Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Quotes are good but...they still haven't detailed exactly how they get them to talk. They say they pamper them...somehow that gets them to talk?

That...defies all logic.

Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?

Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.

How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks

So...die basically?

Mr Hyena wrote:

How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks

So...die basically?

Mate, me and Shuma like a good disagreement, but how you got that meaning from the above sensible sentence is beyond me.

Its the quote mine of the goddamn century!

Mr Hyena wrote:

How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks

So...die basically?

Someones going to. Everyone dies. When you lose the moral authority to act as America has you lose the ability to stamp out extremism. It doesn't help in making them forgive America and the west when their claims that we are imperialists, torturers, and Zionists are made true by the actions of the most cowardly among us.

Apparantly its better to be blown up in a terror attack than to advocate torture.

Someones going to. Everyone dies. When you lose the moral authority to act as America has you lose the ability to stamp out extremism. It doesn't help in making them forgive America and the west when their claims that we are imperialists, torturers, and Zionists are made true by the actions of the most cowardly among us.

I don't have alot vested in the torture stance, so thats fine but...how do we stop our people dying?

And how do we help those of our people who are blown up given we didn't try our fullest to help stop the attack?

I would rather have less torture, but I don't see workable, realistic alternatives given that the enemy is indoctrinated from birth.

mattyrm wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks

So...die basically?

Mate, me and Shuma like a good disagreement, but how you got that meaning from the above sensible sentence is beyond me.

Its the quote mine of the goddamn century!

In a macro sense he's right though. Terrorists don't usually spend their days in the boxing ring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:Apparantly its better to be blown up in a terror attack than to advocate torture.

Someones going to. Everyone dies. When you lose the moral authority to act as America has you lose the ability to stamp out extremism. It doesn't help in making them forgive America and the west when their claims that we are imperialists, torturers, and Zionists are made true by the actions of the most cowardly among us.

I don't have alot vested in the torture stance, so thats fine but...how do we stop our people dying?

And how do we help those of our people who are blown up given we didn't try our fullest to help stop the attack?

You can't. No country has ever been able to make it's citizens safe from random acts of violence. It's fundamentally impossible. What you can do is prevent the people who perpetrate such violence from wanting to. You can do that by killing them, you can do that by making them our friends. You can't do that by torturing them as we've found out. All that does is vindicate them and aid in their recruitment. Sure, you might stop a few attack attempts, but so long as they want to attack us you can't stop them from coming.

You can't. No country has ever been able to make it's citizens safe from random acts of violence. It's fundamentally impossible. What you can do is prevent the people who perpetrate such violence from wanting to. You can do that by killing them, you can do that by making them our friends. You can't do that by torturing them as we've found out. All that does is vindicate them and aid in their recruitment.

That is true.

However an incredibly powerful recruiting tool is successful attacks.

Mr Hyena wrote:Apparantly its better to be blown up in a terror attack than to advocate torture.

Yeah but he didnt REALLY say that did he? He basically said the common sense thing, that there is a happy middle ground between risk/freedom.

Too far one way, you get blown up twice a week, too far the other your not allowed outside 12 hours a day.

Its not rocket science is it? We can all have a debate about where we think the line should be drawn in the sand, and the complex issue of where to draw the line between safety and freedom, but nobody is (or would be stupid enough) to say "Everyone should be on curfew always!" or "Cops shouldn't be allowed to stop and question people!"

As I said, just stick to what the blokes actually saying.

Mr Hyena wrote:

You can't. No country has ever been able to make it's citizens safe from random acts of violence. It's fundamentally impossible. What you can do is prevent the people who perpetrate such violence from wanting to. You can do that by killing them, you can do that by making them our friends. You can't do that by torturing them as we've found out. All that does is vindicate them and aid in their recruitment.

That is true.

However an incredibly powerful recruiting tool is successful attacks.

Certainly true, but only for people in the market for extremism. The anti western sentiment is something we have cultivated for decades, but it isn't self generating. People want to attack the west because they blame them for the lack of jobs, prospects, and for random acts of violence and detainment. Radical islam is simply the symptom of that expression of hate. The first step in reducing extremism abroad is identifying and rectifying situations that lead to young men wanting to become extremists. We're doing that. Poorly, but we're trying. We're also shooting ourselves in the foot every time we break our own professed moral code and vindicate their belief that we're there to kill them/exploit them/kill islam.

It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up. It's not the America I would want to live in, and I suspect England isn't fond of the idea either.

It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up. It's not the America I would want to live in, and I suspect England isn't fond of the idea either.

It depends on viewpoints really. While it seems gakky, I would be pretty pissed if the Government didn't attempt to protect my life from terrorists.

Mr Hyena wrote:

It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up. It's not the America I would want to live in, and I suspect England isn't fond of the idea either.

It depends on viewpoints really. While it seems gakky, I would be pretty pissed if the Government didn't attempt to protect my life from terrorists.

Where do you draw the line? Does it exist?

Mr Hyena wrote:

It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up. It's not the America I would want to live in, and I suspect England isn't fond of the idea either.

It depends on viewpoints really. While it seems gakky, I would be pretty pissed if the Government didn't attempt to protect my life from terrorists.

My basic moral code of beliefs is just fine with :aggressive negotiation" in regards to terrorists.

Also help with the otherside has the same level of education and prosperty. As for drawing the line. Not my place to say nor neither do I condone itl. If the gov't wants to crack a terrorist with haste then by all means do so.

The debate opened with a clash over the USA Patriot Act and the trade-off between civil liberties and homeland security. Paul called the Patriot Act “unpatriotic.” He said that there is no need to “sacrifice liberty for security” and that the criminal justice system had effectively dealt with Timothy J. McVeigh, who was responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Gingrich responded: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”

Also help with the otherside has the same level of education and prosperty. As for drawing the line. Not my place to say nor neither do I condone itl. If the gov't wants to crack a terrorist with haste then by all means do so.

In a democracy it's both your place and duty to say. It's what you're supposed to do.

The debate opened with a clash over the USA Patriot Act and the trade-off between civil liberties and homeland security. Paul called the Patriot Act “unpatriotic.” He said that there is no need to “sacrifice liberty for security” and that the criminal justice system had effectively dealt with Timothy J. McVeigh, who was responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Gingrich responded: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”

Freedom, honor, compassion, all that Jazz. Newts a shriveled husk of a human being who hasn't felt a feeling in 20 years.

Freedom, honor, compassion, all that Jazz. Newts a shriveled husk of a human being who hasn't felt a feeling in 20 years.

erm....cept I lost my feeling towards the bad gouy 7 yrs ago

Gingrich responded: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”

This is what we should be aiming for.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?

Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.

Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?

Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.

Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.

Where in the social contract does it say "our armed forces will torture people"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Gingrich responded: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”

This is what we should be aiming for.

We should be aiming to prevent a hyperbolic theoretical situation that has never occurred by spending billions and losing our ideals as the land of the free home of the brave?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

Freedom, honor, compassion, all that Jazz. Newts a shriveled husk of a human being who hasn't felt a feeling in 20 years.

erm....cept I lost my feeling towards the bad gouy 7 yrs ago

And what about the two guys to the left and the right of him that had nothing to do with it who got pinched anyway? Do you actually care about the internment or torture of innocents, or is it acceptable damage?

We should be aiming to prevent a hyperbolic theoretical situation that has never occurred by spending billions and losing our ideals as the land of the free home of the brave?

Would you be able to stand in front of a family who lost someone in such an attack and be able to tell them that straight to their face?

Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.

halonachos wrote:Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.

Maybe YOUR society, but here in Texas, society expects to be able to defend itself alongside the defenses carried out by the state...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.

Not exactly much good when you're thrown in a prison, without charges, to waste years of your life without purpose.

Mr Hyena wrote:

We should be aiming to prevent a hyperbolic theoretical situation that has never occurred by spending billions and losing our ideals as the land of the free home of the brave?

Would you be able to stand in front of a family who lost someone in such an attack and be able to tell them that straight to their face?

Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.

Yes. A life is no good when lived in cowardice and on a pile of the dead. Ideals either mean something or they don't. I chose to believe that they do, and that the systematic dismantling of the rule of law and human rights is a sad, sad thing.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?

Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.

Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.

that is bull. There are no societal rules. Not in this day and age. Civilians hnow have the capacity to defend themselves, and there is no reason whatsoever that should give up that capacity. The government can't protect people from being raped, or mugged, or stabbed to death. They can only react. People in those situations are only ones who can truly defend themselves (and if you think the police will save you, or even be there on time, 1) you are insanely naïve, and 2) warren v. District of colombia).

I refuse to have my well-being put in the hands of a government, and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to live in a police state.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

We should be aiming to prevent a hyperbolic theoretical situation that has never occurred by spending billions and losing our ideals as the land of the free home of the brave?

Would you be able to stand in front of a family who lost someone in such an attack and be able to tell them that straight to their face?

Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.

Yes. A life is no good when lived in cowardice and on a pile of the dead. Ideals either mean something or they don't. I chose to believe that they do, and that the systematic dismantling of the rule of law and human rights is a sad, sad thing.

And thats good and well. I happen to believe however that there is no society if the people are dead.

Not exactly much good when you're thrown in a prison, without charges, to waste years of your life without purpose.

Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.

I agree however that it is important to provide evidence once the incident is solved.

And thats good and well. I happen to believe however that there is no society if the people are dead.

I find it funny how many parallels there are between this and that dog thread. Terrorism is a tiny, angry dog. It can't hurt us. They can't inflict meaningful damage. More people are killed in America by lightning then terrorism annually. And yet look at that. You have to protect yourself by abasing any sense of decency once held because you don't want to get some scratches. Some pitiful, meaningless scratches.

Will people die? Yeah. Whether you tear down what America is or not. There will be death. That's reality. Take it with your head held high, let those deaths mean something. Every war ever fought in the name of freedom or decency is not yours to throw away.

Nevermind the fact that we've created more terrorists in the past ten years then have ever existed before. Nevermind the fact that both of our interventions have failed miserably. Nevermind the fact that the entire world has come to doubt what America stands for. Just stop dishonoring everything you hear at the start of every sporting event, childs classroom, and holiday. That America is the best country in the world, the freest, the most honorable, the strongest, and the smartest. Just stop fething that up so you can hold your pillow a little easier.

:edit: I just noticed that you're not American. Ummm... Crap. Replace all instance of the world America with england and make it slightly more sarcastic, but not much. Sun never sets, wot wot, cherrio.

Terrorism is a tiny, angry dog. It can't hurt us. They can't inflict meaningful damage. More people are killed in America by lightning then terrorism annually. And yet look at that. You have to protect yourself by abasing any sense of decency once held because you don't want to get some scratches. Some pitiful, meaningless scratches.

Though we understand your point, you may want to consider that some may misunderstand your meaning.

All it takes is one small discharge in a highly populated area....maybe I'm going to stick with a big dog with a small bite that affects the masses. No one desreves to live in fear.

I vaguely remember that some terrorist incident a few years back, maybe in Sept of 2001, that actually did quite a bit of damage to the US, one could be tempted to call it meaningful. Seeing as there were plans for further strikes that didn't get executed for whatever reason, the damage could easily have been worse.

Then there is always that dirty bomb or other area denial attack scenario that could take out a port city or similar. That just might hurt the country too...

But I'm glad you think those things don't really hurt us.

Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

CptJake wrote:I vaguely remember that some terrorist incident a few years back, maybe in Sept of 2001, that actually did quite a bit of damage to the US, one could be tempted to call it meaningful. Seeing as there were plans for further strikes that didn't get executed for whatever reason, the damage could easily have been worse.

Then there is always that dirty bomb or other area denial attack scenario that could take out a port city or similar. That just might hurt the country too...

But I'm glad you think those things don't really hurt us.

Are you dead from 9/11? Is your family? Your busdriver? Your dentist? Anyone you even know? 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack in modern history and a decade later none of it did anything to us except what we did to ourselves (2 invasions and the destruction of our ideals). The deaths? A rounding error in annual heart disease deaths, and I don't have to hear about that gak every day on the news. We're not bombing McDonalds or torturing it's financial contributors. We didn't invade japan because toyota cars were involved in more deaths then terrorists in the worst year for terrorism in history.

This argument is bs. 9/11 was special because it's the sacred flower, not because it was numerically meaningful. In it's wake we lost more soldiers then died that day and we're no safer. We took all of the goodwill engendered and threw it in the trash. We dishonored every person that died that day, and we're still doing it.

How many people die in a single day from food poisoning? How many buildings does food poisoning destroy in a typical day? What is the economic damage to the nation from that single day of food poisoning?


As anyone with a teeny bit of experience in risk management and mitigation will tell you, the magnitude of the outcome must be looked at along with the likelyhood.

It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

CptJake wrote:

But I'm glad you think those things don't really hurt us.

Are you dead from 9/11? Is your family? Your busdriver? Your dentist? Anyone you even know? 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack in modern history and a decade later none of it did anything to us except what we did to ourselves (2 invasions and the destruction of our ideals). The deaths? A rounding error in annual heart disease deaths, and I don't have to hear about that gak every day on the news. We didn't invade japan because toyota cars were involved in more deaths then terrorists in the worst year for terrorism in history.

This argument is bs. 9/11 was special because it's the sacred flower, not because it was numerically meaningful. In it's wake we lost more soldiers then died that day and we're no safer. We took all of the goodwill engendered and threw it in the trash.

Yeah, actually my wife and I lost a good budy in the pentagon that day. Thanks for trivializing it.