Is Torture Justified?

[lastchance]

Definition of torture.

If torture is simply physical, there are interrogation techniques which aren't torture that would be illegal and also not justified. If one can create mental anguish, and one can, oftentimes, cause severe psychological damage. This happens in many, many kidnappings of young children.

[Utah]

Are you kidding me? I had to pay $10 a song last time I got tortured like that.

[jimdmcevoy]

[ QUOTE ]

We cannot be responsible for others' delusions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah right, so you're taking the good old, "Well his beliefs are wrong, therefore they don't matter" approach.

How American.

[ QUOTE ]

How about that AND physical torture? That would certainly be worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I concede that worse things can be done too him. But is your logic, "well it could be worse, so it's ok" ?

So only doing the absolute worst to him is wrong and everything else is ok?

[ QUOTE ]

if he is using "his connection to God" as a prime cause for committing terrorist acts against others, then it is better that his relationship to God is severed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah maybe, I've thought the same about Bush.

[jimdmcevoy]

Just to clarify, MMMM brought it to my attention that torture is defined to not include mental stress.

But this was just a miscommunication on my part, I didn't know the correct deffinition of torture. If I could change my title, I would call it, "Are these interrogation tactics justified?" as that is what I meant.

[Kevin J]

I'm not sure if the content in this article crosses the line or not. But one thing I'm sure of is that you're definition of *torture* is different than mine.

Have you ever seen torture? In my younger days, I've had cops pull worse stuff than this on me.

[jimdmcevoy]

Please elighten me, I have never heard of abu graib.

[MMMMMM]

Terrorists/jihadists try to kill innocent Westerners, and you are worried about trampling on their cherished delusions.

Also, your comparison with Bush is silly, and I suspect you know it is an exaggerration at least.

You have also repeatedly taken statements I have made (in this sub-thread) and asked whether that means my logic is (insert some silly extrapolation or moronic reason). NO...when I state something, THAT is what I am saying, not something that is not even necessarily implied. Quit looking behind imaginary doors.

Overall I am now sorry to conclude (perhaps a bit too hastily, but I'm a busy man these days) that discussing things with you will likely be more futile than discussing them with Cyrus. If I'm judging you too soon on this, sorry. It appears your discussions and thinking are overly emotion-driven. Hope I'm wrong on this but people thinking with their emotions instead of their brains is pretty common in politics. At any rate please do have a good life. Thanks for your time.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Man wrote:

Quote:
I think that if you eliminate the qualifier "physical" from the definition, you get a closer picture of what we're talking about.


Nice that you get to choose your own defintions. How about if we redefine the word man to mean an incoherent nincompoop?


[/ QUOTE ]


Wake UP Call, you clearly belong right around the top of that short list of the Most Intelligent Frequent Posters On The Politics Forum which I posted in another thread. Don't know how I missed it.

[jimdmcevoy]

You assume he's a terrorist/jihadist?

Well anyway, if you don't have the time then I guess that's that.

[MMMMMM]

Yes I do assume he is very likely a terrorist/jihadist, and was probably captured in Afghanistan amongst his ta.iban/al Qaeda cronies..

Also, sorry for the tone. I just took exception to your questions extending my statements beyond what I had written.