Torture to become legal in the US

[Raven]

well seeing as they already do it regardless, its not going to make much of a difference.

(proven terrorists should be tortured, for no reason except shits and giggles)

 

[Morchaoron]

Well, i guess it doesnt matter much since if they dont do it the 'legal' way, they will do it secretly or 'outsource' it to other countries...

and on the torturing itself, i dont think its right and they shouldnt do it, but on the other hand, i have 0 sympathy for those that would intentionally bring harm to 10000s of innocents if they had the chance for a completely bullshit cause...

(and to be more clear about my own opinion: its not that i actually think they should be tortured, but i simply dont care about the fate of true murderers, but as always, it has to be proven first)

 

[Huntingtons]

Im gonna stick my neck out on this one but here goes.

I mean it's questionable if they have no proof and are torturing, but stop with the politcally correct crap, these people are out to fucking mess up our lives, im sorry but provided they have at least some proof about links to terrorist cells, I would gladly back them torturing.

These people have helped kill quite a large amount of people so I would rather see these people hung drawn and quartered in front of a large audience. They deserve no better.

Do you honestly think they give 2 shits about the geneva convention? They cut some guys head off on national TV, fuck it.

its quite scary that you think like that i was close saying that i hope the people you knew in the london bombing died horribly (but i didnt hope it) when you throw such an attitude.

 

[~Latency~]

Agree with Sharma, if they have concrete proof they are terrorists they should do whatever they can to get information, as it's like saving lives..



..the terrorist assholes who do shit for a stupid and unjust cause should die

 

[Lamp]

A little bit of pain never hurt anyone

 

[Huntingtons]

Agree with Sharma, if they have concrete proof they are terrorists they should do whatever they can to get information, as it's like saving lives..



..the terrorist assholes who do shit for a stupid and unjust cause should die

no proof is concrete, specially not when you got us with the ability to fake all evidence.

 

[Saggy]

Agree with Sharma, if they have concrete proof they are terrorists they should do whatever they can to get information, as it's like saving lives..


..the terrorist assholes who do shit for a stupid and unjust cause should die

How about the military troops who do shit for a stupid and unjust cause? Once its proved that some UK-soldier has killed people in Iraq it is perfectly fine to torture and eventually kill him/her? Or even better - its ok to pick random civilian in UK and if he/she happens to have an army backround its perfectly fine to torture him?

 

[Bugz]

It isn't the fact at to them torturing people but as to where they draw the line that's the fundamental issue.

 

[crispy]

I don't know what to say

 

[yaruar]

Agree with Sharma, if they have concrete proof they are terrorists they should do whatever they can to get information, as it's like saving lives..



..the terrorist assholes who do shit for a stupid and unjust cause should die

I wish people like you would just FO and go live in Iran or somewhere rather than living in our rather nice democracy.

;P

 

[Bugz]

I wish people like you would just FO and go live in Iran or somewhere rather than living in our rather nice democracy.

;P

A democracy that is shit in every way and form?

 

[Thorwyn]

...it is?
I`m rather happy with it. :/

 

[Raven]

it is a democracy in name only. problam is there is simply nobody of any worth ready to replace labour. Voting numbers have been going down because nobody is interested. This suits labour as people who like labour will vote for them, those that dont want them in charge just dont bother voting.

 

[Mojo]

it is a democracy in name only. problam is there is simply nobody of any worth ready to replace labour. Voting numbers have been going down because nobody is interested. This suits labour as people who like labour will vote for them, those that dont want them in charge just dont bother voting.

Or maybe alot of people are ok with how things are? or don't care?, if they don't care I guess they are ok with things too. The UK isn't a bad place to live, but if you listened to all the whiners you would think this is the worst country in the world to live in.

 

[pip]

1.It was wrong to go to war due to the lies of nuclear weapons

2.It is not right to blow up lots of innocent folk

3.My heart goes out for all the folk that died in september 11

4.Lets not forget about all the innocent folk that die to the hands of USA-GB in iraq

5.Lets not forget we are at war

6.Are USA-GB not any less as much terrorists? as the folk of iraq? see it's funny how the USA-GB call them terrorists when they claim to be a army just like us, to me it's just an excuse to use this word towards em so it sounds ok to kill em all? ok they are pocket groups blowing up certain targets but not like Iraq could go head to head with these nations is it? I would like folk to think of the Iraq army as the enemy not terrorists.

7.I think it was right to remove Saddam from power was a evil dictator

 

[Mojo]

I would like folk to think of the Iraq army as the enemy not terrorists.

I think you will find that the Iraqi army as it stands are our Ali's so they are not terrorists or enemies, in fact they are trained by the US/GB work with this US/GB and are as much of a traget to the insurgents/terrorists/factions as the US/GB.

 

[Darzil]

1.It was wrong to go to war due to the lies of nuclear weapons

The oddity about this whole thing is that Saddam was trying to (or trying to appear as if he was) create weapons of mass destruction. It appears now that he was far less successful than he wanted it to appear. We know he had some in the past, and that he used them. We know he'd bought materials to make them, and hired scientists to do it. We didn't know that they were far less successful than he wanted us to think.

Slightly self defeating in the end, I guess he wanted a 'deterrant' like some other countries.

Darzil

 

[yaruar]

The oddity about this whole thing is that Saddam was trying to (or trying to appear as if he was) create weapons of mass destruction. It appears now that he was far less successful than he wanted it to appear. We know he had some in the past, and that he used them. We know he'd bought materials to make them, and hired scientists to do it. We didn't know that they were far less successful than he wanted us to think.

Slightly self defeating in the end, I guess he wanted a 'deterrant' like some other countries.

Darzil

The thing is, we knew that he had bought materials to make WMD's because we sold them to him. (well sold them to him with money supplied by the US anyway...)
We just didn't believe him when he said he's destroyed them.
It's interesting though that since his removal from power there is more torture and killing goin on in Iraq, only now most of the torture is being done by the good guys.

 

[Darzil]

We just didn't believe him when he said he's destroyed them.

Which he didn't say until the war started, the day before he was still claiming he had them as a deterrent.

Darzil

 

[Chronictank]

Which he didn't say until the war started, the day before he was still claiming he had them as a deterrent.

Darzil

do you blame him?
Bush wanted to invade Iraq well before he was elected apparently
Personally i would have said i had nukes as a deterrent

 

[Saggy]

The oddity about this whole thing is that Saddam was trying to (or trying to appear as if he was) create weapons of mass destruction. It appears now that he was far less successful than he wanted it to appear. We know he had some in the past, and that he used them. We know he'd bought materials to make them, and hired scientists to do it. We didn't know that they were far less successful than he wanted us to think.

Slightly self defeating in the end, I guess he wanted a 'deterrant' like some other countries.

Darzil

It was obvious that there was no weapons of mass destruction - who the fuck would attack an country with a dictator that doesn´t hesitate to use such things?

<Bush>: Damn, Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, what on earth can we do? :<
<Blair>: I know! Let´s bomb his country and send lots of soldiers there!
=
<Jack>: Oh look, such an lovely beehive! Should we take a picture of it?
<John>: I heard the right thing to do is poking it with stick!