What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Torture - For or Against? (1 Viewer)

For the worst criminals (described in OP) are you for or against Torture?

  • For Torture

    Votes: 47 30.7%
  • Against Torture

    Votes: 106 69.3%

  • Total voters
    153
fantasycurse42 said:
I'm willing to bet none of the parents would actually "take out" this guy. I see them praying for him instead once the initial anger and rage is experienced. This is America, not some Islam country where torture is common. There are plenty of people we'd love to see tortured for what they've done but that simply is not the way to go. I think violence will bring on more violent behavior. Does torture deter other nuts from doing the same thing in those 3rd world countries? I don't think so... It seems to bring more of them out. When the regime changed in Iran so came these barbaric measures. We look at them and think wtf but yet some folks here are all for the same thing. It doesn't matter the crime or who's it against. Yes against children is worse as they are innocent, but really, so are any adults who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time like this recent SB rampage. It's liberating to let the hatred and anger go. You hear it all the time from families who are interviewed after some time has passed that they have forgiven that person. You never forget but I think there's something wrong with you if you'd sit back and actually enjoy watching the perpetrator being tortured slowly till death.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42 said:
Wow it didn't take much for you to go from being in favor of torturing rapists and murderers to being in favor of torturing people with documented mental health issues because they are insensitive jerks.
Meh. Mental health issue or not, if you call two families of the Sandy Hook massacre and tell them that their children never existed, you should be punched in the face at the very least.
Seriously! These people suffered beyond what most of us could imagine... Then someone destroys the playground in their childs honor and calls them to throw it in their face.
Yeah so let's torture the guy.

Terrible shtick. Saying it's not shtick is even worse shtick.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Wow it didn't take much for you to go from being in favor of torturing rapists and murderers to being in favor of torturing people with documented mental health issues because they are insensitive jerks.
Meh. Mental health issue or not, if you call two families of the Sandy Hook massacre and tell them that their children never existed, you should be punched in the face at the very least.
Seriously! These people suffered beyond what most of us could imagine... Then someone destroys the playground in their childs honor and calls them to throw it in their face.
Yeah so let's torture the guy.Terrible shtick. Saying it's not shtick is even worse shtick.
:rollseyes:You define someone as an "insensitive jerk" for vandalizing a playground dedicated to a small child who was murdered by a madman and then rubbing it in the victims parents face.

ETA: I guess you'd be happy to write him a $200 fine and send him on his way :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42 said:
Wow it didn't take much for you to go from being in favor of torturing rapists and murderers to being in favor of torturing people with documented mental health issues because they are insensitive jerks.
Meh. Mental health issue or not, if you call two families of the Sandy Hook massacre and tell them that their children never existed, you should be punched in the face at the very least.
Seriously! These people suffered beyond what most of us could imagine... Then someone destroys the playground in their childs honor and calls them to throw it in their face.
Yeah so let's torture the guy.Terrible shtick. Saying it's not shtick is even worse shtick.
:rollseyes:You define someone as an "insensitive jerk" for vandalizing a playground dedicated to a small child who was murdered by a madman and then rubbing it in the victims parents face.

ETA: I guess you'd be happy to write him a $200 fine and send him on his way :shrug:
I don't think he meant to treat the crime like a traffic ticket....

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Wow it didn't take much for you to go from being in favor of torturing rapists and murderers to being in favor of torturing people with documented mental health issues because they are insensitive jerks.
Meh. Mental health issue or not, if you call two families of the Sandy Hook massacre and tell them that their children never existed, you should be punched in the face at the very least.
Seriously! These people suffered beyond what most of us could imagine... Then someone destroys the playground in their childs honor and calls them to throw it in their face.
Yeah so let's torture the guy.Terrible shtick. Saying it's not shtick is even worse shtick.
:rollseyes:You define someone as an "insensitive jerk" for vandalizing a playground dedicated to a small child who was murdered by a madman and then rubbing it in the victims parents face.

ETA: I guess you'd be happy to write him a $200 fine and send him on his way :shrug:
There's a reason for this statue. It's not about emotion. In a civilized society, we have laws to establish punishments without emotion and avoid the mob mentality.

