Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote
..... if you strongly
suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people,
there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if
it helps you stop it from happening.


And why would torturing him or killing him "help stop it from
happening"? He is already a prisoner and not in a position to be any
threat.

BTW information obtained by torture is not reliable. People being
tortured say anything. And usually, a competently-organized military
or paramilitary organization operates on a 'Need To Know' basis....
hence anything short of capturing a General willnot yield any useful
info.

For example, the Nazis would have tortured low-ranking Allied soldiers
(and certainly did) but did not find out where or when the Normandy
invasion was to take place.

But you have chosen your level of morality, logic & facts are not
going change your mind.

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians
than any weapon previously used by mankind.

Really? They have installed "Innocent Civilian Detectors"? I wasn't aware
of that. Sorry.


Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

It is not myself that I loathe, but the warmongers. As for the smart bombs
being targeted "directly at bad guys," we're back to the mythical
"Innocent Civilian Detector." Get back to me when you've invented it.



He might have to be tortured to get the information!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


He might have to be tortured to get the information!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

And it would be justifiable. ;-)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:36:20 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


I should mention that people resort to name calling when they have weak
arguments. Usually they are calling the names that apply more to
themselves than anyone else. Sweet irony IMO.

Don't care for torturers. Dickhead.
And I don't fall for the torturer's guilt transference ploy.
Go find a sucker who will buy it. You ****ing torturer.

Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to
believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far.
So here's your argument: Bullet to the brain on the battlefield even if
you mistakenly hit innocents, but if you have a prisoner who is part of
a group of mass murderers, and they have information you can use to stop
it, hands off! --Hopefully you're smart enough to see that makes no sense.

You still don't get it. The difference between a battlefield and a
torture chamber. And you won't. Ever.
Because you are a ****ing torturer. That's your mentality.
And I'm done with you. Scum.

You called it. You weren't smart enough to understand. Hilarious!

Stephen

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


He might have to be tortured to get the information!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

And it would be justifiable. ;-)



I don't know. I'd give Fredo Gonzales a call and ask him, but he probably
can't remember if it's legal or not.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians than
any weapon previously used by mankind.

Really? They have installed "Innocent Civilian Detectors"? I wasn't aware of
that. Sorry.

Get educated. Of course they have enemy detectors (advance scouts who
call in coordinates) and bombs that are so accurate that less innocent
civilians are harmed than any previous bombs in history.

Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

It is not myself that I loathe, but the warmongers.

Only of your own country. Like I said, it's a psychology of self
loathing. People can't stand to face their own inadequacies so they take
aim at the next nearest targets, in representation of themselves.

As for the smart bombs
being targeted "directly at bad guys," we're back to the mythical "Innocent
Civilian Detector." Get back to me when you've invented it.

Google should help you there.

Stephen

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

yes the "smart bombs" do less damage to the surroundings than the old
carpet bombing. a bomb is a bomb it has a blast radius smart bomb just
means it "hits" what it was dropped to hit sometimes. and laser guided
just means it homes in on a target that is "painted" by an observer
this can be on the ground or from the air. some bombs are set up to
penetrate a hardened target. all of them have a blast radius of
several yards to several hundred feet depending on payload and
fragmentation characteristics. most of what the us drops are 500lb
bombs and they have a nice big blast radius. in a small village this
means that you get to hit almost all the huts. so if you hit your
target the folks next door get to die as the plaster, glass, jars,
stone work and crockery turns into shrapnel. air to ground missiles
are a bit better but only on surgical strikes cause they cost alot. we
call the civilian casualties collateral damage and this "war" has had
more than its share of that. oh sorry but thats not on the news cause
our govment has blocked any but the embedded reporters and wont let
folk release the civilian casualty numbers and show the real
destruction.

you cant make war on a feeling and this is exactly what terror is.
the organization of al kiada has weathered this storm and grows
stronger because of it. we are feeding the enemy and we are the ones
who planted the seed.
folks who think like you write made todays reality. they do it behind
closed doors and cloak it so the public wont see and they depend on
peoples patriotic fervor to forgive them.
they are cowards that fester in the dark, parsitizing the people of
the US with propaganda and justifications. those solders on the field,
even the most craven of them; are better than the cowards playing
cloak and dagger.

the ends do not justify the means.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:12:13 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:36:20 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


I should mention that people resort to name calling when they have weak
arguments. Usually they are calling the names that apply more to
themselves than anyone else. Sweet irony IMO.

Don't care for torturers. Dickhead.
And I don't fall for the torturer's guilt transference ploy.
Go find a sucker who will buy it. You ****ing torturer.

Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to
believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far.
So here's your argument: Bullet to the brain on the battlefield even if
you mistakenly hit innocents, but if you have a prisoner who is part of
a group of mass murderers, and they have information you can use to stop
it, hands off! --Hopefully you're smart enough to see that makes no sense.

You still don't get it. The difference between a battlefield and a
torture chamber. And you won't. Ever.
Because you are a ****ing torturer. That's your mentality.
And I'm done with you. Scum.

You called it. You weren't smart enough to understand. Hilarious!

Stephen

Vic fancies himself a usenet tough-guy gunslinger. Sorta Like Mike
Dukakis driving the tank in that famous photo.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:20:08 -0500, wrote:


Vic fancies himself a usenet tough-guy gunslinger. Sorta Like Mike
Dukakis driving the tank in that famous photo.

When I saw Ted Koppel run all over Dukakis, I decided to vote for
Bush. Sometimes you just don't have much choice.
Figured Dukakis for a torturer - like this Trepani guy.
He had The Look. Too smart to admit it though.
Hung up my gunbelt years ago. Slowed down too much.
Besides, caps were getting scarce, and my ma was sick of the noise.

--Vic

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:20:08 -0500, wrote:


Vic fancies himself a usenet tough-guy gunslinger. Sorta Like Mike
Dukakis driving the tank in that famous photo.

When I saw Ted Koppel run all over Dukakis, I decided to vote for
Bush. Sometimes you just don't have much choice.
Figured Dukakis for a torturer - like this Trepani guy.
He had The Look. Too smart to admit it though.
Hung up my gunbelt years ago. Slowed down too much.
Besides, caps were getting scarce, and my ma was sick of the noise.

--Vic


In retrospect, at least GHWB had a clue about Iraq. When he stopped short of
marching into Baghdad, I thought it was a mistake. But, he was right.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com