buckthesystem Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,706 Topics Per Day: 0.26 Content Count: 3,386 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/10/1955 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Read this before ""Cheney's remarks fuel torture debate" it explains what it is all about. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...nathan_s_landay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Your point being..........? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckthesystem Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,706 Topics Per Day: 0.26 Content Count: 3,386 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/10/1955 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 Your point being..........? Leonard somehow I think you might be being sarcastic, but you are still saying that you think that "waterboarding" is not torture, and you are putting out some bait and I can't resist taking it. The point is: What sort of a sicko freak would advocate the use of a technique that makes people feel as if they are dying of drowning repeatedly? Putting someone in water where they cannot breathe until they pass out only to bring them to and repeat the process is probably one of the WORST forms of torture there is. Cheney has to be a sadistic psychopath to believe that waterboarding isn't torture. Either that, or a purposely misleading. Cheney's comment of: ""Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" Makes me just really sick. Plus Cheney has just signed the OK for other countries to subject American soldiers to waterboarding. Can you justify any of this? Or can anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Actually, Buck- You are right. Let's take all of this torture stuff off the table and switch tactics. It's only working on a limited basis anyway. Instead of taking baby steps with these people, let's simply let them know that we are not playing any longer. Here's my suggestion: First, let's set a date- say Jan 1st, 2007. That should be enough time for the big news to spread to every home in the world. The big news? Well, we will give them this ultimatum: One single terrorist action- one bombing, one kidnapping, one roadside bomb, anything, after the Jan 1 deadline, will be cause enough to blow Mecca, Medina, Kabul, Kahndahar, Pyongyang, and Tehran off the map with all the nukes we can muster. If they continue after that, we can then target other cities in Syria, Jordan, lebanon, and France, as well. Perhaps it's time to make them pay? t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest _Chuck Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 All of our agents that are working in areas where they could be captured and questioned, and most of our special forces in that area. So this is a procedure we use on our own people to show them what is going to happen. This is a commom practice amoung all nations as a method to get people to talk. It is said that it can not be resisted and it can not harm or damage a person. It works off of thier fears. I am sorry if people don't understand that you can't offer them coffee and tea and sit around and let them tell you how they were planning to bomb, but it does not work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giaour Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 179 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,941 Content Per Day: 0.55 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/28/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/08/1964 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Cheney's comment of: ""Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" I agree with Cheney. Maybe if we waterboarded a few before 911, a few more lives would be here for their families. Mental mind games during an interrogation is nothing compared to hacking away at someones neck on video for the world to see as the guy screams in pain until he chokes on his own blood and cant scream anymore. Then only to have his head held up in front of the camera for his family. If waterboarding is what it takes to get these monsters to talk, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Your point being..........? Leonard somehow I think you might be being sarcastic, but you are still saying that you think that "waterboarding" is not torture, and you are putting out some bait and I can't resist taking it. The point is: What sort of a sicko freak would advocate the use of a technique that makes people feel as if they are dying of drowning repeatedly? Putting someone in water where they cannot breathe until they pass out only to bring them to and repeat the process is probably one of the WORST forms of torture there is. Cheney has to be a sadistic psychopath to believe that waterboarding isn't torture. Either that, or a purposely misleading. Cheney's comment of: ""Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" Makes me just really sick. Plus Cheney has just signed the OK for other countries to subject American soldiers to waterboarding. Can you justify any of this? Or can anyone else? You are either deliberately obfuscating or you know nothing of actual torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Ted: Not a bad idea, but I think I disagree with some of your initial targets. I suggest Mecca, Medina, and the 'Tomb of Elijah.' If that doesn't work, then move on to some secondary targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Ted: Not a bad idea, but I think I disagree with some of your initial targets. I suggest Mecca, Medina, and the 'Tomb of Elijah.' If that doesn't work, then move on to some secondary targets. Hmm....I forgot about the Tomb. Good catch! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted October 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 29, 2006 In all this torture debate I think a presupposition has been let on by - why is torture necessarily wrong? Now, before anyone comes up with the knee-jerk response of, "Oh you horrible human" or "how can it NOT be wrong" or some other emotional outburst, would it not be better to think it through? If torturing one individual will lead to the capture of twenty who wanted to kill thousands...is it necessarily wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts