Torture In a Word

The word torture is a word that has been bantered about and used as a weapon for at least the last five years in America. Is torture justified? Is it appropriate? Is it ethical? Should America engage in torture even to prevent future terrorist acts and protect the people of America.

I believe that torture as a word, has been changed like so many other words in the American lexicon, to be something entirely different from what it originated as or was meant to represent. A simple look at the long standing definition of the word, or any word for that matter, should be sufficient to answer or dispel most any inquiry into the issue or concern of whether America has been engaged in torture.

But as has become the case with so many other words in our language, we allow ourselves to be led to believe that the old or original definitions are no longer applicable and that the new understandings of applicability should completely replace both common sense understanding and reason when using the words of our language to either defend or assail a position.

There are plenty of other words thrown around regularly in discussions and during the criticisms of others, that long ago lost any semblance of their own original intent or meaning. Racism, gay and Nazi are just a few of the examples that come to mind. None of which now resemble either their original descriptive intent or definition. These words have been hijacked and claimed for absolute right of use by leftist and their socialist multicultural agenda.

These words and others, have been taken over by political agendas and altered to comply with narrow political perspectives of the left. They have no semblance of their original meaning or intent now. And neither does the word torture in my opinion. It too has been modified and re-crafted to more closely embrace the intended desires of those who use it as a political weapon rather than a descriptive word that defines a clearly delineated action.

Certainly, there are other words that have been denied their original intent or taken completely out of contextual use in the language. As example, it is no longer considered acceptable to use words that are perceived as critical of others features or stature.

You can't say that a person is fat, or short, or ugly or even a midget or a dwarf. All of these words have been removed from common use and understanding and replaced with euphemisms and other less offensive code words in the new speak of socially approved verbiage. Of course other words are purposely used to harm and injure those that don't meet with the socially acceptable genres, and these words are perceived as acceptable terminologies for use by those who would attempt to use the known black list words. These people are usually referred to as 'retards' or 'tards' or 'phobes' of one stripe or another. Or 'neo' something or another by the socially acceptable multiculturalist and those in the know and practiced in the new speak.

All part of the new deal of language in my opinion. Or as Orwell once noted? All part of the 'new speak.' (the man was way ahead of his time) We in the west can no longer engage in any discourse of free or unrestrained thought or conversation, as even our words and language have been corrupted, infected, hijacked and infiltrated with the disease of relativism.

And what follows is the far more sinister reality that our words are not only being weighed and measured against political agendas and how we view and accept those agendas, but the words themselves are also being categorized into potential evidentiary examples of what is now recognized as hate speak. Which left unattended? Will result in the round up and prosecution of all who would transgress proper thought and attempt to use them.

Hate speech being the present language identified for future criminal prosecution and imprisonment of thought. And by any and all who transgress the acceptable and approved list of words and definitions as approved. Hate speak is the new tool of language crafted by the egalitarians and the socialist who would have you (us) think that the saving grace to all of our supposedly socially destructive constructs is simple fairness of thought and speech. (Just as long as "they" get to decide what is fair and legal).

There is nothing fair about egalitarianism or social relativism. Each are specifically designed to steal from freedom and democracy the very things that make them desirable and worth protecting. And the theft is accomplished by draping new meanings and representations on words and societal mores. And by painting them over with lies and deception is the favored means and mechanism of socialist relativism.

The truth is obscured and replaced with alternatives that seem to fit and produce a more desired outcome in the eye of the beholder. But what outcome is really brought forth from half truths and lies purposely fostered in order to deny the truth and the reality to only the elite? What has been accomplished when false facades have been erected in order to protect that which it is known to be not right and an out right lie on top of it.

Such is the case with one of our latest additions to the world of new speak. The definition of the word torture. Websters and most other dictionaries of the English language, define torture as.....'an anguish of the body or mind.'

'Something that causes agony or pain. The infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding)to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.' So what is or was the torture as applied by US intelligence officers against captured Al Qaida operatives known to have engaged in terrorism against America?

What was it that was done to them that was so terrible or torturous?

It seems that the three biggies are 'water boarding.' sleep 'deprivation,' and the playing of 'Rap music' for long periods of time for the individuals in question. And possibly the varying of temperature in their cells. And who can ever forget the making of men wear panties on their head or the forming of nude pyramids at Abu Graib while dogs barked at them.

Now, think about and consider what has actually been done to secure the safety of America, versus what has been alleged to have been torture. Then consider what Al Qaida considers torture. The removal of eyes, being drug behind vehicles, suspended from wires with electrodes attached to the genitals, hacking off of digits and limbs and a personal favorite.....interrogation with a blow torch I personally believe that the obvious becomes immediately apparent. And that obvious difference is the difference between the inflicting of intentional extreme or sadistic pain? Or the infliction of 'fear or discomfort' as used as a tool designed to encourage an individual to cooperate and give up information.

And for those who seem confused as to realities? I suggest they have a look at what went on at the Hanoi Hilton in North Vietnam. And what went on in Nazi concentration and prisoner of war camps. Have a look at what the Japanese did to Nanking and later to Americans. Then perhaps people will be able to look at a revealing gradient of what true torture and sadism really is.

But in all fairness? Those are already academic arguments. As the messianic one has already decided and made his decisions official US policy. Now all that is left to do? Is to simply wait and see how that all works out. I say we won't have long to wait.