RkFast Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 You can't claim to fight terror if you utilize torture methods. Torture isn't even a good interrogation technique- it isn't consistent enough to act upon the information. Not to mention that it is torture. The slaughter of hundreds or thousands (terrorism) cannot be "fought" by (ok, Ill use the word) using 'torture' on ONE man? Please reconcile.
Adam Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The slaughter of hundreds or thousands (terrorism) cannot be "fought" by (ok, Ill use the word) using 'torture' on ONE man? Please reconcile. So how has that been working? Have the terrorists gone away?
IDBillzFan Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 So how has that been working? Have the terrorists gone away? No. Everyone knows they won't go away until we close Gitmo.
RkFast Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 So how has that been working? Have the terrorists gone away? The proper question is... Has this one tactic helped at all reach the overall objective of making terrorism (not terrorISTS) go away. The answer to that question would then tell you whether or not the tactic should continue to be used. In warfare you judge tactics by their effectiveness, not how "good" they feel carrying them out.
erynthered Posted March 12, 2010 Author Posted March 12, 2010 No. Everyone knows they won't go away until we close Gitmo. Speaking of Gitmo. They dont go away, they just re-join their pals.
Keukasmallies Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 So I'm thinking that terrorists reading our newspapers, watching our TV news shows, must be just laughing their a$$'s off at the philosophic gymnastics we go through as we debate responses to their no-holds-barred, low-tech assaults on us in various venues around the world. Worst case scenario, we'll get them assigned to three public defenders, an ACLU rep., and meals on wheels if we ever capture them....
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 waterboard Karl Rove - then ask him how he feels
Magox Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 waterboard Karl Rove - then ask him how he feels Let's bomb your house and kill your family and see how you feel. Deal?
erynthered Posted March 12, 2010 Author Posted March 12, 2010 waterboard Karl Rove - then ask him how he feels If he had to do it to save thousands of American lives, yeah, I'd bet he'd do it.
RkFast Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Let's bomb your house and kill your family and see how you feel. Deal? Well, that ends THAT. Good work.
KD in CA Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 This is proof that there are no longer good guys and bad guys in the world. Moral absolutes make people feel all warm and fuzzy, but they don't exist. Who's talking about moral absolutes? I could give a rat's ass about that. I'm not interested in claiming moral superiority over some nutjobs who want to kill me because I don't believe in their Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am interested in doing anything that is required to slaughter them so they do not succeed. What's so hard to understand? It's not like these people are asking to sit down to the bargaining table.
Adam Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Who's talking about moral absolutes? I could give a rat's ass about that. I'm not interested in claiming moral superiority over some nutjobs who want to kill me because I don't believe in their Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am interested in doing anything that is required to slaughter them so they do not succeed. What's so hard to understand? It's not like these people are asking to sit down to the bargaining table. No, they aren't. And while they are taking the time to recruit people to their cause, we are doing little to offer their potentials an alternative to becoming terrorists. The government under the Bush administration didn't and they aren't doing it under the Obama administration either. The reason is simple- it is a tough, complex task.
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 No, they aren't. And while they are taking the time to recruit people to their cause, we are doing little to offer their potentials an alternative to becoming terrorists. The government under the Bush administration didn't and they aren't doing it under the Obama administration either. The reason is simple- it is a tough, complex task. I highly doubt al Qaeda's recruitment is affected in any meaningful way by waterboarding. In that context it's not even an issue.
RkFast Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 No, they aren't. And while they are taking the time to recruit people to their cause, we are doing little to offer their potentials an alternative to becoming terrorists. The government under the Bush administration didn't and they aren't doing it under the Obama administration either. The reason is simple- it is a tough, complex task. So its up to "us" to give THEM "alternatives" to pumping 767s into buildings??!!!!?? What kind of !@#$ed up logic is THAT??!!!??
Adam Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 So its up to "us" to give THEM "alternatives" to pumping 767s into buildings??!!!!?? What kind of !@#$ed up logic is THAT??!!!?? That isn't what I said.
meazza Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 There's a short article and audio clip with him being interviewed by the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/201...rboarding.shtml You sure he didn't mean motorboating?
RkFast Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 That isn't what I said. You said "we are doing little to offer their potentials an alternative to becoming terrorists" Can you clarify what you meant?
KD in CA Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 That isn't what I said. Actually, that's what it sounded like to me too. we are doing little to offer their potentials an alternative to becoming terrorists. What else are we supposed to be doing? We're buying about as much oil from them as we can, but that doesn't tend to filter down to the people. And we've all agreed that democracy building in the ME is a little tricky.
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 You said "we are doing little to offer their potentials an alternative to becoming terrorists" Can you clarify what you meant? You're kidding, right? Mohammed Atta et al. didn't become terrorists when they flew the planes into the WTC. They were terrorists before then (when they were recruited and trained). It's the difference between recruitment and operations, numbskull.
Adam Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 You said "we are doing little to offer their potentials an alternative to becoming terrorists" Can you clarify what you meant? They are people looking for a cause and very vulnerable to falling for the terrorist schtick. I think we can do better than we have been doing- but that would actually take some effort. Fighting terrorism is different that fighting an actual war- the "Cut off the head and the snake dies" axiom doesn't work. You neuter them by cutting off what they add to their numbers with. How do you do that? Well, I really don't know, but you would think with all of the big minds we have in the military, FBI and CIA, they could come up with something effective. Committing attrocities against people you fight against doesn't solve the problem, it accelerates it. What else are we supposed to be doing? We're buying about as much oil from them as we can, but that doesn't tend to filter down to the people. And we've all agreed that democracy building in the ME is a little tricky. Democracy building is worthless. The government we constructed will be overthrown shortly after we leave and the replacement will probably be hostile to us for repressing them in the first place. We shouldn't have artificially removed the previous regime, but after that happened, we should have helped them set up whatever form of government they wanted, then left. Artificially removing a government creates a vacuum and that's a bad thing- even though Sadaam was one of the worst thugs in human history.
Recommended Posts