• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were 9/11 Victims Tortured?

Were 9/11 Victims Tortured?


  • Total voters
    17

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,606
Reaction score
32,215
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.

What was done to the victims of 9/11 should be outlawed. Do you agree? Or do you think it was justified for what others of USA has done in the Middle East?

What done to prisoners at Gitmo should be outlawed. Do you agree? Or do you think it was justified because of what other people did on 9/11?
 
What was done to the victims of 9/11 should be outlawed. Do you agree? Or do you think it was justified for what others of USA has done in the Middle East?

What done to prisoners at Gitmo should be outlawed. Do you agree? Or do you think it was justified because of what other people did on 9/11?

You know what I've always found interesting? It's how often we're told we need to understand that terrorism is simply a backlash or a reaction to any number of things (all things we're doing and/or have done wrong), yet when terrorism occurs, often the same people will be incensed at the backlash or reaction that terrorism creates.
 
What a bizarre question...you spends time thinking of these things?

What does it possibly matter even if it was torture?

It's like asking were the Jews on the trains going to Auschwitz concentration camp tortured by being treated so badly before they were eventually killed? What difference does it make? They were brutally murdered is what matters. Not if their treatment constitutes torture before they were murdered.

What is the point to the question?
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, I voted that some were - probably the majority. I imagine, though, that there were some in the towers that died immediately upon impact. Same with the Pentagon. Torture is about prolonged suffering so in those cases, it wouldn't apply IMO.
 
What a bizarre question...you spends time thinking of these things?

I explained that, and to be honest, I'm expecting the results to shape up a certain way, though I can think of no reason it should. Sorry, I'm sure that's clear as bug guts on your windshield. I'm just legitimately curious how the votes will stack up.

What does it possibly matter even if it was torture?


Who gives a crap?

I accept that you don't. Thanks for playing, though.
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.

By definition, that's not really torture. The important thing to recognize here is that torture wouldn't have prevented 9/11, and 10 years of war and torture hasn't made the world one bit safer. I'd even argue we're far less safe than we were on September 12th, 2001.

I've said this a bunch of times but I'll say it again. Just because you're fighting monsters doesn't mean you need to become one. The American people as a large majority are opposed to torture. The burden is on anyone else to prove and quantify that torture will make us safer, so if you can, feel free.
 
The OP's argument is utter garbage. By the same logic, the U.S. "tortured" Nazi soldiers to death when we bombed the buildings they were located in.

Torture is a deliberate intentional intention to inflicting suffering on another human being. Most ways of violently killing people also lead to suffering, but that is a byproduct, not the purpose of the act. 9/11 was mass murder, not torture.
 
By definition, that's not really torture. The important thing to recognize here is that torture wouldn't have prevented 9/11, and 10 years of war and torture hasn't made the world one bit safer. I'd even argue we're far less safe than we were on September 12th, 2001.

I've said this a bunch of times but I'll say it again. Just because you're fighting monsters doesn't mean you need to become one. The American people as a large majority are opposed to torture. The burden is on anyone else to prove and quantify that torture will make us safer, so if you can, feel free.

Well sure, when someone says torture, you think of intense physical and possibly permanent damage. Those recent beheadings were torture, if you ask me. The problem is trying to lump what the U.S. did with things like that.

I do doubt the majority of the U.S. agrees with that nothing should have been done, but can you, at least, understand why some people were pissed off that it happened?
 
What was done to the victims of 9/11 should be outlawed. Do you agree? Or do you think it was justified for what others of USA has done in the Middle East?

What done to prisoners at Gitmo should be outlawed. Do you agree? Or do you think it was justified because of what other people did on 9/11?

Should it be illegal for a political party to release a report created of partisans that cherry picked third party accounts never once interviewing one person from the CIA whose accounts greatly differ? And that this reckless behavior on their behalf has put these people and their families in danger?

Should it be illegal to put a gag on the interrogators while allowing the terrorist free speech? Because that is what they did. Dr. James Mitchell, U.S. AIR FORCE PSYCHOLOGIST and the one who wrote the manual on how to train our soldiers to resist interrogation if captured was the man the government went to in setting up the interrogations of the terrorists. He was placed under a gag order while Abu Zubaydah could say anything he wanted. He wasn't allowed to speak out while the Democrats on the Intelligence committee trashed him.

Very recently, a matter of days ago the gag order has been lifted and Dr. Mitchell is speaking out. He and several CIA directors as well. The backlash of releasing the report is evident in the polls. And now they are finding out it is an inaccurate account.
 
Last edited:
Well sure, when someone says torture, you think of intense physical and possibly permanent damage. Those recent beheadings were torture, if you ask me. The problem is trying to lump what the U.S. did with things like that.

I do doubt the majority of the U.S. agrees with that nothing should have been done, but can you, at least, understand why some people were pissed off that it happened?

Pissed off that what exactly happened? A lot happened so you're going to have to be more specific.

By your definition anyone who is murdered but not instantly, was tortured. I simply don't like redefining words to suit political purposes.
 
The OP's argument is utter garbage. By the same logic, the U.S. "tortured" Nazi soldiers to death when we bombed the buildings they were located in.

Torture is a deliberate intentional intention to inflicting suffering on another human being. Most ways of violently killing people also lead to suffering, but that is a byproduct, not the purpose of the act. 9/11 was mass murder, not torture.


To be clear, you're comparing WWII soldiers with the highjackers and those inside the WTC as the Nazis. Ok. You gotta live by your own rules, though. If you're saying they're the same and the high jackers committed mass murder then so did the WWII soldiers against the Nazis.

And my arguments are "gutter"? :D
 
What a bizarre question...you spends time thinking of these things?

What does it possibly matter even if it was torture?

It's like asking were the Jews on the trains going to Auschwitz concentration camp tortured by being treated so badly before they were eventually killed? What difference does it make? They were brutally murdered is what matters. Not if their treatment constitutes torture before they were murdered.

What is the point to the question?

Is there some question that Jews were tortured during the Holocaust? I honestly thought everyone was in agreement on that point and I do think it significant.
 
What RabidAlpaca said.

And no, they weren't tortured.
What some did was died with a lot of fear and in gruesome conditions. The "lucky" ones were the ones that died instantly. The most unlucky ones were the ones that may have survived the collapse and died slowly under the weight of the building. But it isn't torture. It's just a horrid way to die.
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.

If you completely redefine the word torture to render it entirely meaningless, then yes, they were tortured.
 
If you completely redefine the word torture to render it entirely meaningless, then yes, they were tortured.

Really? Let's look at the dictionary definition of torture:

1tor·ture noun \ˈtȯr-chər\
: the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something

: something that causes mental or physical suffering : a very painful or unpleasant experience

So you're saying that is not just inapplicable, it's so out of the same league that the very idea could only be described as delusional. That about cover it? :D
 
What RabidAlpaca said.

And no, they weren't tortured.
What some did was died with a lot of fear and in gruesome conditions. The "lucky" ones were the ones that died instantly. The most unlucky ones were the ones that may have survived the collapse and died slowly under the weight of the building. But it isn't torture. It's just a horrid way to die.


So some 9/11 victims were downright lucky while those who suffered more were simply unlucky. Damn their bad luck. Luck it the only true culprit here.
 
To be clear, you're comparing WWII soldiers with the highjackers and those inside the WTC as the Nazis. Ok. You gotta live by your own rules, though. If you're saying they're the same and the high jackers committed mass murder then so did the WWII soldiers against the Nazis.

And my arguments are "gutter"?

WW2 bombs were mass killing, just the same as 9/11. The WW2 bombings were not mass murder, because killing done to military targets serving a nation we had issued a declaration of war against is not murder.

Torture, killing, murder, these words all have definitions.
 
Really? Let's look at the dictionary definition of torture:

1tor·ture noun \ˈtȯr-chər\
: the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something

: something that causes mental or physical suffering : a very painful or unpleasant experience

So you're saying that is not just inapplicable, it's so out of the same league that the very idea could only be described as delusional. That about cover it? :D

Let's use US law:
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

If I'm judging where your thread is going correctly, waterboarding meets the definition of torture because it works by causing the person subjected to it to believe they'll be drowned, which meets part C of the definition of torture.
 
So some 9/11 victims were downright lucky while those who suffered more were simply unlucky. Damn their bad luck. Luck it the only true culprit here.

Don't be coy.
It's why I put "lucky" in " ".

But I think you and I can both agree that should you have to die, it's preferable to die instantly than slowly, maybe in pain, maybe in emotional agony. There is no chance of escape or rescue, you can just choose on how to die. A dim prospect, a dim proposal, but that's what was on the table on 9/11. A choice between various degrees of awful scenarios to die.
 
WW2 bombs were mass killing, just the same as 9/11. The WW2 bombings were not mass murder, because killing done to military targets serving a nation we had issued a declaration of war against is not murder.

Torture, killing, murder, these words all have definitions.

You're being selective in your application. You said to me that what the high jackers did was just the same as what we did to the Nazis and I'm supposed to accept that. The reverse must also be true then if that's the analogy you chose to apply. Either they're similar in all significant respects or it was a crap analogy. Which is it?
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.

I think the point of the topic (on the radio, not your post) was to remind people of 9/11 and thus make people so angry they abandon reason in favor of their emotions, which cause them to wish endless amounts of pain and suffering for the people who perpetrate such acts. There's nothing to be gained by turning our country into a monster because the only way some of us are able to cope with our anger is to lash out with cruelty and violence. Terrorists cause pain and suffering because they feel that there is no other way for them to accomplish their goal. There is no good reason, but we don't have any reason at all. So I'm going to make a radical suggestion: let's not act like morons.
 
Let's use US law:


If I'm judging where your thread is going correctly, waterboarding meets the definition of torture because it works by causing the person subjected to it to believe they'll be drowned, which meets part C of the definition of torture.

I'm not driving this thread anywhere, I'm just along for the ride. Looking at what you've posted, you're saying that nothing there could possibly apply to anything that happened on 9/11?
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.

I am going to use a legal definition: 18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

You could make a potentially make a case for C, though I am not sure. However, the hijackers where not "acting under the color of law", so under 18 U.S. Code § 2340, it would not be considered torture. I am not really sure how it would matter however. The hijackers are dead, so prosecuting them is kinda wasted effort, and trying to use what they did as moral justification for what was done later would fail, and miserably.
 
I'm not driving this thread anywhere, I'm just along for the ride. Looking at what you've posted, you're saying that nothing there could possibly apply to anything that happened on 9/11?

No, none of the victims on the plane were subject to torture, and the definition is inapplicable to the victims in the towers.
 
Back
Top Bottom