CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I usually find there's a strong correlation between those who advocate torture, and those who also advocate the death penalty. Actually, also add in right wing political views. I think we're seeing that again on this thread. Oh really? Anyway, it's a difficult question. It's certainly not as black and white as some sanctimonious types would have you believe. It's largely dependent on the situation at hand. But, it to put it simply, sometimes it's just necassary. That doesn't make it right, that doesn't mean I love torture and advocate it to the high heavens. It just means there is no alternative. Which brings me to the question that is often asked to those so against it completely. What alternative is there? A nice talk over a cup of tea? Maybe a few pennies in the bank? Or should we just leave them all be, and accept hundreds of deaths as merely a price for our freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 My veiws are never popular but if your family is at risk of been killed in an hour how far would you want them to go if you had the CIA on the phone, tickle him or start killing his family in front of him ? It's easy to say no sitting behind a PC. Whatever it takes.Interesting points. It's very easy to sit behind a computer screen and be all morally righteous, but if it came to that situation where family or friends are in danger I feel it would be a very different story. Likewise, that doesn't mean those people would then advocate the death penalty or become far-right fascists - they're just passionate human beings who care about their family. On the flip-side, it's also interesting to see that people would want their fellow man ripped apart/incinerated/decapitated etc. in a bomb blast as long as society maintains a moral code. Maybe that is making it too specific though. In that situation, I'd go for saving lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 The obvious problems with torture (victims making up any old bollocks to make the pain stop) will never go away, however they may be the only way to crack suspects who are otherwise so committed to their cause (especially if religious) that they'd never give up information any other way. In general I think it's just about justifiable, given that the information procured could save hundreds of lives. Why do there seem to be an increasing number of suspects who seem to be so committed to their cause that they will engage in terrorist activities? It couldn't be anything to do with the use of torture, could it? I think we are in a situation where the actions of people like Dubya have contributed greatly to the radicalisation of large numbers of people, and Blair's support has meant that we have become targets for their actions where we were much less likely to be targets before. Claiming that the use of torture has prevented one or more possible atrocities conveniently sidesteps the issue of whether the atrocity was in the first place planned partly because of the use of torture. Dubya casts himself as our protector, when in fact he is the exact opposite. Utter nonsense. Radicalisation occurs because of religion being used as 'the answer' to problems in the real world, i.e. "we have a problem in the Gaza strip/Iraq/Pakistan/wherever, the people causing the problems are 'infidels', the Koran commands us to kill infidels" Hey presto! Instant radicalisation! What you're suggesting is that Bush and his cronies randomly walked around torturing people, which then resulted in them becoming radicalised. Total gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 The obvious problems with torture (victims making up any old bollocks to make the pain stop) will never go away, however they may be the only way to crack suspects who are otherwise so committed to their cause (especially if religious) that they'd never give up information any other way. In general I think it's just about justifiable, given that the information procured could save hundreds of lives. Why do there seem to be an increasing number of suspects who seem to be so committed to their cause that they will engage in terrorist activities? It couldn't be anything to do with the use of torture, could it? I think we are in a situation where the actions of people like Dubya have contributed greatly to the radicalisation of large numbers of people, and Blair's support has meant that we have become targets for their actions where we were much less likely to be targets before. Claiming that the use of torture has prevented one or more possible atrocities conveniently sidesteps the issue of whether the atrocity was in the first place planned partly because of the use of torture. Dubya casts himself as our protector, when in fact he is the exact opposite. Utter nonsense. Radicalisation occurs because of religion being used as 'the answer' to problems in the real world, i.e. "we have a problem in the Gaza strip/Iraq/Pakistan/wherever, the people causing the problems are 'infidels', the Koran commands us to kill infidels" Hey presto! Instant radicalisation! What you're suggesting is that Bush and his cronies randomly walked around torturing people, which then resulted in them becoming radicalised. Total gibberish. Some kind of political spin on VT? Well I never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Old link, but interesting. The writer has a familiar name too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602395.html But isn't it all just the 'sanctimonious' sitting behind their computer screens who are against torture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 Are the people against turture, against it as they feel it only contributes to the mess the world is in by fueling the terrorists motives and producing more terrorists? I ask because i dont buy all that human rights mumbo jumbo. They forfeited their right to a phone call when they decided to bring terror to our shores and threaten the innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 if torture isn't an option what other methods can be used on someone to extract information quickly and effectively? Invite them in for a cup of tea and a hand job. Sounds good. Does anyone wanna extract information from me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Actually come to think of it I've had a change of mind. The alternative is simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 if torture isn't an option what other methods can be used on someone to extract information quickly and effectively? Invite them in for a cup of tea and a hand job. Sounds good. Does anyone wanna extract information from me? If you accept a handjob you're inocent, nobody would chose a handjob over 70 virgins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Yes. If it's a serious matter which Terrorism clearly is and it saves lives. To be honest, I'd rather a thousand lives saved than us being worried because a terrorist might get a little bad treatment which he throughly deserves anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendelc Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 If it saves me being blown to smithereens on the tube then i am all for it. It's probably increased the chances of this happening.[/quote Nah. i dont think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2010 If it saves me being blown to smithereens on the tube then i am all for it. It's probably increased the chances of this happening. Nah. i dont think so. It increased the chances of you getting shot by the Police on the Tube for having long hair and a rucksack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 People will tell you anything to make it stop. Not only is it unethical, it's unreliable, so no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 so there aren't alternatives to it? great. so the only alternative I see is massive Big Brother syndrome. which is worse. I'd rather a few tezzers get the beats and no big brother global state than the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Bush saying the end justifies the means. No it doesn't. Totally agree. Bush is a hypocrite, he publicly pays lip service to being a Christian man and then conveniently forgets all the principles his faith was founded on when it suits his particular cause. No wonder people make such nasty comments about the Bible and any kind of faith. Man's Inhumanity to man in practice & it's simply despicable in my eyes. I'm sure the Khemer Rouge had their reasons & they had no faith to hide behind, just the opposite.... but they also totured & killed people en masse and most of them were not terrorists they were innocent people, who the regime just didn't like. If US & UK claim to lead the world as a civilised society, then how the hell can they tacitly approve & implement some of the same heinous practices that other societies they condemn undertake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyav Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 let the bastards squeal in pain and beg then do some more im sure the beheadings and suicide bombers dont give a shit for anyone else so why care for terrorist scum, i was near birmingham in the 70#s never forget those gutless rocket polishers and they killed a young soldier at the train station i was at in lichfield in the 80's they have NO rights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 If it could be proved (which it can't) that the use of torture was the only way to prevent terrorist attacks (which it isn't) and is thus guarateed to save lives (which it's not) then I would support it. So if you remove the brackets, then yes, I would (but you can't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 let the bastards squeal in pain and beg then do some more im sure the beheadings and suicide bombers dont give a shit for anyone else so why care for terrorist scum, i was near birmingham in the 70#s never forget those gutless rocket polishers and they killed a young soldier at the train station i was at in lichfield in the 80's they have NO rights! Probably best to just read scottyav's signature on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 What alternatives is there though? I've yet to hear anything more substantial than 'it's wrong' from those wholeheartedly against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 The way we're currently doing it in the UK is the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts