Monday, May 04, 2009

You Would Torture, Don't Deny It

I will once again call out you phonies who are against the current so-called enhanced interrogation methods being referred to as "torture".

I say "phony" because I believe that every single one of you would approve of these methods to save one of your children, a parent, brother or sister or spouse... a family member. Of course you would... take the time to ask yourself the deadly serious question.

Scenario-
Your 10 year old daughter (or son or granddaughter) has been kidnapped by a child-porn/prostitution ring used to fund terrorism from another country and one of the high ranking members of the group has been captured by black-op's forces. He is the only lead in the case and he knows where she is (for now) and how to save her, but refuses to talk... no deal and time is running out for finding your daughter before they move her and she is lost forever.

Would you approve putting an insect in with him that he thinks is poisonous (but isn't) to save her or other family member?
Would you approve making him think his life is in danger to save your mother's life?
Would you approve a very effective known method (used on our own delta force and rangers in training) that makes him think he is being drowned for very brief periods of time (doctors on-hand in case of emergency)?
Would you approve keeping him awake until he talks to save your brothers life?
Loud music?
Would you approve harsher techniques if it will save your 12 year old daughter or other family members life?

If you say no, I say you are a liar ...or worse.
So shut up about denying that to every other family.
-red
Oklahoma Lefty stood up to the challenge... how about you?

12 Comments:

Blogger Otter said...

"Would you approve putting an insect in with him that he thinks is poisonous (but isn't) to save her or other family member?"
Yeah sure, why not. That doesn't sound too terrible.

"Would you approve making him think his life is in danger to save your mother's life?"
I would have to think more about that. How would you go about trying to prove that this person's life is in danger. Keep in mind that most of these Islamists terrorists don't care whether they live or die so doing so would probably be a futile effort.

"Would you approve a very effective known method (used on our own delta force and rangers in training) that makes him think he is being drowned for very brief periods of time (doctors on-hand in case of emergency)?"
I suppose. As long as it was effective. If you are doing this in order to actually extract information and it has proven effective, I suppose I would be okay with it. But if you the average GI Joe that is doing it to get your rocks off, I absolutely am NOT okay with it.

"Would you approve keeping him awake until he talks to save your brothers life?"
Sure. But does sleep deprivation work on everyone?

"Loud music?"
What about it? I love it!

"Would you approve harsher techniques if it will save your 12 year old daughter or other family members life?"
Explain "harsher techniques." You are going to have to be more specific on this one.

2:51 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Otter... it's a simple question, quit trying to split hairs. Time is a wastin', as I said somewhere before, you don't have time to debate gun control while an armed robber is breaking into your house.

In fact the techniques we are talking about have proven to work on Muslims like K Shake Mohammad and others, so your theory about that is wrong... they only want to die under their terms.
Anyway...
This scumbag isn't Muslim anyway but knows where your brother, sister, grandma, daughter, son... (pick one), is being held temporarily before he/she disappears forever.

Getting him drunk and buying him flowers didn't work...

Otter, no actual harm will come to the scumbag... no scumbags will be harmed in saving your family member's life.... do you approve of making him THINK he is going to die if he doesn't talk or not.

tick...tock

4:21 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

Wait a minute? Why isn't he a Muslim. Most of these terrorists that our country was interrogating were Muslims? I'm sorry but I have to split hairs on this one.

Do I approve of making him THINK he is going to die if he doesn't talk?

I would say that I do approve but I still honestly don't think these Muslim terrorists care if they die or not. On their own terms or not they think they will go straight to heaven if they are dying for their cause.

I still don't understand what debating gun control has to do with this question though.

11:42 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

wow... His religion is of no significance... and again I point out that Muslims have already coughed-up info under these very conditions... sure they wanna die, but not by the hand of an infidel... the point is otter you don't have the time to play 60 questions, patty-cake and get to know what makes the scumbag tic... I don't think for a minute you would actually be asking ANY of these questions if you were faced with it in reality....either you approve of doing whatever is necessary (without actually harming him) to save a family member or you don't.

I think we've determined where you stand.

9:52 AM  
Blogger Otter said...

but i'm not asking all of these questions to (or playing "patty cake" with) the detainee, i am asking you these questions.

i am just making a point that i think making someone think they are going to die if they aren't afraid to die would be a waste of time that could be spend on other methods. the point i was making about these terrorists being Muslims is that these Muslim extremists in fact ARE NOT afraid to die. that is the point i am trying to make. so it is of great significance. they do not care who it is that kills them, they are only concerned that they die in defense of their religion or die serving God.

to make it more clear. i do approve of some of the above methods but do not agree with them all because i honestly do not think they are effective. in general that is. there might be a few instances where they "could" work.

but you are trying to cloud the issue by talking about hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with the whole water-boarding gitmo situation in the first place. the gitmo situation has nothing to do with a family member being kidnapped or anything like that.

3:02 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

You are the one suddenly trying to cloud the issue. I laid out a very simple scenario and asked a very straight forward question and you reacted by not doing anything except asking endless questions not relevant to the situation.

The question is whether you would "torture" but not harm someone in order to save a family member or not.

I say you would... but apparently you would deny everyone else that right.

3:25 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

"Not relevant to the situation"?

Pot, meet kettle.

This hypothetical scenario of yours isn't relevant to the situation? What does my (or your) family being kidnapped have to do with Muslim extremists being interrogated and tortured at Guantanamo Bay? That is, if I am correct, what started this whole torture discussion in the first place I believe.

My "endless questions" are to try and make some sense out of that. What does my family have to do with this?

I do have to ask about part of your comment though...."torture but not harm?" Huh? Wouldn't torturing somebody, be definition, denote harming them? Or did you mean to word that differently?

4:55 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

right, it's not relevant except to point out that you would approve torture (i believe) to save a close family member.... but appose it to save perhaps thousands of other families.

It's a simple question otter, but those on the left want to make it so difficult that a conclusion cannot be reached in time to be of use. Then they want to debate the meaning of torture endlessly without conclusion.

I used the examples from Gitmo as an example of things being called "torture" which in fact do not harm the individual but only make him(her) think they are going to die. I say that is not torture, but those on the left say it is.

But, if you would not approve "torture" to save a family member, just say so... but I don't believe it, I think you would.

2:18 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

btw- did you see my post above proving that waterboarding works... even on Muslims.

2:20 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

...meanwhile we are still debating the meaning of the word "is" while the scumbag is having a cocktail and your close relative is actually being tortured.. or worse.

10:48 AM  
Blogger Otter said...

I don't understand why you think we are debating the word "IS". That doesn't make any sense to me.

By the way, last time I checked, nobody in my family is being tortured right now so your point about some scumbag is having a cocktail is null and void even if it is a hypothetical. Obviously if something like that was going on in my family I would not be sitting here typing, trying to debate hypothetical situations with you. LOL!

5:09 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Holy cow otter, I know you're not that naive.
What "is" torture? as in what "is" sex... (see Bill Clinton) and the meaning of "is". It was satire and a little humor man... c'mon give me a break.

So, let's recap... you engage in my scenario, see yourself painting yourself into a corner, then refuse to play by the rules I laid out, challenge the scenario criteria and then claim it's all null and void anyway because your family isn't really in danger.
Nice.

The question wasn't whether or not you would be talking to me online but whether you would approve of "enhanced interrogation" methods such as waterboarding to save a loved ones life or not.

I think you said no, that you would not waterboard a scumbag to save a loved-ones life.

I said I don't believe that for a second.
And there we are.
It's cool, thanks for playing.
-red

10:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home