| kirklancaster |
18-12-2014 09:45 PM |
QUOTE=Dezzy;7414037]Like it's been said earlier in the thread, torture isn't even that effective or reliable since chances are the suspects being tortured will simply tell the torturer what they want to hear whether it's true or not but that doesn't matter is torture isn't about getting information, it's about bloodlust and sadism dressed up as a warped sense of justice.
Yes, sometimes mistakes are made by our Intelligence Services, and the FBI and CIA, and yes, sometimes suspects being 'intensely interrogated' (torture' is such a nasty word) will say anything to gain respite, but to say that 'intense interrogation' is that effective or reliable is untrue, because sometimes it absolutely does yield vital information:
In August 1998, al-Qaeda terrorist Mohammed Sadiq Odeh was arrested in Pakistan. Under FBI ‘interrogation’, Odeh provided details of bin Laden's international terror network, as well as detailing bin Laden's role major bombing atrocities. Completely due to this vital information, the subsequent tracking down, arrest and interrogation of other terrorist suspects have yielded more equally vital information, and as a direct result, U.S. intelligence has since foiled many al-Qaeda plots, including one designed to disrupt millennium celebrations in December 1999.
How many thousands of lives have been saved and how many millions of dollars by Odeh's information?
Oh... And how sweet it is, that the end can sometimes justify the means.
I do confess to being a little puzzled though by how terms like; "bloodlust" and "sadism" are freely used as descriptors by certain people on here, when it comes to criticising Western efforts to save lives and defeat terrorists, but the same terms are never, ever used by the same people to describe the vile actions of terrorists.
Why, some people even have a 'hissy fit' if anyone dares to refer to terrorists as 'Monsters' or 'Demons' - even when they have just beheaded yet another bowed and beaten, terrified, innocent victim, or even when they have just cold-bloodedly executed over 200 terrified and innocent schoolchildren and set ablaze an innocent teacher or two.
I wonder why that is?
"I won't engage in silly hypothetical situations since we'll just go around in circles and they are pointless. I will say this though, I do hope our leaders, iin this situation, would be smarter than to go with your overly simplistic 'KILL 'EM ALL' strategy. If problems could be solved so easily through war then we'd be going to war every other week."
I think our leaders have been 'smarter' - in using 'intense interrogation' techniques to try to elicit vital information from suspected terrorists for example - but their efforts to cut short this 'war' by these and other techniques are being foiled and hindered by certain parties within the West who are criticising them for such 'smart' techniques.
It's a good job that we still live in a free, liberal democratic country which allows such voices of dissent - despite the evil efforts of the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists to conquer us and replace that democracy with their own oppressive and barbaric regime and their repressive medieval Sharia Law.
If the unthinkable does happen and they do win this war - try openly criticising the new regime then.
"You can't make make martyrs out of extremists, you torture or kill them? Their allies will use their sacrifice to recruit more soldiers. Groups like IS need to be dealt with carefully lest their fall gives rise to a group that's far worse."
I will say it again - the idea that dead terrorist Martyrs matter to anyone outside their own organisations, is pure B.S. propaganda. There is absolutely no evidence that they lead to any boost in recruitment. Nor is there any evidence that the memory of martyrs endures. Who remembers Bobby Sands?
All your statement does is weaken the West's position and aids the terrorists cause.
And what do you actually mean, when you write: "You can't make make martyrs out of extremists, (if) you torture or kill them? Their allies will use their sacrifice to recruit more soldiers.”
So not only must we not ‘intensely interrogate’ these terrorists we also cannot kill them. So are you proposing that in a battle when these terrorists are firing at our forces, or if a nutjack suicide bomber is driving a car towards them laden with half a ton of explosives, that our troops should throw bags of marshmallows at them for fear that the terrorists will recruit more terrorists if we “fight fire with fire’ and shoot to kill?
And perhaps you would kindly explain to me just what you mean by; “Groups like IS need to be dealt with carefully”?
What does that actually mean?
Finally, what do you actually mean by “Lest their fall gives rise to a group that’s far worse”?
Are you proposing; that we don’t ‘intensely interrogate’ them to extract vital information which could aid our defeat of them, and that we don’t kill them, and we treat them ‘carefully’, so that they do not fall?
If you don’t mean that, please explain what you do mean because I am genuinely confused..
|
