View Full Version : rvg, some couple of years later?
No it couldn't. It could have stopped the War if it had managed to decisively defeat Washington in the field and then offered the Colonists terms - primarily enhanced tax-raising powers for the provincial assemblies so they could pay the British Army directly.
Later, much worse things than what you Americans have done were done to Africans in an attempt to keep other Colonies, and they failed also.
Let's just say that I'm happy that Lincoln did not adopt this kind of stance during the Civil War. Speaking of which, if you wanna talk about the guy who spat on laws, regulations, articles of the Constitution, Lincoln is the man. And yet he's a hero. He had the will to do whatever needed to be done in order to save this union.
Do you know why Napoleon lost?
Yes, he lost because he got cocky and decided to invade Russia. Bad idea. Repeated many times before Napoleon and after, but always just as bad.
I guess that's why the Afghan war has dragged out for longer than world war I and II combined then...
Personally I think you can't read this
Strike For The South
09-14-2012, 15:04
But Frags you don't exactly know what kind of ski instructor he was.
But Frags you don't exactly know what kind of ski instructor he was.
I have only knew a few, I never said they were all into that. Just most
Lincoln is a hero because it worked.
The problem is that if you happen to be hung up on principles, you cannot call that man a hero. You have to vilify him for illegally taxing people, illegally detaining people etc. If that line can't be crossed at any circumstances, you cannot call Lincoln a hero regardless of where he succeeded or failed. Period.
Eh, no. Again with these 'principles' huh? The only principles I cling to with vehemence are transparency and honesty. In that regard, Lincoln is as guilty as any president to be sure.
But he won the Civil War, often despite his Generals. And as opposed to any president we've had since WWII, Lincoln actually had a good reason to go to war. :shrug:
You can't have it both ways. Either principles are set in stone and can never be broken no matter the circumstances, or the presidents can actually be allowed to make judgement calls and do what is best for the nation at the time of war. As you know, Lincoln caught a LOT of heat for doing what he did, he was loathed by many. They too were afraid that they elected a tyrant, that America would never get back the freedoms that were sacrificed for the duration of the war. Yet today we look back and see the wisdom of his actions.
a completely inoffensive name
09-14-2012, 23:31
The problem is that if you happen to be hung up on principles, you cannot call that man a hero. You have to vilify him for illegally taxing people, illegally detaining people etc. If that line can't be crossed at any circumstances, you cannot call Lincoln a hero regardless of where he succeeded or failed. Period.
He isn't a hero. Nobody is a hero but Superman, and even the more modern stories has him showing a more fascist side as a political message. Lincoln can still be considered one of the best and at the same time deplorable in many ways.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-14-2012, 23:43
You can't have it both ways. Either principles are set in stone and can never be broken no matter the circumstances, or the presidents can actually be allowed to make judgement calls and do what is best for the nation at the time of war. As you know, Lincoln caught a LOT of heat for doing what he did, he was loathed by many. They too were afraid that they elected a tyrant, that America would never get back the freedoms that were sacrificed for the duration of the war. Yet today we look back and see the wisdom of his actions.
You can't have it both ways either!
We started this because of your guff about putting principles aside to protect them, but apparently you have no principles by your own admission!
What? No, just no.
I'm not trying to have it both ways, because there is a very clear distinction between Lincoln and, say, Bush Jr. Lincoln presided over the country during a civil war in which over 600,000 Americans died in horrible ways. Whether you're a fan of lincoln or not, you have no business trying to compare it to the war on terror. :rtwno:
No? Why not? It's not much different: people shooting at each other, people getting killed, towns getting leveled, vets going home with missing limbs. War is war. Just because the idea of War on Terror was unfathomable 40 years ago doesn't mean this is not a real war. World has changed, and this is the new reality: you're unlikely to see the equivalent of the Gettysburg again. In less than 2 years Afghanistan will become somebody else's problem, but for now we're at war.
We started this because of your guff about putting principles aside to protect them, but apparently you have no principles by your own admission!
See, when I make a statement I tend to back it up with facts...
Major Robert Dump
09-14-2012, 23:45
Actually, when I think of GWB, Abraham Lincoln is the first person from history who comes to mind, the next being Jesus and the thrid being Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp
Lincoln and Bush had many things in common
I mean, for reference, that's like if the entire Regular Army of today was to drop dead--and then some. It is hard to blame the country for accepting dubious terms from their government amid such bloodshed. At least, its much harder to blame them than it is to blame the cowardly people of today, who give up more freedoms for considerably less bloodshed.
So, what would in your opinion be the sufficient body count to justify, say, taking out Al Awlaki or introducing Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed to new ways of inhaling oxygen?
If you'd been paying attention, you'd already know my answers here. Awlaki could have been taken by a small team, he was an American and had rights. The rest of the terrorists deserve either death in battle or capture and handling in accordance with the geneva conventions. Yeah, I guess I have a pretty liberal view on the geneva conventions. Sue me. :shrug:
But you said that the difference between the Civil War and the War on Terror lay primarily in the casualty figures. So my question is, what kind of casualty figure would justify invoking the measures similar to those that were invoked during the Civil War?
You're twisting my argument, or I presented it badly. The casualty figures are for reference, to show you how pathetic and insignificant the numbers are in comparison. I am not saying that it is ever right to give up your liberties, but I can certainly sympathize with the American people of the 1860s. I cannot sympathize with the American people of today.
So, would it be fair to say that in your opinion it is never justified to curtail certain civil liberties or deny due process to certain individuals regardless of the circumstances?
Major Robert Dump
09-15-2012, 00:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCwOnq2C2vA&feature=relmfu
:laugh4:
What are you trying to do here? Pigeon-hole me into saying something specific? I am saying it is imperative that you try to avoid curtailing certain (preferably all) civil liberties or deny due process to certain (preferably all) individuals. I am saying that in the 1860s, the American people were pushed to a breaking point that can be objectively considered reasonable, whether you agree with it or not (and surely I would have been one of the people who was mad at hell as Lincoln, regardless of which side of the conflict I lived on).
Our country today has reached no such breaking point. The people capitulated and gave up their liberties without a fight, without batting an eyelash, and absolutely without proper resistance. 3000 people died in a tragedy in New York, and that's all it took to break the country, and give in to the terror.
That's nice, but it does not answer my question :)
No, it does answer it. Right there in the first sentence or two.
Or three.
So, in other words there are situations where curtailing of certain civil liberties or denial of due process to certain individuals can be justified. Is that correct?
Papewaio
09-15-2012, 08:42
If you only hold to morals or principles when they are easy or cost free then they aren't principles.
Principles ditched at the first hint of inconvience are just bling.
The individuals, family or societies value in principles is proportional to the lengths in which they will go too to uphold them.
To understand how little value the US puts on innocent until proven guilty, not torturing people, not assassinating people, due process etc all you need to do is look at the per capita death rates for office workers Pre and post 9/11 and compare it with US mining, construction and forestry workers. An increase of deaths even after terrorism of the worst nature in the history of mankind and being an office worker in USA 2011 was still safer then building the skyscrapers in the first place.
All these principles thrown away, liberties lost and beacon extinguished over a threat factor less then going to work in a forest. Humans don't handle day to day risks vs large spectacular ones very well. More kids at the time of desert shield died per capita on roads in the US then from friendly fire. Yes you were safer from getting shot in the butt by a mate then him driving you home after work.
Inability to rationalize true threats, quick trade in of hard won rights for illusion art security, short term visceral fixes instead of hammered out boring old court cases. Fear of the sky falling.
Yeah real brave and smart.
If you only hold to morals or principles when they are easy or cost free then they aren't principles.
True, and I do not do that. I hold to them for as long as holding on to them is logically justified (i.e. even when it's not easy or cost free)
Principles ditched at the first hint of inconvience are just bling.
Sure, and I do not propose doing that at the first hint of inconvenience. I propose doing that when holding on to principles gets people needlessly killed.
The individuals, family or societies value in principles is proportional to the lengths in which they will go too to uphold them.
Sure, which also means that the value of principles is not absolute. There is no principle for which I would be willing to sacrifice my family.
To understand how little value the US puts on innocent until proven guilty, not torturing people, not assassinating people, due process etc all you need to do is look at the per capita death rates for office workers Pre and post 9/11 and compare it with US mining, construction and forestry workers. An increase of deaths even after terrorism of the worst nature in the history of mankind and being an office worker in USA 2011 was still safer then building the skyscrapers in the first place.
Que?
All these principles thrown away, liberties lost and beacon extinguished over a threat factor less then going to work in a forest. Humans don't handle day to day risks vs large spectacular ones very well. More kids at the time of desert shield died per capita on roads in the US then from friendly fire. Yes you were safer from getting shot in the butt by a mate then him driving you home after work.
Nobody's throwing away principles. We just selectively withhold applying those principles to those who seek to destroy our civilization.
Inability to rationalize true threats, quick trade in of hard won rights for illusion art security, short term visceral fixes instead of hammered out boring old court cases. Fear of the sky falling.
We rationalize things just fine. Life, liberty and basic rights of a terrorist are worthless to me.
Yeah real brave and smart.
What's this deal with "bravery"? Are we auditioning to join the Knights of the Round Table? If you want to die for a cause, you go right ahead. I prefer to kill for a cause.
Tellos Athenaios
09-15-2012, 16:35
We rationalize things just fine. Life, liberty and basic rights of a terrorist are worthless to me.
No. That's precisely the problem: we do not rationalise things just fine. That's part of why we had that bit of fun back in 2007/2008.
In fact, in terms of loss of life allowing Americans to drive is a worse decision than risking a terrorist to set off a nuke in the middle of New York City.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html
In fact, in terms of loss of life allowing Americans to drive is a worse decision than risking a terrorist to set off a nuke in the middle of New York City.
So, how many will need to die before we can start taking terrorism seriously?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-15-2012, 21:34
So, how many will need to die before we can start taking terrorism seriously?
In 2,000 I could have legitimately asked you that.
We have more restrictions in place today in the UK than during the height of the IRA campaign, despite these jokers being far less lethal.
We take terrorism seriously, by not worrying too much about it.
We take terrorism seriously, by not worrying too much about it.
"Not worrying too much about it." That's your strategy? So, suppose tomorrow (God forbid) 7/7 get repeated, only this time the body count is in the thousands, do you shrug it off and keep going as if nothing happened or do you take measures to prevent it from reoccurring?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-15-2012, 21:52
"Not worrying too much about it." That's your strategy? So, suppose tomorrow (God forbid) 7/7 get repeated, only this time the body count is in the thousands, do you shrug it off and keep going as if nothing happened or do you take measures to prevent it from reoccurring?
9/11 and 7/7 were both the result of incompetence and complacency, what has stopped them being repeated is that the threat has been recognised.
Do you think it's happenstance that they haven't been repeated?
9/11 and 7/7 were both the result of incompetence and complacency, what has stopped them being repeated is that the threat has been recognised.
Do you think it's happenstance that they haven't been repeated?
You seem to be evading my question. Suppose the security measures fail and 7/7 happens again. And again. Do you adjust your strategy or do you keep on keeping on? Explosives are cheap, mind you.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-15-2012, 23:28
You seem to be evading my question. Suppose the security measures fail and 7/7 happens again. And again. Do you adjust your strategy or do you keep on keeping on? Explosives are cheap, mind you.
If it happens again?
That'll be another failure of the security services, twice in a decade is pretty good, and if people keep coming at you you'll never catch them all.
Strategically speaking, I wouldn't be bothered. I'd put it down to bad luck.
Here's the thing you don't get: as long as they hate us, they will keep trying to kill us. The nastier we get, the more they hate us, the harder they try.
So the bald answer, if it happened again I wouldn't do anything differently - if successful attacks were carried out on a large scale every year, I would begin to worry. My first question would be to ask where the recruits were coming from.
if successful attacks were carried out on a large scale every year, I would begin to worry. My first question would be to ask where the recruits were coming from.
Suppose the successful attacks are carried out every 6 months. Then what?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-15-2012, 23:48
Suppose the successful attacks are carried out every 6 months. Then what?
You find the cause, you don't keep restricting civil liberties or locking up anyone who might be a Muslim.
You find the cause, you don't keep restricting civil liberties or locking up anyone who might be a Muslim.
Okay, I'll give you the cause. Suppose, the terrorist group is fighting to establish islamic caliphate across the globe. Their demand is simple: convert to islam, establish sharia or the bombings will continue.
Your response?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 00:05
Okay, I'll give you the cause. Suppose, the terrorist group is fighting to establish islamic caliphate across the globe. Their demand is simple: convert to islam, establish sharia or the bombings will continue.
Your response?
I still need to work out why all these young men are blowing themselves up. If the pattern holds, they'll be a majority from British Pakistani, so I'd look at what it is about the British communities in Pakistan that makes them want to kill the people they live next door to.
I know what you're doing, you're trying to get me to say there's a point at which I have to kill them all. There isn't, there are a few ideaological loons, but the majority of the footsoldiers will be disenfranchised young men. You enfranchise those young men and the support will dry up.
This is the same principle as Northern Ireland and South Africa.
"It's the economy, stupid."
Look at Libya and Egypt, you think people weren't angry before last year? Of course they were, but they had more to lose by fighting than not fighting. You need to offer people a better life than one they can get by violence if you want to have peace.
I still need to work out why all these young men are blowing themselves up. If the pattern holds, they'll be a majority from British Pakistani, so I'd look at what it is about the British communities in Pakistan that makes them want to kill the people they live next door to.
I know what you're doing, you're trying to get me to say there's a point at which I have to kill them all. There isn't, there are a few ideaological loons, but the majority of the footsoldiers will be disenfranchised young men. You enfranchise those young men and the support will dry up.
This is the same principle as Northern Ireland and South Africa.
"It's the economy, stupid."
Look at Libya and Egypt, you think people weren't angry before last year? Of course they were, but they had more to lose by fighting than not fighting. You need to offer people a better life than one they can get by violence if you want to have peace.
In the meantime, another bomb goes off...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 00:13
In the meantime, another bomb goes off...
We've been there before, in Northern Ireland.
Do you not know the history?
That's why you're not allowed to leave a bag unattended and you can't find any bins in central London.
gaelic already told you, they twice almost decapitated the British government - and we never caught half the blighters. The ones we did catch we eventually let out, the rest are now in government. We have something approaching peace in NI.
Even at the height of the troubles, with bombs going off every other week we didn't place anything like the restrictions we place on people today.
Of course, during all this time the IRA commanders were invited to Washington and spent St. Patrick's day with the CinC on your armed forces.
We've been there before, in Northern Ireland.
Do you not know the history?
That's why you're not allowed to leave a bag unattended and you can't find any bins in central London.
gaelic already told you, they twice almost decapitated the British government - and we never caught half the blighters. The ones we did catch we eventually let out, the rest are now in government. We have something approaching peace in NI.
Even at the height of the troubles, with bombs going off every other week we didn't place anything like the restrictions we place on people today.
Of course, during all this time the IRA commanders were invited to Washington and spent St. Patrick's day with the CinC on your armed forces.
So, suppose bombings in London become as frequent as in Baghdad ca 2006. Security is working overtime, most bombers are intercepted, but not all of them. Eventually Scotland Yard learns of a plan for twin suicide bomb attack on two high rise apartment buildings. They do not know where or when the attack will take place, but they have captured one of the people directly involved in the attack.
What would be your next step?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 00:31
So, suppose bombings in London become as frequent as in Baghdad ca 2006. Security is working overtime, most bombers are intercepted, but not all of them. Eventually Scotland Yard learns of a plan for twin suicide bomb attack on two high rise apartment buildings. They do not know where or when the attack will take place, but they have captured one of the people directly involved in the attack.
What would be your next step?
Question him until a crack appears in his story, that's all you can do. If you keep questioning he'll eventually slip up. Treat him well and he'll start to develop Stockholm syndrome, all human beings want to talk and so will he; if you get really lucky he'll flip.
I'm not going to torture him - it's pointless.
We've also been here before - we used to beat the Irish, the Africans, it just made them hate us more. The Troubles escalated because the British Soldiers deployed to protect Roman Catholics were too brutal, rather like the Americans in Iraq.
Question him until a crack appears in his story, that's all you can do. If you keep questioning he'll eventually slip up. Treat him well and he'll start to develop Stockholm syndrome, all human beings want to talk and so will he; if you get really lucky he'll flip.
I'm not going to torture him - it's pointless.
We've also been here before - we used to beat the Irish, the Africans, it just made them hate us more. The Troubles escalated because the British Soldiers deployed to protect Roman Catholics were too brutal, rather like the Americans in Iraq.
Kaboom. Too late. Now what?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 00:44
Kaboom. Too late. Now what?
Then he hated us too much, and we didn't catch him soon enough.
If we'd tortured him, he probably would have fed us false information, we would have wasted resources on that. Kaboom.
Oh, and now he hates us even more.
Lose lose.
If we'd tortured him, he probably would have fed us false information, we would have wasted resources on that.
Resources?
Anyway, a month later, similar scenario, except this time you know that the attack will occur within the next 16 hours and it is a chemical weapon. The potential body count would be in the hundreds of thousands dead and over a million crippled. Your informant has pointed out one of the suspects and security managed to nab him. He utterly refuses to cooperate, wouldn't say a single word to any interrogator. You now have 14 hours. What would be your course of action?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 01:18
Resources?
Anyway, a month later, similar scenario, except this time you know that the attack will occur within the next 16 hours and it is a chemical weapon. The potential body count would be in the hundreds of thousands dead and over a million crippled. Your informant has pointed out one of the suspects and security managed to nab him. He utterly refuses to cooperate, wouldn't say a single word to any interrogator. You now have 14 hours. What would be your course of action?
I'm not going to torture him, he almost certainly won't crack in 14 hours.
Why hasn't my informant found the weapon? How was this weapon allowed into the country across the moat? You're constructing a situation to try to elicit a response from me, you're not getting it.
I'm not going to torture him, he almost certainly won't crack in 14 hours.
Why hasn't my informant found the weapon? How was this weapon allowed into the country across the moat? You're constructing a situation to try to elicit a response from me, you're not getting it.
The bomb goes off. 75000 people are dead with another 200000 suffering from various degrees of damage to their lungs. There are reports of vigilante mobs across Great Britain attacking minorities, not just muslims, but anyone who does not look European. The overworked police force and army struggle to contain the violence. The casualty figures among the victims of mob violence are in the hundreds, with thousands of foreign owned small businesses burnt to the ground. In order to contain the violence government declares martial law...
Tellos Athenaios
09-16-2012, 01:44
The bomb goes off. 75000 people are dead with another 200000 suffering from various degrees of damage to their lungs. There are reports of vigilante mobs across Great Britain attacking minorities, not just muslims, but anyone who does not look European. The overworked police force and army struggle to contain the violence. The casualty figures among the victims of mob violence are in the hundreds, with thousands of foreign owned small businesses burnt to the ground. In order to contain the violence government declares martial law...
This is Britain you're talking about. They would not declare martial law, they would politely offer you a choice between behave and Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_(film)).
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 01:48
The bomb goes off. 75000 people are dead with another 200000 suffering from various degrees of damage to their lungs. There are reports of vigilante mobs across Great Britain attacking minorities, not just muslims, but anyone who does not look European. The overworked police force and army struggle to contain the violence. The casualty figures among the victims of mob violence are in the hundreds, with thousands of foreign owned small businesses burnt to the ground. In order to contain the violence government declares martial law...
OK - now explain how they did it, because causing those sorts of casualties in an urban area is quite a feat when you lack the means to deliver the munitions by air. I suggest for look up the actual effectiveness of chemical weapons before engaging in flights of fancy like this.
Bottom line - is that such a massive undertaking that it couldn't be carried off. 9/11 was done by a bunch of guys with box cutters when nobody paid any attention to Muslims and it worked primarily because everyone expected the hijacked planes to be landed, not used as missiles. The sort of thing you're talking about requires either theft from a weapons dump or an industrial laboratory to concoct the poison, a means to get that much of the stuff into the country and multiple devices to achieve a good spread, even using mortars concealed in vans you'd need over a dozen, that means lots of people, chemists, drivers, planners, people to operate the devices...
capturing one guy wouldn't help - you'd only get, at best, one bomb unless you captured the Boss, in which case he'd almost certainly be enough of a loon he wouldn't crack in 14 hours.
There's no evidence torture works, and studies were done, what they found was that people just lie and tell the integrator what he wants to hear to stop the pain.
Your anecdote about Rabin probably isn't even true.
OK - now explain how they did it, because causing those sorts of casualties in an urban area is quite a feat when you lack the means to deliver the munitions by air. I suggest for look up the actual effectiveness of chemical weapons before engaging in flights of fancy like this.
Effectiveness of chemical weapons does vary substantially depending on the weather, this is true. Still, this scenario is far from impossible.
Bottom line - is that such a massive undertaking that it couldn't be carried off.
I would be very careful about asserting that something cannot be done. It's easy to hide one's head in the sand and pretend that something like this can not happen.
9/11 was done by a bunch of guys with box cutters when nobody paid any attention to Muslims and it worked primarily because everyone expected the hijacked planes to be landed, not used as missiles. The sort of thing you're talking about requires either theft from a weapons dump or an industrial laboratory to concoct the poison, a means to get that much of the stuff into the country and multiple devices to achieve a good spread, even using mortars concealed in vans you'd need over a dozen, that means lots of people, chemists, drivers, planners, people to operate the devices...
One thing that stood out regarding the 9/11 is the meticulous planning of the event.
capturing one guy wouldn't help - you'd only get, at best, one bomb unless you captured the Boss, in which case he'd almost certainly be enough of a loon he wouldn't crack in 14 hours.
It wouldn't help because you have already declared so. You have given up without giving it a try. So, maybe you would have been able to disarm a couple of explosive devices, that's a few thousand lives saved right there...
There's no evidence torture works, and studies were done, what they found was that people just lie and tell the integrator what he wants to hear to stop the pain.
There's no evidence that torture *always* works, but to suggest that torture can not produce useful information is ridiculous.
Your anecdote about Rabin probably isn't even true.
I saw it on TV. I will look for a link. This (http://www.washington-report.org/component/content/article/163-1995-july-august/7959-rabin-government-again-authorizes-use-of-torture-against-palestinians.html) is the best I can do for now.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 02:37
Effectiveness of chemical weapons does vary substantially depending on the weather, this is true. Still, this scenario is far from impossible.
I would be very careful about asserting that something cannot be done. It's easy to hide one's head in the sand and pretend that something like this can not happen.
Anything CAN be done, but you are pulling up totally unrealistic casualty figures to try to force a response from me. You need to think about why this has never happened - indeed, why nothing like this has happened.
You've fallen for trick, you're afraid of what might happen and you've, frankly, taken at least partial leave of your senses.
Yes, this could happen but if it does you won't be able to stop it by torturing one guy.
One thing that stood out regarding the 9/11 is the meticulous planning of the event.
Well, not really. It was well planned, but I've seen much more impressive acts carried out, and the operatives who carried it out had no exit strategy, so they're all dead.
It wouldn't help because you have already declared so. You have given up without giving it a try. So, maybe you would have been able to disarm a couple of explosive devices, that's a few thousand lives saved right there...
There's no evidence that torture *always* works, but to suggest that torture can not produce useful information is ridiculous.
It's not worth trying from a tactical point of view, it won't produce reliable information and it will taint the prisoner making it difficult to get reliable information later. From a strategic and political point of view it represents a win for the terrorists.
It's a fact that we are less free than we were ten years ago, but that is not why we are safer.
Anything CAN be done, but you are pulling up totally unrealistic casualty figures to try to force a response from me. You need to think about why this has never happened - indeed, why nothing like this has happened.
Does the number of casualties really matter? Say it's mere hundreds instead of tens of thousands. That wouldn't subtract from the fact that a capital city is under siege.
You've fallen for trick, you're afraid of what might happen and you've, frankly, taken at least partial leave of your senses.
During the Iraqi campaign at the height of violence the grunts were issued a directive that said: "Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." That didn't mean that they were expected to literally kill everyone, but rather meant that a situation that required violence could occur at any time. And they needed to be prepared. It is good to be prepared.
Yes, this could happen but if it does you won't be able to stop it by torturing one guy.
You might be able to stop one specific act. Winning one battle doesn't necessarily win the war, but a battle won is better than a battle lost.
Well, not really. It was well planned, but I've seen much more impressive acts carried out, and the operatives who carried it out had no exit strategy, so they're all dead.
They were planning to die.
It's not worth trying from a tactical point of view, it won't produce reliable information and it will taint the prisoner making it difficult to get reliable information later.
So, you would sacrifice innocent lives just so that someone who hates doesn't hate you more?
From a strategic and political point of view it represents a win for the terrorists.
A successful terrorist attack represents a far greater win.
It's a fact that we are less free than we were ten years ago, but that is not why we are safer.
Are you confident about that? What rules would you roll back?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 03:38
Does the number of casualties really matter? Say it's mere hundreds instead of tens of thousands. That wouldn't subtract from the fact that a capital city is under siege.
You REALLY need to look up the IRA bombing campaign in the mainland, and the casualty figures.
During the Iraqi campaign at the height of violence the grunts were issued a directive that said: "Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." That didn't mean that they were expected to literally kill everyone, but rather meant that a situation that required violence could occur at any time. And they needed to be prepared. It is good to be prepared.
Which has nothing to do with torture of Civil Liberties - that's soldiers in a warzone fighting irregulars.
Top tip: If everyone you meat wants to kill you, you need to ask if you're on the right side.
You might be able to stop one specific act. Winning one battle doesn't necessarily win the war, but a battle won is better than a battle lost.
Winning against terrorists is about more than numbers of lives saved, it's about not being terrorised. If they kill twenty people on a bus and you pass a law that you can only ride the bus naked they win.
They were planning to die.
I realise that, but the rest of the plan was ballsy rather than clever.
So, you would sacrifice innocent lives just so that someone who hates doesn't hate you more?
I'm not sacrificing my country's principles, our laws, our traditions and our collective soul for the sake of trying to acquire intel. The terrorists are the ones killing people, and torture is neither a viable tactical or strategic option. It produces unreliable intel, taints the prisoner, taints the Service, prevents him being properly prosecuted later - possibly leading to a post-disaster backlash because we have trouble convicting him.
A successful terrorist attack represents a far greater win.
A successful terrorists attack is one that makes you scared, the IRA was able to scare people without killing anyone, or by killing a few hundred.
I'm more afraid of you than Muslim terrorists - possibly afraid enough to consider killing you if you looked likely to gain any real political power.
Are you confident about that? What rules would you roll back?
Anything relating to due process, detention or confinement without trial, house arrest, use of tainted evidence, use of torture, use of military tribunals, anything relating to illegal rendition, anything relating to the summary execution of political targets.
So, "lots."
Strike For The South
09-16-2012, 03:46
All these scenarios make me feel like I am in a Bruce Willis movie
Do I get a cool catchphrase and a hot wife I can reconcile with at the end?
Papewaio
09-16-2012, 07:07
Okay, I'll give you the cause. Suppose, the terrorist group is fighting to establish islamic caliphate across the globe. Their demand is simple: convert to islam, establish sharia or the bombings will continue.
Your response?
Certainly not to invade a secular nation whose leader is on the wannabe caliphates hit list. That would be an absolutely stupid move to attack my worst enemies enemy.
All these little scenarios prove is that you shouldn't let RVG be the Dungeon Master at your next D&D game. :shrug:
Indeed, we still need him to rule the world. I agree with him mostly. Like in the mating game, being nice is a promise of faillure.
You REALLY need to look up the IRA bombing campaign in the mainland, and the casualty figures.
So, we're back to "not enough people are dying to warrant a proper response."
Which has nothing to do with torture of Civil Liberties - that's soldiers in a warzone fighting irregulars.
The 7/7 victims weren't in a war zone, but they are still dead.
Top tip: If everyone you meat wants to kill you, you need to ask if you're on the right side.
Who is everyone?
Winning against terrorists is about more than numbers of lives saved, it's about not being terrorised. If they kill twenty people on a bus and you pass a law that you can only ride the bus naked they win.
If you do nothing, they also win.
I'm not sacrificing my country's principles, our laws, our traditions and our collective soul for the sake of trying to acquire intel. The terrorists are the ones killing people, and torture is neither a viable tactical or strategic option. It produces unreliable intel, taints the prisoner, taints the Service, prevents him being properly prosecuted later - possibly leading to a post-disaster backlash because we have trouble convicting him.
You are putting the lives of the guilty above the lives of the innocent.
A successful terrorists attack is one that makes you scared, the IRA was able to scare people without killing anyone, or by killing a few hundred.
And the more they kill, the scarier the result.
I'm more afraid of you than Muslim terrorists - possibly afraid enough to consider killing you if you looked likely to gain any real political power.
Nah, you'll be too worried about violating my rights. At worst, you will send me a strongly worded letter.
Anything relating to due process, detention or confinement without trial, house arrest, use of tainted evidence, use of torture, use of military tribunals, anything relating to illegal rendition, anything relating to the summary execution of political targets. So, "lots."
I'm not talking repealing American laws, that's beyond your reach. I'm talking about British laws.
Certainly not to invade a secular nation whose leader is on the wannabe caliphates hit list. That would be an absolutely stupid move to attack my worst enemies enemy.
You are quick to state what you won't do, but not so quick about what you would do. Another do-nothing approach, is it?
Tellos Athenaios
09-16-2012, 15:22
All these scenarios make me feel like I am in a Bruce Willis movie
Do I get a cool catchphrase and a hot wife I can reconcile with at the end?
No you'll get to shoot a Coca Cola vending machine at the barracks on the insistence of Philip who is out of cash and desperately needs to telephone a recall code for the planes send into the air by rvg. Something to do with precious bodily fluids.
Seriously, though, rvg: we're not back at "not enough people are dying to warrant a proper response". We are at a disagreement as to what a "proper" response is. It comes down to taking the right decision and this can be judged by a simple metric: what good will the TSA do for homeland security (hint: less than nothing), and does that outweigh their cost to the American people (increased airport theft, for one thing) to do it? There is something called "security theater" and the first thing to know about security is that absolute security is a figment of the imagination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGd_M_CpeDI
gaelic cowboy
09-16-2012, 15:32
If you do nothing, they also win.
Doing the same thing means you win like in the Grand National in Aintree people all turned up to watch the monday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Grand_National)
The ordinary Irish man did not like his horse racing being called off seeing as the best jockeys, trainers and horses are from Ireland it was a massive own goal.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 15:47
So, we're back to "not enough people are dying to warrant a proper response."
No, we're back to "I'm not afraid of terrorists." Nastier men have tried to destroy my country by causing havoc - they failed.
As to a "proper response", the things you are proposing don't work - if they did the British Empire would still have its boot upon your neck.
The 7/7 victims weren't in a war zone, but they are still dead.
Irrelevant.
Who is everyone?
Terrorists require a level of tacit support, at least ten percent of their community, or they can't function and carry out attacks. Therefore, regular successful attacks demonstrate a high level of support, more than ten percent, in more than one community.
In this case though - this would be all the Afghans, where in some communities everybody does want to kill ISAF. Think about it.
If you do nothing, they also win.
We're doing plenty - there has been no second attacks in the US or UK, and lots of WWII-level wacky plans have been foiled.
You are putting the lives of the guilty above the lives of the innocent.
I'm putting long term strategic goals above short term tactical ones - saving a few lives isn't any good if it gets more people killed down the way.
And the more they kill, the scarier the result.
Well, the IRA weren't scary because they killed people - they were scary because they were smart enough to plant a bomb between floors in the hotel used for the Conservative Party Conference several weeks later.
When Islamists can plant a bomb at the Republican Convention and blow Mitt Rommy's trousers off they will receive from me something like the respect I accord the IRA.
Nah, you'll be too worried about violating my rights. At worst, you will send me a strongly worded letter.
You represent a threat to my country - in extremis your elimination might be necessary, if you were (say) President of the US.
I'm not talking repealing American laws, that's beyond your reach. I'm talking about British laws.
I was talking, mostly, about the UK.
We have had trouble prosecuting Islamists here because of the manner in which they were detained and the way evidence was acquired - mostly because torture in Gitmo makes it inadmissible.
I'd also repeal out extradition treaty with the US
No, we're back to "I'm not afraid of terrorists." Nastier men have tried to destroy my country by causing havoc - they failed.
Nastier men? You mean the Nazis? Well, back then the people in charge of Britain weren't afraid to pay the enemy in kind.
As to a "proper response", the things you are proposing don't work - if they did the British Empire would still have its boot upon your neck.
Yeah, British Empire deserved to crumble.
Terrorists require a level of tacit support, at least ten percent of their community, or they can't function and carry out attacks. Therefore, regular successful attacks demonstrate a high level of support, more than ten percent, in more than one community. Ten percent? Did you calculate this number or pull it out of the sky?
In this case though - this would be all the Afghans, where in some communities everybody does want to kill ISAF. Think about it.
There's nothing to think about. The clock is ticking, soon they will get what they are so eagerly awaiting.
We're doing plenty - there has been no second attacks in the US or UK, and lots of WWII-level wacky plans have been foiled.
And can you prove that our successes have nothing to do with the changes in laws?
I'm putting long term strategic goals above short term tactical ones - saving a few lives isn't any good if it gets more people killed down the way.
More people will get killed down the way regardless of how many you save today. This is a typical "we can't save everyone so let's not save anyone" attitude.
Well, the IRA weren't scary because they killed people - they were scary because they were smart enough to plant a bomb between floors in the hotel used for the Conservative Party Conference several weeks later.
When Islamists can plant a bomb at the Republican Convention and blow Mitt Rommy's trousers off they will receive from me something like the respect I accord the IRA.
Does the IRA have a monopoly on intelligent people?
You represent a threat to my country - in extremis your elimination might be necessary, if you were (say) President of the US.
You're all talk. Your methods are toothless, like you've shown in this thread.
We have had trouble prosecuting Islamists here because of the manner in which they were detained and the way evidence was acquired - mostly because torture in Gitmo makes it inadmissible.
You choose to declare it inadmissible.
HopAlongBunny
09-16-2012, 16:17
I'd also repeal out extradition treaty with the US
Hmm, I hadn't even thought about that. Extradition to a known torture state is a hurdle that might just stand up in many countries. I wonder if any enterprising lawyer has worked that line yet.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 17:32
Nastier men? You mean the Nazis? Well, back then the people in charge of Britain weren't afraid to pay the enemy in kind.
No, the terrorists.
Yeah, British Empire deserved to crumble.
Then America deserves to be destroyed.
Ten percent? Did you calculate this number or pull it out of the sky?
I got it from two sources, the most recent being General Sir Rupert Smith when he was kind enough to lecture us on Counter-Terrorism a few years ago.
There's nothing to think about. The clock is ticking, soon they will get what they are so eagerly awaiting.
You would say that, given that you are incapable of learning from history, and unwilling to try.
And can you prove that our successes have nothing to do with the changes in laws?
Stopping IRA bombers was harder - prior to 9/11 and 7/7 security was lax in the respective countries.
More people will get killed down the way regardless of how many you save today. This is a typical "we can't save everyone so let's not save anyone" attitude.
People die because you are fighting - you have to stop the fighting.
If you were a law-abiding citizen and your brother was tortured, what would you do? Torturing people creates
terrorists, more terrorists means more attacks.
Again - look at how this worked in the past.
Does the IRA have a monopoly on intelligent people?
I didn't say it did - Bin Laden was obviously very clever but a movement which lauds suicide is liable to either get clever people killed or start ignoring them if they live too long, as happened with Bin Laden.
You're all talk. Your methods are toothless, like you've shown in this thread.
The net gain from torture is negative - and it has a tendency to be abused, and it doesn't even extract useful information.
You choose to declare it inadmissible.
That is because torture produces unreliable evidence, as we in the UK know from experience.
No, the terrorists.
If you're talking about the IRA, then no, they aren't nastier.
Then America deserves to be destroyed.
And yet she stands.
I got it from two sources, the most recent being General Sir Rupert Smith when he was kind enough to lecture us on Counter-Terrorism a few years ago.
So, then at least full 10% of the British society supported the 7/7 bombers, right?
You would say that, given that you are incapable of learning from history, and unwilling to try.
Says the "do-nothing" guy. No, Neville, it is you who can't learn from history.
Stopping IRA bombers was harder - prior to 9/11 and 7/7 security was lax in the respective countries.
Because the scale of the terrorist acts was much lower.
People die because you are fighting - you have to stop the fighting.
I have to stop fighting? Why don't they have to stop fighting? After all, we're more adept at killing them than vice versa.
If you were a law-abiding citizen and your brother was tortured, what would you do? Torturing people creates terrorists, more terrorists means more attacks.
If your brother was a terrorist and you follow in his footsteps, then something's wrong with your family.
Again - look at how this worked in the past.
Yeah, both Abu Zubeidah and Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed provided a treasure trove of intel that eventually led to us offing Osama. That's what I call critical success.
I didn't say it did - Bin Laden was obviously very clever but a movement which lauds suicide is liable to either get clever people killed or start ignoring them if they live too long, as happened with Bin Laden.
But guess what, clever people don't just drop dead, most of them get killed by drone attacks. And drones aren't nice, you see. Perhaps we should kill them with love. Maybe bomb them with ponies and unicorns?
The net gain from torture is negative - and it has a tendency to be abused, and it doesn't even extract useful information.
So far the net gain has been very much in the positive.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 18:30
I think you're insane.
I think you're insane.
I do not care.
Strike For The South
09-16-2012, 21:36
I think you're insane.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-16-2012, 21:40
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Insane, not evil.
I can"t help but feel that you don't even try to consider at least some arguments. You also show a negative and aggressive attitude in your debating. To me it looks like you either want to defend the current attitude to terrorism and security no matter what or you are convinced so much of being right, almost looking like brainwashed, that you forsake logic and reason. Are you scared of being wrong or of reality? Or can't you deal with the fact that so many Americans and allies have died fighting for a noble cause, that appears not be so noble yet rather unnecessary and useless? Or are you merely employed in the wire tapping business?
You give all the signs of someone who doesn't want to argue and discuss in search of interesting and new insights and perhaps a search of truth, but rather of someone who wants, no needs to be right. I don't know you well and perhaps you always discuss that way. But that would make me worry only more.
I know this isn't really on topic, but somehow I felt the need to post this.
I know this isn't really on topic, but somehow I felt the need to post this.
Feeling better? Good.
Now, as you might have noticed there is a basic difference of opinion on war on terror between me and most other Backroomers. I'm totally okay with that, in fact I don't mind that one bit, especially because the U.S. government sees things my way. However, it seems that holding a different opinion on this issue is an affront to human nature. Well, guess what, it does not matter to me. I have not heard a single convincing argument as to why the current US policy is inadequate. So, you go ahead and keep your views and I'll keep mine. I'm perfectly okay with that. Righteousness is best saved for someone who cares.
Papewaio
09-17-2012, 03:22
When you can kill a concept as easy as an individual only then can you win a metaphysical war on terror.
Until that date the current policies create more security threats not less.
The other way to win is invent fusion and totally be free from any ME economic influence.
Until then repeating the same actions and expecting different outcomes is a recipe for disaster.
When you can kill a concept as easy as an individual only then can you win a metaphysical war on terror.
Until that date the current policies create more security threats not less.
The other way to win is invent fusion and totally be free from any ME economic influence.
Until then repeating the same actions and expecting different outcomes is a recipe for disaster.
If that is your opinion, that's just fine. Note that I did not start this thread and did not volunteer my opinion, but I'll be damned if I change it to conform to the views of the crowd. Your arguments for your position come from your set of values and mine come from my set of values. So, stick to your guns, and I'll stick to mine. For as long as the drones keep flying, I don't have to prove anything to anybody.
Feeling better? Good.
Now, as you might have noticed there is a basic difference of opinion on war on terror between me and most other Backroomers. I'm totally okay with that, in fact I don't mind that one bit, especially because the U.S. government sees things my way. However, it seems that holding a different opinion on this issue is an affront to human nature. Well, guess what, it does not matter to me. I have not heard a single convincing argument as to why the current US policy is inadequate. So, you go ahead and keep your views and I'll keep mine. I'm perfectly okay with that. Righteousness is best saved for someone who cares.
Totally with you, just saying
Sasaki Kojiro
09-17-2012, 08:32
Sorry, this thread exploded since I was last here.
Seems like we still have the same things being repeated in this thread. It is a basic misunderstanding of what was done.
*
Abuses distinct from the cia waterboarding program are another topic, if you want to pretend like people are praising the guys in abu gharaib or wherever be my guest.
*
They most certainly "sat down and talked to them over a cup of tea first". That is why only 3 people ended up being waterboarded. Most talked without needing that kind of pressure. But it's a willful misunderstanding of human nature to think that people don't have enough pride to keep quiet, even in the face of a polite offer of tea. Do English people have some tremendous weakness to tea that I don't know about?
*
There was never any situation in which someone would give information "just to get the pain to stop". That is pure imagination and has nothing to do with their methods.
*
It was not about confessions. They were not interested in forcing confessions, they were interested in information about al queda because they were trying to learn everything they could to prevent another attack. Ironically the "chatting over a cup of coffee" is quite effective at getting a false confession, you just have to convince them that it's in their best interest.
*
It's not clear to me why the people who say our version of waterboarding was torture don't say that sleep deprivation is torture. I think they are vastly underestimating it. You certainly don't see any youtube videos of people undergoing 3 days sleep deprivation. But IIRC the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it didn't reach the level of what was implied by torture. As I said if what we did had been accurately described in the first place I do not think we would be having this argument today.
A) freely, voluntarily, free of any duress or coersion
B) under the conditions imposed, the subject calculates that it isn't worth the hassle
C) blackmail or other forms of coersion not considered torture (broad, and not particulary relevant here)
D) inflicting pain, or other stimuli severe enough to be considered equal or worse, that causes so much stress that the subject mentally breaks and begins to talk
Everything under category D is torture in my view. I can imagine situations where there the distinction between pressure and torture becomes blurred, such as sleep deprivation with intermittent interrogations. Waterboarding is, by definition, a procedure that causes your body to "believe" it's in the process of dying, and should always be considered torture. Wether it can ever be acceptable is, of course, another question.
case in point. They never went for D, why would they even from a practical perspective, good lord. They have countless questions to ask and they need cogent answers. Their entire method was based on getting people to agree to cooperate. If they didn't when they first came in, they would start with the first method on the list. They work at creating the impression that they already know everything. People eventually think that it does not do much harm to talk, or that they can fool the interrogators, or they feel helpless and like it doesn't make any difference, or that they have endured enough that it is not shameful to talk, or they believe the bluffs and are worried it might get much worse. Essentially: they don't break, they let go.
I can't imagine what goes on in the heads of people who imagine it's a choice between chatting with a cup of coffee and inflicting sever pain until they shout out an answer in agony.
Incidentally, the quote from rvg that kadagar brought up to start the thread is quite praiseworthy. Principles tend by their nature to drastically oversimplify. Taking a religious attitude towards them, abandoning all reason and treating them as sacred and holy, is a form of non-thought that is responsible for much evil in the world. We should understand principles for what they are, an awkward stab at expressing something difficult to get a handle on. People who talk about "principles never being abandoned and moral lines never being crossed" believe they know the exact truth already and that no information or details about the situation is required, as evidenced from this thread. They are arriving at their principles by a legitimate means. It disturbs me that there are literally people out there who think of it as a "war of principles" instead of a real world response to a terrorist attack in which we worked at dismantling and disabling the terrorist group. Remember all that "if we pat people down at the airport, the terrorists win" and "you can't have a war or terror" nonsense? You have to be divorced from the real world to worry about the "principles" breached in the killing of osama etc.
How about this for a principle? How about "truth and accuracy over sensationalism"?
Sorry, this thread exploded since I was last here.
Seems like we still have the same things being repeated in this thread. It is a basic misunderstanding of what was done.
*
Abuses distinct from the cia waterboarding program are another topic, if you want to pretend like people are praising the guys in abu gharaib or wherever be my guest.
*
They most certainly "sat down and talked to them over a cup of tea first". That is why only 3 people ended up being waterboarded. Most talked without needing that kind of pressure. But it's a willful misunderstanding of human nature to think that people don't have enough pride to keep quiet, even in the face of a polite offer of tea. Do English people have some tremendous weakness to tea that I don't know about?
*
There was never any situation in which someone would give information "just to get the pain to stop". That is pure imagination and has nothing to do with their methods.
*
It was not about confessions. They were not interested in forcing confessions, they were interested in information about al queda because they were trying to learn everything they could to prevent another attack. Ironically the "chatting over a cup of coffee" is quite effective at getting a false confession, you just have to convince them that it's in their best interest.
*
It's not clear to me why the people who say our version of waterboarding was torture don't say that sleep deprivation is torture. I think they are vastly underestimating it. You certainly don't see any youtube videos of people undergoing 3 days sleep deprivation. But IIRC the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it didn't reach the level of what was implied by torture. As I said if what we did had been accurately described in the first place I do not think we would be having this argument today.
case in point. They never went for D, why would they even from a practical perspective, good lord. They have countless questions to ask and they need cogent answers. Their entire method was based on getting people to agree to cooperate. If they didn't when they first came in, they would start with the first method on the list. They work at creating the impression that they already know everything. People eventually think that it does not do much harm to talk, or that they can fool the interrogators, or they feel helpless and like it doesn't make any difference, or that they have endured enough that it is not shameful to talk, or they believe the bluffs and are worried it might get much worse. Essentially: they don't break, they let go.
I can't imagine what goes on in the heads of people who imagine it's a choice between chatting with a cup of coffee and inflicting sever pain until they shout out an answer in agony.
Incidentally, the quote from rvg that kadagar brought up to start the thread is quite praiseworthy. Principles tend by their nature to drastically oversimplify. Taking a religious attitude towards them, abandoning all reason and treating them as sacred and holy, is a form of non-thought that is responsible for much evil in the world. We should understand principles for what they are, an awkward stab at expressing something difficult to get a handle on. People who talk about "principles never being abandoned and moral lines never being crossed" believe they know the exact truth already and that no information or details about the situation is required, as evidenced from this thread. They are arriving at their principles by a legitimate means. It disturbs me that there are literally people out there who think of it as a "war of principles" instead of a real world response to a terrorist attack in which we worked at dismantling and disabling the terrorist group. Remember all that "if we pat people down at the airport, the terrorists win" and "you can't have a war or terror" nonsense? You have to be divorced from the real world to worry about the "principles" breached in the killing of osama etc.
How about this for a principle? How about "truth and accuracy over sensationalism"?
How about careless pragmatism over the comfortable ideal that is mylittleponyland?
Ironside
09-17-2012, 10:24
Incidentally, the quote from rvg that kadagar brought up to start the thread is quite praiseworthy. Principles tend by their nature to drastically oversimplify. Taking a religious attitude towards them, abandoning all reason and treating them as sacred and holy, is a form of non-thought that is responsible for much evil in the world. We should understand principles for what they are, an awkward stab at expressing something difficult to get a handle on. People who talk about "principles never being abandoned and moral lines never being crossed" believe they know the exact truth already and that no information or details about the situation is required, as evidenced from this thread. They are arriving at their principles by a legitimate means. It disturbs me that there are literally people out there who think of it as a "war of principles" instead of a real world response to a terrorist attack in which we worked at dismantling and disabling the terrorist group. Remember all that "if we pat people down at the airport, the terrorists win" and "you can't have a war or terror" nonsense? You have to be divorced from the real world to worry about the "principles" breached in the killing of osama etc.
How about this for a principle? How about "truth and accuracy over sensationalism"?
Fine, how about it. There's a progress of the world slowly becoming more peaceful (with temporary notable exceptions, which we'll come to later). The major reson for this are those principles. What the exceptions show us are a darker truth. Are humans split up in nicer and eviler people today than before? No. So those exceptions shows that the capabillity has gone up with technological progress. Worth pondering about, although I agree that there's a long fall to get there.
Another principle is avoidance of cannibalism. Does it means that we'll consider starving people who has to eat their dead comrades to survive as an abomination? No, all principles can be abondened. The value of the principle is shown when its abandoned and people value things differently. Easy enough, but that also means that abandonment means a different world for different people. For example, excecution makes sense when all other options are no longer viable. Are we in such a world?
Will torture tarnish all involved? Certainly, misery loves misery and abuse begets abuse. Phrases, but as history tells us, reflecting reality. Treating it as a golden bullet (it's not, those nazis rvg brought up has several spectacular failures) will ensure it's spread and that's not counting that some of the torturer will be tarnished enough for it to affect their judgement (justification through repetition).
Is it effective? Sometimes. Is it worth the cost? No.
How about careless pragmatism over the comfortable ideal that is mylittleponyland?
How about caring pragmatism? The strategic goal is to win the war with least losses. The difference is that one is saying "if I'm strong and nasty enough, none will hurt me", the other is saying "Be nice. Sometimes people will try to abuse that. Deal with them, but fairly and keep yourself being nice".
Both have their successes and failures (although the being nice seems to have to evolutionary advantage amoung cooperating species), so the question are, which of these worlds do you want to live in?
I don't like to be being bullied by people we could whipe out with just a push of a button, our decency is our worst enemy they know perfectly well we wouldn't do it. But taking it a little further, why not. It's what they would do if they could. Not talking nuclear by the way, disclaimer there.
Sarmatian
09-17-2012, 22:54
Not talking nuclear by the way, disclaimer there.
That's an interesting thought...
And what if, let's say, we KNOW that there's a terrorist organization that's gonna launch a nuke at New York from Cairo, but we don't know where from exactly, is okay to nuke Cairo preemptively?
EDIT: Question not directed specifically at you, just general food for thought...
That's an interesting thought...
And what if, let's say, we KNOW that there's a terrorist organization that's gonna launch a nuke at New York from Cairo, but we don't know where from exactly, is okay to nuke Cairo preemptively?
EDIT: Question not directed specifically at you, just general food for thought...
Missile silos aren't exactly easy to conceal and are generally nuke-resistant. This would call for precision bunker busters.
That's an interesting thought...
And what if, let's say, we KNOW that there's a terrorist organization that's gonna launch a nuke at New York from Cairo, but we don't know where from exactly, is okay to nuke Cairo preemptively?
EDIT: Question not directed specifically at you, just general food for thought...
Isn't the whole idea behind it that it's simply too horrible a thing to do?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-17-2012, 23:31
Missile silos aren't exactly easy to conceal and are generally nuke-resistant. This would call for precision bunker busters.
Silos are expensive, and the Egyptians likely lack the funds to properly shield both bunker and control centre.
So nuking it might work. Nuking it is also the proscribed response according to US doctrine.
If they did have a silo, you'd have to use a big nut to crack it, probably a nuclear one.
Silos are expensive, and the Egyptians likely lack the funds to properly shield both bunker and control centre.
So nuking it might work. Nuking it is also the proscribed response according to US doctrine.
If they did have a silo, you'd have to use a big nut to crack it, probably a nuclear one.
Besides silos there are three more methods of launching ICBM: from a sub, from a specialized train, and from a specialized truck. Which method are we talking about?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-20-2012, 12:01
Ah, so bravery is a good thing after all, as long as it is on your side of the argument?
rvg is under the mistaken impression that my objection to torture is primarily a moral one, and that I wouldn't do it because I find it distasteful - as such he thinks I am avoiding the "hard choice".
Also, while we're on the topic of extreme sleep deprivation - that would be torture, the same as waterboarding, you are inflicting suffering in order to get the person to talk. Conversely, shorting someones sleep cycle by a few hours so they aren't getting their 8.5 a night is not torture if it is intended to lower the detainee's level of alertness. It becomes torture when you are using it to actually make their lifer miserable.
Look - waterboarding is an advanced version of holding someone's head underwater.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-20-2012, 12:04
If that is your opinion, that's just fine. Note that I did not start this thread and did not volunteer my opinion, but I'll be damned if I change it to conform to the views of the crowd. Your arguments for your position come from your set of values and mine come from my set of values. So, stick to your guns, and I'll stick to mine. For as long as the drones keep flying, I don't have to prove anything to anybody.
The argument doesn't come "from a set of values" it comes from this never having worked.
How can you not grasp this? From the Romans to Stalin these campaigns against dissidents have universally failed.
The argument ... comes from this never having worked.
But that's quite simply a false statement. It does work.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-20-2012, 13:12
But that's quite simply a false statement. It does work.
Example?
Didn't work for the Romans, the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, Napoleons, the Russians, the Germans, the British, more recently it didn't work for Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or Syria.
I'm sure I've missed a few, other regimes that tried to suppress descent and collapsed.
Example?
Certainly... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah)
In his memoir, former CIA Director George Tenet writes:
A published report in 2006 contended that Abu Zubaydah was mentally unstable and that the administration had overstated his importance. Baloney. Abu Zubaydah had been at the crossroads of many al-Qa'ida operations and was in position to – and did – share critical information with his interrogators. Apparently, the source of the rumor that Abu Zubaydah was unbalanced was his personal diary, in which he adopted various personas. From that shaky perch, some junior Freudians leapt to the conclusion that Zubaydah had multiple personalities. In fact, Agency psychiatrists eventually determined that in his diary he was using a sophisticated literary device to express himself. And, boy, did he express himself.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-20-2012, 15:25
Certainly... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah)
The opinion of several US Government agents appears to be that he was tortured, and that there was no reason to believe those methods would be effective in getting him to talk.
He's been confined for a decade, at what point did he start producing reliable and useful intel? was it while the CIA was torturing, and they clearly were, or after when the FBI questioned him?
What I wanted, however, was an example of a regime employing such techniques as suppression of ideas that was effective.
You can't use the US because you haven't won anything, and by the looks of the recent protests you are losing the war of ideas badly.
What I wanted, however, was an example of a regime employing such techniques as suppression of ideas that was effective.
I never advocated the use of torture for any purpose other than to extract valuable information from terrorists.
You can't use the US because you haven't won anything...
I'm not sure what you're talking about here...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-21-2012, 19:31
I'm not sure what you're talking about here...
I'm talking strategically - the fact that you are known to torture Muslim detainees is part of the reason why you have mass riots across the Middle East aimed at the US specifically.
You've spent pages and pages calling me weak, trying to get me to say I'd use torture in extremis - but your entire argument hinges on things ever getting that bad, and what I'm trying to tell you is they are getting worse for the US because of things like using torture on detainees.
You're losing the war of ideas, and your people are less safe as a result - look at the deterioration in Pakistan, a former US ally.
I'm talking strategically - the fact that you are known to torture Muslim detainees is part of the reason why you have mass riots across the Middle East aimed at the US specifically.
A part? Yes. A significant part? No.
You've spent pages and pages calling me weak, trying to get me to say I'd use torture in extremis - but your entire argument hinges on things ever getting that bad, and what I'm trying to tell you is they are getting worse for the US because of things like using torture on detainees.
I disagree. Force is something that the terrorists understand and fear. Reasoning with them does not work.
You're losing the war of ideas, and your people are less safe as a result - look at the deterioration in Pakistan, a former US ally.
Our strengthening ties with India are behind the rift with Pakistan. The crowds in the streets mean nothing, Islamabad is just pissed that we're getting friendly with New Delhi.
Greyblades
09-21-2012, 21:40
I disagree. Force is something that the terrorists understand and fear. Reasoning with them does not work.
Yeah... how did force work out with the Irish, serbs, and Americans again?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-21-2012, 22:08
A part? Yes. A significant part? No.
The way you conduct the "War on Terror" is about 50% of the reason, the rest is the way you have treated Muslims for the last 50 years or so.
I disagree. Force is something that the terrorists understand and fear. Reasoning with them does not work.
Fear?
What they fear is education and women who aren't afraid of them. You are right that violence is something they understand, that's why they aren't afraid of it. It is not, however, something you understand.
Our strengthening ties with India are behind the rift with Pakistan. The crowds in the streets mean nothing, Islamabad is just pissed that we're getting friendly with New Delhi.
No, it's about your violation of sovereign airspace and killing of Pakistani soldiers, which is why you now need a new regional ally.
The way you conduct the "War on Terror" is about 50% of the reason, the rest is the way you have treated Muslims for the last 50 years or so.
You'll have to elaborate on that...
Fear? What they fear is education and women who aren't afraid of them. You are right that violence is something they understand, that's why they aren't afraid of it.
They aren't afraid of it as long as they feel they can get away with it. Al-Qaeda leadership fears death no less than you or me. They are only good at sending others to their deaths. Life of a fellow muslim is worthless to them. Their own lives however, are precious. When our drones take their precious lives away, not only it is justice, but also a very effective way of beheading the terrorist snake.
It is not, however, something you understand.
Apparently it is the other way around.
No, it's about your violation of sovereign airspace and killing of Pakistani soldiers, which is why you now need a new regional ally.
And they're about to learn that they aren't special. India on the other hand is crucial in building a new anti-China bloc in Asia-Pacific.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-22-2012, 01:26
You'll have to elaborate on that...
The short version is that the US is (jointly) responsible for every tin-pot dictator in the Middle East since you overthrew the Iranian government the first time.
They aren't afraid of it as long as they feel they can get away with it. Al-Qaeda leadership fears death no less than you or me. They are only good at sending others to their deaths. Life of a fellow muslim is worthless to them. Their own lives however, are precious. When our drones take their precious lives away, not only it is justice, but also a very effective way of beheading the terrorist snake.
Apparently it is the other way around.
You fear the deaths of American citizens enough to commit war crimes to prevent them - your enemies do not fear the deaths of Muslims, and they probably don't fear their own deaths as much as you fear yours.
That is what you do not understand - theses people are willing to sacrifice more than you do, even though they have less to give.
And they're about to learn that they aren't special. India on the other hand is crucial in building a new anti-China bloc in Asia-Pacific.
They are special - they have nukes.
The short version is that the US is (jointly) responsible for every tin-pot dictator in the Middle East since you overthrew the Iranian government the first time.
Every? Care to name a couple? Because I can sure as hell name a few who came to power without US involvement.
You fear the deaths of American citizens enough to commit war crimes to prevent them - your enemies do not fear the deaths of Muslims, and they probably don't fear their own deaths as much as you fear yours.That makes them eager to die, so let us oblige them! (yes, I stole that phrase from M2TW)
That is what you do not understand - theses people are willing to sacrifice more than you do, even though they have less to give.
Then they should be given the opportunity to do so.
They are special - they have nukes.
That doesn't make them special. That just means that we cannot allow the Taliban to take over the country. Beyond that, they may slowly rot for all I care.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-22-2012, 01:50
Every? Care to name a couple? Because I can sure as hell name a few who came to power without US involvement.
Um - Iran I, Iran II: Now with added piety, Iraq, Israel (US involved prematurely ended the British Mandate which is why Palestine is in pieces), Egypt the first time, and I think the second time... you did support Libya and Tunisia at various points, certainly you didn't oppose the overthrow of their monarchies.
And most recently, you screwed the Afghans and bombed the Pakistanis, thereby destabalising the regime further.
I'll grant you that Syria is the Iranians and Russians, but as mentioned Iran is your fault.
That's a big enough list of sins.
That makes them eager to die, so let us oblige them! (yes, I stole that phrase from M2TW)
Killing them serves their purpose - what doesn't serve their purpose is sending doctors to the Middle East with free drugs - killing those doctors only serves their purpose if you send soldiers after them.
Then they should be given the opportunity to do so.
The anti-American movement is based primarily on hatred rather than cold political deliberations - creating more hatred strengthens the movement, creates more recruits.
That doesn't make them special. That just means that we cannot allow the Taliban to take over the country. Beyond that, they may slowly rot for all I care.
Now, imagine how the average Pakistani feels reading that.
That's a big enough list of sins.
No, aside from Iran the rest is a bunch of lies.
Iraq: Baath party was a socialist movement. We most certainly did not bring it to power.
Israel: don't blame us for it, you couldn't hold on to it and got kicked out. Not our fault.
Egypt: Are you talking about that commie Nasser? We most certainly did not support him. Sadat was merely a successor, as was Mubarak.
... you did support Libya and Tunisia at various points, certainly you didn't oppose the overthrow of their monarchies...
This is weak. Just weak. If you have nothing definitive to say, it's better to just say nothing.
And most recently, you screwed the Afghans and bombed the Pakistanis, thereby destabalising the regime further.
No worries, Afghans can have their beloved Taliban back as early as 2014. As for Pakistan, what exactly are you talking about? The border incident? That was a case of mistaken identity. Oh, and neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan are in the Middle East. Just saying.
Killing them serves their purpose - what doesn't serve their purpose is sending doctors to the Middle East with free drugs - killing those doctors only serves their purpose if you send soldiers after them.
Okay doc, good luck. You want to be charitable? Go ahead, but not on my dime.
The anti-American movement is based primarily on hatred rather than cold political deliberations - creating more hatred strengthens the movement, creates more recruits.
They want to hate? Let them. Hatred is a blind and stupid emotion, it can do little harm unless directed by the cool minded puppeteers. We've been eliminating puppeteers, and it's been working out well. Let the savages bathe in their hate, I do not care.
Now, imagine how the average Pakistani feels reading that.
Average Pakistani probably cannot read.
Sarmatian
09-22-2012, 03:13
Average Pakistani probably cannot read.
It took 14 pages but we finally got there.
One of the few things I hate more than terrorism is racism.
It took 14 pages but we finally got there.
One of the few things I hate more than terrorism is racism.
The truth isn't racist. Pakistan has 55% literacy rate.
It took 14 pages but we finally got there.
One of the few things I hate more than terrorism is racism.
They can't, they might be capable to read, but they can't. That is just simply true, personally I think leftist outrage over facts that don't comfirm their oh so deeply felt religion is worst.
Sarmatian
09-22-2012, 12:03
They can't, they might be capable to read, but they can't. That is just simply true, personally I think leftist outrage over facts that don't comfirm their oh so deeply felt religion is worst.
There's nothing "leftist" about it, it's about numbers.
The truth isn't racist. Pakistan has 55% literacy rate.
56% actually, but it doesn't matter. When you say than an average Pakistani can't read, it implies than only the select few, like the upper class, can read and normal, average people can not. That is not true as anything over 50% is a majority, thus, majority of Pakistanis are literate.
So, if you wish to be an ass and say that Pakistanis may as well rot for all you care, about 98 million Pakistanis can read it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-22-2012, 12:05
The truth isn't racist. Pakistan has 55% literacy rate.
In that case, if you think Pakistani's are illiterate, you are innumerate.
As Sarmation said, anything over 50% is a majority.
Tellos Athenaios
09-22-2012, 12:30
In that case, if you think Pakistani's are illiterate, you are innumerate.
Well, he is. Or perhaps more accurately: rvg is not exactly highly numerate. We saw that in the another science breakthrough Math thread, didn't we?
There's nothing "leftist" about it, it's about numbers.
56% actually, but it doesn't matter. When you say than an average Pakistani can't read, it implies than only the select few, like the upper class, can read and normal, average people can not. That is not true as anything over 50% is a majority, thus, majority of Pakistanis are literate.
So, if you wish to be an ass and say that Pakistanis may as well rot for all you care, about 98 million Pakistanis can read it.
Threy can rot in hell for all I care, just saying
Sarmatian
09-22-2012, 15:05
Threy can rot in hell for all I care, just saying
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. You can say what you want.
Doesn't mean you can't be an ass when you exercise it, though.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. You can say what you want.
Doesn't mean you can't be an ass when you exercise it, though.
I don't mean it, but I am saying it anyway just for the sake of it. But it's really true that most people in Pakistan can't read.
In that case, if you think Pakistani's are illiterate, you are innumerate.
44% or 45% of them are illiterate. That's a fact.
How do you define the average Pakistani, should be the following question.
How do you define the average Pakistani, should be the following question.
And it's a good question. The good way would be to filter out the educated elite from Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi as well as the tribal rabble from the Northwest Frontier province, then look at what's left.
Attachment: World Literacy Map.
7242
P.S. Pakistan isn't doing too well.
How do you define the average Pakistani.
Asking them if they can read
Sure, I'll let you know the next time I'm in Pakistan. I'll just ask everyone, I guess.
Sure, I'll let you know the next time I'm in Pakistan. I'll just ask everyone, I guess.
By the way, I've always wondered. The people you meet in the Middle East and South Asia, do you tell them that you're a Buddhist (provided that the discussion ventures into religion)? If you do, what's their reaction?
Sure, I'll let you know the next time I'm in Pakistan. I'll just ask everyone, I guess.
Let them write it down just to be sure
Just a note: I've never even been further east than Ba'albek, Lebanon.
he people you meet in the Middle East and South Asia, do you tell them that you're a Buddhist (provided that the discussion ventures into religion)? If you do, what's their reaction?
Yeah, my uncle asked me four years ago what I believed in. I said I wasn't a Muslim, so he just shrugged and went along with his business. The people in Lebanon were like "lol okay", even the people in Ba'albek whom we knew were Hezbollah. I've had a grand total of one negative reaction in Jerusalem, from this dude who told me that me and my mother were going to hell.
Just a note: I've never even been further east than Ba'albek, Lebanon.
Yeah, my uncle asked me four years ago what I believed in. I said I wasn't a Muslim, so he just shrugged and went along with his business. The people in Lebanon were like "lol okay", even the people in Ba'albek whom we knew were Hezbollah. I've had a grand total of one negative reaction in Jerusalem, from this dude who told me that me and my mother were going to hell.
Are you insane Hax to meet with Hezbollah, don't do that again please?
Strike For The South
09-22-2012, 22:37
Literacy is overrated as a statistic, this thread is proof.
Are you insane Hax to meet with Hezbollah, don't do that again please?
Yeah, I'm crazy. I'm totally crazy.
What you're apparently forgetting is that Hezbollah isn't just a militia, they're a political party with supported by many different people from many different kinds of social environments. What you're also forgetting is that some people are aligned to Hezbollah, but aren't really active about it. Such as sizeable amounts of people in cities such as Ba'albek and Saida.
To be honest, I'm more scared of the Phalange than of Hezbollah right now.
Kralizec
09-25-2012, 22:46
anything over 50% is a majority, thus, majority of Pakistanis are literate.
As Sarmation said, anything over 50% is a majority.
You've piqued my interest. Please explain more of this concept to me.
Joking aside, the majority of Pakistani are literate in Urdu or whatever. They would not be able to read rvg's post. Nor are they able to understand anything of the "innocence of muslims" film. I'd hazard a guess that most of the rioters never actually saw the movie but heard from their Imam or some other provocateur that somewhere far away, someone made a blasphemous movie and that therefore they ought to go berserk. It's naive to assume that anything you or I do, write or put in a film will reach millions of muslims and incite them to riot. What happened, as with the Danish cartoons, was that a small number of clerics and islamist activists used it as a plausible pretext for their followers to riot.
a completely inoffensive name
09-26-2012, 06:41
Just being able to read a written language isn't anything special. It's comprehension and analysis that has real value if you want to get on your high horse and lord over the lesser cultures.
I know this because I have none of those qualities and I am lesser for it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.