What If a Nuke Was Set To Explode Tomorrow ?

[protectionist]

Well, let's hope it's in a place no one will miss.

Like Kentucky or West Virginia.

WHAAATTTT ? You just slandered 2 entire states, and 6.3 million people. Why ? What do you have against them ?

 

[sealybobo]

First I'd start with the toenails.......

I’ll tell you whatever you want, except the actual truth.

Does the torture work? Then yes do it. Unfortunately it doesn’t work and is a slippery slope to some evil shit the USA shouldn’t be doing OPENLY

 

[Pop23]

Let me give you credit for one thing. You finally have admitted the real reason people support torture. It isn’t because it is effective, we have established that it isn’t. It is because you want to hurt the “enemy” and make him suffer. The problem is you don’t accomplish what you want. Oh you can make that one suffer, but then the next one hates you even more, and fights harder to kill you.

Throughout history, those who engage in torture find a way to justify it

I did it to save lives
They deserved it
They are not really human like we are

If the Bomb went off, nobody would give a shit what they did to the dude, if it didn’t, it was the result of the torture, and no one would give a shit how a million people were saved.

You can’t make this shit up. Dems hoping a million + mass killer is taken care off!

You folks are funnier then shit!

Democrats support our Constitution

Republicans only support it when it is convenient

You killed up to 8 Million fellow citizens. I think the founding fathers would have made an exception to the rule.

They didn’t include exceptions when they wrote it

No cruel and unusual punishment unless facing nuclear anihilation

I’m sure the dead appreciate your sudden respect for our constitution

 

[sealybobo]

Nope - Got it from Bush1 & Bush2 REPUBLICANS - Including the idiots who carried it out:

CIA nominee says torture doesn't work as interrogation tool

Got anything else?

Yeah. I got this whole thread that has refuted you 100 times already.

Oh so now it's the Bushes, huh ? But you were saying they said it didn't work. So if they thought that, why did they do it. Oh, so you're saying they only did it once ?

I wonder how long it would take for YOU to squeal ?

It didn’t work in fact torturing was counter productive. It grew our enemies numbers. Great recruiting for the other side

 

[Pop23]

Nope - Got it from Bush1 & Bush2 REPUBLICANS - Including the idiots who carried it out:

CIA nominee says torture doesn't work as interrogation tool

Got anything else?

Yeah. I got this whole thread that has refuted you 100 times already.

Oh so now it's the Bushes, huh ? But you were saying they said it didn't work. So if they thought that, why did they do it. Oh, so you're saying they only did it once ?

I wonder how long it would take for YOU to squeal ?

It didn’t work in fact torturing was counter productive. It grew our enemies numbers. Great recruiting for the other side

8 Million dead would lead to a nifty ad campaign as well don’t ya think?

 

[protectionist]

I’ll tell you whatever you want, except the actual truth.

Does the torture work? Then yes do it. Unfortunately it doesn’t work and is a slippery slope to some evil shit the USA shouldn’t be doing OPENLY

So you've been duped by the all liberal establishment who says torture doesn't work.

How absurd. And we shouldn't be saving 8 million lives ? (to appease a terrorist) Independents: you are invited to read this thread. Come one, come all.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

First I'd start with the toenails.......

I’ll tell you whatever you want, except the actual truth.

Does the torture work? Then yes do it. Unfortunately it doesn’t work and is a slippery slope to some evil shit the USA shouldn’t be doing OPENLY

I'd be right back to your finger nails once I found out your first lie was just that.
Of course if the nuke was detonated You'd live for years through advanced medicine while I tortured you for the long term.

 

[protectionist]

It didn’t work in fact torturing was counter productive. It grew our enemies numbers. Great recruiting for the other side

OH, HERE WE GO!! Sound the alarm. Democrat talking point here. The ever-present "recruiting' card.

So maybe Eisenhower shouldn't have carpet bombed all those German cities, because, WOW, look at all the Nazis he might have recruited, right ?

And MacArthur shouldn't have invaded Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the Jap mainland, because, hey, it would recruit too many Japs against the US, huh ?

Is there a doctor in the house ? Pheeeew!! (high-pitched whistle)

 

[protectionist]

I'd be right back to your finger nails once I found out your first lie was just that.
Of course if the nuke was detonated You'd live for years through advanced medicine while I tortured you for the long term.

