| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
"Many of our people believed in all that and agreed with such inhumane acts my son, but not Grampa here. I knew it all along, I tried to warn them on the old internetz, but they wouldn't listen to Grampa!" You'll laugh at this post. At how blind I am and how low my IQ obviously is. You'll flame me for being a 10 year old who lives in the basement and know nothing about anything. But in 50 years I'll come back here and tell you I told you so! | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
No there isn't. In casualties 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor. The people we are fighting are unorthodox, so the tactics and strategies employed must also be. Sure, we can be timid and politicize war, but that is how you lose wars. Yes there is. Implying that there was a direct link between Iraq, torture, and having been attacked is ridiculous. I can start creating any justification out of fear if you let me walk down that road. Are you saying we should just give up and let them win because it suddenly is difficult So now I'm advocating the the US lie down and roll over because I think that his justification of torture is circular and hollow? Fantastic. Anyways, I'm sure your stance would be to wage wars politically not militarily. I'm glad you conjured that out of the one line I posted in this thread. Maybe for your next trick you can conjure up a post that's not retarded. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 12:32 Licmyobelisk wrote: Sure sir, please, I support the statement  @ xenixx, three more post and you're a zealot brethren :D I'll start. Where is any example of useful information attained from waterboarding ? vs How many possible false confessions have their been? | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 14 2009 11:04 Xenixx wrote: dont insult the intelligence of american soldiers chief, the same way your genius ass figured it out with pure imagination it was torture might be the same way a 'GI JOE' does American soldiers don't conduct torture, intelligence officers do, and there's a large and growing sentiment among the CIA, FBI and Pentagon services that it's not doing any good. The only thing in support of it is when the DoD says their methods stopped terrorist attacks, but there's no way to actually verify that it's true. You may look at it as a "use any means available" type of thing, except that torture damages the other routes for information gathering with undue mental stress, which is often what leads to the intelligence being poor. Not only is it costly to investigate the shitty information, but it's extremely unlikely that the people captured (if they are indeed confirmed combatants) will know enough to be useful. AQ is much more sophisticated than people realize. Almost everyone who carried out 9/11 had no knowledge of what was taking place beyond their own specialized role (like the bank robbery in Dark Knight D: )so torturing them would have achieved very little, and the rule of thumb is that you have 24 hours once receiving the information to actually intercept an attack before the plan is completely changed. Even if you catch one cog and gather a minute detail (which then has to be verified), the plan can be adapted or abandoned very quickly. Good intelligence comes from covert operations, not bullying and muscle. This raises completely different ethical problems (like whether it's justified for an infiltrated officer to kill in order to remain in cover) but at least there's fewer questions of effectiveness. Ethically, torture is obviously wrong. Taking a consequentialist approach, torture is also a very poor method. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 14 2009 11:12 Aegraen wrote: First off it's not a ticking time bomb scenario. Not every way to gather intelligence has another correlative to extract that information. For example, you can extract information from clandestine operations (known as HUMINT), where there are no other means to gather the same information. The same correlative can be drawn. How are you going to know about a plot that a select few know about? SIGINT? Nope. ELINT? Nope. MASINT? Nope. COMINT? about a one in a billion chance. IMINT? Nope. (Just for the record, my college major is in Intelligence Studies, and I work in an Intelligence field) Also, I do not consider waterboarding torture, where you do. So, when I say torture, it implicitly means things like what the VC employed, Pol Pot, NKVD, SS, etc. McCain is as liberal as any democrat. He is a RINO! Proposing socialist-lite idea's and promoting near the same things as Obama makes you...not a liberal? Please, you are intelligent, you can look past the little designations next to their name right? The 2 witches of the NE are liberals also, I have no idea why the GOP lets them stay in the party or any RINOS for that matter. They should all be booted out! Good vs Evil? Nope. Self-preservation? Yes. Do I think Islam is a fucked up religion and all the people wishing death to the US to die? Hell yes, and I'll do everything I can to see that day to fruition. That goes for anyone seeking to do physical harm to the US, or its citizens here and abroad. We went in and annihilated the Barbary Pirates when they were attacking our merchants, and citizens. This is no different. There is no moral compass, and high ground when in war. You do what you have to do to survive. Every soldier knows this. You have most likely never served, so you don't understand. You ignore the societal impacts of not using every means to achieve victory. Do I condone horrendous acts I call torture? Hell no. There is a line to be drawn, but waterboarding is not where that line is at. US Special Forces, get waterboarded. Do they get their legs broken, or bamboo shoved up their fingernails, or tied to horses and their tendons ripped, or malnurished, et al I could go on. No, no no because we in the military know what is, and is not torture, however subjective the word is. Yes, I will brand anyone against using quote on quote 'torture' as a liberal because 90% posting are from Sweden (Socialists galore) and the rest have this hard on for some imaginary moral compass in times of war which are exactly how liberals are. Yes, to me a liberal viewpoint is invalid. Taking over banks, private companies, branding conservatives extremists, trashing the constitution, yes, all invalid! 1776 American signing off. It's funny that you're speaking as if all military personal share a common perception of war and stance on the world. All of the military people (from the Army and Marines) I know are liberals and are very much concerned with ethics and the practice of war. The fact that you're so gung ho about it makes me wonder what you've actually done. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 14 2009 14:01 Jibba wrote: It's funny that you're speaking as if all military personal share a common perception of war and stance on the world. All of the military people (from the Army and Marines) I know are liberals and are very much concerned with ethics and the practice of war. The fact that you're so gung ho about it makes me wonder what you've actually done. And everyone I know is a conservative, which is a hell of a lot more than you. The military is primarily made up of conservatives and libertarians. That is why, the military on average overwhelmingly votes GOP (family included). I however, am no longer associated with the GOP, they do the same things as the democrats, only except not as large, and not as fast, but still the same things. I am a conservative/libertarian with no party, however I do endorse anyone that shares my views, like Inhofe, DeMint, Coburn, Palin, Sessions, Paul, etc. I'm not gung-ho. I'm a realist. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
BTW, I'm sure this will piss you off, but fighting in a war doesn't teach you how to wage it. That's a much larger discussion, but I hope you understand that. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 14 2009 13:56 Jibba wrote: American soldiers don't conduct torture, intelligence officers do, and there's a large and growing sentiment among the CIA, FBI and Pentagon services that it's not doing any good. The only thing in support of it is when the DoD says their methods stopped terrorist attacks, but there's no way to actually verify that it's true. You may look at it as a "use any means available" type of thing, except that torture damages the other routes for information gathering with undue mental stress, which is often what leads to the intelligence being poor. Not only is it costly to investigate the shitty information, but it's extremely unlikely that the people captured (if they are indeed confirmed combatants) will know enough to be useful. AQ is much more sophisticated than people realize. Almost everyone who carried out 9/11 had no knowledge of what was taking place beyond their own specialized role (like the bank robbery in Dark Knight D: )so torturing them would have achieved very little, and the rule of thumb is that you have 24 hours once receiving the information to actually intercept an attack before the plan is completely changed. Even if you catch one cog and gather a minute detail (which then has to be verified), the plan can be adapted or abandoned very quickly. Good intelligence comes from covert operations, not bullying and muscle. This raises completely different ethical problems (like whether it's justified for an infiltrated officer to kill in order to remain in cover) but at least there's fewer questions of effectiveness. Ethically, torture is obviously wrong. Taking a consequentialist approach, torture is also a very poor method. The 3 instances of waterboarding have been conducted on Top level Al'Qaeda, not lowly suicide bombers. You don't 'torture' those guys, you do the top levels. That is how we foiled a few plots. DCI, still endorses the practice, because the IC knows it is effective, but you don't widespread use it. It's on select cases where you have the best chance of getting actionable intelligence. You do know Cheney was the CIA director in the 90s right? This fool we have as director now has never served one day in any intelligence capacity and it'll show, mark my words. What do you mean you can't verify if it stopped it? You get intelligence, and you disseminate to the consumer. The consumer then acts on the intelligence. If the intelligence is accurate, there is a great chance we stopped it. It is very easy for an analyst and the consumer to tell if the intelligence was crucial and vital and stopped whatever plot. You're acting like the specific consumer requirement for the intelligence is spread out amongst some large spectrum. That is false. That is not how DCI, TARIA, FBI, NSA, and the other apparatus' work. We have something called PINO that gives general guidelines, and the consumer then dileneates the requirements down to the collector who disseminates it back to the consumer through the analyst. You act as if we're uneducated neanderthals running around with our heads cut off not knowing if the intelligence we act upon is effective or not. Most in the community have their masters, and our analysts are the best in the world (At least, tactically, our strategic intelligence capabilities have severely diminished since the Cold War, sadly). | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 14 2009 14:13 Jibba wrote: So what are you? Army Cpl? PO3? AF? BTW, I'm sure this will piss you off, but fighting in a war doesn't teach you how to wage it. That's a much larger discussion, but I hope you understand that. PO3, soon to be PO2 working on my masters in intelligence. I wouldn't say that, at least not on a micro scale. Ingenuity is what the GI is known for. All you have to do is look at every war America waged, and it is the GI who has won it through ingenuity. Whether it was making makeshift metal components for shermans in the hedgerows of Normandy, to improvising in the streets of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, to cave crawlers in WW2 