Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 379
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    They have and do, but we're glad to send you over to negotiate !
    So you want our troops and civilians who are captured to be treated in the same manner we treat their detainees.


    If America was invaded by a foreign power, who unleased "shock and awe" on Washington (killing civilians and goverment officals alike), drug your father, brother and daughter out of their home, "detaining and interrogating" them and rubbing your daughter in feces while you watch, to "soften you up" for interrogation... all for the purpose of finding some non-existant weapons, or to overthrow your own DICTATOR...

    would you, or would you not behead a few of the invaders, if you had a chance???
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Showing the atrocities on video is not sport for them, it is their way of fighting what they perceive as the US forcing their power and their lifestyle onto the Muslim world. I don't agree with that view nor with their methods.
    And what of the Japanese, Italian, Polish, or British jounalists, aid workers, or private contractors there to rebuild the infrastructure? They had nothing to do with "the US forcing their power and their lifestyle onto the Muslim world". Were they not forcing their power? Were they not doing this to intimidate or incite terror? I could argue that this was done for sport, some of those people were targeted and hunted, and the terrorists treated them like animals. That had nothing to do with their freedom or liberties or supposed religion.

    And as far as the "US forcing...their lifestyle onto the Muslim world", let me know when Levi's billboards or McDonald's start appearing in Baghdad. It always strikes me as funny how people in power decry American commercialism as the end of the world, then you see the lines for miles at the first McDonalds in Moscow. Looks like "the people" don't seem to mind it so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Torturing, also including torturing to death is a way of gathering information you condone.
    ...
    You condone what happened to General Mowoush
    I never said either of these things, again, you are twisting my words. I never used the word "torture", nor did I say that torturing anyone to death is OK, nor did I say that Gen. Mowoush got what he deserved. I said that in the right circumstances, which I am willing to leave up to the CIA and/or military, that "bending" the rules of interrogation is OK. Why does that automatically translate to physical torture? There are many methods of mental or emotional torture that we choose not to use that, like I said earlier, do not involve breaking bones or chopping off fingers. Sensory deprivation can be a very motivating method, moreso than pain, because eventually you can block it out, or pass out, making you far less informative. And nowhere in any of my threads did I say or even imply that I condone torturing someone to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe the soldiers got angry because he kept lying about the WMD's?
    No, I'm sure they were angry because the Republican Guard just got finished launching mortars at them.
    I'm back!
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    So you want our troops and civilians who are captured to be treated in the same manner we treat their detainees.
    I believe these are mutually exclusive. They are not looking for cues from us how to treat any British aid workers they kidnap.
    I'm back!
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    So you want our troops and civilians who are captured to be treated in the same manner we treat their detainees.


    If America was invaded by a foreign power, who unleased "shock and awe" on Washington (killing civilians and goverment officals alike), drug your father, brother and daughter out of their home, "detaining and interrogating" them and rubbing your daughter in feces while you watch, to "soften you up" for interrogation... all for the purpose of finding some non-existant weapons, or to overthrow your own DICTATOR...

    would you, or would you not behead a few of the invaders, if you had a chance???
    Man your just whack ! Nursing home drop your meds ?
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    And what of the Japanese, Italian, Polish, or British jounalists, aid workers, or private contractors there to rebuild the infrastructure? They had nothing to do with "the US forcing their power and their lifestyle onto the Muslim world". Were they not forcing their power? Were they not doing this to intimidate or incite terror? I could argue that this was done for sport, some of those people were targeted and hunted, and the terrorists treated them like animals. That had nothing to do with their freedom or liberties or supposed religion.
    I think those terrorists do what they do because they think it is a justified way of fighting for their religion, freedom, liberty. I share none of their views, and I am certain they are wrong, but it is not sports or mere sadism that triggers their actions. For them it is a means with a goal in mind.
    And as far as the "US forcing...their lifestyle onto the Muslim world", let me know when Levi's billboards or McDonald's start appearing in Baghdad. It always strikes me as funny how people in power decry American commercialism as the end of the world, then you see the lines for miles at the first McDonalds in Moscow. Looks like "the people" don't seem to mind it so much.
    I totally agree. That's because "the people" and "terrorists" are two almost totally separate groups.
    I never used the word "torture", nor did I say that torturing anyone to death is OK, nor did I say that Gen. Mowoush got what he deserved. I said that in the right circumstances, which I am willing to leave up to the CIA and/or military, that "bending" the rules of interrogation is OK. Why does that automatically translate to physical torture?
    Again I am sorry if I got you wrong, but I think it is fair to say that your previous statement was misleading at best:
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    ... as I stated earlier, I am willing to allow US policies on interrogation to be "bent", sometimes severely, to prevent another 9/11. Of course, I don't condone this for the average Taliban footsoldier where there is nothing to gain, but in the case of Maj. Gen. Mowhoush, I can see where excelerated techniques may have been necessary.
    Since General Mowhoush was killed during interrogation, it very much looked as if you don't condone this for average footsoldiers, but for Mowhoush yes. Here's the part I quoted again:

    Take the case of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, the former chief of Iraqi air defenses, who died Nov. 26 at a detention facility at Al Qaim, northwest of Baghdad. After his death the Pentagon released a statement reporting that "it appeared Mowhoush died of natural causes." That was a lie. In fact, according to an autopsy report, Gen. Mowhoush died of "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression." According to documents first obtained by the Denver Post, two soldiers slid a sleeping bag over him and rolled him repeatedly from his back to his stomach; one then sat on his chest and covered his mouth. Only after the Denver Post's report last week did the Pentagon acknowledge the truth and say that a homicide investigation was underway.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #126  
    Let's say today was September 10, 2001. You had someone in your custody that had some information on a terrorist plot to kill thousands of people.
    Your options are:
    A. Ask the person diplomatically and humanely about information...you know going into this, you are probably not going to get any information out of him. But hey, you're living up to your 'morals' of no torture, and to the Geneva Convention. But, in the end 1000s of innocent people, going about their daily lives, die. Is this the morally correct answer?
    B. Make the person give up the information. Every person has their breaking point. Sure it is inhumane, and against the 'Geneva Convention', and you are violating their human rights, sinking to their level...but at the end of the day, you just saved 1000s of peoples lives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You can't respect the human rights of one individual, if they aren't going to respect the human rights of others.

    Unfortunately, it's not a black and white world. War has a way of skewing morals. That's how the US won their independence from England...guerilla (sp?) warfare they learned from the local indians. No one is questioning their motives/morals now are they? Someone has to make the tough decisions. Would you rather have 'bad' people tortured? or let those 'bad' people kill innocents? Do you stop them before or let them continue because you are hindered because of your 'morals'? You can't save everyone, but the only real moral answer is to save as many as you can. That is the real moral principle.
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I think those terrorists do what they do because they think it is a justified way of fighting for their religion
    I cannot grasp the concept of a religion where this is acceptable. And before this point gets brought up, I do realize that there have been wars fought because of Judeo-Christian ideals as well. I am not a Catholic, but I fully see the hypocrisy of The Crusades, The Inquisition, and The Holocaust.


    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Again I am sorry if I got you wrong, but I think it is fair to say that your previous statement was misleading at best...Since General Mowhoush was killed during interrogation, it very much looked as if you don't condone this for average footsoldiers, but for Mowhoush yes. Here's the part I quoted again:
    My earlier statements may have sounded as if I condone torturing to death, which I do not. When I said "excelerated techniques" for Mowhoush, I didn't quite mean that. If they had to make him scream a bit or miss a few meals, I don't have a problem with that.

    Now bin Laden, that's a different story altogether.
    I'm back!
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Let's say today was September 10, 2001. You had someone in your custody that had some information on a terrorist plot to kill thousands of people.
    Your options are:
    A. Ask the person diplomatically and humanely about information...you know going into this, you are probably not going to get any information out of him. But hey, you're living up to your 'morals' of no torture, and to the Geneva Convention. But, in the end 1000s of innocent people, going about their daily lives, die. Is this the morally correct answer?
    B. Make the person give up the information. Every person has their breaking point. Sure it is inhumane, and against the 'Geneva Convention', and you are violating their human rights, sinking to their level...but at the end of the day, you just saved 1000s of peoples lives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You can't respect the human rights of one individual, if they aren't going to respect the human rights of others.

    Unfortunately, it's not a black and white world. War has a way of skewing morals. That's how the US won their independence from England...guerilla (sp?) warfare they learned from the local indians. No one is questioning their motives/morals now are they? Someone has to make the tough decisions. Would you rather have 'bad' people tortured? or let those 'bad' people kill innocents? Do you stop them before or let them continue because you are hindered because of your 'morals'? You can't save everyone, but the only real moral answer is to save as many as you can. That is the real moral principle.
    Obviously if you know for a fact (and you never really do, even though you might have some pretty good evidence) that this person has material evidence to something of that magnitude, you do whatever, and this time I do mean WHATEVER, you need to do to get that information and prevent something like 9/11. In this case I would condone any sort of activity deemed necessary to get that kind of information in time. However, I'd say this is a pretty special case.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
    Spock in "The Wrath of Khan".
    I'm back!
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Spock in "The Wrath of Khan".
    "I am, and always shall be, your friend"
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Those regulations are certainly the ultimate proof that nothing could have possibly gone wrong with the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, right?

    The Pentagon reaction to the Newsweek article was almost funny:
    "Gen. Richard Myers said Thursday that an investigation by the U.S. Southern Command, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has so far turned up no evidence that that incident took place. "They have looked through the logs, interrogation logs, and they cannot confirm yet that there was ever the case of the toilet incident," Myers said."

    If Myers would have looked up the logs of Abu Ghraib, would they have shown that the guards peed on the prisoners (and much worse)?

