They made cuts in my penis- There was blood all over”

Actually that isn't true. Polls are against torture even under those conditions.

So even if the torture was believed to be able to save lives, people still opposed the use of torture.

It is also a ridiculous question because it assumes things that aren't real. IT assumes that no other person also knows of the nuke about to go off. It assumes that torture would for sure bring about the correct information which isn't true. It assumes that there is a way to stop the device from going off, it assumes that even if authorities were given the correct information they would be able to go out, find the device, and disarm it.

 

No you didn't. And everyone who read the thread knows it. Your argument was that you said if you "Saw Arabs" behaving that way you would give them a beat down only to distinguish that you were talking about the particular Arabs in that story.

Of course if you weren't racist in giving people a beat down you wouldn't have had to use "Arabs" to distinguish them, and could have just said "People" behaving a certain way.

But I even gave you the benefit of your laughable argument and asked for you to provide a time when you referred to a group of "White guys" or "Whites" to distinguish them from others in a story. You never did.

 

bigtekkk i mean bigtexxx.. are these true?

 

OK this is pure revisionist history at its finest. If you truly believed that you were right, you wouldn't defensively bring this up. You clearly have some kind of score to settle with me, and think that you can accomplish that by making LIES about me.

I have said this REPEATEDLY. I will say it again for YOU who can't seem to put it through your brain. In describing the situation, I said that if I saw a group of Arabs congregating NEAR THE FRONT BATHROOM (why did you oh so conveniently leave that out, FB? busted.) then I would take action. The article was describing arabs. I was describing what was in the article. My issue is with the congregation in front of the bathroom, which the FAA also prohibits. The reason I mentioned they were Arab was because that was the situation in the article. Sorry brah, you lose this one.

I'm still laughing that the fact that you think that YOU can tell ME what I was trying to say. That's absurd. Sorry buddy, but I called out your pitiful effort to discredit me, and I debunked every stupid contortion you tried to play with my words. Deal with it.

 

Of course it's not true. FranchiseBlade is lying in an effort to discredit me. He clearly has an issue with me, probably since I don't share his political views. I completely debunked his claims, and he knows it. I'm not falling for his childish trap. I'm bigger than that.

 

It isn't a lie. It was all posted before, and people are free to use the search function to find it. I am not telling you what you were trying to say, I am only going by what you claimed in the thread where I brought back your quote from another thread.

You didn't say you would take action you said a bigtexxx sized beat down or something to that effect.

You also weren't describing what was in the article. You mentioned how much you fly, and that if you ever saw that on your flight what you would do. It wasn't about the people in the article.

 

Yeah just stop right there. You are clearly talking off your azz. FB, I would expect more out of you. You can call me many things, but one thing that I pride myself on not being is racist. The fact that you don't even remember what I typed, then claim that I'm a racist tells me all I need to know. 'nuff said, you're done.

 

Do you not know how to read?

 

Hey texxx, do you hate terrorists of all sorts or just one particular type?

Here's a starter, terrorist Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles is still residing comfortably in U.S. Are you ready to give that mofo some bigtexxx-sized kick in the ass?

 

To be honest with you I don't know too much about him, and am not willing to google it to answer your question.

 

Isn't that called the Jack Bauer Rule..

I agree with you that its not so cut and dry and if I remember correctly it was Alan Dershowitz who outlined the idea that under immediate danger torture might be acceptable. Dershowitz is certainly no slouch on civil liberties.

 

Oh, is that your way of saying you are willing to turn a blind eye to "some" terrorist(s), or acquiesce to "some" terrorism?

 

Uh, no, sorry, that's not what I was saying.

Please research this person and provide me with a reasoned analysis about him, and I will make a decision. Thanks in advance.

 

Here's one fair and balanced source on your "freedom fighter": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

EDIT:
P.S. Could you provide some info on FAA banning people gathering near airplane's bathroom? I see passengers doing this (congregating) all the time, yet flight attendants never bother to alert pilot to ground planes because of it. Thanks in advance.

 

Link?

No its not ridiculous. It is extreme, but extreme things happen - see 9/11. It does assume there would be a chance to find the bomb and dissarm it. What's not real? That terrorists could get a nuke? That the government could catch a plotter? None of that crazy. However, posing the question serves its own purpose. Maybe you would take the high road and stand by while 8 million people got vaporized, but I disagree. It doesn't assume it will work, it assumes it has a CHANCE of working because the guy is obviously not volunteering the information.

 

Something like that...

 

If I can step in here I think I see both you and Franchiseblade's POV and that both of you actually might be in greater agreement than you might think.

FB seem's to be saying that the situation involving a nuke is a hypothetical and as for now we aren't aware of such a situation. I don't think though that even you, FB, could not rule out there ever not being such a situation. If there were, consider it hypothetically, would you rule out torture if you were confronted with a Jack Bauer type situation?

At the same time I think FB is saying is that there is an inherent problem with presuming you're in a Jack Bauer type situation where someone has very strong certianty that there is a bomb and their is only one person who knows how to stop it and you have the right person. Given the inherent problems with torture as an information gathering tool and negative political consequences it would be very problematic to torture someone when they were the wrong person or your reasons for targetting them were wrong.

I think what we're getting at is that torture in general should not be used and should be only limited to the most extreme circumstances and even then there better be a very strong evidence for justifying it.

 

There lies the problem.

One can always claim torture is done in the name of saving lives. Abu Ghraib, Gittmo, the list goes on ...

Let's for a moment think if torture is effective on real hard-core extremists who already determined their lives were worth of their 'causes'. Physical suffering can only strenthen their resolves not to help their adversaries.

 

What a load of BS. I clearly remember that thread and didn't need to search past your first reply in it to see your bigotry in display for everyone:

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthrea...pp=30&highlight=restroom+plane+arab+musicians

I see you played the 911 card again, too. Atleast you didn't post the pics that time.

 

The bottom line is that these are still just allegations. That's what is so shocking about the response from some of you (though I must admit I'm rarely surprised by the reaction of the twins at anything these days). Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And now you're going to justify it by writing it off as Al-Qaeda instructing its recruits to allege torture? Hell, whatever even happened to basic humanity? I guess it's right, tell people they're being attacked, create an atmosphere of fear, and you can do anything.

I think we should all get down on our knees every night and thank god we're not Arabs. I would hate to have my d*ck cut up over my nationality.