Most Americans believe torture can be justified - poll

Tzardine

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

The greatest nazi interrigator during world war two brought his detainees to the cinema and fed them well and he was the most successful out of the reich

Cool story bro.

Maybe he brought them to see sex and the city.

end of the road

mandrake04 wrote: »

Do it in secret.

can't be done. it was tried, and they found out. if you support torture, you support terrorists and terrorism

captbarnacles

@ the pro-torture posters:

Would you be comfortable with Irish citizens for example IRA members being tortured to see if they were planning a terrorist act or is torture only to be practiced on islamists preferably not Caucasian?

BuilderPlumber

captbarnacles wrote: »

@ the pro-torture posters:

Would you be comfortable with Irish citizens for example IRA members being tortured to see if they were planning a terrorist act or is torture only to be practiced on islamists preferably not Caucasian?

Trying to prevent a terrorist attack is 100% necessary no matter who they are. But torture tends to be the lazy way out. As I said, it should only be used in extreme cases: when one has a non-cooperative bigot who knows a 9/11 is about to be undertaken and is not cooperating.

MOST however will respond to deals to save themselves. Some say these 'Islamic' fascists don't care about their own lives: they do very much. The ones who plan it. The suicide bombers are brainwashed mentally ill vulnerable people the evil planners exploit and handpick. The planners will usually sell out those above them, the financiers and the financiers will usually sell out those who set them up and that's when the likes of Rumsfeld et al and/or the Saudi regime could be named so that's why this route is not taken. It is safer for them to arrest innocents and frame someone they want rid of. 9/11 and the like are indirect results of poor foreign policy from the West plus blind eyes turned to wealthy Saudis who have the power to wreak havoc on the world oil industry if the finger points to them. So, the REAL people behind 9/11 et al (those who control bin Laden, Zawahiri, Baghdadi, etc.) will NEVER be caught. They work against the West on one level but they have the say about oil issues and its stability on another.

wylie

captbarnacles wrote: »

@ the pro-torture posters:

Would you be comfortable with Irish citizens for example IRA members being tortured to see if they were planning a terrorist act or is torture only to be practiced on islamists preferably not Caucasian?

The IRA went after military targets and army personal, plus they gave 30 min warnings in most cases so as to limit casualties, i understand this didn't always work, but they never went directly after children or cutting the heads off innocent people on TV to make a political statement.

Torturing someone can only work if the information can be verified. Locations of terrorist cells,weapon caches and financier's. Torturing someone about a previous terror act is pointless as everyone would have a breaking point and admit to anything.

If the IRA was cutting the heads of people and suicide bombings etc then hell yeah. Torture the s**t out of them.

Timberrrrrrrr

wylie wrote: »

The IRA went after military targets and army personal, plus they gave 30 min warnings in most cases so as to limit casualties, i understand this didn't always work, but they never went directly after children or cutting the heads off innocent people on TV to make a political statement.

Torturing someone can only work if the information can be verified. Locations of terrorist cells,weapon caches and financier's. Torturing someone about a previous terror act is pointless as everyone would have a breaking point and admit to anything.

If the IRA was cutting the heads of people and suicide bombings etc then hell yeah. Torture the s**t out of them.

You might want to tell that to the parents of Tim Parry and Johnathon Ball

wylie

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You might want to tell that to the parents of Tim Parry and Johnathon Ball

WARNING was sent, area wasn't cleared in time.

I cant provide a source because i'm a noob, but you could google it!

ScumLord

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Trying to prevent a terrorist attack is 100% necessary no matter who they are.

Really? Terrorists can just be another name for "the enemy". The British would have considered the Americans as terrorists that would stand and fight and used guerilla tactics to erode the British armies effectiveness.

I think terrorism is pointless, it isn't effective and does more harm to the terrorists than good but it is the only viable mode of fighting left open to countries that can't afford to match American military might.

As long as big countries insist on getting involved in small countries politics there will be people that will want to stop them interfering.

I think Terrorism is backing itself into a corner. Their getting more violent and picking on the wrong people entirely. Events like that one in Pakistan is showing the levels they feel they have to go to and it will eventually turn everyone against the idea of terrorism because all they seem to do is punch themselves in the face.

BuilderPlumber

wylie wrote: »

The IRA went after military targets and army personal, plus they gave 30 min warnings in most cases so as to limit casualties, i understand this didn't always work, but they never went directly after children or cutting the heads off innocent people on TV to make a political statement.

Torturing someone can only work if the information can be verified. Locations of terrorist cells,weapon caches and financier's. Torturing someone about a previous terror act is pointless as everyone would have a breaking point and admit to anything.

If the IRA was cutting the heads of people and suicide bombings etc then hell yeah. Torture the s**t out of them.

Yes. The IRA and other organisations are rational and have specific aims. They do not want to kill innocent people and they are open to talks and settlement. Same can be said with Iranian rebel groups like Mojahedin e Khalq and even Palestinian groups like Hamas are limited to specified goals in that area.

ISIS, al Qaeda, al Shabaab, Boko Haram and Taliban on the other hand are all part of a movement that wants to: 'Islamise' the entire world (that means, their version of 'Islam' so even other Islamic communities are not safe), kill everyone who disagrees with them and destroy the world's economy, infrastructure and nation states to do so. Whether one lives in the US, Russia, Iran, China, UK, Pakistan or India, these organisations are common enemies working against both the governments and people of each named country and a 150+ other countries too.

In recent times, al Qaeda and al Qaeda related 'Sunni Muslim' extremists have committed terrorist attacks in among others Afghanistan, Pakistan, USA, UK, Spain, Iran, India, Australia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Turkey, and Syria. And AGAINST the governments of all above countries. So, universally we can say they are a common enemy to mankind no matter what differences exist among our nations.

al Qaeda and al Qaeda-ism deserves to be eradicated. Torture is not the answer and only fuels them. Torture is only useful if a non-talking idiot knows of a terrorist attack coming or where hostages are and we get it out of them. Rebuilding the Middle East, treating the area with respect and a positive attitude from the West is what is needed. Extremism has taken root because of issues like the Afghan wars, the various Iraq wars, a stark rich/poor divide between ruling classes and the people, and non-inclusive governments (e.g. minorities left out).

Timberrrrrrrr

wylie wrote: »

WARNING was sent, area wasn't cleared in time.

I cant provide a source because i'm a noob, but you could google it!

wylie wrote: »

The IRA went after military targets and army personal,

Please explain how this

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/17/article-2145881-0026EA5800000258-273_634x446.jpg

is considered a military target.

The fact of the mater is that the IRA did target innocent civilians hence their terrorist organization status.

Dave!

In the perfect hypothetical thought experiment scenario where there's a bomb in a city and you know that the person you're holding knows where it is and how to disarm it—and you can verify their information easily—and other tactics have not worked, then I'd probably endorse it.

The real world is more complicated than that and has too many grey areas, so I wouldn't be in favour of it.

BuilderPlumber

ScumLord wrote: »

Really? Terrorists can just be another name for "the enemy". The British would have considered the Americans as terrorists that would stand and fight and used guerilla tactics to erode the British armies effectiveness.

I think terrorism is pointless, it isn't effective and does more harm to the terrorists than good but it is the only viable mode of fighting left open to countries that can't afford to match American military might.

As long as big countries insist on getting involved in small countries politics there will be people that will want to stop them interfering.

I think Terrorism is backing itself into a corner. Their getting more violent and picking on the wrong people entirely. Events like that one in Pakistan is showing the levels they feel they have to go to and it will eventually turn everyone against the idea of terrorism because all they seem to do is punch themselves in the face.

Yes, this can be abused. Propaganda calling the enemy side a terrorist without evidence is wrong and does not justify anything. A terrorist has to deliberately target and kill innocent civilians for the sake of killing them to be a true terrorist.

BuilderPlumber

Dave! wrote: »

In the perfect hypothetical thought experiment scenario where there's a bomb in a city and you know that the person you're holding knows where it is and how to disarm it—and you can verify their information easily—and other tactics have not worked, then I'd probably endorse it.

The real world is more complicated than that and has too many grey areas, so I wouldn't be in favour of it.

Exactly.

wylie

What am i looking at timberrrrr?

I did say in my post "i understand it didn't always work".

Timberrrrrrrr

wylie wrote: »

What am i looking at timberrrrr?

I did say in my post "i understand it didn't always work".

You're looking at the street in Warrington where the IRA planted bombs that targeted innocent civilians. Would it have been ok to kidnap Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and torture them until they told everything?

If the whereabouts of a terrorist is known then hell send in the troops/drones whatever and kill that ****er dead but you cannot torture people in the off chance they may know something.

wylie

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're looking at the street in Warrington where the IRA planted bombs that targeted innocent civilians. Would it have been ok to kidnap Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and torture them until they told everything?

If the whereabouts of a terrorist is known then hell send in the troops/drones whatever and kill that ****er dead but you cannot torture people in the off chance they may know something.

If adams and mcguinness torture lead to saving innocent peoples lives then yes, torture the crap out of them.

I would agree torturing someone in the off chance they might know something is hit a miss, but if this information can be checked and verified, like i said weapons, bomb makers and so on i think its justifiable.

daUbiq

Perhaps we could torture Obama and thus prevent another innocent death by drone?

Billy86

Aaahhh, I see the classic-yet-predictable 180 degree "but that's different" turn when the IRA are brought up in any AH terrorism/torture by the pro-torture crowd has kicked in by now. :pac:

PopePalpatine

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

The greatest nazi interrigator during world war two brought his detainees to the cinema and fed them well and he was the most successful out of the reich

Do you have a source for this? It just seems like it would be an interesting read.

Ineedaname

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do you have a source for this? It just seems like it would be an interesting read.

Google Hanns Scharff

Basically his technique was to make himself the POWs best friend. He made sure they were healthy and well fed. He took them on day trips and walks through the woods.

He was seen as so kind and friendly that many POWs would actually volunteer information

somuj

Ineedaname wrote: »

Google Hanns Scharff

Basically his technique was to make himself the POWs best friend. He made sure they were healthy and well fed. He took them on day trips and walks through the woods.

He was seen as so kind and friendly that many POWs would actually volunteer information

Fascinating fellow. His tecqniques are still thought today.

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Please explain how this

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/17/article-2145881-0026EA5800000258-273_634x446.jpg

is considered a military target.

The fact of the mater is that the IRA did target innocent civilians hence their terrorist organization status.

The IRA claim to have give two warnings, one to local police, one to the police.
The Police deny they got theirs. Who knows who to believe.

The IRA's bombing campaign in the 90s on "mainland" Britain was to cause structural and economic damage, unfortunately innocent people (and depending on your position, "legitimate" targets) were killed.
Other than the "tit-for-tat" and Jean McConville type murders, there was no policy of targeting innocent civilians.
They were a terrorist organization for trying to overthrow British rule in the NI.

Roger Hassenforder

captbarnacles wrote: »

@ the pro-torture posters:

Would you be comfortable with Irish citizens for example IRA members being tortured to see if they were planning a terrorist act or is torture only to be practiced on islamists preferably not Caucasian?

would you be comfortable with affiliates of the perpetrators of the Dublin/Monaghan bombings being tortured if it could have prevented it?

Probably wouldn't have as torture is generally recognized as counterproductive.
What we do with them when we catch them is a different story, that which they fear the most should be visited on them, without injuring other people.

Stojkovic

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The IRA claim to have give two warnings, one to local police, one to the police.
The Police deny they got theirs. Who knows who to believe.

The IRA's bombing campaign in the 90s on "mainland" Britain was to cause structural and economic damage, unfortunately innocent people (and depending on your position, "legitimate" targets) were killed.
Other than the "tit-for-tat" and Jean McConville type murders, there was no policy of targeting innocent civilians.
They were a terrorist organization for trying to overthrow British rule in the NI.

Blowing up a pub full of civilians in Guildford really affected the FTSE100.

Roger Hassenforder

Stojkovic wrote: »

Blowing up a pub full of civilians in Guildford really affected the FTSE100.

they got a lot very wrong all right

SeanW

captbarnacles wrote: »

@ the pro-torture posters:

Would you be comfortable with Irish citizens for example IRA members being tortured to see if they were planning a terrorist act or is torture only to be practiced on islamists preferably not Caucasian?

Where any of these groups, IRA, UVF, British conspirators etc were planning the mass murder of civilians, yeah, they should be subject to the same policies - whatever they may be - as brown skinned mass murderers.

A mass murdering terrorist is a mass mudering terrorist, regardless of their skin colour.

I'm not sure whether to call myself "pro-torture" or "anti-torture" because I agree with the "wrong in 99.9% of cases" post above. I would tend to agree that better methods could be used to get better information in a more humane and productive way.

BUT, suppose you knew there was a nuclear bomb in a major city or something, and you had in custody someone you were certain was in on the plot. Further, assuming that being a die-hard fudamentalist, the terrorist could not be persuaded to give up the plot save in any normally acceptable way, and you were certain that the only way the terrorist would talk would be threaten him/her with "we're going to keep you alive for a very long time and do THIS to you every day unless you tell us what we need to know ..." Would you do it or would you sacrifice millions of lives for the "torture is never OK ideal"?

end of the road

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

They were a terrorist organization for trying to overthrow British rule in the NI.

they weren't. british rule in NI deserved to be overthrown. it allowed a sectarian statelet to develop, and allowed the slaughter and discrimination of the catholic population.

Roger Hassenforder

end of the road wrote: »

they weren't. british rule in NI deserved to be overthrown. it allowed a sectarian statelet to develop, and allowed the slaughter and discrimination of the catholic population.

they weren't what?

opinions, like arse holes, everyone has one...
& I'm sure the Brits and Unionists would have a different opinion.


Read the post properly:

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The fact of the mater is that the IRA did target innocent civilians hence their terrorist organization status.

they weren't a proscribed terrorist organization for targeting innocent civilians, they were proscribed for trying to over throw/bring to their knees/kick out/whatever you want to call it, the British.

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

they weren't what?

opinions, like arse holes, everyone has one...
& I'm sure the Brits and Unionists would have a different opinion.


Read the post properly:


they weren't a proscribed terrorist organization for targeting innocent civilians, they were proscribed for trying to over throw/bring to their knees/kick out/whatever you want to call it, the British.

This is the epitome of a terrorist organization.

Timberrrrrrrr

When tortured a prisoner will say exactly what you want to hear.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture

 a plot to use African-American Muslims training in Afghanistan for future terrorist attacks. “i love the Black American Muslim at AQ camps in Afghanuistan (sic). … Mukie (K.S.M.) is going to be hatin’ life on this one,” she wrote, according to the report. But, as NBC notes, she misconstrued the intelligence gathered from the other detainee. Somehow, the C.I.A. mistakenly believed that African-American Muslim terrorists were already in the United States. The intelligence officials evidently pressed K.S.M. so hard to confirm this, under such physical duress, that he eventually did, even though it was false!!—leading U.S. officials on a wild-goose chase for black Muslim Al Qaeda operatives in Montana

And for the poster who claimed innocent people don't get tortured

as the months-long rendition and gruesome interrogation of another detainee whose detention was a case of mistaken identity