• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ten Things We Can Do With Guantanamo Bay Detainees

teacher said:
They are as evil as they can be. We are evil as need be.
Click to expand...

That's disgusting. Evil is unacceptable, no matter who it is being evil. If we are to be as savage to them as they are to us, you cannot in any right mind expect them to change.

Are you saying we could have reasoned with the British? And still won our freedom? Dude I respect your peaceful stand greatly, but sometimes you have to fight.
Click to expand...

Gandhi reasoned with the British :lol:.

You have to fight to get something done, but you do not have to kill and you do not have to succumb to anger and hatred in order to fight.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
That's disgusting. Evil is unacceptable, no matter who it is being evil. If we are to be as savage to them as they are to us, you cannot in any right mind expect them to change.
Click to expand...


Your messing with me right. What I really meant was. They use all the violence they can all the time. We only use the bare minimum of violence we think we have to. I know then you say something like violence no matter how limited is still violence and wrong. I get it. Man for a hippie you sure are square. No, your messing with me right?
Click to expand...
 
teacher said:
Your messing with me right. What I really meant was. They use all the violence they can all the time. We only use the bare minimum of violence we think we have to. I know then you say something like violence no matter how limited is still violence and wrong. I get it. Man for a hippie you sure are square. No, your messing with me right?
Click to expand...

LaMidRighter said:
If you are talking about the terrorists or the Bastille Day comment the answer changes. For the French nobles I really don't know, for the terrorists, I say do in kind but with increasing increments, two heads for a head, then three heads for a head, then four, etc. it sounds harsh and in fact is for me to say that, but I will be honest, I have no respect for these sub-human waste products we call "terrorists" and believe the only things they understand are pain, death, and violence.
Click to expand...

Is that suggestion as "evil as need be?" No it's TWICE AS EVIL AS THEM with increasing increments no less. Trying to "outkill" or "out savage" or "outidiot" your opponent doesn't make you the winner, it makes you the villian.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Is that suggestion as "evil as need be?" No it's TWICE AS EVIL AS THEM with increasing increments no less. Trying to "outkill" or "out savage" or "outidiot" your opponent doesn't make you the winner, it makes you the villian.
Click to expand...


It often makes you the survivor.
 
I would rather die than live as some barbaric butcher who beheads two men in the name of vengeance. Such ideas are not the ways of good men and are not the way of a civilized society.
 
Again, I think that the author of the list might have been having a little fun. Sometimes when my dog chews my stuff up I tell her I'm going to cook her for dinner. Just as I don't advocate beheading people I am not going to cook my dog.
 
LaMidRighter was quite serious in our earlier conversation. He said he knew it was wrong, but we should be doing it becuase "that's the only thing they understand."
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
LaMidRighter was quite serious in our earlier conversation. He said he knew it was wrong, but we should be doing it becuase "that's the only thing they understand."
Click to expand...
Should might have been a tad strong, desired on my part, yes. I understand we have an ideal to live up to as Americans, but my own human nature takes over when these cowards act against the innocent and that damned frontal lobe tells me to hurt them worse than they ever thought to hurt others. I guess to summarize, diplomatically, we should be somewhat nicer, honestly, many of us want them to suffer horrendously.
 
Revenge is a natural instinct. It is restraint that sets us apart from animals. When you hear stories about the wrong doings of evil men, your first instinct, which is no different from my own, is to think that they don't deserve to live and that we should kill them. But if we are start allowing such basic instincts to take over and rule us, what is the difference between us and another predator? There is none. Our enemy would not show this kind of restraint and that is the very reason why we must hold on to it and exude it with every once of our strength every time the oppurtunity is presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom