I’d argue that depending on the victim that ‘any form’ of discomfort could be considered torture. What should define torture isn’t a ‘commonly accepted idea of torture’ but what the victim considers torture. Some people are quite fine with not having any company for example, but other people if they were socially isolated would consider this a torture, especially for a protracted period of time.
I wholeheartedly agree, no-one needs to be water-boarded to be tortured. There is a number of tortures which aren’t publicly considered ‘torture’, such as isolation but when used for a long time should really be considered a torture. The other thing is that there are a number of things which are not considered by themselves as torture but when used in conjunction (together) are so heinous that they should be considered torture. For example, sleep deprivation AND isolation from friends/family AND physical assault.
The other thing to mention is that torture should be considered as something which is dependent on the victim. If an army corporal has their fingers cut off, then most people would say that is most definitely torture. It is most certainly abusive and wrong. But lets say, an ordinary person who isn’t trained to resist torture is also tortured - for example, they are deprived from their rights to live as they usually do, love as they usually do, and act as they usually would - this is also torture. Just because no-one chopped fingers off doesn’t mean that torture hasn’t been committed.
Hi orclev and thanks for commenting. I get where you are coming from, it’s a bit of a stretch but, unfortunately evidence of bias is scant at the best of times, especially when the organization which is accused is usually considered quite reputable.
‘The sum total of your evidence is that a paper considered left leaning has recently run some articles that are more supportive of the current government’ - I think its worth mentioning that this is extremely uncharacteristic considering there is an impending General Election. A left wing newspaper would usually favour Labour. The question worth asking is why a left-wing newspaper would back policies of an outgoing govt. - unless those policies WILL be continued by the new govt. IF that is true, then regardless of conservative or labour govt, we’re going to see war - military recruitment and spending usually mean one thing only.
I don’t think the UK will declare war, but it’s possible that they might, I think it’s more likely that a local issue will escalate to the point where world powers will need to react, for example Ukraine requesting NATO assistance, in which case the UK will act as part of NATO.
i guess the point that I’m trying to make is that if the government is already warming up the public to war, then the decision to go to war is already made. Let’s not mistake the UK for a proper democracy!
Hi Orcrev,
‘Wouldn’t it be just as likely that preparations are being made just in case? Considering how aggressive Russia has been for the last decade it’s looking increasingly likely that it’s a question of when not if they push things too far and involve a NATO country. It’s certainly not guaranteed of course, but it’s also not unlikely.’ - I think you are correct, and regardless of whether the UK will go to war, such preparations would take place. Where we disagree is whether such preparations would be carried out in public. I would say that involving the public in any preparations would suggest that such things are already decided. Involving a traditionally anti-govt. newspaper in this planning would add extra weight that this is the case. It might not be true that the UK is planning for war but involving the public is usually one of the last stages of planning for a war whether it’s starting one or anticipating one, for obvious reasons.
‘Wouldn’t it be reasonable for the UK, being a NATO member, to be at least somewhat prepared should the worst happen? I don’t think that’s a particularly radical or right wing outlook.’ - Again I totally agree that it would be a thing the UK would do, but to do so publicly and also to publicize the fact is in my view an indicator that they (govt.) is set on a particular course of action.
‘If you want to get pessimistic about things you could also look the other direction at the US which unfortunately has been flirting with fascism recently. A win for Trump in this year’s election has the potential to go very very badly for not just the US, but the world. We’re talking potentially 1933 Germany levels of bad.’ - I’d say that any country that is electing an first doctrine president is anticipating war, because the only theater in which that doctrine is always correct is in war. In peace time, compromise is usually made.
‘Considering the UKs past experience having a little something stashed away wouldn’t be the worst idea.’- forgive me, I’m not familiar with what you are referring to here but please tell me.’
‘I still think you’re reading way too much into a relatively minor thing though. There are a lot of far less extreme potential explanations. Jumping immediately to government intervention as the explanation is to ignore a lot of simpler explanations. For instance I’d consider it far more likely that someone simply paid them a lot of money to run those stories’ - I’d personally consider the Guardian to not be an institution that could be ‘bought’ unless it was by the state.
‘There are plenty of large corporations only too happy to pay for media spin that benefits them. They need to even be a UK based company. Someone like Raytheon who would benefit from increased military spending could certainly consider it worth dropping a few hundred thousand in bribes to key people at the paper in the hopes of swaying the publics opinion.’ - Well you might be right but again I don’t believe that the editors at the Guardian would compromise their journalistic integrity to do that - especially given their historical opposition to the MIC.