Torture. So What

The liberal's much ventilated and public angst over the torture by western governments of suspected islamic terrorists speaks not to their virtue but their moral decadence.In war the objective is to win as expeditiously as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least number of casualties to one's own side by whatever means available including torture.The notion of applying queensberry rules to Isis is beyond the absurd.The goal should be to terrorise the terrorists.Even friends trot out the argument that to use the same methods as the enemy is to be no better than the enemy but even a cursory examination of this argument is to expose its fallacious not to say immoral nature.It is immoral because it covertly and sinuously seeks to obliterate the moral distinction between the perpetrator of violence and the victim.By the very act of daring to retaliate against the perpetrator the victim condemns himself to moral equivalence with the perpetrator.One only has to ask who benefits from such a rationalisation to see the evil of it.If by the very act of retaliating against an agressor the victim is rendered   automatically immoral the only outcome is paralysis of the victim and the triumph of the criminal.Hence the moral evil and depravity of the liberal argument that to fight the terrorists with their own weapons is to be no better than the terrorists.The only possible outcome can be victory of the terrorists and the end of freedom which is what we can observe on the world stage today.