Bush: Torture was right because it got results

[sasguru]

I was making the point that because of your lack experience and knowledge in this area that you debating the topic is rather pointless.

So you think the policy decision a country makes on whether to torture people should only be decided by people who are or have been in the military?
You are even more limited than I thought, and I can see why you are not officer material.

[Mich the Tester]

He is saying the same as me, all you are doing is quoting some stuff you read on Wikiipedia to avoid answering the question. Its a valid question, and as lots of Governments over the world use this method, I think they should be trusted more than some random Wikipedia addict.

Why should ' lots of governments' be trusted?

Plus Fallacy 6; Ad Hominem argument
and
Fallacy 7; argument from authority

You're doing this deliberately aren't you?

[SupremeSpod]

So you think the policy decision a country makes on whether to torture people should only be decided by people who are or have been in the military?
You are even more limited than I thought, and I can see why you are not officer material.

Just what are you bringing to the debate?

[TimberWolf]

Better than hundreds of innocent people dying.

So you wouldn't mind your family being tortured if it could have some minuscule chance of saving lives? And presumably only if you were going to be tortured under rules observing some torturing rule code of conduct book?

[original PM]

This is just a twist on the age old query - does the end justify the means?

[kandr]

So you wouldn't mind your family being tortured if it could have some minuscule chance of saving lives? And presumably only if you were going to be tortured under rules observing some torturing rule code of conduct book?

My family aren't terrorists, and to to imagine them to be is so removed from reality its pointless to ask. My question is based on something that has happened many times, you would be surprised how many lives have been saved and plots foiled by interrogating suspected terrorists.

[SupremeSpod]

This is just a twist on the age old query - does the end justify the means?

Quick answer?

"Damn right it does!"

Next.

[sasguru]

Just what are you bringing to the debate?

Try reading the thread instead of jumping in like an blue-arsed fly, as you do.
If you were as excitable as that in the army, you can't have been a very good soldier.

[sasguru]

Quick answer?

"Damn right it does!"

Next.

So you have a quick answer to a centuries old debate?
You must be a genius or an idiot. Which do you think it is?

[TimberWolf]

My family aren't terrorists, and to to imagine them to be is so removed from reality its pointless to ask. My question is based on something that has happened many times, you would be surprised how many lives have been saved and plots foiled by interrogating suspected terrorists.

I'm just trying to show using a moral dilemma as augment is flawed.

So it's okay to torture terrorists? Anyone else? What if the Taliban, or some foreign power, thought they could save lives they hold precious, by interrogating someone innocent; this isn't so far removed from reality. Someone innocent just happened to know when and where an event (or whatever) was being held and they wanted to blow it to smithereens, like Americans. This might save them many lives.