It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

is torture acceptable?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
just been reading the news on the bbc and it shows a large percentage agree with torture but even larger majority disagree have your say


so whats your opinion is it acceptable to torture terror suspects
as in they havent been proven guilty yet hence suspect

[edit on 19-10-2006 by bodrul]




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
No torture is not acceptable in a modern society and usually does not get the results that you want, this is yet another tool in the big brother arsenal to spread fear and panic in all. Bush is going against international law and is putting America back in the dark age. Any American who is pro Goverment and cannot see that their country is slowly turning into a dictatorship is a blind fool. America is suposed to be a great democracy not some 3rd world despot state where you would expect this kind of activity.

Thw war on teror what a joke, where is it, where are these so capable terrorists that America is under constant attack that it needs such draconian laws. Well I'll tell you where and who they are, its you and your fellow Americans and anybody who speaks out against Bush, you my friend are the enemy and its you and your fellow citizens who are going to be on the receiving end of these laws. Time for a revolution, I think so.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
so whats your opinion is it acceptable to torture terror suspects
as in they havent been proven guilty yet hence suspect

Lets try some reverse logic here since it is apparent that you, as with others, appear to be protecting those "terror suspects," you know, the ones that "havent been proven guilty hence suspect":

Is it acceptable for terrorists (aka: "terror suspects," Islamic extremists, etc) to "torture"--you know, just one example here--like chopping off heads or mutilating bodies while video taping it and then purposely and blatantly posting such all over the internet, etc-- those individuals that they capture, kidnap, etc?

BBC run a "world opinion" polling on that one yet?


I mean 'good golly gee, Beaver,' seems to me that Islamic extremists and terrorists are the ones who seemingly think they own/have the franchise on "torture" and yet, the only concern here is protecting the rights of those very same people from possibly getting what they themselves are dishing out on a regular basis? The irony and logic of this is befuddling, to say the least.

And spare me the "we are better than they are" or "we are more civilized" crap, because quite frankly, we are all "civilized" human beings with values and morals. "We are more civilized" is nothing more than PC-speak excuses for siding or condoning the actions of terrorists and the like. If you condone their actions, then by god, play the game 'fair and square', k? If 'we' are to be deemed as knowing better or being "more civilized," than the same damn rules and logic applies to those committing such with the slightest of condemnation given against.

Furthermore, it is not like the BBC is pro-Muslim/Arab or heavily biased in favor of the Arab side/view/perspective, right?

BBC's pro-Arab Bias to be investigated

Ironic that like the New York Times, the BBC loves to reveal classified reports and such, and yet, when the tables are turned, that so-called "freedom of speech" just goes out the window, huh? The BBC's World Service makes the New York Times seem "fair and balanced."

BBC in denial: pays big money to keep their blatant and obvious pro-Arab/anti-Israel bias report a secret

And if it has not beeen obviously clear the last few years, the BBC is definately against the "so-called war on terror":
How much obvious?

And finally, how much more ridiculous and ludicrous--delusions of grandeur come to mind here--does the BBC need to be/get by doing a "world opinion" polling when it is sooooo "Golly gee, Beaver" obvious that it amounts to nothing more than another media tool meant to sway, manipulate, and form "world opinion" to fit with their editorial board(s) and biased agenda?! More interestingly is that the BBC can do such a "world opinion" polling with only a margin of error of--get this--2.5-4.0% +/-. The concept alone of taking "world opinion" polls is so flawed, it insults common intelligence, but hey, apparently there are some, like you and others, that will gleefully accept such garbage, especially when it comes from the 'vaunted' BBC. Omg....:shk:


[edit on 19-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Suspects? No way. Confirmed terrorists? Still no.

No living creature, be it human, fish or horse, should have to go through torture, in my opinion it's one of the worst things that can happen to someone.

There are other ways of extracting information without torturing them.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I do not believe in torture but let's be clear, wearing ladies underpants on your head and getting barked at by a dog is not torture.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Lets try some reverse logic here since it is apparent that you, as with others, appear to be protecting those "terror suspects," you know, the ones that "havent been proven guilty hence suspect":


lets stick to the topic at hand if you want to change the course of the subject start your own topic,

the bbc has been called pro muslim,jewish and so on so many times
soon as it focus on one subject its pro that.

also read through have your say if they were so pro muslim they wouldnt allow most statements to be posted

did i say torture was a good thing and that terrorists using it is good?
i believe anyone that uses torture or advocates should be tortured them selves

[edit on 19-10-2006 by bodrul]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

did i say torture was a good thing and that terrorists using it is good?
i believe anyone that uses torture or advocates should be tortured them selves

[edit on 19-10-2006 by bodrul]


Err...........okay then. I take it your against torture? But you would wish torture against those that torture others. So what about those that would torture the torturers as punishment?

A tad hypocriticial there.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanstheman
I do not believe in torture but let's be clear, wearing ladies underpants on your head and getting barked at by a dog is not torture.


and been put on a can with wires connected to your manhood and then electricuted is just for laughs and more

i am not talking about the ones that dont cause bodly harm,



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
No! Absolutely not! Toture of any kind is not acceptable.
Anybody who says otherwise needs to move to China or some other communist country.
Anybody who attempts to say 'its ok if we do it becuase 'they' do it' is not American, they are the opposite of American, they are ANTI-AMERICAN.
Just for the record STANS THE MAN, I bet that if I chained you to a wall and put a pair of my dirty underwear on your face and left you there for a day you might have a different idea of torture. I bet you couldnt handle 5 minutes with my underwear on your face, let alone a day or two.
What did Jesus say? Love your neighbor as yourself. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
There are no varying degrees of torture. Chinese water torture is torture, even though its just one drop of water at a time.
ANYBODY who advocates torture is not AMERICAN, not CHRISTIAN, and barely HUMAN.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Err...........okay then. I take it your against torture? But you would wish torture against those that torture others. So what about those that would torture the torturers as punishment?

A tad hypocriticial there.


sorry should have said it more clear

i believe torture is the most lowest thing someone can do or advocate
and believe those who torture others or avocate torture should feel what its like to be downgraded at such level.

there is nothing hypocriticial about saying people that torture should feel what its like (well thats my prospective)



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Fair enough, but then someone else would have to downgrade themselves by torturing the torturee. But, then again, it's your opinion and I have no right to intrude against it.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Seeker, have you heard the phrase two wrongs dont make a right, just because terrrorists/extremists act like savages does not mean we have to stoop to their level. Civilised countries should set the standards for others to follow otherwise we are no better than them.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Hmm who do I believe - the most respected broadcaster in the World or Seekerof?

It's a tough, tough call but I'm going with the Beeb - one they have strict editorial controls and review processes and at this rate they'll annoy Seekerof so much he'll disappear (and still be right)



And no torture cannot be justified if you are claiming to be a civilised nation - it's an either/or choice



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
"Torture" and "limited torture" are somewhat ambiguous terms as presented by the poll; especially without at least some idea of the extent and reason. I will assume here that the ‘Western’ reason for "torturing" a captive is to extract some form of information.

But without a definition of torture it is hard, imo, not to be on-the-fence as the immediacy, scope and depth of a potential terroristic acts must also be absolutly considered.

However; using a loose definition of torture…if extracting information through ‘non-lethal means’ from terrorists (without causing permanent disabilities) can be linked directly to innocent lives saved of scale…I’m for it.


mg



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
There shouldn't even be any violence period.

In my opinion, the terrorists are the us forces.

On cnn they said, a terrorist is someone who inflicts terror on the people to a point where they can't function normaly on a daily basis.

Now then, CNN is the biggest terrorist of them all according to their own definition.

This whole terrorist thing is such a joke, why can't people realise it?

They have been milking the terrorist card every time they needed to get away with crimes against humanity and other excuses to dominate and control, it's getting very annoying and insulting.

Terrorists or the boogie man, which one is more real?

Don't believe everything you see on ''TV'' it's just a mind control device.

Think about every damn thing they show on cnn not one of them is not meant to be scary and there is alsways a low hum music trying to set the mood of distress and fear and paranoya. Cnn is full of subliminal garbadge and it's so premitive subliminal that it's just one big parody of a news report.

Think for your self don't let cnn think for you, that's their true intentions.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Surely if someone is accused of a crime and there is credible hard evidence to back it up then there's no need to torture the accused for a confession.
People will admit to a lot, whatever the torturers want to hear, in order to get relief from the pain and distress. Therefore any admissions to anything gained under torture are just not credible and should not be relied upon.

