sorry I could not resist
Posted on 12/17/2014 4:24:07 PM PST by Kaslin
Yes, next question
Every time I hear about this or Abu Grahib and all the rest, I have to wonder why have I never ever been able to find anything written about how our POW are treated by Al Qaeda etc.
no one said it was moral, it was necessary.
Of course it’s morally acceptable - it’s not torture.
If God doesn’t endorse torture, why did he give us pain and suffering?
Would it have been moral for the paki government to water board some one with guilty knowledge to prevent the murders of 141 students and teachers?
Yes, if you make certain to waterboard Charlie Rangel while you’re at it. You know, just on general principle...
The only immoral part is that after getting all the information possible they weren’t taken out back and shot.
Yes.
Does Chuck ask similar questions to pro-abortion guests on his show?
Hmmm. If flying planes into buildings and killing 140 plus people in Peshwar works, does that make it morally acceptable? Seems like they pick on anybody. Regardless of whether or not they have a role. We, on the other hand seem to pick on the ones that perpetrate these acts. At least for the most part.
Do you want to descend to their level?
We were somehow able to win World War II without subjecting enemy POWs to something like the Bataan Death March.
As an aside, monotheists are all alike, Jews, Christians and Muslims...wait, no...Christians and Muslim kill to advance their causes. At least Jews are comfortable with their victim status.
Once again, as an agnostic I just don't know who is correct, but I will continue to seek truth where ever I go. :{)
Ask the Cubans— obamaumao thinks they’re OK, just like all his commie pals who torture and run police states.
See, a LEFTwing police state is a GOOD one. Stalin for example— ideal.
And we’re worried about the morality of it all...when they stone women, lop off heads, kill 140 students and ram planes into the embassies and towers and blow up innocents and on and on.
According to Dr. Mitchell, who helped develop and administer the interrogation program used on the terrorists, it probably doesn’t matter if it worked or not - the effectiveness of the program was in the leadup to the waterboarding, and getting the subject to decide to try to avoid it - Mitchell says indeed subjects will say any sort of crazy thing while actually being waterboarding to get the interrogators to stop, but will be much more likely to give valid information to try to avoid going under the procedure again - so whether it works or not is a moot question - it’s moral.....
I thought liberals were all about the ends justifying the means?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.