    This is not about a flawed news magazine article, this is about a reputation destroyed and human rights violated routinely. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib will continue to haunt the US, that's the problem with leaving the moral high ground.
    And the training in case of capture that tells them to claim all forms of abuse and blasphamy are also proof that the abuse actually happened too, right?
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Let's say today was September 10, 2001. You had someone in your custody that had some information on a terrorist plot to kill thousands of people.
    Your options are:
    A. Ask the person diplomatically and humanely about information...you know going into this, you are probably not going to get any information out of him. But hey, you're living up to your 'morals' of no torture, and to the Geneva Convention. But, in the end 1000s of innocent people, going about their daily lives, die. Is this the morally correct answer?
    B. Make the person give up the information. Every person has their breaking point. Sure it is inhumane, and against the 'Geneva Convention', and you are violating their human rights, sinking to their level...but at the end of the day, you just saved 1000s of peoples lives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
    Interesting how you phrase your question so that you only have two options but let me ask you this:

    a. How do you 'know' the person you have detained has the information that you need? What would be the standard "We THINK the person knows?"

    b. If someone was torturing you because they knew YOU had the info that they wanted, how much torture would it take before you told them anything (including a lie) so they would stop?? I don't know about you, but I don't necessarily prefer pain and I would give my would-be torturers bogus info after the first time they tried drowning me.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    You can't respect the human rights of one individual, if they aren't going to respect the human rights of others.
    This doesnt make sense (at least to me). Why cant WE respect the rights of individuals REGARDLESS of what THEY do? Are you saying that they are controlling our behavior based on what they do? We don't have any say in it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Unfortunately, it's not a black and white world. War has a way of skewing morals. Someone has to make the tough decisions.
    Someone only has to make tough decisions like you suggested if we choose NOT to take the higher moral ground. Remember, we don't even have to have a discussion about torture if we can get our intel through more 'legitimate' means.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Obviously if you know for a fact (and you never really do, even though you might have some pretty good evidence) that this person has material evidence to something of that magnitude, you do whatever, and this time I do mean WHATEVER, you need to do to get that information and prevent something like 9/11. In this case I would condone any sort of activity deemed necessary to get that kind of information in time. However, I'd say this is a pretty special case.
    Does it matter if the person is a US citizen? What if the person was McVeigh and we had pretty good intel that he knew (I dont think we really know) that he was conspiring to blow up a federal building...would you condone torture and as you put it "you do whatever, and this time I do mean WHATEVER, you need to do to get that information" or do you not condone it because he is a US citizen? If you dont condone it then why the difference? Is a US citizens life more important than a non citizen? Would it make a difference if you knew you could save 3,000 people versus 300 people? Just curious.

    My argument on torture is that it is a slippery slope. Once you condone it, then you have to subjectively have guidelines on how much, how long, to whom, who can do it, who cant, for what intel. Trying to agree on all these subjective standards is difficult at best.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Man your just whack ! Nursing home drop your meds ?
    The response of an *****.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    The response of an *****.
    Who knows? But even if, there is no need to play the same game, is there?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Who knows? But even if, there is no need to play the same game, is there?
    True. the temptation was to great.
    I did not say he was an *****, just that his response was such. But if the shoe fits...

    one thing I will say about dlbrummels: his avatar truely represents the spirit of the republican party in its essence!
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    True. the temptation was to great.
    I did not say he was an *****, just that his response was such. But if the shoe fits...

    one thing I will say about dlbrummels: his avatar truely represents the spirit of the republican party in its essence!
    Brummels is a Republican?

    How funny you agree with Clu about "playing the same game...". and yet you continue to do it.

    I guess if we go by symbols, we can all agree that given the Democratic Party Mascot, you must be a jackass.

    Just to play the same game...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    So you want our troops and civilians who are captured to be treated in the same manner we treat their detainees.


    If America was invaded by a foreign power, who unleased "shock and awe" on Washington (killing civilians and goverment officals alike), drug your father, brother and daughter out of their home, "detaining and interrogating" them and rubbing your daughter in feces while you watch, to "soften you up" for interrogation... all for the purpose of finding some non-existant weapons, or to overthrow your own DICTATOR...

    would you, or would you not behead a few of the invaders, if you had a chance???

    This is the world dumbest statement ! Please stop him before he is stupid, again !

  18.    #138  
    Is this the face of the democrat party??

    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Is this the face of the democrat party??

    I recognize Ted, but who's the dude picking up the cone??
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    The response of an *****.
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I guess if we go by symbols, we can all agree that given the Democratic Party Mascot, you must be a jackass.

    Just to play the same game...
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Nudist is just an angry, no hit wonder. Same old WRONG statements supported by the liberal Democrats.

    I believe he is the angry elf at Disney World..
    Sticks and stones boys...

    You are diminishing the quality of an otherwise interesting debate...
Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions