Originally Posted by montgomail (Post 9242416)

Wish I hadn't have read this thread now, I'm sure to have nightmares. :(

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9242396)

I thought I'd been pretty straight, but in an attempt to humour you.

Torture isn't any use unless you have a damn good idea that they are terrorists, and a damn good idea of what they are up to and with whom. At that point, who needs torture? As I have said, the likelihood of you being in a position to stop a 9-11 by simply torturing a single muslim is so unlikely as to be derisory.

What's the sh'ite with "have to accept some responsiblity for thousands of lives and they tend to fail miserably"

No-one here realistically is ever going to be in such a position, let alone anyone who has the slightest moral scruples.

The fact is, I wouldn't trust anyone in government with the right to torture, and torture as a tool of government is morally unacceptable, and of dubious efficacy.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly (Post 9242454)

I don't ask you to humour me,..only to give a straight answer to a straight question.

The circumstances of the senario are clear enough, and a simple yes or no would have done quite nicely.

However after all your moralising, when it came to the crunch you ended up with a giant FAIL.

Did you ever think about a career as an MP ? ;)

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9242432)

Naaah, the nice thing is that little people like us are unlikely to ever come to the attentions of those in power.

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9242602)

Dick old son, look back at my posts. If it helps, No, I do not approve of torture. I wouldn't approve its use in any circumstance.

Is that simple enough to pick up on?

Originally Posted by HBG (Post 9242954)

That’s why politicians kiss babies, little people matter.

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9242602)

Dick old son, look back at my posts. If it helps, No, I do not approve of torture. I wouldn't approve its use in any circumstance.

Is that simple enough to pick up on?

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9242602)

Now had you asked me what I would do if hurting someone would realistically save my child, ahhhhh. Now that I would enjoy, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly (Post 9242602)

In which case you have just condemned a thousand innocents to a horrible death in order to save one possible terrorist from torture.

A wise decision ?

A decision that leaves you with a clear conscience ?

Originally Posted by jimenato (Post 9243219)

This whole thread is a masterclass from bil on avoiding the issue (no offence - I'm full of admiration:))



That seems clear enough - it is also clearly at odds with this:



Why you think it is a "different kettle of fish"?

A pertinent question was asked here:



I'll be interested to see your answer to that question - however I predict you will answer a different one...

Originally Posted by jimenato (Post 9243219)

I'll be interested to see your answer to that question - however I predict you will answer a different one...

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9243275)

The person that I am would not torture, would not approve of torture in any way form or shape.

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9243275)

The question asked was bogus, because in no way would any of us ever be in that position.

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9243275)

If anyone hurt me badly enough, I would hurt them as badly as I could, and I would enjoy that.

Originally Posted by bil (Post 9243275)

There is a great difference between the general and the personal.

Does that help? I threw in the personal to illustrate the difference and the pointlessness of the question.

Originally Posted by jackytoo (Post 9241612)

I wonder if you had a relative who was blinded in a terrorist bomb blast (by fragments of bone from the terrorist) if you would feel the same:(

Originally Posted by Londonuck (Post 9243360)

Or a relative doing serious prison time after being picked up and tortured simply because they fit a stereotype, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, then, i dare say, you'd also feel different

Originally Posted by jimenato (Post 9243320)

That is clear and unequivocal.



The question is hypothetical rather than bogus. The point is that none of us is ever likely to be in such a position but that doesn't stop us from having an opinion on it nor saying what we would do if we were in such a hypothetical position.



We are not talking about getting someone back for hurting you - revenge if you like - we are talking about torture and particularly torturing one person in order to gain information which will save the lives of many others. - quite different.



I don't see why there is a huge difference between the general and the personal. The principle is the same. If you think it is OK to torture someone in order to gain information which will stop one of your own coming to harm - then surely it is ok for someone else to to the same. It might not be your loved one that's being saved - but it is someone's.