twa Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 And he is doing this solely for Islam's sake...Right A clever person might also see the reason the Sauds are still in power and rich as hell...and why the attack of 9/11 was structured as it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I've got no problem with Torture. My problem is with us talking about torture. Police do it all the time, they just deny it when they're asked about it - until the video comes out, where they get suspended with pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Two more things before I go to sleep: 1. I think people don't fully realize the slippery slope allowing any type of of torture could put us on. and 2. They also don't realize how important image has been in long-lasting struggles throughout history P.S. At least someone admits that the police torture people in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimpy007 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 By any chance, have you seen the video of Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded? Note at all my friend. I am sure you asked for a reason. So please, do tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 And he is doing this solely for Islam's sake...RightA clever person might also see the reason the Sauds are still in power and rich as hell...and why the attack of 9/11 was structured as it was. You mean a terrorist hasn't been able to overthrow the longtime rulers of his own country, rulers that have had gobs of American support because of their black gold? Next you'll be telling be that sometimes the side that starts a civil war loses. As for the "structure" of the 9/11 attack, that could mean so very many things that you're gonna have to be a bit more specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Note at all my friend. I am sure you asked for a reason. So please, do tell. Take a look: Make sure to listen to what he says afterward. It's hard to judge exactly what's happening from simply watching the actual experience, because almost everything is internal (both physically and psychologically). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimpy007 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Take a look: Make sure to listen to what he says afterward. It's hard to judge exactly what's happening from simply watching the actual experience, because almost everything is internal (both physically and psychologically). OK, I checked it out and I am sure that you already know that I will disagree with you. You have your beliefs and I have mine. That's why this country is so great. Now for why I don't buy into this video. 1) He already had his mind made up before he even did it. He had an agenda and he was going to push that agenda. We all have an agenda... Me, you, Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc... I don't buy into his. 2) He still has all his fingers, toes, no permanent damage was done. He can on with his life if he so chooses. 3) The three individuals who were water-bordered are terrorist. We know this for a fact. They want to kill innocent Americans (you, me, and everyone on this board) for no other reason than hate. 4) Back to what I said earlier - If your child's life was in danger, would you water-board those responsible to save their life? I would... And agree or disagree with Bush's policies, he did so to save our lives. Dennis Blair himself said that valuable information was obtained form these harsh interrogation techniques So while I do respect your opinion, I also disagree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 OK, I checked it out and I am sure that you already know that I will disagree with you. You have your beliefs and I have mine. That's why this country is so great. Now for why I don't buy into this video. 1) He already had his mind made up before he even did it. He had an agenda and he was going to push that agenda. We all have an agenda... Me, you, Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc... I don't buy into his. 2) He still has all his fingers, toes, no permanent damage was done. He can on with his life if he so chooses. 3) The three individuals who were water-bordered are terrorist. We know this for a fact. They want to kill innocent Americans (you, me, and everyone on this board) for no other reason than hate. 4) Back to what I said earlier - If your child's life was in danger, would you water-board those responsible to save their life? I would... And agree or disagree with Bush's policies, he did so to save our lives. Dennis Blair himself said that valuable information was obtained form these harsh interrogation techniques So while I do respect your opinion, I also disagree... Ha, I figured you would, but, hey, it was worth a shot. #1 I'll actually grant you. He definitely did, and it was probably no different than if I volunteered for the same thing - I'd have a certain mindset going in that would affect how I reacted. #2, however, I disagree with. I'm gonna get geeky for a moment. There's a Harry Potter spell called the Crutacious Curse, which basically causes every nerve in the victim's body to explode in pain until the victim is released. It leaves no marks, no scars, no permanent damage. But if you think that's not torture, I think you're crazy. To use a far less geeky example, I've read that people who volunteered for actual Chinese water torture have said that within a couple of hours they fully understand why the word "torture" is part of its name. Or, hell, if I wanted to taze you over and over again for certain information - assuming your internal organs didn't eventually shut down or anything, would you say that isn't torture? Or for one last example, try the "treatment" in Clockwork Orange - doesn't leave a single mark on the body. "Permanent damage" simply isn't an adequate definition to cover all forms of torture. #3 is, according to the information that has been released so far, true. However, multiply-convicted murderers want to kill innocent Americans to further their own goals, too. Are they the scum of the earth? Absolutely. Do I at all support our justice system torturing them? Absolutely not. And I'm pretty damn sure the Founding Fathers would line up behind me on that one - there's a reason why the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" is so well-known in this country. #4 I fundamentally disagree with because of the multiple sources from within our own interrogation units which offer very, very clear arguments about why they tell everyone they know that we get far more information out of non-aggressive techniques than out of waterboarding and the like. I'd suggest you take a look at this guy, who was head of the team that cracked the #2 Al Queda man in Iraq. Or maybe try the so-called "Master Interrogator" of ****in' Nazi Germany, who helped to shape the Luftwaffe's interrogation approach and vehemently argued that the most and best information came from completely non-physical techniques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I didn't understand the question or questions?? Where they in english? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 We have tried that,and still do with civilized enemies. So we should only treat the people we like the way we want to be treated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 So Greg Gutfeld from FNCs Red Eye says I'm worse than Hitler because I don't support torture. Sieg Heil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 what if "the guy" doesn't have any info and that guy is you? :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 If your child was captured by some country or organization we were fighting, and they had mistakenly identified your child as someone who was plotting against them, would you want your child to be tortured for information he/she didn't have? Again a cop out, pretty straight forward question, do you want the terrorist tortured to save your kids life? Circle One YES NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 So we should only treat the people we like the way we want to be treated? What does like have to do with it? Why does war or even jihad have rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubstix Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 So, if a terrorist attack happens on, say, September 11 of Obama's presidency, it's his fault? What does that mean for the attack on September 11 of Bush's presidency? Yes, its his fault correct. Nobody ever knew a terrorist attack of that magnitude was going to happen on Sept 11th. Bush and Cheney kept this country safe for 8 years after that. How are you even in this forum defending something so ludicrous. It's cool when us americans get beheaded on live television right? Or get our throats slit by a dull knife also on life television right? Waterboarding....OOOOOOOOOOOO. I would still be for torture even if they told me they were ripping finger nails off these guys. Your a sick religious physco....you need help. To actually be sitting in this post and defending torture so save your family and friends lives and to keep them safe is beyond sick. Go get help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Again a cop out, pretty straight forward question, do you want the terrorist tortured to save your kids life?Circle One YES NO You're trying to back him into a corner by making him argue out of emotions rather than logic. So what if he let his emotions control him and wanted to kill the SOBs who had his kids hostage or whatever. That doesn't mean his principles aren't right. It'd just mean that those principles are hard to live up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 That doesn't mean his principles aren't right. It'd just mean that those principles are hard to live up to. Or that the principle has been enhanced to a degree it is now illogical and self defeating. He claims to listen and believe what Bin Laden says is plain truth,yet apparently ignores what weakness Bin Laden states he will attempt to exploit here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Or that the principle has been enhanced to a degree it is now illogical and self defeating.He claims to listen and believe what Bin Laden says is plain truth,yet apparently ignores what weakness Bin Laden states he will attempt to exploit here. well, I don't know all his opinions. I just know that trick as a common one people use to try to win an argument. I haven't read through this thread. It seems like one of those passionate draw a line in the sand and nobody's gonna cross type threads. I can't stand those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 It seems like one of those passionate draw a line in the sand and nobody's gonna cross type threads. I can't stand those. You mean like the line some are attempting to draw in defining torture? No room for nuance and mitigating factors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 We'll all be laughing about this once the Feds start waterboarding the separatists in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Hubbs uses a Harry Potter analogy as an example of torture ? YEP! that helps your argument!! :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 We'll all be laughing about this once the Feds start waterboarding the separatists in the future Could be.. we celebrate Lincoln's efforts to preserve the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I say we figure out what happened, and try best to judge the evidence based on the context of the time, and if crimes were committed they should be punished if they were too great, or pardoned if they were necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 The number of civilian casualties has a direct correlation on the tactics used to extract the information. IF it is proven a 'torture' works to get information for 1000+ lives. Work your way up to it. 100,000+ start at the VERY BEST known method. The military should always use the geneva convention. The CIA should only be heard about when they screw up (overseas). *not local* The FBI somewhere inbetween Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Your a sick religious physco....you need help. To actually be sitting in this post and defending torture so save your family and friends lives and to keep them safe is beyond sick. Go get help. so anyone that doesn't agree with you is a "sick physco" :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.