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.

[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.

[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.