The problem is that these polls never phtase the questiom properlu. I.m a church-goer and would vote no to STATE SANCTIONED torture. I don't want my government carrying out torture in my name.
However, if a loved-one of mine is subject to a heinous crime and I catch him before the authorities, then I'd snap off his nads with a pair of bolt cutters a millimeter at a time.
Originally posted by FMF Nice bit of bubble-gum-like 'politics'. Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. What revenge or confession is being extracted from a foetus in an abortion procedure? So your wordplay falls flat. And we're left with nothing but a nasty, shrill, va ...[text shortened]... urely the onus is on you to not just blurt out non-sequiturs, but to make your case properly.
Your quite right of course. After all, the unborn are innocent and can make no cry of pain or objection. THerefore, the word torture cannot be applied. In fact, I feel much better about abortion now. Kudos to you FMF!!
Originally posted by sumydid Kind of obvious what their agenda was in putting this survey together but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the Liberals who think terrorists should be negotiated with over a hot meal and a warm cup of tea--if not set free altogether
I don't think liberals really think that terrorists can be "negotiated with" -- it's pretty clear that most of these people are hardliners that aren't interested in making compromises. But the terrorists aren't the real audience.
The main focus is on the larger populace in the region - people who have been convinced that America is the Great Satan and that the only ones looking out for them are the terrorist groups. When America comes in with guns and waterboards and fury, it only makes it easier for the terrorists to win new recruits.
But if we come in and are willing to listen to all grievances, not matter how outlandish - and make accomodations where legitimate issues have arisen - we can show that we really do care about the people in the region and respect them. The people will eventually realize that we aren't a demonic force and the terrorists' propaganda will be exposed. If the terrorists lose popular support, they become just a bunch of wacko outlaws hiding in desert caves that no one wants to be associated with -- they will whither.
We do need to find what exactly is attracting people to support the terrorists and help them find more constructive solutions to their problems and fears. But the only way we can do this is to engage them
Originally posted by FMF Nice bit of bubble-gum-like 'politics'. Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. What revenge or confession is being extracted from a foetus in an abortion procedure? So your wordplay falls flat. And we're left with nothing but a nasty, shrill, va ...[text shortened]... urely the onus is on you to not just blurt out non-sequiturs, but to make your case properly.
While I disagree with jaywill's stance on abortion, the most he is guilty of here is confusing inhumane treatment with torture. While torture is, indeed, inhumane, not all inhumane treatment is torture.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd The problem is that these polls never phtase the questiom properlu. I.m a church-goer and would vote no to STATE SANCTIONED torture. I don't want my government carrying out torture in my name.
However, if a loved-one of mine is subject to a heinous crime and I catch him before the authorities, then I'd snap off his nads with a pair of bolt cutters a millimeter at a time.
Yes, but the flip side is if the government snatches one of your loved ones and believes they have "vital information". Then how do you feel about torture whether they have the information or not?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH While I disagree with jaywill's stance on abortion, the most he is guilty of here is confusing inhumane treatment with torture. While torture is, indeed, inhumane, not all inhumane treatment is torture.
Just for laffs, could you draw a line in the sand here for me please.
Originally posted by whodey Yes, but the flip side is if the government snatches one of your loved ones and believes they have "vital information". Then how do you feel about torture whether they have the information or not?
That's why I don't believe in torture as govt policy.
Originally posted by whodey Your quite right of course. After all, the unborn are innocent and can make no cry of pain or objection. THerefore, the word torture cannot be applied. In fact, I feel much better about abortion now. Kudos to you FMF!!
Shallow retort, whodey. I no more want to see abortions than you do. jaywill's daft little non-sequitur cheapens the case you want to make.
Originally posted by Melanerpes I don't think liberals really think that terrorists can be "negotiated with" -- it's pretty clear that most of these people are hardliners that aren't interested in making compromises. But the terrorists aren't the real audience.
The main focus is on the larger populace in the region - people who have been convinced that America is the Great Satan and ...[text shortened]... solutions to their problems and fears. But the only way we can do this is to engage them
I agree totally with most of what you said. On that last note... we did engage them, did we not? (grin)
I wonder how many people understand that the word terrorist wasn't invented by the Bush Administration, and that this whole mess has been building up for decades. The towers going down caused the "Alright damn it, enough is enough!" response with just the right person in office to react the way he did.
On the flip side imagine Jimmy Carter in office when the towers went down. The reaction would have been to send a few choppers into the mountains of Afghanistan (which would then collide with each other and kill the 10 men sent to solve the problem), and another round of impotent, "tougher" sanctions.
Originally posted by sumydid On the flip side imagine Jimmy Carter in office when the towers went down. The reaction would have been to send a few choppers into the mountains of Afghanistan (which would then collide with each other and kill the 10 men sent to solve the problem), and another round of impotent, "tougher" sanctions.
Your imagination is fanciful and belongs more realistic in Harry Potter novels or the fantasies of Dick Cheney than well, reality.
One thing is true, if Carter was president we wouldn't have spent billions on a pointless war in Iraq.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Your imagination is fanciful and belongs more realistic in Harry Potter novels or the fantasies of Dick Cheney than well, reality.
One thing is true, if Carter was president we wouldn't have spent billions on a pointless war in Iraq.
Think of all the moeny he saved by giving back the Panama Canal, too!
Actually Carter did save money by negotiating the return of control of the Panama canal to the Panamanians. Fighting and endless insurgency there would have been extremely costly both in terms of raw dollars and the lost good will of many other nations. Problems are not solved thru violence. Didn't your parents teach you anything? My father spent 37 years in the US Army and when I asked him about torture he didn't offer justifications or long-winded circuitous reasoning. He simply said, "We don't do it because it is not right."
Churchgoers: More likely to support torture?
06 May '09 11:25
Back to Top