This sounds like when pics emerged of American troops pointing finger-guns at the genitals of Muslim men in potato sacks on baskets.
Holy shit, I can't find the Gitmo pics of the lady doing fingerguns at their junks. I'm sure I could if I spent enough time, but 4-5 searches didn't get their. That's even more disturbing. This was a huge issue.
Look for "Abu Ghraib pictures" and you'll find them.
It doesn't make it right, but those were mistreated POWs who arguably didn't have Geneva protections.
These are apparently random civilians.
Torture is torture, no matter if those in Iraq were civilians, guerilleros, militias or regular armed forces. It does not change a thing about the crime.
I think this is correct.
Torture is dehumanization.
If you're willing to torture a terrorist, or even a serial killer or something, then you have it in your nature to torture anyone for any reason.
Like people who abuse animals. It's engaging in and cultivating a very dark part of a person's nature, which can manifest in many different ways.
If you want to pretend it's not worse to torture random civilians out of pure spite than militants that's on you I guess.
Makes no difference. If torturing enemy combatants was acceptable, there would be no Geneva conventions. The moment they are captured and seize to actively take part in the conflict, they are protected from further harm.
So you believe that a single murder is just as evil as a genocide? That there is not a scale to evil?
That all crimes should result in the same sentence?
Because that is what you are arguing, that all evil is the same, and equally contemptible, with no shades of guilt or nuance.
I disagree, and I don't think you actually believe that either.
Nobody is arguing that it is more or less evil. The militant POW may face their own trials after the war, where a punishment is decided. But while they are a POW, they are unable to cause any damages. So they are also not allowed to be tortured.
You will find that the actual laws of the Geneva Conventions only protect signatories and those that agreed to abide by the rules, which Hamas and any terrorist organization by definition does not. Rather specifically does not.
But, as mentioned, irrelevant to the civilians in question as they are protected.
Random terrorists, though? Legally they can be shot and dumped in the nearest ditch.
Of course, legality is not morality.
Where did "single murder" and "genocide" come from anyway?
When they argued there isn't a difference between torturing random civilians for fun and humiliating (suspected) terrorists.
Lynch mobs are outlawed for a reason.
Ah, so that was just humiliation! I was not aware that that was what they were actually doing with the dogs and electric wires.
Some of those prisoners were not militants, just random civilians. Turned in by thier neighbors for a quick buck, is what happened.
Even I, who think the Palestinian leadership is full of shit and has been full of shit since before 1948, and think that using meat shields to protect military assets is the war crime, and that the civilian deaths that are occurring in the destruction of said tunnels are the foreseeable consequences of the aforementioned war crime, WILDLY AND ADAMANTLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. What my government did in Gitmo, The fact that there was a prison at all at Gitmo, is a shitstain on American honor. What these individuals in the IDF are doing, or are allowing fucking nut bag whacko settlers to do, is a shit stain on the reputation of Israel.
Didn't say it wasn't.
I said there's a difference between that and torturing random civilians for kicks.
All pow's are protected under the conventions...
That's why they created the "enemy combatant" nonsense, so they could "legally" torture people.
No no no you don't get it. We don't torture prisoners of war, that would be wrong. We may have subjected an enemy combatant to enhanced interrogation including intimate humiliation until the combatant achieved cessation of vitality, but that's different because I want it to be.
would this be after we decided that every male over the age of 12 was an enemy combatant regardless of their actions?
If you've got a picture of a twelve year old in Abu Ghraib, feel free to share.
Or don't, because, you know.
Or the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. But don't worry, the perpetrators got severely punished by being dishonorably discharged from the US Army. Then two of them married each other.
Edit: Looks like you are already referring to the Abu Ghraib tortures.
I'm unfamiliar with that event but what does two of them getting married have to do with anything? Seems a very strange thing to include.
Tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. They permanently damaged others' lives and went on without repercussions other than a slap on the wrist.
Ah okay, thanks for the clarification
And apparently they each found a soulmate that also enjoys torturing people, which is nice for them I guess.
