Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (35562)	10/26/2001 12:23:57 AM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 82486

I can't tell by the tone of your post why you are asking- did something I said bother you? You sound confrontational. 1) I don't know much about truth drugs, but if they do not involve physical torture and are effective, then it seems a good compromise, a humane way of getting needed information. 2) You ask if I see a distinction between wartime and--- what? Incomplete sentence :) Distinction about what in particular? 3) I am not opposed to killing in wartime 4) I would do anything for my children's safety, but this is a response based on maternal instinct and love, not on reasoned, well-thought-out policy. It has nothing to do with denying protection to others. Bill asked how far X would go if it were her child kidnapped, and I gave my gut reaction. It definitely has nothing to do with how I believe national security decisions should be made. 5)I don't see killing in self-defense and torture as being synonymous at all. This is purely my personal moral viewpoint and may differ from yours. I can't equate torturing people who may or may not be guilty or have knowledge of something as being self-defense. Anyway, I think torture is barbaric, and there are some things I believe we cannot do, regardless of expediency or national security, without doing permanent damage to ourselves as human beings and as a civilized country, however much I would like to see bin Laden die a slow, painful death. 6 I think) Rules were made to be broken, are they not? Only really stupid ones? I don't know what you mean by this either. What rules? The Rules of Engagement, the Rule of law? The Golden Rule? The Taliban is playing by a different set of rules, and it makes defining our own much more difficult.

To: Greg or e who wrote (35562)	10/26/2001 8:01:18 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Respond to of 82486

I like all this talk about how we need to be civilized and not torture people to get information from them about their friends who are plotting to kill us. Personally, I'm OK with the use of drugs and sleep deprivation, but in some circumstances,if we had to, I don't we see why we shouldn't use other methods. I just have one thing to ask the people who think it is uncivilized to protect our lives and the lives of others by torturing people to get information that will help us to save our and other lives. "How can you and others be civilized after you and they are killed, because you were too civilized to get the information that would have saved your and others' lives?" As far as I'm concerned, this war on terrorists is not about vengeance or even being right, it is about survival. Survival of me, my family, friends and countrymen and women and anyone else who likes freedom. BTW, anyone see Osama's sister-in-law on Prime Time? Made the Saudis look guiltier than ever! We need to get away from needing their oil! 15 of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis and they are supposed to be on our side! Being two faced takes on a different dimension over there.