Torture

Counter insurgency

superb the light is on somewhere in this great land . You are aware that the terrorists that are fighting us in Iraq are TRULY by DEFENITION the "COUNTER INSURGENTS" as the US and British Forces are the "Insurgents" the terminology is so maligned by the media and the pentagon.....
 
Werbung:
First I'd have to ask you to define torture. The things that the media claim to be torture don't come close to torture in my book. I've got no problem with the stuff they do at Guantanamo. Water boarding? Go for it. Sleep deprivation? Even better. The whole naked human pyramid isn't torture. It's just amazingly stupid. I think I'd draw the line when you get into what was done to our POWs in Korea and Vietnam, and lets not forget what is being done to our POWs right now.
 
First I'd have to ask you to define torture. The things that the media claim to be torture don't come close to torture in my book. I've got no problem with the stuff they do at Guantanamo. Water boarding? Go for it. Sleep deprivation? Even better. The whole naked human pyramid isn't torture. It's just amazingly stupid. I think I'd draw the line when you get into what was done to our POWs in Korea and Vietnam, and lets not forget what is being done to our POWs right now.

Ya know, but its strange. Because what we saw in those weird snapshots from Abu Ghraib. Those people werent angry soldiers. In fact they didn't look like soldiers at all, they looked like the janitor staff at CostCo having a little fun on break. If there's a practical lesson from Abu Ghraib, it's that we can't afford to leave interrogation to losers like this. Not when every schmo's got a digital camera, and every other schmo wants to get his picture on CNN. The army's going to have to face the fact that prisoner guarding detail is a top-priority job that should be done by people who have a lot to lose if the dirty secrets of the job come out. New tech, new rules. From now on, it should be career officers with something to lose doing the torturing, not those West Virginia Hessians.

And the things they were doing weren't what angry frontline soldiers do to their prisoners. I mean, putting a prisoner on a box, a hood over his head, wires taped to his balls, and telling him if he falls off he'll get electrocuted, and having a naked male prisoner on a leash with a girl soldier laughing at him, and making somebody squat in an impossible position all day.

This stuff came out of a book: the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual, published by the CIA in the early '80s. It was a torture manual, but not the House of Bondage stuff you'd expect. The CIA said basically that the point of torture was to make the victim shrink back into a terrified little kid, and the best way to do that was to humiliate, confuse and just plain wear out the victim, not pull his fingernails out. So they stressed sleep deprivation, messing with his sense of time, and forcing him into weird postures, so when he fell he'd blame himself, not the torturer.

It was one of the most interesting books I ever read. For instance, they said that threatening to kill people was totally useless, because people who think they're going to be killed just turn into zombies. What you want is to make the subject into a blubbering baby, because then he'll talk. After five days with no sleep, women laughing at you naked, weird noises and non-stop screaming, you can't wait for the nice-cop interrogator to say, "They made you do it, didn't they? You didn't want to hurt anyone, did you? Tell us all about it."

When the blubbering baby spills the names, you go collect the people he fingered and do the same to them. It's all standard stuff. Which raises another question: how come it's not working? Let's face it, it's not. In fact I have to say that the Iraqi insurgents are so much more effective than I ever thought they'd be I can hardly believe it. Do any of you out there realize how damn hard it is to set off a bomb on a residential street and kill only the enemy, not a dozen of your own civilians? That's what they've been doing, every damn day.

There's only one way to pull off a string of successes like that: you have to have the backing of 100% of the local civilian population.

So here's the other big truth we have to deal with: we invaded Iraq. We didn't come to bring them democracy or Big Gulps or Get Smart reruns or whatever. We invaded their country and occupied their cities and put their old enemies in power, just because we were pissed off after 9/ll and it seemed like a good way to let off steam and corner the market on some cheap oil while we were at it. We weren't there to liberate anybody, and we shouldn't have expected the whole rose-petal parade treatment. So what it comes down to, as usual, is that nobody in the country wants to tell the truth.

You whiny, snotty liberals don't want to face the fact that torture is a central part of CI warfare, and you dumbass, gullible "conservatives" won't face the fact that we invaded Iraq, and invaders generate insurgencies. We faced that fact in Afghanistan, treated the locals like enemies, and won their respect. We went up to the Afghans with brass knuckles on one hand and a bouquet in the other, and we wonder why they don't love us.

When you lie to other people, it can work. When you lie to yourself, you pay.

We're going to be paying for Iraq for a long, long time.
 
Its rare you find someone who wants to talk truthfully about Torture. Probably because if you do, you have to rip open so many layers of bull****, it's like trying to get eighty years of bad wallpaper off a bedroom wall. Ever help a "friend" get a dozen layers of old wallpaper off? You don't need to fear Hell if you've done that.

Anyways, the biggest lie is that you can do counterinsurgency warfare without torture. Bull****. No army ever fought a CI campaign without resorting to torture. Goes with the territory. At most, it's like holding by your offensive line: you don't want them doing it where the ref can see it, but if you had an Offensive Guard or tight end who refused to do it, you'd fire his ass.

Because you can't win without it.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Just curious, if it's never been done, how could one prove that it could be? Start a CI campaign to prove it? Seems like a slightly extreme way to poke holes in an armchair general's theory.
 
Ya know, but its strange. Because what we saw in those weird snapshots from Abu Ghraib. Those people werent angry soldiers. In fact they didn't look like soldiers at all, they looked like the janitor staff at CostCo having a little fun on break. If there's a practical lesson from Abu Ghraib, it's that we can't afford to leave interrogation to losers like this. Not when every schmo's got a digital camera, and every other schmo wants to get his picture on CNN. The army's going to have to face the fact that prisoner guarding detail is a top-priority job that should be done by people who have a lot to lose if the dirty secrets of the job come out. New tech, new rules. From now on, it should be career officers with something to lose doing the torturing, not those West Virginia Hessians.

And the things they were doing weren't what angry frontline soldiers do to their prisoners. I mean, putting a prisoner on a box, a hood over his head, wires taped to his balls, and telling him if he falls off he'll get electrocuted, and having a naked male prisoner on a leash with a girl soldier laughing at him, and making somebody squat in an impossible position all day.

This stuff came out of a book: the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual, published by the CIA in the early '80s. It was a torture manual, but not the House of Bondage stuff you'd expect. The CIA said basically that the point of torture was to make the victim shrink back into a terrified little kid, and the best way to do that was to humiliate, confuse and just plain wear out the victim, not pull his fingernails out. So they stressed sleep deprivation, messing with his sense of time, and forcing him into weird postures, so when he fell he'd blame himself, not the torturer.

It was one of the most interesting books I ever read. For instance, they said that threatening to kill people was totally useless, because people who think they're going to be killed just turn into zombies. What you want is to make the subject into a blubbering baby, because then he'll talk. After five days with no sleep, women laughing at you naked, weird noises and non-stop screaming, you can't wait for the nice-cop interrogator to say, "They made you do it, didn't they? You didn't want to hurt anyone, did you? Tell us all about it."

When the blubbering baby spills the names, you go collect the people he fingered and do the same to them. It's all standard stuff. Which raises another question: how come it's not working? Let's face it, it's not. In fact I have to say that the Iraqi insurgents are so much more effective than I ever thought they'd be I can hardly believe it. Do any of you out there realize how damn hard it is to set off a bomb on a residential street and kill only the enemy, not a dozen of your own civilians? That's what they've been doing, every damn day.

There's only one way to pull off a string of successes like that: you have to have the backing of 100% of the local civilian population.

So here's the other big truth we have to deal with: we invaded Iraq. We didn't come to bring them democracy or Big Gulps or Get Smart reruns or whatever. We invaded their country and occupied their cities and put their old enemies in power, just because we were pissed off after 9/ll and it seemed like a good way to let off steam and corner the market on some cheap oil while we were at it. We weren't there to liberate anybody, and we shouldn't have expected the whole rose-petal parade treatment. So what it comes down to, as usual, is that nobody in the country wants to tell the truth.

You whiny, snotty liberals don't want to face the fact that torture is a central part of CI warfare, and you dumbass, gullible "conservatives" won't face the fact that we invaded Iraq, and invaders generate insurgencies. We faced that fact in Afghanistan, treated the locals like enemies, and won their respect. We went up to the Afghans with brass knuckles on one hand and a bouquet in the other, and we wonder why they don't love us.

When you lie to other people, it can work. When you lie to yourself, you pay.

We're going to be paying for Iraq for a long, long time.

Youre right about the purpose of torture. When I was in training at Fort Huachuca, the intel analysts' barracks were right across the interrogators' barracks. So on weekends we would get together and talk about classes and stuff. The things that I kept hearing from them is that they are never taught to violate the Geneva Convention, just good ways to get around the Geneva Convention. For instance, the Geneva Convention says that a prisoner has to be allowed 8 hours to sleep in every 24 hour period, it doesn't say those 8 hours have to be in a row. So they do a 2 hour interrogation, let them sleep for half an hour, wake them up for half an hour, let them sleep for an hour, and so on in an unpredictable fashion. The interrogator is never the one causing the discomfort. They are taught that the purpose of all of this is to make it seem like the interrogator is the only way to ever make it all stop. The prisoner should think of the interrogator as a nice guy that wants to help them, but can only do so if the prisoner is willing to play ball. Personally, I say more power to them.

One funny thing I heard is that a lot of the Guantanamo prisoners were claiming torture when all the were getting to eat were MRE's. Then they saw their guards eating the same thing and shut up about it.
 
ok well a few things here Im being devils advocate as i dont agree with this behavior at all if it is proven to be factual but a few things stuck out in the article

one was;
Despite widespread reports that the bodies found are those of Menchaca and Tucker, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell said that there would be no final confirmation of the identities until the families are notified.




and the other;
The claim couldn't be verified, but an Iraqi defense ministry official told reporters the two men were killed in a barbaric way, and that their bodies showed signs of torture.


so really at this point none of this is YET confirmed? Not that it wont be, but why are we commenting on allegations? We should wait, until we are Certain of what we are dealing with wouldnt you say?
 
Rex 84 was a plan to quell an uprising with a massive influx of illegal Immigrants from over the border. There were camps Built all over the united states in anticipation of the possibility of an event such as this

it was during the Reagan years you can dig up alot of information concerning the program. I am not suggesting you believe all of what you find .but the majoriy concensus is that it was a real program.

the camps have been photographed and video taped and are widely availible again look for your self and see what is or isnt true . but it is Known that there were "FEMA" camps setup in remote areas of the US and during Katrina after they starved the people out

they went in and "helped" them by shipping them off to the squalid camps in remote regions...as well Halliburton has recently recieved a contract to build "camps" in the United states

The camps exist theyre out there, and it started with Rex 84
 
Werbung:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROL20060820&articleId=3010


There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. . . The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.

Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government.

FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.
 
Back
Top