How come you skipped past the last part?
Printable View
How come you skipped past the last part?
Didn't wanna scare you any further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Oh, peoples opinions never scare me.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
People with guns scare me :)
You do realize my quote is from the Boston Massacre right?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It a) helped cement the British Empires loss of the lands.
b) In the cool headed trials that followed proved how advanced the colony was in handling such issues.
The founding fathers were both enlightened and politically astute in their handling of the situation. The British Empire was not.
What you fail to get is that the US has evolved from that meager state since then... To this bastion of freedom we now all enjoy!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well, personally, I'm already weighing up the danger you pose to the western world at large, given that you're basically riffing off every sociopathic dictator from the last two millennia.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
"Let them hate us so long as they fear us" is as foolish as "kill everyone who doesn't agree.", and it has also been shown not to work, and every generation has tried to be a bit scarier and a bit more brutal, and the retaliation has just been that bit more harsh.
Of course I do. And my point is that Britain *could* have choked the rebellion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
That's a matter of opinion, and ours differ greatly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
yup, his is based in realityQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
Do you know why Napoleon lost?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
When he entered a country it was his policy that his soldiers should take what they wanted, rape who they wanted, and destroy anything not able to be made French. Consequently, he was opposed everywhere he fought.
When Wellington invaded France it was his policy that everything should be paid for and that any soldier caught looting should be hanged immediately. That's the equivalent of rogue Marines in Afghanistan coming back to the base, boasting about the ragheads they killed, then being lined up and shot.
Wellington also had forgers in his army who forges francs with a higher silver content than Napoleon's so that his soldiers could pay for everything they needed with legal tended, and pay more than the French.
This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of historical record.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Do you know why Napoleon lost?
Personally I think you can't read thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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 mostQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You can't have it both ways either!Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
We started this because of your guff about putting principles aside to protect them, but apparently you have no principles by your own admission!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
See, when I make a statement I tend to back it up with facts...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
That's nice, but it does not answer my question :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Principles ditched at the first hint of inconvience are just bling.
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.Quote:
The individuals, family or societies value in principles is proportional to the lengths in which they will go too to uphold them.
Que?Quote:
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.
Nobody's throwing away principles. We just selectively withhold applying those principles to those who seek to destroy our civilization.Quote:
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.
We rationalize things just fine. Life, liberty and basic rights of a terrorist are worthless to me.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Yeah real brave and smart.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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...happiness.html
So, how many will need to die before we can start taking terrorism seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
In 2,000 I could have legitimately asked you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
"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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If it happens again?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
Suppose the successful attacks are carried out every 6 months. Then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You find the cause, you don't keep restricting civil liberties or locking up anyone who might be a Muslim.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
We've been there before, in Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Then he hated us too much, and we didn't catch him soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
Resources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
This is Britain you're talking about. They would not declare martial law, they would politely offer you a choice between behave and Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
Effectiveness of chemical weapons does vary substantially depending on the weather, this is true. Still, this scenario is far from impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Bottom line - is that such a massive undertaking that it couldn't be carried off.
One thing that stood out regarding the 9/11 is the meticulous planning of the event.Quote:
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...
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...Quote:
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 that torture *always* works, but to suggest that torture can not produce useful information is ridiculous.Quote:
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.
I saw it on TV. I will look for a link. This is the best I can do for now.Quote:
Your anecdote about Rabin probably isn't even true.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
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.Quote:
One thing that stood out regarding the 9/11 is the meticulous planning of the event.
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.Quote:
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 a fact that we are less free than we were ten years ago, but that is not why we are safer.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
You've fallen for trick, you're afraid of what might happen and you've, frankly, taken at least partial leave of your senses.
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.Quote:
Yes, this could happen but if it does you won't be able to stop it by torturing one guy.
They were planning to die.Quote:
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.
So, you would sacrifice innocent lives just so that someone who hates doesn't hate you more?Quote:
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.
A successful terrorist attack represents a far greater win.Quote:
From a strategic and political point of view it represents a win for the terrorists.
Are you confident about that? What rules would you roll back?Quote:
It's a fact that we are less free than we were ten years ago, but that is not why we are safer.
You REALLY need to look up the IRA bombing campaign in the mainland, and the casualty figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Which has nothing to do with torture of Civil Liberties - that's soldiers in a warzone fighting irregulars.Quote:
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.
Top tip: If everyone you meat wants to kill you, you need to ask if you're on the right side.
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.Quote:
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.
I realise that, but the rest of the plan was ballsy rather than clever.Quote:
They were planning to die.
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.Quote:
So, you would sacrifice innocent lives just so that someone who hates doesn't hate you more?
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.Quote:
A successful terrorist attack represents a far greater win.
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.
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.Quote:
Are you confident about that? What rules would you roll back?
So, "lots."
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So, we're back to "not enough people are dying to warrant a proper response."Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The 7/7 victims weren't in a war zone, but they are still dead.Quote:
Which has nothing to do with torture of Civil Liberties - that's soldiers in a warzone fighting irregulars.
Who is everyone?Quote:
Top tip: If everyone you meat wants to kill you, you need to ask if you're on the right side.
If you do nothing, they also win.Quote:
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.
You are putting the lives of the guilty above the lives of the innocent.Quote:
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.
And the more they kill, the scarier the result.Quote:
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.
Nah, you'll be too worried about violating my rights. At worst, you will send me a strongly worded letter.Quote:
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.
I'm not talking repealing American laws, that's beyond your reach. I'm talking about British laws.Quote:
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."
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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
Doing the same thing means you win like in the Grand National in Aintree people all turned up to watch the mondayQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
No, we're back to "I'm not afraid of terrorists." Nastier men have tried to destroy my country by causing havoc - they failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
Irrelevant.Quote:
The 7/7 victims weren't in a war zone, but they are still dead.
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.Quote:
Who is everyone?
In this case though - this would be all the Afghans, where in some communities everybody does want to kill ISAF. Think about it.
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.Quote:
If you do nothing, they also win.
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.Quote:
You are putting the lives of the guilty above the lives of the innocent.
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.Quote:
And the more they kill, the scarier the result.
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.
You represent a threat to my country - in extremis your elimination might be necessary, if you were (say) President of the US.Quote:
Nah, you'll be too worried about violating my rights. At worst, you will send me a strongly worded letter.
I was talking, mostly, about the UK.Quote:
I'm not talking repealing American laws, that's beyond your reach. I'm talking about British laws.
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
Nastier men? You mean the Nazis? Well, back then the people in charge of Britain weren't afraid to pay the enemy in kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yeah, British Empire deserved to crumble.Quote:
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.
Ten percent? Did you calculate this number or pull it out of the sky?Quote:
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.
There's nothing to think about. The clock is ticking, soon they will get what they are so eagerly awaiting.Quote:
In this case though - this would be all the Afghans, where in some communities everybody does want to kill ISAF. Think about it.
And can you prove that our successes have nothing to do with the changes in laws?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Does the IRA have a monopoly on intelligent people?Quote:
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.
You're all talk. Your methods are toothless, like you've shown in this thread.Quote:
You represent a threat to my country - in extremis your elimination might be necessary, if you were (say) President of the US.
You choose to declare it inadmissible.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No, the terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Then America deserves to be destroyed.Quote:
Yeah, British Empire deserved to crumble.
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.Quote:
Ten percent? Did you calculate this number or pull it out of the sky?
You would say that, given that you are incapable of learning from history, and unwilling to try.Quote:
There's nothing to think about. The clock is ticking, soon they will get what they are so eagerly awaiting.
Stopping IRA bombers was harder - prior to 9/11 and 7/7 security was lax in the respective countries.Quote:
And can you prove that our successes have nothing to do with the changes in laws?
People die because you are fighting - you have to stop the fighting.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Does the IRA have a monopoly on intelligent people?
The net gain from torture is negative - and it has a tendency to be abused, and it doesn't even extract useful information.Quote:
You're all talk. Your methods are toothless, like you've shown in this thread.
That is because torture produces unreliable evidence, as we in the UK know from experience.Quote:
You choose to declare it inadmissible.
If you're talking about the IRA, then no, they aren't nastier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And yet she stands.Quote:
Then America deserves to be destroyed.
So, then at least full 10% of the British society supported the 7/7 bombers, right?Quote:
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.
Says the "do-nothing" guy. No, Neville, it is you who can't learn from history.Quote:
You would say that, given that you are incapable of learning from history, and unwilling to try.
Because the scale of the terrorist acts was much lower.Quote:
Stopping IRA bombers was harder - prior to 9/11 and 7/7 security was lax in the respective countries.
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.Quote:
People die because you are fighting - you have to stop the fighting.
If your brother was a terrorist and you follow in his footsteps, then something's wrong with your family.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Again - look at how this worked in the past.
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?Quote:
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.
So far the net gain has been very much in the positive.Quote:
The net gain from torture is negative - and it has a tendency to be abused, and it doesn't even extract useful information.
I think you're insane.
I do not care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Insane, not evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.
Feeling better? Good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Totally with you, just sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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 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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.
That's an interesting thought...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian