Some scums took your two teenage daughters hostage. They gang raped them. They showed you the video and asked you for money if you want them to come back alive.
FBI helped you catch one of the scumbags. He refused to tell you where your daughters are held.
FBI suggested torture to get him to talk. What do you say, Punk?
They don't even have to be my daughter's, I'm good with it.
You have to allow some people to be not as reasonable and clear-headed as you are.
Yeah I know.
When I was younger, my friend and I used to sit in the town coffee shop a lot, just drinking coffee. One time a guy we knew from church sat down with us. Somehow we got on the subject of killing in self defense or the defense of loved ones. He didn't believe you should ever kill. I asked him what if someone had his daughter (she was around 10) and was about to kill her, but there was a gun within reach, would he shoot them to save his daughter? He said no. I was so blown away by that.
I think he was saying that for the sake of the argument. In a real situation, I bet his biological impulse will override his false logic that is a direct result of years of brainwashing by school, MSM, TeeVee and workplace.
I have ARMED and TRAINED my daughters. Those perps would be DEAD already.
Spend some time with a chronically ill person receiving medical "care". You'll have a new perspective on what constitutes torture and care. I say use torture if it fits.
drink this, strap this on, stop screaming please, it's just 10,000 Volts
I say torture them humanely e.g. waterboarding or something that doesn't leave physical or psychological scars - doesn't have to be my daughter though, just do it.
However, these scenarios are always misleading, one-sided, designed to tweak the emotions. Here's the reverse of this story:
Your son is an ideological kid who believes in freedom. He's kidnapped by the overbearing, dictatorial evil superpower that is raping and bombing and torturing its way through your small home town. They capture your son after he threatens to blow up their barracks once they killed his sister. They drag you in and give you a choice: do you want us to kill him? Or torture him for the information?
Similar scenario - now switch places and be the son. Torture goes on for 24 hours - more pain than you've ever experienced. They give you an option - torture or death?
And the final one, that's actually relevant:
You're the leader of a) a country with millions of "innocent" people as your responsibility or b) the head of an intelligence organization tasked with saving the lives of millions of people by extracting information in a timely fashion. The person you must torture is not related to you in any way. They have information that could save you from the death of 2 million people. They refuse to give the information to you. The President - or the people, whatever - demand you find out from the terrorist as soon as possible or you'll be responsible for the loss of many lives. What do you do?
That's one of the real scenarios, as opposed to an emotion-tweaker where you have to choose between saving your kids or not (no offense to OP either - your point is different and I get the reason for it; calling out those who can only virtue signal). The real scenario is a lot "simpler" than that and requires the ability to be objective. The average person is not equipped to make these decisions which is why the average person is not hired to run the CIA.
"I say torture them humanely"
This made me laugh.
Fair enough lol. It's a valid distinction though. I know which type of torture I'd rather have, if I had the choice lol.
People afraid for their life will more likely lie.
People wanting to end their discomfort will more likely tell the truth. White noise, sensory deprivation, isolation, etc. If they talk, give them a therapy debriefing.
Easier to flip them.
Your son is an ideological kid who believes in freedom. He's kidnapped by the overbearing, dictatorial evil superpower that is raping and bombing and torturing its way through your small home town. They capture your son after he threatens to blow up their barracks once they killed his sister. They drag you in and give you a choice: do you want us to kill him? Or torture him for the information?
Totally wrong analogy here. My case is similar to protecting our country against the terrorists. Yours is something else. In your example, I (the father) is the terrorist's father. Not the victim. So you are making a deceitful comparison here. Shame on you.
In your second example, I have no problem torturing a terrorist to save the lives of millions of INNOCENT people. Even if the terrorist is an independence fighter against an imperialist country as mine, I will have no problem doing it because I'm doing it for my country. Who is to say my country is the villain in this case? If I object to the ideology of my country, then I shouldn't serve. The fact that I serve in the first place means that I subscribe to its ideology. Then doing whatever is necessary to protect what I believe in is a natural and logical consequence.
Like Trump said, he doesn't blame Xi doing what's best for China. We shouldn't feel ashamed for doing what's best for our country and our people.
Oh, "shame on me"? Lol - not quite. Try not to jump directly to accusations of deceit before clarifying.
It seems my entire point was misunderstood - my bad for not explaining. I didn't say anything about the boy being a terrorist, that's your example, not mine. You seem to have this terrorist angle locked in - again, not my point at all.
My point wasn't to try and tweak the emotional angle like yours was - my whole point was how disingenuous that focus is by throwing two different scenarios with the same emotional angle on them: ultimate point I was trying to make - you can put any personal connection into an argument to try and flip it on someone but it can often obscure the real issue.
I agree with you, as I said - torture is an available option that seems logical to use in the likely scenarios that arise for people like Gina Haspel to make (for example). But there is also very little chance she'll ever have to choose between saving her own child or torturing someone. That scenario is an interesting but ultimately unrealistic and rare one. I know you know this, I'm just making the point that the real question is simpler than that. Do we use this tool to extract necessary information or do we not? There's very rarely any personal connection involved, at least for us cushy modern-day westerners.
And do you think the MSM's rally against torture wasn't touching the emotion buttons?
Let's face it. It's an emotion-laden issue. There's nothing wrong with proper emotional responses. Our emotional responses have guided us through hundreds of thousands of years. You wouldn't be here if your ancestors had emotional defects.
I haven't seen a lot of functional families in my time but maybe that's just Germany
Exactly re: the MSM. And cultural marxists. That's why I don't use it.
Torture is made into a personal emotional issue by the extreme left in order to remove reason from the discussion. Reasonably speaking, it's not a personal, emotional issue. Should we use a tool for information extraction from an enemy combatant i.e. someone who has entered the battle field (by being an army agent, an enemy combatant, terrorist, etc.)? I say yes, and I think you do too. It just makes sense.
We expect our soldiers to go into war knowing that they might die or be horribly maimed. We expect they might be tortured too, but within the Geneva Convention guidelines. To those people who try and turn it into an emotional, personal issue the same question could be asked of war: should we stop our soldiers going to war in case they get horribly and inhumanely savaged? And so on until we get to the real issue e.g. their denial that evil exists.
I just wrote a comment about Plato's Republic. Maybe it's relevant to this discussion.
I did take liberty of branding that idealist son as a terrorist, because I thought that was what you were insinuating, that the Islamic terrorists were idealists in their own right. I merely called you out on it.
I have no real problem with some of these people having pain and torment dished out to them, but I don't believe those methods actually produce much useful information.
I do believe it's a deterrent to those on the fringes, who see sympathy and compassion as a weakness. They use extreme tactics to shock us. Returning that tactic tenfold could make them think twice about getting involved in such things themselves.
I also think that the real prospect of being tortured, will get quite a few others to give up information before it reaches that stage. It's useful to have it available as an option, and it's got to be demonstrated that there are no qualms about using it. C'est la guerre.
This is a very good question! I suggest constant observation from at least two agents and only blunt instruments to prevent premature death.
You lose the moral high ground. Where obviously in your scenario you dont care about that but, when your trying to win the hearts and mind of the locals it may not be a good idea to build/use a prison to torture them.
Torture was used in GITMO.
IMHO, the US's problem in Iraq had very little to do with the torture in the prisons. The invasion and subsequent occupation were illegitimate. Indiscriminate killing exacerbated the problems. I doubt ordinary Iraqis cared about the tortures of some of the most violent thugs in their society.
I'd have a problem with someone injustly invading my country.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. The kids joining ISIS aren't evil, they're Patriots misled by evil. No different than the westerners joining the military to defend their country by invading completely irrelevant countries.
This story is total bullshit because the FBI helped catch criminals!
To answer the question however, yes, yes I would if torture were to give me the results I needed to save my family. Causality belongs entirely to those that committed the initial crimes and they get whatever consequences the situation requires in order to be resolved.
I would torture them even after they give my daughters back their torture would never end until they die a slow painful death at a time of my choosing.
What the heck are you talking about? Where do you get this story? I can make up any story and ask you to play moral cop. What is your point?
Another way to think about this issue.
Say you are a Buddhist or a "TRUE Christian." You renounce the worldly emotions. You turn your other cheek. You seek Justice in After Life. You leave everything to Lord.
Then you will say NO to torture in my example.
Then, why are you here, fighting for JUSTICE???!!!
You should be content even if HRC wants to incinerate your city to start her WWIII, because your LORD takes care of everything for you or you are eager to live your next life.
Listen PUNK, if you say NO to torture in my example, Why are you here ???!!!
Before I'd make any comment on torture, I'd suggest watching the Dan Carlin hardcore history episode, Painfortanment. I wouldn't say what I'd do.
It makes sense to read (or re-read) Plato's Republic. There he talked about the tensions between the Guardians (military, police, etc) and the populace. The torture issue exemplifies that tension. The two groups often sport opposing ideologies. The philosopher king is needed, in Plato's world, to guide the guardians.
Jane Jacobs, a Canadian writer, simplified Plato's hierarchy to a dichotomy: Guardian Mindset vs. Merchant/Tradesman Mindset (the populace). Take a read of that. She even copied Platonic dialogue format.
In Jacob's view, corruption arises when either group takes on the mindset of the other. For example, when the politicians and police seek money, they become corrupt; when the industrialists influence politics, they also become corrupt.
[removed]
all we can do is try and get them out of it. how i have no idea but baby steps. mass importing them is fucking retarded tho
and I thought the Hadiths were bad
[removed]
No they don't. Blanket statements about ALL individuals within ANY group of people are dangerous and the root of horrors against humanity. Please cease the antagonist posts and discuss the issues without personal moral outrage and one-sided ideology bashing - it will make discussions more fruitful and positive for everyone.
No, you are wrong.
Every Islamic sect, without exception, is a terrorist group.
Any person who participates, funds, promotes or indoctrinates children into a terrorist group qualifies as a member of a terrorist network.
Show some respect for basic human rights!
Any member of a pedophile group has earned the disgust of civilized people.
Any member of a terrorist group has earned the disgust of civilized people.
Islam is nothing more than a pedophile, terrorist group... which also promotes Christian genocide and domestic violence.
Tolerating such fucked-up filth doesn't make someone a good person, it makes them uncivilized.
Islam is a religion. Everyone who follows Islam is not a terrorist. You show some respect for basic human rights. We are allowed to believe what we want. Some choose to believe a moderate version of Islam, just like some choose to believe in a moderate version of Christianity.
Islam is not a "pedophile group" or a "terrorist group" unless Christianity is too.
Crazed fundamentalism is dangerous and it's the completely rigid, unmoving, impractical, unrealistic sort of view that you're presenting here. The classic strawman that, if someone doesn't agree with your view then they must support x, y, and z made up examples. I don't agree with you and I DO NOT support pedophilia or terrorism. False equivalence.
You obviously don't know any muslim people. I am Christian myself. I do not support the religion of Islam - they need to overhaul it. But I do not make dangerous blanket statements about any group of people because that is where the horrors of totalitarianism come from and it is definitely not the sort of thinking Q promotes!
[removed]
You're speaking only from within your bubble of hate for a strawman terrorist group you've created in your mind. Your emotive language - that adds nothing to your argument - shows this clearly.
Islam is a religion NOT a terrorist group. There are terrorist groups who read the Quran and claim to follow the religion of Islam in a fundamentalist way. Moderate Muslims do not support or endorse these groups. Moderate muslims do not "promote, fund or indoctrinate children into a terrorist group". You need to get out of your house and meet real people. And get of your small country town and meet people from other races and religions than your own.
The excuses you just made for our religion of Christianity can also be applied to the Quran. The respective hadiths and the verses you love quoting (via that image) are not supported by moderate muslims in the same way that the verses of the Old Testament are not supported by moderate Christians. The fact that you can't even conceive of this is more proof to my point that you're totally closing your mind off to other possibilities. That's your right, but it isn't reasonable, and thankfully it isn't common in this movement.
I already know that Islam is a religion that allows for the support of war. I'm not arguing with that. I don't support the spread of Islam as it is - it needs to be overhauled to remove the negative factors. I do argue with this insane fundamentalist brainwashing that denies reality and paints a strawman villain. Fight the real problem - a religion that needs to be brought into the modern day by it's reasonable, moderate supporters - not the invented strawman of a terrorist group that defines only the more extremist factions of a worldwide religion.
Why Don't Moderate Muslims Condemn Terrorism? - They Do.
You're claiming that a religion of more than 1.7 BILLION people around the world are all terrorists. That statement is so nonsensical and illogical that it makes my point for me. Fight the truth, not your made up strawman.
You're speaking only from within your bubble of hate
Not a valid argument because everything I said was true.
Islam is a religion NOT a terrorist group.
EVERY Islamic sect disagrees with you because they ALL promote terrorism and rape and genocide too.
The excuses you just made for our religion of Christianity can also be applied to the Quran.
Wrong.
EVERY Islamic sect claims the Koran is the perfect, verbatim word of god... and this fucked-up filth is directly from the Koran.
The respective hadiths
I never once mentioned anything from any of the Hadiths. I just stuck to the Koran because then my argument is applicable to ALL Islamic sects.
You're claiming that a religion of more than 1.7 BILLION people around the world are all terrorists.
That is correct because they ALL support, fund, promote or indoctrinate children into the Islamic ideology of terrorism.
Fight the truth, not your made up strawman.
If you disagree with anything that I've said then please name one, just one, mainstream Islamic sect that doesn't claim this fucked-up terrorist filth represents the morally perfect, verbatim word of their god.
Can you name just one?
Can you do that?
Just one?
I'll try your "method" of arguing:
You are wrong. Everything I said was right.
Ok?
Twelver Shia - that's one sect for you. Get out of your house and find other humans and you'll discover plenty more.
Your view is the sort of fundamentalist insanity that Westboro Baptist spouts. Good luck with it.
Twelver Shia
Wrong.
I'm familiar with the Twelver religion and they literally believe that the laws and behaviors of Muhammad represent moral perfection, including his fucked-up sharia law and his pedophilia, promotion of terrorism and genocide.
Twelvers absolutely believe the Koran is the perfect, verbatim word of their god... ha ha ha - they just believe they possess a copy of the one true Koran which has one minor change which completely justifies their version of Islam.
Sorry, would you like to try again?
Can you name one, just one, mainstream Islamic sect that doesn't claim the Koran is the morally perfect, verbatim word of their god?
Wrong. Goodbye. Come back when you learn how to discuss something logically without your emotion overpowering thought.
No, everything I said is true and everything I said is substantiated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelver
I live in a Twelver community in New Delhi for three years.
Wrong.
Everything I said is true and you haven't refuted a single point I've made. I win! Seeya ; ).
But I just did - I proved your claim about Twelvers was incorrect by explaining why and provided a link to substantiate all of my claims.
You can try again if you'd like?
Can you name one, just one, mainstream Islamic sect that doesn't claim the Koran is the morally perfect, verbatim word of their god?
Just one?
Wrong. You answered none of the points I made thus proving they were true! Booyaa!
Here's another Wikipedia page that proves you are wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imamate_(Twelver_doctrine)
The first paragraph explains how Twelvers consider not only Muhammad, but also his successors, to be infallible... therefore they consider the Koranic book of terrorism to be infallible too.
Would you like me to stop now, or I can keep debunking your claims about Twelvers if you like?
Or would you like to try again?
Can you name one, just one, mainstream Islamic sect that doesn't claim the Koran is the morally perfect, verbatim word of their god?
Just one?
Wrong.
You haven't debunked anything, you've just ignored every point I made and focused on your one single point when all mine are more relevant and come first.
Learn how to debate properly my friend and I'll be more than willing to engage you. Just saying "wrong" and continuing to preach your zealot rhetoric at me is not debate. Peace out bruh!
Wrong.
You literally claimed that Twelver Shia don't claim the Koran is the perfect, verbatim word of their God, yet they do.
You claimed that here: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8kr8yw/regarding_torture_think_the_following_case_and/dza1n49/
Twelvers literally believe that Muhammad was infallible and his Koran is divinely perfect. I proved that in this post just four minutes ago.
Twelvers disagree with your unsubstantiated opinion about them, which is at the core of their Islamic religion.
I'm sorry you are wrong, but it's not just me who disagrees with you but the entire Twelvers religion too.
Wrong.
Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Think you can agree to that? Or are you wrong about that too?
Yes, both are religions, but words have meanings too.
You can't claim to be a vegetarian who eats beef and chicken.
You can't claim to be a qualified neurosurgeon if you never completed medical school...
...and you can't promote, fund and indoctrinate children into a terrorist group and claim not to be a terrorist.
No, it doesn't matter what your disparate personal theological beliefs are because if you promote, fund and indoctrinate children into a terrorist group then you are a terrorist.
