So you have to agree with everything your country does to be someone that loves it?

 

To compare the US to these terrorists is over the top. As a nation we have taken a position against torture. Should we have waterboarded those individuals that gave up info that stooped other terrorist attacks? No one died from these acts of torture, terrorist or innocect individuals. To compare that to the planned attacked and torture of people that left the doctors with horrid images, that is over the top.

I see no connection between the handful of cases where our government used water boarding against known terrorists and the fact that dozens of innocent victims were tortured to death by terrorists in Mumbai. The constant need for liberals in this country to find moral equivalency between terrorist groups composed of sub-humans and our own government is deeply disturbing.

Not analogous to torture.

 

Not analogous to torture.

 

And I am to assume that they would tell the truth? Particularly when time is a factor? It's a bad gambit on the risk/reward scale even before one factors in the moral qualms that have to be ignored.

Aside from the fact that rape and beatings have very much been used as forms of torture by evil men for centuries... you dodged answering my points entirely.

 

Since you are unwilling to commit yourself to a course of action, I will.

 

I could not stand by passively and watch a woman being raped.

 

I could not stand by passively and watch a weaker person being beaten by a stronger person.

 

If I would be willing to use force in the "present" tense to stop violence perpetrated by clearly evil men upon innocent victims, I most certainly would have no qualms about using force to extract information from someone I knew to be a sworn killer in league with other sworn killers with a detailed plan to horrifically kill innocent victims in a near "future" tense.

 

If we could have interrogated one or two of the 20 terrorists known to be directly involved in the attacks of 9/11, and thereby prevented the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans, I for one would have been all for it to ensure that the children of firemen, policemen and stock brokers would have dad present at graduations and weddings.

 

Morality is a contract... first with God, and then with our fellow man. When certain evil men choose to break the contract and violate others attempting to honor the contract... all bets are off for those evil men. It may be possible to love and reform them... long after the events are history, but as long as it is possible to extract information that will spare innocent lives... they (the evil dudes) made a bad choice, break 'em.

Edited December 3, 200817 yr by Fastbreak

Well said.

Aside from the fact that rape and beatings have very much been used as forms of torture by evil men for centuries... you dodged answering my points entirely.

 

If I "dodged answering your points entirely," as you put it, it's because I'm not willing to take the logical missteps you rely on to reach your conclusion.

 

If I would be willing to use force in the "present" tense to stop violence perpetrated by clearly evil men upon innocent victims, I most certainly would have no qualms about using force to extract information from someone I knew to be a sworn killer in league with other sworn killers with a detailed plan to horrifically kill innocent victims in a near "future" tense.

 

If we could have interrogated one or two of the 20 terrorists known to be directly involved in the attacks of 9/11, and thereby prevented the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans, I for one would have been all for it to ensure that the children of firemen, policemen and stock brokers would have dad present at graduations and weddings.

 

Of course, you have to operate under the fanciful assumption that torture provides actionable information as opposed to strings of irrelevant "I'll say whatever you want to hear" information.

 

At the end of the day, one cannot consider torture in case A to be righteous and just while simultaneously considering torture in case B to be inhumane and barbaric.

At the end of the day, one cannot consider torture in case A to be righteous and just while simultaneously considering torture in case B to be inhumane and barbaric.

Oh, but one most certainly can. One that's engaging in battle without wearing a military uniform gets what he deserves, just that simple. How you and a few others can even begin to compare waterboarding to what these bottom feeders did is totally beyond me.

Why does morality even come in to it? I don't understand why people feel the need to bring religious and moral beliefs into political matters only when it benefits their point of view.

If you know how to seperate your morality from your political views, then teach me how. My votes and political positions are a part of me, they do not exist outside of me. I believe in God, and I also believe then when I stand before him on judgment day, saying "Well, torture is wrong, but I 100% supported it politically" that is going to fly for an acceptable answer. BTW, do you assume the bombing of abortion clinics?

 

And, no, I don't think that politically supporting torture will prevent you from heaven. However, many Christians look at life in terms of "Will I make it to Heaven?" This implies an attitude of doing the bare minimum to get in.

 

For me, I strive to do what is right in all aspects of my life. I can't seperate my political self from the rest of me. If I want to do the right, ethical thing at all times, then I must do so politically as well.

:thumb:

 

If it's effective, there isn't a single interrogation method I have a problem with the US using.

Here's a bizarre hypothetical- bear with me:

 

 

Just out of curiousity, if President-Elect Barack Obama proposed a 85% income tax to pay some terrorists for information on their next attack, and those terrorists promised to tell us the truth, would you throw your support behind him?

I don't give a rat about the moral qualms in regards to waterboarding. My only concern is if it is effective and practical. If it is ineffective then it has no value to this country and should be discontinued as an interrogation method. If it is effective then I have no problem with using it.

 

Why does morality even come in to it? I don't understand why people feel the need to bring religious and moral beliefs into political matters only when it benefits their point of view.

 

:thumb:

 

Do any of you guys have any problem with bombing abortion clinics?

 

Both are "effective and accurate" at preventing abortions.

 

What about murder? Any problems with murder?

Do any of you guys have any problem with bombing abortion clinics?

 

Both are "effective and accurate" at preventing abortions.

 

What about murder? Any problems with murder?

 

There's a difference and you know it.

 

Here's a bizarre hypothetical- bear with me:

 

 

Just out of curiousity, if President-Elect Barack Obama proposed a 85% income tax to pay some terrorists for information on their next attack, and those terrorists promised to tell us the truth, would you throw your support behind him?

 

That's not interrogation. That's negotiating with terrorists and bribery at it's finest.

If I "dodged answering your points entirely," as you put it, it's because I'm not willing to take the logical missteps you rely on to reach your conclusion.

 

Of course, you have to operate under the fanciful assumption that torture provides actionable information as opposed to strings of irrelevant "I'll say whatever you want to hear" information.

 

At the end of the day, one cannot consider torture in case A to be righteous and just while simultaneously considering torture in case B to be inhumane and barbaric.

You know, if you halfway tried, I really believe you could sound truly condescending in your next post... :lol:

 

I'll gladly make my supposed logical missteps if they result in preventing evil men from harming innocent victims. You and others are welcome to "judge" the outcome, and agree or disagree. You may parse and equivocate all you want, I am resolute in my belief that innocents must be protected from evil doers, and it is the duty of good men to do so.

 

I wonder how you would be able to look the wife and children of a NYC firefighter killed doing his job 9/11/2001 in their eyes and "educate" them on the evils of non-lethal, non-crippling, interrogation that could have saved their husband or father.

 

I’d be interested to hear how you would explain to them how depriving a known terrorist of his sleep, playing loud music and pouring water over his face is the same as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sawing the head off of Nick Berg on video for the world to see… or the many atrocities committed against prisoners of war by the Nazis and Japanese during WWII… or having to make the choice to leap to your death from the 102nd floor of the World Trade Center or be burned alive… or having a 110 story building come crashing down upon you as you attempted to rescue others trapped inside.

 

There's a world of difference between interrogating known evil perpetrators, and cruelly torturing, maiming and killing innocent victims. Asserting they are one and the same is beyond comprehension along a path of reasoning littered with logical and ethical faux pas.

There's a difference and you know it.

There is a difference between the actions, absolutely. I won't deny that.

 

However, the reason why murder is illegal is because of basic morality (or ethics, the terms are synonymous). Civil law relates to morality & ethics.

That's not interrogation. That's negotiating with terrorists and bribery at it's finest.

You are the one who said that if it is "accurate and effective" then you would support it. If you have terrorists willing to sell secrets, then why wouldn't you do it?

You know, if you halfway tried, I really believe you could sound truly condescending in your next post... :lol:

 

I'll gladly make my supposed logical missteps if they result in preventing evil men from harming innocent victims. You and others are welcome to "judge" the outcome, and agree or disagree. You may parse and equivocate all you want, I am resolute in my belief that innocents must be protected from evil doers, and it is the duty of good men to do so.

 

I wonder how you would be able to look the wife and children of a NYC firefighter killed doing his job 9/11/2001 in their eyes and "educate" them on the evils of non-lethal, non-crippling, interrogation that could have saved their husband or father.

 

I’d be interested to hear how you would explain to them how depriving a known terrorist of his sleep, playing loud music and pouring water over his face is the same as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sawing the head off of Nick Berg on video for the world to see… or the many atrocities committed against prisoners of war by the Nazis and Japanese during WWII… or having to make the choice to leap to your death from the 102nd floor of the World Trade Center or be burned alive… or having a 110 story building come crashing down upon you as you attempted to rescue others trapped inside.

 

There's a world of difference between interrogating known evil perpetrators, and cruelly torturing, maiming and killing innocent victims. Asserting they are one and the same is beyond comprehension along a path of reasoning littered with logical and ethical faux pas.

You are taking Habib and the others against torture out of context.

 

No one here is saying that our forms of non-lethal torture are as bad as torture that leads to or results in death. However, the fact remains that both are torture. Yes, there are different degrees of torture. But that does not make one of them right. Both are wrong.

 

Can you imagine Jesus coming to this country and preaching that torture is OK, as long as the other side's torture is worse, and it may lead to actual information (as opposed to the ever present possibility that the terrorist says anything to make it stop, true or not)? In this regard, it is similar to embryonic stem-cell research- why support something that may not produce efficient results and has tremendous ethical questions attached to it?

There is a difference between the actions, absolutely. I won't deny that.

 

However, the reason why murder is illegal is because of basic morality (or ethics, the terms are synonymous). Civil law relates to morality & ethics.

 

You are the one who said that if it is "accurate and effective" then you would support it. If you have terrorists willing to sell secrets, then why wouldn't you do it?

 

I said interrogation methods. Anyone who's willing to negotiate with terrorists should be treated like terrorists IMO.

You are taking Habib and the others against torture out of context.

 

No one here is saying that our forms of non-lethal torture are as bad as torture that leads to or results in death. However, the fact remains that both are torture. Yes, there are different degrees of torture. But that does not make one of them right. Both are wrong.

 

Can you imagine Jesus coming to this country and preaching that torture is OK, as long as the other side's torture is worse, and it may lead to actual information (as opposed to the ever present possibility that the terrorist says anything to make it stop, true or not)? In this regard, it is similar to embryonic stem-cell research- why support something that may not produce efficient results and has tremendous ethical questions attached to it?

 

Can we not have opinions on political issues without bring religion into just once?