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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zax who wrote (821829)	12/10/2014 3:51:43 PM
From: locogringo	8 Recommendations Recommended By Bill Brumar89 gamesmistress i-node John and 3 more members Respond to of 1584248

HT: MakeMyDay

To: zax who wrote (821829)	12/10/2014 4:07:56 PM
From: i-node	4 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 locogringo Taro TideGlider Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584248

>> keep on defending barbaric torture or prisoners and the murder of civilians. Please advise which is more barbaric: a) Harmless Waterboarding -- worst case scenario, 183 individual "pours" of water over a period of weeks, or b) Death by a drone which acts as judge, jury and executioner in the space of a few seconds? If I am the target I'll take (a) every time.

To: zax who wrote (821829)	12/10/2014 5:06:49 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1584248

>>"defending barbaric torture or prisoners and the murder of civilians" Rules of war are long over due for an upgrade. I object to the context of your comment as it lacks internal integrity, at least to my way of thinking. I've never understood the practice of taking prisoners in the field of combat except in the context of their complete surrender and submission to the captors. My view of mortal combat is that there should be no prisoners except those who have met the criteria for complete surrender. Then their captivity is as much for their own protection as it is to remove them from the field of battle. Mortal combat should always be the last resort in human conflict but as that last resort it should be understood that it is with a commitment to ultimate defeat of the enemy, individually and in mass... the idea of "fair play" in war is ridiculous and if that were clear to everyone we would have far fewer wars and more diplomatic solutions. I doubt I could ever make such a commitment except in a personal situation where self defense is called for. If a surrender occurs there should be no need to torture as it should be understood that by surrendering, the captive has agreed to turn over all weaponry including intellectual capital. Torture of any human being is an abhorrent act and I object to it on grounds of humanity. The targeting of innocents is a sin, whether it is by economic sanctions or by artillery. I realize my comments on this subject are outside the mainstream. I speak only for myself.