wiggyrichard Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 inhumane, should question what it is we're defending, reducing ourselves to those practices, abhorrent and surely unreliable. I'f im tortured i'll say whatever the **** is wanted to be heard to stop it. Shameful practice. And killing innocent men, women and children is not inhumane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2010 We shouldn't reduce ourselves, and prostitute our values, to such reprehensible acts. It's wrong. And that's before you get to a pragmatists argument that it isn't actually that effective anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 Bush saying the end justifies the means. No it doesn't. Why doesnt it Bri? If the waterboarding has prevented an attack on British soil which could have killed hundreds of men, women and children, then surely it has been justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Static Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 People saying it is wrong what do you suggest should be done as an alternative to get information to prevent terrorist attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Bush saying the end justifies the means. No it doesn't. you kinda have to elaborate a bit here though don't you think ? If someone has information about the potential death of 1000 people , don't you think getting that information out of him and saving 1000 lives justifies the means ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 They (the terrorist) had no problem with killing or planning to kill innocent civilians, yet some people dont think that submitting these terrorists to a bit of pain (not killing) to save these innocent peoples lives is necessary!?!? Someone explain that one to me? * How do you know he is a terrorist * How do you know he has any information * When did we re-define torture as a "bit of pain" - is this dubya speak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 They (the terrorist) had no problem with killing or planning to kill innocent civilians, yet some people dont think that submitting these terrorists to a bit of pain (not killing) to save these innocent peoples lives is necessary!?!? Someone explain that one to me? * How do you know he is a terrorist * How do you know he has any information * When did we re-define torture as a "bit of pain" - is this dubya speak? Having strong links to Bin Laden and trying to buy explosives off the black market pretty much give it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I think fighting fire with fire tends to lead to a much bigger fire. those who have committed these acts are scum, agreed, but that's no reason to be scum ourselves. Or if not don't ever elevate western values as any better than some of those "backward" ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Dubya deserves more praise and history will eventually treat him kindly even if the liberal woollies won'tNo he doesn't and no it won't. There will, as always be some right wing revision of history, but he will go down as being in the bottom 5 of all time presidents. If he wanted to prevent bombings in London there are other things he could have done instead of torture, ie not start illegal wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendelc Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 If it saves me being blown to smithereens on the tube then i am all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Necessary? Not really. It's a good laugh all the same though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Terrorists should be given season tickets for the sty and made to watch until they crack ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 God knows it's the only way they'd fill the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Dubya deserves more praise and history will eventually treat him kindly even if the liberal woollies won'tNo he doesn't and no it won't. There will, as always be some right wing revision of history, but he will go down as being in the bottom 5 of all time presidents. If he wanted to prevent bombings in London there are other things he could have done instead of torture, ie not start illegal wars. I could have sworn the people flying the planes into the twin towers started the illegal war but overlooking that, much of the prelude to the war started under Clintons watch . The invasion of Iraq itself may have been for the wrong reason but removing Saddam was absolutely the right thing to do in the same way as removing Milosovich was and much the same way force should be used to remove any other "leader" committing genocide on his own people Bush also increased US Aid to Africa , greater than any other president before (or since ) ..how has the great hope Obama faired in that regard ? well he has broken four campaign promises on overseas aid , but he hasn't quite reached unpopular levels of Bush yet so history may be kind to him for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Difficult question. I would say a normal war such as a land war, Falklands / 1st Iraq where there are 2 armies on either side fighting for a known reason then no. If the aggression and acts of war are based on religion or religious beliefs tor orders (As in kill the infidels) then they automatically lose all human rights, they are killing people or planning to kill people on the basis of totally made up information or books, things or situations like 911 / taliban. Then anything goes I'm afraid, 1 normal person is worth 1000 of these idiots so that calculation should be kept in mind. If Tommy Terrorist won't tell you where the nuke is then take out the whole country as far as I am concerned. The line between the 2 is grey and this is why we get into problems. My veiws are never popular but if your family is at risk of been killed in an hour how far would you want them to go if you had the CIA on the phone, tickle him or start killing his family in front of him ? It's easy to say no sitting behind a PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 My veiws are never popular but if your family is at risk of been killed in an hour how far would you want them to go if you had the CIA on the phone, tickle him or start killing his family in front of him ? It's easy to say no sitting behind a PC. Whatever it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Dubya deserves more praise and history will eventually treat him kindly even if the liberal woollies won'tNo he doesn't and no it won't. There will, as always be some right wing revision of history, but he will go down as being in the bottom 5 of all time presidents. If he wanted to prevent bombings in London there are other things he could have done instead of torture, ie not start illegal wars. I could have sworn the people flying the planes into the twin towers started the illegal war but overlooking that, much of the prelude to the war started under Clintons watch . I could have sworn that before the illegal war, london wasn't targetted - and regardless of the prelude, it was on dubya's watch that terrible decision was made - he was in power for 2 and a half years before he started down the road to mission accomplished. And linking 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq ???? You are dick cheney, I claim my £5. The invasion of Iraq itself may have been for the wrong reason but removing Saddam was absolutely the right thing to do in the same way as removing Milosovich was and much the same way force should be used to remove any other "leader" committing genocide on his own peopleWhy just genocide on their own people - why not any genocide. And whilst " removing Saddam was absolutely the right thing to do", the method was batshit crazy and who exactly has benefitted from the illegal war - the Iraqi people - nah, Iran, yes, oil companies yes, blackwater yes. Bush also increased US Aid to Africa , greater than any other president before (or since ) ..how has the great hope Obama faired in that regard ? well he has broken four campaign promises on overseas aid , but he hasn't quite reached unpopular levels of Bush yet so history may be kind to him for nowI guess Obama may be somewhat restricted by the financial mess he was left with - or are we blaming this one on a global crisis? But maybe we could just look at the lists that are judging Bush - currently ranked 39th out of 44 (see wiki) though we all know these surveys are a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I usually find there's a strong correlation between those who advocate torture, and those who also advocate the death penalty. Actually, also add in right wing political views. I think we're seeing that again on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 The obvious problems with torture (victims making up any old bollocks to make the pain stop) will never go away, however they may be the only way to crack suspects who are otherwise so committed to their cause (especially if religious) that they'd never give up information any other way. In general I think it's just about justifiable, given that the information procured could save hundreds of lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts