Love em or hate em, he's right. :thumbsup:
Fifty-one percent of Republicans think waterboarding is torture but 73 percent say it and other "aggressive interrogation tactics" are justified at least some of the time. And the trendline is upward, not downward, which feels counterintuitive as we get farther away from 9/11. FiveThirtyEight crunched some data from Pew late last year:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.hotair.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2Ffi.jpg&hash=7d0dc0c6fc30a645a19935ef314a48db6fc1f482)
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/24/trump-on-waterboarding-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it-anyway/
Let's face it. Our warriors are always tortured if captured.
Why should we put ourselves above doing this? We know it can produce critical information. If we are willing to kill them, why not torture them? It makes no sense to me. An enemy is an enemy. Do what you have to do to insure the survival of our troops and an advantage in the war. It can save lives!!
Quote from: kroz on November 27, 2015, 03:18:44 PM
Let's face it. Our warriors are always tortured if captured.
Why should we put ourselves above doing this? We know it can produce critical information. If we are willing to kill them, why not torture them? It makes no sense to me. An enemy is an enemy. Do what you have to do to insure the survival of our troops and an advantage in the war. It can save lives!!
I have absolutely no issue with it, considering what ISIS is doing to those they capture, it only seems fitting they suffer the same fate.
I'll donate the gas and matches.
Exceptional measures should be reserved for exceptional cases.
Use "enhanced interrogation" only in the really urgent cases,
not across the board.
Police here at home use "psychological torture" to get confessions -
telling suspects that they have hard evidence when they really don't,
threatening to prosecute innocent acquaintances of suspects, etc.
SOME sort of pressure HAS to be used, in most cases.
Very few crooks openly brag DIRECTLY to cops!
(But they brag a lot among themselves!)
So there's an idea: put moles in among the prisoners!
(The Germans did that a lot in WWII.)
Drugs like sodium pentothal can be effective,
but it's hard to get the dose right.
It's a narrow line between fully awake and unconscious.
It bothers me when presidential candidates are made to
publicly discuss in detail what their "torture" policies would be.
When the media presses that question in debates,
they're helping the enemy write their training manual!
Quote from: je_freedom on November 27, 2015, 09:27:09 PM
Exceptional measures should be reserved for exceptional cases.
Use "enhanced interrogation" only in the really urgent cases,
not across the board.
Police here at home use "psychological torture" to get confessions -
telling suspects that they have hard evidence when they really don't,
threatening to prosecute innocent acquaintances of suspects, etc.
SOME sort of pressure HAS to be used, in most cases.
Very few crooks openly brag DIRECTLY to cops!
(But they brag a lot among themselves!)
So there's an idea: put moles in among the prisoners!
(The Germans did that a lot in WWII.)
Drugs like sodium pentothal can be effective,
but it's hard to get the dose right.
It's a narrow line between fully awake and unconscious.
It bothers me when presidential candidates are made to
publicly discuss in detail what their "torture" policies would be.
When the media presses that question in debates,
they're helping the enemy write their training manual!
Trump's point was, why only use it as an interrogation tactic, when you can use it as a deterrent.
Lets be honest, lets say, ISIS captures an American soldier, do you really think they won't torture him?
So why not show these scum we're far more brutal than they are and deter them from engaging us.
I have no doubt showing the enemy a video where we surgically attach pig limbs, in place of arms and legs to one of their beloved, the impact would be devastating to Muscum morale.
Yeah, even though I haven't the surgical expertise, I'd happily volunteer to take on the project anyway.
Do I sound brutallty cruel? Good, the enemy needs to know what Americans are capable of.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 06:16:07 AM
Trump's point was, why only use it as an interrogation tactic, when you can use it as a deterrent.
Lets be honest, lets say, ISIS captures an American soldier, do you really think they won't torture him?
So why not show these scum we're far more brutal than they are and deter them from engaging us.
I have no doubt showing the enemy a video where we surgically attach pig limbs, in place of arms and legs to one of their beloved, the impact would be devastating to Muscum morale.
Yeah, even though I haven't the surgical expertise, I'd happily volunteer to take on the project anyway.
Do I sound brutallty cruel? Good, the enemy needs to know what Americans are capable of.
Solar, you have accurately hit upon our root problem in America. It goes far beyond our military rules of engagement. It permeates our culture.
We don't think it is right to hurt ANYONE. It is not PC.
Not only do we not want to hurt our prisoners of war but we don't want to hurt anyone or anything. That is deemed bad!
BUT, since the beginning of time it is well documented that punishment is a deterrent to wrong behavior. Pain is an age old method of discipline. It is not the ONLY method of discipline but it is the fastest way to achieve desired results.
If we abandon this truism, we are rotting at the core.
Today if we "hurt" our children they will be taken away by child services.
Pain has a rightful place in our society..... both in war and at home.
Quote from: kroz on November 28, 2015, 06:35:37 AM
Solar, you have accurately hit upon our root problem in America. It goes far beyond our military rules of engagement. It permeates our culture.
We don't think it is right to hurt ANYONE. It is not PC.
Not only do we not want to hurt our prisoners of war but we don't want to hurt anyone or anything. That is deemed bad!
BUT, since the beginning of time it is well documented that punishment is a deterrent to wrong behavior. Pain is an age old method of discipline. It is not the ONLY method of discipline but it is the fastest way to achieve desired results.
If we abandon this truism, we are rotting at the core.
Today if we "hurt" our children they will be taken away by child services.
Pain has a rightful place in our society..... both in war and at home.
Nailed It! Sun Tzu would be impressed. :thumbup:
I understand where those in power are coming from, in that we have the most powerful Military in history, 10 fold over that of our enemies.
So their thinking is win the battle, show mercy and they'll join our cause, problem is, not all enemies share our goal of life.
Muscums believe in dying for their cause, literally the opposite of our concept of war, and with that in mind we have numskulls in power that refuse to face reality, the reality that the enemy sees victory in dying with their enemy.
Yeah, for me, a great deterrent would be to send back a dozen or so medically enhanced pigmen Muscum, where they walk in with pig appendages, including snouts, but still recognizable as terrorist leadership.
No one can tell me that wouldn't have a serious impact on morale, as well as freaking out the majority of their troops hoping for their 70 virgins, knowing Allah would never accept a pigman into his domain.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 07:40:11 AM
Nailed It! Sun Tzu would be impressed. :thumbup:
I understand where those in power are coming from, in that we have the most powerful Military in history, 10 fold over that of our enemies.
So their thinking is win the battle, show mercy and they'll join our cause, problem is, not all enemies share our goal of life.
Muscums believe in dying for their cause, literally the opposite of our concept of war, and with that in mind we have numskulls in power that refuse to face reality, the reality that the enemy sees victory in dying with their enemy.
Yeah, for me, a great deterrent would be to send back a dozen or so medically enhanced pigmen Muscum, where they walk in with pig appendages, including snouts, but still recognizable as terrorist leadership.
No one can tell me that wouldn't have a serious impact on morale, as well as freaking out the majority of their troops hoping for their 70 virgins, knowing Allah would never accept a pigman into his domain.
Maybe next time they capture one of ours, we can pay Assad for a couple of ISIS agents and turn them into pigmen, and ship them back to Syria. Teach them a lesson and promote the idea that Assad loves those goat bangers.
If we have no problem killing them, then I don't see what the bid deal is about torture. If you can get actionable intel doing it, great, if not send them to Allah.
Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2015, 03:13:09 PM
Love em or hate em, he's right. :thumbsup:
Fifty-one percent of Republicans think waterboarding is torture but 73 percent say it and other "aggressive interrogation tactics" are justified at least some of the time. And the trendline is upward, not downward, which feels counterintuitive as we get farther away from 9/11. FiveThirtyEight crunched some data from Pew late last year:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.hotair.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2Ffi.jpg&hash=7d0dc0c6fc30a645a19935ef314a48db6fc1f482)
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/24/trump-on-waterboarding-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it-anyway/
Solar ever seen any statistics on the veracity of intel obtained through that process?
Just wondering, as torture, such as oh I don't know, the rack, or iron maiden for example, is notoriously proven to be in-effective in obtaining real information.
