[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".