and Vietnam. On a macro scale, you are correct in part. During the war, you don't have much chance to change your doctrine, however, afterwards analysing the outcome and battles, you can change your doctrines in specific terrain, etc. Learning through experience. Doesn't piss me off at all. Now, if you support Obama, that does  | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 14 2009 14:17 Aegraen wrote: Right, except the only confirmation that it worked in those cases is the DoD saying "what we did worked." When it was examined on other players it was found to be ineffective and causing other problems. To some degree you can triangulate information based on the shit they spew, but most people being tortured don't provide anything useful and there's no evidence, from any intelligence service in the world that it's more effective than other means. KMS was waterboarded 183 times in one month. Is that effective information gathering or vengeance?The 3 instances of waterboarding have been conducted on Top level Al'Qaeda, not lowly suicide bombers. You don't 'torture' those guys, you do the top levels. That is how we foiled a few plots. DCI, still endorses the practice, because the IC knows it is effective, but you don't widespread use it. It's on select cases where you have the best chance of getting actionable intelligence. You do know Cheney was the CIA director in the 90s right? This fool we have as director now has never served one day in any intelligence capacity and it'll show, mark my words. The CIA hasn't done a full examination on it yet, and the little they have done confirmed that the waterboarding on KMS and Zubaydah was excessive and unnecessary. You can criticize the French for being socialists, but are you really questioning the intelligence gathering capabilities of DCRI? They probably have more nationalists pissed at them than we do and they've been extremely effective without the use of torture.What do you mean you can't verify if it stopped it? You get intelligence, and you disseminate to the consumer. The consumer then acts on the intelligence. If the intelligence is accurate, there is a great chance we stopped it. It is very easy for an analyst and the consumer to tell if the intelligence was crucial and vital and stopped whatever plot. You're acting like the specific consumer requirement for the intelligence is spread out amongst some large spectrum. That is false. That is not how DCI, TARIA, FBI, NSA, and the other apparatus' work. We have something called PINO that gives general guidelines, and the consumer then dileneates the requirements down to the collector who disseminates it back to the consumer through the analyst. This is time and resources, especially when most of the intelligence is erroneous. Even when a suspect has real information and is talking, the act of torture damages the information coming out by fucking up their head.You act as if we're uneducated neanderthals running around with our heads cut off not knowing if the intelligence we act upon is effective or not. Most in the community have their masters, and our analysts are the best in the world (At least, tactically, our strategic intelligence capabilities have severely diminished since the Cold War, sadly). Not at all. I'm not a person that discounts the personal abilities of gov't personnel and I'm hoping the CIA covers the cost of my M.S. and PhD very soon. But I do believe there are many problems that linger within bureaucracies and cause them to forgo re-evaluation because of a sort of tunnel vision on what they're trying to accomplish. The only major study I've read on the use of torture found that there was a lack of evidence supporting its effectiveness and several negative consequences to the intelligence gathering process.If my post-collegiate plans go perfectly, DoD will cover them and I'll be at NPS in a year or two. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 14 2009 14:23 Aegraen wrote: Out of Devious, Determined and Dumb (the Washington lobbying abilities of the AF, Navy and Army) I have the most respect for the job done by Dumb and Determined.PO3, soon to be PO2 working on my masters in intelligence. I wouldn't say that, at least not on a micro scale. Ingenuity is what the GI is known for. All you have to do is look at every war America waged, and it is the GI who has won it through ingenuity. Whether it was making makeshift metal components for shermans in the hedgerows of Normandy, to improvising in the streets of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, to cave crawlers in WW2 and Vietnam. Right, I'm talking about broad tactics and strategy. I was mostly just avoiding the trap of "I've served, therefore I know more than you." On a macro scale, you are correct in part. During the war, you don't have much chance to change your doctrine, however, afterwards analysing the outcome and battles, you can change your doctrines in specific terrain, etc. Learning through experience. Doesn't piss me off at all. Now, if you support Obama, that does I was an intern on the campaign.  | ||
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 14 2009 15:08 Last Romantic wrote: :> as an aside, I wonder how you think our President is doing. Depends on the issue. I'm more of a centrist to begin with so I wasn't fully on board during his campaign either, and a lot of the people who came into the office annoyed/disgusted me. The torture memo release was idiotic and hurt our intelligence service, although it's somewhat amusing to see Pelosi slit her own throat with her witch hunt statements. Domestically, I think he was in a runaway trolley scenario and the administration picked the most rational route. Whether it turns out to be the best choice won't be known for a while, but I've stayed mostly agnostic on the societal shifts he's making. I understand the Hayekian criticism of collectivism, but I think he's intelligent enough to realize the danger as well, and I'm not ideologically opposed to things like national health care. I think his foreign policy, which I regard as the primary duty for the President, has been very good at dealing with actual states (ie. not Afghanistan/Pakistan.) I think the war in Afghanistan is fruitless and Pakistan is too much of a clusterfuck for me to say one way or another. I have no idea what role the ISI still has in the country. | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
| ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
On May 14 2009 13:56 Jibba wrote: American soldiers don't conduct torture, intelligence officers do, and there's a large and growing sentiment among the CIA, FBI and Pentagon services that it's not doing any good. The only thing in support of it is when the DoD says their methods stopped terrorist attacks, but there's no way to actually verify that it's true. You may look at it as a "use any means available" type of thing, except that torture damages the other routes for information gathering with undue mental stress, which is often what leads to the intelligence being poor. Not only is it costly to investigate the shitty information, but it's extremely unlikely that the people captured (if they are indeed confirmed combatants) will know enough to be useful. AQ is much more sophisticated than people realize. Almost everyone who carried out 9/11 had no knowledge of what was taking place beyond their own specialized role (like the bank robbery in Dark Knight D: )so torturing them would have achieved very little, and the rule of thumb is that you have 24 hours once receiving the information to actually intercept an attack before the plan is completely changed. Even if you catch one cog and gather a minute detail (which then has to be verified), the plan can be adapted or abandoned very quickly. Good intelligence comes from covert operations, not bullying and muscle. This raises completely different ethical problems (like whether it's justified for an infiltrated officer to kill in order to remain in cover) but at least there's fewer questions of effectiveness. Ethically, torture is obviously wrong. Taking a consequentialist approach, torture is also a very poor method. This. Now, I understand the moral dillema in torturing or not for the sake of protecting ones country, and asides from the problems what we define as torture, I dont think its true that only top-people are tortured for information (tho feel free to correct me on this, since in all honesty my knowledge only comes from what I see on tv/read up on), and the torture of lower tiered people seems to be highly dubious when it comes to effectiveness of the actual information gathered, and quite likely to include torture to some people who dont have any affiliation with the terrorists. | ||
|
soudo
603 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote: Dumb people are dumb. Do you know those held at those facilities were ENEMY COMBATANTS. Now, my misinformed Hong Kongan (however, you wish to describe yourself), go read the Geneva Conventions on 1A) Enemy Combatants 2A) Torture/POW Treatment. Every country, is legally allowed to 'execute' Enemy Combatants. They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens. The Constitution is not a world Constitution, it is a US Constitution. So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine. Do you not realize that the whole Enemy Combatants term is complete bullshit? Yea, enemy combatants have no rights. You're right about that. Does that simple fact not seem stupidly illogical? No rights means they can take someone with no national identity and lock them up forever, torture them, not give them a trial, an attorney, or even a reason to explain themselves whether or not they are innocent. It's just an excuse to do whatever the fuck we want to anyone we deem to be an "enemy combatant". And no, the Constitution is not explicitly only for US citizens. You think the Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners visiting the U.S.? The Constitution applies to ANYONE on ANY U.S. soil. That's the whole point of having a prison in Guantanomo Bay. U.S. laws don't necessarily apply there. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7928 Posts
That being said, we knew that already. Rice's point reproduces basically exactly Nazi's criminel's defense in Nuremberg: the superior authority said it's legal/good/necessary, so I don't have to use my brain/moral/critical spirit. Fucking sheep. The fact that some people are stupid enough to support waterboarding and other kind of torture blows my mind. Wonder why US is basically hated all around the world. | ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
On May 14 2009 09:44 Xenixx wrote: we've all been 'tortured' in the military liberal puss puss, i've never been through so much hazing, testosterone induced environments anywhere else the mental stress is 'torture' the physical stress is 'torture' OOoh god, the American people has been pussified so badly that people consider military training torture. Seriously how can you say that is torture and then say "well but waterboarding isnt anything" wow youre out of touch with the world. "which perfectly leads me into the point i wanted to make here, there is no better method than torture. what we have here is nations striving to find a loophole in the convention to still produce results because nothing else will, if i torture you with no remorse you will provide me with the information i set out for" ... says the guy who knows 100% torture will always get results based on...... hm a lot of imagination I suppose Did you know there's interrogations you can do by talking to people - ones which are actually very effective, as soon as they come to realise you understand their culture they don't watch you as the devil anymore and are much more likely to cooperate | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Big Brain Bouts
Elazer vs Nicoract
Reynor vs Scarlett
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs TBD
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs TBD
ByuN vs Nicoract
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
|
|
|
EPT
