Mumbai Terrorist Attacks

Reply
Page 33 of 46 FirstFirst ... 25 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 41 ... LastLast
  1. #321

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in an underground bunker at an undisclosed location
    Posts
    2,078
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    Well yes everyone will give in. Whether they tell the truth or not is another issue. And of course in the real example I gave earlier they had nothing to give but still gave lots of (false) information. You end up with a situation where you have masses of information but just don't know what is real and what isn't.
    Hull...thats the point. Experts will know what is real and what is not. You think they won't ensure that the info they are receiving is legit?? That is what trained professionals are supposed to determine.

    Of course there will be some doubts regarding the veracity of the information, but let's not forget that there is an entire support structure that they have at their disposal to 'test' suggestions and to ascertain (often to a high degree of accuracy) what is true and what is not, by acting on such information and to assess how viable the threat is....

    Now for all this to work, you would have to have people with real-world knowledge and exposure to present their viewpoints in these cases, not inexperienced, desk-bound pencil-pushers who can't tell their heads from their asses (or arses, to some here).

  2. #322

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    1,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    How do you know, the information you extract from them is correct?
    Well.......

    1. You cross-reference the information against the intelligence you already have on the topic in question.

    2. The new information is substantiated via assets on the ground or remote surveilance.

    3. Information provided as seen as deliberately false, is severely punished (I'll leave this to your imagination). Hence the point of keeping them alive.

    Why does everyone assume, oops we got our information lets release him / kill him. No one does this. Information is or rather should be ALWAYS substantiated.

  3. #323

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Park Island
    Posts
    807

    [QUOTE=Max;285721]Hull...thats the point. Experts will know what is real and what is not. You think they won't ensure that the info they are receiving is legit?? That is what trained professionals are supposed to determine. QUOTE]

    and how will they do this? Torture the next person to find out if the information they have been given about them is true? Or if they can confirm the informations legitimacy without doing this, then why the need to torture the first guy if they already knew the answer? Surely torture cannot be justified as a means to merely confirming suspicision? If the suspicision is great enough (ie backed up with enough evidence) that, to use the scenerio penned on this thread, an attack is iminent, then surely measures to avert this attack 'just in case' can be (as they have on occassion been so) taken without the need to torture?


  4. #324

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    25,712
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielandHayley:
    You're right. We (the armchairs...I'm with Mat on this, beginning to like the sound of it!) are simply horrible people for even considering that the torture of innocent people is not acceptable
    Well I'm warming to this idea. Given the amount of terrorism linked to Pakistan then I propose anyone of Pakistani descent in Hong Kong should be immediately taken in for 'questioning'. But then of course there have been some Indians involved so lets bring them in too, best be safe - for the good of the majority of course. Then again British Asians have been involved in terrorism in the UK so all British Asians as well. Oh and anyone from the middle east. Oh bugger it, anyone who is not white or Chinese will do. It is for the general good you know. And of course anyone who is white who protests about it, terrorist sympathisers obviously. So many, perhaps we should build some camps to keep them in? Hongtanamo?

    Once you start the slide away from basic human rights it is very slippery and suspects become very numerous.

  5. #325

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sheung Wan
    Posts
    240

    Unbelievable..

    OK, so let's torture all possible people to know if they have information.

    After 2days if they don't speak it means the torture should be even worse and go to Mossad techniques.

    After 5days when the guy admits to be a terrorist then kill him because all terrorists need to be killed.

    I can't understand some of you...


  6. #326

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Clearwater Bay Road
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielandHayley:
    You're right. We (the armchairs...I'm with Mat on this, beginning to like the sound of it!) are simply horrible people for even considering that the torture of innocent people is not acceptable
    May be you missed the point. I don't think police/agencies would pick up any tom/dick/harry and torture them for information, or you think we r living in gestapo era?
    When any body who's suspected of being a terrorist/criminal or have any connection with, there's always a background information and a logical conclusion to it.

  7. #327

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    25,712
    Quote Originally Posted by climber07:
    Well.......

    1. You cross-reference the information against the intelligence you already have on the topic in question.

    2. The new information is substantiated via assets on the ground or remote surveilance.

    3. Information provided as seen as deliberately false, is severely punished (I'll leave this to your imagination). Hence the point of keeping them alive.

    Why does everyone assume, oops we got our information lets release him / kill him. No one does this. Information is or rather should be ALWAYS substantiated.

    Um...WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION....remember them? The reason why we invaded Iraq?

  8. #328

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Park Island
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by climber07:
    Well.......

    1. You cross-reference the information against the intelligence you already have on the topic in question.

    2. The new information is substantiated via assets on the ground or remote surveilance.

    3. Information provided as seen as deliberately false, is severely punished (I'll leave this to your imagination). Hence the point of keeping them alive.

    Why does everyone assume, oops we got our information lets release him / kill him. No one does this. Information is or rather should be ALWAYS substantiated.



    So let's get this straight; a person is captured, (assuming that there is not going to be a full trial as 'time is of the essence', so therefore is innocent - he has not been proven guilty) he is then tortured to within a inch of his life, caves in and gives the information (correct or false), what then?

    He is kept in captivity, without trial just in case you want to go back and repeat the process? All along, there has been absolutely no confirmation of this person guilt...hold on, this sounds remarkably familiar..a certain prison camp in Cuba?

    Guantanamo Bay has been condemned world wide and it's practices and purpose are in undoubted breach of a variety of international laws and conventions.

    My contention throughout this discussion has been that the methods proposed by some posters (whilst I respect their opinions and rights to express them) are contrary to the law, that in order to live in a free and democratic society, which let us remember, is the remit on which the US led war on terror is based, we must be ruled by the rules, not by the rulers.

    I rest my case your honour...
    Last edited by DanielandHayley; 02-12-2008 at 04:00 PM.

  9. #329

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    25,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Max:
    Hull...thats the point. Experts will know what is real and what is not. You think they won't ensure that the info they are receiving is legit?? That is what trained professionals are supposed to determine.

    Of course there will be some doubts regarding the veracity of the information, but let's not forget that there is an entire support structure that they have at their disposal to 'test' suggestions and to ascertain (often to a high degree of accuracy) what is true and what is not, by acting on such information and to assess how viable the threat is....

    Now for all this to work, you would have to have people with real-world knowledge and exposure to present their viewpoints in these cases, not inexperienced, desk-bound pencil-pushers who can't tell their heads from their asses (or arses, to some here).
    I all I can say to your experts is "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"

  10. #330

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Clearwater Bay Road
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    Um...WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION....remember them? The reason why we invaded Iraq?
    I think Hull, we better keep Bush and his actions out of it. All of us on this thread would like to kick his butt whatever our views may be.

Reply
Page 33 of 46 FirstFirst ... 25 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 41 ... LastLast