Staredit Network

I think it allready has been done hundreds of times before, only nobody knew about this.

Why do you need to torture, if there are more effective methods ?

-put a person in a room (with toilet and water) and play loud music 24 hours a day non stop for a fiew weeks. (you can allso call this torture, but a moral one)
-inject some drugs into him to make him talk (I don't know how expensive that is, though - maybe beating him up every day is cheaper)

I dont really think that it is okay. But if that is the only way to get information from people. Then use it! But I highly doubt tat is the only way to get information from people. Another way I can think about getting information from people. There are drugs people use that can make people give information. I would rather use this method than to torture people! THough I dont think that druggin people up is that good either.

We are not talknig about the death penalty, we are talking about the electric chair, and more like one state that has mandatory electric chair. In all the other states the prisoners basically have to choose wether they want the electric chair or not.

It is off topic, once again this is about the electric chair, not the death penalty.

What are they going to do, invent some sort of lie detector? Oh wait they already have.

In case you can't read, I specifically mentioned that I was unsure if this was the real time period.

I have a chance to grow horns tommorow, is it going to happen? No.

Wow! I had better join this "no reason" bandwagon because you guys sure are supporting your opinion with lots of evidence. Just kidding.

Basically nothing to do with torture. Pretty good flame.



How can me or you know any of that? If we continue to torture people (I have asked what tortures we have done and no one seems to be able to give me an answer besides "Abu G" which was just soldiers f-ing around for no reason at all) then obviously we are getting information. There are smart men and women in the armed forces, and they would say "Ok this isn't working"

How are we getting our ass's handed to us? Please tell me. What have the insurgents stopped? NOTHING.

They have NOT stopped numerous voting sessions.
They have NOT stopped a government from being created.
They have NOT killed any high ranking US army officials.
They have NOT stopped the US army in any raids we have commited to.
They have NOT stopped the Iraqis from living their day to day lives.
They have NOT stopped the formation of Iraqi Police.
They have NOT stopped the formation of Iraqi Security forces.
The list goes on.......

@Suicide bombers:
If you know any about organization, you would know that there is always, lets just say a "hive mind" that organizes the raids and creates good relations with the other forgien insurgent groups. There is always the master minds that organize the attacks and that help the two or more insurgent groups work together. Killing a master mind of destruction is never a bad thing.

ADDITION:


You have not answered my question. Why would we be in Iraq (with gas prices still rising) for oil that we have been stealing and will steal in the future if we are spending BILLIONS on alternative energy sources?

You can't provide any proofs to your arguements.

If you were speaking to me, then "I highly suggest you don't post if you only vaugely know what you're talking about. You're probably thinking of the Cuban Missle Crisis."
Where as I was speaking of the Iran-Contra Scandal. Maybe you wern't reading?

Anyway no one really commented on what I put up so I guess I just wasted good information again.
Anyway I still say Immigration should be legal, because the reasons they're immigrating is our own fault anyway, and now they wanna close the borders to protect their back sides.

~Tdnfthe1

You didn't refer to anything in my post, so I don't think ANYONE knows what you're talking about. You should be more precise on what you're replying to when you post based upon a previous post.

~Tdnfthe1

Longtime no chat millenium, do you require a friend?


Please scientifically explain to me the posabilities(look i spelled it right) of there NOT being a supreme power that has always been creating everything. You have... forever, go.
(And if you respond think before you do, I don't wanna have2 post just to correct you)


Every?
No I don't think so, some yes but all? No
Or if I were to agree, your idealogy of disbelief is just the search for an answer itself is it not?(if you didn't understand that, it means Your Athiesm is an idology where you too are just looking for an answer )



Above the influence of Athiesm?
If you're above the influence of Religon or "god" , then Athiesm should be an influence you're above as well isn't it?
Personally in my own opinion, they're both influences biased upon how you grow up and the confusions of not knowing questions you want answers to. To me, you can't be above the influence of one without being above the influence of the other.


You don't have to prove that god is useless to you, just leave it at that. God+ you=Never. Simple


Then contradict it... don't say you can and then walk away. You're only making yourself look stupid.


So are you 3 or 13? And are you saying a 13 year old is an idiot?
Anything is a way to sleep better at night, as long as you're in symetry with your heart's belief and desires. I'm sure since you believe in athiesm, you sleep better at night being an athiest then a muslim.
And as for trying to tell us what other people think about religon, that just made you look like a hypocrit and you don't know what you're talking about. Lemme put it like an athiest, state some facts for me before you accuse absolutes to a group of people. Mainly because absolutes do not exist around personailities of humans.


Ok I just wanted to respond to some of the posts on the last page, before I read most of the responses to why people are athiests. I've seen a few really good repsonses that make sense, but I'm going to go read through the rest of em now and come to post another day. Btw I like how Cheeze is keeping it clean in his thread THIS time , it hasn't become a belief war.

~Tdnfthe1

Detainees from Guantanamo (the few that have been released) have also claimed to have been tortured by the U.S. There were also a few military personnel that resigned because they disagreed with the methods being used.

For the sake of the discussion, I will take the stance FOR torturing. These do not always represent my real viewpoints.


Right now we're talking about our very own safety. Because aggressive methods may be the only way to obtain necessary information that will main national security. What kind of morality are you talking about when you're letting hundreds of thousands of civilians vulnerable from the next possible major terrorist attack?




Please suggest some of your "many methods".

The thing is we don't know the details about whether they will impend an attack on your country, you need to torture to know. Why wait for it to occur soon?

Please state why torture in the sense of ensuring the safety of millions of people is not right.



I'm not aware of the signing statements, but whether it is banned now doesn't really prove anything. Hence why we're debating whether torture should be used as an effective method to obtain critical information. The US have tortured people in the past, we know we can do it. Many countries such as Greece and Syria uses torture to protect their country. Why can't US do the same? - knowing that we might be even under greater threat of terrorist attacks?




Wouldn't drugging people to give out information against their will be considered as a form of torture? I've never heard of this drug to make people give out information, I'd be grateful if someone pointed out a reliable source for me.


But we need EVERY bit of information we can get. Although the information may not be as reliable, what are the chances that they are and we can save so many lives? What do we have to lose?



Refer to Voyager's post above me.



Yes, it's about justice and protecting the nation from terrorist threats. Although war crime does seem a bit subjective.



In this case, I would define war crime to be suspected or have done anything that had, has or will instabilise national security (panic, injuries, death, so on) at a high level unjustifyingly. Although the definition of unjustifyingly is very subjective to anyone in power to twist.

Easy: They don't spend it like they say they do. And as Jammed clearly pointed out to anyone who isn't as dense as you, their new "alternate sources of energy" aren't enough to provide "energy" to america. Are you really that inaine to understand a basic and common sense ideal? Just because we are spending money on something, doesn't mean it's readily available within the first week of research/spending.

And you always talk about proof. Why haven't you ever provided any proof for anything that you like to argue about? You claim we have no proof of what we talk about (When Euro even posted a REPUBLUCAN cited source for proof that we aren't what we say you are, but you debunk it because it doesn't go with your views. Which shows that you're a close-minded hypocrite.) but you never show proof of you say.

Why are you so hypocritical?

Find a post where I say I believe in a god.


Then tell them that. Don't just say they contradict themselves and expect them to find it.

Oh my. I guess we should make sure the terrorists get their way. Wouldn't want to make the terrorists unhappy, would we?

I think that was very true.

Atheism ? Not for me. It's just like belief in some thing you don't know. We believe in many things we don't know exactly.

Do you belive news reports on TV about things happening in other countries ? Maybe they are true, maybe not.
Do you believe that the building you are in is strong enough to hold it's own weight ? Maybe it will collapse in a second.
Do you believe that aliens exist ? Maybe they really do, but maybe not.
Do you believe that E=mc^2 ? Maybe scientists were wrong all the time, and you belive them !
Do you believe that your body is made of cells that are made of moleculas that are made of atoms and so on... ? Maybe it's all a huge illusion and we are something else ?

"God does exis" AND "God doesen't exist" anre the same - both may be wincorrect, both may be correct.

Well I chose a side to be on. There is a possibility for everything. There is a possibility your car might explode next time you get in it. There is a possibility your clothes will just fall off one day. There is a possibility your gonna get raped by a man in an hour.

Well hey I will get into a car even though it might explode, aliens might come down and abduct me in it, a missile might hit it. I personally belive that a missile wont hit it, aliens wont abduct me in it, and that it wont explode next time I get in it.

I choose what I am going to do and not limit my potential because of possibilities.

Death penalty and electric chair come hand and hand.

How about making it more accurate. You can't honestly tell me that you think that we will have no more increase in technology after 2006.


You could.

I can, but it wont happen, it's as simple as that.

I didn't say technology, I said technology used to find evidence.

This topic isn't death penalty and the electric chair, it's electric chair. That's it. If you are
going to start a discussion about the death penalty make a new topic.