From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

"Geo."  wrote in message
news:3ea94c97$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > How do you know someone is a terrorist before you start torturing them?
>
> How do you know someone is the enemy in a war before you kill them?

They shoot at you. A supposed terrorist who may have tried to plant a bomb
somewhere is not even close to as clear a case.


> > How do you know anything a tortured person is true, and not
> > just something they say to make the torturing stop?
>
> You don't, you have to make a decision after receiving any information
> in a war.

So, it's okay to start a war and then afterwards see if it was for the
right reasons or not? Say what you want, but I don't believe that - if for
no other reason then because I don't want to believe that.



> > If you torture someone, and in the end it
> > turns out he didn't know anything, then was it ok?
>
> If you open fire on a wedding party during a war is it ok?

No. So you agree torturing someone is not okay if it turns out it was wrong?


> > (I think those are fairly important questions...?)
>
> I agree, I also think it's fairly important we don't let the terrorists
> use WMD on our civilians.

Why only terrorists? I'd say it's fairly important that no-one uses WMD's
against anyone. Or torture.


> My turn to ask a question: Do you believe anti-terrorist practices are
> equal to being at war?

If I understand that right, then no, I don't. Anti-terrorist practices
should not be a reason to invade to countries and kill people, of whom the
vast majority are not terrorists and were not a threat of any kind.


> If so then why should it be any more acceptable than
> regular wars? If wars were not undesirable then what motivation
> to prevent war would there be?

I don't know if I got that - war is okay if it's to prevent a war?


Antti Kurenniemi
(*my* war is more right than yours, because some people are more equal than others?)

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4