Prince Myshkin

And if he doesn't, bin Laden gets away with his atrocities with a quick death and nothing more.

Ah yes, I wasn't saying this was a Buddhist thing, just explaining why I felt uneasy about Bhutan, as nice as it sounds. I can see the appeal of Buddhism but there are always things that let it down in my eyes, and the effects you can get I am sure (though I have no first hand experience) can be achieved without belief. Believing that the Dalai Lama is the rebirth of Avalokiteśvara is very odd to me, and how anybody can make claims of being the rebirth of anything makes me question just how humble they actually are. He inherited government control which is dodgy. He also views oral, manual and anal sex as unacceptable (which is his own prerogative, but when someone like that simply inherits power and becomes the figurehead for the whole religion, it can only lead to repression). He seems to be fighting some form of battle with his sexual organs, and other organs, as can be seen when he said this "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact." I think there will be much to learn from Buddhism, but I also feel these things can be learned without embracing it.

A very odd thing to say, but I won't pursue and simply request that you use your own time to consider these things and why they are in place, and if without them you would not be a good person. If I was to guess I'd say the answers to these wouldn't matter to you as the lure of heaven and the fear of hell is the main reason for your co-operation with the religion, combined with it being a social norm. Anyway, I don't think what I say is gonna change your mind, and as an individual you seem like a good person, so you can wrestle with the dogmas you follow without me berating you. It isn't quite as simple as that, but it's a point. There are unpopular wars, and elections are lost on them. Also, not all wars are money-making, certainly not to a huge extent. And with this one in particular, I can see why they did it. How do we find a solution?

How do you make it so it isn't abused? In these extreme circumstances there isn't always time to go through all the right checks and fill in the forms, and so with that room for manoeuvre it will be very easy to manipulate. This would be my answer with the way things are right now if I felt it was realistic. In the short term this isn't possible. That's a long term goal. What happens in the meantime if they know something terrible is imminent? I think torture will be around for a long long time, but yes I'm against it. This would be my answer in the long term, but I don't think you can ignore what is happening right now. This is tough.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58]YouTube - Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded (VANITY FAIR)[/ame]

Yeah, I'd have been freaked out. I just can't imagining that happening in England.

It would have to be insanely complex to avoid exploitation to meet other ends, and I think another organisation would have to be set up as an arbitrary and who had to find out about every time they used it. Almost impossible to set up. That way if they misused it they would be punished and couldn't sweep it under the carpet (though I'm sure they'd find a way). They would have to decide whether or not to act immediately, and if they made the wrong call they'd get fucked, so they'd have to be sure. I don't think it's possible myself.

I agree that the extreme circumstances line is hard to draw, and it's tempting to see it used, but for me I'd say no. Then on the other hand I'm not in charge and I'm not passionate enough to actively protest against its use in this incident, for example.

This area. Keep the riff raff out haha.

We have no idea if that was tried and simply failed. As I said earlier, there will be so many examples of that torture being used and it not being useful but they simply wouldn't release that information, and why would they?

You brought it up haha, you make it :p I'm still catching up in the thread. Some very interesting points. From the non state of war, which was something I questioned in the first or second page, to it being an international police matter. They'll get away with it, but it's interesting to see exactly what laws they break haha.

Presumably they are never ending virgins too, because otherwise that's only 72 fucks before your left with lame experienced sluts, considering they won't be married. 72 fucks to last eternity is not much of a prize if you ask me, if the whole virginity thing is the important thing to them. Unless it's just the fact that they won't have had sex with anybody else and they are yours forever and you know they will only be yours, forever. In which case, just exactly how inferior are women viewed, sounds close to ownership to me. Not to mention most men will not die in their youth (if as you say that's the reward for everyone), and with organised marriages prevalent, not many women will reach mid-life without marrying unless there's some specific reason that they are not attracting a man, so you're likely to get a lot of old men with a lot of younger women, possibly very young, or older cast offs. Indeed.

Barca through.

I'm all for making the torture thing a new thread. It's not something I know much about and I feel I could learn a lot from looking into it and seeing other peoples views.

