Obama to take over ABC June 24th to discuss.....

ok, what was it again?

you literally cannot be less specific. you would win the world series of non-specificness.

like who?

if one of our pilots was shot down over north korea, they will either torture him or they wont. they will not pull out their torture charts, look under america, see that we have tortured some terrorists (who were not north korean, and in fact are enemies of north korea), and then go ahead and torture.

 

Here's the problem with this entire thread and all like it....no one will have their minds changed, so why are we arguing?

 

The traditional three major networks have been the mouthpiece for the Democratic Party for some time now. These developments just make it official. All three should change their logos to the donkey.

 

please try to read better. i posted your answer in the next sentence. your answer to specifically who would torture our guys as payback was anyone and everyone. that was after i requested you list specifically who you meant.

although, in your defense, you may have been making a mockery of your own ludicrous inability to answer, for comic effect.

 

yeah, that would be boring, discussing the specific implications of your philosophies. wouldnt want to elaborate or have any sort of real questions or possible scenarios considered.

my (and sabanfans) point is that terrorists are terrorists. they torture. they kill innocent folks. they hate everyone who doesnt believe in their interpretation of religion. so they feel no remose and they like to kill and torture.

now it would seem to me that red could understand what the difference is between a regular soldier and a terrorist, and why one would be treated differently.

furthermore, it would seem like red could understand that terrorists are not going to decide to torture us because we torture them. they are going to torture and behead because that is what a terrorist does. asking a terrorist to uphold some sort of non-torture standard is like asking a mosquito not to bite.

..so that leads us to my specific question that red doesnt want to answer. if we can agree that terrorists are going to torture anyways, and we are not torturing regular soldiers, then how are we endangering our own soldiers?

folks who torture, they dont care what you do. the reciprocation argument is nonsense. should john mccain have said to his north vietnamese captors "hey fellas maybe put the baseball bat away and dont break my leg today, because americans wouldnt torture you, lets be fair".?

could nick berg have said "hey, to be fair, americans dont really slice heads off on camera and scream allah ackbar, so if you could put the knives back in the pantry that would rule."

so imagine that in the future we fight the klingons or north koreans or bolivians or whoever. does red honestly believe that they will torture us, because we waterboard terrorists? were they planning on giving our POWs a nice bed and some chicken soup but they didnt like how we treated khalid sheik mohammed? are our enemies thinking "man, america was attacked by murderous lunatics who murdered folks by the thousands, but to waterboard the guys behind it , that is too much".

if your argument is that torture is wrong, immoral, fine. i dont agree. but the reciprocation argument? not buying it, sleepy.