The Troubles

[Speaker to Animals]

Not voting for Trump literally meant electing Hillary, so take your walking vagina act elsewhere. There literally was no alternative.

[Smitty-48]

Going to quote military.com to you:

Civilized people don't torture people.

In the great movie, "The Bounty," Captain Bligh, played by Anthony Hopkins, and a dozen of his men are set adrift in the South Pacific on a small boat. They are soon starving and one of the weaker seamen suggests to Bligh that once he dies, the others eat his corpse to survive.

Captain Bligh rejects that idea by stating, "No Sir! We were born as civilized men and we shall die as civilized men." That statement rings true in regards to torture. There is more to life than staying alive. A society must have standards and laws, and once those are dropped, man will devolve and the society collapse.

So if a young soldier or high-level politician suggests they torture a prisoner in hope of getting information which may save lives, the man in charge must know to say: We are civilized and don't torture people. If we die, then we die as civilized people.

Well that's pretty rich, since it was the policy of the Royal Navy to torture their own crew members as the principle method of enforcing discipline, William Bligh may have drawn the line at cannibalism, but as a Royal Navy Captain, had absolutely no compunction about torturing men, every time he ordered them to "kiss the gunners daughter", as in flogging them with a cat of nine tails while they were strapped to a rack. /shrug

[jediuser598]

Going to quote military.com to you:

Civilized people don't torture people.

In the great movie, "The Bounty," Captain Bligh, played by Anthony Hopkins, and a dozen of his men are set adrift in the South Pacific on a small boat. They are soon starving and one of the weaker seamen suggests to Bligh that once he dies, the others eat his corpse to survive.

Captain Bligh rejects that idea by stating, "No Sir! We were born as civilized men and we shall die as civilized men." That statement rings true in regards to torture. There is more to life than staying alive. A society must have standards and laws, and once those are dropped, man will devolve and the society collapse.

So if a young soldier or high-level politician suggests they torture a prisoner in hope of getting information which may save lives, the man in charge must know to say: We are civilized and don't torture people. If we die, then we die as civilized people.

Well that's pretty rich, since it was the policy of the Royal Navy to torture their own crew members as the principle method of enforcing discipline, William Bligh may have drawn the line at cannibalism, but as a Royal Navy Captain, had absolutely no compunction about torturing men, every time he ordered them to "kiss the gunners daughter", as in flogging them with a cat of nine tails while they were strapped to a rack. /shrug

What a weird time when I have to argue with people over whether or not civilized people should torture people, or target civilians. One would think this a given, that we shouldn't do these things.

Rationalize it all you want, but Americans shouldn't be doing these things.

[Smitty-48]

What a weird time when I have to argue with people over whether or not civilized people should torture people, or target civilians. One would think this a given, that we shouldn't do these things.

Rationalize it all you want, but Americans shouldn't be doing these things.

You're the one who is rationalizing, I'm the one who well knows that America has done these things, and exponentially worse, in practically every war America has ever fought, I mean, good lord, Americans have done it to Americans, Sherman's March to the Sea, would be a Crime Against Humanity, never mind a mere war crime, by the standards you are invoking.

[jediuser598]

What a weird time when I have to argue with people over whether or not civilized people should torture people, or target civilians. One would think this a given, that we shouldn't do these things.

Rationalize it all you want, but Americans shouldn't be doing these things.

You're the one who is rationalizing, I'm the one who well knows that America has done these things, and exponentially worse, in practically every war America has ever fought, I mean, good lord, Americans have done it to Americans, Sherman's March to the Sea, would be a Crime Against Humanity, never mind a mere war crime, by the standards you are invoking.

So you're saying torture and targeting of civilians is ok because it's a tradition?

[Smitty-48]

What a weird time when I have to argue with people over whether or not civilized people should torture people, or target civilians. One would think this a given, that we shouldn't do these things.

Rationalize it all you want, but Americans shouldn't be doing these things.

You're the one who is rationalizing, I'm the one who well knows that America has done these things, and exponentially worse, in practically every war America has ever fought, I mean, good lord, Americans have done it to Americans, Sherman's March to the Sea, would be a Crime Against Humanity, never mind a mere war crime, by the standards you are invoking.

So you're saying torture and targeting of civilians is ok because it's a tradition?

Torture is technically prohibited by international law and the laws of armed conflict, on the other hand, those laws are capricious and totally divorced from the reality of human conflict, so in the end, the law is an ass, beyond that, I don't bother to morally castigate homo sapiens sapiens for being homo sapiens sapiens, as Karl Marlantes said, "there's a good reason why we are the dominant species on earth, and it's not because we're nice"

By your own examples, it's clearly morally subjective and situational, John McCain & Co can kill literally millions by aerial bombardment, but then turn around and get up on their moral high horses and start lecturing and wagging fingers about waterboarding? Yeah, OK, whatever.

Targeting civilians? Terrorists are civilians, so if you can't target civilians, you can't target terrorists, without logical consistency, the debate becomes farcical, am I going to tell Barack Obama that he can't target terrorists, because they are civilians? Of course not, I mean, even international law doesn't say that, you can target civilians under the very law you are waving in his face, so what are you even blabbering on about?

"Civilian" is not a shield from behind which you can attack people, without suffering the consequences, not legally, nor morally in fact.

You're getting up on your moral high horse, but not only is your position not logically consistent, it's not even morally consistent, you're saying that people around the world can come and kill American babies, and then turn around and hold their own babies up to shield themselves from the consequences? How is that moral, exactly?

If you're going to take a moral position vis a vis war, you're either a pacifist or you're not, I'm not a pacifist, so that's a morally ambiguous position, thus, I'm not going to get up on my high horse about it, and start wagging fingers at the US military for doing what they gotta do, to fight the war.

As a soldier, morally, I'm "ok" to stab a man to death with a bayonet, and watch him scream and die as he bleeds out, but I'm not "ok" to simulate drowning in order to extract information from him? That's totally nonsensical.

[jediuser598]

You're the one who is rationalizing, I'm the one who well knows that America has done these things, and exponentially worse, in practically every war America has ever fought, I mean, good lord, Americans have done it to Americans, Sherman's March to the Sea, would be a Crime Against Humanity, never mind a mere war crime, by the standards you are invoking.

So you're saying torture and targeting of civilians is ok because it's a tradition?

Torture is technically prohibited by international law and the laws of armed conflict, on the other hand, those laws are capricious and totally divorced from the reality of human conflict, so in the end, the law is an ass, beyond that, I don't bother to morally castigate homo sapiens sapiens for being homo sapiens sapiens, as Karl Marlantes said, "there's a good reason why we are the dominant species on earth, and it's not because we're nice"

By your own examples, it's clearly morally subjective and situational, John McCain & Co can kill literally millions by aerial bombardment, but then turn around and get up on their moral high horses and start lecturing and wagging fingers about waterboarding? Yeah, OK, whatever.

Targeting civilians? Terrorists are civilians, so if you can't target civilians, you can't target terrorists, without logical consistency, the debate becomes farcical, am I going to tell Barack Obama that he can't target terrorists, because they are civilians? Of course not, I mean, even international law doesn't say that, you can target civilians under the very law you are waving in his face, so what are you even blabbering on about?

"Civilian" is not a shield from behind which you can attack people, without suffering the consequences, not legally, nor morally in fact.

You're getting up on your moral high horse, but not only is your position not logically consistent, it's not even morally consistent, you're saying that people around the world can come and kill American babies, and then turn around and hold their own babies up to shield themselves from the consequences? How is that moral, exactly?

If you're going to take a moral position vis a vis war, you're either a pacifist or you're not, I'm not a pacifist, so that's a morally ambiguous position, thus, I'm not going to get up on my high horse about it, and start wagging fingers at the US military for doing what they gotta do, to fight the war.

As a soldier, morally, I'm "ok" to stab a man to death with a bayonet, and watch him scream and die as he bleeds out, but I'm not "ok" to simulate drowning in order to extract information from him? That's totally nonsensical.

You're ok with killing people who've surrendered?

What exactly are you not ok with, in war? Is there anything that's off the table?

[Smitty-48]

You're ok with killing people who've surrendered?

What exactly are you not ok with, in war? Is there anything that's off the table?

Once hydrogen bombs are on the table, what could possibly be off?

I was trained to fight World War Three, so, it's hard for me to imagine anything being off the table, in that paradigm, certainly.

Depends on the situation, you'd have to be more specific.

[Speaker to Animals]

Sometimes you have to kill people who surrender. You have no obligation to accept a surrender.

[Smitty-48]

There certainly are situations where you can execute prisoners, we did hang quite a few Nazis after all.