Reply With QuoteMurderers, rapists, drug dealers and other such common criminals are not terrorists because terrorists must have a political goal which they are using their terror to effect.Originally posted by Berzerker
They aren't terrorists?
I have to agree with Berz. Subsidies are a bad way to go. Paying farmers not to farm a specific crop is another example.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Murderers, rapists, drug dealers and other such common criminals are not terrorists because terrorists must have a political goal which they are using their terror to effect.Originally posted by Berzerker
They aren't terrorists?
"Our scientific power has out run out spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
Maybe you should stop presenting it as such.Originally posted by Berzerker
Nope, and it aint a theory.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
So don't give students with ADD special help? Why even give them an education at all? Do you know anything about these students? I taught them.Originally posted by SlowwHand
I have to agree with Berz. Subsidies are a bad way to go. Paying farmers not to farm a specific crop is another example.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Thank you for spelling out the question mark.Murderers, rapists, drug dealers and other such common criminals are not terrorists because terrorists must have a political goal which they are using their terror to effect.
I didn't, I presented as a fact. You called it a theory.Maybe you should stop presenting it as such.
Did you teach more of them after the subsidies started? I know alot of them were labeled as ADD after the school district was given more money for every ADD student they had. Now you're just changing the subject...So don't give students with ADD special help? Why even give them an education at all? Do you know anything about these students? I taught them.
Well that's a different problem then. How were we to tell?Originally posted by Berzerker
I didn't, I presented as a fact. You called it a theory.
I taught students who recieved special education through special funding. I can assure you that they needed it. The school district never labeled students ADD who were not. I'm positive of that. I can speak for this Libertarian "theory" from experience. It's a huge load of ridiculous crap.Did you teach more of them after the subsidies started? I know alot of them were labeled as ADD after the school district was given more money for every ADD student they had. Now you're just changing the subject...
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Your school district may not have, but there are many that did. But how would you know? You dont diagnose students. Telling me its a load of ridiculous crap because you didn't see it is
A teacher can tell if a student has a learning disability when they are trying to teach them. Do you thing psychologists would be able to diagnose students with a learning disability who didn't have one without the teachers knowing?Originally posted by Berzerker
But how would you know? You dont diagnose students.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Originally posted by Berzerker
Terrorism aint an act of freedom. If some nutcase buried your kid with only a few hours of air, would you torture him to find out where he buried your kid? I would, hell ya... How is that in conflict with the definition of freedom?
what if someone who you're 'sure' is a terrorist, turns out to be completely innocent? or the guy who you're 'sure' has kidnapped your kid, turns out not to be responsible? do you think that your government should be allowed to torture people they suspect of terrorism? should they be allowed to torture you if they think you're a terrorist?
of course it's an issue of freedom, giving a state the right to torture people to extract information, how can it be anything else. in any case, torture is morally wrong and not something that civilised countries should be involved with, or civilised people should condone.
"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
That doesn't explain why it would be cool to torture one group, but not the others. Why not torture all kinds of suspects to get them to admit stuff? Or what's your goal with the terrorists?Originally posted by Berzerker
They aren't terrorists?
Banana
In almost all the cases I have heard of, but not all, the issue wasn't if we thought the individual was a terrorist. That was known, they were trying to get information about other individuals/future plots/organizational info.do you think that your government should be allowed to torture people they suspect of terrorism? should they be allowed to torture you if they think you're a terrorist?
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
And the question is of course, how reliable informations are, if thy´re made under pressure. Even people who, in reality don´t have any informations, if you put enough pressure/torture on them probably will confess just to escape the pressure/torture.
A good example would be the confessions of the many witches during the medieval times that were brought to light with lots of torture.
Torture is wrong philosophically, morally, etc.
It will be used in the field until drugs are proven to be more effective in extracting information rapidly.
Ho hum.
*flipside leaves philosophy 101*
Torture will be used in the field until these cretins realize that humane treatment is more effective in extracting truthful information than torture.
On the contrary, a great many people in Gitmo and other prisons held without trial for terrorism have been found to be completely innocent. The US offers huge bounties to dirt poor people if they can give us "terrorists" so unscrupulous locals do indeed have a powerful motive to round up anyone they don't like or have the vaguest suspicion of in order to collect that money. This isn't an opinion.Originally posted by Patroklos
In almost all the cases I have heard of, but not all, the issue wasn't if we thought the individual was a terrorist. That was known, they were trying to get information about other individuals/future plots/organizational info.
It is a proven fact that a great many innocent people were labeled terrorists by the Bush Administration, subjected to what most international experts call torture, and imprisoned without trial for years on end. It violates everything the US has always stood for, it violates western values, and it is just wrong.
Germany defeated the Red Brigade Terrorists and the UK defeated the IRA not by torturing people and playing into the propaganda of the terrorists but through good old fashioned police work and vigilance. We should do the same.
"Our scientific power has out run out spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
I have yet to hear of any GITMO prisoner who has been tortured using any realistic definition of the word. Or substatiated by anything other than their own suspect word.On the contrary, a great many people in Gitmo and other prisons held without trial for terrorism have been found to be completely innocent.
I know you probably think taking their underarmor underware away was teh evil, meh.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
A learning disability is easier to detect than the reason for the learning disability. You didn't answer my question, clearly you have a learning disability but is it ADD?A teacher can tell if a student has a learning disability when they are trying to teach them. Do you thing psychologists would be able to diagnose students with a learning disability who didn't have one without the teachers knowing?
Then torture is immoral, dont change the subject. I said it is moral to torture someone you know is a terrorist.what if someone who you're 'sure' is a terrorist, turns out to be completely innocent?
Nope, this is about known terrorists, not people who may or may not be terrorists. I thought I explained this already... in my OP...do you think that your government should be allowed to torture people they suspect of terrorism? should they be allowed to torture you if they think you're a terrorist?
It is not an issue of freedom, terrorists gave the right away when they started murdering people.of course it's an issue of freedom, giving a state the right to torture people to extract information, how can it be anything else. in any case, torture is morally wrong and not something that civilised countries should be involved with, or civilised people should condone.
Sure it explains it, terrorists are engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to kill others. And contrary to what some people here think, these terrorists (or POWs in general) are not protected by the same due process we enjoy. During war enemy soldiers are subject to the will of Congress.That doesn't explain why it would be cool to torture one group, but not the others. Why not torture all kinds of suspects to get them to admit stuff? Or what's your goal with the terrorists?
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
art 1 sect 8
So you think they should be given POW status? International rules the US is agreeing to don't permit torturing POWs, and I think esp. the US military would not like it's gov giving up that position for obvious reasons.
But my question isn't really about the legalese around it, more about what's considered right and what not. A danger that they'd continue to kill others could be constructed for a lot of criminals too. And organized crime is certainly a conspiracy of some sort, sometimes to kill others.
Banana
Nevermind. I'll stick to talking about the Hermann H. topic on the other thread.
Last edited by Zeeboe; April 22, 2012 at 19:45.
Why don't you stick to fresh topics instead of dragging through the archives?
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Because this topic is new to me.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks