"We Will Kill Your Kids and Rape His Mother!"

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Not really, I think that in this case the laws are wrong. Besides, I don't see how lying to someone has anything at all to do with torture. If it's acceptable for a US citizen to be subjected to the "torture" of being lied to, why not terrorism suspects?


Keep in mind this isn't simply "lying" and this is in conjunction with other forms of torture.
 
Upvote 0

blueapplepaste

the purpose of life is a life of purpose
Jun 7, 2005
7,290
788
41
Texas
✟18,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
My understanding of how that works is that generally the FBI deals domestically and the CIA internationally. Obviously there's going to be overlap when the suspect was found overseas but was planning a domestic attack. But I believe your assertion that the FBI alone should be handling all terrorism suspects is incorrect.

On the Dianne Reheam Show on NPR, they were talking about this very thing the other day. Anyways, what the panel was saying was that the CIA was never intended to be interrogating suspects. That's what the FBI is the expert in. The CIA was designed to just gather information and carry out clandestine operations and stuff of that nature. But the guests were also talking about how the two departments were suspect of each other and through various memos showed that neither wanted to cooperate with the other. Basically they were acting childish instead fo working to make us safer.

I think most of this mess happened because the CIA started doing things out of its realm.

We should have brought in the FBI and let them do it and do it right and in a way that's in accordance with America's principals.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

blueapplepaste

the purpose of life is a life of purpose
Jun 7, 2005
7,290
788
41
Texas
✟18,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps 'pretty please with a cherry on top' will get these terrorists to talk about how they plan on murdering us.

terrorist... 'Ha, you stupid infadels will die soon'

cia... 'do you know of a plot'

terrorst... 'yes, and your family will burn and die like they deserve, HA!'

cia... 'tell us when and where this will be taking place'

terrorist... 'no, you infadel pig'

cia... 'please tell us, here have a hamburger, it's from McDonalds buddy'

terrorist... 'gobble, gobble, slurp,'

cia... please tell us, pretty please'

terorist... 'burn in hell you dirty pigs'

cia.... oh, c'mon, pretty PRETTY please'

terrorist.... 'soon you will be in hell where you deserve you dirty scumbag infadel'

cia... 'c'mon buddy, pretty pleeeeeaaasse.... with a cherry on top?'

terrorist.... 'well ok, since you put a cherry on top... the bombs are planted at....'



Silly people. Use your common sense.

Or we get an innocent guy and torture him for no reason...

CIA: "We know you know where a bomb in the US is"

Suspect: "I know of no such things"

CIA: "Don't lie to us, tell us and we won't hurt your family"

Suspect: "Please, do not hurt my family, I know of no such things!"

CIA: "Tells now where it is or we'll drill into your hands"

Suspect: "NO NO!! Don't drill, I'm innocent!! I no nothing"

CIA: *suspect is hooded and a drill starts up*

Suspect: "NO NO! Don't hurt me!! Don't hurt me!! I'll tell whatever you
want to know! Please, just don't hurt me!"

CIA: "Where's the bomb?"

Suspect: "I don't know..."

CIA: *drill starts up

Suspect: "OK OK, its in New York City"

CIA: "See we knew you were a terrorist"


And now we've just tortured an innocent man, and will probably torture him more when no bomb is found, and accuse him of lying. Sorry, but torture just doesn't work.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Has this country abandoned all sense of right and wrong in the name of "national security"?

How are we supposed to set an example for the rest of the world when we act like this? I support these investigations, and I hope those responsible are punished.
Ringo
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,036
1,674
57
Tallahassee
✟46,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What has been done to the detainees in our name? Do you mean ALL detainees, or the tortured detainees? Are you against detention in the first place?
the question you asked cannot be answered because there is no thing that "has been done to the detainees in our name" as such.

I'm sure playing word games is fun for you - I am glad you are enjoying your time here. I mean, when it comes down to it, that's why we are all here. If it were not enjoyable, we would cease to post.

I will answer the question, when it is asked.

The question has been asked repeatedly, and I won't repeat it again. To be honest, I've given up caring what you think on this matter.

We could go round and round that 7 detainees were tortured or 44 detainees were tortured. and though I do not know it, a REAL answer to that does exist. But that I agree or disagree with what factually was done is pointless to debate. There indeed ARE certain hypocrisies and inconsistencies in holding a so called "pro-torture" stance (even though thats a misstated description)....much as there is when debating any all all moral things of similar flavor such as death penalty and abortion. We all believe as we do. Thats it. I agree to disagree.

But what else is there TO discuss on a this board other than reasoned opinions and positions. Of course we all believe "as we do". Many here want to know why people hold certain beliefs. For example, I simply find it fascinating that the same people who profess that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior also believe that torturing your enemy to make you safer is OK. Of course, I also find it fascinating that someone can read the Gospels of Jesus and conclude that free-market capitalism is a gift from God. I find these things interesting. If you wish not to discuss them, so be it.


On other issues where there are facts, pros, cons, etc....THEN there are substantive things to say. for example, playing lose with facts like your signature line....THATS factually wrong. Its not a moral issue, or an agree to disagree....it IS or it ISNT. In this case it ISNT.


You seem obsessed with my signature line. My signature line simply states that proximity to something doesn't make you an expert on that thing. But you seem to read nefarious things in this sentence. I'm sorry you find it so disturbing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustOneWay
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm sure playing word games is fun for you - I am glad you are enjoying your time here. I mean, when it comes down to it, that's why we are all here. If it were not enjoyable, we would cease to post.



The question has been asked repeatedly, and I won't repeat it again. To be honest, I've given up caring what you think on this matter.



But what else is there TO discuss on a this board other than reasoned opinions and positions. Of course we all believe "as we do". Many here want to know why people hold certain beliefs. For example, I simply find it fascinating that the same people who profess that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior also believe that torturing your enemy to make you safer is OK. Of course, I also find it fascinating that someone can read the Gospels of Jesus and conclude that free-market capitalism is a gift from God. I find these things interesting. If you wish not to discuss them, so be it.





You seem obsessed with my signature line. My signature line simply states that proximity to something doesn't make you an expert on that thing. But you seem to read nefarious things in this sentence. I'm sorry you find it so disturbing.


Your sig line suggests that Sarah Palin said that. She didnt. SNL did.

Im no Palin fan, mind you.

We werent discussing capitalism. We were discussing torture I guess. And, I confess i am torn on it, and have no real firm answers. im uncomfortable with it for sure.
But I have an interest in being consistent. I know for sure (this is old ground to cover i know) that if I had to torture someone to find MY daughter or son....a la "Taken" and Liam Neeson, I would do so. So the question FOR ME is, where will I draw the line? And the answer is I dont know. And its childish to cast about with absolutes to make ones self feel compassionately superior.
For example, i may not favor taking A terrorist and just because he is a terrorist torture him for general info.
However, if lets say, i had a recording of the terrorist speaking on the phone about an iminent bomb going off in a certain city on a certain day soon, and it was painfully obvious and certain it was real and he knew....I DONT KNOW how i would feel under those exact circumstances.
Those who claim they do know how they would reject torture NO MATTER WHAT, even involving say their own family, are ,likely disingenuous. Once that level of subjectivity is ascertained, it is then interesting to quiz folks about THEIR individual convictions, and you'll find they differ.
But these politically motivated histrionics like in this thread are not serious discourse, because the "against" side are unified in opposition under any and all circumstances, and see no evidence that ALL circimstances have even been posited.
For example, even the most pacifist, if you watched a terrorist cutting someone (Im sparing the graphic words) right in front of you, saying your wife/kids are next...you have SEEN him do it, you KNOW its no bluff, then you got the upper hand later on one of the group and needed to find your family......I am not asking you this question...I am merely suggesting the myriad potential circumstances that indeed will affect folks differently.

Its like the famous gun control advocate watching the psychopath raping his family and wishing he had a gun.....it CAN happen that way, and it tosses these absolutes, these college freshman Psych 101 excerxcises 'if there were 8 people in a boat (a nurse a nun etc ) and it was sinking who would you save.....
In the real world its not a group of idealists brainstorming safely in academia.
 
Upvote 0

Glaz

Obama '08
Jun 22, 2004
6,233
552
✟24,137.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
If I defend it, that means I hate America? Who do you think you are anyway with this screwball "if you think A you must also think B" logic, it's like you were educated at Acme university.

Who am ? The RealDeal........since you asked.

You seem to have missed the inside joke.....for years those of us who spoke out against wars of aggression have been denounced as "American Haters" so I was turning that screwball logic back on to the camps who are part responsible for all of this.

Remember kiddies......if this is some of the crimes we are learning about can you imagine what is taking place in those secret prisons?
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
First, the OP is not a psych 101 brainstorming academia bazaar. It. Is. Real. Life.

Second, it's ironic psychology was mentioned:

defense mechanism ( in defense mechanism (human psychology);

3. Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.


(just because you don't know the depths of your character in adhering to principles it doesn't mean others do not)




Your sig line suggests that Sarah Palin said that. She didnt. SNL did.

Im no Palin fan, mind you.

We werent discussing capitalism. We were discussing torture I guess. And, I confess i am torn on it, and have no real firm answers. im uncomfortable with it for sure.
But I have an interest in being consistent. I know for sure (this is old ground to cover i know) that if I had to torture someone to find MY daughter or son....a la "Taken" and Liam Neeson, I would do so. So the question FOR ME is, where will I draw the line? And the answer is I dont know. And its childish to cast about with absolutes to make ones self feel compassionately superior.
For example, i may not favor taking A terrorist and just because he is a terrorist torture him for general info.
However, if lets say, i had a recording of the terrorist speaking on the phone about an iminent bomb going off in a certain city on a certain day soon, and it was painfully obvious and certain it was real and he knew....I DONT KNOW how i would feel under those exact circumstances.
Those who claim they do know how they would reject torture NO MATTER WHAT, even involving say their own family, are ,likely disingenuous. Once that level of subjectivity is ascertained, it is then interesting to quiz folks about THEIR individual convictions, and you'll find they differ.
But these politically motivated histrionics like in this thread are not serious discourse, because the "against" side are unified in opposition under any and all circumstances, and see no evidence that ALL circimstances have even been posited.
For example, even the most pacifist, if you watched a terrorist cutting someone (Im sparing the graphic words) right in front of you, saying your wife/kids are next...you have SEEN him do it, you KNOW its no bluff, then you got the upper hand later on one of the group and needed to find your family......I am not asking you this question...I am merely suggesting the myriad potential circumstances that indeed will affect folks differently.

Its like the famous gun control advocate watching the psychopath raping his family and wishing he had a gun.....it CAN happen that way, and it tosses these absolutes, these college freshman Psych 101 excerxcises 'if there were 8 people in a boat (a nurse a nun etc ) and it was sinking who would you save.....
In the real world its not a group of idealists brainstorming safely in academia.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Conservativation said:
But I have an interest in being consistent. I know for sure (this is old ground to cover i know) that if I had to torture someone to find MY daughter or son....a la "Taken" and Liam Neeson, I would do so. So the question FOR ME is, where will I draw the line? And the answer is I dont know. And its childish to cast about with absolutes to make ones self feel compassionately superior.

When I've discussed this issue here on CF, everyone has used this argument. My question is: why do we assume that torture is the one and only way to either protect ourselves from terrorism or retrieve our children from kidnappers?

However, if lets say, i had a recording of the terrorist speaking on the phone about an iminent bomb going off in a certain city on a certain day soon, and it was painfully obvious and certain it was real and he knew....I DONT KNOW how i would feel under those exact circumstances.

Everyone uses this argument also. I don't say that to discredit you but to simply point out that these arguments are not new. We should remember that real life doesn't work like the TV show '24'.

For example, even the most pacifist, if you watched a terrorist cutting someone (Im sparing the graphic words) right in front of you, saying your wife/kids are next...you have SEEN him do it, you KNOW its no bluff, then you got the upper hand later on one of the group and needed to find your family......I am not asking you this question...I am merely suggesting the myriad potential circumstances that indeed will affect folks differently.

No...I don't think my mind would be changed. If torture is wrong when it is done by terrorists, it's wrong when we do it - regardless of lives supposedly being saved or the reasons why we're using torture to achieve our goals.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When I've discussed this issue here on CF, everyone has used this argument. My question is: why do we assume that torture is the one and only way to either protect ourselves from terrorism or retrieve our children from kidnappers?



Everyone uses this argument also. I don't say that to discredit you but to simply point out that these arguments are not new. We should remember that real life doesn't work like the TV show '24'.



No...I don't think my mind would be changed. If torture is wrong when it is done by terrorists, it's wrong when we do it - regardless of lives supposedly being saved or the reasons why we're using torture to achieve our goals.
Ringo


Why point out my arguments are not new....when IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH I say that clearly. I INTENDED to be fully clear that I am not plowing new ground and am restating old points, MAYBE using them a little differently maybe not. But don't besmirch an argument that is OPENLY stated as old, by saying that it is....well, old. Please.

Where do you get the idea that I assume torture is the one and only way?
In the example, the very narrow example about family.....can you just toss out 2 or 3 ideas that may work in a limited time? Another question, are you suggesting there is ALWAYS another option? Be clear....OF COURSE the option to not torture always exists...thats not the question....Im asking is there always a proactive intentional effort that one can put forth? If so, do tell.

The point here is indeed to build a scenario that is so well conceived as to be at once unrealistic, but also leave NO wiggle room for the one answering. Save me having to do that round and round and just assume I can create a scenario where it is painfully obvious, you have x time, and thats it, and you are with one person who knows what you need to save someone. Youve tried bribes and begging and threats....clock ticking, your child is on the line......tell me the other strategies, please. Im saying you have 2 choices....torture, or not. If there is another, do tell. I will change the circumstance, eliminate that choice, and ask again. The point is not that you will yield to my seemingly brilliantly conceived scenario and finally aggree that you would torture. Nope not at all....just to see the answer that impeaches.....YES I would torture, NO I would see my child murdered.
Or again, show me a 3rd way, that is ALWAYS present in EVERY scenario.

Minus the 3rd way....you have that choice. My point is neither pro or con on torture in this particular case. It is to illustrate that it is possible to be faced with that choice, and that most folks have no idea if they would or would not torture. Frankly I dont care what they say....they cannot KNOW. Thats why I mentioned the academic excercise about the lifeboat. Lifes not like that.

IF, someone has a tiny miniscule notion there is a millionth of a chance they could torture in those most extreme circumstances.....but doggedly simultaneously insists torture should never be done.....there are serious problems.

Torture is ALWAYS wrong....I agree. I cannot deign to imagine myself ever intentionally harming someone that way....it sickens me, and maybe I would not do it...maybe I'd let my kid die unable to do that thing....I dont know.

Try not to see this as so simple as for or against torture....at least with me, because Im against torture and cannot imagine anyone truly FOR torture. Im trying to break up the simplistic notion that this is such a simple debate as to just proclaim our beliefs, condemn those who dont share them, and move on....when some who may be flippantly dismissed as pro-torture and war mongers actually have a (lacking better word) TORTURED view on this. Its an agonizing thing, and that someone smugly tells me so simply, so dismissively (which ringo you have not done incidentally) that Im just a horrible man for even pondering these things.....it lacks maturity.

I believe my position is at least respectable, even if disagreed.
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If torture is wrong when it is done by terrorists, it's wrong when we do it - regardless of lives supposedly being saved or the reasons why we're using torture to achieve our goals.
Ringo



It may be redundant...but again, mine isnt about torture right or wrong. Indeed its wrong...we agree on that. The question case by case of whether to do it is realistically not based on, is it right or wrong.
I wont bother trying to think of some, but we all make less of two evils choices all the time....both things wrong....pick one. I feel the need to repeat, that is NOT intended as a pro-torture or casual flippant justification...not at all. Im just trying to share my thoughts, they are not your thoughts and thats fine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Where do you get the idea that I assume torture is the one and only way?
That's how it seems to me, since you didn't offer alternatives. But I understand that you're more about how we would react in certain situations than the morality of torture.

In the example, the very narrow example about family.....can you just toss out 2 or 3 ideas that may work in a limited time? Another question, are you suggesting there is ALWAYS another option? Be clear....OF COURSE the option to not torture always exists...thats not the question....Im asking is there always a proactive intentional effort that one can put forth? If so, do tell.

An effort that doesn't involve torture? I'm sure there is.

you have x time, and thats it, and you are with one person who knows what you need to save someone. Youve tried bribes and begging and threats....clock ticking, your child is on the line......tell me the other strategies, please. Im saying you have 2 choices....torture, or not. If there is another, do tell. I will change the circumstance, eliminate that choice, and ask again. The point is not that you will yield to my seemingly brilliantly conceived scenario and finally aggree that you would torture. Nope not at all....just to see the answer that impeaches.....YES I would torture, NO I would see my child murdered.
That's the plot of '24' - not real life.

Torture is ALWAYS wrong....I agree. I cannot deign to imagine myself ever intentionally harming someone that way....it sickens me, and maybe I would not do it...maybe I'd let my kid die unable to do that thing....I dont know.
Good. I'm glad we agree.

Try not to see this as so simple as for or against torture....at least with me, because Im against torture and cannot imagine anyone truly FOR torture. Im trying to break up the simplistic notion that this is such a simple debate as to just proclaim our beliefs, condemn those who dont share them, and move on....when some who may be flippantly dismissed as pro-torture and war mongers actually have a (lacking better word) TORTURED view on this.
I get what you're trying to say, and I largely agree: we don't know what we would do in certain situations. Agreed. I simply don't think that torture is acceptable in any situation.

someone smugly tells me so simply, so dismissively (which ringo you have not done incidentally) that Im just a horrible man for even pondering these things.....it lacks maturity.
When have I ever "smugly" and "dismissively" called you a "horrible man"? Please stick to the facts without the misrepresentations.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You didnt smugly do any such thing. I was doing what I get after others for doing. Sorry.

The "24" thing works against you as much as for you. You can be sure there is an alternative....and be wrong (except NOT to torture, thats always an alternative) Lacking a realistic example, it is a tad idealistic. Its a nice thought and thats about it.

Again maybe we play with words. I could torture, and still agree that it is unaccpetable. Meaning, if moral proclamations are what we are after here...fine, sign me up, I will proclaim in the strongest possible language that torture is abhorrent, evil, bad, horrible, unacceptable.

Having done so.....there is much more to be said. Its leaving it at that that is a bit idealistic. Sometimes we want to FEEL about things and not deeply dig in and consider the blatant moral greyness of certain things. If that was not the case, utopia would be a real place, somewhere near Katmandu.

And I would use the barefoot oracles of Dehli as my spirit guides.
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
53
✟36,318.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Torture is violence and violence is the last refuge of the insecure and faithless. Waterboarding, Gitmo, and Wars of Aggression are ultimately all defended out of fear. Those acts do not enhance our security. If anything, they make us more vulnerable and more likely to be attacked in one form or another. But those drowning in fear are like a helpless hummingbird riding a humpback whale. Most of the time they are simply trying to breathe and the closest they come to clarity is in the split second before their final breath-the moment they realize principles based on fear was living a life of suicide.





When I've discussed this issue here on CF, everyone has used this argument. My question is: why do we assume that torture is the one and only way to either protect ourselves from terrorism or retrieve our children from kidnappers?



Everyone uses this argument also. I don't say that to discredit you but to simply point out that these arguments are not new. We should remember that real life doesn't work like the TV show '24'.



No...I don't think my mind would be changed. If torture is wrong when it is done by terrorists, it's wrong when we do it - regardless of lives supposedly being saved or the reasons why we're using torture to achieve our goals.
Ringo
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Conservativation

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
11,163
416
✟13,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Torture is violence and violence is the last refuge of the insecure and faithless. Waterboarding, Gitmo, and Wars of Aggression are ultimately all defended out of fear. Those acts do not enhance our security. If anything, they make us more vulnerable and more likely to be attacked in one form or another. But those drowning in fear are like a helpless hummingbird riding a humpback whale. Most of the time they are simply trying to breathe and the closest they come to clarity is in the split second before their final breathe-the moment they realize principles based on fear was living a life of suicide.


Well I wont debate this, just say this is the kind of absolutes that I disagree with. Its a lecture tailor made to appeal to the emotions of the lecturer, and so long as the ditches or reality stay on either side of the car, this is a decent path to drive on.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 29, 2005
33,542
10,829
✟180,948.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Well I wont debate this, just say this is the kind of absolutes that I disagree with. Its a lecture tailor made to appeal to the emotions of the lecturer, and so long as the ditches or reality stay on either side of the car, this is a decent path to drive on.

In other words, you believe RDNS's comments have no basis in reality....and you choose to not defend the reasons you believe he is unrealistic.
 
Upvote 0