rvg, some couple of years later?

[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.