rvg, some couple of years later?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

[rvg]

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]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

I think you're insane.

[rvg]

I think you're insane.

I do not care.

[Strike For The South]

I think you're insane.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Insane, not evil.

[Moros]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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"?

[Fragony]

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]

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?

[Fragony]

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]

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...

[rvg]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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]

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.

[rvg]

The argument ... comes from this never having worked.

But that's quite simply a false statement. It does work.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[rvg]

Example?

Certainly...

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]

Certainly...

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.

[rvg]

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...