Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Is Fiz around?

15 posts in this topic

Posted

What if a purple elephant was born to a brown cow and a white horse?

It would post on here under the name Samuel L. Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just for the sake of argument....how much would be too much?

If torture prevents an act of terrorism, can be directly linked to the prevention, is it justified?

Would another method, perhaps intelligence gathering alone, be enough?

What if it wasn't enough and a few dozen, maybe 100 innocent people died?

I ask, because I am unsure about the issue.

I can clearly see the fundamental moral argument against any and all forms of torture.

I am also not idealistic enough to think that intelligence gathering can be pristine. The seamy underbelly of covert operations is kept under wraps for a reason. Is the information always wrong? Is it always bad? Is it never effective? I don't know.

I suppose it is up to the individual to determine how much and what methods are "acceptable".

I'm willing to bet if a tragedy is prevented, many people would say "By any means necessary". You likely wouldn't agree. But I'd like to see alternatives.

Because I think I might be ok with choking the sh*t out of some scumbags to save American lives.

swordfishht_l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you take the liberal approach which is to wait til something happens and the react, would you put to death the terrorists once they kill dozens or 100? Most reactionairy liberals would say yes.

So, you would put them to death after they kill people, but not torture them before they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites