Jump to content

- - - - -

Is Fiz around?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#11 cookinwithgas


    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,407
  • Reputation: 2,342

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:26 PM

i don't think that its applicable. That kind of info comes from informants and other methods. Interrogation may verify some info, and maybe add a few details. Case in point, what went down today in NYC.

#12 Epistaxis


    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,184
  • Reputation: 51

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:35 PM

I wouldn't know.

You might be right.

This is tough stuff. We aren't talking about guys wearing uniforms anymore. This is the ugly stuff of "insurgencies" and potential domestic terrorism, getting hit by people in our country either legally or illegally. The enemy next door. That sounds corny. But the point is, I think this type of "war" is so difficult to fight.

I think most would say you eliminate this threat by changing the policies that created them in the first place. Honest dialogue rather than activities associated with world hegemony.


But you can't be a total pvssy.
And you can't please all the people all the time, no matter how pleasing or appeasing you are.


#13 Matt Foley

Matt Foley


  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:53 PM

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.

#14 natty


    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,783
  • Reputation: 535

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:58 PM

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.

Posted Image

#15 stirs


    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,071
  • Reputation: 1,993

Posted 21 May 2009 - 03:37 PM

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.