Thread: torture

A better question: why is it terrorism to saw someone's head off in a video but not terrorism to for a nation to overthrow another legitimate goverment? Is not the degradation of daily life in Iraq not a form of terrorism or torture?

The corruption of morals usually begins with an "exception", only to spread from there.
We've seen the Bush admin blur the definitions of torture and circumvent international agreements, never mind their own constitution, now people are argueing for torture as an acceptable means of punishment to deter from crime.

Where is it gonna stop?
How far do you want to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages?

Originally Posted by surasak

Would you torture one innocent person to save 10? Would you forfeit your life to save 5?

There have been many cases recently where properly convicted felons were released because new methods of testing proved their innocence (DNA). What kind of apology do you give to a person wrongfully imprisoned, let alone, wrongfully tortured? What kinds of safeguards do you allow to ensure no innocent person is wrongfully tortured?

What kind of apology do you give for those destroyed on 911, for having held a terrorist but being prevented from 'legally' accessing his computer, or for not using any other mechanism to extract relevant info from him, which could have prevented their deaths?

Quite simply, you are either bitter or malicious enough about your own insecurity to sit back and enjoy as your society dies a death by a thousand cuts, courtesy of Islam, or you are prepared to set aside some of your democratic sensitivities, as well as some of your 'rights', in order to confront the scourge.

Up to each of us as individuals, though those who choose the former should know they are in the finest company, with some lib/left/loonies on this very board having implied their support for Islamic terror.

Originally Posted by stroller

So, do you live in the south of Thailand, keda?

I don't think there is much "Islamic terrorism" in Isaan to open one's eyes, is there?

No, sTROLLer, I do not live in the South and therefore have not witnessed any of the secular atrocities committed by those nice people, just as I did not need to be in the WTC when it collapsed in order to know it happened.

Originally Posted by surasak

Last time I was in Nong Khai I was attacked and beaten by one of the countless Muslim mobs that roam all of Thailand. My home was burned, my crops destroyed, my car stolen.

They must've loved you, to leave your head attached.

I haven't read any comment supporting "Islamic terror", but I've read many comments from posters who are not willing to compromise their rights nor morality.

And what apology should the pres and his staff who ignored warnings and intel concerning 9/11 give to the people? Would torturing anyone have prevented 9/11, or would a more conscientious admin been sufficient?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

...Admittedly, they have been years filled with the stench of Islamic atrocities, including events that in the mind of any decent person should warrant extreme torture with an outside chance of prevention,...

Hmm, so torture not as an interrogating technique, but a form of punishment.
Perhaps hack their hands off when they steal and stone them to death on the market square for more serious stuff?

Hang on -- isn't this what those barbarian Islamists do to each other and the rest of us?

When you saw people's heads off and publish the video, the government of their country may learn not to invade your nation - something along those lines?

You said it, whilst characteristically making an out of context accusation based on a false premise that I never mentioned, in this case punishment, and then attacking it. Well done, and I'm sure your lapdogs will swallow it up.

As to stoning and hacking of hands, these are things I have never proposed, though your buddies do, and routinely.

You seem to be at a loss for argument but not time, and perhaps this is why you make such childish comments.

Originally Posted by keda

I do not live in the South and therefore have not witnessed any of the secular atrocities committed...

"Secular atrocities"? You certainly have a way with words, keda, and are very well informed - not.

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by keda

Precisely the thread I opened a while back, which died rapidly, possibly due to the question being flogged to death on other threads, or not...would you commit an immoral act for a moral purpose?

I do not believe committing an immoral act makes a moral purpose, uh, moral any longer. I believe ultimately individual rights matter more than collective rights.

Whether it's one person or a thousand. Morality should not be a waivering concept.

If a person would kill another person for $1 million then why won't the same person do it for $10 (although some actually would I'm sure).

A fraudulent argument that shows precisely where you're coming from. Doesn't the rights of one person conflict with those of another?

Isn't the most basic right the right to life, and if this is compromised by an Islamic terrorist should we observe his rights over those of his intended victims, or does everybody's rights kick in only after he has qualified for 72 virgins?

Originally Posted by stroller

The corruption of morals usually begins with an "exception", only to spread from there.
We've seen the Bush admin blur the definitions of torture and circumvent international agreements, never mind their own constitution, now people are argueing for torture as an acceptable means of punishment to deter from crime.

Where is it gonna stop?
How far do you want to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages?

I'll go with that, that moral corruption may begin with an exception, and often we do not know where it will lead to, but moral change begins in the here and now, with society itself acting in real time to determine what is acceptable or not acceptable, and to whichever degree of culpability, together with punishment or other penalty.

It's part of the process of change, or progress, which societies through known history have undertaken by necessity, for the good and as often to the detriment of themselves and or future generations.

To answer your own question, if moral change is not part of the process as very loosely outlined, we would not need to consider whether we want to

...turn the clock back to the Middle Ages

because we still would be in those Ages.

Ironically, it is your buddies that wish to take us even further back.

both from this page....

Originally Posted by keda

your buddies

Originally Posted by keda

your buddies

lame.

Originally Posted by stroller

I haven't read any comment supporting "Islamic terror", but I've read many comments from posters who are not willing to compromise their rights nor morality.

And what apology should the pres and his staff who ignored warnings and intel concerning 9/11 give to the people? Would torturing anyone have prevented 9/11, or would a more conscientious admin been sufficient?

You seem to studiously sidestep the fact that all administrations are temporary, that none are definitive, and that the policies or action or inaction of one affects or imposes upon the next. There are some, for example, who blame Clinton for neglecting or aiding or otherwise inadvertently glossing over potential Islamic and North Korean threats on his watch, and of course we could go even further back.

Point is, the administration of Western nations is an ongoing process assumed by their civil services, regardless of which party is in power, part of whose duty is to implement policies as dictated by their encumbent bosses, the politicians, as best they can and in the full knowledge that four years hence they may be instructed to backtrack and reinstate former policies.

Would torturing anyone have prevented 9/11, or would a more conscientious admin been sufficient?

If you know the answer, let's have it.

Then, what do you mean conscientious? Isn't anything less than a 100% success rate in foiling terrorism a failure, and isn't that 100% a reality only for those in Neverland that demand nothing less than perfection?

If so, how do you suggest the admin could have prevented 911 by being more conscientious, and is a conscientious admin one that prevents all terror, or one that learns from its failures?

Originally Posted by keda

Isn't the most basic right the right to life...

Yes, the next right is the presumption of innocence in legal proceedings. Yet, the current trend is to assume guilt and proceed from there...

, and if this is compromised by an Islamic terrorist should we observe his rights over those of his intended victims, or does everybody's rights kick in only after he has qualified for 72 virgins?

Should we turn upside down the entire legal system based on events so rare as to not even register in terms of risk to life and limb on a daily basis?

Originally Posted by keda

You said it, whilst characteristically making an out of context accusation based on a false premise that I never mentioned, in this case punishment, and then attacking it.

Ok, I re-read your comment and I misinterpreted it. Seemed you were advocating torture as a deterrent: "Admittedly, they have been years filled with the stench of Islamic atrocities, including events that in the mind of any decent person should warrant extreme torture with an outside chance of prevention,..."
It is a misconception that torture is a means of extracting info someone wouldn't give otherwise. As I said, there are professional interrogators who know what they are doing, no need to introduce torture because some posters who watch too many movies developed a strong dislike for Muslims.

As to stoning and hacking of hands, these are things I have never proposed, though your buddies do, and routinely.

You seem to be at a loss for argument but not time, and perhaps this is why you make such childish comments.

As I said, I misunderstood your comment, my apologies.

But, please clarify who of my "buddies" propose hacking of hands? I find such remark rather lame and 'childish'...

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

I do not live in the South and therefore have not witnessed any of the secular atrocities committed...

"Secular atrocities"? You certainly have a way with words, keda, and are very well informed - not.

That was for the benefit of those, and it seems you too, that still believe LoS is in conflict with the nice people in the South as a 'secular' issue, with religion playing no part. Or might it be that you do believe it is heavily influenced by radical Islamic elements, using the guise of 'secular' separatism, to generate instability?

Originally Posted by raycarey

both from this page....

Originally Posted by keda

your buddies

Originally Posted by keda

your buddies

lame.

Nice to see you're conscientious...now, would you care to contribute?

Originally Posted by keda

What kind of apology do you give for those destroyed on 911, for having held a terrorist but being prevented from 'legally' accessing his computer, or for not using any other mechanism to extract relevant info from him, which could have prevented their deaths?

What apology am I supposed to I owe them? What does accessing a computer have to do with anything?

Torture of people is not within the realm of a supposed civil society REGARDLESS of what THEY do.

Quite simply, you are either bitter or malicious enough about your own insecurity to sit back and enjoy as your society dies a death by a thousand cuts, courtesy of Islam, or you are prepared to set aside some of your democratic sensitivities, as well as some of your 'rights', in order to confront the scourge.

I already proved to you: a 1 in 200,000,000 chance of dying in a terror attack. Islamic terror or any other terror for that matter isn't so deadly a thing as to kill millions every year. Not even hundreds of thousands are dying from it every year. Tens of thousands? Barely, and, if you negate that which takes place in Iraq it's very rare. War on terror? More like war on innocent people, innocent people's rights: the right to not be thrown into prison without charges, without a trial, without appeal. IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT to worry about compared to things which are more deadly: murders by fellow Americans, for example, which is a higher threat to my life.

Who is the bitter one? Certainly not me, I don't need to run and hide in fear paranoid that some imaginary threat is going to 'get me.'

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by keda

Isn't the most basic right the right to life...

Yes, the next right is the presumption of innocence in legal proceedings. Yet, the current trend is to assume guilt and proceed from there...

, and if this is compromised by an Islamic terrorist should we observe his rights over those of his intended victims, or does everybody's rights kick in only after he has qualified for 72 virgins?

Should we turn upside down the entire legal system based on events so rare as to not even register in terms of risk to life and limb on a daily basis?

You seem to be obsessed by the fact that you live in constant fear of your life in the West, and would feel so much safer under Arab/Islamic rule.

Maybe if we stopped wasting hundreds of billions on a fruitless war and invested the money in intelligence gathering neither the wars nor the prospect of torturing people would be necessary.

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by keda

Isn't the most basic right the right to life...

Yes, the next right is the presumption of innocence in legal proceedings. Yet, the current trend is to assume guilt and proceed from there...

, and if this is compromised by an Islamic terrorist should we observe his rights over those of his intended victims, or does everybody's rights kick in only after he has qualified for 72 virgins?

Should we turn upside down the entire legal system based on events so rare as to not even register in terms of risk to life and limb on a daily basis?

You seem to be obsessed by the fact that you live in constant fear of your life in the West, and would feel so much safer under Arab/Islamic rule.

What the hell are you about? You're the one paranoid and cowering in fear of the bogeyman.

I stated that the risk to my life of a terror attack is 1 in 200,000,000. The risk to my life of being killed by another American is 12,000 times greater. In a given decade over 200,000 Americans are killed by other Americans. In a given decade barely 4,000 Americans 'might' be killed by Muslims.

I don't worry about being killed by an American, therefore, why should I worry about being killed by a Muslim?

I suspect part of those hundreds of billions does go towards intel.

Care to answer any of the questions I posed to you in response to your comments, keda?

True or false: since record keeping started in 1968 over 10,000 people die per year due to terrorism.

Still waiting for a few questions to be addressed, but suspect somehow this won't happen...

I guess it's a waste of time to put forward rational arguments to someone who keeps calling me sTROLLer.