ADK_Forever
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,706
- Reaction score
- 1,001
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You don't live in the real world do you?
You'd rather have people killed, DEAD...
And you cannot name a single RIGHT lost during the Bush years... you actually made me sick
Because in the end, human is human. Terrorist or no, they are still human. I think we should work hard to limit torture as much as possible. There are too many different things which can get involved if we take it as standard operating procedure. And how good is the information? I'm sure from time to time you're bound to get something; does that ok the use of torture? Even if it catches some innocents in with it? The entire "there's a bomb going to explode, only torturing this terrorist will get you the information you need" scenario is ridiculously rare. And what's to say you have the right guy, or the information will be correct? It's too inconsistent, too many things can be exploited and abused. It's best to do our best to avoid it.
Terrorists may do despicable acts, but that doesn't mean we have to reciprocate. We're better than they are, we can show mercy even to those whom wish us harm.
I have a rock that scares away tigers. I saw a tiger once, then I got this rock. Now there are no more tigers.
"WHO" doesn't live in the real world? Got a barf bag? :doh
I would rather see that than the diminution of our rights and the loss of our moral standing and the safety of our citizens and military personnel abroad.
Did anybody bring up that we waterboard many of our own soldiers as part of training them to deal with interrogation?
Buddies of mine have told me of being waterboarded in advanced training in the service. They said it was virtually impossible not to comply with whatever was being asked of them, but that it did them no lasting harm.
If we do it to our own soldiers to toughen them up and prepare them for the worst, I have no problem with doing it to known terrorists if we reasonably believe doing so may prevent an attack.
There's apparently a world of difference between waterboarding, and traditional "torture" such as splinting the fingernails, cutting off body parts, etc.
G.
Wait, so your comments aren't about within our border but simply attacks on American's abroad?
Since 9/11 we've had routinely attacks by terrorists upon our military and military installations and our embassy. Or do attacks on embassies, facilities, and troops only count for when it happens to Clinton.
Or are you going to bring up Kohbar towers which wasn't American land, but was reportedly partially targeting Americans. Because if you wish to bring that up I'd point to the 2005 Amman Bombings.
Sorry, by WHATEVER standard you want to push it, its not a good way of measuring things. From 1993 to September 10th, 2001 we had no attacks within our border. We did have attack on U.S. Lands (embassies), but we've had that in the past 8 years. We did have attacks on U.S. military vehicles, but we've had that in the past 8 years. We did have attacks on troop facilities, we've had that in the past 8 years. We did have attacks on non-US facilities that killed Americans, but we've had that too.
You're massively mistaken if you think I prefer the Clinton method completely. Especially when I stated that nothing that I was stating meant Clinton's policies were any better than Bush's.
But that's typical of you Mr. V. Someone dares disagree with you so naturally they must be a terrorist loving torture hating lefty fool regardless of any actual FACTS outside of disagreeing with you. If the option was "Bush's way" or "Clinton's way" and that was my only options I'd choose Bush's without a second hesitation. That said, NEITHER way is perfect or even near perfect and Bush's still needs a GREAT deal of fine tuning and has a GREAT deal of things I have issues with. I also have been on record numerous times in this forum to saying that many of the Bush administration actions HAVE gone about making us safer, however using the false, ignorant, ****ty attempt at logic by saying "we were attacked on 9/11 so clinton's policies are bad, we haven't been attacked since 9/11 so Bush's policies are good" is up there just below "God Told me so" in regards to the worst ways of attempting to prove that point.
Attacks on American soil 0.
That's such childish over simplification.
Terrorist attack repeatedly, we treat them like criminals.
Terrorist pull off 9/11
We treat them much more harshly.
No more attacks.
Logic says, terrorist + harsh treatment = prevention.
Unless of course, political sensibility is interjected... then reason goes out and emotion must be plugged in. Terrorist + any form of harsh treatment to save lives = politically incorrect.
As several people have stated, mind boggingly so on here, they would rather terrorist succeed in killing innocent people then to "treat them harshly".
But some humans need to be killed.
There are circumstances where necessary evil must be taken. But I think we should do our best to limit the amount we engage in evil overall. If avoidable, we should avoid it.
And we want to do this because....????We're better than they are, we can show mercy even to those whom wish us harm.
And we want to do this because....????
Because we are better.
And we want to do this because....????
Attacks on American Soil from after the 1993 WTC to September 10th 2001? 0.
I guess it'd have been accurate then to say on September 10th, 2001 unquestioningly that ALL of Clinton's policies worked perfectly.
That's my issue. THIS IS NOT PROOF.
CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATIOn.
Just because we have not been attacked in our borders yet DOES NOT MEAN unquestionably Bush's policies are the reason for it. That doesn't PROVE anything. Its idiotic, illogical, and politically lazy to try and claim that THAT is the proof for your statement because on September 10th 2001 you could say the EXACT SAME THING about the Policies you're LAMBASTING.
Because we're not animals. We know and can do better, and thus we should. There's a lot of value in the higher moral ground. I'd rather not jump off.
Because we're not animals. We know and can do better, and thus we should. There's a lot of value in the higher moral ground. I'd rather not jump off.
Except you have not established that yours is the higher moral ground.
How are we not more moral now than we've ever ever been even with waterboarding?
It is though, for mine takes into account sanctity of human life as well. We're able to understand and accept and forgive. Terrorists aren't in that regime. Their hatred has blinded them to reality, and prevents logical thought about the subject. We can see with eyes unclouded by hate, and act accordingly. We don't have to torture and we don't have to kill and we can show mercy because we are the betters. It doesn't take a lot to hate, but it takes a **** load of mercy to forgive. And to forgive is what it's all about, Jesus should have taught you that.
Torture takes you down a couple of pegs on the moral board.
Torture takes you down a couple of pegs on the moral board.
Again...HOW????
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?