So if the law dictated a $200 fine for public vandalism and had no additional statutes about rubbing things in people's faces, then yes. You can try to lobby your local government to add the "rubbing things in your face" law if you so wish. I don't see it getting much traction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42 said:
Wow it didn't take much for you to go from being in favor of torturing rapists and murderers to being in favor of torturing people with documented mental health issues because they are insensitive jerks.
Meh. Mental health issue or not, if you call two families of the Sandy Hook massacre and tell them that their children never existed, you should be punched in the face at the very least.
Seriously! These people suffered beyond what most of us could imagine... Then someone destroys the playground in their childs honor and calls them to throw it in their face.
Yeah so let's torture the guy.Terrible shtick. Saying it's not shtick is even worse shtick.
:rollseyes:You define someone as an "insensitive jerk" for vandalizing a playground dedicated to a small child who was murdered by a madman and then rubbing it in the victims parents face.

ETA: I guess you'd be happy to write him a $200 fine and send him on his way :shrug:
Agreed. I say torture whoever you think is a bad person.
 
fantasycurse42 said:
Wow it didn't take much for you to go from being in favor of torturing rapists and murderers to being in favor of torturing people with documented mental health issues because they are insensitive jerks.
Meh. Mental health issue or not, if you call two families of the Sandy Hook massacre and tell them that their children never existed, you should be punched in the face at the very least.
Seriously! These people suffered beyond what most of us could imagine... Then someone destroys the playground in their childs honor and calls them to throw it in their face.
Yeah so let's torture the guy.Terrible shtick. Saying it's not shtick is even worse shtick.
:rollseyes:You define someone as an "insensitive jerk" for vandalizing a playground dedicated to a small child who was murdered by a madman and then rubbing it in the victims parents face.

ETA: I guess you'd be happy to write him a $200 fine and send him on his way :shrug:
No, I define him as mentally ill (his actions seem to support that) and I don't think you should torture people whose lives are likely already a form of torture.

If you believe that we should torture the mentally ill I would probably prefer to see you behind bars than him.

 
GordonGekko said:
In cases with murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, etc... Would you be in favor of torture or opposed?
Sadly, in the Western world, there is a form of "politically correct" torture, then there is the effective means of torture.

The PC version of torture is the current usage. You want information from a specific source, you use methods to try to extract that information directly from the source. That is, as pointed out before, very inconsistent. I wouldn't say it's completely ineffective because different people have different backgrounds, different training and different tolerances for pain.

The non PC version of torture is extremely effective. If Otis had key information I needed to save hundreds of thousands of American lives, I'd calmly have him tied to a chair. Then I'd strangle his wife with piano wire, letting him hear her scream and beg for her life. Then I'd bring in his child and point out that he has two choices. Tell me what I want to know in a way I can verify ( i.e. vetting) or watch me kill his kid in front of him. If he has more than one child, the better the relative odds of breaking him, since I'm able to execute one child and preserve the other as the threat.

One of the most effective means of actually stopping terrorists is never used. One thing about these suicide bombers and people willing to trade their lives to inflict mass destruction on America is they are told their families will be protected and provided for, usually for life. Simply make it a blanket policy that any terrorist caught will have his entire bloodline executed from the face of the Earth, you'd see far fewer people willing to roll that dice. Want to crash a plane into a building? That's your choice. Now your wife dies, your kids, your uncle, your brothers, your parents, your cousins, every single person carrying your blood is held down and takes two to the back of the head.

The problem is not that our current conception of "torture" is extreme, the reality is it simply isn't extreme enough.

The Romans spilled so much blood in Carthage and then salted the Earth behind them so nothing would grow. They understood the policy of scorched Earth.

Everyone's a tough guy until they hear their children screaming in front of them, begging for their lives, desperately calling for their parents to help them.

One of the biggest problems I see with Americans is the culture of entitlement, but part of that is the entitlement that comes with the validation of one's feelings. Americans are taught that their feelings matter ALL THE TIME. One of the benefits ( and likely drawbacks) of having to live, work and operate outside of the Western world is that you learn your feelings don't really matter at all. No one cares how you feel. What you feel isn't going to change the world. And plenty of places, unlike the US, you can and will be punished for expressing those feelings.

