Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [existlist] Re: Word of the day ...

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    ryan, i suppose i m not so morally inclined. sometimes, i do think that the ends justify the means. i myself will consider using torture if absolutely
    Message 1 of 80 , Oct 24, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ryan,

      i suppose i'm not so morally inclined. sometimes, i do think that the ends
      justify the means. i myself will consider using torture if absolutely
      necessary (as in the case of the fbi) to get information out of a
      iron-willed suspect whom i have good reasons or evidences to think he is
      intimately linked to the operation of the terrorism. no matter how iron
      willed, physical, mental or emotional torture will make him speak; human is
      afterall blood and flesh with a nervous system. consider this: if, u can
      save the lives of more of your own people from more potential destruction as
      a result of this means to get the information concerning terrorism, what is
      stopping u? a sense of morality? but it can be argued that national security
      is a equally grave concern, if not more. i am not flag waving here, i'm just
      being pragmatic. by hook or by crook, win the war. scrupulous or
      unscrupulous, win the war. moral or immoral, win the war. winning the war &
      totally destroying the enemy is top priority, & all resources & means is to
      be employed for this aim. torturing a terrorist suspect is no big deal; the
      only question is: is the fellow really linked? this will mean more
      intelligence & evidences searching. but if yes, i am for it. try to imagine
      that it is your own family that is killed by the terrorists, maybe u can
      appreciate this method better.

      james.





      From: "Ryan Dewald" <rdewald@...>
      Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Word of the day ...
      Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:32:22 -0600


      <<bin ladin can say what he wants, but the whole world (even the muslim
      countries such as indonesia, saudi arabia, pakistan, etc) do not seem to
      agree with him. and that is what that matters.

      james.>>

      James,

      I have to say that I disagree that what matters is nation-state sanctioning
      of an activity. Indeed much of the most egregious of actions have been
      those sanctioned by one or more nation-states.

      The reason that some of the more tyrranical and undemocratic countries have
      signed on to the anti-terrorism movement is because small-cell guerilla
      action is one of the few ways in which their authority can still be shaken.
      Stalin too was against terrorism.

      I read today that the FBI is considering using torture on suspects that
      won't talk. Either that or shipping them to other countries where they
      allow torture AND allow threats to be made on the families of suspects.

      That's the problem with benevolence in any body of governance, it's so
      fleeting. Benevolence is not an evolution of government as the U.S. would
      have us believe. It is an asset that must be fought for on a rolling basis
      by the citizens and it sometimes cannot be afforded by the government- as in
      this occasion, where they feel their very existence is challenged.

      The validity of a nation can be judged by its degree of brutality. So too,
      I submit, its longevity.

      Don't get me wrong, I hate what Bin Laden stands for. Religion is worse
      reason to commit attrocity than nationalism. People need to spend less time
      worrying about others and more time drinking beer and dancing. That's what
      I think.

      Ni dios no patria,
      Ryan




      _________________________________________________________________
      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
    • james tan
      ryan, i suppose i m not so morally inclined. sometimes, i do think that the ends justify the means. i myself will consider using torture if absolutely
      Message 80 of 80 , Oct 24, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        ryan,

        i suppose i'm not so morally inclined. sometimes, i do think that the ends
        justify the means. i myself will consider using torture if absolutely
        necessary (as in the case of the fbi) to get information out of a
        iron-willed suspect whom i have good reasons or evidences to think he is
        intimately linked to the operation of the terrorism. no matter how iron
        willed, physical, mental or emotional torture will make him speak; human is
        afterall blood and flesh with a nervous system. consider this: if, u can
        save the lives of more of your own people from more potential destruction as
        a result of this means to get the information concerning terrorism, what is
        stopping u? a sense of morality? but it can be argued that national security
        is a equally grave concern, if not more. i am not flag waving here, i'm just
        being pragmatic. by hook or by crook, win the war. scrupulous or
        unscrupulous, win the war. moral or immoral, win the war. winning the war &
        totally destroying the enemy is top priority, & all resources & means is to
        be employed for this aim. torturing a terrorist suspect is no big deal; the
        only question is: is the fellow really linked? this will mean more
        intelligence & evidences searching. but if yes, i am for it. try to imagine
        that it is your own family that is killed by the terrorists, maybe u can
        appreciate this method better.

        james.





        From: "Ryan Dewald" <rdewald@...>
        Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Word of the day ...
        Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:32:22 -0600


        <<bin ladin can say what he wants, but the whole world (even the muslim
        countries such as indonesia, saudi arabia, pakistan, etc) do not seem to
        agree with him. and that is what that matters.

        james.>>

        James,

        I have to say that I disagree that what matters is nation-state sanctioning
        of an activity. Indeed much of the most egregious of actions have been
        those sanctioned by one or more nation-states.

        The reason that some of the more tyrranical and undemocratic countries have
        signed on to the anti-terrorism movement is because small-cell guerilla
        action is one of the few ways in which their authority can still be shaken.
        Stalin too was against terrorism.

        I read today that the FBI is considering using torture on suspects that
        won't talk. Either that or shipping them to other countries where they
        allow torture AND allow threats to be made on the families of suspects.

        That's the problem with benevolence in any body of governance, it's so
        fleeting. Benevolence is not an evolution of government as the U.S. would
        have us believe. It is an asset that must be fought for on a rolling basis
        by the citizens and it sometimes cannot be afforded by the government- as in
        this occasion, where they feel their very existence is challenged.

        The validity of a nation can be judged by its degree of brutality. So too,
        I submit, its longevity.

        Don't get me wrong, I hate what Bin Laden stands for. Religion is worse
        reason to commit attrocity than nationalism. People need to spend less time
        worrying about others and more time drinking beer and dancing. That's what
        I think.

        Ni dios no patria,
        Ryan




        _________________________________________________________________
        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.