Wow, I really thought "this guy just didn't look hard enough, they're there".
This sounds like when pics emerged of American troops pointing finger-guns at the genitals of Muslim men in potato sacks on baskets.
Holy shit, I can't find the Gitmo pics of the lady doing fingerguns at their junks. I'm sure I could if I spent enough time, but 4-5 searches didn't get their. That's even more disturbing. This was a huge issue.
Look for "Abu Ghraib pictures" and you'll find them.
Also, here - https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
It doesn't make it right, but those were mistreated POWs who arguably didn't have Geneva protections.
These are apparently random civilians.
Torture is torture, no matter if those in Iraq were civilians, guerilleros, militias or regular armed forces. It does not change a thing about the crime.
I think this is correct.
Torture is dehumanization.
If you're willing to torture a terrorist, or even a serial killer or something, then you have it in your nature to torture anyone for any reason.
Like people who abuse animals. It's engaging in and cultivating a very dark part of a person's nature, which can manifest in many different ways.
If you want to pretend it's not worse to torture random civilians out of pure spite than militants that's on you I guess.
Makes no difference. If torturing enemy combatants was acceptable, there would be no Geneva conventions. The moment they are captured and seize to actively take part in the conflict, they are protected from further harm.
So you believe that a single murder is just as evil as a genocide? That there is not a scale to evil?
That all crimes should result in the same sentence?
Because that is what you are arguing, that all evil is the same, and equally contemptible, with no shades of guilt or nuance.
I disagree, and I don't think you actually believe that either.
Nobody is arguing that it is more or less evil. The militant POW may face their own trials after the war, where a punishment is decided. But while they are a POW, they are unable to cause any damages. So they are also not allowed to be tortured.
You will find that the actual laws of the Geneva Conventions only protect signatories and those that agreed to abide by the rules, which Hamas and any terrorist organization by definition does not. Rather specifically does not.
But, as mentioned, irrelevant to the civilians in question as they are protected.
Random terrorists, though? Legally they can be shot and dumped in the nearest ditch.
Of course, legality is not morality.
Where did "single murder" and "genocide" come from anyway?
When they argued there isn't a difference between torturing random civilians for fun and humiliating (suspected) terrorists.
Lynch mobs are outlawed for a reason.
Ah, so that was just humiliation! I was not aware that that was what they were actually doing with the dogs and electric wires.
Some of those prisoners were not militants, just random civilians. Turned in by thier neighbors for a quick buck, is what happened.
Even I, who think the Palestinian leadership is full of shit and has been full of shit since before 1948, and think that using meat shields to protect military assets is the war crime, and that the civilian deaths that are occurring in the destruction of said tunnels are the foreseeable consequences of the aforementioned war crime, WILDLY AND ADAMANTLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. What my government did in Gitmo, The fact that there was a prison at all at Gitmo, is a shitstain on American honor. What these individuals in the IDF are doing, or are allowing fucking nut bag whacko settlers to do, is a shit stain on the reputation of Israel.
Didn't say it wasn't.
I said there's a difference between that and torturing random civilians for kicks.
All pow's are protected under the conventions...
That's why they created the "enemy combatant" nonsense, so they could "legally" torture people.
would this be after we decided that every male over the age of 12 was an enemy combatant regardless of their actions?
If you've got a picture of a twelve year old in Abu Ghraib, feel free to share.
Or don't, because, you know.
Or the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. But don't worry, the perpetrators got severely punished by being dishonorably discharged from the US Army. Then two of them married each other.
Edit: Looks like you are already referring to the Abu Ghraib tortures.
I'm unfamiliar with that event but what does two of them getting married have to do with anything? Seems a very strange thing to include.
Tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. They permanently damaged others' lives and went on without repercussions other than a slap on the wrist.
Ah okay, thanks for the clarification
And apparently they each found a soulmate that also enjoys torturing people, which is nice for them I guess.
Wow, I really thought "this guy just didn't look hard enough, they're there".
Uh, spoilers: I did not find them.