'90% of Americans' would approve waterboarding

Tigger

found this from a link on in the sambo thread

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough says that the controversial interrogation tactic known as waterboarding -- a method of simulated drowning used by interrogators to extract information from subjects -- is a potentially effective practice likely to be overwhelmingly supported by Americans when conducted under the right conditions.

ie not on americians

"A lot of people say torture doesn't work, torture doesn't work. And I'm not here saying that we need to torture. I'm just saying, for the record it is a matter of historical record, that when we water boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he started talking, and he kept talking."

although all he said was stop drowning me

Asked later if he thought waterboarding qualified as torture, Scarborough wasn't so sure

ahem <cough>

"You know, that's the debate. Is waterboarding torture?"

so is it ??
and is it acceptable

quote taken from

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Scarborough_90_of_Americans_would_approve_1019.html

wes

There using KSM as an example of torture working? Well that pretty much says it all right there.

humbert

Well then I think the only fair thing to do is waterboard 90% of Americans.

Tigger

humbert wrote: »

Well then I think the only fair thing to do is waterboard 90% of Americans.

i agree
now explain the atari jaguar thing or i'll make you surf
#

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

magick

so what? they should go even further. Scumbag terrorists cut peoples heads off and make videos about it !

wes

magick wrote: »

so what? they should go even further. Scumbag terrorists cut peoples heads off and make videos about it !

I am sure everyone the US kidnaps is a terrorist. There intel is just that good, kinda like there intel about WMD's in Iraq. Which I am sure they will find any day now.

geuro

so what? they should go even further. Scumbag terrorists cut peoples heads off and make videos about it !

Yeah thats a great suggestion magick - lets copy the terrorists, the more extreme they become the more extreme we will behave. Good work. You're a tactical visionary.

mike65

I bet most americans think its something else, involving Hawaii and hoola hoops.

Mike.

Kintarō Hattori

Wow- things really have gone downhill since George took over. I really do fear for the direction that America is taking. I'd have thought that in the new Millennia we'd be maturing and improving as human beings but that doesn't seem to be the case. We just seem to be heading more and more down a rocky slope.

cornbb

rbd wrote: »

i agree
now explain the atari jaguar thing or i'll make you surf
#

Here's the explanation: http://wiki.boards.ie/wiki/Atari_Jaguar

Tigger

cornbb wrote: »

Here's the explanation: http://wiki.boards.ie/wiki/Atari_Jaguar

thank you very many

i likes the gathering cards are they used or is it confined to some rpg areas

pwd

I believe the argument that torture doesn't work because the subject will just say whatever the torturer wants to get them to stop, rather than the actual truth.

Psychological domination is more likely to be effective - ie: traditional techniques used by lawyers and interrogators.

wes

pwd wrote: »

I believe the argument that torture doesn't work because the subject will just say whatever the torturer wants to get them to stop, rather than the actual truth.

Psychological domination is more likely to be effective - ie: traditional techniques used by lawyers and interrogators.

Honestly I think people who support torture and who should know that it doesn't work most of the time, just want there pound of flesh and to make an example out of those being tortured. A sort of don't F*** with us kinda thing.

Overheal

I honestly think Jack Nicholson put it best:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for [the dead], and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That [their] death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

the Opposing Force in the present case is a far worse evil. They have the conviction to do these unspeakable things; if we maintain the notion of asking them nicely we will get nowhere and more people will die.

If you had the technique to extract critical information that related to another attack, would you really sit and offer them a cigarette and ASK them?

Get into the shoes of an interrogator: a good interrogator uses these methods for the extraction of information for what he feels is right.
a BAD interrogator destroys the suspect, pisses on his qu'ran (spelling?) and makes him eat his own feces - such methods do nothing for the extraction of information: they are for kicks and giggles and the satisfaction of the captor.


Im for the technique if they can maintain their impartiality.

To put it into an (admittably ignorant) context: imagine its 30 years ago or so, and you have a captured IRA terrorist and he potentially has information about a planned attack where this is a high potential for civilian death. The captive gloats that the attack will be happening by tomorrow morning and theres nothing you can do to stop it. How would you go about extracting the information?

Tigger

Overheal wrote: »

I honestly think Jack Nicholson put it best:



the Opposing Force in the present case is a far worse evil. They have the conviction to do these unspeakable things; if we maintain the notion of asking them nicely we will get nowhere and more people will die.

If you had the technique to extract critical information that related to another attack, would you really sit and offer them a cigarette and ASK them?

Get into the shoes of an interrogator: a good interrogator uses these methods for the extraction of information for what he feels is right.
a BAD interrogator destroys the suspect, pisses on his qu'ran (spelling?) and makes him eat his own feces - such methods do nothing for the extraction of information: they are for kicks and giggles and the satisfaction of the captor.


Im for the technique if they can maintain their impartiality.

how about at tribunals
who's for waterboarding bertie

humbert

rbd wrote: »

how about at tribunals
who's for waterboarding bertie

/Hammers big nail into plank of wood and shoves way to top of line

Wacker

I honestly believe that the only way to get a lasting result in the Middle East is for the lines between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' being clearly drawn, Unless the US are prepared to carpet-bomb their enemies out of existence (which they are not), then they'll have to be able to rely on the co-operation of the public in places suc as Iraq. Waterboarding and similair practices erode this, and will be detrimental in the long term.

My 2 cents. But what do I know? I've never served in a hostile environment.

Overheal

Wacker wrote: »

I honestly believe that the only way to get a lasting result in the Middle East is for the lines between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' being clearly drawn, Unless the US are prepared to carpet-bomb their enemies out of existence (which they are not), then they'll have to be able to rely on the co-operation of the public in places suc as Iraq. Waterboarding and similair practices erode this, and will be detrimental in the long term.

My 2 cents. But what do I know? I've never served in a hostile environment.

serves little good because 'they' (oh yes, I used THAT word) see themselves as the Good as much as 'we' see ourselves as good. The conflict is pure philosophical - it will not end in our lifetime.

Also: I encourage you to look up "Farfur" on google/wiki and see what you discover.

But yea, it happens on both sides - shows like Farfur teach Muslim children how to operate AK-47s, to kill heretics (americans, etc) and the purity of allah.

Then in the USA camp you have some really sickening **** going on too: Christian camps pretty much doing the same thing. I **** you not - take a dig on youtube; you'll find it - kids being taught that anybody that doesnt beleive in Jesus is evil, etc.

And people wonder why I'm Agnostic :mad:

Tigger

Wacker wrote: »

I honestly believe that the only way to get a lasting result in the Middle East is for the lines between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' being clearly drawn,

by americian spindoctors#

Unless the US are prepared to carpet-bomb their enemies out of existence (which they are not), then they'll have to be able to rely on the co-operation of the public in places suc as Iraq. Waterboarding and similair practices erode this, and will be detrimental in the long term.

so you think waterboarding is a bad idea cos its hard to spin and will affect the propaganda machine

My 2 cents. But what do I know? I've never served in a hostile environment.

rubie

Definition of Terrorism according to wikipedia - Terrorism is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.

It depends where you draw the line.

Bush and his government could be said to be terrorists since they commit violence and other harmful acts against civilians (like when their bombs drop in the wrong place, or when they interrogate/torture people they assume (wrongly) to be terrorists).

Sam Vimes

magick wrote: »

so what? they should go even further. Scumbag terrorists cut peoples heads off and make videos about it !

that's the difference between terrorists and law enforement. law enforcement obeys the law, otherwise they're no longer law enforcement, they're terrorists, in that they get their way by causing terror in others

r3nu4l

I seem to recall torture being used and working perfectly to get confessions from the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6!

That worked a treat didn't it! :rolleyes:

When most people are in fear for their lives and really believe they are about to die they will say almost anything to save their lives, whether that be true or not.

wes

Oh and the US doesn't just do water boarding. When they need to do more extreme stuff they outsource there torture to place like Egypt/Syria, where the security forces there torture with impunity and in the most repugnant manner possible.

Hobbes

I clicked "not torture but not acceptable" by accident. meant the one above it.

Hobbes

magick wrote: »

Scumbag terrorists cut peoples heads off and make videos about it !

So your willing to be tortured then?

Poccington

It's all down to the situation IMO. Throughout the whole topic nobody has acknowledged the comment below.

Overheal wrote: »

To put it into an (admittably ignorant) context: imagine its 30 years ago or so, and you have a captured IRA terrorist and he potentially has information about a planned attack where this is a high potential for civilian death. The captive gloats that the attack will be happening by tomorrow morning and theres nothing you can do to stop it. How would you go about extracting the information?

You can all sit there and say "Oh it's very wrong" all you like, but what happens when you're put in a situation like the one above? Do you just sit there for the day and ask him nicely to tell you........ Or do you try every possible means you have to try get the information? It may not get you the info, but at least you tried every possible avenue to get the information. Instead of just sitting there and asking him a few times then once the bomb goes off saying "Oh well, I asked him but he wouldn't tell me"

Poccington

rubie wrote: »

Bush and his government could be said to be terrorists since they commit violence and other harmful acts against civilians (like when their bombs drop in the wrong place, or when they interrogate/torture people they assume (wrongly) to be terrorists).

Well if that's the case...... The Allied Forces in WW2 can be easily classed as terrorists.

Manic Moran

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A point which applies to both sides of the argument. We know that waterboarding is torture, unacceptable, inhuman and so on... because we read it.

On the other hand, it seems to be not entirely ineffective... at least, that's what we read.

Chances are that the only people qualified to answer the question are psychologists and interrogators.

NTM

humbert

Manic Moran wrote: »

A point which applies to both sides of the argument. We know that waterboarding is torture, unacceptable, inhuman and so on... because we read it.

On the other hand, it seems to be not entirely ineffective... at least, that's what we read.

Chances are that the only people qualified to answer the question are psychologists and interrogators.

NTM

Em, NO. It is our opinion that waterboarding is torture because the idea of holding someone's head under water until they believe they are going to die is unethical and inhumane.

Poccington

humbert wrote: »

Em, NO. It is our opinion that waterboarding is torture because the idea of holding someone's head under water until they believe they are going to die is unethical and inhumane.

Em, NO. It is your opinion that waterboarding is torture.

humbert

Poccington wrote: »

Em, NO. It is your opinion that waterboarding is torture.

Look at the poll.

Manic Moran

Poccington wrote: »

You can all sit there and say "Oh it's very wrong" all you like, but what happens when you're put in a situation like the one above? Do you just sit there for the day and ask him nicely to tell you........ Or do you try every possible means you have to try get the information? It may not get you the info, but at least you tried every possible avenue to get the information. Instead of just sitting there and asking him a few times then once the bomb goes off saying "Oh well, I asked him but he wouldn't tell me"

A problem faced by Lt Colonel Allen West a few years ago. Convinced that a prisoner was in on some planned attacks on his men, and said prisoner was not being particularly responsive to polite questioning by interrogators, he had the prisoner taken outside and told him if he didn't start talking, he'd be shot. He then fired a shot from the pistol near him, at which point the detainee started singing like a bird, with good information resulting in counter-ambushes and for the rest of his command no attacks were carried out on his forces.
West was subsequently relieved, charged, fined and left the service, but also had the eternal gratitude of those who served under him.

Was he morally right?

Similarly, you all remember those pilots in the 1991 Gulf war who had gotten beaten about a bit by the Iraqis? John Nichol was interviewed saying he bore no ill will to their captors, acknowledging that they had information, and their captors needed it. Getting beat about a bit was pretty much par for the course, as far as he was concerned.

NTM

dotsman

The problem I have with any form of torture, is that often, it gets applied to the wrong people (and often as a form of punishment than a source of real intelligence).

On the whole, I am against torture except when:

1. You are 100% certain that the victim has the information you require
2. That information is urgently required to save lives.
3. There is no alternative source of this information

If it does not fit the above criteria, then:

1. By torturing an innocent person, you are committing as great a (possibly greater) crime than the supposed terrorists.
2. You will suffer long-term consequences as you will not be able to hold any moral ground over your enemies, and will lose (essential) support from the civilian population.
3. The victim may very well tell you any old BS to get you to stop, and then you invade a country because you think they have WMDs:rolleyes:

In the whole, I am not convinced that each and every single person detained at Guantanamo Bay has detailed knowledge of future operations (how could they, many have been there for years - pretty much anything they do know would be out of date by now). In fact, I believe that there is little to no intelligence to be gathered, that many of the captives are either innocent civilians or are very low on the terrorist pecking order (if all these people are extremely deadly, evil terrorist masterminds, surely they could be found guilty in a court?)

And ultimately, Guantanamo Bay (and Abu Ghraib etc) have led to the swelling of terrorist ranks.

Black Swan

90% of which Americans? Rhetoric? Recommend a tiny paperback book called How to Lie with Statistics by Huff.

Oh, just to join in on the nonsense sensationalism of the day, how about this?

90% of the people who believe that 90% of Americans would approve waterboarding are 90% sure to go for the next 90% guarantee of limitless wealth when they get an email from Nigeria asking for their bank account numbers to transfer millions of dollars to them.

Not only that, I've got some blonde sun bleached friends (Who happen to be Americans) that hang out a bit too much at the beach that would say (when you mentioned "waterboarding") "Oh that's cool! But I'm not into just skimming the waves along the sand on a board, but rather shooting tubes in The Wedge."

Terry

Manic Moran wrote: »

A point which applies to both sides of the argument. We know that waterboarding is torture, unacceptable, inhuman and so on... because we read it.

On the other hand, it seems to be not entirely ineffective... at least, that's what we read.

Chances are that the only people qualified to answer the question are psychologists and interrogators.

NTM

I think the person on the recieving end might have a thing or two to say.

Manic Moran wrote: »

A problem faced by Lt Colonel Allen West a few years ago. Convinced that a prisoner was in on some planned attacks on his men, and said prisoner was not being particularly responsive to polite questioning by interrogators, he had the prisoner taken outside and told him if he didn't start talking, he'd be shot. He then fired a shot from the pistol near him, at which point the detainee started singing like a bird, with good information resulting in counter-ambushes and for the rest of his command no attacks were carried out on his forces.
West was subsequently relieved, charged, fined and left the service, but also had the eternal gratitude of those who served under him.

Was he morally right?

Similarly, you all remember those pilots in the 1991 Gulf war who had gotten beaten about a bit by the Iraqis? John Nichol was interviewed saying he bore no ill will to their captors, acknowledging that they had information, and their captors needed it. Getting beat about a bit was pretty much par for the course, as far as he was concerned.

NTM

Stockholm syndrome.
Patty Hearst.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

90% of which Americans? Rhetoric? Recommend a tiny paperback book called How to Lie with Statistics by Huff.

Oh, just to join in on the nonsense sensationalism of the day, how about this?

90% of the people who believe that 90% of Americans would approve waterboarding are 90% sure to go for the next 90% guarantee of limitless wealth when they get an email from Nigeria asking for their bank account numbers to transfer millions of dollars to them.

Not only that, I've got some blonde sun bleached friends (Who happen to be Americans) that hang out a bit too much at the beach that would say (when you mentioned "waterboarding") "Oh that's cool! But I'm not into just skimming the waves along the sand on a board, but rather shooting tubes in The Wedge."

20.029% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Manic Moran

Terry wrote: »

I think the person on the recieving end might have a thing or two to say.

He's probably going to say it wasn't a particularly pleasant experience.

Stockholm syndrome.
Patty Hearst.

Given that he did not attempt to voluntarily assist his captors and generally continued to resist, this would indicate that he was not suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Bear in mind that pilot training includes the premise that if captured, interrogation to include physical and mental abuse will follow, so his treatment was not, to his mind, unexpected.

NTM

Terry

Of course he's going to say it wasn't particularly pleasant.
He has just been ****ing tortured.
What do you expect him to say?
Thanks for the ice-cream?

As for your soldier, if he identified with his captors, then that is Stockholm syndrome.

Manic Moran

What do you expect him to say?
Thanks for the ice-cream?

I guess they could always give him one afterwards.. sortof like a good cop / bad cop routine.

Terry wrote: »

As for your soldier, if he identified with his captors, then that is Stockholm syndrome.

I think that's an extremely loose description. I can accept that someone can just be doing their job without suffering from a syndrome. I mean, I understood why insurgents were shooting at me in Iraq, that doesn't mean I identified with them.

NTM

Terry

Manic Moran wrote: »

I guess they could always give him one afterwards.. sortof like a good cop / bad cop routine.



I think that's an extremely loose description. I can accept that someone can just be doing their job without suffering from a syndrome. I mean, I understood why insurgents were shooting at me in Iraq, that doesn't mean I identified with them.

NTM

You obviously did not identify with them if you call them "Insurgents".

You see, in this case they are not insurgents.
They are soldiers defending their country from invaders, lest you forget that it was your army who invaded iraq and started that whole shambles of a war, and not the other way around.
If Iraq had invaded the U.S., then you would have every right to call the people fighting against you "Insurgents". But that was not the case.

Your army invaded Iraq twice.

The first time, I will agree with, as they had invaded a country that was pretty much defenceless. This time though,m it was really a pointless invasion.

Was George Washington an insurgent?
What about Abraham Lincoln?
Pearse, Plunkett, Connolly, Ceannt, McDonagh, Mac Diarmada, Clarke, Devalera, Collins etc?

Hobbes

Poccington wrote: »

You can all sit there and say "Oh it's very wrong" all you like, but what happens when you're put in a situation like the one above?

I'll tell you what you do. You go open a history book and read up on Internment in Northern Ireland.

I would also recommend doing you research on Torture and what people who would know what it does have to say on it.

Get back to us when you do.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was he morally right?

Don't give me that crap. US Soliders would expect to be treated to UN Conventions if they were captured. The least they can do is extend that, even if they think their enemy won't.

Also it is very easy to cite examples. How about Khaled Masri for example? Tortured because a CIA person "had a hunch". No evidence of his guilt at all but had no problems kidnapping and torturing a German citizen.

Is that morally correct?

Or how about Mamdouh Habib. An aussie who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got tortured by the US. Morally correct?

Or maybe Laid Saidi. Kidnapped and tortured by the US. His crime? A US translator mistaking the Arabic word for "Tires" as "Airplanes". Morally correct?

How about Maher Arar? Canadian who was taken by the US, flown to Syria and tortured. His crime? Co-signing some lease years ago with some arabic speaking guy he never knew. Morally correct?

Then you have Saddiq Ahmad Turkistani. A guy who was jailed by Taliban for attempting to assassinate OBL. Released by US forces then put back in prison and tortured for years before finally realising their mistake and releasing him as innocent. Morally correct?

Or my favorite, because it goes in nicely with what you mentioned. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. This guy is an AQ bad guy. He was tortured and gave up information claiming that Iraq had ties to AQ. His torture confession was used in the run up to the Iraq war. Something he later recanted claiming being tortured and not to mention all intel at that point was that Saddam and AQ aren't even remotely friends.

These are just high profile cases. There are 100's like this.

So you can go on about your story about how it is for fighting terrorism, but the fact is nearly everyone tortured is treated as guilty until proven otherwise. They get kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured FOR YEARS

So when I read crap about people trying to justify human rights abuses it just makes me sick.

Manic Moran

Terry wrote: »

You see, in this case they are not insurgents.
They are soldiers defending their country from invaders, lest you forget that it was your army who invaded iraq and started that whole shambles of a war, and not the other way around.
If Iraq had invaded the U.S., then you would have every right to call the people fighting against you "Insurgents". But that was not the case.

I do not agree with their point of view, I certainly don't agree with their short-term objectives (trying to kill me!) but I do not hold too much of a grudge against them for doing so as from their point of view it's anything from national honour through religious duty to revenge for their brother being killed during the war. I see little difference between this and the Nichols case. Just the cost of doing business.

Is that morally correct?

They don't strike me as being parallel examples. On one hand you have a proximate lethal threat, with no physical abuse, on the other hand you have extended detention and abuse with apparently little time-sensitivity or direct correlation with attacks. What is morally correct is by its very nature subjective, and lines are drawn in different places by different people. Your line is drawn in one place, mine to one side, and those who support rendition even further over.

NTM

Lirange

humbert wrote: »

Well then I think the only fair thing to do is waterboard 90% of Americans.

It might be a good idea to wait for an actual poll of Americans.

Just to be sure.

SimpleSam06

Hobbes wrote: »

So you can go on about your story about how it is for fighting terrorism, but the fact is nearly everyone tortured is treated as guilty until proven otherwise. They get kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured FOR YEARS

Well you could go with the Russian take on Islamic terrorism - if they got a terrorist, they sent round the Spetsnaz in the wee hours of the morning and slaughtered their family and friends in their beds. Don't see many planes being flown into Russian buildings now do you? Not that I'm saying its a good thing, just a different perspective on the issue.

Overheal

Hobbes wrote: »

I'll tell you what you do. You go open a history book and read up on Internment in Northern Ireland.

I would also recommend doing you research on Torture and what people who would know what it does have to say on it.

Get back to us when you do.

I did say that it was likeyl a rather ignorant comparison - I know very little about the Northern Ireland history; not nearly enough to give an accurate example - but feel free to provide one.

Manic Moran wrote: »

They don't strike me as being parallel examples. On one hand you have a proximate lethal threat, with no physical abuse, on the other hand you have extended detention and abuse with apparently little time-sensitivity or direct correlation with attacks. What is morally correct is by its very nature subjective, and lines are drawn in different places by different people. Your line is drawn in one place, mine to one side, and those who support rendition even further over.

NTM

Imagine though the 'quagmire' (looped situation) the military allowed themselves to get into the fools - they captured these people for good reasons - either on reliable intelligence or in direct conflict (yea, I'd arrest a guy running at me with a Klashnikov too if I thought he might know something).

In a lot of those prisoner cases it would be like that - they're being detained while America is in Iraq clearly so they dont go pick up another gun.
In the other, fewer cases (really much fewer when you consider how many must be down there) you have maybe higher ranking guerillas/terrorists and you may need information they have. And like I said, these guys are trained, true grit bastards: theyre taught as a kid to fire a rifle; and resistance to interrogation is part of the package deal. Many of the detainees will have had this kind of training - you can shine a spotlight at them and expect them to get nervous. It requires a more direct approach.

Lirange wrote: »

It might be a good idea to wait for an actual poll of Americans.

Just to be sure.

Heres my American Vote: +1.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well you could go with the Russian take on Islamic terrorism - if they got a terrorist, they sent round the Spetsnaz in the wee hours of the morning and slaughtered their family and friends in their beds. Don't see many planes being flown into Russian buildings now do you? Not that I'm saying its a good thing, just a different perspective on the issue.

RespectForSpetsnaz++; //awful, but effective

also if memory serves didnt Russia get entangled in the Middle East themselves about 20 years ago or so??

SimpleSam06

Overheal wrote: »

also if memory serves didnt Russia get entangled in the Middle East themselves about 20 years ago or so??

Yup Afghanistan among other places, which goes to show the technique works for small groups of terrorists, but you can't apply it to a countrywide resistance.

lostexpectation

ah ksm that guy who confessed to so many things who couldnt' possibly have done them all

Terry

Manic Moran wrote:

I do not agree with their point of view, I certainly don't agree with their short-term objectives (trying to kill me!) but I do not hold too much of a grudge against them for doing so as from their point of view it's anything from national honour through religious duty to revenge for their brother being killed during the war. I see little difference between this and the Nichols case. Just the cost of doing business.

You don't agree that they should defend themselves against an invading army?

Terry Nichols was a terrorist. The people of Iraq (The vast majority anyway) are not terrorists.
I really don't understand how you do not see that they are just trying to defend their country.
Whether you and your government agree with their politics is irrelevant. Countless innocent people have died as a result of this "Business" of yours.
Is this "Business" sponsored by Haliburton?

Hobbes

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well you could go with the Russian take on Islamic terrorism - if they got a terrorist, they sent round the Spetsnaz in the wee hours of the morning and slaughtered their family and friends in their beds. Don't see many planes being flown into Russian buildings now do you? Not that I'm saying its a good thing, just a different perspective on the issue.

So your saying we should be like monsters? Have we sunk that low?

Hobbes

Overheal wrote: »

I did say that it was likeyl a rather ignorant comparison - I know very little about the Northern Ireland history; not nearly enough to give an accurate example - but feel free to provide one.

I recommend your bother your ass looking up. 5 seconds in google will get you documented history on Internment in Northern Ireland.

Heres a summary for those who can't be bothered.

1971 British Forces trying to find out about IRA actions (and demands from Prodestants to start internment) rounded up over 300 people. Many of these people were never involved with the IRA. They had similar names, or the Army showed up at the wrong house, or fathers/sons were taken by accident because of their names.

They were detained and tortured in much the same way that Camp Gitmo doe. Subjecting them to loud noises, not allowing to sleep. Some people never mentally recovered from that. They also threw people out of helicopters blindfolded (a few feet off the ground) as a means of torture. Others told to run a gauntlet of beatings by soldiers with batons.

Within 48 hours 17 people died. 10 of those Catholics shot by soliders.

For a period of 4 years from that nearly 2,000 people were interned. Again the majority of many of them innocent of any crime.

The damage it did to Northern Ireland was intense. IRA memberships surged, mass strikes, murders and civil rights abuses right up until the 80's.

So anyone who thinks Torture works only need to look closer to home to see what those actions did to our country.