Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pretty much this.
Rubbish!
Why? What about it makes it 'not serious'? I don't support torture but it's a valid position.
I watched only the first couple of minutes. I agree with him except, you don't need to be "liberal" to oppose methods that don't work and are unnecessarily brutal.
Maybe so, if it is as ineffective as they say, why is it employed? Is it just incompetency?
I don't agree with removing anyone from power and infringing on another country's sovereignty, just a recipe for more war and destabilisation, unless it poses a direct threat to our own national security.
Eh, no. It is about as valid as any other abomination of uncivilized people.
I certainly agree with that.
I might have misunderstood his tone. I'm against torture, but pro guns and death penalty for example. So I get called liberal or conservative depending on the topic and it seems many people seem to have these boxes prepared for opinions.
I've never found maggots under the rocks I've crawled out from under.
It gives the feeling that "we are taking this seriously" while not spending the effort. It's also fun for some folks. Even the witch trials stopped using it, because they saw how useless it was in even finding heretic and as we know they sanctioned all methods available. They would just confess to events that didn't happen give out other people who possibly had nothing to do with heresy.
Indeed, but a reason given for going after these people has been torture. If we became like they were, what's the use?
I feel like the US government would have had more reason than 'we are taking this seriously', I guess it must have worked in at least some cases, but fair enough, I'm not an expert on the issue.
I see your point, and agree.
I can't think of a reason why the higher ups who ordered it thought it was a good idea. I think Trump's idea that it's a nice punishment if it doesn't work is one of the things they had in mind. They might have wanted to study human psychology thinking we had advanced sufficiently to try again the tried and failed methods. From the video posted by @Deathbydefault there was cited that at least 20% of those tortured were actually innocent in the first place.(I'm not sure if the number is correct, but even small amounts seem way high for me) What made them try it on people who could not provide intel in the first place?
I wish Trump wasn't even running. I'll probably go with the democrat this time around if it's between those two.
Are you American? I always thought you were Welsh from your username haha
If you're serious, yes.
