ClumsyMonkey.net

Hey all

I was reading in the paper an experiment conducted by a pych class in Stanford back in '71. They constructed a prison and randomly chose 24 people to be prisoners and guards. The situation turned out like abu gharib. Anyone who doesn't have guard training and is given the sudden power of practically unlimited control over a human being will probably abuse it. The study had to be cancelled over a few days because guards physically and sexually abused the prisoners almost the exact same way.
The guards then hooked wires to prisoners. The prisoners were given questions. For each question wrong, the guards were to give the prisoners a shock. The shocks became more intense until they reached 450 volts. Fortunately, these prisoners were really actors and the wires weren't real. But an alarming 65% of the guards continued sending shocks to the prisoners despite knowing it could cause death.

I'm not here to argue a political side. I'm here to show how easily people can be corrupted. The abu gharib guards weren't a few bad apples in a good barrel, but rather good apples in a bad barrel. Humans are easily corrupted, and normal people can do horrible things in the right circumstances.

70x7 wrote:I am sick that this gets so much attention. Yes, what these Americans did is beyond wrong. And they will be punished. And they should be punished. But the people IN those prisons did something to deserve to get there. If they were downright evil I say they had it coming to them.

More than 60% of the people in prison were innocent civilians. They were picked up during patrols, at checkpoints, etc. There are children in that prison. Are they 'downright evil' too?

This is SPITTING in the face of American military tradition. During WW2, the Americans were known for being the most respectful and mindful of their prisoners. They followed the Geneva Convention to the letter, going far beyond . Now look where they are. The type of punishment the prisoners received was specifically chosen to be as humiliating and degrading as possible to the religion and culture. In many ways, it was WORSE than just killing them.

But, apparently, these people don't fall under the Geneva Convention, and therefore, don't deserve to be treated like human beings.

FUCK YOU if you actually fall for that kind of bullshit. This is a staring contest between Bush and Al Quaeda, and neither side is willing to blink. And innocent people like Nicholas Berg are ending up in the crossfire.

(I still think you're cool, Cass. )

well my question still stands, but i think i know your circumstances, they're for the most part if the building is full of Muslims or American's. A building full of muslims is a mistake, or casualty of war. A building full of americans is a tragedy. At this point i would like to post another quote that clearly states my way of thinking on the matter


"the suicide bomber kills in person and is called a murderer and a coward. The liberator kills from a great distance and is called a Hero and a Freedom Fighter. Innocent lives can be lost as a form of virtue, but only by accident, even if the chance of the accident is certain. "Terrorism" thus becomes a question not of killing innocent people but of choosing or not choosing who exactly is likely to die."

The word terrorism to most North American's only seems to apply to American's and European's dying. "Freedom fighter" is put upon the shoulders of those invading and oppressing countries. "Terrorist, Rebel, Coward, Evil and murderer are all used to describe men fighting an occupation.

FUCK YOU if you actually fall for that kind of bullshit. This is a staring contest between Bush and Al Quaeda, and neither side is willing to blink. And innocent people like Nicholas Berg are ending up in the crossfire.

(I still think you're cool, Cass. )

Hm....I'm not sure how to take that. You can't think I'm cool if you think I'm an idiot.

I don't know what prisoners got what treatment, but if they truly were innocent prisoners then those guards should have the death penalty as far as I'm concerned.

ETA to add a word I forgot

no, i just disagree with you on this. you're a nice person otherwise.

i think you're underestimating how serious this is, though. i used to live in that region, and some of the stuff prisoners were forced to do falls just short of killing babies in their minds.

seeing that poor woman screaming and crying while she was being raped as like a half-dozen men watched made me feel ill, and sad for society. we should be beyond atrocities like that. it upsets me that people aren't as horrified by it as i was.

pee pee

Wow you people posted a lot in one day

Ok i'm going to start at the begining.

70x7 wrote:I am sick that this gets so much attention. Yes, what these Americans did is beyond wrong. And they will be punished. And they should be punished. But the people IN those prisons did something to deserve to get there. If they were downright evil I say they had it coming to them.

Why shouldn't it get attention? A horrible thing has happened, and it needs to be examined.

Furthermore, you say that if they're in that prison they desrve the things that happened to them. With all due respect, just who are you to be making that decision? Why is your definition of evil the one we are to accept?

If you're going to say that it's not your decision, but that of GWB and the american military, then tell me why THEY have the right to decide how other people's lives will be used.

If someone is a terrorist, they deserved what they got! I don't care what you say, they did. If they were innocent, then they didn't deserve it and those people should be put in jail! I don't condone what they did at all. They are just as evil as the terrorists. And evil is a real term, Bush didn't make it up. Evil is not a relative term, you can't justify it.

Again, you're very firm here. You're using your opinion as fact. If you believe that someone is a terrorist, you must first prove it before you can assert it this strongly.

Can you prove that one single solitary person in that prison was a terrorist?

Secondly, if you feel that they "deserved" it, you have to prove that as well. This is a subjective debate, but your tone is making it sound very objective. Why?

If evil is not a realitive term, then there must be a measurable and testable method of determining what evil is and how evil an act is. I believe evil is a subjective term because there is no way to quantify and measure it. Do you disagree?

I'm not going to quote the diologue about Nick Berg, but i will say that through that conversation as well you (Cass) are using very closed langauge. "If he wanted to help, he should have enlisted or used the proper chanels!" Again, and i'm not trying to start a flame war here but, who are you to make that choice for him? you make it sound like he "deserved" it.

And now something from a republican:

Joanne wrote:Prisioners get abused in wars, every war in fact. It just so happens that this time, we've got thousands of soldiers over there with digital cameras and the democratic news has nothing else to talk about.

I love how republicans use the "it happens all the time" excuse. When your son/daughter comes home high on crack, will you accept it if he tells you that "everybody else is doing it, and in every high school kids smoke crack?"

Rapes occur in every civilization. So does murder. Does this make it ok?

Your justification is completely irrational. Furthermore, pretending like this wouldn't be an issue if the "democrats" had something else to do is juvenile.

And I did see stories on Daniel Pearl. Lots of them.

Now we get to the discussion about what is terrorism. First of all, I have a self-promoting rant:

I have principles. When somebody asks me what the definition of right is, I don't stutter when I answer. My ideology deals in objectives, not contradicitions and circumstances.

Cass, you can't tell him what evil is unless you know all the circumstances, which means that if person X commits an act you may consider it evil, but not if person Y commits that exact same action only under different circumstances (location, time, or context).

This creates a contradiction, and proves that your line of reasoning is illogical.

There shouldn't be double standards when it comes to things like this. The piece of dirt that a person was born on shouldn't, as Sean points out, determine whether their death is terrorism or an accident.

A:

Man is waiting in line at a supermarket to pay for groceries. Woman walks in line behind him, pulls out gun and shoots man in chest because he was an ex-boyfriend.

B:

Woman is walking home alone late at night. A man jumps out from behind a bush and attacks her. Woman is able to fight him off, pull a gun from her purse and shoots him in the chest.

Different circumstances, same act of "evil". Should be treated the same?

Rapes occur in every civilization. So does murder. Does this make it ok?

I geuss that's just your opinion, maybe some people think it's ok. Maybe there is no such thing as evil and we shouldn't try to define it. I know my opinion really isn't the basis that is used for determing what is and what isn't evil, that's why I'm posting it on a damn message board.

Corey is right, some things are justifiable, but it doesn't make the outcome any less tragic. You cannot just say "you shot someone so you go to jail" and that's that. That's the whole reason we have a judicial system. If it was "that is that", then there would be no need.

And I didn't falter when he asked me my values, I can list them any time I want. But I'm not in the debate to give him my values to disprove that Bush isn't who I want to vote for before because he doesn't meet my values in a way that is satisfactory to him.

Corey wrote:A:

Man is waiting in line at a supermarket to pay for groceries. Woman walks in line behind him, pulls out gun and shoots man in chest because he was an ex-boyfriend.

B:

Woman is walking home alone late at night. A man jumps out from behind a bush and attacks her. Woman is able to fight him off, pull a gun from her purse and shoots him in the chest.

Different circumstances, same act of "evil". Should be treated the same?

ah, but what if that ex-boyfriend had been threatening to kill the woman, and she was so scared when she saw him she did it first? what if the entire time they were dating he was sexually abusing her two-year-old daughter and was acquitted for the crime?

circumstances are important, but we can't ever know all of them. we make the best decision based on what we have.

i don't believe those soldiers were evil. i believe they've spent the last few years being convinced everyday, by the 'democratic media', by the injuries and deaths of their fellow soldiers, by the constant fear and threat that seems to pervade the US right now, that those prisoners were evil, be they man, woman, or child. they grew to believe that they were disgusting, weak, cowardly pieces of shit who deserved whatever they got.

we *all* need to rise above that kind of attitude.

I think you and I are making the same point. That circumstances do indeed determine the justification of any single action.

A:

Man is waiting in line at a supermarket to pay for groceries. Woman walks in line behind him, pulls out gun and shoots man in chest because he was an ex-boyfriend.

B:

Woman is walking home alone late at night. A man jumps out from behind a bush and attacks her. Woman is able to fight him off, pull a gun from her purse and shoots him in the chest.

Different circumstances, same act of "evil". Should be treated the same?

They're not the same. In "A" you have an act of aggressive force. In "B" you have a woman acting to save her own life. "A" is coercive whereas "B" is not.

They are not the same.

Man, the bible-thumpers must hate YOU

Corey wrote:I think you and I are making the same point. That circumstances do indeed determine the justification of any single action.

No, we're not. I was pointing out that things look different on the surface than they might really be.

for example (i'm probably going to get in trouble for this one):

1) Americans see Al Quaeda as people who shot them in the grocery store because they're heartless, unstable people who can't get over incidents that occurred in the past.

2) Al Quaeda see themselves as having been attacked in the bushes by American policy and being forced to defend themselves by any means possible, ie. a good offence is the best defence.

Not much is that black and white. Exception: this background and the text.

excellent point. also Middle Easterners feel frustrated with the whle situation. Of all people here's a quote i'd like to share from Bin Laden.

"Why should fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning and widowing continue to be our lot, while security, stability, and happiness be your lot? "

of course i don't support Bin Laden, i don't support any senseless violence. But that's an idea of how many of them felt towards the wetern world

Ok, here's a set of circumstances for ya. (this is mostly directed towards cass, i guess)

Woman is angry at her neighbour because he ran over her cat and refuses to apoligize. She is extremely angry and shoots him. There are no other justifiable circumstances involved.

She is found guilty, and is sent to jail. Does she deserve to be gang-raped while dozens of other men are watching and laughing?

She is guilty of a terrible crime. She serves the time for doing it. Her life is gone basically. Does that make it OK for people to treat her as if she wasn't human? If that is so, what is the point of the Geneva convention, what is the point of any kind of human compassion?

I'm sorry, but doesn't the word of Christ teach forgiveness? I don't mean welcome them into your home, or even let them free of jail, but NO one, EVER, deserves to be raped.

And that bullshit about "I geuss that's just your opinion, maybe some people think it's [rape] ok."? The people doing the raping might think it's ok...or the people surrounding them or being raped might have been taught to think that too. But I'm sorry, it's never ok. If it was fine, it wouldn't be called rape, it would be called consentual sex.

I AM ME wrote:"the suicide bomber kills in person and is called a murderer and a coward. The liberator kills from a great distance and is called a Hero and a Freedom Fighter. Innocent lives can be lost as a form of virtue, but only by accident, even if the chance of the accident is certain. "Terrorism" thus becomes a question not of killing innocent people but of choosing or not choosing who exactly is likely to die."

the suicide bomber intentionally kills innocent people. that's his objective. the liberator from far away has other objectives, none of which are the intention of killing innocent civilians. god forbid the enemy stop hiding behind buildings and markets and other places where innocent people reside or do business. wasn't it you that quoted a "freedom fighter" from falluja as saying the americans are going to have to kill every single Iraqi? now why on earth would he want to fight for freedom when everyone around him dies? The truth is he does not give a damn about innocent people, or his fellow Iraqis. because if he did, he would fight his fight out in the open and not behind children.

I AM ME wrote:"Why should fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning and widowing continue to be our lot, while security, stability, and happiness be your lot? "

before all of this, before the US was even created, these people were fighting. they've been fighting since Alexander the great. all anyone has ever known in the middle east is war. all of this regions historical figures have been carved out of war. if this man wants to be a great leader he should get out of his fucking cave and stop fighting. he should put the gun down and instead of preeching war, should preech peace. if any historical leader, in the history of the middle east, were to put down the weapons and work toward peace, he wouldn't know war like he knows war. just because we know a time when we wern't dodging planes and bombs, and crumbling buildings doesn't make us the bad guy.

Bandalero wrote:before all of this, before the US was even created, these people were fighting. they've been fighting since Alexander the great. all anyone has ever known in the middle east is war. all of this regions historical figures have been carved out of war.

Reno, you just put your figure on the overlying problem here.

The United States has entered this war presumably on the grounds that the Middle East needs to be "fixed" or "changed". Swapping optimism for realism, this is a pipe dream. It is foolish to believe that the situation there can possibly be "fixed", especially by violent means (war). The roots of the problem run far, far deeper than that.

In my humble opinion, the hulking US military superpower does not like to think or admit that they are incapable of something. They are trying to do the impossible to prove themselves in some way. The simple, hard truth is that this is not feasible. Not by the Americans. Not by anyone.

The United States has entered this war presumably on the grounds that the Middle East needs to be "fixed" or "changed". Swapping optimism for realism, this is a pipe dream. It is foolish to believe that the situation there can possibly be "fixed", especially by violent means (war). The roots of the problem run far, far deeper than that.

In my humble opinion, the hulking US military superpower does not like to think or admit that they are incapable of something. They are trying to do the impossible to prove themselves in some way. The simple, hard truth is that this is not feasible. Not by the Americans. Not by anyone

I agree with this. But, if a man gains so much power that it may be possible for him to start destroying OTHER nations, someone has at least got to try and stop him. I said "someone", so let's not get into WMD.

And Yannic, I said IF those people were terrorists. Any woman who did that DOES deserve to put away, but not rape. But, if they were real terrorists, then yes, I can't say I feel bad for anyone raping them, no matter how horrible the person who did it would have to be. Other means of punishment would be better in my eye, but rape isn't about sex. It's about control, which means that those guards were just letting things get to their heads. Christ does teach forgiveness, that doesn't mean you stop trying to enforce justice.

70x7 wrote:if a man gains so much power that it may be possible for him to start destroying OTHER nations, someone has at least got to try and stop him.

how can you say this, when the ultimate example in today's world of this "man" sits at the head of your own nation?