Difference between revisions of "Talk:Torture"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(United States)
(United States: reply)
Line 87: Line 87:
 
:::: I know you didn't add the statement. I agree with you that if I find source unacceptable, I should be able to tell you a source, but I am not a person that digs for dirt on Old Glory. Try contributing more and less talk because you are borderline on the 90/10 rule.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt|  ]]</sup> 16:58, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 
:::: I know you didn't add the statement. I agree with you that if I find source unacceptable, I should be able to tell you a source, but I am not a person that digs for dirt on Old Glory. Try contributing more and less talk because you are borderline on the 90/10 rule.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt|  ]]</sup> 16:58, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::So in other words, no source in line with the so-called "liberal agenda" is reputable (by assertion), and if such source does exist, you don't know about it therefore we can't use it? Do you have any actual evidence why AI or HRW are disreputable, or is it just because they are liberal? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:31, 24 October 2008 (EDT) PS: I'm nowhere near 90/10
 
::::::So in other words, no source in line with the so-called "liberal agenda" is reputable (by assertion), and if such source does exist, you don't know about it therefore we can't use it? Do you have any actual evidence why AI or HRW are disreputable, or is it just because they are liberal? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:31, 24 October 2008 (EDT) PS: I'm nowhere near 90/10
 +
 +
:::::::You are correct, the liberal agenda sources, let me rephrase, anti-American sources are no good. While we cite NYT and WaPo sometimes, we avoid liberal hate site like Huffington and Daily Kos. This is not a neutral site, it is from a Conservative viewpoint. This is not an American bash site either. You want to be fair, you want balance, I want Conservatism. I don't have to explain the complete bias of Shamnesty Intl. and HRW is a homosexual rights organization. If I don't know the source, no HelpJazz, you can add it. If I know it to be liberal, I will point it out everytime. We can't use it... sounds condescending. I am not gestapo of CP. I have been known to back down on issues where I HAVE BEEN WRONG. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt|  ]]</sup> 17:42, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:42, 24 October 2008

BEFORE YOU REVERT, READ THIS:

The source you site says one album, the slim shady album, but not as a "standard method." It is intellectually dishonest to report it otherwise. Flippin 17:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

By far most commonly reported method of torture is physical beatings - other commonly reported methods include:" Explain how this mean Eminem, please. Flippin 18:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's stick to the facts. the ABC News source reads as follows:
...ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.
They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report.
Other portions of their accounts echo the accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan.
...The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said.
Several interesting things to discuss, (1) use of anonymous sources; (2) what is the source of the statement, "Other portions of their accounts echo the accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan", i.e. where did this information come from? (3) what "portions" have been corroborated, and what corroborated "portions" are in this news item; (4) where is the Inspector General's report. (5) These "sources" specifically cited, "Eminem's "Slim Shady" album", and for some reason Brian Ross and Richard Espisito felt the necessity to cite this first. RobS 18:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Pleae note, the source does not say loud, it says foreign. RobS 20:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
"They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," one prisoner said through a translator. The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said."
You plainly think torture is a joke, and want to be sure that conservapedia reflects that. How contemptible.--PF Fox 21:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
See #2 above, "accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan"; let's assume this is the source of the statement, "one prisoner said through a translator", because it couldn't have come from anywhere else, as the US does not allow detainees to speak with reporters. This raises several very interesting issues about ABC News and this article.
(1) This unnamed source is the only alleged victim of torture quoted. (2) How, and where did ABC News obtain direct access to this source. (3) Did ABC News infact have direct access to this source. (4) Assuming this statement can be ascribed to an escapee from a CIA interrogation center in Afghanistan, why should it be treated with any more validity than anything he told CIA under interrogation? We can presume he does not have anything nice to say about his captors, and as demonstrated in the article, why should we not presume the escapee told ABC News what ABC News wanted to hear, just as other alleged torture victims made up stories and told their torturers what they wanted to hear.
So, other than this escapee -- and we can conclude this is the only direct testimony of an alleged torture victim cited in this article -- what credible source can testify they either underwent, or were a witness to, torture? RobS 21:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
So, now you're questioning your own source? Interesting. --PF Fox 16:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
It was never my source; but you may wish to see Conservapedia talk:Attribution for the relevent issues at hand. Anonymous sources are problematic, and anonymous CIA sources are problematic in particular. RobS 16:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Rap is not torture

You might be a parody, or something, but I'll bite for now. The problem is that they made the people listen to foreign music, not just Slim Shady. I think what you are doing is pushing your POV that listening to rap is a kind of torture, which is patently false.

Consider, if the prisoners had been forced to listen to Johnny Cash, would you be pushing so hard to get this statement it? Here is another source to consider (though I'm sure no one here likes the BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3042907.stm. THAT article states:


Uncooperative prisoners are being exposed for prolonged periods to tracks by rock group Metallica and music from children's TV programmes Sesame Street and Barney in the hope of making them talk. The US's Psychological Operations Company (Psy Ops) said the aim was to break a prisoner's resistance through sleep deprivation and playing music that was culturally offensive to them." Sergeant Mark Hadsell, of Psy Ops, told Newsweek magazine: "These people haven't heard heavy metal. They can't take it. If you play it for 24 hours, your brain and body functions start to slide, your train of thought slows down and your will is broken. That's when we come in and talk to them." Sgt Hadsell's favourites are said to be 'Bodies' from the XXX film soundtrack and Metallica's 'Enter Sandman'. The theme tune from the US children's programme Sesame Street and songs from the purple singing dinosaur Barney are also on their hit list. "In training, they forced me to listen to the Barney "I Love You" song for 45 minutes. I never want to go through that again," one US operative told the magazine.


