wow, chastised to the max, and for good reason, from your point of view anyways, I accept this and will not respond in kind.
I do thank you for pointing out what you see as where I have gone wrong and you are right I did ask for one example, you gave it to me and then I trashed it. apologies for that. You responded in good faith and did not deserve it.
Moderateman, I'm speechless! Well not quite. Congrats on keeping your cool though!
In regards to your next point-
How about this then, you get three terrorist, you take them up in a helicopter, you ask the oldest one a question, just one, when he refuses to answer you just toss him out of the copter, then land where his mangled body is, show it to the other two then take off again, ask the second oldest a question, if he refuses to answer, you toss him out of the copter wrapped in pigskin, you land, show it to the youngest then take off again, by then I am sure you will get your information, without any torture at all. How does that work for you?
I think this is called a
war crime. It's the same tactic that's been employed by many different armies down through the ages to instill fear of death in the vanquished "kill a few of the bastards to show em' who's in charge!!" Usually, people who do this are called
bad guys and history tends to take a dim view of them. But to be fair, definitions are important. May I ask what your definition of a terrorist is? If any old Iraqi decides to take up arms against uniformed U.S forces does that automatically make him a terrorist, or is he an insurgent? If he is an insurgent, should he be treated differently from a terrorist? Because if there is no distinction, that would then mean that if the U.S was invaded and you decided to put up resistance to the invading army you would then be a terrorist as well! (in the eyes of the occupying army)