Good answer... What kind of fucked up religion promises that? I presume most will have been through a loving marriage, with a family, and then they get to fuck around at the end. Surely that's wrong? What a lovely thought for a wife to have as she dies. I agree with this, whole heartedly. You sort out the problems and then people don't need to rebel. But as it stands there are problems, and it's a long process, so the world as a whole needs to pull together to help those in need and the richer nations should support others and prevent these things from happening, whilst also in the meantime cutting down on these attacks and not bowing to their pressure and appeasing them in order to prevent future retaliation. I'm a firm believer of no negotiation with terrorists, as in the long term, when they see that there is no compromise, there is greater fear within them. A fear which the extremists deserve in my eyes. I do believe also, that more could be done to support the less fortunate nations, and I'm disgusted with how many of the richer nations aren't helping enough.

I'm against it. It appears to have worked in this specific case, if that is correct (as it is believed to be) but we do not know how many other people have received this treatment in the hunt for him who did not deserve it. After all, they are not going to come out and say we tortured this guy, but we didn't find him... better look next time :awesome: It is methods to extract a confession, even if there is no confession to make. There are other ways of doing it than that.

Doesn't look like he's saying mono to me. Not saying he isn't, just offering my opinion.

I don't want people killed, I said myself throughout the first few pages of this thread that this was not justice. I think it's insulting to the people who lost loved ones in 9/11, and indeed all over the world due to Al Qaeda, to call it justice. Some will see it as justice, but that is for them to say of their own personal opinion. America were after bin Laden and with good reason. They ended up killing him. I'm not condoning that and haven't done at all. There may have been good reason for it, there may not have been. I'm pretty sure I'm never going to know. What I do know is that efforts had to be made to get to him, regardless of whether he was a threat or not. Like the nazi war criminals still hunted down. You cannot let these people get away with things, and you have to try and get to them and bring proper justice, rather than letting them get away with it. Like I said, whether or not they could have kept him alive we won't know, and there will be many theories that go around, but it would appear that Pakistan did not do enough to even allow any form of justice to ever take place, continually telling people that he was not in your country, was in Afghanistan, or was even dead (as you have said, though i'm not aware of it, though i believe you). Fair enough if this is what they believed, but with what has happened these last two days you have to admit this is embarrassing for Pakistan? And if they took your defence as their answer - that attempting to get to these people is not the way to fight terrorism - then it will look even worse. Of course education is the key, but it has to go both ways. When people do what bin Laden has done, or at least claimed to have done, then you cannot just ignore it. If you look into the situation with the IRA things have improved massively, and a mixture of punishment for the people involved and education has worked very well, so i don't see how this backs up your point of harbouring terrorists. At the very best your government just looks incredibly foolish. With the last bit are you saying that they are bowing to what America has said, even though they know it is lies? They are prepared to look like absolute fools, just to please an American conspiracy? That's one of the more ridiculous claims you have made and even if true, an even sadder account of the country. They should work on truth and not support America if that was the case. If they had evidence America would not bomb the hell out of you, it would be too scared as it has its own rivals.

Sweet, nice one. And yes, that's fine. I can only apologise again for the delay.

... They appear to have gone back on this today, rather bizarrely.

How come this lot came in then?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13259869 I found this interesting. (Make sure it's clicked on 'historians view' in the toolbar. It should be automatically) Comments interesting too.

Sometimes, but if they want to sleep with you and are idiots and drunk (and decent enough liars), they will also have even less of a conscience.

Not necessarily. They were Bangladeshi and filming. It wasn't part of an investigation, they just fall under the bracket of being able to be 'reasonably suspected' of being a terrorist, and that means the terrorist act can be used. Could be something and nothing, could have something in it. To say 'it's started' is premature, unless you're talking about the future overuse of the terrorism act?

I haven't read all the way through this but drunk people are often more compulsive so that is one thing to bare in mind. The best thing to do is to just communicate with them, and see if they meant it. Don't invest too much hope in it yet, but it has potential. Get to know them and see if you believe them. If they are liars then they are more likely to lie more when drunk. If they were compulsive and not acting as they normally would, but if they regret it then they should be straight with you. At least you will know. Talk to him.