JulieB Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 What alternatives is there though? Try making a gentler,fairer world?.............No thought not.. Torture and unlawful imprisonment is going on in every corner of the globe right now. Most of the victims aren't terrorists, they just happen to not share the same values as their masters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I'm on the fence. Yes - as it can lead to more lives being saved No - Because it is torture and these are human beings. Its a tough dilemma. You're damned if you advocate it and damned if you discourage it really. I'll keep my personal thoughts on this personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Try making a gentler,fairer world? OK. Brb off to provide a new exit strategy for Afghanistan, involving lots of hugs and re-runs of Fawlty Towers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Try making a gentler,fairer world? OK. Brb off to provide a new exit strategy for Afghanistan, involving lots of hugs and re-runs of Fawlty Towers. And don't forget bonding over Medal of Honour... err.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Try making a gentler,fairer world? OK. Brb off to provide a new exit strategy for Afghanistan, involving lots of hugs and re-runs of Fawlty Towers. I did add..."Thought Not!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Most people would like the world to be a nicer, fairer place but that isn't a realistic expectation to hold for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms 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. Well, you seem to know about radicalisation, from your definitive pronouncement. In that case, you will have come across some of the material used in radicalising people, which goes into some detail about the acts of the western powers, not limited to torture, but certainly including it. And if you really think that what I said was that those who are radicalised are the ones who've been tortured, you really need to read it again. That's not what I said at all. It's the others, you know, the ones the propaganda is aimed at. But you think it's all caused by religious views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 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. Thats bollox mate. So your saying the more we torture people to extract information, the more terrorists there will be produced? Bin Laden has never been tortured by the USA...yet he still arranged for 3000 innocent people to be killed. That's one of the finest non-sequiturs I've ever seen. Congratulations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 We shouldn't reduce ourselves, and prostitute our values, to such reprehensible acts. It's wrong. And that's before you get to a pragmatists argument that it isn't actually that effective anyway. X 2. Gaining credible information from a man when you are trimming his nails with bolt cutters is highly unlikely. However if you define torture as sleep deprivation or instilling fear through intimidation then you're using the wrong definition in my book. Scare the piss out of them, make them physically and psychologically uncomfortable by all means, but causing actual bodily harm is beyond what we should be prepared to accept imo. That's not to say I have any issue at all with slotting the **** on the spot if they are taken in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoD Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I'm against it, there is little evidence to suggest that information 'obtained' through torture is accurate and it most certainly is obtained quickly. Also don't think that it sends the right message across the globe, things like this just add fuel the fire. What alternatives is there though? I've yet to hear anything more substantial than 'it's wrong' from those wholeheartedly against it. Alternatives are limited, but planned attacks tend to be caught by intelligence agencies, the best solution i can offer is work on improving these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I'm on the fence. Yes - as it can lead to more lives being saved No - Because it is torture and these are human beings. Its a tough dilemma. You're damned if you advocate it and damned if you discourage it really. I'll keep my personal thoughts on this personal. To be honest, I think once you cross the line to becoming a terrorist, your human being status goes out the window. They do not deserve to be branded 'human being' if there goal is too kill thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I'm on the fence. Yes - as it can lead to more lives being saved No - Because it is torture and these are human beings. Its a tough dilemma. You're damned if you advocate it and damned if you discourage it really. I'll keep my personal thoughts on this personal. To be honest, I think once you cross the line to becoming a terrorist, your human being status goes out the window. They do not deserve to be branded 'human being' if there goal is too kill thousands. I think that once you start torturing someone your human being status goes out the window as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 So the next question is for the against torture camp I've kidnapped your children and I've buried them in a chamber with enough oxygen for 2 hours The police have caught me but have no idea where I have buried your children The clock is ticking you now have 1 hour 55 mins when a policeman comes into the room and says "he ain't talking but I may be able to persuade him" Now tell me in all honesty are you are going to let you're kids die or are you going to hope that policeman does whatever is required to get me to talk , a quick beating hasn't worked so next up is a more uncovential method to try and get the info out of me So are going to let your children die ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I'm on the fence. Yes - as it can lead to more lives being saved No - Because it is torture and these are human beings. Its a tough dilemma. You're damned if you advocate it and damned if you discourage it really. I'll keep my personal thoughts on this personal. To be honest, I think once you cross the line to becoming a terrorist, your human being status goes out the window. They do not deserve to be branded 'human being' if there goal is too kill thousands. I think that once you start torturing someone your human being status goes out the window as well. Torturing one man to save just one innocent life never mind hundreds is worth it. I think it's easy to say your against torture, it's the obvious thing to say but if family and friends died as a result of a terrorist attack and I was told it maybe could of been avoided had torture had they got information out of a terrorist. My thought wouldn't be 'No, he's only a terrorist, leave him' Torturing someone by 'drowning' and getting information, saves lives and also doesn't kill the terrorist either...all sides are happy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Yes. The uncomfort of 1 person aiming to kill as many people as he can is of less importance than the lives of hundreds/thousends. As for those saying "if you torture someone you don't deserve human rights", define torture. How far do you take it? Making your kids take baths when they don't want to? Not letting them leave the dinner table until they finish their veggies? You monsters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 So the next question is for the against torture camp ...[A version of the ticking time bomb scenario]... No to torture. No exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I don't believe you in that scenario personally. You'd have to be insane in my opinion. I don't see any positives from saying no in that situation. Family lives over terrorist uncomfort for me, maybe I'm crazy though. :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I don't believe you Believe whatever you wish. I have reiterated my stance on torture. No hypothetical situations and no clichéd thought experiments (which are not genuine thought experiments, really, but rather obvious tricks aimed to solicit a specific answer) are going to get me to change my position on absolute prohibition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 If a few fundamentalist terrorists are tortured to save any innocent lives then i'm completely okay with it. Provided torture is only used to gather vital information to thwart terrorist plots, the ends justify the means in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts