It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLL: Torture

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by shanti23
Torture is wrong, whatever the reason it is used for.

The fact that this subject is open to debate is evidence that our moral compass is askew.

Your right - it is wrong not matter what the excuse - and I don't like the idea of it.
But if it's the only thing standing in the way of civilian deaths then what would you do? How would you feel if members of your family were killed because the intelligence was not available due to TPTB standing the moral high ground and not resorting to such techniques and hence not getting the information needed to thwart the attack?
Would you feel better knowing that some terrorist is sitting happily somewhere while your family is dead? I guess it's OK because at least we did the right thing...

The point is it is an ugly and terrible thing to do and makes us just as bad in some ways - but you have to make that decision sometimes - do you do the right thing or the best thing?
It's all very well saying we should all stand the moral high ground but then the people that don't have morals will win and who will be left?

It's not like they are going to use these techniques for shoplifters or speeders is it?

As I said before if you say we shouldn't do it then please:

Provide a solution for acquiring information from a suspect in a short period of time to prevent a terrorist attack.

[edit on 24-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by xmotex
If we are seen as less moral than our opponents, we guarantee them victory.
[edit on 11/24/05 by xmotex]

It is not if we are seen as less moral than our opponents, it is if we feel that our cause is not worth winning. It is when we feel that our enemy is right or when we have a self loathing. We feel guilt because we have things that they could only dream of. We need to make sure that our people understand that they are there to maintain our way of life and that it is worth saving.

We only lose when we lose our will to fight and win. It is that thing that you can see in someone's eyes when they finally give in. You see it in hospitals, you see it on the battlefield, you see it in the streets, and you see it in the schoolyard. You see it in our homes. You know exactly what I am talking about because we all have seen it in one form or another.

I am unlike you who would rather succumb to the enemy instead of adapting, improvising and surviving. You call it losing one's morality. I think you are being pompous. We owe it to our forefathers, whose blood runs through our veins, to survive or all their sacrifices to keep us alive was for nothing.

We so easily forget all the sacrifices which were made so that we could debate this topic.

In this time, all it takes is one mistake to cost millions of people their lives in a flash of light. If we are lucky, it will be only one. If they are lucky, it will be tens of millions.

My answer to this question is that you do whatever is neccessary to keep your people alive and kicking. I don't care about the enemy because I do not know him. Just as it was in the very beginning of time, my people must survive at any cost. Even the cost of my life.

Torture? Yes. If you do not survive, morality becomes a moot point.

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:04 PM
Can i just point out, might not be an official us policy-but they sure as hell torture the guys in guantamino bay-innocent guys(well some ofthem anyway)-by droping down to the level of terrorists, do we not become the terrorist?

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by xmotex
Then you are left with the simple calculation, is a given method (in this case torture) likely to lead to victory, or to defeat. We have seen the strategic cost of torture. Where have we seen a benefit?

Your mention of strategic cost of torture is a reference to Abu-Ghriab? The costs were what? Bad publicity? World outrage? The issue of Abu-Ghriab is whether or not the use of torture was a military policy or one that was committed by a few. Having served in actual frontline combat, having been in the military, I can certainly vouch for the military that there is no policy for the use of torture. Thus what happened at Abu-Ghriab was an isolated occurance, not a wide-spread military policy action. I can not vouch for the CIA or other intelligence services.

As for the benefits, the benefits of using torture go unknown, unspecified, and something the public will hardly ever hear or read about. So, for me to give an effective response to what you ask amounts to simply me not having a factually valid response.

The distinction between war and politics is purely semantic. War is politics. Especially in a war such as this, where there is no enemy "army" to be defeated, no enemy navy to be sunk, no enemy aircraft to be downed.

Correct, but in the same token, that unseen enemy is held to moral standards how? Their moral accountability comes into play where, exactly?
I am not condoning the use of torture because our unseen enemy uses it or because they act in immoral fashion, thus we must act as they do. No....I am merely contending that morals and morality in war is contestable, if not found wanting, and that why is it that the US is the object of torture scrutiny when torture is being used by that unseen enemy? Is not a sin a sin, no matter who commits it? As such, why NO topics on what they are doing as being wrong? Is this simply an anti-war issue? Appears so. Again, here comes the moral highground arguments.

Again, ask yourself, what constitutes "victory" in this war?

Victory is when Iraq is able to secure its own nation sufficiently enough that the US and Coalition forces can be withdrawn. Victory is the continued establishment of the Iraqi government, the continued improving prosperity, etc. of Iraq and the Iraqi people. Victory is not a measure of how many terrorist acts that occur in one day in Iraq, as some here would think it does. Victory is when Iraq and the Iraqi people continue to persevere irregardless of those continued terrorist acts and not give in or yield to the terrorists demands. Be assured that the terrorist or insurgents have an agenda in Iraq, and it does not entirely revolve around removing the US or Coalition from foreign soil.

And what strategies are most likely to produce it?

The strategies are already in play. Time will only tell whether they are successful or not.


[edit on 24-11-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by xmotex
Again, ask yourself, what constitutes "victory" in this war?
And what strategies are most likely to produce it?

Well said.
Though to answer it, we would have to know the purpose of this war, is it:

Iraqi Democracy?
Middle East Stability?
War on Terror?
Weapons of Mass destruction?

Also, there is no visible enemy other than the words 'enemy combatants' and 'insurgents' or 'terrorist', etc. In conditions such as this, innocent people are very likely to be involved somewhere along the process of 'retrieving' this information; which is just as likely to be untrue, because people tend to agree to anything once the pain starts, proven by cases such as the Guildford Four:

The most important strategy of hearts and minds is the tactical advantage we no longer possess and people advocating torture as a method of gaining an advantage just goes to show how wrong we are and what we are in danger of becoming.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in