Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
I can understand what you mean...it'd seem as if both sides have no higher moral ground but the difference would be when saddam did it, it was against innocent people, indiscriminatly or just because he didn't like them.
If the U.S. or any European allies (i assume asked in the poll) were to torture it wouldn't just be to anyone that wasn't liked or anything, it'd be to those suspected of being a threat to security, nobody else.
If mistakes are made then its not intentional, but doing something to the enemy that they would do innocent civillians is not the same as being as bad as them.
|
Those who were tortured by Saddam's henchmen were tortured for political reasons.
this doesn't mean they had to be high profile individuals, but certainly membership of the wrong group, and association with the wrong people, would be the most common basis for incarceration and torture.
In the minds of the Baathists it was about their political survival. 'threat to security,' or alternatively 'to obtain information about potential threats to security' would have been common arguments for torture.
That thousands of innocent people were tortured and killed is without question ... however the argument would still hold that they were perceived to hold a threat, or information.
One of the real problems I find with people on this forum is that they get these wild eyed ideas that all the rest of the world is stark staring mad, made up of deranged psychopaths, and anything these people do will be just a product of madness.
This assumption leads you on a path where you really can't understand any of what is going on.
If you are aware that others engage in this kind of treatment of their victims for real reasons, perhaps you would think twice about your own reasons for supporting torture.