BF2S Forums Waterboarding Is Ok...No Wait!!!

CameronPoe wrote:

You will have freedom, liberty and democracy with or without waterboarding. Are you suggesting there is a direct correlation between waterboarding and maintenance of freedom in the US?

No. You did. See below:

CameronPoe wrote:

Now whether you guys concede it or not the US tries to legitimise its actions on the global scene with it's 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy' platform and rhetoric. Those kind of values are incompatible with the use of waterboarding, i.e. torture.

CameronPoe wrote:

Waterboarding a suspected terrorist. I never realised you disagreed with the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'. I have also expounded upon the futility of the measures. You are exaggerating the 'chance to save innocents' that exists. One cannot selectively apply principles and keep ones head up high.

Since when were KSM and Zubaida only "suspected terrorists"? They were proven terrorists when they were caught...proudly proclaiming their deeds. Since we don't know the identity of the third, we can't say whether he was "suspected" or "known" to be a terrorist. That adds up to three...out of how many total that are in custody worldwide? There are certainly more confirmed terrorists in custody who aren't being waterboarded...so where's the hypberbolic language coming from?

How am I exaggerating anything? It's not like I made up the fact that attacks were prevented and other terrorists rolled up based on what they got from interrogating those two. And there's no "selective application of principles" here. You feel it's torture. I don't.

CameronPoe wrote:

One cell carries out one operation and communication with other cells does not occur, it takes place between one lead operative and a higher contact. Any operative you detain will know only of the mission with which his cell has been tasked, which upon loss of an operative will likely be aborted on 'risk of failure' grounds.

Which is probably why only two (or three) of the high rollers--who have knowledge of multiple cells' operations--have been subjected to this. They have the most critical info...that info that saves those lives you seem to think are unimportant.

B.Schuss wrote:

well, what about the London and Madrid bombings then ? Or are those also not linked to Operations in iraq ?

Maybe.

The claim of responsibility for London mentioned Iraq, but it also mentioned Afghanistan. I don't see where it was actually executed on behalf of AQI...seemed more of a broad-brush "jihad" commentary.

Spain was probably directly tied to getting them to get out of Iraq (or not, if you believe Wiki). And Spain did exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do. GG.

Doesn't really matter what they feel about it.

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

well, what about the London and Madrid bombings then ? Or are those also not linked to Operations in iraq ?

Maybe.

The claim of responsibility for London mentioned Iraq, but it also mentioned Afghanistan. I don't see where it was actually executed on behalf of AQI...seemed more of a broad-brush "jihad" commentary.

Spain was probably directly tied to getting them to get out of Iraq (or not, if you believe Wiki). And Spain did exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do. GG.

well, surprise, surprise, no more bombings in Madrid since then. And no more spanish citizens dieing in iraq. I am sure the spanish government feels real bad about that decision. /irony

The murders had impeccable timing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But if you feel better by letting them die when you had a chance to stop them by waterboarding a fucking terrorist, then you go ahead and take that option when you get the opportunity.

This kind if situation pretty well never happens, the real world isn't like '24' or 'Dirty Harry'.
In the short term you might make some small gains from torture, in the long run it only leads to more recruits for the terrorists and and you lose public opinion.

Or you roll up other terrorists and put a stop to their attack plans. It happened with at least 67% of the people who were waterboarded. Wasn't 24...wasn't Dirty Harry. It was real world.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its interesting to me:-

The US always concentrates on individuals, believing its the malevolent psycho who leads these organisations who is the centre and if they go then the problem is solved. 'If we kill Saddam, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Al Sadr, Arafat, Castro etc the problem will go away'
It doesn't work that way, and this is why simplistic US foreign policy and anti-terrorism fails so badly.

You're confused. This isn't about the malevolent psycho...this is about the person with the most knowledge of their operations, plans, processes, cells, etc. Leaders have that information...which is why they are important targets in counterterrorism operations. They are far more important than the average foot soldier when you are trying to take down entire networks or significant pieces of networks. It's called attacking centers of gravity. They do the same thing to us...one of our (the West's) biggest centers of gravity is public sensitivity to media, and they exploit it expertly.

The above has nothing to do with foreign policy...it is purely military in nature. Not that diplomacy doesn't have a role in the counterterror fight. I'm just not versed in diplomacy, so I can't speak to it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The fine military minds assembled here having nothing more imaginative or intelligent to say than 'Kill, destroy, brutalise, torture'.
The mighty US failed in Vietnam using these tactics and have seriously screwed up in Iraq. It didn't work for the British in NI, in the long run it doesn't work.
The Guantanamo inmates have been there 5 years now, their intel is 5 years old. Is the CIA going to continue running around the world abducting and torturing suspects? How long can they keep it up? Pakistan has a population of 170m. You need a better plan.

1. Please point out where any of the military folks here have said "kill, destroy, brutalise (sic), torture". I'll make your search short: Nowhere.
I won't speak to your "nothing more imaginative or intelligent" comment...I believe what you said speaks volumes already.

2. Waterboarding =/= Iraq policy. Please try to stay on topic. As for Iraq, not getting a lot of press nowadays. Why do you think that is?

3. Not all Gitmo inmates have been there 5 years. There are arrivals/releases all the time. Not all captured terrorists are sent to Gitmo. You need a better argument than how long Gitmo has been in operation to counter the relevance of the intel gained from worldwide interrogation of suspected terrorists. Waterboarding was the worst thing done to detainees. And that was only done to three. Where's the torture you are decrying again?

Dilbert_X wrote:

How many Spanish killed by AQ since they pulled out of Iraq?

How many before they pulled out?

............crickets..................

"...both U.S. and Spanish officials say that there is no evidence that al-Qaida leadership authorized or even knew of the plan."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7158191/

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-12-13 22:06:02)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Both sides believe completely they are in the right and have god on their side, they are equally wrong and misguided.

So what side is the right side?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Terrorism gets the job done!

AQ expects acts and threats of violence to cause their enemies to submit to their will - US, Britain, Spain etc
The US, Britain etc expects acts and threats of violence to cause their enemies to submit to their will - AQ, Iraq, Iran etc

Both sides believe completely they are in the right and have god on their side, they are equally wrong and misguided.

So the US and Britain are the same as AQ...  interesting...

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Doesn't really matter what they feel about it.

I thought your priority was to prevent your countrymen being killed by terrorists?
Spain has achieved this without resorting to torture, detention without trial, abductions, gulags etc.
Is that a problem for you? Don't you think it would be worth examining?

Have many Americans been killed by terrorists (in the US) since 2001? Has AQ been able to execute a spectacular attack along the lines of 9/11, Khobar Towers, or the Embassy bombings in the last six years?

....crickets chirping....

Hmmm...seems to be working.

well, that depends on the way you look at it. I wouldn't call over 3,000 dead US soldiers and tens of thousands wounded a "success" either. Sure, no more attacks on US soil, but you're buying that "success" with the blood of US soldiers overseas. Is that really so much better ?

Let alone the tens of thousands innocent civilians that have died because of this conflict.

Why can´t we all just be friends?

Dilbert_X wrote:

The right side is the one which isn't using gratuitous violence to secure its objectives, ie neither.

My point is torturing the AQ members picked up in Afghanistan did not prevent the Spanish and British bombings.
It hasn't led to a single person being brought to justice ie an actual trial.

It won't 100% prevent attacks on the US in the future either, if anything it will make them more likely.
You may disrupt terrorist activities here and there but you're never going to catch every one.

The actions of the US, Britain etc invite and provoke further attacks, at least according to your/our enemies.
The more radicalised and angry these whackos become the more recruits there are - from an almost unlimited pool.
Torturing - and a number of trivial or entirely innocent people have been tortured to death - is just not productive in the long run.

Seems like you have the answers.  So tell us, what will prevent 100% of terrorist attacks from this day forward?  And if you define terrorist attack, you will see how far back in history it goes.  So tell us Mr. expert.  Stop fucking telling us what is wrong, and tell us what will save us from all harm.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The right side is the one which isn't using gratuitous violence to secure its objectives, ie neither.

My point is torturing the AQ members picked up in Afghanistan did not prevent the Spanish and British bombings.
It hasn't led to a single person being brought to justice ie an actual trial.

It won't 100% prevent attacks on the US in the future either, if anything it will make them more likely.
You may disrupt terrorist activities here and there but you're never going to catch every one.

The actions of the US, Britain etc invite and provoke further attacks, at least according to your/our enemies.
The more radicalised and angry these whackos become the more recruits there are - from an almost unlimited pool.
Torturing - and a number of trivial or entirely innocent people have been tortured to death - is just not productive in the long run.

Seems like you have the answers.  So tell us, what will prevent 100% of terrorist attacks from this day forward?  And if you define terrorist attack, you will see how far back in history it goes.  So tell us Mr. expert.  Stop fucking telling us what is wrong, and tell us what will save us from all harm.

I guess the point is that nothing will. It's terrorism. It can only be contained so much by military force/counter-terrorism/intelligence. The real reasons behind terrorism ( cultural differences, hatred, bias, prejudice, envy, etc ) cannot be dealt with through force. It's about understanding, about co-operation, about letting other cultures live the way they chose to.

I mean, seriously, are you saying that after all that has happened in Iraq, and all the people that have died, are you really saying that you're better off today than in 2003 ? Sure, no more attacks on US soil since then, but as I said, you are buying that "success" with the blood of your soldiers overseas. Let alone the tens of thousands of wounded, the cost to your economy, and reputation. Classic Pyrrhic victory, if you ask me.
Some would even argue that by what Al'Quaeda has forced you to do since 2001, they have already achieved most of their goals in this conflict.
The country is divided, the dollar is at an all-time low, and this war is costing you an unimaginable amount of money, with no end in sight.

Personally, I think you need a shift in strategy. I don't have all the answers, obviously, but I don't have to. I am not in charge at the White House, I can't vote in the 2008 elections, I am not even american.
But it still matters to me. As Kennedy said, we all breathe the same air, etc.

My apologies if what I said previously offended you.