmo many POWs were raped and sexually abused

And, um, by the way, I do believe you're talking about Abu Ghraib. How can you expect us to take you seriously if you don't even bother to ensure you know the foundational basis of your discussion?

Back to the pig thing. Anyway, it has historical precedent, whether or not the writer knew that.

After the US took the Philippines, there was a great deal of Islamic unrest (If you didn’t know, more soldiers died from their attacks than in the Spanish-American War). One of the military attaches was General John Pershing, a captain at the time, who was essentially the military governor for that sector. Anyway, his decision, after trying to suppress the revolt was to bury those Muslims in pig intestine. Needless to say, it did drastically slow down, if not completely stop the revolt.

Urban Legend.

You know, 10 years ago if the US Government were to be accused of torturing people there would have been a huge public outcry. Now, unbelievably, some people actually support it. Of course, this can mean only one thing:

The terrorists have won.

I defy labels. :)

LG the clown. Hah, try and shake that off.

You know, 10 years ago if the US Government were to be accused of torturing people there would have been a huge public outcry. Now, unbelievably, some people actually support it. Of course, this can mean only one thing:

The terrorists have won.

You win the thread.

Urban Legend.

No, it was and has been documented on many occasions. From journalists to the memoirs/biographies of the Governor-Generals of the Moro province. I would recommend to you, one book in particular. Until the Last Trumpet Sounds, the most extensive biography of Pershing.

Or you could just read his own papers, which speak of what his tactics were. Or you could read the memoirs of Governor-Generals Leonard Wood, and Tasker Bliss, who both wrote about burying the Moros in pig intestine.

You know, 10 years ago if the US Government were to be accused of torturing people there would have been a huge public outcry. Now, unbelievably, some people actually support it. Of course, this can mean only one thing:

The terrorists have won.

As little difference as it makes, since I don't post all that much....

sigged, for absolute agreement.

Do we have a source yet, or are we still being told to look it up?

He who makes the statement must provide the proof.

Neither please?

This is treating Islam rather than terrorists as the enemy, and it's fucking stupid. We'd piss off a ton or people who've done us no harm, and possibly give them cause to wonder why they haven't.

that is an outstanding point you have.

to the op,while i am sure rape occurs with soldiers of any armed force in the world,i am equally certain that it is not condoned,nor regularaly practised by the u.s. military
i have many friends in the military,my son and best friend as well,and i can assure you they would beat you unconcious if they caught you raping anyone!
that is a non argument you have..it is premised on the idea that it is policy of the military which is ludicrous to the extreme.(maybe in bosnia,and other 3rd world countries,but certainly not in the u.s. military.

as too the whole pork thing..lol...that is plain stupid,and re read to what i replied too...that pretty much sums it up(counterproductive to the least)

as for torture in general?
i believe the u.s. needs to be on the moral highground here,for world opinion and more importantly,a moral obligation to this countries constitution and ethics.
however we are at war with fanatical and insanely violent people that would not think twice to kill your children or you.anyone for that matter that does not agree with there warped and perverted ideas.
so,i guess you cant just lock them up and do nothing if you have potential intelligence you can extract ,that may prevent an upcoming atrocity,and more loss of innocent life.
i do think that it can be done without physical abuse,without extreme mental torture,without resorting to being a fucking animal as bad as the enemy.
they can use mild mental torture in my opinion,like sllep depravation and truth inducing drugs.

basically your argument is bluntly...foolish.

The 'terrorists' should merely be forced to debate on NSG for about a week. Not only will they spill their proverbial 'guts', but will become addicted so the soldiers won't even need to rub pig-pancreas on them to initiate the next torture session.

That being said, the title of this thread is really irking me...
It is interrogation, not intogeration.

You know, 10 years ago if the US Government were to be accused of torturing people there would have been a huge public outcry. Now, unbelievably, some people actually support it. Of course, this can mean only one thing:

The terrorists have won.

I'd sig it if I had room. But you win this thread.

This better be satire.

He's not clever enough.

He's not clever enough.

Yes I am (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12767813&postcount=5)

You've broken the rules for far too long. Your only purpose for posting here is to post malicious personal attacks and defamatory flames, trolls, and spam.

You know, 10 years ago if the US Government were to be accused of torturing people there would have been a huge public outcry. Now, unbelievably, some people actually support it. Of course, this can mean only one thing:

The terrorists have won.

You have summed up this whole argument beautifully, thank you. :)



BTW, what happened to "original" Wallonochia?

LG the clown. Hah, try and shake that off.

Sometimes I'm a physicist. :)

You've broken the rules for far too long. Your only purpose for posting here is to post malicious personal attacks and defamatory flames, trolls, and spam.

Neesika is one of the best posters on here.

They should have lie detectors hooked to them while torturing them.

Yeah, lie detectors which measures symptoms of stress... It's highly unlikely that someone in extreme pain is distressed right...:rolleyes: Get a clue.