Quote from: daidalos on November 28, 2015, 01:38:25 PM
Solar ever seen any statistics on the veracity of intel obtained through that process?
Just wondering, as torture, such as oh I don't know, the rack, or iron maiden for example, is notoriously proven to be in-effective in obtaining real information.
If that were true no one would do it. :rolleyes:
The truth is that it DOES produce usable intelligence in most instances. Nothing is perfect. Some will not crack. But most do.
Quote from: daidalos on November 28, 2015, 01:38:25 PM
Solar ever seen any statistics on the veracity of intel obtained through that process?
Just wondering, as torture, such as oh I don't know, the rack, or iron maiden for example, is notoriously proven to be in-effective in obtaining real information.
If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it, it's really that simple.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 06:16:07 AM
Trump's point was, why only use it as an interrogation tactic, when you can use it as a deterrent.
Lets be honest, lets say, ISIS captures an American soldier, do you really think they won't torture him?
So why not show these scum we're far more brutal than they are and deter them from engaging us.
I have no doubt showing the enemy a video where we surgically attach pig limbs, in place of arms and legs to one of their beloved, the impact would be devastating to Muscum morale.
Yeah, even though I haven't the surgical expertise, I'd happily volunteer to take on the project anyway.
Do I sound brutallty cruel? Good, the enemy needs to know what Americans are capable of.
About how ISIS would torture a shot down American pilot; they would probably execute him in public, in a particularly gruesome manner. That's why Obama is so tentative about his bombing. The execution of an American pilot would force him to reply in a like manner, and he really prefers to hide out in the White House or on a golf course.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 06:16:07 AM
Trump's point was, why only use it as an interrogation tactic, when you can use it as a deterrent.
Lets be honest, lets say, ISIS captures an American soldier, do you really think they won't torture him?
So why not show these scum we're far more brutal than they are and deter them from engaging us.
I have no doubt showing the enemy a video where we surgically attach pig limbs, in place of arms and legs to one of their beloved, the impact would be devastating to Muscum morale.
Yeah, even though I haven't the surgical expertise, I'd happily volunteer to take on the project anyway.
Do I sound brutallty cruel? Good, the enemy needs to know what Americans are capable of.
They reported that sheik Mohammad's longest session was less then 2 minutes You think that's torture? Hears an idea! Get a table, plastic wrap, a few water jugs and a big clock, open a booth at bike week in Daytona with a big sign that says " BEAT THE SHIEK". charge 10 dollars a pop you'd have them lined up around the block to try it!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, they deserve it, but honestly, waterboarding isn;t really effective. Isolation cells and drugging are much better. :wink:
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on November 28, 2015, 04:19:11 PM
Yeah, they deserve it, but honestly, waterboarding isn;t really effective. Isolation cells and drugging are much better. :wink:
Oh sure, if you're looking for effectiveness and results.....
But where's the fun in that? Hey, it ain't torture unless I hear bones snapping. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 04:26:48 PM
Oh sure, if you're looking for effectiveness and results.....
But where's the fun in that? Hey, it ain't torture unless I hear bones snapping. :biggrin:
Ever see anybody in an isolation cell completely disoriented on drugs.....like a blind rat tearing at it's own flesh trying to claw out the demons in it's head..... :popcorn:
Waterboarding's not torture.
I have no problem with it.
I do have a problem with trying to out evil the devil. You can't and no American should want to. We can win a WAR against these animals EASILY and without becoming what we claim to despise.
I see the AMERICAN soldier as God's angels on earth. We can be just and deadly to our enemies, but we can never become the Devil's ARMY.
Quote from: carlb on November 28, 2015, 04:50:59 PM
Waterboarding's not torture.
I have no problem with it.
I do have a problem with trying to out evil the devil. You can't and no American should want to. We can win a WAR against these animals EASILY and without becoming what we claim to despise.
I see the AMERICAN soldier as God's angels on earth. We can be just and deadly to our enemies, but we can never become the Devil's ARMY.
Wherein lies the problem. This is war, where you kill people and destroy things, to view it any other way, is a guarantee for protracted war.
See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, peace came quickly and now Japan is one of our most trusted allies.
Now, how long have we been dealing with the M/E?
Tell ya what - I will burn in hell.
But once the Enemy starts something, I'd like to end it.
Eye for an Eye.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 04:56:56 PM
Wherein lies the problem. This is war, where you kill people and destroy things, to view it any other way, is a guarantee for protracted war.
See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, peace came quickly and now Japan is one of our most trusted allies.
Now, how long have we been dealing with the M/E?
Good point, solar. Truman was right to drop the bomb on those cities. It ended the war very promptly and saved innumerable American lives!
Solar, you misunderstand the role of God's angels. You NEVER cross one. Wiping out a city is a part of their work on earth. Ask the folks from Sodom. But we don't pull the wings off flies, or torture animals.
Sorry, but that behaviour is of the devil. You can kill, but you cannot torture.
The Founders agree with me on this.
QuoteDramatic footage has emerged online showing a suspected ISIS fighter crying after he was taken prisoner by Kurdish forces in Iraq.
The prisoner does not appear to have any noticeable injuries as he seats in the back of the armoured truck.
Much to the amusement of the Kurdish forces, the prisoner cries and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337295/Not-tough-ISIS-fighter-cries-like-baby-captured-Kurdish-forces.html
"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country." – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
Quote from: carlb on November 28, 2015, 05:16:52 PM
Solar, you misunderstand the role of God's angels. You NEVER cross one. Wiping out a city is a part of their work on earth. Ask the folks from Sodom. But we don't pull the wings off flies, or torture animals.
Sorry, but that behaviour is of the devil. You can kill, but you cannot torture.
The Founders agree with me on this.
I'll ask you what I asked all libs. Keep in mind the term Brothers in Arms.
Your wife brutally raped and killed lying on the ground in front of you, the rest of your family has been captured, no clues, the note states you have 30 minutes to meet their demands or they start torturing, raping and murdering the children one by one.
You find one of the kidnappers injured outside your home, you are running out of time.
Do you plead to his humanity, or torture for information?
Your call.
This is what our Military has faced many in the past, these soldiers are their family and they were never afforded the passage of time for resolve.
Yes, torture saved some lives, not all, but not all died brutally.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on November 28, 2015, 04:19:11 PM
Yeah, they deserve it, but honestly, waterboarding isn;t really effective. Isolation cells and drugging are much better. :wink:
Sleep deprivation, painfully loud music and strobe lights. Breakfast of champions.
Quote from: quiller on November 28, 2015, 08:51:10 PM
Sleep deprivation, painfully loud music and strobe lights. Breakfast of champions.
You forgot the smell of fresh bacon cooking in the air.
Quote from: walkstall on November 28, 2015, 08:58:12 PM
You forgot the smell of fresh bacon cooking in the air.
Black Jack Pershing had the right idea. Butcher a hog in front of Mussie prisoners and then dip the bullets in pig's-blood before executing all but one dirtbag. Then turn him loose to spread the tale.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 07:40:11 AM
Nailed It! Sun Tzu would be impressed. :thumbup:
I understand where those in power are coming from, in that we have the most powerful Military in history, 10 fold over that of our enemies.
So their thinking is win the battle, show mercy and they'll join our cause, problem is, not all enemies share our goal of life.
Muscums believe in dying for their cause, literally the opposite of our concept of war, and with that in mind we have numskulls in power that refuse to face reality, the reality that the enemy sees victory in dying with their enemy.
Yeah, for me, a great deterrent would be to send back a dozen or so medically enhanced pigmen Muscum, where they walk in with pig appendages, including snouts, but still recognizable as terrorist leadership.
No one can tell me that wouldn't have a serious impact on morale, as well as freaking out the majority of their troops hoping for their 70 virgins, knowing Allah would never accept a pigman into his domain.
Yep, our political leadership. especially this President, is afraid to carry out an all out war against these savages. Thank God they weren't in power when it was the Axis powers threatening the security of the United States.
Quote from: daidalos on November 28, 2015, 09:41:46 PM
Yep, our political leadership. especially this President, is afraid to carry out an all out war against these savages. Thank God they weren't in power when it was the Axis powers threatening the security of the United States.
