Dear o sung wu,

When you get out your old song books it is pretty clear you have given up the argument. And just look at the rambling mess you have decided to shovel in my direction. The topic of our conversation was torture yet in your extensive diatribe you neglected to use the word once.

As to the rest of your post I'm afraid you will need to decipher it.

For one it appears you are telling me I shouldn't call Cheney a 'Cowards coward' because he might come and get me? Well the NSA is undoubtedly storing our words in some huge database but I think we might be very small fry in the grand scheme of things don't you.

Anyhow what should I call a man who not only gleefully orders torture with a breath taking arrogance but shows absolutely no remorse for those innocent victims who were unwittingly caught in his horror and who also ran from serving in Vietnam. I have no intention of withdrawing the remark. He is your idol not mine.

As to the matter of whether I have been in the Australian military I think Hasbeen's quote is worth repeating;

“So you were once a cop o sung, bully for you. I suppose you think that gives you some right to insult those who weren't so anointed, or some insight to the thinking of others.” Hasbeen

And for your information no I have not served in the Australian military, the closest was nearly three years in a military academy in another country.

But you ask what I have defended, the answer is simple, I have joined others in defending my country and my society from those who would threaten it from within, from those who would have us torture, to discriminate, to persecute, to shame us, and to denigrate the values of tolerance, humanity and justice that once allowed us to hold our heads up on the world stage. Perhaps you regard that as having little worth, I don't.

Jay, I'll take your link to black demographics seriously, but some of your links are off the planet, Hackvist Anonymous Group'.

<<Yes to normal people "neo Nazism" is laughable but it's harmless escapism for eccentrics, nerds and losers.>> Is it, are they? I believe any person with extremest beliefs is potentially a danger to society. Your Mr Craig Cobb a fine example of such.

Jay, I freely admit militarily and economically whites have proven to be superior to blacks. Am I a 'White Supremacists'? My reference to slavery was simply to point out blacks were coming off a pretty low base to begin with. I could beat Usain Bolt over 100m, providing he gave me 200m start to begin with. Then some wacko could link to a web site that proves white man is a superior runner to black man.
<<it's got nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with liberal values imposed on them over the last sixty years.>> So what are you saying prior to 1954 black people were doing well in America, and coming along nicely? I note you slip in Jewish people there, another lot you are not real keen on?
Jay, can't be any Trotskyites, Trotsky died in 1940, even before Hitler, as you said there are no Nazis because Hitler is dead. So why are you refering to Trotskyites.

<<Hi there PAUL1405, and others herein who believe me to be nothing but hot air and bluff!>> Not so o sung wu, I do not think that, and I have not said that. Like the rest of us on here you are entitled to your opinion. Opinion is just that, opinion, its not fact, none of us has a mortgage on what is right and what is wrong. Obviously my political views sit better with some posters than others, and I tend to be in agreement with them most of the time, you are no different to me. That is not to say, sometimes I would agree with your opinion.

o sung wu,
<<Considering the events of 9/11 for a moment? Without using these awful, but (seemingly) necessary torture methods, how can they extract the info. they desperately require from these people, particularly in an all out attempt to prevent further 9/11's?

Accordingly, I would ask you this question, and would prefer you treat it as a legitimate enquiry if you will please? I'm just trying to understand how an individual with your principles and moral code, would handle such a dilemma?

For your further enlightenment; myself personally, I would use torture provided all other methods and means had been thoroughly exhausted beforehand. Therefore, I'm a brute a coward, and patently weird!

Firstly, I will say; Not under any circumstances will I condone the torture of an animal, and certainly not a fellow human being. it is barbaric, it is inhuman and it is wrong.

Here is some lite reading on torture;
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=134

The notion that the ends justifies the means, is also wrong. The actions of terrorists with 9/11 was totally and utterly wrong. To add another cliche; "two wrongs does not make a right" it would be wrong to torture suspects, and don't forget they are at this point only suspects, to gain "evidence", dubious evidence at best. Not all suspects are guilty, even you should know that, or are they. The noble motive, prevention of further atrocities, simply cannot be proven.
The inherent danger of giving unfettered power of torture to a shadowy secretive group like the CIA, what makes them different to the Gestapo or KGB, nothing. Interesting use of the word "thoroughly", what is thoroughly a very loose term. How do you describe torture, tickle the feet with a feather, or burning their eyes out with a hot poker and cutting out tongues, maybe a return to medieval torture, the rack, or do you prefer something more modern, electric shock. All very interesting, but a very dangerous path to follow indeed.

Paul,

For once I'm in complete agreement with you, torture is never morally justified under any circumstances.

David,

You said ".... Howard did a good thing for Australia when he limited gun ownership...."

Then how did the murderer in the Lintz café get a gun; especially in a country where to possess anything for the purpose of self defence is a crime?

Hi PAUL1405...

Yup, I've got it, you'd never see an instance or circumstance which would, in any way, legitimise the use of torture. I guess I'm not surprised, given your moral or ethical posture on violence per se. Presenting you with any premise, or hypothesis would be unproductive, and would probably go nowhere ?

A final question please ? Can you see any circumstance whatsoever, where violence is morally justified ? I'm not referring to corporal chastisement of children, rather the deployment of lawful force by police, as opposed to the military, in a state of war ?

I'll stay well clear from the events of Martin Place earlier this morning. It would be quite improper to pass any comment, as I know nothing about it, save for media reports.