BTW, what happened to "original" Wallonochia?

It went away after I forgot to log in to NS with it for quite some time, and I don't really care enough to get it back.

They already have a means of using CAT scans, PET scans, and MRI to image activity in regions of the brain to discover when someone is lying (it's not based on stress - it's based on whether the person is thinking up a new idea, or remembering an old one - different parts of the brain fire depending on what the person is doing).

Add to this the fact that you can wire up the pain center of the brain and inflict many orders of magnitude more pain than can ever be physically experienced without physically harming the subject (no passing out, no dying). You can similarly wire up the pleasure center and give them orders of magnitude more pleasure than can be physically experienced (even orders of magnitude more blissful than any drug).

I'm sure that with that combination, you'll not only get answers, you'll be able to see when they're being deceptive.

No need to do something idiotic like the OP.

If you used Versed before you started, they wouldn't even remember being questioned at all - you could repeat the questioning, and then compare answers for yet another check on truthfulness (they wouldn't be able to remember anything made up as a lie during the interrogation session).

i can't resist it any longer...

intogeration... LOL :D is that some new euphemism for shagging?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden

One of the better articles on interrogation and its legal implications today.

The US is apparently not alone in condoning limited forms of interrogation.

An example of the German police using the threat of torture to solve a criminal case is in the article.

Not ALL my ideas are garbage, some are pretty good, this here is one of them I'd like to share that has to do with American war crimes.

I do hope this idea belongs to the "garbage" set, you know.


In the Gitmo many POWs were raped and sexually abused , the soldiers involved in their defense claimed that since Muslim men have certain beliefs on gender roles and being treated like a woman mentally tortures them that these sick atrocities would get them to spill their guts.

Excuse me.
1.Why do you equate "being raped" to "being treated like a woman"? Did you know that men can get raped, too? Or "being treated like a woman" is just staying "under" during a sexual intercourse? You seem pretty confused about gender roles, sexuality and rapes.


But why do that then if there's a probably more effective alternative that won't get US troops labeled as sick rapists? Why not just take pig fetuses, like the kind for dissections and rub it in the POW's face until he decided to talk? People would then say "serves those wackjob fundy terrorists right!" rather than "Ewwww American troops will do anything to anything. "


2.Like people wouldn't say "American troops and commanders are a bunch of sickoes" in this case.

3.Explain why this would force Muslim believers into betraying their own fellows. You know, eating pork, albeit forbidden, is tolerated by Islamic law if it's a matter of life and death (like if you don't have anything else to eat, and will starve to death if you don't eat it). Merely being forced to have contact with a pig foetus, albeit disgusting (and being clearly a biological weapon assault on a person), won't force ANYONE against his own beliefs and loyalties.

4.Anyway, it would be TORTURE OF POWS all the same. Let's face it: the American military uses torture (of various kind) to extract information from POWs - thus violating the Geneva convention, and moral codes also.

injecting in them

5.Who-hoo! Even giving them unnecessary and unwanted "medical" treatment! Go on violating a POW's rights.

Hell there should also be a false propaganda campaign saying that the US military for some reason now has pork blood or fat on all their bullets even though they don't. That really bruise enemy morale.

6.And US troops morale also. Did you know that there are Muslim believers in the US armed forces? Or did you think that only the Good Christians are allowed to enlist?

Really. You just managed to prove a lot of bad things about the US. Osama should give you a kiss.

Not ALL my ideas are garbage, some are pretty good

...

Why not just take pig fetuses, like the kind for dissections and rub it in the POW's face until he decided to talk?


Bit optimistic here methinks.

The terrorists have won.

You, sir, have the rare gift of perfect synthesis.

Ugh,

This whole forum pretty much fails at seeing this from a military or home security viewpoint. Any sort of "torture" or "interigation methods" is just seen as a violation of human rights. Period.

but the Australian government has said there was no evidence to support the claims.


The federal government isn't the greatest of truth tellers (general comment, not specifically related to this topic).

I defy labels. :)

Pie thrower!

No, it was and has been documented on many occasions. From journalists to the memoirs/biographies of the Governor-Generals of the Moro province. I would recommend to you, one book in particular. Until the Last Trumpet Sounds, the most extensive biography of Pershing.

Or you could just read his own papers, which speak of what his tactics were. Or you could read the memoirs of Governor-Generals Leonard Wood, and Tasker Bliss, who both wrote about burying the Moros in pig intestine.

Sorry, Urban Legend. (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm)

No evidence to support him ever doing that has been found. He never spoke of doing it in his own papers.

Ugh,

This whole forum pretty much fails at seeing this from a military or home security viewpoint. Any sort of "torture" or "interigation methods" is just seen as a violation of human rights. Period.

as they should be.

Pie thrower!

*swats you with pies for 20 minutes* :)

*swats you with pies for 20 minutes* :)

I'm glad I put my anorak on...