If Otis knows where I can find a cell of terrorists planning to attack the US ( i.e. the Jack Bauer scenario), it doesn't matter what I feel about my view of torture, my view on kids, my view on crime and punishment, my view on politics), in the end, it's either going to come down to his family dying or millions of Americans dying. In that case, I'd strangle his wife and wouldn't hesitate to shoot his kid in the back of the head and then go eat a sandwich if that's what it took to save lives for what I saw as the greater good. Some people have the capacity to separate those things, some don't. I can only speak for me, but if I was living in a city under threat of attack, I'd rather have employed the folks who can separate what they feel from what needs to be done.

The funny thing about liberals is I find they are the biggest racists and the biggest bigots and the most intolerant when it comes to their neighborhoods and their kids. Like I always said, you want to find a racist in this country, find a homeowner or find a parent. People are surprisingly non liberal when the issue who lives next door or who is associating with their kids no matter how much horse #### they spout about any political issue otherwise.

Take the people who say torture is absolute bad. Then put their children in a city under threat of real attack. Then put them in a locked room with someone who knows how to stop the attack but won't give up the information. See how liberal they are then when a plane crashes into a building with their kid in it. Or it's a chemical attack. Or a suitcase nuke. You would be surprised at how many bleeding heart card carrying liberals here would pick up a screwdriver and start carving into someone when it's their kid, their family, the things they value right on the line.

The morally upright here in America are only so because someone spilled blood for them and they don't have to see it up close, don't have to face it, don't have to own it. But just quit pretending at some point, quit holding onto some school boy idea that the American lifestyle you live is built on perfect ideals and West Wing type schmaltz. You can eat your steak and watch the NFL on a big screen because someone split blood to make sure you can have it. The privileges in this country that most take for granted is paid for in suffering by people all over the world.

Most of you are middle age, middle class entitled selfish white males in America who aren't grateful for jack #### in life. Try seeing the rest of the world, not the cozy Westernized tourist spots, but the real dark and brutal and cold hard world out there. But take away your hot showers, cut off the supplies to your grocery stores, cease emergency services for a while, and see how fast you descend into a bunch of vicious animals.

Torture works, just not the Westernized limp wristed version of it that you liberal jack offs like to argue about.

For what it's worth, to protect me and mine, if it came to it, I wouldn't just slaughter every terrorist on the globe, I'd also lay waste to all of you too. Functionally, to preserve the people I care about, if it came down to it, I'd gladly cut the throats of every last person here. And anyone who would do less for their loved ones, I wouldn't see them a morally upright, I'd just see them as culled off from the herd for simply lacking the ability to adapt to survive. You aren't moral, you are short necked giraffe living in a soft culture and country that enables your ignorance to how the world actually functions.
I would pay a monthly fee if you would post this many words at least once per week.
 
GordonGekko said:
In cases with murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, etc... Would you be in favor of torture or opposed?
Sadly, in the Western world, there is a form of "politically correct" torture, then there is the effective means of torture.

The PC version of torture is the current usage. You want information from a specific source, you use methods to try to extract that information directly from the source. That is, as pointed out before, very inconsistent. I wouldn't say it's completely ineffective because different people have different backgrounds, different training and different tolerances for pain.

The non PC version of torture is extremely effective. If Otis had key information I needed to save hundreds of thousands of American lives, I'd calmly have him tied to a chair. Then I'd strangle his wife with piano wire, letting him hear her scream and beg for her life. Then I'd bring in his child and point out that he has two choices. Tell me what I want to know in a way I can verify ( i.e. vetting) or watch me kill his kid in front of him. If he has more than one child, the better the relative odds of breaking him, since I'm able to execute one child and preserve the other as the threat.

One of the most effective means of actually stopping terrorists is never used. One thing about these suicide bombers and people willing to trade their lives to inflict mass destruction on America is they are told their families will be protected and provided for, usually for life. Simply make it a blanket policy that any terrorist caught will have his entire bloodline executed from the face of the Earth, you'd see far fewer people willing to roll that dice. Want to crash a plane into a building? That's your choice. Now your wife dies, your kids, your uncle, your brothers, your parents, your cousins, every single person carrying your blood is held down and takes two to the back of the head.

The problem is not that our current conception of "torture" is extreme, the reality is it simply isn't extreme enough.

The Romans spilled so much blood in Carthage and then salted the Earth behind them so nothing would grow. They understood the policy of scorched Earth.

Everyone's a tough guy until they hear their children screaming in front of them, begging for their lives, desperately calling for their parents to help them.

One of the biggest problems I see with Americans is the culture of entitlement, but part of that is the entitlement that comes with the validation of one's feelings. Americans are taught that their feelings matter ALL THE TIME. One of the benefits ( and likely drawbacks) of having to live, work and operate outside of the Western world is that you learn your feelings don't really matter at all. No one cares how you feel. What you feel isn't going to change the world. And plenty of places, unlike the US, you can and will be punished for expressing those feelings.

If Otis knows where I can find a cell of terrorists planning to attack the US ( i.e. the Jack Bauer scenario), it doesn't matter what I feel about my view of torture, my view on kids, my view on crime and punishment, my view on politics), in the end, it's either going to come down to his family dying or millions of Americans dying. In that case, I'd strangle his wife and wouldn't hesitate to shoot his kid in the back of the head and then go eat a sandwich if that's what it took to save lives for what I saw as the greater good. Some people have the capacity to separate those things, some don't. I can only speak for me, but if I was living in a city under threat of attack, I'd rather have employed the folks who can separate what they feel from what needs to be done.

The funny thing about liberals is I find they are the biggest racists and the biggest bigots and the most intolerant when it comes to their neighborhoods and their kids. Like I always said, you want to find a racist in this country, find a homeowner or find a parent. People are surprisingly non liberal when the issue who lives next door or who is associating with their kids no matter how much horse #### they spout about any political issue otherwise.

Take the people who say torture is absolute bad. Then put their children in a city under threat of real attack. Then put them in a locked room with someone who knows how to stop the attack but won't give up the information. See how liberal they are then when a plane crashes into a building with their kid in it. Or it's a chemical attack. Or a suitcase nuke. You would be surprised at how many bleeding heart card carrying liberals here would pick up a screwdriver and start carving into someone when it's their kid, their family, the things they value right on the line.

The morally upright here in America are only so because someone spilled blood for them and they don't have to see it up close, don't have to face it, don't have to own it. But just quit pretending at some point, quit holding onto some school boy idea that the American lifestyle you live is built on perfect ideals and West Wing type schmaltz. You can eat your steak and watch the NFL on a big screen because someone split blood to make sure you can have it. The privileges in this country that most take for granted is paid for in suffering by people all over the world.

Most of you are middle age, middle class entitled selfish white males in America who aren't grateful for jack #### in life. Try seeing the rest of the world, not the cozy Westernized tourist spots, but the real dark and brutal and cold hard world out there. But take away your hot showers, cut off the supplies to your grocery stores, cease emergency services for a while, and see how fast you descend into a bunch of vicious animals.

Torture works, just not the Westernized limp wristed version of it that you liberal jack offs like to argue about.

For what it's worth, to protect me and mine, if it came to it, I wouldn't just slaughter every terrorist on the globe, I'd also lay waste to all of you too. Functionally, to preserve the people I care about, if it came down to it, I'd gladly cut the throats of every last person here. And anyone who would do less for their loved ones, I wouldn't see them a morally upright, I'd just see them as culled off from the herd for simply lacking the ability to adapt to survive. You aren't moral, you are short necked giraffe living in a soft culture and country that enables your ignorance to how the world actually functions.
Your fundamental disconnect (well one of your many) is that in that nuclear Jack Bauer scenario I guarantee you that Otis wouldn't be the one the terrorists selected to be aware of this information, it would be someone who either has no family and is willing to sacrifice himself and anyone else (including his family if he had one) for his cause. Y'know like the 9/11 guys, or even like the flight 93 passengers who, without any preparation were thrust into an unimaginable scenario and were willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater cause (I know that wasn't their desired outcome but their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice is pretty obvious).

I also assure you that there is nothing limp wristed about our countries "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

But nice effort all the same.

 
GordonGekko said:
Your fundamental disconnect (well one of your many) is that in that nuclear Jack Bauer scenario I guarantee you that Otis wouldn't be the one the terrorists selected to be aware of this information, it would be someone who either has no family and is willing to sacrifice himself and anyone else (including his family if he had one) for his cause. Y'know like the 9/11 guys, or even like the flight 93 passengers who, without any preparation were thrust into an unimaginable scenario and were willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater cause (I know that wasn't their desired outcome but their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice is pretty obvious).

I also assure you that there is nothing limp wristed about our countries "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

But nice effort all the same.

****

So your full belief is that every single terrorist attack in the future will be made by this secret cabal of religious zealots who are all orphans, with no connections at all with any kind of family, friends, romantic interactions, children or other typical social structures that most humans have?

9/11 Terrorists

Mohamed Atta - Two parents. Two sisters.

Abdulaziz al-Omari - Had a wife and a daughter

Wail al-Shehri - Two parents. Ten brothers and one sister. An uncle

Waleed al-Shehri - Brother of the above. Same situation, two parents, ten brothers, one sister, an uncle

Satam al-Suqami - Unknown

Marwan al-Shehhi - Unknown

Fayez Banihammad - Two parents, a wife

Mohand al-Shehri - Unknown

Hamza al-Ghamdi - A father

Ahmed al-Ghamdi - Two parents

Hani Saleh Hasan Hanjour - Two parents, six siblings

Khalid al-Mihdhar - Two parents. A wife and two daughters

Majed Moqed - Unknown

Nawaf al-Hazmi - A father, a brother

Salem al-Hazmi - Brother of the above, so a father and a brother

Ziad Samir Jarrah - Two parents, a cousin, a long time girlfriend

Ahmed al-Haznawi - A father, implied to have a large family in general

Ahmed al-Nami - Clearly had family, mentioned in his bio that he telephoned them prior to attack

Saeed al-Ghamdi - Had family, was estranged from them.

Obviously everyone is born to, at minimum, a father and a mother. For some folks, maybe one or more of their parents are already deceased. But seems to me, even just a cursory look, that there is plenty of family around this group. It's not some group of committed orphans. I'm sure if you dug deep enough, there would be a list of cousins, more siblings, girlfriends, close friends, school mates, associates for some or many of them. Maybe more children, and nieces and nephews, uncles, aunts, grandparents. Sorry, no one is completely an island unto themselves in this life.

And who says you need to break the entire group. Having an absolute policy that would deter even a couple of them might sway an entire operation. Or breaking one of them would reveal the entire network.

Thanks for trying to paint me into a corner as some kind of loony sadist though. Sorry, but throughout human history, people have made hard choices to sacrifice a few for the greater good of the many.

Like I said, put your kids, your family, the people you love and care about at risk, then put a weapon in your hand and see how liberal you are. See how long you hold that "moral high ground" See how long your "belief system" lasts. And if you were willing to watch your entire family die after having a plane crash into them, or after a suitcase nuke went off, or after a major chemical attack on a US city, because you chose to hold to your principles and put down that weapon, then ok, that's your choice. If Otis was some zealot and after I took down his whole family and he still held fast and there was nothing to be done, then ok. But I'd like to think most people would rather that option be exhausted then to sit back and watch their entire families burn in some nuclear inferno.

But no please, let me stop interrupting you about your viewpoint on this secret cabal of terrorist orphans that apparently have no family and no connections at all during their lives with anyone who hold any kind of meaning to them.
So you are advocating the cold blooded murder of innocent people, including children and infants, because they are related to a terrorist?

 
GordonGekko said:
Your fundamental disconnect (well one of your many) is that in that nuclear Jack Bauer scenario I guarantee you that Otis wouldn't be the one the terrorists selected to be aware of this information, it would be someone who either has no family and is willing to sacrifice himself and anyone else (including his family if he had one) for his cause. Y'know like the 9/11 guys, or even like the flight 93 passengers who, without any preparation were thrust into an unimaginable scenario and were willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater cause (I know that wasn't their desired outcome but their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice is pretty obvious).

I also assure you that there is nothing limp wristed about our countries "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

But nice effort all the same.

****

So your full belief is that every single terrorist attack in the future will be made by this secret cabal of religious zealots who are all orphans, with no connections at all with any kind of family, friends, romantic interactions, children or other typical social structures that most humans have?

9/11 Terrorists

Mohamed Atta - Two parents. Two sisters.

Abdulaziz al-Omari - Had a wife and a daughter

Wail al-Shehri - Two parents. Ten brothers and one sister. An uncle

Waleed al-Shehri - Brother of the above. Same situation, two parents, ten brothers, one sister, an uncle

Satam al-Suqami - Unknown

Marwan al-Shehhi - Unknown

Fayez Banihammad - Two parents, a wife

Mohand al-Shehri - Unknown

Hamza al-Ghamdi - A father

Ahmed al-Ghamdi - Two parents

Hani Saleh Hasan Hanjour - Two parents, six siblings

Khalid al-Mihdhar - Two parents. A wife and two daughters

Majed Moqed - Unknown

Nawaf al-Hazmi - A father, a brother

Salem al-Hazmi - Brother of the above, so a father and a brother

Ziad Samir Jarrah - Two parents, a cousin, a long time girlfriend

Ahmed al-Haznawi - A father, implied to have a large family in general

Ahmed al-Nami - Clearly had family, mentioned in his bio that he telephoned them prior to attack

Saeed al-Ghamdi - Had family, was estranged from them.

Obviously everyone is born to, at minimum, a father and a mother. For some folks, maybe one or more of their parents are already deceased. But seems to me, even just a cursory look, that there is plenty of family around this group. It's not some group of committed orphans. I'm sure if you dug deep enough, there would be a list of cousins, more siblings, girlfriends, close friends, school mates, associates for some or many of them. Maybe more children, and nieces and nephews, uncles, aunts, grandparents. Sorry, no one is completely an island unto themselves in this life.

And who says you need to break the entire group. Having an absolute policy that would deter even a couple of them might sway an entire operation. Or breaking one of them would reveal the entire network.

Thanks for trying to paint me into a corner as some kind of loony sadist though. Sorry, but throughout human history, people have made hard choices to sacrifice a few for the greater good of the many.

Like I said, put your kids, your family, the people you love and care about at risk, then put a weapon in your hand and see how liberal you are. See how long you hold that "moral high ground" See how long your "belief system" lasts. And if you were willing to watch your entire family die after having a plane crash into them, or after a suitcase nuke went off, or after a major chemical attack on a US city, because you chose to hold to your principles and put down that weapon, then ok, that's your choice. If Otis was some zealot and after I took down his whole family and he still held fast and there was nothing to be done, then ok. But I'd like to think most people would rather that option be exhausted then to sit back and watch their entire families burn in some nuclear inferno.

But no please, let me stop interrupting you about your viewpoint on this secret cabal of terrorist orphans that apparently have no family and no connections at all during their lives with anyone who hold any kind of meaning to them.
And you think those guys weren't willing to sacrifice everything, including their families, for their cause?

 
:lmao: utter nonsense.

Who has the keys to the Gekko account? Can we roll it back to one of the old guys (or girls)?

 
GordonGekko said:
So you are advocating the cold blooded murder of innocent people, including children and infants, because they are related to a terrorist?
What I'm saying to the "No NEVER, no torture EVER, and NEVER NEVER NEVER absolutely" crowd is that torture is simply ONE TOOL in a toolbox of options. Is it always the right tool? IMHO, the answer is No. But is it ALWAYS the wrong tool for the job? Again, IMHO, the answer is No.

Something I feel you learn as you get older, esp if you deal a lot with business, esp if you run your own business and esp if you must deal with the law a great deal, is that you learn that there are very few, if any, ABSOLUTES that are hard fast pure complete solutions in this life.

People throughout human history have either sacrificed themselves or others for the greater good. You think FDR didn't understand sending thousands of young American boys to rush up a beach would result in the almost wholesale slaughter of many of them? You think the British sailors who drowned getting an Enigma machine off of a sinking German sub didn't consider the countless lives of other sailors, both military and civilian convoy alike, would be saved from U Boat attacks? You don't think terrorists themselves didn't consider they would trade their lives for what they thought was the greater good for their people, their religion, their way of life?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtrX9rZl-j4

http://westwingquotes.tumblr.com/post/31428732784/a-proportional-response-1-3

  • Bartlet: What is the virtue of a proportional response?
  • Admiral Fitzwallace: I'm sorry?
  • Bartlet: What's the virtue of a proportional response? Why's it good? They hit an airplane, so we hit a transmitter, right? That's a proportional response.
  • Fitzwallace: Sir, in the case of Pericles -
  • Bartlet: They hit a barracks, so we hit two transmitters?
  • Fitzwallace: That's roughly it, sir.
  • Bartlet: It's what we do. I mean, this is what we do.
  • Leo: Yes, sir, it's what we do. It's what we've always done.
  • Bartlet: Well, if it's what we do, if it's what we've always done, don't they know we're going to do it?
  • Leo: Sir, if you would turn your attention to Pericles One.
  • Bartlet: I have turned my attention to Pericles One. It's two ammo dumps, an abandoned railroad bridge, and a Syrian intelligence agency.
  • Fitzwallace: Those are four high rated military targets, sir.
  • Bartlet: But they know we're going to do that, they know we're going to do that! Those areas have been abandoned for four days. We know that from the satellites. We have the intelligence.
  • Leo: Sir.
  • Bartlet: They did that, so we did this, it's the cost of doing business, it's been factored in, right?
  • Leo: Mr. President -
  • Bartlet: Am I right or am I missing something here?
  • Fitzwallace: No, sir, you're right sir.
  • Bartlet: Then I ask again, what is the virtue of a proportional response?
  • Fitzwallace: It isn't virtuous, Mr. President. It's all there is, sir.
http://thewestwing.tktv.net/Episodes1/quotes/3.html

Bartlet: Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the earth unharmed, cloaked only in the words "Civis Romanis" I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally understood as certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens. Where was Morris' protection, or anyone else on that plane? Where is the retribution for the families and where is the warning to the rest of the world that Americans shall walk this earth unharmed, lest the clenched fist of the most mighty military force in the history of mankind comes crashing down on your house!? In otherwords, Leo, what the hell are we doing here?

Leo: We are behaving the way a superpower ought to behave.

Bartlet: Well our behavior has produced some pretty crappy results. In fact, I'm not a hundred percent sure it hasn't induced them.

Leo: What are you talking about?

Bartlet: I'm talking about two hundred and eight-six American marines in Beirut, I'm talking about Somalia, I'm talking about Nairobi.

Leo: And you think ratching up the body count's gonna act as a deterrent?

Bartlet: You're damn right.

Leo: Then you are just as dumb as these guys who think that capital punishment is going to be a deterrent for drug kingpins. As if drug kingpins didn't live their day to day lives under the possibility of execution. And their executions are a lot less dainty than ours and tend to take place without the bother and expense of due process. So my friend, if you want to start using American military strength as the arm of the Lord, you can do that, we're the only superpower left. You can conquer the world, like Charlemenge, but you better be prepared to kill everyone and you better start with me cause I will raise up an army against you and I will beat you!

Bartlet: He had a ten-day-old baby at home.

Leo: I know.

Bartlet: We are doing nothing. They dest...

Leo: We are not doing nothing. Four high rated military targets.

Bartlet: And this is good?

Leo: Of course it's not good, there is no good. It's what there is. It's how you behave if you're the most powerful nation in the world. It's proportional, it's reasonable, it's responsible, it's merciful. It's not nothing, four high rated military targets.

Bartlet: Which they'll rebuild again in six months.
Some of you act like there are easy answers, sometimes there is no easy answer, sometimes the answer is making a hard decision choosing between one thing that will haunt you the rest of your life versus something else that will haunt you the rest of your life.

Sorry, if it came to my safety and the safety of the people I love and care about, I'd want the disproportional response.
So you are advocating the cold blooded murder of innocent people, including children and infants, because they are related to a terrorist?

 
I don't understand the reason for torturing them. I'd be behind forced castration for molesters, for example, though. If we are going to do anything, I'd like to see if they can somehow be rehabilitated, and if they can't, put them into a labor program of some kind.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top