Torture poll

[amrchaos]

I never said he was immoral. I said those that defend him use the same argument to do so. That argument being, "Because person A did it, it's okay for Obama to do it." It's been used a few hundred times on this board.

Oh, just deflection. I thought you were going to say something like "Spend us into a 4th world nation staatus!! We now beg 3rd world nations for money!!"

How is answering a question with a clear statement deflection? Idiot.

You did not answer the question:What did Obama do that was Immoral?

 

[Jon]

Oh, just deflection. I thought you were going to say something like "Spend us into a 4th world nation staatus!! We now beg 3rd world nations for money!!"

How is answering a question with a clear statement deflection? Idiot.

You did not answer the question:What did Obama do that was Immoral?

Because I never asserted that what Obama did was immoral. It is not my fault you can't read.

 

[Gunny]

If the people of this country are willing to accept that their government has the right to torture suspects in their custody, and ignore international laws and treaties as well as domestic laws banning torture, there is no reason for any other nation, state, or faction to comply with these laws either.
In the future any American held captive outside of this country can be questioned by those claiming authority using any interrogation technique they deem necessary. The term “those in authority” will be interpreted as those claiming jurisdiction in the location at the time of the interrogation.

Meanwhile Muslim Terrorists routinely just MURDER captives, usually by beheading them. But hey that is JUST fine with you dumb asses. Remind me how international law applies to none State terrorists. I saw in the future to solve this problem we just announce all captured Terrorists will be tried for Treason by the Military ( not civilian) and hanged if convicted with only one appeal. I mean they belong to no country so we will just assume they are ours after capturing them, then since they were under arms at the time we will assume they were OUR military and since they were attacking us, TREASON applies.

There ya go, they get all the rights of any US Military personnel. Happy now?

What it leads to in the military is a "no prisoners" mentality.

 

[Gunny]

The Liberal dumb asses define it as embarrassment or discomfort of any kind. No loud music, no yelling or curse words, no touching, no keeping them awake, no scaring them into talking with absolut6ely no chance they will be harmed.

Well until one of their liberal cities goes up, then they will turn into a howling mob and hang people.

Again.

 

[elvis]

Oh, just deflection. I thought you were going to say something like "Spend us into a 4th world nation staatus!! We now beg 3rd world nations for money!!"

How is answering a question with a clear statement deflection? Idiot.

You did not answer the question:What did Obama do that was Immoral?

according to you, cut taxes and spend like a drunken sailor...

oh wait, that was bush you said that about. When Obama does it, it doesn't count.

 

[Gunny]

If it's ok for us to torture, why isn't it ok for them to torture?

Us good, them bad?

This poll is stupid.

No it isn't, Gunny.

In fact this turnabout is fair play poll is one of the more intelligent posts that DavidS has penned in some time.

Supporters of torture like to use the example of torture to save lifes as a MORAL justification for allowing torture.

DavidS asks us to put our MORALS to the test to see if our concept of torture as being moral is entirely hypocritical.

Are supporters of America's right to torture (to save American lives) willing to acknowledge that if it's moral for America to torture, it is moral for our enemies to torture our people (to save their people's lives)?

This IS an important question.

Assume that the USA gets into a war and uses torture.

And so does the enemy.

Now assume we win the war.

Do we have the high moral ground to take their torturing leadership to trial for torturing our people, if we were torturing their people?

Yeah, it is. This dead horse is being beat to death by every whacko lefty on the board. There aren't enough threads on this that we need more?

I'm a grunt. I have no moral high ground. I fight to win. Period. Anyone that hinders that in any way is just as much my enemy as the guy aiming an AK at my head. Either way, I get just as dead.

 

[Gunny]

The Liberal dumb asses define it as embarrassment or discomfort of any kind. No loud music, no yelling or curse words, no touching, no keeping them awake, no scaring them into talking with absolut6ely no chance they will be harmed.

Well until one of their liberal cities goes up, then they will turn into a howling mob and hang people.

You're such a liar.

No he's not. He's got it exactly right. DO refresh our memories on who howled the loudest for Bush to "do something" after 9/11? Most people on the right I know were too busy cleaning their guns to go crying to "daddy" to "save us."

You lefties demand a perfect world from the right and your expectations are unrealistic. You can't tie people's hands behind their backs, throw them in the ring and expect them to win.

 

[tigerbob]

I know how the question is worded. But I know the art of war. We capture their guys and torture them for information, and they do the same. That's the ugliness of war, and one of the many reasons I don't support war in general.

But that wasn't the question. If the question had been "Should we have the right to torture foreign combatants if they do the same to our troops?" then maybe I would have some sympathy with your answer.

But the people we have tortured planned 9/11. I don't think waterboarding and the what the 9/11 victims went through are equivalent. I'm not saying torture is right, only that waterboarding is not equivalent to what these men did.

I think the men that planned 9/11 are the scum of the earth. If you behave in an inhuman manner, don't be surprised when you are not treated humanely.

 

[editec]

This poll is stupid.

No it isn't, Gunny.

In fact this turnabout is fair play poll is one of the more intelligent posts that DavidS has penned in some time.

Supporters of torture like to use the example of torture to save lifes as a MORAL justification for allowing torture.

DavidS asks us to put our MORALS to the test to see if our concept of torture as being moral is entirely hypocritical.

Are supporters of America's right to torture (to save American lives) willing to acknowledge that if it's moral for America to torture, it is moral for our enemies to torture our people (to save their people's lives)?

This IS an important question.

Assume that the USA gets into a war and uses torture.

And so does the enemy.

Now assume we win the war.

Do we have the high moral ground to take their torturing leadership to trial for torturing our people, if we were torturing their people?

Hold it, there is a way to answer yes to both polls. And that is if some one takes a moral Relative point of view to torture and ask "Will the torturer benefit?"

Well isn't that EXACTLY what we're doing right now? Acknowledging that torture is immoral, but suggesting that not torturing to save lives is even MORE immoral?

If the whole notion is to ask whether the person performing the act can benefit then you can answer yes to both polls HONESTLY.

Yeash...exactly.

Of course, this leads straight into logical madness and why systems of civility and justice are not based on Moral relativitiy.

They're NOT?

That's exactly what the Bush team did to justify torture, did it not?

Morality IS relative.

I resume you believe that killing people is immoral, right?

But would you NOT have killed people in a war? And if you had would you think that act immoral? Or would have that killing been morally justified given the circumstance?



I've know one or two people who did not think morality was situational or relative.

One of them went to jail rather than serve because he believed that killing was immoral under EVERY circumstance. (he actually went to jail for refusing to take a 4-F status because he thought even taking that status was immoral, to be honest)

I think he's kinds nuts, but hey!...I'm a NOT devout Quaker, either...I'm a equivicating liberal (or something)

 

[Ravi]

The Liberal dumb asses define it as embarrassment or discomfort of any kind. No loud music, no yelling or curse words, no touching, no keeping them awake, no scaring them into talking with absolut6ely no chance they will be harmed.

Well until one of their liberal cities goes up, then they will turn into a howling mob and hang people.

You're such a liar.

No he's not. He's got it exactly right. DO refresh our memories on who howled the loudest for Bush to "do something" after 9/11? Most people on the right I know were too busy cleaning their guns to go crying to "daddy" to "save us."

You lefties demand a perfect world from the right and your expectations are unrealistic. You can't tie people's hands behind their backs, throw them in the ring and expect them to win.

Your eyes are brown.

 

[DavidS]

No. Then again, terrorists don't exactly follow any 'rules', do they?

Harsh interrogation for terrorists? Yes.

Okay, so then you think it's ok for them to harshly interrogate our soldiers?

 

[Gunny]

If the people of this country are willing to accept that their government has the right to torture suspects in their custody, and ignore international laws and treaties as well as domestic laws banning torture, there is no reason for any other nation, state, or faction to comply with these laws either.
In the future any American held captive outside of this country can be questioned by those claiming authority using any interrogation technique they deem necessary. The term “those in authority” will be interpreted as those claiming jurisdiction in the location at the time of the interrogation.

Meanwhile Muslim Terrorists routinely just MURDER captives, usually by beheading them. But hey that is JUST fine with you dumb asses. Remind me how international law applies to none State terrorists. I saw in the future to solve this problem we just announce all captured Terrorists will be tried for Treason by the Military ( not civilian) and hanged if convicted with only one appeal. I mean they belong to no country so we will just assume they are ours after capturing them, then since they were under arms at the time we will assume they were OUR military and since they were attacking us, TREASON applies.

There ya go, they get all the rights of any US Military personnel. Happy now?

So let me understand your point:

Because person A is immoral, then I have a right to be immoral.

Or--were you trying to make a logically based point?

The point is, you people and your overly-moralistic handcuffing Christ himself would envy give the enemy a weakness to exploit, and know we can't fight them on their terms. A DISTINCT advantage in warfare.

 

[Gunny]

This poll is stupid.

why is it stupid? Because he is flipping it around on you?

exactly

Another retard weighs in.

 

[catzmeow]

This poll is stupid.

Actually, it's one of the smarter things I've seen DavidS post. If we torture enemy combatants, it makes it more likely that torture will be used against our POWs.

 

[DavidS]

Do you feel captured American troops should be subjected to torture if the enemy feels they have information on future military actions that would help them save the lives of their countrymen?

Can you define torture?

Perhaps I should broaden the question.

Do you feel it's okay for the countries we're fighting against, if they capture one of our soldiers, to use the same interrogation techniques they use against us? Sleep deprovation, waterboarding, etc.?

 

[elvis]

This poll is stupid.

Actually, it's one of the smarter things I've seen DavidS post. If we torture enemy combatants, it makes it more likely that torture will be used against our POWs.

I disagree. I think they would torture our soldiers whether we tortured them or not.

 

[catzmeow]

No he's not. He's got it exactly right. DO refresh our memories on who howled the loudest for Bush to "do something" after 9/11? Most people on the right I know were too busy cleaning their guns to go crying to "daddy" to "save us.".

Most of my peers were too busy doing rescue and cleanup to howl about anything at all.

 

[DavidS]

The Liberal dumb asses define it as embarrassment or discomfort of any kind. No loud music, no yelling or curse words, no touching, no keeping them awake, no scaring them into talking with absolut6ely no chance they will be harmed.

Well until one of their liberal cities goes up, then they will turn into a howling mob and hang people.

Where the fuck do you think the goddamned Twin Towers were located you asshat? Alfuckingbama? My city DID go up on September 11th. Those disgusting pukes DID kill hundreds of NEW YORK firefighters and Police Officers and thousands of civilians. Last time I checked, NYC was pretty fucking liberal.

I do NOT support us doing the same thing they want to do to us. We are more civilized than this.

No what you are is more DUmb and more DEad.. and the terrorists laugh at your stupidity.. laugh I tell ya,, you think they admire you cause you won't fight? Jeezus!

wtf does this have to do with FIGHTING them? What does this thread have to do with FIGHTING them? NOTHING.

 

[Gunny]

So let me understand your point:

Because person A is immoral, then I have a right to be immoral.

Or--were you trying to make a logically based point?

yeah, the death penalty would be wrong, too. as is imprisoning someone against his will. might as well fight to get KSM a trial in the US so he can be set free and blow up another skyscraper...oh wait, Obama's already doing that.

So I guess thats that. Tell us, why do we need justice again?
OH --To build a civilization. Without Justice, we would have Anarchy in the streets!! The whole point of founding a nation goes out the window if we no longer distinguish what is moral and immoral.

Now I am starting to sound like a preacher!! I dislike you elvis!!

In the meantime, the left continues attempting to destroy every moral this Nation is founded upon. They only hold the right and the military to any moral standard and it's a standard they could never hope to live up to.

 

[NOBama]

Do you feel captured American troops should be subjected to torture if the enemy feels they have information on future military actions that would help them save the lives of their countrymen?

Can you define torture?

Perhaps I should broaden the question.

Do you feel it's okay for the countries we're fighting against, if they capture one of our soldiers, to use the same interrogation techniques they use against us? Sleep deprovation, waterboarding, etc.?

What country are we fighting with?