Mumbai Terrorist Attacks

Reply
Page 30 of 46 FirstFirst ... 22 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 38 ... LastLast
  1. #291

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sheung Wan
    Posts
    240

    waw!

    Quote Originally Posted by aussiegal:
    if torture didn't work it wouldn't be used.
    This is such a lame argument... If you really believe that then we stop changing anything because as we use it it means that it works...

    Of course torture may work. The thing is do we accept on the 20th century to live with such barbarian acts?

    Or do we try to CHANGE and evolve towards new habits which hvae been written by some people inspired by the horror of WW2?

    Whether you like it or not, Geneva Convention is a progress in our civilization. Arguing against it is just refusing to go ahead.

  2. #292

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    1,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    Seems to me a lot of people are just turning around the pot but not providing any substantial information that TORTURE does work.
    Would you like a demonstration? I think this foolish topic can be settled very quickly.

    The ineffectiveness of torture can occur in the following examples:

    1. The interrogator is poorly trained

    2. The interrogator asks the wrong questions (i.e. asking a random captured Afghani fighter "Where is Bin Laden?").

    3. The interrogator has no prior intelligence on the role, rank and/or hierarchy of the subject questioned (or his certain knowledge of the specific target of investigation).

    I think the difference in this whole topic is people are expecting torture to be effective at "ending terrorism" not "gaining specific information".

  3. #293

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    25,712

    Freeier can you cut out the battlefield stuff, it just is not relevant. No one is talking about that (apart from you).

    Freeier: "You can only adopt a convention if both sides agree to it. Any one breach and everyone else (soldiers at both sides) are going to be edgy and adopt a trigger happy attitude."

    So now that the US has abandoned the Geneva Convention then they will happily accept their soldiers being tortured, humiliated then murdered when they are captured? There will be no comments about "barbaric" terrorists? I think not somehow.


  4. #294

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sarcasm - because beating the crap out of people is illegal
    Posts
    14,636
    Quote Originally Posted by freeier:
    You want to extract as much information as you can from them without the luxury of moving them from one area to another. You do not want to have to transport them for fear of sneak attacks/rescues by their comrades.
    I am surprised you have not heard about the hundreds of "rendition" flights or Gitmo, which I believe is only accessible by air/sea.

  5. #295

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Clearwater Bay Road
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    Life restarted in Mumbai, business is going back as usual - and it should be the case.
    What choice do they have? Unfortunately they have to earn to live unlike some lucky ppl.

  6. #296

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielandHayley:
    Another exemplary display of your ignorance aussiegal. The excuse given by freeier et al is that trivial matters such as the Geneva convention and international law in general do not come in to the minds of soldiers during the 'heat of battle'. This is a notion that I can understand, an innocent women maybe shot dead because in the split second that the soldier had to decide if she was a suicide bomber or not, he or she got it wrong. This is the timescales we are are talking about, the torture of suspects/ pow's is not a split second decision. There is amble time for those in charge to consider their responsibilities.

    When arguing a defence of 'self defence' against a criminal charge one of the tests is a 'cooling off period'...the solider faced with the approaching women carrying a 'parcel' may not have this luxury and has to act in an instance...the soldier with a room full of prisoners of war that takes part in torture/humiliation etc certainly has had the time to consider his or her actions.
    You seem to do exactly what others accuse you of, that being reading what you want to read, only refering to something that you feel will defend your position even if you have to take something completely out of context.

    What I do find very interesting however is that you think it is ok to take out a woman holding a parcel that may or may not be a bomb but you don't think it's ok to torture a terrorist when presented with evidence that they know of and are involved with an imminent terrorist threat. This whole argument started with Aussiegal presenting this exact question. What you would do if we had advance warning of the mumbai attacks and had someone in custody suspected of involvement. You and others said, let the law deal with them even if it means losing hundreds of lives as was the case in Mumbai. Others said you use whatever means necessary to extract information that will save lives.

    Reading your quote above I'm struggling to understand what your real problem is? You've said in the heat of the battle it's ok to kill. Do you prefer outright death over torture? Is it simply a matter of how much time people have to deal with situations? No time, kill away. Some time, no torture? How does this make your argument any more civilised than what other people here are arguing?

    Things are not black and white and this is what Freeier and others are arguing.

    Just curious about one other thing, when you insult Aussiegal's 'ignorance' is that because you've been a soldier on the ground and can talk from a place of fact or is it because you think that anyone with an opionion that differs from yours is stupid?

  7. #297

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,586
    Quote Originally Posted by climber07:
    Would you like a demonstration? I think this foolish topic can be settled very quickly.

    The ineffectiveness of torture can occur in the following examples:

    1. The interrogator is poorly trained

    2. The interrogator asks the wrong questions (i.e. asking a random captured Afghani fighter "Where is Bin Laden?").

    3. The interrogator has no prior intelligence on the role, rank and/or hierarchy of the subject questioned (or his certain knowledge of the specific target of investigation).

    I think the difference in this whole topic is people are expecting torture to be effective at "ending terrorism" not "gaining specific information".
    ??? missed my post there Climber....People are so prompt at claiming that torture works, yet so far none came with an example (and not from the last JB or 24).

    Anyway, as Hull said, I guess it "SOMETIMES" work (hell it should at least), but is it 1) Necessary 2) Proven more useful/efective than say diplomacy (please note that your new president, is in that respect showing a way forward, unlike is lame duck predecessor) or other alternatives

  8. #298

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    1,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    (please note that your new president, is in that respect showing a way forward, unlike is lame duck predecessor) or other alternatives
    You're making an assumption that ANY president holds any real power or is relevant in the global affairs.

  9. #299

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the Lair of the Village Idiot's Apprenctice
    Posts
    3,385

    biz as usual

    Not only do they not have a choice, it is the best thing to do.

    from yesterday´s SCMP

    Don't overplay the importance of terrorism
    the closest I could find [linkable] is this
    Gwynne Dyer: Terrorists are marginal; keep them that way | Straight.com
    G
    wynne Dyer
    Dec 01, 2008

    The latest US National Intelligence Council report on global trends predicts that the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda "may decay sooner" than many experts expect because of its "unachievable strategic objectives, inability to attract broad-based support and self-destructive actions".

    Hot on the report's heels came the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last week, which killed more than 190 people. Is the National Intelligence Council wrong?

    Not at all. There is no evidence that al-Qaeda had anything to do with the attacks in India's financial capital, nor does it seem very likely. Besides, this event will be forgotten within a year by everyone who was not actually there - as it should be.

    Fifteen years ago, there was a much worse attack in Mumbai. Thirteen bombs exploded all across the city, killing 257 people and injuring 713 others. Although the September 11, 2001, atrocity in the US has come to overshadow all other terrorist attacks in terms of loss of life, the Mumbai bombings of 1993 remain the third-worst incident in the history of terrorism. Yet who remembers them today?

    I do, because I was in the city with a film crew at the time, and they barely escaped with their lives. The stock exchange was bombed only 20 minutes after they finished filming there. For hours afterwards, the city centre's streets were full of people who had evacuated their offices, and I still recall how calm and disciplined they were.

    I was in central London during the 2005 bombings that killed 52 people, and the mood was the same. Given a story like this, the media will always try to depict it as the apocalypse, but the general public didn't buy it. The attacks were a tragedy for a few hundred people and an enormous nuisance for hundreds of thousands of others, but they didn't change anything important. How could they?

    Terrorism is only as important as you let it be. The perpetrators, whatever their goals, are by definition few, weak and marginal. If they were many, strong and central, they would be a major political force or a government, and they wouldn't need to resort to terrorism.

    All good anti-terrorist strategies deny the terrorists the status of a legitimate enemy. Maybe you have to get the army's help occasionally when the police are overstretched, but dealing with terrorists should remain primarily the job of the police and the ordinary courts. Don't pass any special laws, and never set up special courts and detainment camps. The terrorists are marginal; keep them that way.

    The response of the Bush administration to the 9/11 attacks, by contrast, provides a horrible example of the cost of overreaction.

    For seven years, George W. Bush served as al-Qaeda's most valuable (though unwitting) ally. The fact that it is still in decline despite having him in charge of US foreign policy is proof of what a marginal outfit it is. As the National Intelligence Council said, its strategic goals are unrealistic, and its actions are so brutal that they alienate most of the people whose support it wants.

    Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries

    Last edited by kombuchakid; 02-12-2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason: to add a link

  10. #300

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Park Island
    Posts
    807

    ok, i'll take this point by point...I couldn't be bothered with the multi quite thing though...

    "You seem to do exactly what others accuse you of, that being reading what you want to read, only refering to something that you feel will defend your position even if you have to take something completely out of context. "

    Examples please. I refer to the points in the comment that I don't agree with and, where possible, try to back them up with reasoning.

    "What I do find very interesting however is that you think it is ok to take out a woman holding a parcel that may or may not be a bomb but you don't think it's ok to torture a terrorist when presented with evidence that they know of and are involved with an imminent terrorist threat. This whole argument started with Aussiegal presenting this exact question. What you would do if we had advance warning of the mumbai attacks and had someone in custody suspected of involvement. You and others said, let the law deal with them even if it means losing hundreds of lives as was the case in Mumbai. Others said you use whatever means necessary to extract information that will save lives. "

    Rubbish. Read it again, I use the example to demonstrate the difference between a decision taken in the 'heat of battle' as opposed to one taken to consider ones actions.


    "Reading your quote above I'm struggling to understand what your real problem is? You've said in the heat of the battle it's ok to kill. Do you prefer outright death over torture? Is it simply a matter of how much time people have to deal with situations? No time, kill away. Some time, no torture? How does this make your argument any more civilised than what other people here are arguing? "

    More rubbish. See my point above about providing examples of different situations. A solider killing an enemy soldier in a battle during wartime is lawful, a soldier torturing a p.o.w. is contary to international law.

    "Things are not black and white and this is what Freeier and others are arguing."

    I never said they were. I have simply taken the standpoint of arguing in favour of what the law says - I have to a large extent left my personal/moral feeling out of it.

    "Just curious about one other thing, when you insult Aussiegal's 'ignorance' is that because you've been a soldier on the ground and can talk from a place of fact or is it because you think that anyone with an opionion that differs from yours is stupid?"

    I'm not quire sure how you insult somebody's ignorance...maybe you can enlighten me. I may well have been insulting by calling somebody ignorant in relation to a specific issue, but I'l live with that.


Reply
Page 30 of 46 FirstFirst ... 22 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 38 ... LastLast