|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jun 8, 2011 7:53:27 GMT -8
Is waterboarding torture? Probably. But I'm okay with it if it is. Anything that might spare us another 9-11 is fine with me. I don't know that torture is necessarily effective. But whatever it takes. Yoda out... . I'm with Yoda on this. If we can spare innocent American Lives by use of Torture then by all means, we should use torture when absolutely necessary. The president and on rare occasion the on-scene commander should be able to determine the definition of "Absolutely Necessary." |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 8, 2011 10:24:15 GMT -8
Yep, whatever it takes. Of course, you wouldn't wish that on an American soldier, would you?
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 8, 2011 10:40:17 GMT -8
Yep, whatever it takes. Of course, you wouldn't wish that on an American soldier, would you? We already do, of course, ourselves, at SERE. But we digress, no? Of course not, we have civilized enemies. These ones have beheaded our guys, strung them up, drug them through the streets, tortured them, eviscerated a few, usual stuff. Civilized. We give most of them better chow and conditions than those guarding them and reserved water-boarding for a few back in the first year or two of the fight. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 8, 2011 10:47:01 GMT -8
Sooooooooooooo, I guess the answer is "yes?" We do support torturing U.S. soldiers if it justifies torturing non-Americans? Just askin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 8, 2011 12:13:54 GMT -8
Sooooooooooooo, I guess the answer is "yes?" We do support torturing U.S. soldiers if it justifies torturing non-Americans? Just askin'.  |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 8, 2011 13:58:44 GMT -8
Sooooooooooooo, I guess the answer is "yes?" We do support torturing U.S. soldiers if it justifies torturing non-Americans? Just askin'. Why the My point was, is, that if you support torture for non-Americans, then you are tacitly justifying others torturing our guys. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 8, 2011 15:24:20 GMT -8
Why the My point was, is, that if you support torture for non-Americans, then you are tacitly justifying others torturing our guys. Does not make much sense to me. We are talking about two different environments. Acting under the Geneva Convention or how we treat Terrorists. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 8, 2011 18:20:25 GMT -8
Sooooooooooooo, I guess the answer is "yes?" We do support torturing U.S. soldiers if it justifies torturing non-Americans? Just askin'. How so? WB isn't torture but the enemy doesn't care, they do it anyway. They do it ruthlessly they actually murder and maim in their process. Just because I drive 8 mph over the speed limit and tell my son that a couple mph is OK doesn't mean I support real crimes, such as murder. Your concept of moral relevance is out of touch, IMO. We don't return fire when they attack because we are worried about collaterral damage. Is that OK with you too? You are comfortable withour guys getting killed because we don't fight back in some cases so the bad guys hide behind skirts and children and live to kill us again, and do... That is OK too? It is equivalent to what you proffer. We should hold because we have higher values and morals, even if that guy will eventually kill many of our troops later. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 8, 2011 22:05:58 GMT -8
Sooooooooooooo, I guess the answer is "yes?" We do support torturing U.S. soldiers if it justifies torturing non-Americans? Just askin'. How so? WB isn't torture but the enemy doesn't care, they do it anyway. They do it ruthlessly they actually murder and maim in their process. Just because I drive 8 mph over the speed limit and tell my son that a couple mph is OK doesn't mean I support real crimes, such as murder. Your concept of moral relevance is out of touch, IMO. We don't return fire when they attack because we are worried about collaterral damage. Is that OK with you too? You are comfortable withour guys getting killed because we don't fight back in some cases so the bad guys hide behind skirts and children and live to kill us again, and do... That is OK too? It is equivalent to what you proffer. We should hold because we have higher values and morals, even if that guy will eventually kill many of our troops later. You either care and are moral or you're not. You can choose to be like "them" or you can choose a higher moral ground. If you decide not to take the higher ground, then you are no better than the terrorists you purport to hate. I choose to live a moral life and choose not to swim in the slime. If I was in a one-on-one situation and given the choice, I would not torture. I guess it's just me, not you, and I'm thankful and grateful for the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 9, 2011 9:39:49 GMT -8
How so? WB isn't torture but the enemy doesn't care, they do it anyway. They do it ruthlessly they actually murder and maim in their process. Just because I drive 8 mph over the speed limit and tell my son that a couple mph is OK doesn't mean I support real crimes, such as murder. Your concept of moral relevance is out of touch, IMO. We don't return fire when they attack because we are worried about collaterral damage. Is that OK with you too? You are comfortable withour guys getting killed because we don't fight back in some cases so the bad guys hide behind skirts and children and live to kill us again, and do... That is OK too? It is equivalent to what you proffer. We should hold because we have higher values and morals, even if that guy will eventually kill many of our troops later. You either care and are moral or you're not. You can choose to be like "them" or you can choose a higher moral ground. If you decide not to take the higher ground, then you are no better than the terrorists you purport to hate. I choose to live a moral life and choose not to swim in the slime. If I was in a one-on-one situation and given the choice, I would not torture. I guess it's just me, not you, and I'm thankful and grateful for the difference. Wow, you don't even know me. I have a higher moral ground and I bet I live on that plane more than most - probably you. I am not egotistical at all. Many here in ATalk know me personally and I would assume they could vouch for that. Still, that is beside the point. To say that I am no better than the terrorists that behead, evicerate, blow up women and children, burn people alive, kill innocents in large numbers, your moral relevist gauge may need calibration. That is the height of egotistical thought, to be frank. I have been waterboarded in training, as mentioned earlier and I have fought in heavy combat, exercising significant care and restraint even when the terrorists and illegal combatants we fought never bother. If playing loud music and making them uncomfortable but completely unharmed helps us stop that kind of murder and genocide, I am for it. That is the moral position. Saying bluntly that I am no better than those terrorists belies your ignorance, egoism, and lack of honest moral fiber - to stand up for innocents. Check yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jun 9, 2011 9:53:42 GMT -8
How so? WB isn't torture but the enemy doesn't care, they do it anyway. They do it ruthlessly they actually murder and maim in their process. Just because I drive 8 mph over the speed limit and tell my son that a couple mph is OK doesn't mean I support real crimes, such as murder. Your concept of moral relevance is out of touch, IMO. We don't return fire when they attack because we are worried about collaterral damage. Is that OK with you too? You are comfortable withour guys getting killed because we don't fight back in some cases so the bad guys hide behind skirts and children and live to kill us again, and do... That is OK too? It is equivalent to what you proffer. We should hold because we have higher values and morals, even if that guy will eventually kill many of our troops later. You either care and are moral or you're not. You can choose to be like "them" or you can choose a higher moral ground. If you decide not to take the higher ground, then you are no better than the terrorists you purport to hate. I choose to live a moral life and choose not to swim in the slime. If I was in a one-on-one situation and given the choice, I would not torture. I guess it's just me, not you, and I'm thankful and grateful for the difference. The fact of the matter is that Americans are going to be beheaded and tortured regardless of our use of torture. What we do has had absolutely no bearing on what the Radical Islamics do. That is the reason why I favor killing them as soon as we identify who they are and where they are. Bomb them in their houses and take out their families, too. Radical Islamics need to be killed. That is all there is to it. Little Radical Islamics grow up to be Big Ones. I really appreciate the fact that Obama has taken the war into residential neighborhoods in Pakistan. "Kill them where they sleep!" is a damn good motto. Thank God in Heaven above that you are not running the war on terror, azdick. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 9, 2011 10:07:20 GMT -8
Azdick,
I will add, if my wife or daughter were kidnapped by a known gang of rapist-murderers and I caught one of them. Subsequently, I knew I had only minutes to act or my wife/daughter would be horribly raped and murdered and didn't have time to get the police there to save them, you bet I'd do what it took, if there was no other option in saving their lives. That assumes there was no way police could intervene fast enough due to proximaty or some other issue.
Would you let them be raped and murdered due to your higher moral values?
Give your reasoning, please. (I'll even clue you in on something, this directly links to the Khalid Sheik Muhammed waterboarding but answer the direct question, inquiring minds want to know how you reason through that.)
|
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 9, 2011 10:41:37 GMT -8
Okay Guys:
If you want to go absurdist on me, have at it. Any person would protect their family no matter what. I would hope you would give me credit for that. My ONLY point is that, as Americans, we supposedly stand for something that is special and apart from other countries and cutures that gives us the "high moral ground." If you don't take a stand on torture, you are then on the slippery slope that leads to a degradation of all of our value systems, to the point that there are no values of any kind. Many American military men who are to be respected (not to mention John McCain) know that practicing torture will result in Americans also being tortured. You can't put terrorists on the (moral) spot if you've abandoned your ethics.
BTW, I support taking out radical Islamists with Navy Seals or whatever other clandestine means might be necessary. I have never inferred that we should not be pro active in regard to national security. Torture, OTOH, is a different subject.
As to any of you who believe that I am feeling morally superior to your position, you must not know me either. I was stating a position which remains - if you support torture, you are providing a rationale for Americans being tortured as well. That's a fact, not opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 9, 2011 11:03:19 GMT -8
Okay Guys: If you want to go absurdist on me, have at it. Any person would protect their family no matter what. I would hope you would give me credit for that. My ONLY point is that, as Americans, we supposedly stand for something that is special and apart from other countries and cutures that gives us the "high moral ground." If you don't take a stand on torture, you are then on the slippery slope that leads to a degradation of all of our value systems, to the point that there are no values of any kind. Many American military men who are to be respected (not to mention John McCain) know that practicing torture will result in Americans also being tortured. You can't put terrorists on the (moral) spot if you've abandoned your ethics. BTW, I support taking out radical Islamists with Navy Seals or whatever other clandestine means might be necessary. I have never inferred that we should not be pro active in regard to national security. Torture, OTOH, is a different subject. As to any of you who believe that I am feeling morally superior to your position, you must not know me either. I was stating a position which remains - if you support torture, you are providing a rationale for Americans being tortured as well. That's a fact, not opinion. Hardly absurdist, these are real questions posed back to a moral relavist. The enhanced interrogation of KSM saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. It was arguably not torture. Regardless, you are stating you are morally superior to our positions. You stated directly that I am no better than the terrorists because I don't have a problem with a single arguable, borderline, safe interrogation technique. That is pretty superior, haughty and extreme. If one had to argue absurdism, most would point the finger in the opposite direction, I think. So, when I equated a hypothetical familial scenario you said you would do what it took yet knowing I was using it as a simile to the enhanced interrogation KSM, you chose the opposite end. The interrogation of KSM stopped several active plans in their tracks. Those are on the record. It saved those lives. Frankly, starting with those in the 70s in Beirut, continuing through Daniel Pearl (see who finally copped to being the beheader through google) and our US folks in Anbar drug and paraded through the streets, our enemy could care less how we treat them, they are going to be brutal and kill innocents. Look at the recent mosque and church attacks in Iraq. They don't care. These people are animals. We are acting on the moral high ground yet you don't seem to admit it. Regardless of having the moral high ground, all it has done is let them keep on killing. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 9, 2011 11:28:35 GMT -8
Okay Guys: If you want to go absurdist on me, have at it. Any person would protect their family no matter what. I would hope you would give me credit for that. My ONLY point is that, as Americans, we supposedly stand for something that is special and apart from other countries and cutures that gives us the "high moral ground." If you don't take a stand on torture, you are then on the slippery slope that leads to a degradation of all of our value systems, to the point that there are no values of any kind. Many American military men who are to be respected (not to mention John McCain) know that practicing torture will result in Americans also being tortured. You can't put terrorists on the (moral) spot if you've abandoned your ethics. BTW, I support taking out radical Islamists with Navy Seals or whatever other clandestine means might be necessary. I have never inferred that we should not be pro active in regard to national security. Torture, OTOH, is a different subject. As to any of you who believe that I am feeling morally superior to your position, you must not know me either. I was stating a position which remains - if you support torture, you are providing a rationale for Americans being tortured as well. That's a fact, not opinion. I sense considerable back tracking by you on this. You would be wise to just accept that water boarding is not torture and that what we do is nothing compared to what our sworn terrorist enemy does. You also did not respond to my point about Geneva Convention agreements. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 9, 2011 12:12:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 9, 2011 12:18:26 GMT -8
Okay Guys: If you want to go absurdist on me, have at it. Any person would protect their family no matter what. I would hope you would give me credit for that. My ONLY point is that, as Americans, we supposedly stand for something that is special and apart from other countries and cutures that gives us the "high moral ground." If you don't take a stand on torture, you are then on the slippery slope that leads to a degradation of all of our value systems, to the point that there are no values of any kind. Many American military men who are to be respected (not to mention John McCain) know that practicing torture will result in Americans also being tortured. You can't put terrorists on the (moral) spot if you've abandoned your ethics. BTW, I support taking out radical Islamists with Navy Seals or whatever other clandestine means might be necessary. I have never inferred that we should not be pro active in regard to national security. Torture, OTOH, is a different subject. As to any of you who believe that I am feeling morally superior to your position, you must not know me either. I was stating a position which remains - if you support torture, you are providing a rationale for Americans being tortured as well. That's a fact, not opinion. Hardly absurdist, these are real questions posed back to a moral relavist. The enhanced interrogation of KSM saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. It was arguably not torture. Regardless, you are stating you are morally superior to our positions. You stated directly that I am no better than the terrorists because I don't have a problem with a single arguable, borderline, safe interrogation technique. That is pretty superior, haughty and extreme. If one had to argue absurdism, most would point the finger in the opposite direction, I think. So, when I equated a hypothetical familial scenario you said you would do what it took yet knowing I was using it as a simile to the enhanced interrogation KSM, you chose the opposite end. The interrogation of KSM stopped several active plans in their tracks. Those are on the record. It saved those lives. Frankly, starting with those in the 70s in Beirut, continuing through Daniel Pearl (see who finally copped to being the beheader through google) and our US folks in Anbar drug and paraded through the streets, our enemy could care less how we treat them, they are going to be brutal and kill innocents. Look at the recent mosque and church attacks in Iraq. They don't care. These people are animals. We are acting on the moral high ground yet you don't seem to admit it. Regardless of having the moral high ground, all it has done is let them keep on killing. My apologies to you, 78-82. I didn't mean to infer that you are the moral = to terrorists, and if that was your interpretation, I'm sorry. It was merely the logic of the argument, i.e., if you justify torture on one persono, and IF you accept the argument that Americans would be at greater risk of torture and death...etc. We obvioulsy disagree about (1) the value of torture to our national interests and (2) that American are put at greater risk as a result. I don't pretend to be anything other than a person on the opposite side of the argument. Hopefully, you won't hold that against me. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 9, 2011 12:20:49 GMT -8
Okay Guys: If you want to go absurdist on me, have at it. Any person would protect their family no matter what. I would hope you would give me credit for that. My ONLY point is that, as Americans, we supposedly stand for something that is special and apart from other countries and cutures that gives us the "high moral ground." If you don't take a stand on torture, you are then on the slippery slope that leads to a degradation of all of our value systems, to the point that there are no values of any kind. Many American military men who are to be respected (not to mention John McCain) know that practicing torture will result in Americans also being tortured. You can't put terrorists on the (moral) spot if you've abandoned your ethics. BTW, I support taking out radical Islamists with Navy Seals or whatever other clandestine means might be necessary. I have never inferred that we should not be pro active in regard to national security. Torture, OTOH, is a different subject. As to any of you who believe that I am feeling morally superior to your position, you must not know me either. I was stating a position which remains - if you support torture, you are providing a rationale for Americans being tortured as well. That's a fact, not opinion. I sense considerable back tracking by you on this. You would be wise to just accept that water boarding is not torture and that what we do is nothing compared to what our sworn terrorist enemy does. You also did not respond to my point about Geneva Convention agreements. What's the backtracking? You and I disagree and no lesser person than John McCain supports my position. The argument is not about what terrorists do, it's about what WE do. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 9, 2011 12:25:02 GMT -8
Okay Guys: If you want to go absurdist on me, have at it. Any person would protect their family no matter what. I would hope you would give me credit for that. My ONLY point is that, as Americans, we supposedly stand for something that is special and apart from other countries and cutures that gives us the "high moral ground." If you don't take a stand on torture, you are then on the slippery slope that leads to a degradation of all of our value systems, to the point that there are no values of any kind. Many American military men who are to be respected (not to mention John McCain) know that practicing torture will result in Americans also being tortured. You can't put terrorists on the (moral) spot if you've abandoned your ethics. BTW, I support taking out radical Islamists with Navy Seals or whatever other clandestine means might be necessary. I have never inferred that we should not be pro active in regard to national security. Torture, OTOH, is a different subject. As to any of you who believe that I am feeling morally superior to your position, you must not know me either. I was stating a position which remains - if you support torture, you are providing a rationale for Americans being tortured as well. That's a fact, not opinion. Hardly absurdist, these are real questions posed back to a moral relavist. The enhanced interrogation of KSM saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. It was arguably not torture. Regardless, you are stating you are morally superior to our positions. You stated directly that I am no better than the terrorists because I don't have a problem with a single arguable, borderline, safe interrogation technique. That is pretty superior, haughty and extreme. If one had to argue absurdism, most would point the finger in the opposite direction, I think. So, when I equated a hypothetical familial scenario you said you would do what it took yet knowing I was using it as a simile to the enhanced interrogation KSM, you chose the opposite end. The interrogation of KSM stopped several active plans in their tracks. Those are on the record. It saved those lives. Frankly, starting with those in the 70s in Beirut, continuing through Daniel Pearl (see who finally copped to being the beheader through google) and our US folks in Anbar drug and paraded through the streets, our enemy could care less how we treat them, they are going to be brutal and kill innocents. Look at the recent mosque and church attacks in Iraq. They don't care. These people are animals. We are acting on the moral high ground yet you don't seem to admit it. Regardless of having the moral high ground, all it has done is let them keep on killing. The "absurdist" comment was related to having family members in harm's way. I, like you, would do anmything to protect my family. That has nothing to do with the systematic and bureaucratized implementation of a torture program. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 9, 2011 12:38:13 GMT -8
I sense considerable back tracking by you on this. You would be wise to just accept that water boarding is not torture and that what we do is nothing compared to what our sworn terrorist enemy does. You also did not respond to my point about Geneva Convention agreements. What's the backtracking? You and I disagree and no lesser person than John McCain supports my position. The argument is not about what terrorists do, it's about what WE do. We will just have to disagree. You don't respond to the Geneva issue. I respect McCain and what he went through but I think he is wrong on this. I understand his history. |
|
