Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sausage is made from most every kind of meat and that is not the point.
Even Horse and Dog meat? All this time I though sausage was made strictly using pigs / pork meat.
Ok back to the topic,
Regarding the issue of torture, I agree with Trump 100% and actually think they should use tree chippers and feed terrorist in feet first. I bet after the first terrorist was fed into one while the others were watching they would begin to talk. Then after they finished telling us all they knew then they should be taken out back and shot in the head.
I find it ironic or even hypocritical when many people in the USA are polled there seems to be a consensus that child rapists should be taken out back and shot in the head yet when you mention a terrorist who is Hellll bent on killing as many Americans as possible (including women and children) then so many people want to be politically correct and worry about the Geneva convention or guidelines.
I say torture them and use any method possible to make sure they talk or at least feel the wrath of hell as they die a tortuous death
Very well said, you articulated many additional thoughts I had that I did not delve into.
The incident involving West doesn't even vaguely resemble the fictitious "ticking time bomb" scenario posited in the OP. I also wouldn't classify West's interrogation technique as torture (and therefore disagree with the Military's punishment of West) so I'm not sure what point you think you are making with that example. No one is denying that some prisoners can and do possess actionable intelligence. The question is what is the most effective manner of accessing that information and how willing are we, as a nation, to abandon the very principles which make our country great?
Considering the frequency with which the "ticking time bomb"scenario is brought up, you'd think someone could cite at least one actual example of it that wasn't on a fictional TV show.
Since many battlefield tactics are labeled torture in modern vernacular, the answer is quite simple. It was stated as much way earlier in the thread. Also this one hypothetical has bled over to 'torture' generally.
I don't live in a black and white world, but there are some lines I think we all should not cross. And torture is one of them. I'm quite certain I've been consistent.
Well if there are lines you can't cross, is that not black and white, right or wrong? But that is another thread.
I wasn't saying you were being inconsistent. The point about why I would use some techniques that some call torture is a simple yes being I would. Qualifying would only waste thread space. The judgement would then come from legal, or other, avenues.
Everyone always needs to qualify things when the action, if reduced to the basic premise, is yes or no.
You say no.
I say yes.
Both can equivocate but the equivocation is moot contingent on yes or no.
This is what really kills me. The mentality that says, "These people are animals! So we have to be animals, too!"
People who believe this hate America and what we're supposed to stand for. And then they call themselves "patriots." It's obvious, from what they want to turn this country into, that they don't know the meaning of the word.
During WWII, General Eisenhower was preparing for the D-Day invasion of Nazi occupied France. Based on their studies they had to bomb certain locations in Normandy that would guarantee a certain number of innocent deaths. If we did not bomb those areas, it was ascertained that the invasion would likely fail. To free France, it was a given that we'd kill innocent French civilians - of course minimizing it as much as possible while achieving victory.
Just curious if you think that this made us on a similar footing with the Nazis?
Splitting hairs, I think your trying to make it palatable. Torture is not or should not be used for enjoyment, it should be done to yield information.
I don't need to know most of what I want to know before I would use torture. Do you want to hear something that is bad that is disgusting? listen to the children crying after the bombing, and the child sitting next to his dead mother
But that violates the principle of your question. Your question is would you torture a terrorist if it could stop a bombing. You're now expanding it to be torture on suspicion, which leads me to ask what level of suspicion and what kinds of events?
Torture is often used for claimed information reasons, but the actual real motivation is retribution, often a suspect is the suspect of, or connect to, some heinous act. It's only natural that people emotively want to punish the guilty. However the information yielded is suspect and the process of scrubbing it in general results in as much time wasted getting the info as getting the info through non-torture means.
For instance take Abu-Ghraib, you think that was about information, or getting a little pay-back? Do you think that the CIA in Gitmo is was all about information, or also getting a little pay-back, it's a completely justified response, I mean 3000+ Americans died at the hands of terrorists right?
Problem is that the terrorists we know were involved died at the time of the event, the others were captured later along with a bunch of people who are really no-names who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicarjoe
This is the war our enemy's Islam has brought to us, we need to give them all they want of it until they cry out enough. Then we can return to civilized ways. If you think for one min we can hold some kind of high ground in war you remind me of the British complaining that the Americans did not stand shoulder to shoulder and instead shot from behind trees and ran. War is to be won then we can have civilized behavior afterward.
Which war is this one? Syria is Syria's fight, they seem to be doing OK, who precisely are we at war with Islam? So Saudi, Dubai, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Egypt? Are we at war with Europe? They have large populations of Muslims both prior to the refugee influx and now.
So tell me what wars have you fought in?
If you want complete unrestrained warfare then you're accepting that you're subject to those same forces. If you don't want people to torture your guys you can't torture theirs, if you don't want your guys to be subject to chemical attack you can't use chemical weapons, if you don't want your civilians to be targets, you can't target theirs. We wage restricted warfare not to protect the enemy but to protect us from the response to our unrestricted warfare. If we are not afraid of someone's response we don't need to engage unrestricted warfare (because they're not sufficient threat to respond in kind), if you do, then it's a publicity coup for the enemy. If we are afraid we dare not engage in unrestricted warfare, because even if we lose, we'd like something of our families, people, and country to remain. Why do people not understand this?
I'll also add that the Patriot movie was just a movie, the US guerilla style of fighting was pretty much suppressed shortly after the War of Independence start and didn't play any significant role in the outcome. The events that did have a significant role were not involving people shooting behind trees and running.
Well if there are lines you can't cross, is that not black and white, right or wrong? But that is another thread.
I wasn't saying you were being inconsistent. The point about why I would use some techniques that some call torture is a simple yes being I would. Qualifying would only waste thread space. The judgement would then come from legal, or other, avenues.
Everyone always needs to qualify things when the action, if reduced to the basic premise, is yes or no.
You say no.
I say yes.
Both can equivocate but the equivocation is moot contingent on yes or no.
The thing is that I don't need to qualify things. No, without qualification. I haven't equivocated.
As to your first point, if there are lines you can't cross, within the lines I live in a full-color, rich and vibrant world. I think that everyone has boundaries. It's those boundaries that help to define who we are. The fact that I have boundaries does not make me a black and white, right or wrong sort of person. I'm truly very easy-going, live-and-let-live. While on this thread I might seem judgmental, that's because this is an issue I feel very strongly about, and I'm willing to voice my feelings. Because I feel so strongly that if I were to inflict torture on another being, it would diminish me. It would do harm to me. And I think it does harm to anyone who inflicts torture on another. It takes a certain mindset, an ability to look at other human beings as being less than human, to take such an action. I think that such a mindset is dangerous, and also that whether acted upon or not, it lessens our feelings of connection to others. And that feeling of connection is one of the strengths of mankind. Our ability to see ourselves in others is something precious.
The thing is that I don't need to qualify things. No, without qualification. I haven't equivocated.
As to your first point, if there are lines you can't cross, within the lines I live in a full-color, rich and vibrant world. I think that everyone has boundaries. It's those boundaries that help to define who we are. The fact that I have boundaries does not make me a black and white, right or wrong sort of person. I'm truly very easy-going, live-and-let-live. While on this thread I might seem judgmental, that's because this is an issue I feel very strongly about, and I'm willing to voice my feelings. Because I feel so strongly that if I were to inflict torture on another being, it would diminish me. It would do harm to me. And I think it does harm to anyone who inflicts torture on another. It takes a certain mindset, an ability to look at other human beings as being less than human, to take such an action. I think that such a mindset is dangerous, and also that whether acted upon or not, it lessens our feelings of connection to others. And that feeling of connection is one of the strengths of mankind. Our ability to see ourselves in others is something precious.
I actually with most of what you say.
Torture in the 'medieval' fingernail pulling since, I agree.
Modern labels of 'torture' may still conflict the individual. That's why I used the word equivocate. I can foresee being in scenarios where methods that some would label as 'torture' would used. Instead of getting into every nuance the human mind could conceive, I say yes.
It's not judgement against those that say they couldn't or even see a scenario that could be labeled torture. The human mind is nuanced, and there are 7 billion of us. I only speak for myself.
I don't know how you, or anyone, will come up with a single all encompassing definition of torture. The word seems to have morphed out of classical definitions. So to save thread space, again, I would.
If there were more such as yourself, maybe those scenarios wouldn't even need to be considered. But humanity is not such and those scenarios occur, everyday.
Yes. In fact, if they live broadcast the torture of the Belgium terrorists on pay per view, I would actually pay to watch it. Donate all proceeds to victims families.
I think we are getting a little off the tracks here to say the least in looking towards WW2 and Hiroshima as justfication for toture of supposed terrorists. Torture is never justified but using cases where our country faced major threats compared to torturing suspected terrorists at Abu Graib and GItmo who never did a thing to our country is not even close to rational.
Would you torture a terrorist if it meant you could get info to stop a bombing? How far would you go? Personally I firmly believe that even if we had to torture the terrorists family to death it would be worth it. War is a messy business, no one like to see how sausage is made. You can not have it for breakfast by petting a cow. Blood must be spilled. Where is your line? If it would save 100 people would you torture the child of a terrorist in front of them to get info? What if it was a Nuke and you would save a million people? IMO if we want to win we have to do what ever it takes. Extraordinary times take extraordinary measures. I know the Hippie liberal will say never the same Dukaus idiot answer that he would not want the death penalty for someone who rapped and murdered his wife. This only leads to more crime and more death. Some times you have to cut off the arm to save the body. Sorry liberal but this is the real world not some kumbya world.
I consider people who torture innocent people to be the bad guys in war. No, not every war is about good and evil, but you know what, anyone willing to torture an innocent person lacks empathy, decency, courage; basically all the qualities that make a good person.
You say you'd torture an innocent person. I'd call you evil. I'd call anyone who agrees with you evil. And I don't care if it offends you. To do harm to someone who is of no threat to you or anyone else makes you a terrorist.
I am firmly against torture. Would I say torturing a terrorist is morally just to save a thousand people. No. It's not. But I might still do it. But I would never harm an innocent person under that cowardly excuse of 'war is messy business.'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
