Torture
- Thread starter Sportello
- Start date
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
While you're drinking that beer with TOS at the local VFW (probably not gonna happen), ask him what his "....biker friends in Idaho...." think of "torturing" our enemies to extract intel that might/probably will save more lives.
Bad wars, good warriors.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
There is absolutely no evidence that torture works. None.
This is one scholarly article explaining this. There are many others. There are no studies that show that torture works. There is not even any anecdotal evidence that it does.
This thread has shown what lies in the hearts of some, if you can call that dark place a 'heart'.
https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf
"With many policy or political issues, there are ambiguities that lead to the
necessity of compromise. This is not the case with the policy of torture. Based on
the available facts and research findings, it is clear that the use of torture-based
interrogations should end. Torture-based interrogations are ineffective as a means
of extracting reliable information and are likely to produce faulty intelligence.
Torture has severe, long-term negative consequences for survivors, perpetrators,
and communities. More broadly, the use of torture has far-reaching consequences:
it damages the reputation of the United States, creates hostility toward our troops,
provides a rationale for cruelty against U.S. soldiers and citizens, places the United
States in the company of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and
undermines our credibility when we argue for international human rights or any
moral imperative. Any purported benefits of torture must be weighed against these
substantial proven costs."
This is one scholarly article explaining this. There are many others. There are no studies that show that torture works. There is not even any anecdotal evidence that it does.
This thread has shown what lies in the hearts of some, if you can call that dark place a 'heart'.
https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf
"With many policy or political issues, there are ambiguities that lead to the
necessity of compromise. This is not the case with the policy of torture. Based on
the available facts and research findings, it is clear that the use of torture-based
interrogations should end. Torture-based interrogations are ineffective as a means
of extracting reliable information and are likely to produce faulty intelligence.
Torture has severe, long-term negative consequences for survivors, perpetrators,
and communities. More broadly, the use of torture has far-reaching consequences:
it damages the reputation of the United States, creates hostility toward our troops,
provides a rationale for cruelty against U.S. soldiers and citizens, places the United
States in the company of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and
undermines our credibility when we argue for international human rights or any
moral imperative. Any purported benefits of torture must be weighed against these
substantial proven costs."
moreluck
golden ticket member
I agree...torture comes in many disguises.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
sportello-
You and TOS still haven't offered any viable alternatives......
You and TOS still haven't offered any viable alternatives......
[ quote="sportello, post: 1476374, member: 55299"]There is absolutely no evidence that torture works. None.
This is one scholarly article explaining this. There are many others. There are no studies that show that torture works. There is not even any anecdotal evidence that it does.
This thread has shown what lies in the hearts of some, if you can call that dark place a 'heart'.
https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf
"With many policy or political issues, there are ambiguities that lead to the
necessity of compromise. This is not the case with the policy of torture. Based on
the available facts and research findings, it is clear that the use of torture-based
interrogations should end. Torture-based interrogations are ineffective as a means
of extracting reliable information and are likely to produce faulty intelligence.
Torture has severe, long-term negative consequences for survivors, perpetrators,
and communities. More broadly, the use of torture has far-reaching consequences:
it damages the reputation of the United States, creates hostility toward our troops,
provides a rationale for cruelty against U.S. soldiers and citizens, places the United
States in the company of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and
undermines our credibility when we argue for international human rights or any
moral imperative. Any purported benefits of torture must be weighed against these
substantial proven costs."[/quote]
In case you didn't notice it, these people don't like us to begin with. But this may cause them some begrudging respect for us, letting them know we're not going to take their crap without dishing it back to them. For some people, that's all they understand and respect.
This is one scholarly article explaining this. There are many others. There are no studies that show that torture works. There is not even any anecdotal evidence that it does.
This thread has shown what lies in the hearts of some, if you can call that dark place a 'heart'.
https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf
"With many policy or political issues, there are ambiguities that lead to the
necessity of compromise. This is not the case with the policy of torture. Based on
the available facts and research findings, it is clear that the use of torture-based
interrogations should end. Torture-based interrogations are ineffective as a means
of extracting reliable information and are likely to produce faulty intelligence.
Torture has severe, long-term negative consequences for survivors, perpetrators,
and communities. More broadly, the use of torture has far-reaching consequences:
it damages the reputation of the United States, creates hostility toward our troops,
provides a rationale for cruelty against U.S. soldiers and citizens, places the United
States in the company of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and
undermines our credibility when we argue for international human rights or any
moral imperative. Any purported benefits of torture must be weighed against these
substantial proven costs."[/quote]
In case you didn't notice it, these people don't like us to begin with. But this may cause them some begrudging respect for us, letting them know we're not going to take their crap without dishing it back to them. For some people, that's all they understand and respect.
How about obeying the law as an alternative first? As to a solution, how about "we" as a war industry, stop funding wars in the middle east by arming bit players and turning them into monsters?
How about we CUT OFF arms to these countries that spawn terrorists?
But of course, that would be to simple of a solution. War is money, and profit is the golden goose of terrorism.
Just think, if ISIS only ran out of bullets, how long could they possibly stay as a fighting force?
But, we know, the "lords of war" will always sell them american made arms and bullets because this country is so OVERLOADED with arms surpluses it has to be sold.
Overproduction by arms dealers leads to conflicts in all third world countries.
It may not be the "yay merricah" scenario you are looking for, but preventing wars is better than fighting them.
TOS.
I'm all for not fighting wars. We wouldn't be screwing with isis had they not beheaded Americans.
These things ( I refuse to call isis members people) come looking for a fight, and if we back down we only look even weaker than we currently do.
BUT, if Obummer uses one or 3 of his drones and nukes that whole area....think of the money we'd save on bullets! And then there'd be noone to try to kill us
......That's good advice for Michael Brown too. We should tell him. Oh, might be a little late. Well, tell the rest of his community that
ISIS isnt coming for us superballs, thats where you have it wrong. They are going after
ES/SHIA muslims. ISIS are sunnis, and the two dont mix, like christians and atheists.You have to understand why ISIS exists, and what there goals are. They arent coming to america anytime soon. Thats all a part of the HYPE the war industry wants you to believe.
Their intention is to establish a sunni nation.
Sunnis from around the region are joining ISIS to fight. If the Al Maliki regime hadnt gone on a killing spree, executing sunnis across Iraq, ISIS wouldnt have formed. The choice for sunnis is easy, join ISIS and live a little longer, or die by Shia controlled military forces supplied by the United States.
As our leaders in congress continue to arm peoples who end up becoming terrorists (aka Usama Bin Laden), we always end up 10 years later fighting them.
If it wasnt for the over production of arms in the world, there wouldnt be terrorists today. But those arms dealers have to sell to somebody, and if they can sell guns to both sides of a conflict, then they have customers for life.
TOS.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
North Korea and Vietnam were not signatory to the Geneva Convention, and furthermore in neither of those conflicts had "war" officially been declared. The Vietnamese in particular regarded captured American pilots as terrorists rather than POW's since they bombed Vietnamese cities and killed Vietnamese civilians without the declaration of war that would have afforded them POW status in the first place.
As far as WWII goes, the Germans and Italians were signatory to the Geneva Convention so for the most part Allied POWS were treated in accordance with the rules since Germany and Italy wanted their own POW's to be treated the same way in return. The Russians and Japanese were not signatory to the convention, which is why the survival rate for POW's in their captivity was so low. This is also why the Germans treated Russian POW's far worse than they treated American, British and Commonwealth POW's; the entire system depends upon the ability of neutral observers to inspect POW camps on both sides and report back to each side how its POW's are being treated by the other side in order to motivate both sides to follow the rules.
ISIS isnt coming for us superballs, thats where you have it wrong. They are going after
You have to understand why ISIS exists, and what there goals are. They arent coming to america anytime soon. Thats all a part of the HYPE the war industry wants you to believe.
Their intention is to establish a sunni nation.
Sunnis from around the region are joining ISIS to fight. If the Al Maliki regime hadnt gone on a killing spree, executing sunnis across Iraq, ISIS wouldnt have formed. The choice for sunnis is easy, join ISIS and live a little longer, or die by Shia controlled military forces supplied by the United States.
As our leaders in congress continue to arm peoples who end up becoming terrorists (aka Usama Bin Laden), we always end up 10 years later fighting them.
If it wasnt for the over production of arms in the world, there wouldnt be terrorists today. But those arms dealers have to sell to somebody, and if they can sell guns to both sides of a conflict, then they have customers for life.
TOS.
I didn't say they're coming for us tomorrow, but when they beheaded multiple American citizens and declared that they would "raise the flag of allah in the white house" that seems to show a level of dedication in their poking the bear that is the United States.
I realize what isis WANTS, but I don't think we should let them have it. They will continue spreading out, murdering people who disagree with them by the dozen. They are a brutal organization who really need to be executed....point blank
Sportello
Well-Known Member
'Viable' is an ironic word choice.
You want me to suggest an alternative to something that doesn't work? How about tea and lollipops? Or just following the law, how about that?
I agree with you that we have to stop our own creation in ISIS/ISIL. It has turned into a monster. If we had just left SYRIA alone, instead of destabilizing the government there on behalf of Israel, ISIS wouldnt have never been able to form, organize, arm, resupply, or monetarize itself by taking over banks, land and military installations.
But "we" didnt know better.
It always comes back to that stupid concept that "WE" can install democracy anyplace we like. We have failed miserably as a nation to do just that. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan are all FAILURES in US military policy.
By believing that "we" could rid ourselves of Assad in Syria by arming rebels, and later install democracy by having democratic elections shows that "we" dont understand the muslim people.
They took our weapons and tried to fight the Syrian army, they started losing and we didnt go far enough to help, not that we could, but we left them hanging while IRAN resupplied the Syrian war machine. Those rebels asked for more weapons, larger weapons and those war hawks in the GOP gave them to them.
Now they are armed to the teeth and no longer fighting Assad, instead they are fighting a weaker country in IRAQ because circumstance there ( al maliki killing sunnis) gave them the platform for recruitment.
"We" screwed up IRAQ and set ourselves up for conflict for at least another 10 years.
This equation means: BAD FOR AMERICANS, GOOD FOR THE WAR MACHINE.
Of course, every right wing Hawk will say that we need to throw more money and weapons of war at the problem, but look where we are today..
Its costing near 1 billion a week for our military involvement now, and as it grows larger, we could be back at 2 billion a week like it was in Iraq during the BUSH administration and that only drives up the deficit over 20 trillion in less than 5 years.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the right wing was crying about the deficit going over 18 trillion, but what does anyone expect when we spend money we dont have on wars?
Looking outside the box and keeping away from political rhetoric, the real issue is ARMS and ARMS dealers.
Ask yourself, how these third world african countries can end up with militants armed to the teeth with american weapons and humvees? How did somalia become an armed country of militants?
They dont make a single gun or bullet there, yet, there are more guns in that country than the USA.
What about the Sudan? What about Kenya? What about Yemen?
Syria is just the latest country that "WE" oversupplied with arms believing "we" were doing the right thing.
Now we know it wasnt and isnt going to be anytime soon.
TOS.
AS for the beheadings of foreigners. That is nothing more than a message to us to stay out of it.
Basic intimidation 101.
They know they have the money to fight and the will to fight upto and including their own deaths. Its called "committment".
They would like nothing more than to run rampant across the desert taking over land and oil wells. And if by beheading a few foreigners keeps a nation out of the conflict, then mission accomplished.
WE reap what we sew.
I dont like it anymore than you do, I however, look beyond the hype of the conflict and drill down to find the answers on why it started in the first place.
Maybe if Reagan had let russia take over afghanistan back in the 80's, instead of creating, training and forming terrorism in the form of both the mujahideen and the taliban, we wouldnt be facing such acts today.
It was our CIA that taught them about roadside bombs, sniping, surface to air tactics, anti personnel vehichle tactics and car bombs.
They went further and created the suicide bomber.
But we will never know, because the political hype will always get in the way of the truth.
The middle east wouldnt be such a dangerous place had we just simply stayed out of it in the first place.
TOS.
Similar threads
