SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • December 2022
    S M T W T F S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘Torture’

Wear Orange

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on March 8, 2008


In solidarity with the Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay this Blog has changed it’s color to ORANGE.

No Torture
Advertisement

Posted in Torture | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Waterboarding a “needed” practice…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on March 8, 2008


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as water-boarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.
Waterboarding Step One
Have a look at this series of pictures – they are real. The American soldier dressed in the Orange Coverall is about to undergo a practice that George W. Bush calls a practice “that have a proven track record of keeping America safe”.
Waterboarding Step Two
It has been out-lawed by the military, but according to George W. Bush it’s to be practiced by the CIA, as “one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror…”
Waterboarding Step Three
Note that this practice may not be used on US Citizens. Not even if they are suspected of being terrorists. But then non-US citizens are not human, so why bother respecting their rights not to be “subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” UDHR Article 5.
Waterboarding Step Four
This guy, Joe Tougas, US Navy veteran, isn’t faking – it’s all real.
Waterboarding Step Five
It takes quite a while for him to recover.
Waterboarding Step Six
Then imagine that had he been “a suspected terrorist”…knowing that the moment he is sitting up it will all start over again. Death by drowning, is what it is meant to feel like. And it does.
Waterboarding Step Seven
This practice, George W. Bush claims is needed in his self-declared war on terror. The thing is, it is exclusively used on the prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility. How long have those prisoners been isolated from the out-side? SIX YEARS. Which means that any intelligence any of them might be able to divulge is hopelessly out-dated. Of absolutely no use…you draw the conclusion of that.
One thing’s for sure – Joe Tougas is one hell of a soldier and well worth a standing ovation.

All photos are Copyright isa e used with permission

Posted in Torture, US | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Are Swastikas Offensive?”

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on September 23, 2007


There is a subtle difference between the Ancient, non-offensive Swastika:

and the distorted version the Nazis used:

If you look at old photos from the WWII you will notice that the Nazi Swastika is ALWAYS “at an angle” – this is the offensive use of the Swastika.

I think it’s important to know this difference and to be aware that it is only this swastika, and derivations of it in later times, that signify what Nazism stood for.

As always it is a matter of education and information.”

“It doesn’t matter at this point …what the swastika originally stood for … the common perception of the symbol today overrides any history prior to the Nazis.

I’m a firm believer that, in most cases, people are offended by things because they choose so be. But when there are so many who are to strongly offended, then yes, it earns the label of “offensive.” -“

“The line between where and when the swastika becomes obviously offensive does cross somewhere, even though I don’t think the line is so easily drawn. I think we have to go with the best we have: widespread agreement of its offensiveness, across many contemporary peoples and cultures.”

“I’m thinking, just because the Nazis distorted the original meaning of the swastika, doesn’t mean we have to.”

“I am not offended by a few scratches, I am offended by meaning.”

Five different people, five slightly different opinions.

The general consensus in that discussion was that, YES, the Nazi version of the Swastika is offensive to a majority of people.

A minority in that discussion wanted to have his definition of it as “non-offensive” elevated to general consensus presumably in the name of Free Speech. Because he doesn’t find it offensive, it is not offensive. Pretty weird coming from someone who purports to defend freedom of speech – trying to impose a dictatorship on the rest of us.

Is it offensive? Is it a violation of free speech to expect people not to use it in public?

“I am not offended by a few scratches, I am offended by meaning.”
“Well, […] – the Nazi Swastika carries meaningconnotations – for a majority of people born between 1933 and 1980 (I am going by when the youngest person I last spoke to about this, who could actually give a time line of the Third Reich, was born). That meaning is negative. In its “simplicity” it spells out genocide, hatred, discrimination, death, extermination, torture, racism, all things bad. That is what people “see” when they see a Nazi Swastika. They see the meaning, and they are offended – by the meaning it carries. The symbol carries that meaning and by removing the symbol, the meaning is removed.

To many of us, the meaning of the Nazi Swastika is a pure physical feeling of up-chucking, fear, anger – the knowledge that someone in that area is prepared to kill us. If it doesn’t have that meaning for you – good for you, but to claim that it doesn’t signal those things, and therefore is not deeply offensive, is just simple lack of imagination, compassion and a down right denial of historical facts, as well as denial of the impact that symbol had on people’s lives and still have.”

At least he is offended by the meaning of the symbol, even if he doesn’t get the connection between the symbol and the meaning of it.

There are some things society as a general entity find so abhorrent that it will legislate against them, simply because the mere existence of those things is an affront to human society. Promoting genocide is one of those things, racism is another.

In a modern society symbols that carry the meaning “genocide, hatred, discrimination, death, extermination, torture, racism” is automatically considered an affront to society, because those symbols cannot be used in any other or meaningful way, they cannot signal anything else.

Of course people have the right to hold views that coincide with the meanings of those symbols, and to speak their opinions – but to expect that they can do so unopposed by either society or the general majority seems a bit naive, or even claim that when they are opposed, they are being silenced is just so much horse manure.

Posted in Third Reich | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: