January 3


some “perspective” I wondered about tonight after reading a claim that waterboarding is okay because “We only use it on terrorists”…

who exactly is a terrorist? is it an objective definition?

someone who flies planes into American buildings and kills innocent civilians?
someone who drops bombs on Iraqi buildings and kills innocent civilians?
a turban-clad man in a cave claiming all infidels must die?
a hooded man in a white robe claiming all blacks and Jews must die?
an Afghan man who refuses to allow coalition troops to invade his home and instead fires on them to defend his property and his family?
a US citizen who refuses to allow FBI to invade his home and instead fires on them?
an FBI force who opens fire on men, women, and children peacefully living in their own home, starves them for two months, then sets fire to their Waco residence and kills them all?

are “terrorists” those that threaten the US government, or the US people?

which of the above should be waterboarded?


Tags: ,
Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved.

Posted January 3, 2010 by calenfretts in category "politics


  1. By Allison on

    A good point, but I think you should expand on it. At the very least I think you should include some of the latter half of your argument with Boots. #s 210, 212, 214, 216, and 222 were seriously well presented/articulated. You came off as more equitable than you normally do and subsequently your points were hard to debate. It’d be a shame to lose that writing to the tvcy abyss :)

Comments are closed.