[inthebox]

Okay , excon

Here is a scenario.

There is information about a dirty bomb, or anthrax, attack in your town and other towns as well. You have potential collaborators in your custody. You have 1 week, and despite not "torturing" them they are not giving you anything useful. What do you do?
Do you not torture them and accept all the lives lost, because you are who you are, or do you try more than the standard methods?

[inthebox]

you are right . I can bring up examples of what you call torture during previous times dating back to at least the Phillipine-American war. Philippine-American War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you read depictions of the brutality of that war I think you would nominate the Bush team for sainthood.

I never knew this.


My father was a kid during WW2. He knows first hand what the Japanese did. He knows what the US did also. He could not care less what means were necessary for the Americans to take to save them from the Japanese. And most of his generation would agree.

[excon]

There is information about a dirty bomb, or anthrax, attack in your city. You have potential collaborators in your custody.

Hello in:

Yeah, that's a great scenario. They use it on "24" all the time. But, in the real world, it falls apart.

"There is information......." Where did that information come from? Why don't I torture the guy that told me THAT??

"I have the collaborators........" How do I know that's who they are? "I have one week....." How do I know that?

And finally, how do I know that the guy I'm about to torture KNOWS something about it?

In the final analysis, those things are only going to happen on TV.

excon

[Marriedguy]

What is the objective of War? What is the end game? The end game is to either elimate hostiles that is directly or indirectly. Direct kill them all enemies (nearly impossible), indirect make them lose the will or desire to fight. Torture is just one of the tools of war. I don't think you can put the use of tool in a good or bad category.

I ask these question:

To take a life is good or bad?

This individual is going take the lives of others. Is your answer still the same?

[excon]

Hello again, guy:

Strapping on a suicide belt and blowing up a bunch of civilians is a tool of war too. It's just not a tool we use. According to you, it would be OK if we did?

If you win the war, but lose your humanity, what did you gain?

excon

[Dark_crow]

EXCON

Yeah, someone else yesterday made the comparison between water boarding and suicide bombing public establishments. It doesn't make any more sense now that it did then. Talk about losing your humanity.

[NeedKarma]

Just like it's OK to string up burnt americans from a pole - I mean they were going to kill others so it's OK.

[talaniman]

EXCON

Yeah, someone else yesterday made the comparison between water boarding and suicide bombing public establishments. It doesn't make any more sense now that it did then. Talk about losing your humanity.

The human bombs, are the tools of war for the otherside, as is torture. We can use torture, so why not a human bomb?? If the idea is to win the war, why not nuke 'em and be done?

[Dark_crow]

The only problem I have with them Tal is that they don't wear uniforms.

[talaniman]

I agree, that bothers me too, and also shows how cowardly they are, which leads me to believe they have a lot of support, from those that wish to be annonymous. But it bugs me that we would do like them, out of fear of what they can do. It makes us no better, than them, and worse, they win, as they have lowered us to their level, out of fear, and have changed us from who we are. That's what PO's me about using their tools for our purpose, and if they are wrong for doing it, so are we. We do need a better plan, and not the same old recycled stuff.