Today? "We will fight them to the lifeboats and then abandon ship, post haste."
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crrktqqdftbggwfqxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frsqkdgkddxrfgbbsgssxgtbfwtkf%2F1%2F1595431%2F12754402%2FRunawaybig-vi.jpg&hash=75672e06ba2c0d720b25feeb55d0330f144d21e0)
Quote from: quiller on November 28, 2015, 09:00:07 PM
Black Jack Pershing had the right idea. Butcher a hog in front of Mussie prisoners and then dip the bullets in pig's-blood before executing all but one dirtbag. Then turn him loose to spread the tale.
But that's not us Q, anyway, according to some, that's wrong in the eyes of a higher power. :rolleyes:
Some live the Hollywood image of war, where bombs always hit their target and only bad guys die quickly without suffer.
But the term torture has many meanings, and one could easily make the case that Japan suffered the worst torture of all, painful protracted death via radiation, missing limbs and a myriad of ailments, all leading to a slow and painful demise..
Granted, this is not how I view war, but bleeding hearts do.
My point is, it matters not how one stops evil, but taking the quickest route is easily justified, and if that means torturing a million, so be it, if it saves one American life.
Quote from: carlb on November 28, 2015, 04:50:59 PM
Waterboarding's not torture.
I have no problem with it.
How times change! We certainly thought it was torture when the Japs did it to our POWs during the War, or when the NK Chinks did it to our POWs during the Korean War, or when the Cong did it to our men in 'Nam.
QuoteI see the AMERICAN soldier as God's angels on earth.
Really?
Quote from: Shooterman on November 29, 2015, 07:25:57 AM
Really?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Like I said, the Hollywood "Feel Good" version image of war.
Quote from: daidalos on November 28, 2015, 01:38:25 PM
Solar, ever seen any statistics on the veracity of intel obtained through that process?
Just wondering, as torture, such as oh I don't know, the rack, or iron maiden for example,
is notoriously proven to be in-effective in obtaining real information.
If the info obtained by "enhanced interrogation" from multiple detainees is consistent,
it's probably valid.
If the info is inconsistent, then the detainees are probably making things up just to stop the pain.
ABC's 20/20 ran a segment in 1990 or 91 about a guy who had been convicted of a murder
back when Bill Clinton was Arkansas' Attorney General.
The police had gotten (via torture) 13 different guys to confess to the same murder.
So it's pretty likely they had the wrong guy on death row.
And the guy's only hope was to be spared by the guy who had since became Governor - Bill Clinton.
Nope.
Quote from: quiller on November 28, 2015, 08:51:10 PM
Sleep deprivation, painfully loud music and strobe lights. Breakfast of champions.
A Madonna concert!
Hey! Here's an idea! We could use tasers!
Actually, that idea is not new.
In Vietnam, they used what they called the Tucker telephone.
It's WHERE the electrodes were connected to the body
that made it especially intimidating.
Quote from: Solar on November 29, 2015, 07:17:57 AM
Some live the Hollywood image of war, where bombs always hit their target and only bad guys die quickly without suffer.
You left out all the times where the Lone Ranger would shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 06:16:07 AM
Trump's point was, why only use it as an interrogation tactic, when you can use it as a deterrent.
Lets be honest, lets say, ISIS captures an American soldier, do you really think they won't torture him?
So why not show these scum we're far more brutal than they are and deter them from engaging us.
I have no doubt showing the enemy a video where
we surgically attach pig limbs, in place of arms and legs to one of their beloved,
the impact would be devastating to Muscum morale.
Yeah, even though I haven't the surgical expertise,
I'd happily volunteer to take on the project anyway.
Do I sound brutallty cruel?
Good, the enemy needs to know what Americans are capable of.
It's hard to deter people who are willing to do suicide missions.
They're already sacrificing their lives.
Deterrence would have to consist of making it clear to them that
the thing they value more than their lives,
the cause for which they are dying,
is certain to fail.
I am still convinced that Islam does not have a billion believers,
it has a billion HOSTAGES!
If the civilized world would occupy the Muslim world
like W occupied Iraq (especially after the surge)
the former hostages would volunteer intel to us,
to save themselves from the jihadists.
But since The Illegitimate One BETRAYED the former hostages
(the people of Iraq)
by giving their country back to the jihadists,
he deterred the GOOD people from ever giving us intel again!
W got at least one thing right: terrorists are "illegal combatants."
Is terrorism an act of war or a crime?
It's both! It is a war crime! It is a criminal form of warfare.
Terrorists should be treated as war criminals.
They're not just people who got drafted and sent to war
and got captured and became POWs, like in past wars.
They
volunteered to "go forth and commit war crimes."
Fight and capture them as in regular warfare,
and then hold trials and punish them as war criminals.
Je Freedom...best post I've seen all month.
I have long thought that terrorism should be a war crime
Treat terrorists as war criminals.
Hunt them, kill them, if any are captured, try them as war criminals and hang them.....ride with an outlaw, die with an outlaw.
Quote from: je_freedom on November 29, 2015, 05:36:11 PM
If the info obtained by "enhanced interrogation" from multiple detainees is consistent,
it's probably valid.
If the info is inconsistent, then the detainees are probably making things up just to stop the pain.
ABC's 20/20 ran a segment in 1990 or 91 about a guy who had been convicted of a murder
back when Bill Clinton was Arkansas' Attorney General.
The police had gotten (via torture) 13 different guys to confess to the same murder.
So it's pretty likely they had the wrong guy on death row.
And the guy's only hope was to be spared by the guy who had since became Governor - Bill Clinton.
Nope.
A Madonna concert!
Hey! Here's an idea! We could use tasers!
Actually, that idea is not new.
In Vietnam, they used what they called the Tucker telephone.
It's WHERE the electrodes were connected to the body
that made it especially intimidating.
You left out all the times where the Lone Ranger would shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand.
It's hard to deter people who are willing to do suicide missions.
They're already sacrificing their lives.
Deterrence would have to consist of making it clear to them that
the thing they value more than their lives,
the cause for which they are dying,
is certain to fail.
I am still convinced that Islam does not have a billion believers,
it has a billion HOSTAGES!
If the civilized world would occupy the Muslim world
like W occupied Iraq (especially after the surge)
the former hostages would volunteer intel to us,
to save themselves from the jihadists.
But since The Illegitimate One BETRAYED the former hostages
(the people of Iraq)
by giving their country back to the jihadists,
he deterred the GOOD people from ever giving us intel again!
W got at least one thing right: terrorists are "illegal combatants."
Is terrorism an act of war or a crime?
It's both! It is a war crime! It is a criminal form of warfare.
Terrorists should be treated as war criminals.
They're not just people who got drafted and sent to war
and got captured and became POWs, like in past wars.
They volunteered to "go forth and commit war crimes."
Fight and capture them as in regular warfare,
and then hold trials and punish them as war criminals.
Well stated JE, but you missed my earlier point, that they deserve torture, if for no other reason, as a message to others considering following their lead.
If it dissuades one terrorist, then it was worth it.
Quote from: Solar on November 29, 2015, 05:53:55 PM
Well stated JE, but you missed my earlier point, that they deserve torture, if for no other reason, as a message to others considering following their lead.
If it dissuades one terrorist, then it was worth it.
The thing about that that bothers me is that
there are some people who were captured in Iraq,
taken to Guantanamo, interrogated,
and found that they were not involved in enemy action.
They were captured because they had a neighbor who hated them
and gave America bad intel.
Quote from: je_freedom on November 29, 2015, 10:06:56 PM
The thing about that that bothers me is that
there are some people who were captured in Iraq,
taken to Guantanamo, interrogated,
and found that they were not involved in enemy action.
They were captured because they had a neighbor who hated them
and gave America bad intel.
I'm not talking about gathering intel, I'm talking about combatants captured, scum that intended to maim and torture under a suicide run for 72 virgins.
Yeah, I have no issue with a public skinning, genital mutilation, appendages removed one at a time, for the sole purpose that the enemy gets a solidly clear message, we're far more brutal than you and look forward to our next captive.
You can't tell me that wouldn't cut their recruitment numbers to near zero.
No other nation in the history of earth has taken the precautions protecting the innocent as we have, and the harder we try, and yet mistakes are made and innocent die, the enemy uses the incident like a weapon for public opinion.
It's war, war kills things and blows things up. War could be avoided entirely if we as a nation would cut the bull shit and level parts of sand Hell and turn it to glass.
We have protracted wars because we hamstring ourselves with ridiculous rules no other nation in history ever practiced, and of all places, the M/E sees it as a weakness, and it is.
Maybe, just maybe if war wasn't made to look so surgical and clean and PC, there might be a lot less of it.
Quote from: Shooterman on November 29, 2015, 07:25:57 AM
Really?
Just came back to this ridiculous thread.
Great, well thought out comeback.
I understood when I posted 90% of this audience would not understand what I said, having a child'd understanding of God's angels.
Like I said, ask a resident of Sodom about pissing off God's angels -- oh wait, that city is salt for the rest of time! They ceased to exist that day.
Yeah, AMERICANS dont skin humans alive. Sick fucks! That's not how you win wars. It's how you lose your civilization to better people. It's why we were given this land and the barbarians here before lost it.
Like I said, all the Founding Fathers understood this. Don't make yourselves look as ridiculous as Trump.
Somebody here needs a lesson in how condescension is done.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Cswtqdwkdkwggdwsxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fsrgbtdbwgxrwbgssqgk%2F1%2F1595431%2F8186312%2Framirez121407-vi.gif&hash=f4a047ca05372a7b4cc98ca31fe02356d2a8668e)
I don't want my tax dollars spent on military tribunals for terrorists.
We already know that the terrorist is assigned a civilian attorney that holds the trial hostage to classified information that cannot be divulged in court. So the case languishes for months on end and the terrorist ends up getting a slap on the hand and a free ticket back to the battle front!
We should take no terrorist to court. If someone is captured they should experience enhanced interrogation for information. If it is determined that he is not a true terrorist, release him. If he is a terrorist.... more enhanced interrogation .... make his life absolutely miserable until he hangs himself!!!
I do not believe we should waste our tax dollars on defending terrorists in a court.
Quote from: carlb on November 30, 2015, 02:49:05 AM
Just came back to this ridiculous thread.
Great, well thought out comeback.
I understood when I posted 90% of this audience would not understand what I said, having a child'd understanding of God's angels.
Like I said, ask a resident of Sodom about pissing off God's angels -- oh wait, that city is salt for the rest of time! They ceased to exist that day.
Yeah, AMERICANS dont skin humans alive. Sick fucks! That's not how you win wars. It's how you lose your civilization to better people. It's why we were given this land and the barbarians here before lost it.
Like I said, all the Founding Fathers understood this. Don't make yourselves look as ridiculous as Trump.
It is doubtful, Mon Ami, you are the only one with a personal interpretation of scriptures. The world is awash in it. I revere our troops that are
SENT into harms way as much as anybody, however I do not equate them with the angels of God ( after all they were creations of Him as well ) sent on a mission to make the world over in our image.
I notice, as well, you conveniently ignored my answer about how we considered the 'waterboading' the Japs did or the NKs did, or the Cong did, all as torture.
As for this being a ridiculous thread, may I suggest you take that up with the creator of the thread.
Quote from: carlb on November 30, 2015, 02:49:05 AM
Just came back to this ridiculous thread.
Great, well thought out comeback.
I understood when I posted 90% of this audience would not understand what I said, having a child'd understanding of God's angels.
Like I said, ask a resident of Sodom about pissing off God's angels -- oh wait, that city is salt for the rest of time! They ceased to exist that day.
Yeah, AMERICANS dont skin humans alive. Sick fucks! That's not how you win wars. It's how you lose your civilization to better people. It's why we were given this land and the barbarians here before lost it.
Like I said, all the Founding Fathers understood this. Don't make yourselves look as ridiculous as Trump.
So from your obvious avoidance I can assume in response to my query, that your wife's death was for naught, and that your children would suffer a similar fate, all because you hamstrung yourself with religion?
Or are their lives worth a little moral sacrifice on your part?
In my world, God would not only forgive me, but think what an idiot dumb ass for not accepting the opportunity he laid at my feet in the form of injured information.
Live your 1940 Hollywood fantasy world, but like it or not, the world is full of evil, and the only way to defeat evil is using the same tactics as does evil itself.
Quote from: SalemCat on November 28, 2015, 05:02:09 PM
Tell ya what - I will burn in hell.
But once the Enemy starts something, I'd like to end it.
Eye for an Eye.
God never said we are to be blind, stupid sheep being led to the slaughter.
That is NOT what "turn the other cheek was".
And something you will rarely if ever hear a preacher addressing, is the fact that in what is called the "great commission" When Jesus sent the apostles out, he also told them to take and carry a sword. Why would he do that? Answer because God expects us to defend ourselves from time to time.
Quote from: kroz on November 30, 2015, 05:12:32 AM
I don't want my tax dollars spent on military tribunals for terrorists.
We already know that the terrorist is assigned a civilian attorney that holds the trial hostage to classified information that cannot be divulged in court. So the case languishes for months on end and the terrorist ends up getting a slap on the hand and a free ticket back to the battle front!
We should take no terrorist to court. If someone is captured they should experience enhanced interrogation for information. If it is determined that he is not a true terrorist, release him. If he is a terrorist.... more enhanced interrogation .... make his life absolutely miserable until he hangs himself!!!
I do not believe we should waste our tax dollars on defending terrorists in a court.
Absolutely Kroz! I see no reason to afford our enemies the rights of Americans by by charging them civilly.
Nope, Military laws and regs of war, nothing more.
Granted, we've hamstrung our military, as we've seen demonstrated by exchanging a traitor for four terrorists, a man that should have received a firing squad return.
Quote from: kroz on November 30, 2015, 05:12:32 AM
I don't want my tax dollars spent on military tribunals for terrorists.
We already know that the terrorist is assigned a civilian attorney that holds the trial hostage to classified information that cannot be divulged in court. So the case languishes for months on end and the terrorist ends up getting a slap on the hand and a free ticket back to the battle front!
We should take no terrorist to court. If someone is captured they should experience enhanced interrogation for information. If it is determined that he is not a true terrorist, release him. If he is a terrorist.... more enhanced interrogation .... make his life absolutely miserable until he hangs himself!!!
I do not believe we should waste our tax dollars on defending terrorists in a court.
Military tribunals for war crimes, when DONE PROPERLY, are notoriously swift and decisive. I cite the Nuremburg trials and the Japanese Imperial Troops that McArthur executed,including General Yamashita, the architect of the invasion of SEA. Something you rarely hear about coz these tribunals were conducted in the field and not a big show like Nuremburg.
These idiotic things that weretaking place by the Bush admin was an appeasement to the flaming Liberals who kept clamoring for 'civilain trials" on US soil.....I am dead set against that.
Miitary tribunal (courts martial) for any captured terrorists, IMMEDIATELY in the field, if found guilty, hanging....shooting is a soldier's death, they don't deserve that coz they are NOT soldiers....and it is a waste of bullets
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on November 30, 2015, 04:59:14 PM
Military tribunals for war crimes, when DONE PROPERLY, are notoriously swift and decisive. I cite the Nuremburg trials and the Japanese Imperial Troops that McArthur executed,including General Yamashita, the architect of the invasion of SEA. Something you rarely hear about coz these tribunals were conducted in the field and not a big show like Nuremburg.
These idiotic things that weretaking place by the Bush admin was an appeasement to the flaming Liberals who kept clamoring for 'civilain trials" on US soil.....I am dead set against that.
Miitary tribunal (courts martial) for any captured terrorists, IMMEDIATELY in the field, if found guilty, hanging....shooting is a soldier's death, they don't deserve that coz they are NOT soldiers....and it is a waste of bullets
Billy, that was all before "PC"!
Nothing works the way it used to work. PC has ruined everything.
Liberals and UN , specifically the criminals in the Hague who harbor dangerous terrorists themselves have ruined everything....they wanted to apply Geneva convention to these people who were caught in Afghanistan and other places in the ME during our war on Al Q'eda.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on November 30, 2015, 04:59:14 PM
Military tribunals for war crimes, when DONE PROPERLY, are notoriously swift and decisive. I cite the Nuremburg trials and the Japanese Imperial Troops that McArthur executed,including General Yamashita, the architect of the invasion of SEA. Something you rarely hear about coz these tribunals were conducted in the field and not a big show like Nuremburg.
These idiotic things that weretaking place by the Bush admin was an appeasement to the flaming Liberals who kept clamoring for 'civilain trials" on US soil.....I am dead set against that.
Miitary tribunal (courts martial) for any captured terrorists, IMMEDIATELY in the field, if found guilty, hanging....shooting is a soldier's death, they don't deserve that coz they are NOT soldiers....and it is a waste of bullets
That's how it should be done.
Concerning the "surgical enhancement of terrorists by installing hog parts" -
as amusing as it is, I wouldn't actually do it.
What deters crime is not the severity of punishment,
it's the
certainty of it.
W got Iraq fairly peaceful in his time
by making the enemy's capture a pretty sure thing.
Then The Illegitimate One got in power
and validated everything the enemy's leaders had been saying.
They said, "We only appear to be defeated. Stay strong.
America doesn't have the guts to last long.
America is decadent and will wither away in time.
Allah will prevail!"
Everything the terrorists say about America
ACTUALLY IS TRUE OF THE DEMOCRATS!
Quote from: je_freedom on November 30, 2015, 05:29:41 PM
That's how it should be done.
Concerning the "surgical enhancement of terrorists by installing hog parts" -
as amusing as it is, I wouldn't actually do it.
What deters crime is not the severity of punishment,
it's the certainty of it.
Neither would I, I might be a dinosaur from a different age but I still believe we have the moral high ground when it comes to trying any captured terrorist for war crimes IN THE FIELD and hanging him, defiling their bodies after death is not worthy of the effort. Cremate them and that's the end of it, wipe out every trace they were on the earth and move on to the next.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on November 30, 2015, 05:57:02 PM
Neither would I, I might be a dinosaur from a different age but I still believe we have the moral high ground when it comes to trying any captured terrorist for war crimes IN THE FIELD and hanging him, defiling their bodies after death is not worthy of the effort. Cremate them and that's the end of it, wipe out every trace they were on the earth and move on to the next.
Before 911, you and I would have been clones in our belief and resolve in dioing the right thing, but Americas new enemy has no soul, scruples or sense of humanity.
So no, I have no issue treating the non human the way the deserve.
Quote from: kroz on November 27, 2015, 03:18:44 PM
Let's face it. Our warriors are always tortured if captured.
Why should we put ourselves above doing this? We know it can produce critical information. If we are willing to kill them, why not torture them? It makes no sense to me. An enemy is an enemy. Do what you have to do to insure the survival of our troops and an advantage in the war. It can save lives!!
Even the NAZIS treated POW's according to the Geneva Conventions.
But ISIS is not part of that, so......
Quote from: SalemCat on December 02, 2015, 07:38:57 PM
Even the NAZIS treated POW's according to the Geneva Conventions.
But ISIS is not part of that, so......
I don't know what fairy tail you have been reading.
Quote from: SalemCat on December 02, 2015, 07:38:57 PM
Even the NAZIS treated POW's according to the Geneva Conventions.
But ISIS is not part of that, so......
Prove this statement with REPUTABLE sources or be prepared to retract that assertion.
Not taking sides here, but the German and American soldiers on the battlefield had far more respect for one another than the Muscum have today.
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/christmas-truce-of-1914
Quote from: Solar on December 03, 2015, 05:15:29 AM
Not taking sides here, but the German and American soldiers on the battlefield had far more respect for one another than the Muscum have today.
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/christmas-truce-of-1914
His statement was.
QuoteEven the NAZIS treated POW's according to the Geneva Conventions.
Not one thing about respect on the battlefield.
Quote from: walkstall on December 03, 2015, 07:07:35 AM
His statement was.
Not one thing about respect on the battlefield.
Yeah, NAZI was not a good choice, German soldier would have made sense.
But I knew what he meant by his statement.
Quote from: kroz on November 27, 2015, 03:18:44 PM
Let's face it. Our warriors are always tortured if captured.
Why should we put ourselves above doing this? We know it can produce critical information. If we are willing to kill them, why not torture them? It makes no sense to me. An enemy is an enemy. Do what you have to do to insure the survival of our troops and an advantage in the war. It can save lives!!
Answer: so we don't become the monster we wish to destroy.
Quote from: Solar on December 03, 2015, 07:19:13 AM
Yeah, NAZI was not a good choice, German soldier would have made sense.
But I knew what he meant by his statement.
From Wikipedia, not U.S. soldier but POW's none the less.
QuoteBetween 140,000 and 500,000 Soviet prisoners of war died or were executed in Nazi concentration camps.
Yes I know it's Wikipedia.
Quote from: kroz on November 28, 2015, 06:35:37 AM
Solar, you have accurately hit upon our root problem in America. It goes far beyond our military rules of engagement. It permeates our culture.
We don't think it is right to hurt ANYONE. It is not PC.
Not only do we not want to hurt our prisoners of war but we don't want to hurt anyone or anything. That is deemed bad!
BUT, since the beginning of time it is well documented that punishment is a deterrent to wrong behavior. Pain is an age old method of discipline. It is not the ONLY method of discipline but it is the fastest way to achieve desired results.
If we abandon this truism, we are rotting at the core.
Today if we "hurt" our children they will be taken away by child services.
Pain has a rightful place in our society..... both in war and at home.
Or it does the exact opposite; it emboldens them and enrages them further. Fear can be a great motivator for action.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 07:37:28 AM
Answer: so we don't become the monster we wish to destroy.
Apparently she wants AMERICANS to act like these sub-humans animals but in other threads she doesn't want the label "CHRISTIAN" applied to what she supports.
No, MY country doesn't behave like Muslims.
THE FOUNDERS AGEEE WITH ME. Time for you "tea partiers" to return to your roots and your Constitution.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 01:46:26 PM
If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it, it's really that simple.
Well communism doesn't work and the communists are still trying to implement it. Point is, people do things over and over again whether it does work or not.
Quote from: walkstall on December 03, 2015, 08:01:05 AM
From Wikipedia, not U.S. soldier but POW's none the less.
Yes I know it's Wikipedia.
Going out on a limb, but I would imagine he was referencing American soldiers.
And for therecord, we tortured Germans as well.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 09:47:00 AM
Well communism doesn't work and the communists are still trying to implement it. Point is, people do things over and over again whether it does work or not.
Motivation is the key. Commies do it for power, we torture for preservation.
See the difference?
Quote from: Solar on December 03, 2015, 10:52:27 AM
Motivation is the key. Commies do it for power, we torture for preservation.
See the difference?
In other words, the ends justify the means. Is this correct Solar?
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 12:55:09 PM
In other words, the ends justify the means. Is this correct Solar?
One subjugates it's people, while we strive for freedom.
You choose.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 09:47:00 AM
Well communism doesn't work and the communists are still trying to implement it. Point is, people do things over and over again whether it does work or not.
Yeah we have a word in the English Lang for that. It's known as "INSANE". Mwhahaha!
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 09:47:00 AM
Well communism doesn't work and the communists are still trying to implement it. Point is, people do things over and over again whether it does work or not.
Oh, and if you ask a communist, or lib for that matter, they'll quickly tell you, communism has yet to be instituted properly as of yet.
I kid you not, they all believe it has merit.
Quote from: Solar on December 03, 2015, 01:08:17 PM
Oh, and if you ask a communist, or lib for that matter, they'll quickly tell you, communism has yet to be instituted properly as of yet.
I kid you not, they all believe it has merit.
They haven't figured out which "year plan" works best. Still looking for that magic number of years. :lol: :lol:
Preservation. If a group such as a nation can use any means to preserve itself should this not apply across the whole board then. Let's say a person was homeless. By your logic, this means the homeless man can steal food to feed himself if he can't get or keep a job. If that same homeless man has a disease which is curable and he can't afford the cure than if we applied your concept across the board than by logic then he should be able to go into a medical clinic and force the doctors at gun point to cure him.
If a maxim applies in one case than to keep it consistent it must apply in all cases. If not, than why not?
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 01:55:21 PM
Preservation. If a group such as a nation can use any means to preserve itself should this not apply across the whole board then. Let's say a person was homeless. By your logic, this means the homeless man can steal food to feed himself if he can't get or keep a job. If that same homeless man has a disease which is curable and he can't afford the cure than if we applied your concept across the board than by logic then he should be able to go into a medical clinic and force the doctors at gun point to cure him.
If a maxim applies in one case than to keep it consistent it must apply in all cases. If not, than why not?
HUH?????
Doesn't make sense, WHY is he homeless, is he homeless and starving because he is a drug addict, alcoholic? (which are common) We should we as a society allow him to use any means to continue his degeneration at our expense?
Demanding treatment at gun point or using anytype of violence?
Thats so far out of left fleid it's not even in the ball park.
Street skel: I have a gun treat me for cancer or I'll kill you
Doctor: right away Sir....Nurse 100 cc of the strongest sedative we got....that should put him out until the police get here.....
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 12:55:09 PM
In other words, the ends justify the means. Is this correct Solar?
You either die free or you don't. Those who want a boot on their neck? Do nothing.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on December 03, 2015, 03:22:42 PM
HUH?????
Doesn't make sense, WHY is he homeless, is he homeless and starving because he is a drug addict, alcoholic? (which are common) We should we as a society allow him to use any means to continue his degeneration at our expense?
Demanding treatment at gun point or using anytype of violence?
Thats so far out of left fleid it's not even in the ball park.
Street skel: I have a gun treat me for cancer or I'll kill you
Doctor: right away Sir....Nurse 100 cc of the strongest sedative we got....that should put him out until the police get here.....
Well, if the concept of the ends justifying the means must apply for a group of people in one instance than the maxim must apply for all people for all instances in order for the maxim to hold up therefore maintaining consistency. Either Solar is right and therefore these two scenarios must hold up or these two scenarios are wrong and Solar's maxim can't hold up either. If you all believe that Solar's maxim is true and these two corollaries are false at the same time than inconsistent standards exist and this is but one anecdotal example of what I'm talking about when I said (when I first came on here) that American standards and what people believe have inconsistencies and not only within the logic of themselves but to each other.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 03:52:17 PM
Well, if the concept of the ends justifying the means must apply for a group of people in one instance than the maxim must apply for all people for all instances in order for the maxim to hold up therefore maintaining consistency. Either Solar is right and therefore these two scenarios must hold up or these two scenarios are wrong and Solar's maxim can't hold up either. If you all believe that Solar's maxim is true and these two corollaries are false at the same time than inconsistent standards exist and this is but one anecdotal example of what I'm talking about when I said (when I first came on here) that American standards and what people believe have inconsistencies and not only within the logic of themselves but to each other.
By your logic, I have a right to a position as world leader, right?
By the same token, you have the same right to deny me.
You see? If you want to be homeless, that's your call as a freeman, but I'll be damned if I will allow you to violate the social contract that we all live under by threatening the life of a fellow human to fulfill your wants and desires.
under communism, you'd be alotted the same crappy healtcare as me, meaning you're going to die and there's nothing you can do about it.
Under a free system, you have the "Freedom" to buy health care that may save your life.
But to answer your ridiculous query, go ahead, take a gun to the doctors head and demand he save your life.
OK, I'm still containing my laughter at the moment, now be a good little fool, take the pill the doctor tells you to, oh, and I'm certain it's not poison. :rolleyes:
OK, now I'm laughing. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on December 02, 2015, 07:50:44 PM
I don't know what fairy tail you have been reading.
My father was a POW and said he was treated fairly under the circumstances but he was a bomber pilot and the Germans treated American flyers with respect. Most their camps were run by German air force officers.
Quote from: Solar on December 03, 2015, 04:17:27 PM
By your logic, I have a right to a position as world leader, right?
By the same token, you have the same right to deny me.
You see? If you want to be homeless, that's your call as a freeman, but I'll be damned if I will allow you to violate the social contract that we all live under by threatening the life of a fellow human to fulfill your wants and desires.
under communism, you'd be alotted the same crappy healtcare as me, meaning you're going to die and there's nothing you can do about it.
Under a free system, you have the "Freedom" to buy health care that may save your life.
But to answer your ridiculous query, go ahead, take a gun to the doctors head and demand he save your life.
OK, I'm still containing my laughter at the moment, now be a good little fool, take the pill the doctor tells you to, oh, and I'm certain it's not poison. :rolleyes:
OK, now I'm laughing. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I just took your maxim to its conclusion is all I did. Let's say one can't afford the treatment. By your logic of preservation, if one group has a right to preserve their lives with any means and no matter the cost than do not all people have the right to protect their lives with any means and no matter the cost? If the group of people more specifically the USA have the right to protect their lives and this end is used to justify any means than by that logic if that homeless man can't afford the health care treatment, no one will provide it to him then under your own logic that man has the right to use any means to justify his end no matter what. In fact, let's say he simply breaks in and steals the cure instead to save his own life since he can't afford the treatment and no one will provide it than again by your own logic Solar his end must justify the means in his case. It is at night so no one is there.
If you believe one without the other than you must accept that at least one of your very beliefs are inconsistent, illogical and contradictory to the other. If at least one belief are these three things than you must question what other beliefs in your own head is illogical, inconsistent and contradictory.
Now, what if the homeless person accepted stealing and robbing was wrong especially if someone else needs it. If preserving his life would require an evil act and there is no other way to get it than it is better to let someone else have it. Likewise Solar, if our nation requires us to do an evil act such as torture for preservation than how are we better than the enemy we seek to defeat? What good is freedom if one must sell one's soul to obtain freedom? Is it not better to lose one's life and freedom than to lose one's soul. Did not Jesus die on the cross for all of us and gave his very life for us? What good is life and freedom to me if one must bargain away his soul to do it?
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 05:37:14 PM
I just took your maxim to its conclusion is all I did. Let's say one can't afford the treatment. By your logic of preservation, if one group has a right to preserve their lives with any means and no matter the cost than do not all people have the right to protect their lives with any means and no matter the cost?
Stop right there. You are moving the goal post. You do not have the premeditated right to attack another simply because you want to.
If he can't afford treatment, too damn bad, life is not fair. But just because something is available to those willing to pay the price, does not give him the right to that service without paying.
Sure, he can try any means possible to steal treatment, but I guarantee you he won't survive the treatment.
If you're attempting to get someone to justify your need to rob, steal or murder, forget it.
We live under a social contract where we respect others Liberty and property, to ignore this contract breaks covenant law.
The only way your scenario works is if we fall into total chaos and throw out all law, but if that we're to happen, my money is on you not making it through breakfast.
Quote from: Solar on December 03, 2015, 07:16:48 PM
The only way your scenario works is if we fall into total chaos and throw out all law, but if that we're to happen, my money is on you not making it through breakfast.
You got it! Bingo! :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: This is exactly what will happen when we use the ends to justify the means. This is a dangerous slippery slope you and Kroz are putting us on. We're a Godly nation; we're supposed to be above this.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 03, 2015, 08:23:30 PM
You got it! Bingo! :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: This is exactly what will happen when we use the ends to justify the means. This is a dangerous slippery slope you and Kroz are putting us on. We're a Godly nation; we're supposed to be above this.
Then obviously you want our self-defense forces to all lay down arms and go home, awaiting the inevitable invasion.
Ooops. Obama's in charge. Invasion is underway. His ends justified his means.
Quote from: quiller on December 04, 2015, 02:56:06 AM
Then obviously you want our self-defense forces to all lay down arms and go home, awaiting the inevitable invasion.
Ooops. Obama's in charge. Invasion is underway. His ends justified his means.
Like I said if the ends must justify the means in one case than logically it must justify the means in all cases.
Solar mentioned the social contract and covenant law. You all want to achieve a noble end by committing an of evil especially if the person may be an innocent party.
