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 : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (9247)	7/30/2007 5:23:09 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 20106

I've no interrest in 'running the show.' "Wow. So if someone had knowledge of a nuclear bomb ready to be detonated, torture is still unacceptable in your mind?" This is only a delemma posed by those like you who support torture when it is committed by your side but get all enraged and self righteous about it when it is by others. I qualify my statement this way: 1) Torture used to get information, when you don't know...not when you do know what the other guy has. Experts don't believe you get reliable information using torture because the torturee will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear. So you can get confessions, false confessions, and various kinds of information but it is no more likely to be useful that information you would get by conventional interogation. In fact it can be more misleading if you get only information the torturee thinks you want to hear, since the torturer will be convinced it is valid intel. 2) The open door you leave for torturing prisoners for one type of (unknown) information, leaves the door open for torture to enter under the same guise, just in case we can find information of some sort. What responsibility to you take after torture and it turns out the prisoner you hoped would be informative really knew nothing of value to you. I'm sure you would find similar justifications as you do in attacking innocent Muslims based on the crimes of others. 3) If I were 'running the show,' I would have terms of surrender. My terms would be that the enemy is a deadly enemy until or unless he is willing to surrender himself completely, including, all information he has which could bring me harm. A prisoner is subdued and subjugated to me as his captor. Anything less than that and I consider him an actively engaged enemy combatant. Which means, if or when I have accepted his surrender he has already agreed to surrender any information I request upon normal interrogation. It isn't possible under those circumstances to have an enemy prisoner who still carries any type of threat to me. No need for torture except of the vindictive type.