Torture

[scotty]

I have not and I will NEVER argue in anything to do with supporting the moron's intervention into Iraq. This thread is not about Iraq it is about Torture.

 

ANY fool with a few years understanding of the Middle East wil understand that the male of the region is about show and bluster. Remember Comical Ali?

 

Iraq existed as a state and the bluster performed a critical role in balancing the other local idiots - The Iranians. Take the Iraqi state away and bingo the Iranians can do what they want.

 

The Taliban have never been in Iraq, and for anyone who had looked, neither were Al Qaeda BEFORE the invasion.

 

You want to defend the removal of Saddam because he tortured people? hell, better invade Saudi, Indonesia, Russia (you never seen any Spy movies?) where else? Oh yeah, Argentina, most of Africa especially those racists who tortured Black Activists in Jo'Berg.

 

Iraq was invaded because of Pops being embarrased and Dickie boy wanting to carve up the business with his mates. The puppet in #10 went along with it. That was NEVER about "The war on Terror" or about civilised ideals.

 

I've said it before and will say it again. The reason for the spread of nutters is shown perfectly in the Movie Charlie Wilson's War when they failed to support development in Afghanistan after the Soviets were kicked out by - yep the Taliban before their corporate makeover who were supported by - yep the yanks because they killed Russkies.

 

Torture to discover who has sent the latest load of DHL shipments from where is perfectly valid. WHY the whole fecking mess is with us - that is simple - Charlie Wilson knows and teh first three who REALLY should be waterboarded to find the truth are Bush, Blair & Cheney

 

This thread isnt specifically about Iraq, but saddam torturing his citizens was one of the excuses used to justify it. And bush and co used the "they use torture worse than we do" argument as well, so I think its reasonable to discuss it on a thread about torture. I'm undecided about the use of it, can see both sides, but on balance I would reckon it does more harm to the cause of the people employing it than whatever benefit they could gain from it. Information extracted by torture is notoriously unreliable, that is well documented.

[dubai_phil]

This thread isnt specifically about Iraq, but saddam torturing his citizens was one of the excuses used to justify it. And bush and co used the "they use torture worse than we do" argument as well, so I think its reasonable to discuss it on a thread about torture. I'm undecided about the use of it, can see both sides, but on balance I would reckon it does more harm to the cause of the people employing it than whatever benefit they could gain from it. Information extracted by torture is notoriously unreliable, that is well documented.

 

That's fair, but then you cannot fight fire with a piece of paper.

 

I still believe that the invasion of a Sovereign State using "They are nasty people and do nasty things" excuse is in these days of "supposed" Political Correctness not even worthy of discusssion simply because it could be argued that the Yanks should have invaded the UK during the days of the H-Blocks and depravation in Belfast.

 

There was NO excuse for invading Iraq other than those I gave, Geo-Politically it was an unmitigated disaster, but again IF they had listened to anyone with experience (MI5, MI6 or their friends in the region, it would NOT have happened)

 

Sure Saddam had Chemical Weapons, but then so does the UK at Porton "for research purposes". Go invade yourselves - nope

 

As for the relaibility of information issue - that is not what this is about, it is about playing to the same rules as the nutters. The nutters believe that if they do "something even THEIR God believe is evil, that they will go to heaven and have 70 or whatever Virgins. Using methods that deny those nutters THAT belief OR denies them that supposed passage to their Nirvana is how this war will be won. I do NOT like it, but you will not be able to discuss Human Rights with a nutter in a Vest full of Ball bearings surrounded by shoppers with Kids in West Quay on a bad Saturday afternoon. You HAVE to stop those that preach that hatred AND the outcome..

 

But wait - those nasty preachers all got kicked out of the Islamic States and went to sign on at your local dole office. YOU guys are paying for a great deal of those nutters.

 

Watch/Read the 7/7 inquest. Those nutters were Brits with supposedly the Brit view on the sanctity of life. Should they be looking forward to a trip to a rendtion flight or to 20 years comfortably holed up playing Chess in Parkhurst with some ex Poopey employees. Which works as a deterrent?

Edited 9 November, 2010 by dubai_phil

[Redondo Saint]

is it ever justified?

 

yes.

[Sheaf Saint]

You make a very valid point Phil, but how can the coalition or any other educated western societies ever claim the moral high ground over these groups if we are so easily influenced to lower ourselves to their level? In so doing, we are effectively saying that we despise their agenda and their methods, but we are not averse to using their own tactics ourselves to assert our authority over them. That, to me, is a display of double standards.

[georgeweahscousin]

I think if "waterboarding' a known terrorist stops an act of terror from happening, and saves countless lives then I think it is entirely justifiable.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

I agree with the torture of evil bastards. Not everyone believes in peace and freedom.

[Joey-deacons-left-nut]

You make a very valid point Phil, but how can the coalition or any other educated western societies ever claim the moral high ground over .

 

Why should we want to? Why does everything have to be about claiming a moral high ground??

 

Torture is a fact. Its the interpretation of information gained under torture that's failed us in the past. People seeing what they want to see.

[dubai_phil]

You make a very valid point Phil, but how can the coalition or any other educated western societies ever claim the moral high ground over these groups if we are so easily influenced to lower ourselves to their level? In so doing, we are effectively saying that we despise their agenda and their methods, but we are not averse to using their own tactics ourselves to assert our authority over them. That, to me, is a display of double standards.

 

The simple answer to that is - do you stop a stampede of Elephants coming your way by using morals? Or do you stop them? You simply cannot ignore them.

 

The Nutters don't HAVE any standards, that is the whole point. They don't even have an agenda. They are simply poor deluded fools who have been conned into blowing themselves up to kill Infidels. The CHANCES to win over hearts and minds have been lost time and time again. Iraq - The idiots had NO idea what to do IF they won. Afghanistan has known nothing but warfare since the days of the Thin Red Line and the Khyber Pass. The fanatical preachers were given every possible platform to spread their poison by woolly haired liberals who used "The Race" card to build their own careers in the "Race Relations" industry.

 

The simple fact is that years of complete ignorance by amongst other The West has allowed a cancer to enter into global society. The "tree-hugging" let's all be friends attitude and taking the moral high ground simply will not make the problem go away.

 

How many caves are there around the world? You cannot invade all of them at the same time in a nice professional orderly Geneva Convention manner.

 

The whole debate is always flawed. Nobody has really ever sat down and asked

 

What do these people want? What motivates them? How do we ACTUALLY take away their mandate?

 

You cannot, simply because the Nutters BELIEVE that THEY have the moral high ground. You WILL all live in mud huts because their God demands it.

 

Game over every time.

[scotty]

You make a very valid point Phil, but how can the coalition or any other educated western societies ever claim the moral high ground over these groups if we are so easily influenced to lower ourselves to their level? In so doing, we are effectively saying that we despise their agenda and their methods, but we are not averse to using their own tactics ourselves to assert our authority over them. That, to me, is a display of double standards.

 

Its not just a question of claiming the moral high ground for its own sake, its the resulting propaganda gift to the enemy. We will never know how many reasonably normal muslims were radicalised by the photos from Abu Ghraib. And it sounds pretty hollow to insist that we are not at war with islam, as bush and blair repeatedly claimed, while simultaneously invading a sovereign country on an utterly preposterous pretext. Like it or not, that was seen as an anti-islamic invasion, and as Phil points out above, it has resulted in an influx of al-quaeda and taliban radicals into that country.

[Mr_Red]

I just found it funny (despite being an unfunny subject) that because a lawyer told Bush that waterboarding was legal that it was ok to do it. No thoughts about anything else, just the legality. How can someone like that be 'the most powerful man in the world'?!

[dubai_phil]

Here's (co-incidentally) a very good Torygraph article

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/praveenswami/100063118/what-george-bushs-critics-will-never-understand-torture-is-part-of-the-language-of-war/

 

On very key point that he makes (and is alluded to in posts here) there is a VERY big difference between "Torturing a suspect to gain information" and letting lose a bunch of nasties like those Yanks at Abu Graith to ABUSE prisoners.

 

Perhaps as the article alludes to, there SHOULD be laws permitting torture but with very clear "guidelines" and responsibilities. Trying to sweep it under the carpet as happens today gives free reign to those on "The side of Right" to abuses.

[Lighthouse]

It's a delicate issue, but I'd say I'm in the 'fight fire with fire' camp on this one. When you dealing with some of the most evil b*stards on the face of the Earth, torture is justified IMO. It's a pretty simple concept which many fail to comprehend, that if you do certain things, you forfeit certain rights. Like prisoners not having the right to vote. If you are involved in the massacre of innocent civilians, you deserve ANYTHING coming your way. If you can't handle that, don't do it.

 

I'm not saying put the thumb screws on anyone with a beard, but if you've got a guy you know knows something...

[scotty]

It's a delicate issue, but I'd say I'm in the 'fight fire with fire' camp on this one. When you dealing with some of the most evil b*stards on the face of the Earth, torture is justified IMO. It's a pretty simple concept which many fail to comprehend, that if you do certain things, you forfeit certain rights. Like prisoners not having the right to vote. If you are involved in the massacre of innocent civilians, you deserve ANYTHING coming your way. If you can't handle that, don't do it.

 

I'm not saying put the thumb screws on anyone with a beard, but if you've got a guy you know knows something...

 

....which is exactly what they are saying about us while flashing up photos from abu ghraib and guantanamo, and therein lies the problem.

[Lighthouse]

....which is exactly what they are saying about us while flashing up photos from abu ghraib and guantanamo, and therein lies the problem.

 

Of course they will see it that way, but they will hate us regardless of how we treat terror suspects. Terrorists aren't going to lighten up with we let all our prisoners play hop scotch and eat fairy cakes.

[scotty]

Of course they will see it that way, but they will hate us regardless of how we treat terror suspects. Terrorists aren't going to lighten up with we let all our prisoners play hop scotch and eat fairy cakes.

 

agreed, I'm just making the point that as long as it gets into the public domain (and it will) then the torture itself is likely to create more problems than it solves. We can act as tough as we like, but what good will it do if the net result is hundreds more radicalised muslims to deal with? I have nothing against the idea of grilling information about terrorist plots out of known terrorists, but its naive to assume that there wont be any downside to that.

[Lighthouse]

agreed, I'm just making the point that as long as it gets into the public domain (and it will) then the torture itself is likely to create more problems than it solves. We can act as tough as we like, but what good will it do if the net result is hundreds more radicalised muslims to deal with? I have nothing against the idea of grilling information about terrorist plots out of known terrorists, but its naive to assume that there wont be any downside to that.

 

Yeah, I agree it will make us unpopular with some people. It's all a balancing act though I suppose.

[dubai_phil]

Of course they will see it that way, but they will hate us regardless of how we treat terror suspects. Terrorists aren't going to lighten up with we let all our prisoners play hop scotch and eat fairy cakes.

 

60 + years of indiscriminate bombings tends to have a far bigger impact on signing up for the cause than some PR machine photgrpahs.

 

Kids with limbs blown off by Russian Cluster bombs now see their kids blown up by Predator Drones. They don't need no political angle of being shown pictures.

 

As I said before - go visit a refugee camp in Beirut, Swat or Syria. They don't have regular electricty let alone photographs.

 

They sign up easy enough when a family member or a friend gets shot by whoever is invading which piece of desert this week

[scotty]

Yeah, I agree it will make us unpopular with some people. It's all a balancing act though I suppose.

 

When alls said and done, youre right on that. I guess its impractical, but I'd like to think that we actually are superior to the terrorists morally, and that our system of beliefs and laws stands for something infinitely better than theirs, and that we wont descend to their level of behaviour. Ever the idealist.......