So, if you are so keen on including Eminem, maybe we should start a whole category of ''Artists work used as torture''. Frankly, I think pushing this POV of yours is boring and a waste of time, but I wanted to point out that as you keep reverting to get this one little thing in to make Conservapedia look silly, you disregard the greater issue. The point is to list various methods used as torture, not to pick on rap because you have an axe to grind. Flippin 09:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let's cut to the quick. This whole section,
The US has been criticized for using waterboarding as a coercive interrogation technique, on the grounds that it amounts to torture.[1], as an interrogation method at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp [2][3][4] and also kidnapping people of Middle Eastern descent in a process known as extraordinary rendition.
  1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html
  2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1981955,00.html
  3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=377623&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490
  4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm
was excised [1] along with the refs, because none of it, NONE OF IT, was supported by the underlying cites. It had originally been inserted by a now indefinetely banned vandaled. It also had been reinserted by a Sysop during a previous edit war. The same fraudulent misinformation appears in other Conservapedia articles. The problems with the ABC News cite, which is not wholesale misinformation, but does contain questionable material, have been outlined here above, and elsewhere. [2]
We can conclude, the source of the quote, "They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," came from a prisoner whom ABC News describes as one of several "escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan." [3] This assertion by ABC News itself raises several extremely problematic concerns that need to be addressed which will be expanded upon if necessary. Most importantly, this quote is the only direct evidence coming from an alleged eyewitness to torture in that entire news article. Serious questions remain about all of ABC News's anonymous sources, the credibility of several of these sources, the methods and motivations of ABC News in publishing highly questionable material of this nature which appears intended to inflame passions, and ultimately ABC News's own credibility if they cannot answer some of these questions. RobS 09:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Are you arguing that because this is a direct quote it deserves to be mentioned as "By far [a] most commonly reported method of torture...?" That is lame. There are many different methods used, yet you have chosen to cite this one example. I can't conclude (from that chunk of writing above) why Eminem must be in the list. That's all. Just say, Eminem should be in there because I don't like him, or whatever, and we'll move on. I see that this is a direct quote, but there are many on this topic. Flippin 10:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Unprotect

This page needs to be unprotected. This blatant attempt to push POV is embarrassing. Flippin 09:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Page is unprotected. RobS 17:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's see what you can do with ABC cite. RobS 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
If you haven't already, may I remove Eminem from the list, please? Flippin 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
You can try, but what are you gonna do with the ABC News cite? It either has to be removed completely, or cited to some information in the article properly. Honestly, I hate to see it go, but I just haven't figured out a way to keep it yet. RobS 17:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. I am glad that is settled for now and happy we could come to a reasonable conclusion without banning anybody. Flippin 18:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Me too. (I only ban for trolling). I'm a firm beleiver in reasoned discourse & discussion, know that I don't know everything, and try hard to encourage collaboration. RobS 20:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
To further clarify or confuse things, CIA Inspector General John Helgerson is the only named source in the ABC News piece. [4] Turns out Mary McCarthy, the CIA employee fired for breaches of classified information (who incidentally was hired by Sandy Berger) was Helgerson's assistant. RobS 23:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Image

Is this image still family-friendly? Maupiti 17:12, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

No. It also doesn't seem to have a source. I have removed it. HelpJazz 23:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

United States

Amnesty Intl is not a reputable source, more in line with a liberalism agenda.--Jpatt 16:28, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

AI is not a reputable source? Then please tell me an organization that tracks matters such as this that would be a reputable org. NateE Let Us Communicate 16:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Correct, not a reputable source. Sorry, I am not mistaken. I don't know who is reputable but I know who is not. Don't use Human Rights Watch either, another liberalism agenda. If you want to make America look bad, try Wikipedia. --Jpatt 16:42, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I didn't add the information in question, but if you're going to claim that any source is non a good example, you should at least be able to give some examples of who would be acceptable. NateE Let Us Communicate 16:51, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I know you didn't add the statement. I agree with you that if I find source unacceptable, I should be able to tell you a source, but I am not a person that digs for dirt on Old Glory. Try contributing more and less talk because you are borderline on the 90/10 rule.--Jpatt 16:58, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
So in other words, no source in line with the so-called "liberal agenda" is reputable (by assertion), and if such source does exist, you don't know about it therefore we can't use it? Do you have any actual evidence why AI or HRW are disreputable, or is it just because they are liberal? HelpJazz 17:31, 24 October 2008 (EDT) PS: I'm nowhere near 90/10
You are correct, the liberal agenda sources, let me rephrase, anti-American sources are no good. While we cite NYT and WaPo sometimes, we avoid liberal hate site like Huffington and Daily Kos. This is not a neutral site, it is from a Conservative viewpoint. This is not an American bash site either. You want to be fair, you want balance, I want Conservatism. I don't have to explain the complete bias of Shamnesty Intl. and HRW is a homosexual rights organization. If I don't know the source, no HelpJazz, you can add it. If I know it to be liberal, I will point it out everytime. We can't use it... sounds condescending. I am not gestapo of CP. I have been known to back down on issues where I HAVE BEEN WRONG. --Jpatt 17:42, 24 October 2008 (EDT)