I wonder how long he'd hold out next to the polar bear.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'd be right back to your finger nails once I found out your first lie was just that.
Of course if the nuke was detonated You'd live for years through advanced medicine while I tortured you for the long term.

I wonder how long he's hold out next to the polar bear.

View attachment 193861

I dont have to eat the dirty muslim to survive...

 

[toobfreak]

Where? I’ve posted links in pretty much every single reply.

We've Known for 400 Years That Torture Doesn't Work

Try this. Listen to the experts. The experts say it is the worst. Method. Ever. To get information.

What a total crock of shit. I've truncated your long diatribe of worthless blather to focus on some key points.

A). Every one of your articles was written not by a neutral, open-minded person, but someone key on denouncing torture as ineffective and outdated, as taught them in the modern lexicon, despite the fact that it was used effectively for thousands of years! If it was so ineffective, why was it used down through history?

B). You use people as "expects" simply because they held some loose title in intelligence for a couple of years. Maybe they were only in counterintelligence for a couple years because they sucked? Maybe they are promoting this anti-torture stance to the press now because that is what is being drilled into their own heads? Tell me, how much actual torture experience did any of these people have if no one was ever using it?

C). You actually have the nerve to flout the article above, basically saying that in the Dark ages, they weren't very effective at getting people to admit to being Witches and Warlocks as proof of torture's ineffectiveness ignoring that it was a failure because THERE WERE NO WITCHES AND WARLOCKS TO CONFESS TO BEING!

In other articles, they set up mock experiments to test waterboarding, while the person undergoing it KNOWS it will only go so far as an experiment and will be stopped at some point, as if it were a real substitute for a real terrorist undergoing unknown and unlimited methods, then using the faux results as a measure for the real thing used in the field?!

D). If torture didn't work, then why do the most militant countries intend on internal security use it? Why did the mobs and Mafia use it? Try sneaking into North Koreas, Russia, Iran, etc., and be accused of spying; what do you think they do, ply you with blueberry pie and brownies? Do you think ISIS gets information? You talk or they cut off your head. One of the key attributes of the Saddam Hussein regime was how well he controlled Iraq and kept the peace. And how it all fell apart after he was gone. Want to know why he so tightly held law and order in Iraq? Torture! His two sons were exquisite experts on REAL torture, and it WORKED. As with the Mob, you did not cross them, you cooperated, you gave them the information, PERIOD.

E). You keep saying torture is ineffective, only because you might get false information from people just to stop the treatment, but the pretext of this thread is that YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY INFORMATION AT ALL ANY OTHER WAY, and now what will you do, try torture or let his nuke go off! And your answer is let the nuke go off!

F). You consider water-boarding cruel and unusual punishment, but you don't consider nuking the largest city in the world so? In the context of stopping such a holocaust, little can be deemed "cruel," or "unusual" when trying to stop such a disaster in face of the fact that it is all you have left to try. What is so unbelievable is that you are more concerned for the rights of this one man, probably not even a citizen, an enemy combatant bent on your destruction at any cost, than you are the rights of the millions of people he would kill!

G). None of the "experts" in torture cited are truly experts. How can they be? How much experience do they actually have in actual torture? Western civilization has been divesting itself of the practice for a long time on ethical grounds, and what passes for "torture" in the modern age is called "enhanced interrogation." I submit that NONE of these people know jack about real torture. You want to see torture, ask a POW from Nam or Korea what the Asians used. Ask Kim Jong-Un or Putin about torture. They know how to torture a person. They don't give a flying crap about your "rights" and you will tell them what they want to know. What we call "torture" now is a joke in comparison and these people laugh at us.

There are few real experts in torture to speak from authority in the West now. The mind was made up long ago to give up torture, and ever since the rationale has been invented to justify it. Now you try to claim that anyone arguing for the merits of torture must be some sort of fiend or savage or sadist, when it is merely a tool of war to be used when there is no other choice. If we had so effective an alternative, why do people languish in our prisons for years without extracting what we want to know?

The horrible truth is that torture works. That's why it has been employed for centuries. But like CFCs and Chlordane, we simply want a cleaner, neater alternative that leaves our conscience clearer. All your experts who say torture doesn't work, they merely don't know how to really, effectively torture anyone to make it work. It's become a lost skill in the West. They have never even done it. What could they know?

You have co-opted this thread to be about a moral issue when in fact the question of the thread was if it came down to torture to get where the bomb was or letting it blow, what would you do? I guarantee you that if I start choking your mother, your wife, your daughter, killing them, you are NOT going to stand by and argue for my rights. You are going to beat me over the head with a tire iron, shoot me, do ANYTHING YOU FUCKING HAVE TO DO TO STOP ME. You won't be worried about "cruel and unusual" punishment as wrongwinger claims, and that was the whole point of this thread. All you people co-opting the thread about the MORALITY of torture are fucking hypocrites. The question in the OP was never a MORAL one but a question of STRATEGY to win in a terrorist crisis and war scenario, and every one of you "moral objectors" would be the FIRST PERSON to violate my rights and inflict cruel and unusual punishment on me or another person if they started killing a loved one in your family and you only had seconds to act.

But the scary thing is that if it ever really came down to where we only had minutes or hours to do the right thing to stop a nuclear holocaust and the death of millions, we might not do it because we have tied our own hands with endless legal constructs, and that is the GREATEST tool our enemies have to use against us--- --- our own laws which bind us more than they do aid us in defeating our enemies.

 

[toobfreak]

Well, let's hope it's in a place no one will miss.

Like Kentucky or West Virginia.

WHAAATTTT ? You just slandered 2 entire states, and 6.3 million people. Why ? What do you have against them ?

They are full of Deplorables. There's that hate oozing out again that the Left just cannot keep in, that Hillary let show over and over, contempt that cost her the election. While Mueller hunts frantically for why Hillary lost trying to blame Russia, all he needs to do is check the list of states she never even bothered campaigning in because her handlers told her she was so entitled to the job it was already sewn up. The Deanturd has never even been to Kentucky or W. Va to know these are some of the most beautiful natural states full of some of the nicest people in the country.

 

[toobfreak]

Nope - Got it from Bush1 & Bush2 REPUBLICANS - Including the idiots who carried it out:

CIA nominee says torture doesn't work as interrogation tool

Got anything else?

Yeah. I got this whole thread that has refuted you 100 times already.

Oh so now it's the Bushes, huh ? But you were saying they said it didn't work. So if they thought that, why did they do it. Oh, so you're saying they only did it once ?

I wonder how long it would take for YOU to squeal ?

It didn’t work in fact torturing was counter productive. It grew our enemies numbers. Great recruiting for the other side

So in other words, when it comes to the Left, all the enemy has to do is put up a fight and you acquiesce. Fighting terrorism made the terrorists angry so we better not fight them anymore? Maybe they just need a McDonalds on every corner. Truth is that as recruitment went up, we have had so many opportunities to take out our enemy en masse very quickly, but every time our hands were tied by liberals who were more concerned for THEIR rights than they were for our winning. As a result, we no longer can even fight a war, our military is dictated by lawyers, and at best we now fight "police actions" that go on forever and never resolve anything, giving the enemy lots of time to recruit more, because they see they are not losing quickly to the "Great Satan." Freed of liberals, we could have beaten Saddam, taken Iraq and its oil for our own uses IN A WEEK, for far lower cost and far less loss of life. Liberals don't make war cleaner and more humane, they merely make it unwinnable.

 

[protectionist]

What a total crock of shit. I've truncated your long diatribe of worthless blather to focus on some key points.

A). Every one of your articles was written not by a neutral, open-minded person, but someone key on denouncing torture as ineffective and outdated, as taught them in the modern lexicon, despite the fact that it was used effectively for thousands of years! If it was so ineffective, why was it used down through history?

B). You use people as "expects" simply because they held some loose title in intelligence for a couple of years. Maybe they were only in counterintelligence for a couple years because they sucked? Maybe they are promoting this anti-torture stance to the press now because that is what is being drilled into their own heads? Tell me, how much actual torture experience did any of these people have if no one was ever using it?

C). You actually have the nerve to flout the article above, basically saying that in the Dark ages, they weren't very effective at getting people to admit to being Witches and Warlocks as proof of torture's ineffectiveness ignoring that it was a failure because THERE WERE NO WITCHES AND WARLOCKS TO CONFESS TO BEING!

In other articles, they set up mock experiments to test waterboarding, while the person undergoing it KNOWS it will only go so far as an experiment and will be stopped at some point, as if it were a real substitute for a real terrorist undergoing unknown and unlimited methods, then using the faux results as a measure for the real thing used in the field?!

D). If torture didn't work, then why do the most militant countries intend on internal security use it? Why did the mobs and Mafia use it? Try sneaking into North Koreas, Russia, Iran, etc., and be accused of spying; what do you think they do, ply you with blueberry pie and brownies? Do you think ISIS gets information? You talk or they cut off your head. One of the key attributes of the Saddam Hussein regime was how well he controlled Iraq and kept the peace. And how it all fell apart after he was gone. Want to know why he so tightly held law and order in Iraq? Torture! His two sons were exquisite experts on REAL torture, and it WORKED. As with the Mob, you did not cross them, you cooperated, you gave them the information, PERIOD.

E). You keep saying torture is ineffective, only because you might get false information from people just to stop the treatment, but the pretext of this thread is that YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY INFORMATION AT ALL ANY OTHER WAY, and now what will you do, try torture or let his nuke go off! And your answer is let the nuke go off!

F). You consider water-boarding cruel and unusual punishment, but you don't consider nuking the largest city in the world so? In the context of stopping such a holocaust, little can be deemed "cruel," or "unusual" when trying to stop such a disaster in face of the fact that it is all you have left to try. What is so unbelievable is that you are more concerned for the rights of this one man, probably not even a citizen, an enemy combatant bent on your destruction at any cost, than you are the rights of the millions of people he would kill!

G). None of the "experts" in torture cited are truly experts. How can they be? How much experience do they actually have in actual torture? Western civilization has been divesting itself of the practice for a long time on ethical grounds, and what passes for "torture" in the modern age is called "enhanced interrogation." I submit that NONE of these people know jack about real torture. You want to see torture, ask a POW from Nam or Korea what the Asians used. Ask Kim Jong-Un or Putin about torture. They know how to torture a person. They don't give a flying crap about your "rights" and you will tell them what they want to know. What we call "torture" now is a joke in comparison and these people laugh at us.

There are few real experts in torture to speak from authority in the West now. The mind was made up long ago to give up torture, and ever since the rationale has been invented to justify it. Now you try to claim that anyone arguing for the merits of torture must be some sort of fiend or savage or sadist, when it is merely a tool of war to be used when there is no other choice. If we had so effective an alternative, why do people languish in our prisons for years without extracting what we want to know?

The horrible truth is that torture works. That's why it has been employed for centuries. But like CFCs and Chlordane, we simply want a cleaner, neater alternative that leaves our conscience clearer. All your experts who say torture doesn't work, they merely don't know how to really, effectively torture anyone to make it work. It's become a lost skill in the West. They have never even done it. What could they know?

You have co-opted this thread to be about a moral issue when in fact the question of the thread was if it came down to torture to get where the bomb was or letting it blow, what would you do? I guarantee you that if I start choking your mother, your wife, your daughter, killing them, you are NOT going to stand by and argue for my rights. You are going to beat me over the head with a tire iron, shoot me, do ANYTHING YOU FUCKING HAVE TO DO TO STOP ME. You won't be worried about "cruel and unusual" punishment as wrongwinger claims, and that was the whole point of this thread. All you people co-opting the thread about the MORALITY of torture are fucking hypocrites. The question in the OP was never a MORAL one but a question of STRATEGY to win in a terrorist crisis and war scenario, and every one of you "moral objectors" would be the FIRST PERSON to violate my rights and inflict cruel and unusual punishment on me or another person if they started killing a loved one in your family and you only had seconds to act.

But the scary thing is that if it ever really came down to where we only had minutes or hours to do the right thing to stop a nuclear holocaust and the death of millions, we might not do it because we have tied our own hands with endless legal constructs, and that is the GREATEST tool our enemies have to use against us--- --- our own laws which bind us more than they do aid us in defeating our enemies.

His own link pointed to a Senate committee OF DEMOCRATS, who declared that torture was ineffective.

 

[protectionist]

So in other words, when it comes to the Left, all the enemy has to do is put up a fight and you acquiesce. Fighting terrorism made the terrorists angry so we better not fight them anymore? Maybe they just need a McDonalds on every corner. Truth is that as recruitment went up, we have had so many opportunities to take out our enemy en masse very quickly, but every time our hands were tied by liberals who were more concerned for THEIR rights than they were for our winning. As a result, we no longer can even fight a war, our military is dictated by lawyers, and at best we now fight "police actions" that go on forever and never resolve anything, giving the enemy lots of time to recruit more, because they see they are not losing quickly to the "Great Satan." Freed of liberals, we could have beaten Saddam, taken Iraq and its oil for our own uses IN A WEEK, for far lower cost and far less loss of life. Liberals don't make war cleaner and more humane, they merely make it unwinnable.

Best words I remember about war "rules of engagement" which Obama reduced to something akin to a ping pong game, were spoken by my former Army National Guard battalion commander, Lt. Colonel Shea.

2 reporters from the New York Times, which claimed enemy combatants should be captured, and then read Miranda rights, and given a trial in a civilian court, questioned the colonel, & asked him how he should deal with the enemy.

Colonel Shea told​

them >> "In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is very simple. It can be summed up in just 3 words. WE KILL THEM."

Can you believe how detached these liberals are ? Can anyone imagine Eisenhower, Bradley,or Patton ordering their soldiers to arrest Nazis, as if they were holding up a convenience store ? Pheeew. In case anyone doesn't know their history, Eisenhower ordered the carpet bombing of German cities for 4 years, obliterating them to ruins. I doubt that a single American ever uttered the word "recruiting"

 

[Muhammed]

I ask all posters to this thread to answer the following question with a YES or NO answer. Add more if desired, but please don't omit a yes or no answer.

Suppose a terrorist was captured and being interrogated by the FBI. Suppose he told the agents that a nuclear bomb was scheduled to be detonated in New York City, within 24 hours. With an estimated 2017 population of 8.6 Million, and despite being distributed over a massive land area of about 302.6 square miles, New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States.

If this nuclear bomb, of significant size and power, were exploded, it would kill millions of people, and be the most horrific single event in human history. And suppose the terrorist said he knew who the perpetrator was in charge of this heinous act, his location, the location of the device to be used to detonate the bomb, and how to easily disable it.

Bear in mind that torture is illegal under US law (Title 18 of US Code, Section 2340A)​

So here's the question. >> Would/should we allow millions of fellow Americans to be incinerated and radiated by this monstrous event, or would/should we do whatever it takes (including torture) to get this information from this terrorist, if it's apparent that that would stop the bomb ?

YES or NO.

Yes.

Preferably, the military or CIA should do it.

 

[protectionist]

Yes.

Preferably, the military or CIA should do it.

You would allow millions of people to die ? Just to honor rights of one person ?

I think you mean yes, we should torture the interogatee (bad guy)

 

[Muhammed]

Yes.

Preferably, the military or CIA should do it.

You would allow millions of people to die ? Just to honor rights of one person ?

I think you mean yes, we should torture the interogatee (bad guy)

Oops.

You are correct, that's what I meant.

I would do it myself if I had to.

 

[sealybobo]

I’ll tell you whatever you want, except the actual truth.

Does the torture work? Then yes do it. Unfortunately it doesn’t work and is a slippery slope to some evil shit the USA shouldn’t be doing OPENLY

So you've been duped by the all liberal establishment who says torture doesn't work.

How absurd. And we shouldn't be saving 8 million lives ? (to appease a terrorist) Independents: you are invited to read this thread. Come one, come all.

But I said if it were the right situation do it. But this scenario isn’t reality.

The reality is we had army grunts torturing prisoners who would one day see the light of day.

Here’s what you stupid fucks did. You had 100 prisoners so you tortured them all for a year in hopes of discovering what? Did you find anything? Nope. Oh you’ll point to one or two incidences where you found something out but very ineffective.

I can’t believe we are having this debate again.

 

[rightwinger]

They didn’t include exceptions when they wrote it

No cruel and unusual punishment unless facing nuclear anihilation

Again, and again >>>>> torture, in the case of the OP is not cruel, and it's never unusual. It illegal, but by US Code, not the Constitution.

I hope a lot of Independents are reading this thread. Especially if they ever had any inclinations of voting Democrat.

Cruel and unusual means torture

Your rationale for doing it has no bearing