If a group (The USA) must do this evil (torture) to achieve a noble end (defense of this country; protecting innocent lives) than by this logic others can and will violate this social contract and covenant law. They will justify the breaking of this social contract and covenant law to achieve a noble end. This is a precedent that is being set here.
Is it a good idea for the ends to ever justify the means meaning is it ever noble to commit evil to achieve something good. To answer this question, what if it was done to you? Even Jesus said "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" did he not? Not only is what you all say is inconsistent but what you all are saying is that a wrong becomes a right because it achieves something good. I would not want that done to me in anyway, shape or form whether it is through torture by a foreign government like mexico or if I owned a clinic and a thief stole meds from me or forced treatment from me. I would not want to feel that fear and pain of being tortured (especially if I'm an innocent party) or having a gun being put to my head by a would be thief and robber. So, to keep this consistent I have to conclude that it is wrong to do evil to achieve something good and that the ends can never justify the means including but not limited to the violation of the social contract and covenant law to achieve these good ends.
Quote from: Solar on December 03, 2015, 07:16:48 PM
Stop right there. You are moving the goal post. You do not have the premeditated right to attack another simply because you want to.
If he can't afford treatment, too damn bad, life is not fair. But just because something is available to those willing to pay the price, does not give him the right to that service without paying.
I never moved the goal post. I simply tightened some of the screws and added a few components that were missing.
If life is not fair is a fact and all facts are true than by logic we must accept it across the whole board since all facts must be accepted as true across the whole board. Communism, Socialism and Isis are a form of unfairness to life. If we must accept the unfairness of life than by logic we must accept communism, socialism and isis and whatever they decide to do no matter how unfair it is since life is unfair and accept whatever they do without impunity. If breaking the social contract and the covenant law is a part of the unfairness of life than by logic one must accept the breaking of these things without impunity. If it is wrong and ignoble to make life fair in one aspect than to keep consistent one must accept that it is wrong to make life fair in all aspects.
Not at all. Different circumstances call for different actions.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 04, 2015, 06:27:38 AM
I never moved the goal post. I simply tightened some of the screws and added a few components that were missing.
If life is not fair is a fact and all facts are true than by logic we must accept it across the whole board since all facts must be accepted as true across the whole board. Communism, Socialism and Isis are a form of unfairness to life. If we must accept the unfairness of life than by logic we must accept communism, socialism and isis and whatever they decide to do no matter how unfair it is since life is unfair and accept whatever they do without impunity. If breaking the social contract and the covenant law is a part of the unfairness of life than by logic one must accept the breaking of these things without impunity. If it is wrong and ignoble to make life fair in one aspect than to keep consistent one must accept that it is wrong to make life fair in all aspects.
So by your logic, we must accept rape and murder simply because they are part of life's unfairness?
Quote from: Charliemyboy on December 04, 2015, 07:26:18 AM
Not at all. Different circumstances call for different actions.
Okay, let's apply this to all cases to keep it consistent. If we must accept this as truth than by logic socialists and communists are saying the same thing about today's circumstances and so is Hassad in Palestine. If you read the Unabomber's manifesto that was his exact thinking as well. If we must accept this maxim to be true than by logic anyone can do whatever action is warranted to what they think is a negative circumstance and we must accept this as so if we're to remain consistent.
How do we decide the circumstances and the different actions and who gets to decide what these circumstances and actions are and should and why?
Quote from: Solar on December 04, 2015, 07:29:00 AM
So by your logic, we must accept rape and murder simply because they are part of life's unfairness?
Modus Ponens
P1. If we must accept the unfairness of life then we must accept rape as and murder as a part of life.
P2. We must accept the unfairness of life.
C. We must accept rape and murder as a part of life.
Modus Tollens
P1. If we must accept the unfairness of life as then we must accept rape and murder as a part of life.
P2. We must not accept rape and murder as a part of life.
C. We must not accept the unfairness of life.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 04, 2015, 01:22:33 PM
Modus Ponens
P1. If we must accept the unfairness of life then we must accept rape as and murder as a part of life.
P2. We must accept the unfairness of life.
C. We must accept rape and murder as a part of life.
Modus Tollens
P1. If we must accept the unfairness of life as then we must accept rape and murder as a part of life.
P2. We must not accept rape and murder as a part of life.
C. We must not accept the unfairness of life.
And in all that nonsense, you fail to delineate between acknowledgement and acceptance.
Acknowledging something something exists in no way means anyone has to accept it, which is why we have laws against it's evil.
Now I'll ask you. Do you believe that shit? Think for a moment, what does your gut tell you, or do you even listen to, and, or have a moral compass in working order?
Quote from: Solar on November 29, 2015, 07:17:57 AM
But that's not us Q, anyway, according to some, that's wrong in the eyes of a higher power. :rolleyes:
Some live the Hollywood image of war, where bombs always hit their target and only bad guys die quickly without suffer.
But the term torture has many meanings, and one could easily make the case that Japan suffered the worst torture of all, painful protracted death via radiation, missing limbs and a myriad of ailments, all leading to a slow and painful demise..
Granted, this is not how I view war, but bleeding hearts do.
My point is, it matters not how one stops evil, but taking the quickest route is easily justified, and if that means torturing a million, so be it, if it saves one American life.
You are absolutely right. One cannot fight a war with barbarians by observing niceties. We must fight with all we've got. If that means torture, so be it. Information gained by waterboarding could save thousands. Who is worth more? A thousand Americans or one cockroach?
Quote from: Charliemyboy on December 04, 2015, 07:01:46 PM
You are absolutely right. One cannot fight a war with barbarians by observing niceties. We must fight with all we've got. If that means torture, so be it. Information gained by waterboarding could save thousands. Who is worth more? A thousand Americans or one cockroach?
One well placed nuke. Changing the hearts and minds of millions, instantly.
To the consistency of a burnt roast.
Quote from: Solar on December 04, 2015, 06:47:42 PM
And in all that nonsense, you fail to delineate between acknowledgement and acceptance.
Acknowledging something something exists in no way means anyone has to accept it, which is why we have laws against it's evil.
Now I'll ask you. Do you believe that shit? Think for a moment, what does your gut tell you, or do you even listen to, and, or have a moral compass in working order?
My moral compass is screaming that torture is wrong no matter how many lives it saves. To commit evil to achieve a good is wrong no matter how you slice it.
Torture is wrong, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong. Period!
Quote from: Charliemyboy on December 04, 2015, 07:01:46 PM
You are absolutely right. One cannot fight a war with barbarians by observing niceties. We must fight with all we've got. If that means torture, so be it. Information gained by waterboarding could save thousands. Who is worth more? A thousand Americans or one cockroach?
How do we not become barbarians ourselves if we use barbarian methods?
Quote from: cubedemon on December 04, 2015, 05:22:58 AM
Like I said if the ends must justify the means in one case than logically it must justify the means in all cases.
Solar mentioned the social contract and covenant law. You all want to achieve a noble end by committing an of evil especially if the person may be an innocent party.
If a group (The USA) must do this evil (torture) to achieve a noble end (defense of this country; protecting innocent lives) than by this logic others can and will violate this social contract and covenant law. They will justify the breaking of this social contract and covenant law to achieve a noble end. This is a precedent that is being set here.
Is it a good idea for the ends to ever justify the means meaning is it ever noble to commit evil to achieve something good. To answer this question, what if it was done to you? Even Jesus said "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" did he not? Not only is what you all say is inconsistent but what you all are saying is that a wrong becomes a right because it achieves something good. I would not want that done to me in anyway, shape or form whether it is through torture by a foreign government like mexico or if I owned a clinic and a thief stole meds from me or forced treatment from me. I would not want to feel that fear and pain of being tortured (especially if I'm an innocent party) or having a gun being put to my head by a would be thief and robber. So, to keep this consistent I have to conclude that it is wrong to do evil to achieve something good and that the ends can never justify the means including but not limited to the violation of the social contract and covenant law to achieve these good ends.
Keep your replies short and to the point. I don't waste time reading nonsense from children too timid to defend the nation they've got.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 04, 2015, 08:03:49 PM
My moral compass is screaming that torture is wrong no matter how many lives it saves. To commit evil to achieve a good is wrong no matter how you slice it.
Torture is wrong, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong. Period!
By your standard all forms of warfare are wrong! :scared:
We should all hold hands and sing kumbaya?
Quote from: kroz on December 05, 2015, 04:13:52 AM
By your standard all forms of warfare are wrong! :scared:
We should all hold hands and sing kumbaya?
WAR and torture are NOT the same.
Read the founders on this topic and get your mind right.
GOD doesn't allow a Nation to survive whose people are this wicked and vile. It shouldn't even be a topic! Even Trump, as outrageous as he is, was only talking about WATERBOARDING, which is not torture.
Quote from: Solar on December 04, 2015, 07:17:22 PM
One well placed nuke. Changing the hearts and minds of millions, instantly.
To the consistency of a burnt roast.
And THAT is not TORTURE. It is WARFARE.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 04, 2015, 08:03:49 PM
My moral compass is screaming that torture is wrong no matter how many lives it saves. To commit evil to achieve a good is wrong no matter how you slice it.
Torture is wrong, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong. Period!
If torture could save your family from a torturous death at the hands of evil that enjoys the act of torture, would you not be morally obligated to torture?
You as a human have a responsibility to fellow humans to protect them from evil and if your only weapon available is that from the torturers arsenal and you refuse to use it, you are on equal footing with evil for refusing to stop it when you had the chance.
Why you equate torture on equal footing with death is beyond me, but it appears you would sentence innocents to death, if it meant pardoning evil from a moment of pain.
Quote from: carlb on December 05, 2015, 04:24:13 AM
WAR and torture are NOT the same.
Read the founders on this topic and get your mind right.
GOD doesn't allow a Nation to survive whose people are this wicked and vile. It shouldn't even be a topic! Even Trump, as outrageous as he is, was only talking about WATERBOARDING, which is not torture.
But you linked torture with murder and stealing. In warfare snipers murder people. Right?
We ARE talking about warfare here. We definitely do things in warfare that are taboo in normal life. Can you not separate them?
Quote from: carlb on December 05, 2015, 04:28:58 AM
And THAT is not TORTURE. It is WARFARE.
Pure Bull Shit! Tell that to the survivors.
This was my point about a warped/sanitized Hollyweird fantasy view of war, where every bullet kills instantly, and every bomb has the perfect kill radius.
War by it's very definition is torture of varying degrees.
(https://onewayjapan.com/News-Analysis/2015/images/07-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-Bombing-An-Unpunished-Crime-Against-Humanity-02.jpg)
Quote from: cubedemon on December 04, 2015, 08:05:02 PM
How do we not become barbarians ourselves if we use barbarian methods?
One sure way to become barbarians is to submit to barbarians and agree to emulate them. I choose to fight with whatever means necessary. Those of us who feel as I do will protect those of you too cowardly to defend yourselves. I take it that by your "Moral compass" you are willing to surrender and accept whatever consequences await you. I don't. I choose to fight with whatever means are at hand to protect my country, my family, my friends and myself.
Quote from: kroz on December 05, 2015, 05:32:33 AM
But you linked torture with murder and stealing. In warfare snipers murder people. Right?
Did I? Where?
No, snipers don't MURDER people. Are you really so obtuse that you don't understand the difference?
Define "murder.'
And no solar, KILLING and ACCIDENTAL Maiming That comes in WAR is not TORTURE.
Don't do the libs game. Words have definitions.
Running a drill into someone skull is torture. Pulling out fingernails is torture. Burning genitals is torture
ASSANINATION, is not torture. Neither is it MURDER.
When will you address WHY you're so far out of touch with the Founders on this? Why are you so far to the left of Trump on this?
Quote from: carlb on December 05, 2015, 06:50:15 AM
Did I? Where?
No, snipers don't MURDER people. Are you really so obtuse that you don't understand the difference?
Define "murder.'
And no solar, KILLING and ACCIDENTAL Maiming That comes in WAR is not TORTURE.
There is no such thing as accidental when bombing, calling it collateral damage is nothing more than a sofetr definition of "OPS, we fucked up.
QuoteDon't do the libs game. Words have definitions.
Running a drill into someone skull is torture. Pulling out fingernails is torture. Burning genitals is torture
ASSANINATION, is not torture. Neither is it MURDER.
When will you address WHY you're so far out of touch with the Founders on this? Why are you so far to the left of Trump on this?
I notice you have yet to answer my earlier query into the torture and murder of your own family.
I suspect you and I both know the answer, but for you to admit the truth, blows your entire silly rationale of "Moral high ground" out the window.
I can see where you guys are coming from on this. You guys want to protect your loved ones. I understand the need to do that.
Please try to understand where I'm coming from too.
What I fear is we becoming the very wicked thing we wish to destroy. If we must use torture (which I find morally repugnant but it is equally morally repugnant not to protect your loved ones)
a. If there is any other way to achieve the noble end can we do it?
b. should there be limits and how far should it go? Can rape be used as a form of torture? ripping off finger nails? burning?
c. if we must do it how do we make sure we don't come to enjoy inflicting it?
d. how do we make sure we use it for the right reasons? what are the right reasons? Can law enforcement use it?
e. How do we insure there are no false positive confessions like there was with the inquisition.
f. What if the person being tortured really doesn't know anything? How do we establish this so unnecessary is not performed ?
Quote from: cubedemon on December 05, 2015, 07:49:29 AM
I can see where you guys are coming from on this. You guys want to protect your loved ones. I understand the need to do that.
Please try to understand where I'm coming from too.
What I fear is we becoming the very wicked thing we wish to destroy. If we must use torture (which I find morally repugnant but it is equally morally repugnant not to protect your loved ones)
a. If there is any other way to achieve the noble end can we do it?
b. should there be limits and how far should it go? Can rape be used as a form of torture? ripping off finger nails? burning?
c. if we must do it how do we make sure we don't come to enjoy inflicting it?
d. how do we make sure we use it for the right reasons? what are the right reasons? Can law enforcement use it?
e. How do we insure there are no false positive confessions like there was with the inquisition.
f. What if the person being tortured really doesn't know anything? How do we establish this so unnecessary is not performed ?
Would you retaliate with dirt clods in a rock fight, or rocks in a knife fight, or knives in a gun fight, would you take the moral high ground as your argument against your enemy that beheads? All pointless, don't you think?
Point is, when you're at war, you never tell the enemy what you refuse to use, in fact, you convince them you want to use the dirtiest weapon in your arsenal.
See Reply #4 on the first page. I don't want it reserved merely as a tool for gathering intelligence, I want it used as a psychological weapon to freak out the enemy.
Yeah, that's right, show them beheading is child's play compared to the brutality we look forward to using on them.
We are either in it to win, or we're not and they need to understand our resolve to win makes theirs out to look like a tea party.
Quote from: cubedemon on December 05, 2015, 07:49:29 AM
I can see where you guys are coming from on this. You guys want to protect your loved ones. I understand the need to do that.
Please try to understand where I'm coming from too.
What I fear is we becoming the very wicked thing we wish to destroy. If we must use torture (which I find morally repugnant but it is equally morally repugnant not to protect your loved ones)
a. If there is any other way to achieve the noble end can we do it?
b. should there be limits and how far should it go? Can rape be used as a form of torture? ripping off finger nails? burning?
c. if we must do it how do we make sure we don't come to enjoy inflicting it?
d. how do we make sure we use it for the right reasons? what are the right reasons? Can law enforcement use it?
e. How do we insure there are no false positive confessions like there was with the inquisition.
f. What if the person being tortured really doesn't know anything? How do we establish this so unnecessary is not performed ?
a. Yes.
b. No rape, no disfiguring. No permanent disability.
c. No guarantee, but we will be alive as will our loved ones.
d. The right reason is survival. "Right" is subjective.
e. Possibly.
f. Then he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We aren't stupid. We can determine who might be an asset to us.
Whoah.
Tough Call.
Torture as REVENGE - Never.
Torture - if - it will save lives - maybe.
But we would have to be pretty damn sure.