Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by roomy, Apr 26, 2006.
torture him, then kill him. The wife, no.
PS, thats not a dilema, a dilema is when you have to actually think about your answer for at least a nano second.
Do whatever it takes to save the hundreds of innocent people from a man who apparently has no problem with mass murder for no reason.
If the man has trained his kids in the way of terror - kill them too.
There's no delimma. Promise the guy freedom if he talks. If he talks save the hundreds, then give the guy freedom - via a bullet in the forehead.
I agree with the other poster who said this is actually not a dilemma. This is a no brainer. Anyone who says otherwise has no business within a five mile radius of public policy decisions.
Yeah. We're just as bad as them. So why are you on their side?
No. Killing him and his family ensures the safety of the rest of the world. The 'We're just like them' argument is puts one on false moral ground.
There's nothing knee-jerk about my reply. What makes life valuable, or not, is how one LIVES their lives - the choices a person makes define one's 'worthiness'. This man thinking he is or isn't a terrorist does not change the absolute truth of the matter; The man needs to die.
If bush was about to nuke Iran, and only this man in custody could stop it, I'd shoot that man, so he 'couldn't' stop it.
no---you are hearing posters say kill mass murderers and those intent on killing more
Everyone is capable of aquiring weapons that will harm the population. The difference is in the "timer" and wanting to harm thousands with a bomb set to go off at a certain time.
Is bringing up Iran an example of "strawman"?
I'd beat the guy senseless, break his fingers, break out the acid and the hot irons, whatever it took. Yeah, torture is illegal, but I'd rather go to jail than let said bombs explode. I don't think I could make myself torture his wife, though I would probably threaten to.
Separate names with a comma.