we're the good guys right?

cheesyboy said:
Nobody thinks they're the bad guys.

It's ok to do these terrible things, because we're not the bad guys.

And if your entire mo-op leans on believing the 'others' to be the bad guys, then it's helpful to your cause when they do bad things. Escalation.
Click to expand...

This says it all.
 
jsmoke said:
Provoke Muslims in the ME, watch a small minority retaliate, bomb the living daylights out of them, torture them, steal oil in the ME, make movies about it, profit.

This all started at the end of WW2 and America's problems with Iran. It's not even eye for an eye, it's eye for their eye.
Click to expand...

lol, "provoke muslims"

Provoke them so they do what, bomb and kill each other? After the removal of saddam, no one in the west told sunni muslim extremists to blow up a shia mosque, they did it anyway pretty much igniting the civil war.

As for the OP, you can't really defend torture, it doesn't really work for a start.
 
LabR@t said:
They have had far, far less attacks, you mean
Click to expand...
You're really going to need to provide some good evidence to show both a reduction in the number of terror attacks and to link that to torture etc rather than to, say, improved intelligence, policing and so on.
 
Malevolence said:
We are not going to beat these ***** by being all lovey dovey with them. If that means taking the gloves off and getting dirty then so be it.
Click to expand...
We're also not going to beat them by just torturing random folk because they happen to have brown skin and/or be called Ahmed.
 
Raz said:
Do you only see in extremes and nothing in-between?
Click to expand...

That's the premise of the thread.

In the real world with finite resources and more terrorists to track than trackers. More threats than solutions would I lose sleep.knowing that these US guys haven't been tried and convicted?

No I would lose more over the people plotting to bomb children's concerts or train stations etc

What's your name by the way?
 
subbytna said:
Those that do inhumane things can't be reasoned with in "the normal way" therefore sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Click to expand...

Are you quoting the pro or anti US factions here? The quote could be attributed to both, which is the issue.
 
Malevolence said:
We are not going to beat these ***** by being all lovey dovey with them. If that means taking the gloves off and getting dirty then so be it.
Click to expand...
Except that every bit of proper research into such methods over the last few hundred years has said that information collected by torture (be it "no permanent physical damage" or "cut the fingers off, get out the hot pokers and electrodes" type) is effectively worthless.
People will say anything you want them to say to stop it, and it is actively counter productive in collecting useful preventative intelligence as you end up spending your time and resources chasing things that don't exist (except in the head of someone desperate for it to stop), and means that someone who may before being tortured have had no major ill will towards you is now likely to hate your guts as are their family.
Even the people that do the "enhanced" interrogations have admitted that it doesn't work.

You say about being "lovey dovey" with them, but that actually works better than torture for accurate information in many situations.
 
The Running Man said:
Ieds are designed to maim most commonly. So one bad guy who was most likely a terrorist drank a bit of water.

Hardly the same thing is it?
Click to expand...

At least 120 people were tortured. Of those, at least 20% were so unlikely to be terrorists that they shouldn't even have been detained even under de facto martial law conditions. It's not known if any of the victims were terrorists, including any who confessed. People who are tortured often confess to things they're not guilty of, so often that obtaining false confessions is very often a large part of the point of torture.

Even if you don't give a damn about people being tortured (to death in one case), you should care about it making the situation worse. Once you start using torture, the least bad option from a political point of view is murdering all your victims and making sure nobody finds the remains. Otherwise, you're creating perfect conditions for more extremism. Even if you've broken your victims so badly that they're no longer functional, if anyone else sees them it will probably lead to more extremism. If you murder them all and nobody ever finds the remains, you're still creating good conditions for more extremism but not quite as good...unless the mass grave is discovered.

It's not the same thing, no. It's a lot more stupid. They want to create extremism, on both sides, because they know that it's politically useful for them. Barbarism on either side benefits them, not us.
 
Mark A said:
You obviously havent seen the Isis torture videos, people being burned alive and having their heads slowly cut off.
Click to expand...


Isis didnt exist at the time we were doing this though.

that's like justifying chemical weapons attacks in ww1 by saying "but look what they did during the holocaust"
 
Angilion said:
At least 120 people were tortured. Of those, at least 20% were so unlikely to be terrorists that they shouldn't even have been detained even under de facto martial law conditions. It's not known if any of the victims were terrorists, including any who confessed. People who are tortured often confess to things they're not guilty of, so often that obtaining false confessions is very often a large part of the point of torture.

Even if you don't give a damn about people being tortured (to death in one case), you should care about it making the situation worse. Once you start using torture, the least bad option from a political point of view is murdering all your victims and making sure nobody finds the remains. Otherwise, you're creating perfect conditions for more extremism. Even if you've broken your victims so badly that they're no longer functional, if anyone else sees them it will probably lead to more extremism. If you murder them all and nobody ever finds the remains, you're still creating good conditions for more extremism but not quite as good...unless the mass grave is discovered.

It's not the same thing, no. It's a lot more stupid. They want to create extremism, on both sides, because they know that it's politically useful for them. Barbarism on either side benefits them, not us.
Click to expand...

Like I said boko haram did not start kidnapping your girls due to the US so you're stance dies not stack up.

Isis wanted to create a caphilate due to religious beliefs not because of the US.
 
lude1962 said:
By your logic guilty until proven innocent, and guilty by association.
The Germans used the same logic during ww2, one villager kills a German, retaliate , kill the whole village.
Click to expand...
A lesson their Frank and Goth ancestors learned the hard way from the Romans.

"We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to defend the walls we sleep behind."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom