TimC Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 you're thinking out of fear rather than rationale, the Bush Administration propaganda machine salutes you! I don't fear them. I want to kill them. As quickly as possible. I want to nuke them out of existance. I'd rather not risk my life on your line of thought where you think daisies and good intentions will keep them crazies from cutting your throat in your sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I don't condone torture (as I personally understand it), but I do think the sticking point here is how torture is defined. Ceratinly we as a nation and as a civilized society will continue to employ methods of persuasion when confronted with appropriate situations (like capturing admitted members of an active terrorist cell or network). Where does it become torture though? Do the interrogation methods of our police officers ever cross the line from pursasion to torture? Again, I am not pro-torture, but I think the distinction is a bit more blurry than some of you are willing to admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Note: I have no problem with the hippies line of reasoning. I understand it completely about how you think it's "un-American" to stoop to their level. This line of reasoning would have us all speaking Japanese/German today as well. America is a great, kind, caring nation, but when the time comes to kill the enemy, it does it swiftly and without mercy until the other side complies. (Or at least used to.) My problem is I think more along the lines of WWII where you kill the enemy as fast as possible without mercy before they kill you. I'm old-fashioned like that. Edited April 21, 2009 by TimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Note: I have no problem with the hippies line of reasoning. I understand it completely about how you think it's "un-American" to stoop to their level. This line of reasoning would have us all speaking Japanese/German today as well. According to Pope's earlier post, that is demonstrably untrue. A larger, better organized enemy than the rag-tag bunch of cavemen we currently face was not tortured but persuaded and much was gleaned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Note: I have no problem with the hippies line of reasoning. I understand it completely about how you think it's "un-American" to stoop to their level. This line of reasoning would have us all speaking Japanese/German today as well. America is a great, kind, caring nation, but when the time comes to kill the enemy, it does it swiftly and without mercy until the other side complies. (Or at least used to.) My problem is I think more along the lines of WWII where you kill the enemy as fast as possible without mercy before they kill you. I'm old-fashioned like that. your problem is that you call the people who disagree with you "hippies"....our society is filled with hilarious labels for people who disagree....and then they use these terms to lump these people in with a particular group rather than understand the idea of life and the fact that it is not our decision as to whether or not these people should be wiped off the face of the earth.... and saying you want to kill these people as quickly as possible is a sign of fear...and extreme hatred....whether you want to admit it or not, your intention is obvious... "kill everyone who is a potential threat"...."we shall find peace through war"...this is the backward mindset that has us in this mess to begin with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 My guess is Avernus doesn't condone my plan to pull all the troops out of every foreign country and nuke the rest of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 My guess is Avernus doesn't condone my plan to pull all the troops out of every foreign country and nuke the rest of the world? What a stupid plan. You don't even have a timetable for the withdrawal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 What a stupid plan. You don't even have a timetable for the withdrawal. I'm not the most coordinated person on the planet, but I sure hope it's a few seconds before the nukes go off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 My guess is Avernus doesn't condone my plan to pull all the troops out of every foreign country and nuke the rest of the world? My guess is Avernus hasn't paid much attention to yer backwoods posting before, and thus has taken hook, line, sinker and possibly the pole (NTTAWWT). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I don't fear them. I want to kill them. As quickly as possible. I want to nuke them out of existance. I'd rather not risk my life on your line of thought where you think daisies and good intentions will keep them crazies from cutting your throat in your sleep. So ethnic cleansing is your solution? You really are no better than they are. No wonder the South lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) So ethnic cleansing is your solution? You really are no better than they are. No wonder the South lost. Ethnic cleansing implies that I'm selective. ETA: The South won. Edited April 21, 2009 by TimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 So it just hit me the other day (after some low level shots taken on my part.......just having fun) that the same people that are against torture are for attacking the pirates off of Somalia. I don't get it. Let's take out the pirates so that they know they won't get away with what their doing and will most likely end up dead. But when it comes to the terrorists that actually attacked us directly more than once on our own soil, we need to put in front of a judge and jury and let go. Seems like a double standard to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 this and this. The revelations will make al-Qaeda a more efficient killing machine: better able to resist our efforts to thwart its attacks. Worse, they will paralyze our intelligence community, which now knows that even a presidential assurance complemented by Justice Department guidance and congressional encouragement will not protect agents from second-guessing and possible legal jeopardy a few months or years from now, when vigilance is no longer in fashion and political power has changed hands. To complete the triple play, the disclosures demonstrate to intelligence agents that the commander-in-chief is not to be trusted: He claimed that coercive interrogation tactics beyond the anodyne Army Field Manual measures were being studied to determine whether their authorization might be appropriate; but the revelations make the “study” a hollow gesture — there is nothing to be gained from authorizing tactics the enemy has already been armed against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 But when it comes to the terrorists that actually attacked us directly more than once on our own soil, we need to put in front of a judge and jury and let go. Who is advocating this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Actually it was the Dems who started locking people up in the interest of national security. (See WW II treatment of Japanese/Americans) and as far as waterboarding someone else 183 times its not like he had a lot to do during his time as a prisoner. Overall if it gives you all a warm fuzzy to release all the memos and information go for it. But if (I sure hope it doesnt happen) we get hit by another 9-11 I would expect you all to be here defending your position. An ounce of prevention is more effective than a pound of cure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 An ounce of prevention is more effective than a pound of cure. And when your ounce of prevention is used against an innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I guess we won't be attending the human rights conference this year. Maybe we can meet with China during that time to explain how we're good on those war loans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 And when your ounce of prevention is used against an innocent? Has this happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Has this happened? Nah. Everyone our government labels a terrorist is guilty. They don't make those kinds of mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Nah. Everyone our government labels a terrorist is guilty. They don't make those kinds of mistakes. Glad to see we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 umm, if you'll notice, I wasn't outraged at the release of the legal memos, so I'm not sure why you think I ought to be outraged that cheney is calling for the release of more memos that tell the whole story. isn't what intel we got out of the two individuals mentioned as being waterboarded relevant to this discussion? bush administration critics repeatedly assert that these techniques don't work, they don't get good intel, buying them a steak dinner yields such better results, yada yada. well, is that true or isn't it? do we deserve to know or don't we? you want to call cheney a hypocrite for arguing against the release of the legal memos for national security reasons, but arguing for a release of ALL the relevant memos once those are already public? go ahead, knock yourself out, I won't argue, and I'll even agree there probably IS some hypocrisy on his part. though there is every bit as much hypocrisy in anyone who says the public's right to know overrides any security concerns with the legal memos, but NOT the memos spelling out the results. if this discussion is going to take place in the public arena, because sunlight is the best disinfectant, the people deserve to know, and so on, the info cheney is referring to should probably be made available, should it not? I was saying two different things: 1) thank you for that quote Az, it was interesting 2) stating that "some of you.." on this thread might have some potetntial hypocrisy issues. I wasn't including you in that "some of you" (and in fact it would seem that we agree) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 So it just hit me the other day (after some low level shots taken on my part.......just having fun) that the same people that are against torture are for attacking the pirates off of Somalia. I don't get it. Let's take out the pirates so that they know they won't get away with what their doing and will most likely end up dead. But when it comes to the terrorists that actually attacked us directly more than once on our own soil, we need to put in front of a judge and jury and let go. Seems like a double standard to me. You seem to think that the pirates and the people held at Guantanamo are the same thing. They are not. While I am all for wasting the pirates that have committed an act of aggression against this country (i.e. kidnapped sailors from a merchant ship flying the American flag), I am not for invading Somalia, rounding up a group of individuals and then torturing them to find out where the pirates are. This is essentially what happened to the Gitmo detainees and while some of them certainly had ties to al Qaida, not all of them did. In a nutshell, once an individual has been identified as an enemy combatant he may be killed without prejudice. An individual may not be tortured to reveal if they or anyone they know are enemy combatants. It seems like we are playing by rules that the enemy certainly would care less about following and that is true. It is also what gives us the moral high ground in a conflict such as this. In essence, it makes us the "good guys". We fight to defend nobility and ethics, the right of women to be free from the shackles of oppression and for the freedom of speach and thought against the tyranny of religious conformity. Tolkein himself couldn't have more clearly delineated the boundaries of this conflict. As soon as we cast aside our virtues in the name of expediency, we become no more than they are; chaotic, murderous, caricatures of men who are engaged in conflict for the sake of the fight or to eradicate the other in some heinous sacrifice to a mythical god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 So it just hit me the other day (after some low level shots taken on my part.......just having fun) that the same people that are against torture are for attacking the pirates off of Somalia. I don't get it. Let's take out the pirates so that they know they won't get away with what their doing and will most likely end up dead. But when it comes to the terrorists that actually attacked us directly more than once on our own soil, we need to put in front of a judge and jury and let go. Seems like a double standard to me. well I would think the main difference there is between people who are in our custody versus people who aren't. not too many people have a problem with, for example, shooting a missile from a predator drone at an SUV full of known al qaeda operatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 My guess is Avernus hasn't paid much attention to yer backwoods posting before, and thus has taken hook, line, sinker and possibly the pole (NTTAWWT). I've fallen for my own cheap tricks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 CIA confirms waterboarding prevented a 9/11 style attack on LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts