It's at this juncture it's always worth reminding ourselves, when arguing over whether waterboarding is torture or not, just how they do their shit. To that end take a look: [?=Captured Al-Qaeda manual] [/?]
As usual Dickyboy can't stay on topic. I'd gladly waterboard any of the fuckers who torture humans like that. Seriously. Sign me up...right now.
So there are some WF folks who honestly cannot see the difference between waterboarding and maiming someone with a blowtorch? If you can possibly prevent death to your own nation's people by waterboarding it is not "stooping to the same level" as drilling holes through hands just because you can.
Non sequitur. There's a stark difference between apples and bananas, but they are both fruits. Waterboarding is torture as I understand it. I'm against torture. I'm against waterboarding. Kick and scream about it all you want.
I don't like automobile wrecks - but I do not consider a fender-bender with a Mini Cooper to be as bad as a head-on with an 18 wheeler. No sane person likes torture, but folks just don't like to give up incriminating information. So if you absolutely need to use it to save lives, there are ways that can minimize permanent damage.
I would shit kittens from shock that they actually have some compassion and self restraint. But I think their torture matrix ends up with "cut off head" no matter what. I know the bad guys (not neccessarily Al Qaeda) snuck up on two of our soldiers on guard duty at Balad 2003. They chopped them into pieces and left a trail of body parts all over the neighborhood. Waterboarding wasn't in their bag of tricks yet.
so, then if someone applies that same "logic" and says: Diacanu has no job only lazy leeches on society go without jobs therefore Diacanu is a lazy leech on society That's perfectly reasonable, right? Point blank - do you consider every act which brings harm to another in any way morally equivalent?
I already told you, I'm not going through the moral calculus of every possible act of violence. Nor am I going to give a binary robot answer to such a complex question. I'm against torture, dead stop. As far as this topic goes, that's all you need to know.
There's always room for the glib comeback. You want logical consistency - you got it. I can't say it's fair for a U.S. Marine to shoot at the bad guy and claim it's unfair if the bad guy shoots at the marine. I can't say it's fair for us to drop a bomb and unfair for the enemy to drop a bomb. I can't say that, in very select very extreme very unusual situations waterboarding is acceptable for the U.S. to practice unless I say likewise about the enemy. Of course, since we are not in the habit of intentionally blowing up the innocent for the sake of terrorizing the populace, I would suggest that there don't happen to actually exist any "equivalent circumstances" in which I think Al Quida would be so justified. but in theory - if a thing is wrong for one side, it's wrong for both sides, if it's acceptable (either in broad application or in very limited circumstance) for one side, it's acceptable for the other. Logic can be cold but it's better than being emo about your choices.
You are not going to give an answer because you know damn well if you give the only possible rational answer you undermine every post you made in this thread. By not answering, you answered perfectly well. Thank you.
Even if that thing that's acceptable for the other side is the one thing that separates you from them in the first place? If you construct it badly.
Straw man as usual. What separates us from them is we don't swig from the cup of barbarism. For me, even a sip is too much. Sip, guzzle, you're poisoned to death either way.
So.... In Dicky's Emo world, the things illustrated in the photos above are equally as fitting of the description "barbaric" as waterboarding very few individuals in very extreme situations for very specific life and death reasons. Impass. Bored now.