All the hard talk from the armchair warriors who think torture is ok is BS and they too would probably admit to things they had not done if in the same position.

So, the very act of torturing for information or confessions shows a complete lack of hard evidence aginst the accused by their accusers.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I believe that heinous acts such as those committed by and alleged of terrorists should neither be forgotten, nor excused, and that measures must be taken to prevent such acts. However, I also believe that every person on the face of the Earth, simply by virtue of existing, has the innate right to be counted as a human being, and treated with a minimum standard of human respect and compassion.

People - barring mental illness - do not wake up in the morning and think to themselves, "I'm going to do something horrible today." Rather, they think to themselves, "I'm going to do something which my personal experiences have taught me are justified." That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it excusable. Nonetheless, it does not remove them from the gradient on which all human beings exist, and therefore does not preclude them from basic human compassion in my mind.

The same disconnection from empathy necessary to permit one to commit torture is what permits one to regard acts of terror as justifiable, merely to an arguably lesser (or greater) degree depending on the form of torture. Inflicting pain on another human being requires a disconnection from empathy. People naturally have different "empathic thresholds" as I refer to them, and as such, the level of disconnection required differs. Nonetheless, be it the instinct for self preservation, logical calculation of cost versus gain, or simple emotional retaliation for an offense committed against someone, that disconnection has to exist in order to justify inflicting pain on someone. Even if one regrets inflicting pain or torment on another prior to or subsequent to the act, one does not experience that empathy or conscientious objection during the decision to declare it just and permissible. They may do so during the act itself, but not during the decision to permit it and the decision within their self to regard it as being justified.

Those who torture believe what they are doing is right, justified, and necessary. Those who commit acts of terror, likewise, believe what they are doing is right, justified, and necessary. I believe neither act is right, justified, or necessary, and that lowering one's ethical standards at all in response (i.e. not necessarily all the way, but even slightly) to those of one's adversary, serves only to further diminish humanity as a whole. I believe survival is secondary to humanity, and I consider it ironic that many who consider death in battle against an enemy justified, would regard death at the hands of the same enemy in the name of compassion instead inexcusable.

This is only my opinion, and I wish to make clear that my belief in respect and compassion for all extends to those who disagree with my view first and foremost. Your own life experiences and beliefs have brought you to your conclusion, and I respect it and regard it as being just as valid as my own. I am also open to the possibility that my own beliefs in this matter (and all matters) are flawed. This is what I currently believe, however.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
No! Absolutely not! Toture of any kind is not acceptable.
Anybody who says otherwise needs to move to China or some other communist country.
Anybody who attempts to say 'its ok if we do it becuase 'they' do it' is not American, they are the opposite of American, they are ANTI-AMERICAN.
Just for the record STANS THE MAN, I bet that if I chained you to a wall and put a pair of my dirty underwear on your face and left you there for a day you might have a different idea of torture. I bet you couldnt handle 5 minutes with my underwear on your face, let alone a day or two.
What did Jesus say? Love your neighbor as yourself. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
There are no varying degrees of torture. Chinese water torture is torture, even though its just one drop of water at a time.
ANYBODY who advocates torture is not AMERICAN, not CHRISTIAN, and barely HUMAN.


Hey I said I was against torture. I just think that people are so sensitized to the word (as you have clearly shown) that even times where people were not tortured are blown out of proportion. I believe when interrogationg someone who could cause harm to one or many of our troops then it is not up to said interrogators to worry about the cultural sensitivites of the suspect. You really flew off the handle in a very typical knee jerk reaction. I gave two examples that were portrayed in the news many times and described as torture, which they most certainly were not. But hey thanks for helping me make my point. That was easy!



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by stanstheman
I do not believe in torture but let's be clear, wearing ladies underpants on your head and getting barked at by a dog is not torture.


and been put on a can with wires connected to your manhood and then electricuted is just for laughs and more

i am not talking about the ones that dont cause bodly harm,


Actually the men who were "hooked up" were told they would be shocked if they moved from the stool they were standing on but not attached to a live wire. These men had hoods placed over their heads so they couldn't see they were not attached to anything.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Hmm who do I believe - the most respected broadcaster in the World or Seekerof?


The BBC? You're kidding right? In the world? Please tell me you're pulling my leg! Ohhh I get it, you were using that ol' English wit to be absurd!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join