Wow, this ^ is really epic.
It's indeed that easy (contains strong words):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cV_q...eature=related

Spy is a term used by laypeople, nothing more.

How often does the press refer to something called a "spy satellite"? :damn:

This is typical western propaganda, the CIA crimes are much worse as it is the largest terrorist organization over known to mankind

You mean the Catholic Church? Doubtful.

The Catholic church didn't do torture, it was enhanced inquisiton techniques

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Good one! Now stolen for future (but properly credited) sig use. :sunny:

Ooh, a second account, and from last year. Yeah, that's a big no-no. Looks like I was right about you after all. Can I sniff 'em out or what?

Hm, yes, I never understood or forgave that torture was not called torture. I do not rule it out in all imaginable scenarios, though see it'S usefulness quite limited in opportunity. But to claim that implementing physical AGONY on the body (which is the purpose of waterboarding), and according cramps, physical reactions, psychological reactions, is not painful and is not torturing, is hypocrisy. If you use such means, then have the balls to call them by their proper names.

And of course waterboarding was/is effective just because it is so painful, and such terryfying to the mental soul. The body is made to believe that it dies. The psyche is reacting accordingly. There is severe physical pain and mental terror involved - that qualifies as torture, absolutely. If it were not so painful, why were some of the subjects then so cooperative afterwards? Were they thirsty and expressed their thankfulness for being given some water to drink?

In interrogation scenarios (torture also is used for non-discriminating terror against a population, and to break and destroy individuals) where the subject knows that it cannot escape but just can delay further torture when lying to avoid further aversive stimuli, torture can work and produce useful information. Point is the confessions must be immediately verifiable and checkable, and the subjkect must be convionced that it is so. Where that is not possible, I agree that the use of torture creates results that cannot be trusted.

In principle and for ethical reasons I oppose the use of torture as an ordinary tool of law-enforcement and crime research. Only where information refused by a suspect can end to major, serious, extraordinary damage for the community, or the victim(s) of a crime will suffer death or find miserable suffering, I must step back from principle rejection of torture - again for ethical reasons, for my ethics do not allow me to put the interest and well-being of a perpetrator above the interests of his victim(s) to stay alive and escape a gloomy fate.

Victim's interest goes first, perpetrator's interest is subordinate to that - that is my ethics. Their interests by far do not weigh equal. Not at all. Itr is immoral to see their interests as equal. And it is perverse to prioritize the interest of the perpetrator if the victim pays with its health or its life for that priority-setting.

I admit though that the problem lies in how to define criterions that make sure that no innocents gets tortured. That is a real dilemma, and I have no fail-safe solution to that. That possibility is a terrifying scenario, and that'S why I do not accept torture as a regular tool of law enforcement and policework, but being reserved for rare and extreme cases. Considering the individual case and not acting on the basis of routine patterns, is indispensable. It must be an exception from the rule, and not creepingly become a routine (like tazing, for example).

Well to be fair, he's not exactly original in his naming...

I wonder how much the Chinese Politburo pays him...

We're going up in the world to have our own incompetent Communist on the board. We should put him in a pen with Yubba for entertainment. :yep:

They would probably agree on too many things and end up committing suicide instead of facing the truth.

Well the date is an odd choice in that second profile name anyway it should have said 1893 or perhaps the year of the Long March.

What did the Commie surfer say?

Ohm papa mao mao... :DL

Mao don't surf.

Not for want of trying:

http://joelinker.files.wordpress.com...mming-head.jpg

Chairman Meow on the other hand:

http://www.dailystoke.com/wp-content...urfing_cat.jpg

:DL

Actually he's not swimming. He's standing on the heads of oppressed Chinese peasants. :yep:

Does that count as surfing? Body surfing perhaps? :03:

:haha::har:

Oh yes of course. Just like Palestinians are terrorists but the Contras in Nicaragua were Freedom Fighters.

Sadaam was a great ally of the West until 15 minutes before Bush Sr. announced the First Gulf War when he finally gave up trying to save one of his favourite proxies against Iran/Russia.

So how is it then? One has an unpatriotic bias when they refuse to use the canned propagandized nomenclature dreamt up by some spinster doing his best to warp the perception of the public to prevent obviously dubious activities from being regarded in a way which would jeopardize an upcoming election?

I never understood why people felt that patriotism meant buying all the BS their own side was peddling.

How do you even have a conversation with someone about politics and the world if their definition of Journalism is that someone is disgusting if they aren't a cheerleader for the home team.

Are we sure they knocked that wall down in Berlin?


As for the matter of torture. Well it may be useful, it may not be. It may have helped prevent some attacks, it may not have. Either way one should call it what it is. If you can't torture people and be honest about it without losing an election then don't do it, or pay the price of defending freedom and be a one term ducky.

What I find insulting is this insistence that A. they will insist they don't torture, and B. that they get credit for the results of said nonexistent torture. Its like a rapper that wants everyone to believe he wasn't really a Crip and yet insists his street cred is real as evidenced by the sales of his record.

Not to mention that "Yangtze Swim" was a total political stunt to make him appear strong after his failed "Great Leap Foward" of course the ones challenging his authority were no better.The water should have been red from the blood of those oppressed.