BF2S Forums American Soldier Abducted Tortured Killed

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

dc_involved wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ok.  but the scenario, if im not mistaken was not a war, but a terrorist nuclear threat.  weigh which one is more important.  survival or morals?

The war on terror! You didn't answer my question, do you support it in this situation?

I have made my position clear.

not a war on terror, to the specific threat of a nuclear attack.  this attack might or might not be a part of the greater war on terror but....wowo....nevermind dude,  i think that scenario escapes you. as for your question here is my answer..ahem..

no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.

LOL. So basically i was right in my initial assumption. You support it, you just don't wanna admit it because of the song and dance you made about not doing. You think the scenario escapes me because i don't come up with the answer Torture.

I have put my counter scenario to you but you ignored it. What happens when you torture someone in vain? The threat wasn't real or it happens anyway, and you have crossed a line in torturing someone. You can't only have morals when it suits. Exceptions given time can become the rule and before you know it we'll be living in a hell hole.

I'm now playing devils advocate

M.O.A.B wrote:

Alright here's a scenario, say a close member of your family was kidnapped, the police can't do shit but you know someone involved. Would you interrogate him to find out where they are, or would you just sit back and wait for something to happen. When it comes down to a situation like this you're whole idea of the subject goes out the window because its basically the only trump card you've got.

Interrogation is different than torture. Plus what about if you just kidnapped one of their relatives? Straight swap? :p

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

bub, my friend,  life is not a video game.  the only other option in the scenario is death.  im not supporting torture but thats a REAL naive way to look at it.

So winning and losing are only concepts in video games?  Where did I say that I expected everyone to live through it?

Bubbalo wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

bub, my friend,  life is not a video game.  the only other option in the scenario is death.  im not supporting torture but thats a REAL naive way to look at it.

So winning and losing are only concepts in video games?  Where did I say that I expected everyone to live through it?

How old are you?

bub, how old are you man. ive really wanted to know.  i know ive asked you at least a half a dozen times before.  you say "yay this again"  could it possibly be because someone who holds your various opinions would usually not be past his teen years?  no flame, no argument.  its a question ive wondered ever since we started debating.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

bub, how old are you man. ive really wanted to know.  i know ive asked you at least a half a dozen times before.  you say "yay this again"  could it possibly be because someone who holds your various opinions would usually not be past his teen years?  no flame, no argument.  its a question ive wondered ever since we started debating.

I was going to see how long it took Cerpin to figure out that it's hidden in a certain other thread, but, seeing as how it's you, I reveal this with qualifier:

I strongly believe that someone's age is irrelevant in an argument, as defending a stance on credentials is just evidence that it can't be defended by logical argument.  That is: if you can't prove yourself right by your reasoning alone, you're probably wrong.

19.  Having said that, I know many people who share my views on torture who are quite a bit older.  I also know plenty who share various views of my opponents who are as young as myself.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

You would allow thousands to die so that you can "beat" the terrorists by being more moral

No, I would be defeated by the terrorists because I refuse to win by being as bad as them.  What's the point in defending a nation you love for it's freedoms by destroying those freedoms?

Miller wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

m3thod wrote:

You really are misinformed.

There were little or no terrorist in Iraqis prior to the war. The failure to properly occupy the country and secure its borders after the fall of Baghdad provided the many terrorists the adventure playground to take your forces on in an environment where they have the upper hand.

Any idea how to differentiate between a Saudi, Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi or Iranian?

Shoot them and then find out.

Can't shoot every Arab....

Bubbalo wrote:

No, I would be defeated by the terrorists because I refuse to win by being as bad as them.  What's the point in defending a nation you love for it's freedoms by destroying those freedoms?

That's real easy to say from an idealistic point of view. The reality I suspect is that in the hypothetical event that a Muslim fanatic was about to behead your mother and you could eviserate the bastard with a rusty hatchet you would.
If Muslim fanatics were ( I don't suggest I'm saying they would ) in your home town staging mass executions you would resort to whatever barbarity you could to make them stop.

Survival instincts trump internet pontification.
Or look at it this way, if you woke up and one of those nifty funnel web spiders you Kiwis deal with:
was on your pillow would you put it outside or kill it?

With a little reach one could compare Islamic fanatics in your country to a poisonous spider in your house.


Have fun with that one...

Last edited by ATG (2007-05-30 09:28:51)

CC-Marley wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Sounds like you think they even themselves out. Personally I think no sleep and being naked in front of a camera while dogs barked at me is better than being murdered savagely.

Well it looks like someone like to assume a lot of things which are just not fucking true then doesn't it? What happened to the soldier is worse than what happens to those at Gitmo, far worse, but both are completely terrible and a stain on humanity.

Maybe...but my first thought was to assume that because of the way you worded your post.