[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Creggle

No terrorist survived? Shame. Would of liked to see him get exported to America and go in to CIA custody. I hope to god people wake up after this attack and realise that we need to get information about other planned attacks, and none of that weak ass waterboarding nonsense neither.

Yeah shame we couldn't torture an unhinged individual acting alone for information about groups that he has no actual contact or affiliation with. The idea that all extremists are part of a highly organised and coherent command structure is a convenient idea but an inaccurate one. Kinda similar to the idea that the more brutal the torture the better information you get; convenient but false.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by The Geordie Jesus

Yeah shame we couldn't torture an unhinged individual acting alone for information about groups that he has no actual contact or affiliation with. The idea that all extremists are part of a highly organised and coherent command structure is a convenient idea but an inaccurate one. Kinda similar to the idea that the more brutal the torture the better information you get; convenient but false.

With respect MTVN, you don't know he was unhinged nor whether he has contact or affiliation with extremist groups. There's a pretty good chance that only the bit about him being unhinged is a fair assumption but contact and affiliation with a larger group is a distinct possibility. While he acted alone, there's more than a good chance that others were involved on the periphery. He was known to the security services, only the equality of the law was keeping him free when really, he should have been banged up long before this happened.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect MTVN, you don't know he was unhinged nor whether he has contact or affiliation with extremist groups. There's a pretty good chance that only the bit about him being unhinged is a fair assumption but contact and affiliation with a larger group is a distinct possibility. While he acted alone, there's more than a good chance that others were involved on the periphery. He was known to the security services, only the equality of the law was keeping him free when really, he should have been banged up long before this happened.

Admittedly to some extent it's speculation. However from what we know about him:

- Self styled sheikh
- Previously a self-proclaimed spiritual healer specialising in black magic and astrology
- Used the above position to commit a string of sexual assaults
- Charged with being an accessory to the murder of his ex wife and then claimed the Iranian secret services had collaborated with the Australian security agency in a conspiracy against him
- Wrote a rambling treatise on Islam and sent it to the King of Jordan, Bashar al-Assad, the Iraqi Prime Minister, the King of Saudi Arabia, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Tony Abbott

On top of that is the fact that no organisation has claimed responsibility when usually they shout it from the rooftops, and the whole incident has not actually gained much traction among the active extremist community.

To quote the BBC profile of him:

he has no known links to jihadist groups, and commentators have suggested he is likely to be working alone.

"Certainly this appears to be the actions of a lone actor, perhaps not very well prepared, perhaps not very well planned," Anne Aly, head of the counter terrorism research programme at Australia's Curtin University, told the BBC.

[Creggle]

Originally Posted by The Geordie Jesus

Yeah shame we couldn't torture an unhinged individual acting alone for information about groups that he has no actual contact or affiliation with. The idea that all extremists are part of a highly organised and coherent command structure is a convenient idea but an inaccurate one. Kinda similar to the idea that the more brutal the torture the better information you get; convenient but false.

Point 1: See Livia's post
Point 2: Anyone will tell you anything if you push them past their limits, and known terrorists deserve to suffer even if it bears no results. Though I don't think suspects should be tortured, only known affiliates/terrorists.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by The Geordie Jesus

Yeah shame we couldn't torture an unhinged individual acting alone for information about groups that he has no actual contact or affiliation with. The idea that all extremists are part of a highly organised and coherent command structure is a convenient idea but an inaccurate one. Kinda similar to the idea that the more brutal the torture the better information you get; convenient but false.

..a good post Matt..tbh I'm quite conflicted about the torture thing which is why I haven't joined in with the 'CIA discussion' yet..and I actually didn't think that I would be conflicted because I'm abhorred by the whole idea of torturing any human being and I know it's cliché but one you 'become them'/extremists then all values are lost...

..anyways I guess that I'll give you my thoughts and why I feel conflicted..this might not be a good analogy but it's how I'm thinking atm...you know how we often have hypothetical dilemmas..?..and sometimes these can be about what someone would do to say one person or relatively few people to potentially help the safety of many..?..often people will think about it and think that they would do something that would be totally alien to their beliefs if that actual dilemma was presented to them...whether they actually would or not, we won't know because most people don't have to face such extreme things...anyways, say if this was personal and specific to a member of someone's family/a loved one..or the whole of their family..?..if (hypothetically..)..a person were to somehow discover that their loved ones were at threat of something quite horrific..a certain death maybe..?..and they could possible do something which was to them quite inhumane but that would prevent the death of their loved ones..would they do it..?...obviously that's very personal but if you then also apply it to people who may have to make that decision collectively for their country..a threat to their country which could mean many losses of life...really, what a crappy situation for them to be in because these 'extreme dilemmas' are something that are real to them..?...hmmmm, I honestly don't know Matt..torture of any kind to any human being goes against everything I believe in but I really can't be 'black and white' about this, which also conflicts me lol...because also some people who make these decisions and who do things are good people but people who know that sometimes in this life, very awful things might be necessary..but there possibly are also a few quite sadistic people as well maybe...

..anyway yeah..I'm going to keep thinking about this because I guess it's just so much less complicated when you know that you'll never have to make the decision yourself...and I'm not even sure that my thoughts are along the right lines and that I'm looking at it the right way...

[Ammi]

..actually I realise that I went OT there..with the hostage situation in Australia, I do personally believe that this guy was probably mentally ill but obviously that's not based on any information ..it's just that I don't think that he would have done it if he was mentally healthy..but because he focused on his beliefs with his illness, it's kind of complicated things but I'm not sure how relevant his religion actually is ..it's more that something obviously 'tipped his balance'..but could not that have been anything like with others who do similar things....anyway as I say, it's just an initial opinion because we don't have many facts about him yet....

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by The Geordie Jesus

Yeah shame we couldn't torture an unhinged individual acting alone for information about groups that he has no actual contact or affiliation with. The idea that all extremists are part of a highly organised and coherent command structure is a convenient idea but an inaccurate one. Kinda similar to the idea that the more brutal the torture the better information you get; convenient but false.

With great respect MTVN, I must state that all Islamic extremists are ‘part of a highly organised and coherent command structure’ even if they act alone or are mentally unhinged (aren’t they all?) or both.

Certain parties are playing up that Monis had ‘mental health problems’ and was ‘acting alone’ for ‘unknown reasons’, and are taking great pains to assure everyone that he was ‘not part of any terror organisation’, because they are frightened of causing alarm and of being accused of ‘Racism’ and ‘Islamaphobia’ if they speak the truth.

So let’s look at the facts:
.
Mental Health
Monis was mentally stable enough to plot his ex-wife’s horrific murder and devise a very elaborate alibi which included faking a heart attack that led to a staged car accident on the day of the murder.

He was also mentally cunning enough to have himself filmed asking someone what time it was, in addition to also ensuring he was filmed with a clock in the background at the approximate time of the murder.

He was also mentally proficient enough to take out an insurance policy covering his Home Contents , specifying certain items, before ‘staging’ a robbery at his flat on the day of the murder and reporting those ‘pre-specified’ items as stolen.

Monis was also mentally capable enough to run his own website, and to write morally disgusting, highly offensive letters to the widows of 7 soldiers who were tragically killed whilst serving in Afghanistan.

He was also mentally devious enough to pose as a ‘Spritual Healer’ to enable him to sexually assault scores of women, and for which he was criminally charged with 40 offences.

Fundamentalism
Monis converted from the Shia branch of Islam to the ISIS linked Sunni branch which regards all non-Muslims and Westerners – including Australia, the UK and America - as ‘enemies’ of Allah.

Monis’s former lawyer, Manny Conditsis - while ‘downplaying’ the ‘organised terrorist’ element of his ex-clients murderous hostage taking – actually unwittingly confirmed Monis’s Islamic extremism, when he said: of Monis: “His ideology is just so strong and so powerful that it clouds his vision for common sense and objectiveness."

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott did the same, when he said of Monis:"He had a long history of violent crime, infatuation with extremism and mental instability," and: "As the siege unfolded yesterday, he sought to cloak his actions with the symbolism of the ISIL death cult. Tragically, there are people in our community ready to engage in politically motivated violence”

So as a devout Islamic Fundamentalist, Monis was not only duty bound to follow the Quran, but would have been extremely intent on following it literally:

Quran 9:5:
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

As he would have been to follow the orders of his ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who just a month before Monis's murderous hostage taking, called for all jihadists to carry out “lone wolf” attacks against Muslim Shi’ites and Westerners around the world. .

Baghdadi singled out Europe, Australia, Canada and America, as targets, and told his Islamic followers to: “Dismember their limbs, snatch them as groups and individuals – erupt volcanoes of jihad everywhere”

A mentally troubled loner with no links or affiliation to organised Islamic Fundamentalist terror groups?

I don’t think so.

As a footnote, and in support of certain other statements in this ‘conspiracy theorists’ oft ignored or maligned posts, I would point out Monis was born in Iran and came to Australia as a refugee in 1996.

So Australia would not now be mourning 3 of her own innocent citizens dead, have other innocent citizens wounded and psychologically damaged, 7 innocent war widows so immorally offended, and other innocent women traumatised by being sexually molested, had they not embraced a poor Muslim ‘refugee’ and welcomed him in to her country with open arms.

I wonder how many more deeply ensconced ‘grateful’ and ‘loyal’ immigrants there are there who are just biding their time before heeding the call of Quran and Baghdadi?

[MTVN]

^ I don't think any of that disproves that he was acting alone. No doubt he buys into the belief system of IS. No doubt he has an infatuation with them and is desperate to portray himself as one of their soldier. And yes it is also true that IS leaders are inciting and encouraging these attacks, but from everything we can gather so far he has no actual tangible, real world contact with IS or any other organisation. And I don't think we should see him as part of a highly organised command structure any more than we do Tim McVeigh or David Copeland. I do accept though that the problem of extremism is obviously a lot bigger than one man/

Originally Posted by Ammi

..a good post Matt..tbh I'm quite conflicted about the torture thing which is why I haven't joined in with the 'CIA discussion' yet..and I actually didn't think that I would be conflicted because I'm abhorred by the whole idea of torturing any human being and I know it's cliché but one you 'become them'/extremists then all values are lost...

..anyways I guess that I'll give you my thoughts and why I feel conflicted..this might not be a good analogy but it's how I'm thinking atm...you know how we often have hypothetical dilemmas..?..and sometimes these can be about what someone would do to say one person or relatively few people to potentially help the safety of many..?..often people will think about it and think that they would do something that would be totally alien to their beliefs if that actual dilemma was presented to them...whether they actually would or not, we won't know because most people don't have to face such extreme things...anyways, say if this was personal and specific to a member of someone's family/a loved one..or the whole of their family..?..if (hypothetically..)..a person were to somehow discover that their loved ones were at threat of something quite horrific..a certain death maybe..?..and they could possible do something which was to them quite inhumane but that would prevent the death of their loved ones..would they do it..?...obviously that's very personal but if you then also apply it to people who may have to make that decision collectively for their country..a threat to their country which could mean many losses of life...really, what a crappy situation for them to be in because these 'extreme dilemmas' are something that are real to them..?...hmmmm, I honestly don't know Matt..torture of any kind to any human being goes against everything I believe in but I really can't be 'black and white' about this, which also conflicts me lol...because also some people who make these decisions and who do things are good people but people who know that sometimes in this life, very awful things might be necessary..but there possibly are also a few quite sadistic people as well maybe...

..anyway yeah..I'm going to keep thinking about this because I guess it's just so much less complicated when you know that you'll never have to make the decision yourself...and I'm not even sure that my thoughts are along the right lines and that I'm looking at it the right way...

I do understand your point but I don't think that sympathising with their motives is incompatible with a condemnation of torture. I've referenced John McCain a few times on this, because he's such an authority on this subject and has such remarkable integrity in being so firm a critic of torture while also staunchly believing in taking strong military action against extremists across the world, and this is part of what he had to say:

"I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from. I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend,"

Plus for me you could also remove any ethical concerns about torture, any hang ups that it would make us compromise the principals we went to war in the first place on, and torture still wouldn't be justified. Even from a brutally practical and utilitarian view it does not work imo. Patrick Cockburn wrote a good article showing just how misplaced the faith in torture was, and always has been. The same justifications used now are the same that have been used for hundreds of years: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...w-9923288.html

This part of the article in particular is illuminating:

The Senate report has a revealing passage saying that the statement of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ("KSM") "during his first day in CIA custody included an accurate description of a Pakistani/British operative, which was dismissed as having been provided during the initial 'throwaway stage' of information collection when the CIA believed detainees provided false or worthless information". KSM was later water-boarded (simulated drowning) 183 times, leading him to make frequent confessions that later turned out to be false. Another section of the report says that "KSM fabrications led the CIA to capture and detain suspected terrorists who were later found to be innocent".

[Vanessa]

Very upsetting news, especially this time of the year.

[arista]

Originally Posted by NevaSnow

Very upsetting news, especially this time of the year.

Yes he had been in Australia
since 1996
a Nasty Confused man
a one off.

[kirklancaster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-30491113

Terrorists kill over 126 mainly schoolchildren in Peshwar attack.
Key Points

Officials say at least 126 people, mostly children, have been killed in a Taliban attack on an army-run school in north-west Pakistan

Pakistan's security forces are struggling to regain control of a school amid reports children are being held hostage inside

Some pupils, who escaped, said the gunmen went from classroom to classroom, shooting children indiscriminately

The Taliban say the assault is in response to army operations in North Waziristan and the Khyber area. All times GMT.

HOW CAN ANY OF YOU STILL MAINTAIN THAT THESE BASTARDS ARE HUMAN AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH??????????????????????????

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-30491113

Terrorists kill over 126 mainly schoolchildren in Peshwar attack.
Key Points

Officials say at least 126 people, mostly children, have been killed in a Taliban attack on an army-run school in north-west Pakistan

Pakistan's security forces are struggling to regain control of a school amid reports children are being held hostage inside

Some pupils, who escaped, said the gunmen went from classroom to classroom, shooting children indiscriminately

The Taliban say the assault is in response to army operations in North Waziristan and the Khyber area. All times GMT.

HOW CAN ANY OF YOU STILL MAINTAIN THAT THESE BASTARDS ARE HUMAN AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH??????????????????????????

Surely this shouldn't matter to you Kirk? Pakistan is a Muslim country and therefore it's citizens are ticking time bombs of savagery just waiting to blow. Better that these children are killed now, surely, than they be given the chance to become monsters? It is after all, inevitable. You told me so when I asked about the case of adoption, only a day or two ago. It's in their genes, isn't it?

Of course that could have been xenophobic nonsense I suppose. Just a thought.

To answer your question: all it takes to consider these people human is to accept the truth that humans are ****ing horrible creatures. Of course they are human. Being horrendous humans doesn't somehow alter their species. Is a vicious dog who mauls a baby suddenly "not a dog"?

I have no real objection to how they're treated after carrying out these attacks or if they're caught red handed in the process of putting such a plan into action. Do What you want with them. My only problem with what you've had to say is the suggestion that all people of certain genetic backgrounds are "terrorists waiting to happen" and are somehow literally "different" to us "normal humans". And I suspect this is part of what you mean when you wonder "how can we consider them to be human".

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by The Geordie Jesus

^ I don't think any of that disproves that he was acting alone. No doubt he buys into the belief system of IS. No doubt he has an infatuation with them and is desperate to portray himself as one of their soldier. And yes it is also true that IS leaders are inciting and encouraging these attacks, but from everything we can gather so far he has no actual tangible, real world contact with IS or any other organisation. And I don't think we should see him as part of a highly organised command structure any more than we do Tim McVeigh or David Copeland. I do accept though that the problem of extremism is obviously a lot bigger than one man/



I do understand your point but I don't think that sympathising with their motives is incompatible with a condemnation of torture. I've referenced John McCain a few times on this, because he's such an authority on this subject and has such remarkable integrity in being so firm a critic of torture while also staunchly believing in taking strong military action against extremists across the world, and this is part of what he had to say:



Plus for me you could also remove any ethical concerns about torture, any hang ups that it would make us compromise the principals we went to war in the first place on, and torture still wouldn't be justified. Even from a brutally practical and utilitarian view it does not work imo. Patrick Cockburn wrote a good article showing just how misplaced the faith in torture was, and always has been. The same justifications used now are the same that have been used for hundreds of years: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...w-9923288.html

This part of the article in particular is illuminating:

..thanks for the links etc Matt, they're really interesting...I fairly much agree with you on this, I mean that's my instinct and my inclination but I think that really I'm questioning whether I'm being a bit too 'black and white' or whether that's exactly how it should be...whether it's so black and white to say no never ever is torture justified or yes, in some cases it can prove a success to achieve something...because with most things in life/virtually everything...things always have grey elements..it's only the hypothetical stuff that doesn't have that..what I mean is that I know that with some actual experience, some situations will have proved complete ineffectiveness but then others would have been the opposite and may have saved many lives so like everything else..so it's impossible to say it's not effective or it is effective... it would be trying to judge that and taking each situation individually...but I guess that's the key really and why I find it hard to agree with or not be abhorred by it...that really how could you judge something like that/know what the outcome would be....