May 05, 2005
A Useful Thought Experiment on Torture
Tyler Cowen has an interesting thought experiment that is very useful in explaining why legalized torture is so bad. He analyzes what you would do if you had information and were being tortured for it. He posits that you want to give the information and you want to minimize the torture, so he tries to analyze how you could convince that you gave up all the information so you could stop being tortured:
I see a few options:
1. Break down immediately, beg for mercy, humiliate yourself, and spill the beans. (If you talk right away, will they torture you anyway? And since no further good information can be offered why should they stop?)
2. Go in acting tough, really tough. At the first sign of serious pain, start crying and switch to strategy #1.
3. Wait until they apply their "best shot" torture, and then talk. They will feel they have done their job and stop.
4. First offer (or make up) compromising information to show your disloyalty to the cause your torturers are fighting. Your confession will then be more credible.
5. Say you don't know anything, try to fight the torture, but break down when you can't stand it any more. You can't fool them, so the best you can do is to actually "go through the wringer." You are stuck in the pooling equilibrium, and trying to deviate only makes you worse off.
Which of these is the most credible signal that you have told all you know? Can you do any better than number five?
This is a tough one, because if you give up your information too quickly the torturers won't believe that you told them everything and will continue torturing you. But if you don't tell them quickly enough, you get a lot of torture that you could have avoided.
Now suppose that you don't actually have any information, because you have been mistakenly picked up. How are you going to convey that to the torturers? You can't tell them you don't know anything at the beginning--they won't believe you and will continue torturing you. You can't tell them anything useful because you don't know anything useful. So you are being tortured and you don't know anything. Is it probable that you will start making stuff up in the hopes that your torturers will think they got something eventually. I suspect it is probable.
So if you are not a terrorist and you get picked up by those who torture, you will probably get tortured even more than many real terrorists because you can't break and give verifiably useful information.
Conservatives don't believe in the infallibility of government agencies and all indications are that the intelligence agencies are more fallible than many. So why would we set up a situation where innocents are likely to be tortured more than the guilty, and which is likely to produce vast amounts of faulty information? Doesn't seem wise. It also doesn't seem right.
Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw at May 5, 2005 03:25 AMSebastian,
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Torture has been proven to be a lousy way to gain intel.
How do the inquisitors know if the subject is just giving them information they want to hear or the info is outdated?
BTW, most of the prisoners at Gitmo have been there for three years. These guys must be a fount of useless information.
Amazing that this should appear in the Red Side. Usually, the Conservatives here don’t acknowledge Iraq at all….
Anyway. BushCo no longer tortures people. They use Extraordinary Rendition instead. That’s when you get some other country to do the torture for you. Smart, eh?
Posted by: Aldous at May 5, 2005 08:11 AMThis discussion became quite relevant with the capture of Osama’s #3 in Pakistan on Monday. Of course, he was captured by and is being held by Pakistani authorities for crimes committed in Pakistan, so he is not the U.S.’s responsibility. However, that’s a case where it’s only the principle that torture is wrong that would keep me from wanting to torture him. He’s highly placed, obviously knows something, and even if he doesn’t talk, I wouldn’t much regret causing him excruciating pain.
However, the principle is bigger than the individual, and is even bigger than the lives that may be saved by torturing him. Our character is more important than our survival.
Posted by: Chops at May 5, 2005 10:59 AMReal interrogators not only ask questions they want answers to, but also ask questions to which they already know the answers. By seeing how truthful the detainee is about confirming already known information, they can then judge the accuracy of the new information.
Sadists, on the other hand, interrogate prisoners because they enjoy inflicting pain. What information they have after they satisfy themselves they accept as true, even if it is B.S. With these guys, no strategy works. You’re in it for the duration.
Posted by: Xiagos at May 5, 2005 11:11 AMThe problem with torture is that memory can be affected by practices that increase suggestibility. The myth out there is that hypnosis and torture are perfect shortcuts to information in the mind that can bring about results where traditional lines of inquiry fail. The problem comes when the hypnotist or torturer starts to lead the subject with their questions. Break or bypass a person’s will, and you can overcome their certainty about what they remember.
In such ways, a person can be made to believe they were lost in a mall, sexually abused by a parent, kidnapped by aliens, or a member of a vast criminal organization when they never were.
Memory is malleable, especially where trauma is concerned, and even the guilty are not proof from this. An overzealous or simply ignorant interrogator may prejudice their subject, resulting in false intelligence, and all the troubles that come with that.
False intelligence constitutes not one but two problems: we act on what’s not true, and what is true is obscured from us. The effects of both can be devastating. Using methods like these, especially in the context of their effect on our reputation as a free society is foolish at best and criminal at worst.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2005 11:12 AMBefore anyone could debate the yea/nay of torture you would first have to define what it is.
Is it being used to gain information or for punishment?
I doubt those at gitmo would opt to trade places with someone in that tent jail in AZ.
130 deg. heat, bologna on stale bread(they have to pay for it themselves),hard labor in chains, forced to wear pink underware, socks ect. to humilitate them, no smoking, coffee ect. ect.
And that sheriff that runs the place is very popular throughout the nation, AND he is housing American citizens!
Posted by: Beagle at May 5, 2005 11:53 AM“Before anyone could debate the yea/nay of torture you would first have to define what it is.”
How about “boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers”? Does that qualify? This is how they do in Uzbekistan, according to the NYT:
Uzbekistan’s role as a surrogate jailer for the United States was confirmed by a half-dozen current and former intelligence officials working in Europe, the Middle East and the United States. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the prisoner transfer program, but an intelligence official estimated that the number of terrorism suspects sent by the United States to Tashkent was in the dozens.There is other evidence of the United States’ reliance on Uzbekistan in the program. On Sept. 21, 2003, two American-registered airplanes - a Gulfstream jet and a Boeing 737 - landed at the international airport in Tashkent, according to flight logs obtained by The New York Times.
Rendition has been applied to Us citizens, btw. It’s not all about pink underwear.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 5, 2005 01:25 PMWilliam,
Thank you, that was my point exactly.
Few on either side of the debate would condone the things you mention, however, if pink underware and things like that are stired into the same pot the really nasty stuff gets watered down in the opinions on torture.
Do you kinda understand my point now ?
Posted by: Beagle at May 5, 2005 02:56 PMDo any of you actually believe the page numbers in the NYT?
Posted by: tom at May 5, 2005 06:12 PM“And that sheriff that runs the place is very popular throughout the nation, AND he is housing American citizens!”
Beagle,
Joe Arpio is a moron that only seeks the self agrandizment of the press.
BTW, the bologna is green, and they wear striped uniforms as they pick up trash in the streets.
Several people have died in his jail as the result of mistreatment. Some of them hadn’t even been arraigned yet.
Here’s an idea: hope to God you never get captured by people who want to torture you.
Posted by: Zeek at May 5, 2005 09:56 PMI wonder if Cheney tortured Chalabi until that mobile WMD lab BS came out.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 6, 2005 06:39 AMAny method we use to get information from people who are, or have knowlege of people who are flying planes into buildings, blowing themselves up in public places, beheading/hanging/burning and otherwise humiliating our military and civilian personnel IS JUSTIFIED. The people doing this are maniacal. They are morally and culturally disgusting. We should leave a big hole where the country used to be.
Posted by: Steve at May 6, 2005 10:42 AMWe should leave a big hole where the country used to be.
Yikes! That’s the kind of uninformed opinion I love. :)
Which country do you have in mind Steve? Arabia? Muslimland? Or maybe the utopian democratic society Bush has created in Iraq?
Posted by: American Pundit at May 6, 2005 11:50 AMDamned shame about the folks in Arizona being mistreated that way. I really feel sorry for them. I wonder how they ever got into such a bad place, did they do anything illegal? Did they break the law? I suppose they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and did nothing to deserve punishment.
We have a perfectly good desert in California I would love to see used to house the warm wonderful gang members that break any and every law they can. Here it is a badge of honor to have spent time in prison, something they display with tatoos on their cheeks and necks.
More power to the Arizona sheriff, keep those assholes in those tents and make them miserable.
Response to American Pundit
Ref : We should leave a hole where the country used to be
Sorry I was vague in the geography, I was referring to Iraq specifically. While there we should take control of the oil resource as well.
You say I have an uninformed opinion - on what?
I don’t believe that any of the content in my post is based on heresay.
I agree with Steve, nice place for a hole. I’d like to see another hole where that pimp in North Korea is standing right now. A small hole would do the trick, about 3’x 3’ would do nicely.
Posted by: JC at May 6, 2005 01:48 PMThe hole for the North Korean pimp needs to be large enough for the whacko from Russia who is selling enriched uranium to Iran.
Posted by: steve at May 6, 2005 04:04 PMTorture is unacceptable. There are many other forms of interrogation that have been proven, dating back to pre-WWII, to be much more effective. Talk to anyone who has served in the special forces or has trained for forward battlefield duty, and they will tell you tales of training interrogators who can find out anything they want. The biggest obstacles to this type of non-torture interrogation is language and neanderthals.
In the non-torture method the questions would be : (Of course the captive is sitting in a Laz E Boy with a beer)
1. If you don’t mind, tell us where the explosives are hidden
2. Please give us an idea of how many men are guarding the ammo depot
3. Would you care for some Hor’s Dourves before we continue
4. Here’s a remote for the TV, we’ll be right back
5. If it’s not too much trouble please bring us into the loop on what you were planning to blow up when we caught you
6. We are getting tired of this run around, tell us what we want to know or you will not have your conjugal visit today
With non-torture questioning techniques like these, they will be lining up to be captured.
Posted by: Steve at May 6, 2005 04:46 PMI just thought of something, this kind of shit never happens to rich people. Think about it, in all of history, when has the government apprehended a rich person and tortured him/her for information? Never! Granted, there isn’t exactly a comprehensive file on the subject of who has or hasn’t been tortured… but I still think it’s safe to say money is an effective deterrent to torture.
Posted by: Zeek at May 6, 2005 05:12 PMSteve,
With non-torture questioning techniques like these, they will be lining up to be captured.
You’re right! like they did in the first gulf war, when enemy soldiers were surrendering to journalists because they knew they would be treated well by America and not tortured. Every one that surrendered is one that wasn’t shooting at us, therefore a good thing. I bet that doesn’t happen much anymore.
I can understand bloodlust and thirst for revenge, but read the posts—torture is ineffective, immoral, counterproductive, and more likely to be applied to the innocent. Posted by: brian poole at May 6, 2005 05:23 PM
Brian,
They lined up to surrender because they had no food and were afraid of death. They surrendered to journalists because they were to stupid or scared to know the difference between a journalist and a soldier. As a soldier you fight harder and smarter because you know if you are captured you will be tortured. It is a very effective deterrent. The entire torture issue goes away when there are no prisoners. (Read into that what you like). Prisoners require manpower to be guarded, money to feed and house, etc.What authority says and, what statistical data is available to confirm your OPINION that torture is ineffective, immoral, counterproductive, and more likely to be applied to the innocent. The records of the people doing and have been doing torturing for centuries are not available to support your statement. Every prisoner is a potential threat even when in captivity. More so when dealing with those from the Middle East who have no regard for human life and are part of a culture which portends martyrdom to those who commit suicide on behalf of their cause. Taking of course innocent lives with them.
I personally don’t see the purpose of torturing POWs, even for information needed to minimize deaths of Americans and our allies.
Two words: sodium pentathol.
It’s not 100% reliable, but it’s a lot harder to resist than torture, and it doesn’t leave the POW in need of expensive medical attention, or make a martyr of him through the outrage of his friends and relatives.
Posted by: Emily at May 7, 2005 04:29 AMYou say I have an uninformed opinion - on what?
For one, you threw the 9/11 hijackers in there. None of them were from Iraq. Second, none of the attacks on Americans are state-sponsored, so to hold every man, woman, and child in Iraq responsible is kinda wacko.
I can see where it’s fun to get all puffed up and start talkin tough when yer out drinkin with yer buddies, but it just sounds wacko and “uninformed” when you do it in a place like this.
It’s interesting to be characterized as a tough talking, beer drinking “uninformed” wacko. Nothing could be further from the truth, I enjoy a glass of wine once in a while. It is difficult to say where the 911 guys were from. Even if not from Iraq they could have received $ from Iraq, they could have had terrorist training that was Iraqi sponsored, their families may have been promised something associated with Iraqi statespeople/supporters, etc. Every man woman and child on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were held responsible, there have been no further sneak attacks (or any other kind for that matter). I am still leaning toward the “big hole” solution.
I saw a Vietnam era movie once where we had 3 prisoners in a helicopter. When the first did not respond to questioning he slipped and fell out, the second had no answers either and ironically fell out, the third provided information that led to a succesful mission by US forces. If something like that happened in real life, would you consider that anyone was tortured. I wish that there were some people with a liberal outlook on this issue who could join the posting discussion.
Emily,
“It’s not 100% reliable, but it’s a lot harder to resist than torture, and it doesn’t leave the POW in need of expensive medical attention, or make a martyr of him through the outrage of his friends and relatives.”
True, but sodium pentathol can cause serious brain damage which might require prolonged medical attention. Either way this is a sticky wicket.
Posted by: Zeek at May 7, 2005 11:49 AMYou can’t help people who refuse to help themselves.
Posted by: JC at May 7, 2005 11:55 AMIt is somewhat saddenng to notice that pretty much none of the responders have referred either to our Constituion or the Bill of Rights thereof, nor the Declaration of Independence as a basis to object to torture. Not as much, but not muchly, has there been any reference for regard of humanity or compassion for living and suffering beings.
Firts of all. I do agree with the opinion of many respondents, as well as that of experts in interrogation, that torture is not an effective means of obtaining information. It is quick and dirty and produces infromation highly contaminated with all sorts of garbagae, It also leads to a high rate of “false positives” leading to the further arrest and abuse of many innocent people mentioned in the interrogations fasely as perpetrators. Additionally, it furhther leads to reactions of revenge and a breakdown of any moral argument for the humane treatment of prisoners taken from the torturers.
Now. We must use extraordinary measures to penetrate and neutralize individuals who are intent in hurting us and our people. Not a question. If you believe that because of that we must ignore our own Constitution or the moral principles on which this democracy was founded, then you are part of the elements who wish to destroy our democracy. As long as your arguments remain non-violent, your speech should be protected by the constitution, but incitement to torture is incitement to illegal violence, so that may be illegal. For those who understand rights, they know we are signataries to the internatinal Human Rights declaration. Human rights are inherent in the huan being, and not dependent on the kindness of governments to grant. Our own constituion says “all men are created equal endowned by their Creator with…liberties.” The Deists believed that the Creator Bieng him(her)self endowned beings with these rights, and the USA government can violate those rights, but cannot take them away. We have violated those rights. If you are stupid enough to believe that because these peope are “arabs” or “terrorists” they have no rights, you do not understand that by doing this, we open the door to the state doing it to our citizens for various reasons. See Pat Robertson say that the “activist judges” are more dangerous than the 9-11 people. This is the same as saying that the 9-11 people are less dangerous and more preferable than this judiciary. Will we open the door to arrest and torture these elements?
If you undesratnd how democarcy works, and what the Bill of Rights is, no one would advocate these means. Those who do, are enemies of our country, diffrenet than 9-11, but enemies no less.
As far as compassion. Maybe you think I am a candy-ass bleeding heart liberal. May whatever God you believe in have mercy on your immortal soul. Whatsoever you do to the least of my children that you do unto me.
Posted by: Julian at May 8, 2005 02:45 AMIt is difficult to say where the 911 guys were from. Even if not from Iraq they could have received $ from Iraq, they could have had terrorist training that was Iraqi sponsored, their families may have been promised something associated with Iraqi statespeople/supporters, etc.
Yikes!!! steve, all that stuff is known. Go to the library and check out a copy of the 9/11 commission report and get yourself informed.
We had the torture discussion here before. The consensus was that it’s ok for grunts to torture an enemy soldier on the battlefield for tactical information, but wrong for the government to systematically torture prisoners after they’ve been processed.
This topic is a dead horse. Looking forward to next controversial issue. Enjoyed sharing opinions with all.
Posted by: steve at May 8, 2005 10:27 AMJC,
“You can’t help people who refuse to help themselves.”
What the heck is that supposed to mean? That people WANT to get tortured?
Posted by: Zeek at May 8, 2005 10:39 AMJulian,
” See Pat Robertson say that the “activist judges” are more dangerous than the 9-11 people. This is the same as saying that the 9-11 people are less dangerous and more preferable than this judiciary. Will we open the door to arrest and torture these elements?”
I couldn’t condone torture for the “activist judges”, however, I wouldn’t mind seeing the USSC Kennedy wear pink underware and eat bologna untill he retires.
“More power to the Arizona sheriff, keep those assholes in those tents and make them miserable.”
Yo Jc,
I guess you missed the point that some of these people haven’t even had their day in court yet.
Could it be possible that some of them were in the wrong place at the wrong time?
We will check on you after your next DUI.
Posted by: Rocky at May 9, 2005 10:08 PMI like how poeople here think they can envision how they would approach information release during torture.
As if. A person pondering such an idea has in fact then never been or seen torture.
Zeek
I was speaking of the Iraqi people in general. I’m told that the terrorism is from only 10-20% of the people in Iraq and the remainder do not support the activity. I find it very hard to believe that 80% of the population can’t do anything to help control the 20% who are killing their own people.
Rocky
I have had no DUI. It is within my control to avoid them by not drinking and driving. If I refused to use my better judgement and did get a DUI it would obviously be MY FAULT. If you drink and drive, and risk killing other people as well as yourself I don’t think you should be sitting in an air conditioned building watching TV. I think your ass belongs in jail! Sorry, I hate to offend anyone who feels drinking and driving is a accepted pass time.
JC,
I don’t even drink. You have avoided the point again.
Not all of the people that are arrested are guilty. People have died in Sheriff Arpiao’s jail that hadn’t even been to court. To deify a man such as this without knowing the facts is laughable.
Even if people are guilty of crimes that land them in county jail, they don’t deserve the treatment the Seriff Joe hands out. This man wasn’t even supported by his own party during the primarys last election, and he has been under investigation for questionable real estate deals.
Those are the facts.
Please have the all the information before you make value judgements.
Posted by: Rocky at May 10, 2005 07:18 PMRocky
No system is perfect, the desert “Jail” nor any other. However I would rather make the error on the side of the Arizona Sheriff. My point is, I don’t think the inmates deserve a/c and television to enjoy while incarcerated. I prefer to make the experience there such a unpleasant one that maybe next time they will think before they sell the cock or rob the corner store or commit any other crime.
I think the basic, “the punishment should fit the crime” is wrong to begin with. I think “the punishment should outweigh the crime” would work much better. I would make the punishment extreem to eliminate some of the debate as to whether the risk is worth the gamble. Seems to me if the conditions you have to live in are so terrible if you break the law, it might be a good idea NOT to break the law in the first place.
There are on some occasions people who are jailed who in fact have later been found not guilty. Many times these people were some where they should not have been in the first place, other times it was just bad timing.
More concern should be shown to the victims and a lot less to the criminals. I am in support of the desert jail, the pink outfits, and the terrible food. I’m in support of the criminals being miserable while they are incarcerated.
I am in favor of the tactics the sheriff uses in the jail. I am not aware of any other dealings he may have. If he involved in unlawful activity he should be punished just as anyone else, but that doesn’t mean the program is bad. Criminals deserve EXACTLY what they get in Arizona. Damned shame his program isn’t used in all states.
JC,
“I was speaking of the Iraqi people in general.”
Yeah, ok, that’s the sort of thing you MENTION so that people like me don’t think you’re talking about the topic of the blog (which in this case is torture).
“I’m told that the terrorism is from only 10-20% of the people in Iraq and the remainder do not support the activity. I find it very hard to believe that 80% of the population can’t do anything to help control the 20% who are killing their own people.”
Who really knows that number? Either way this point is moot for discussion because wild guesses are the best we have. While I think it’s nice that the U.S. is “trying” to empower Iraq, I don’t know what this will really lead to (probably not anything beneficial to us though). I doubt either way that terrorists are a majority of the people… perhaps anti-American is a majority but terrorism is that next step that most Iraqis probably don’t take.
Posted by: Zeek at May 11, 2005 05:29 PMPardon me for misleading you. Am I to assume the Arizona sheriff is guilty of torture at his camp?
Posted by: JC at May 11, 2005 06:36 PM“Criminals deserve EXACTLY what they get in Arizona. Damned shame his program isn’t used in all states.”
JC,
You presume to say let the punishment fit the crime.
Well, do you understand what “county jail” is about”?
This isn’t a prison, these are not hardend criminals. These are petty criminals. Should they be at risk to forfiet their lives for minor crimes?
The summers in Phoenix are the stuff of legend. A typical day in June could see the temperature rise to 112F degrees or above. Combine that with over crowding, the fact that one of the “tent cities” is on the corner of a busy intersection, lax and understaffed guards, and you have a recipe for mayhem.
Sheriff Joe is a braggert and a blowhard that never saw a camera or microphone that he didn’t like. His methods have made him a phariah in his own party, and he is rapidly losing the support of his own deputies.
I don’t condone coddling criminals, but Joe Arpiao goes too far.
Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2005 06:48 AMRocky,
I believe I said “The punishment should OUTWEIGH the crime”. We have a system where the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. I take that to mean one should be equal to the other. I disagree with this idea. I don’t feel there should be any debate by the individual as to whether the risk is worth being caught and punished.
The Arizona jails aren’t flooded with inmates who haven’t broken the law. I agree, there may be some there from time to time, but the vast majority are there for just cause. As I said before, there is no perfect system. I do however like the idea of making the time spent in jail a miserable one. Inmates shouldn’t enjoy a moment of the time they are incarcerated.
I agree the temperatures in Arizona are very high and unpleasant in the summer, no fun at all. It does make me think about the temperature on the other side of the fence where work crews maintain the streets, and gardeners work in the sun all day long, even in Arizona.
It would be interesting to hear the numbers you speak of about all the innocent people being killed in the tent cities. Do you have numbers to support what you say?
It sounds as though you have something personal against the sheriff. I’m not suggesting you have spent time in the jail but you do seem to have a great deal of venom for the sheriff.
I can add that yes, I am very aware what county jail is all about. I have seen the inside of numerous California jail due to my profession and I have never been shocked by the number of innocent guests of the county.
As much as you dislike the local sheriff, I don’t agree with you that his tent cities are “Torture” As I said earlier, I wish more states would follow his lead. I don’t like or dislike the sheriff, I do agree with his concept of “Jail isn’t supposed to be nice” Maybe if it is a terrible place to be, the locals won’t be in any hurry to return soon.
What do you expect?
Mohammed and Murder
Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has
said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying,
‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said,
‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’ Muhammad said,
‘You may do so.’â€
Ishaq:368 “Ka’b’s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his
fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By
Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We
lured him to his death with guile [cunning or deviousness]. Traveling by night,
bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly
swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.â€
Tabari VII:97/Ishaq:368 “We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad
during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had
slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his
feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and
complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon
Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did
not fear for his life.’â€
Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared,
‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’â€
This is Islam:
Qur’anic scripture. Sura (chapter) 47 contains the
ayah (verse): “When you encounter the unbelievers on the
battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then
bind the prisoners tightly.”
Sura 8:12 reads: “I will cast
dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads,
then, and strike off all of their fingertips.”
Qur’anic scripture. Sura (chapter) 47 contains the
ayah (verse): “When you encounter the unbelievers on the
battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then
bind the prisoners tightly.”
Sura 8:12 reads: “I will cast
dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads,
then, and strike off all of their fingertips.”
And they torture the kafir while they persecute Christian missionaries:
http://Persecution.org - International Christian ConcernServing the Victims of
1/15/2005 Islam
“Put your hands up if Sheikh Osama Bin Laden represents
you!”
At ICC, we try to educate our readers about the danger of
radical Islam. For years we have seen the devastation wrought
by radical Islam on Christians in the Middle East, Pakistan,
and Indonesia.
Radical Islam has violent and unbending expansionist claims
that should be taken at face value. Unfortunately, because of
Saudi money and influence, the radical mindset is widespread
and very much a part of the Muslim communities of the Western
Democracies. Take a look at this portion of an article that
appeared in the Washington Times.
British Muslims called to take up jihad
By Hannah K. Strange
UPI
UPI UK CorrespondentLondon, England, Jan. 10 (UPI) —
Muslims living in Britain are facing two choices; either to
migrate or to join the jihad, a key Islamic figure has said.
Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammed, leader of the now officially
disbanded Islamic militant group Al Muhajiroun told United
Press International Saturday that as the covenant of
security under which Muslims previously lived in Britain has
been broken, Muslims must now consider themselves at war.
“And I declare we should ourselves join the global Islamic
camp against the global crusade camp,” he said.
He called on Muslims to form a new coalition united behind
al-Qaida with Osama Bin Laden as their leader.
Those who did not wish to either leave or fight would not be
regarded as Muslims, said Sheikh Omar, condemning in
particular the Muslim Council of Britain for urging the
Muslim community to cooperate with the British government.
“They are hypocrites, we don’t believe they are Muslims,” he
told UPI. “In a time of crisis, who ever allies with them
(the kuffaar — non-believers) is one of them, so I don’t
believe they are Muslims in the first place.”
“I doubt if one of them would dare to walk the streets of
Mecca by themselves,” he added. 1
Muslims are facing wars on two fronts, in Britain and
abroad, he explained. Though they will live at peace in
Britain should the government meet their demands, the fight
will continue elsewhere in the Islamic world.
“We have the right to support our brothers and sisters
abroad financially,” he said. “They’re recruiting us to join
the British Army to go and kill our brothers and sisters.
Why? We believe that everybody that does this becomes
apostate, but we don’t stop them because they can do
whatever they want.
“But you see, why are they free to join the British Army,
and train and go abroad to fight, but it is not free for us
to go abroad and defend our homelands? They say because you
are going to fight our army there. Why are you using your
army there? Why do you want to be in our land in the first
place?
Sheikh Omar was speaking after at a conference in London
ostensibly organized by Women’s Dawah U.K., where around 600
attendees gathered to listen to his call for jihad.
As the infamous images of two planes crashing into the twin
towers of the World Trade Center replayed again and again,
the rapt watchers thrust their fists in the air and chanted
“Allahu Akhbar! (God is great!)”
Other Great Quotes
“The governments of the West must know that if they do not
behave themselves we will “give them a 9/11 day after day
after day!” he shouted, to furious chanting.
All the Muslim brothers and sisters, even the children, must
now start their preparations, another speaker urged.
“Whether they be stones, whether they be sticks, whether
they be knives, whether they be bombs, whatever they may be,
prepare as much as you can,” he said.
“It is our responsibility as Muslims to prepare, to fight,”
he said, calling on the crowd to “give up your lives for the
sake of Allah.”
“The crusade against Muslims by the British regime” is
“indisputable”, according to a Muslim lawyer and key figure
in Al-Muhajiroun speaking at the conference.
The British and U.S. governments believe they are engaged in
“a crusade for good against evil,” allowing them to
introduce “draconian” laws under which they can kidnap and
detain Muslims indefinitely and indiscriminately spill their
blood in places such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, he
said.
Muslims must also beware of “the enemy within” — moderate
Muslims such as those on the Muslim Council of Britain, he
said.
They side with “the Jewish conspirators, the Jewish
occupiers and the Christian crusaders,” he said, and “will
sell out their Muslim brothers.”
“Please raise your hands if you think the Muslim Council of
Britain represents you,” a speaker at the conference
instructed the crowd.
All stayed silent.
“Put your hands up if Sheikh Osama Bin Laden represents
you!” he called.
Every hand shot in the air, even those of three or four year
old children and their mothers in the back rows. “Allahu
Akhbar!” echoed through the hall.
The MCB, continued the speaker, even condemned the
“beautiful” attacks in Madrid last year. The chants grew
louder.
Muslims must reject the integrationist calls of such people,
said Sheikh Omar.
Instead, an Islamic state must be established here in
Britain, he said, an aim that is the duty of every Muslim.
“If people reject the call of mighty Allah,” he continued,
“… death will be inevitable.”
To confirm this, images of people dropping dead and burning
in flames appeared on the projector screen.
Finally, the women who organized the event appeared, urging
Muslim mothers to take their children out of kuffaar
schools.
“We must teach our children where their allegiance is. There
is no way we can do this if they are being taught by the
enemies of Allah,” one said.
“Go forth and prepare; fighting has been ordered on both of
you,” she said.
All contents © copyright 2004 persecution.org
Compare Islam with Christianity:
The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was very fond of using Terror and reveals this in his “Divinely” given Koran with an alarming fecundity of violent screeds
In the Holy Bible Jesus Christ tells us that there is nothing to fear.
[3:151]
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with God, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers! 1
Cast Terror into their hearts? Does this begin to explain why Islam teaches Terrorism?
Romans 8:2 2 For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.
Life in the Spirit of Christ Jesus fears us from dread of mortality.
[6:63]
Say: “Who is it that delivereth you from the dark recesses of land and sea, when ye call upon Him in humility and silent terror: ‘If He only delivers us from these (dangers), (we vow) we shall truly show our gratitude’.?”
The devote Muslims must be in a constant state of Terror for his life.
Romans 8: 3 For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done:
by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
The Children of God have already been saved by the Cross of Jesus Christ and need fear nothing.
[7:116]
Said Moses: “Throw ye (first).” So when they threw, they bewitched the eyes of the people, and struck terror into them: for they showed a great (feat of) magic.
Which is what Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, AQ and all the rest are attempting daily - Peaceful?
Romans 8:6 The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace.
Christians have nothing to fear from the Terror of Islam for they live in the Spirit of our Lord.
[8:12]
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
The Merciful Allah prescribes awful torture and mortal fear for the non-Muslim - Lo!
Romans 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Those who live in the Spirit of Christ share in His Eternal life and fear not.
[8:60]
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. 2
Make your enemies live in Terror of the Mighty and very Bloody Allah and his violent and hateful Islam.
Romans 8:18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us.
The troubles of daily life mean nothing to those who live in Christ.
[16:112]
God sets forth a Parable: a city enjoying security and quiet, abundantly supplied with sustenance from every place: Yet was it ungrateful for the favours of God: so God made it taste of hunger and terror (in extremes) (closing in on it) like a garment (from every side), because of the (evil) which (its people) wrought.
The vengeful old Allah is never quite satisfied until he can Terrorize some group of Kafir.
Romans 8:24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees?
St. Paul urges us on to Faith in Almighty God as our Hope.
Islam - a Peaceful Religion
1 I’ll gladly walk the street of Mecca as long as I’ve got my trusty S&W .44 MAGNUM
Posted by: George M Weinert V at May 12, 2005 03:36 PMJC,
The reporting may be a little over the top, but the info is correct.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1999-04-15/news/news2.html
“Post’s incarceration occurred just as the Department of Justice was completing a two-year investigation of the jails. On March 25—a week after Post’s incarceration—Justice officials notified the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that its investigation had found a pattern of unconstitutional treatment of inmates in the jails. The investigation particularly condemned the way Arpaio’s jailers used the restraint chair. Only three months after this letter was sent warning the county of problems in the jails (and another month before the letter was made public), Scott Norberg would die as a dozen detention officers crammed him into one of the chairs after they had already handcuffed him and pinned him to the floor.”
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2002-03-14/news/nelson.html
“Eric Vogel was terrified to walk from his house. He imagined getting lost and confused. He imagined police arresting him and hauling him off to jail, a place where hulking guards would humiliate him, strip him naked and torture him.
Vogel, 36, was paranoid and delusional. He was mentally ill.
He was also right. Vogel is now dead, another unseen casualty of the law-and-order campaign of America’s Toughest Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. On March 27, Arpaio will announce if he plans to run for governor.”
This from Amnesty International.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510511997?open&of=ENG-2M4
“In June 1997 an Amnesty International delegation visited Maricopa County, Arizona, to collect information on the treatment of inmates in the local jails and the conditions under which they are kept. The visit followed concern about allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners and the death of inmate Scott Norberg in Madison Street Jail on 1 June 1996, after he was placed in a restraint chair.”
To put a bow on this.
I don’t care how guilty these guys may have been, they didn’t deserve the treatmnt they got in Sheriff Joe’s jail.
Rocky
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe there will be others we will concur on. As far as I am concerned, I think Arizona would be a terrible place to get arrested. Maybe money could be spent to educate folks there not to break the law so they didn’t have to go to that terrible jail. Seems to me, if people realized how terrible the place was they wouldn’t risk going there. If, and I am still not convinced that there is anything going on there that shouldn’t be, there is a problem that should be addressed. However, I think he has had the right idea from the start. Make life miserable for assholes who break the law over and over and over. Maybe some day they will get the idea and make a living some other way. While they’re in there the public don’t have to worry as much about their safety.
