Exilian
Art, Writing, and Learning: The Clerisy Quarter => Discussion and Debate - The Philosopher's Plaza => Topic started by: Jubal on December 10, 2014, 09:35:02 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30420364
Not that this is news to anyone, but it turns out that torture is ineffective and that America tortured a hell of a lot of people in very brutal conditions.
I think releasing this report was the right thing to do; there should undoubtedly be prosecutions as a result, though I bet there won't be.
-
Yarp.
-
Didn't torture lead to the finding of Osama? Or at least "advanced interrogation" which is different.
-
I'm pretty sure the leading dude on the osama finding team thing specifically said they didn't use torture to find him because its not effective.
-
Of course he would say that. ;)
-
Advanced interrogation is only "not torture" in a purely legal sense.
And Bin Laden was found using conventional techniques, not interrogation. It's been well known for years that torture very rarely provides reliable evidence. It's much beloved by the security services because they're judged on how much evidence they get more than the eventual accuracy of it half the time, but pretty much zilch useful information has come out of torture and a huge number of Americans around the world have been put in very great danger as a result of its use.
-
Advanced interrogation is only "not torture" in a purely legal sense.
No it's things like not letting people sleep by playing loud music. Similar to things that are done to our own military recruits except with the aim of breaking their will instead of creating a killing machine.
-
Enforced sleep deprivation and things like that are forms of torture by most definitions*. The fact you do inhumane things to your own armed forces doesn't make it more okay to do them to other people - especially when, as this report has pretty clearly noted, you get basically no benefit from it. It's very simply a form of cruelty that has no reasonable evidence to back up its usefulness.
*See, for example, Chinese water torture, which I'm sure the US government wouldn't consider "torture", but pretty definitely and objectively is.
-
What about locking someone up in a prison cell?
-
That isn't putting them under direct and continual physical stress*. If you're in prison you can still stand up, sit down, sleep, eat, etc. There's an obvious difference between that and forcing someone into particular physical positions or states of consciousness in order to damage their mental state.
*enforced sleep deprivation is a physical stress, since your body physically needs sleep to function.
-
What about the psychological stress?
-
Well, there's clearly a cost-benefit analysis there. I'm of the opinion that we should basically only collectively do things to people as a society when a) it doesn't breach a right to some basic level of dignity and b) it can be proven that the disbenefit to the individual is counteracted by the benefit to society as a whole.
It is clear that torture and advanced interrogation methods fail on both points, firstly because it does destroy basic dignity and secondly because we gain no benefit from it. Prison for individuals who would otherwise be dangerous to society* can be justified on the grounds that if we let them out they might kill people. Nonetheless I think there is a basic standard of welfare that should be provided in prisons, not least because I firmly believe (and it's not like there's a shortage of evidence to back me up on this one) that America's torture programmes have created a great deal of worldwide resentment that is to this day decreasing vastly the safety of US citizens worldwide.
*Not that I'm saying non-dangerous criminals should never go to prison, but prisons for people who aren't dangerous should fundamentally focus on rehabilitating the individual rather than locking them up. Scandinavia's model works well here.
-
What about using a truth serum during a regular interrogation? Can the interrogator raise their voice? Make threats?
-
Truth serums have never been proven to give any benefit at all (at least, in finding out the truth). I think I'd say that interrogators can threaten and raise their voice in that I don't think those things necessarily violate the rights of the suspect, but that it seems from the available evidence that that's unlikely to help much.
Obviously there is a case of "where do you draw the line" as to what are acceptable tactics - but I think this report makes very clear that torture and many forms of advanced interrogation are pretty much wholly ineffective as well as inhumane. It's telling of course that the most outspoken Republican in favour of the report's findings is also pretty much the only one in congress who's personally had to endure a number of these techniques. If it's cruel, useless, and endangers Americans around the globe, why allow the security services to do it?
-
Indeed, but I know I would be much more inclined to give up information if not doing so would involve a chainsaw and my kneecaps.
How would you go about getting information from someone?
-
Be this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff
-
It says there that that's the interrogation techniques that the U.S. started using after the war. That guy sounds kind of like this guy:
(http://2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/96/42/f560ef0211f7a6c8e4386033e1628fc6.gif)
without the phallic removal of course. :P
-
Yes - many successful interrogators have used Scharff's techniques.
The reason for deviating from Scharff-style interrogation is that it takes time and patience; torture can extract unreliable confessions quickly. So for people who are just being paid to provide information but have little vested interest in whether, once passed through ten layers of bureaucrats to the army, it proves to be true, torture is a tempting option.
-
Someone has to be devil's advocate here. :P
-
I'd rather some guys that would be going to jail/death row get tortured on the offchance that the info is good than not doing so, not getting anything at all and something bad happening to any regular law abiding citizen. It's not like they just torture random people, they're chosen for a reason.
-
What about people who, for example, happen to have family involved in that sort of thing?
What about people who may hold extremist views/are in extremist networks but have never actually committed a crime?
Additionally, see my stuff on interrogation techniques, plus have a read of this:
https://globalecco.org/en_GB/learning-from-history-what-is-successful-interrogation-
Non-violent interrogation IS more effective according to just about all the evidence we have. We also can't do both to the same person. So why would you "torture someone on the offchance that the info is good" when you can use a much less cruel method that is more likely to get the information you want?
Also, most importantly, what about the major counter-argument that torture makes us less safe - it provides fuel for anti-western radicals, it helps extremists recruit, and it totally cuts the legs from under our argument that fascist or extremist regimes shouldn't torture their own citizens for things like plotting against the state, being gay, saying a rude thing about the government on social media, etc? The evidence seems to me to be overwhelming not only that torture is pretty nasty, but that the risks to the security of western civilians massively appear to outweigh the benefits.
-
I'd rather some guys that would be going to jail/death row get tortured on the offchance that the info is good than not doing so, not getting anything at all and something bad happening to any regular law abiding citizen. It's not like they just torture random people, they're chosen for a reason.
Innocent people have been detained and tortured, but even convicted criminals shouldn't be getting tortured. Not just because of the pragmatic reasons that Jubals mentioned but also because its wrong. I'd rather have a slightly higher risk of terrorism than know that my security is being provided by torture.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30420220
This is also worth reading,particularly the last bit. The CIA's interrogators on this programme basically weren't as well trained as army interrogators, and in several cases were (to read in between the lines) pretty much hired thugs rather than people trained to gather information.
I should clarify at this point that I also believe that torture is fundamentally morally wrong and that as usual it's a power I simply don't trust states to handle. But I also believe that even if you don't have a moral problem with torture there's an overwhelming body of evidence against it.
-
Also, most importantly, what about the major counter-argument that torture makes us less safe - it provides fuel for anti-western radicals, it helps extremists recruit, and it totally cuts the legs from under our argument that fascist or extremist regimes shouldn't torture their own citizens for things like plotting against the state, being gay, saying a rude thing about the government on social media, etc? The evidence seems to me to be overwhelming not only that torture is pretty nasty, but that the risks to the security of western civilians massively appear to outweigh the benefits.
Even if there was no torture being done at all, they'd still say we were torturing them. It's not like they get any other news than that which radicals telling them what news is. Torturing someone under suspect of terrorism and such is waaaaay different than torturing someone for being gay. One is clearly wrong, one is at the very least, slightly less wrong (though in my opinion, right of course). Also remember that they aren't dealing with nice people, they don't listen to reason, arguments won't work, being nice to them won't work ala the interrogators mentioned in the ww2 file. The soldiers that Moran and Scharff interrogated were either drafted or enlisted to fight for their country probably because their friends did and so forth, not because they believed that their religion superseded everything and that anyone not of their type was evil for simply not being one of them. I highly doubt either of those methods would work. Using psychology to get the topic of the interrogation in the forefront of the subjects mind and then breaking the barriers that prevent people from saying what's on their mind is a sound way of getting information on the topic.
@ Prenty (and a bit to jub): Innocence is relative. The rest is opinion, which is fine.
Back to @Jub: Yeah I also believe that torture is wrong, jesus dude I'm not a psychopath. But also I believe it's the lesser of two evils. In that report it says making friends with them takes time, I would think that this time would mean that most information on plots would be useless by the time they got that information. Also I'm only talking about the torture of terrorists/suspected terrorists, not army personnel that you happen to be at war with which is *very* wrong. If that army uses terror techniques, then they classify as terrorists insofar as the subject matter in my opinion.
EDIT: The result of bad intelligence from torture is that the CIA/Army/whoever chases sand for a couple of hours/days. The result of good intelligence is that people who are better than the person being tortured get to live the rest of their lives. If you're nice to them, the intelligence may be good but it's also not going to be useful to prevent anything that happens in the time between holding them and when they reveal anything. If they ever do.
-
Brain scans are getting more and more advanced every day. Pretty soon they'll be able to just extract the information digitally. Then we're all portugaled.
-
Brain scans are getting more and more advanced every day. Pretty soon they'll be able to just extract the information digitally. Then we're all portugaled.
Hells yeah, science bitches!
-
In that report it says making friends with them takes time, I would think that this time would mean that most information on plots would be useless by the time they got that information.
The Senate committee were able to find precisely 0 cases of this occurring - there was no point in the whole CIA torture programme where evidence gained from it stopped an imminent threat.
Even if there was no torture being done at all, they'd still say we were torturing them.
It's not just about the insides of radical networks - ordinary people across the world are being radicalised as a result of this stuff. These aren't people who are totally shut off by any means; the evidence of torture has undoubtedly helped fuel anti-Western policies, politicians, and terrorist recruitment on a much wider scale than might otherwise have been possible. Sure, once people are IN a closed-information network it's hard to get out, but that's not so much the issue I'm getting at.
-
If any sane person is radicalized by the fact that we torture people and that's enough to make them blow us up then they're traitors anyway.
The Senate committee can't find anything because the real goings on aren't disclosed. This is only surface level intel we get, if you believe that we get to know the full extent of the interrogation methods/subjects/whatever then I would say that's a little naive.
Say you've just been in a skirmish against (everything is hypothetical and slightly ridiculous, but I hope it illustrates a point) the IRA. You capture one guy that hid in a bathroom as you were doing a floor sweep. However these guys have three of your SAS buddies who were injured by an IED who you assume have either been killed or taken somewhere. You have probably only a couple of hours at most to get this guy to talk. Making friends will take too long, so you shoot out one of his kneecaps and remove the nails from three fingers all the while asking where they were heading tonight and if they've seen any other of your guys. That might just get you an answer, even if it's not the one you're looking for at least you've done all you could for your mates.
-
If any sane person is radicalized by the fact that we torture people and that's enough to make them blow us up then they're traitors anyway.
You can't be a traitor to a country you don't belong to. Also, it's not that simple as I'm sure you know. People aren't binaristically either "let's blow up the west" or "we love the west". Modern war has public opinion as a major battleground, and we need that on our side. The suicide bomber is the tip of an iceberg - a broader culture of mistrust and dislike of the western powers and what they stand for, which provides starting fuel for those who seek to turn that into radicalism, and which hurts us and our ability to manoeuvre on the international stage. And which, if we stand for beating up people senseless for "information" that has never been proven useful compared to alternative methods, actually might not be wholly unreasonable.
The Senate committee can't find anything because the real goings on aren't disclosed. This is only surface level intel we get, if you believe that we get to know the full extent of the interrogation methods/subjects/whatever then I would say that's a little naive.
So you're just going to trust the people who stand to benefit most from defending the system to say that torture is effective? Somewhat naive on your part, methinks. Also, you really think the CIA wouldn't have provided a single smoking gun if they actually had a load? To stop the utter damnation this report has brought upon them? I find that pretty hard to believe.
Your example I won't go into further, firstly because no, I don't think it's acceptable to use torture in that situation (treating captives as human beings is a pretty basic article of war), but also because we're discussing counter-terrorism not battlefield operations, and you've described the latter.
-
Modern war has public opinion as a major battleground, and we need that on our side. The suicide bomber is the tip of an iceberg - a broader culture of mistrust and dislike of the western powers and what they stand for, which provides starting fuel for those who seek to turn that into radicalism, and which hurts us and our ability to manoeuvre on the international stage. And which, if we stand for beating up people senseless for "information" that has never been proven useful compared to alternative methods, actually might not be wholly unreasonable.
The war on terror is a war for public opinion, hence why our forces spend a lot of time liaising with the local population and helping them out. We want the people of the country to feel like our troops are stabilising the region rather than bringing in more conflict. Our main objective is not to kill all the terrorists, rather it is to prevent more people becoming terrorists. This is mostly done by showing people that the West is better than the terrorist organisations, e.g. not torturing people, not blowing up busy streets and so on.
-
You can't be a traitor to a country you don't belong to.
Apologies, I thought you meant people living in the west were being radicalised, because people outside the west don't get the same type of journalism we do anyway and freedom of speech isn't necessarily a thing. Obviously there is a chasm between what we're talking about but hey, we could each start listing different countries that do and don't apply to each side and get absolutely nowhere.
People aren't binaristically either "let's blow up the west" or "we love the west". Modern war has public opinion as a major battleground, and we need that on our side. The suicide bomber is the tip of an iceberg - a broader culture of mistrust and dislike of the western powers and what they stand for, which provides starting fuel for those who seek to turn that into radicalism, and which hurts us and our ability to manoeuvre on the international stage.
No, but anything less than blow up (or relative armed bs) the west is enough to live here. Then you go through the regular channels of protest/demonstration etc. Also as you are well aware, public opinion is rubbish (hold the torches a sec, let me explain). The average joe has no idea what's going on, hell, most people in the UK don't even read a broadsheet*, let alone then go on to do further reading. In terms of objectivity, public opinion is worthless because even though neither you nor I have great information on what goes on, at least we have more than most. If you're talking about public opinion over in terrorist countries then I see that from a different view than you do as well. I couldn't care less what they think, if they house terrorists, kill them. If the country keeps producing radicals that try and kills us over and over again, level the country. So in my opinion, winning them over isn't a thing that needs to be accounted for. Although, don't get me wrong, I can also see it from your position where making friends and winning the population over with diplomacy is the right tactic to take and they'll stop creating radicals because they'll come to see us as friends etc. Different ways to go about a problem, I don't think one is absolutely right over the other, but I do believe that what I suggest is better. Otherwise I wouldn't hold the position.....Obviously :P
Also, it's not that simple as I'm sure you know. And which, if we stand for beating up people senseless for "information" that has never been proven useful compared to alternative methods, actually might not be wholly unreasonable.
I also fail to see how it hampers our ability to move on the political stage. You don't think that Germany, France, Poland, Russia, Spain all either use the information got from torture or do it themselves. At best they're hypocrites if they look down on someone for doing that. And also: it's not something we stand for in terms of principle, it's the exception, not the rule. It's a necessary evil.
So you're just going to trust the people who stand to benefit most from defending the system to say that torture is effective? Somewhat naive on your part, methinks. Also, you really think the CIA wouldn't have provided a single smoking gun if they actually had a load? To stop the utter damnation this report has brought upon them? I find that pretty hard to believe.
I don't have to trust them in absolution to think they're right. Do I trust them to protect us? Sure. Do I trust them to tell us the truth on how they go about it? No, of course not. I have no idea what you're meaning by smoking guns. That's usually someone caught red handed which erm... hasn't particularly happened here and even if it had, would be irrelevant on the discussion of the objective use of torture. Utter damnation? More than a little melodramatic and also I would argue, inaccurate. We've known people get tortured for ages, since nearly forever people who threaten the state have been tortured, not enough people are against it to make it stop. There aren't anywhere near enough calls for the CIA to be dismantled because of torture for anyone to stop it. So, utter damnation, I don't think so. Aaaaand, yeah I think the CIA would give press as little information as they can to make them go away.
Yes, I know the example was battlefield but it was also counter-terrorism, they aren't necessarily separate. You sweepingly said there are 0 cases where it has been a timed situation. I gave a real example using fake forces where time is of the essence.
*will quote if you need me to but I bet you've seen it anyway.
-
I couldn't care less what they think, if they house terrorists, kill them. If the country keeps producing radicals that try and kills us over and over again, level the country.
I think this is basically a summary of where we depart from one another - it is a workable theoretical alternative to simply flatten anyone who disagrees with the West, if you basically don't think non-western lives hold value. I'm just starting from the position that pretty much all lives hold value, and inevitably reaching different conclusions.
The problem (that is to say, the non-moral problem) with the valuelessness theory is that for it to "work", you need to be prepared for a level of brutality that I don't think the west accomplishes. Killing your enemies works (cf the Romans or the Mongols). On the other hand, what doesn't kill them can make them stronger (because if we blow up town A that harbours terrorists, towns B, C, and D in the area hate us, etc). I think cowing the world into submission through fear tactics is a strategy that has essentially been rendered exceptionally difficult by modern communications.
-
It would be difficult, for sure, and would take over a hundred years, would bankrupt us and we'd have little to show for it other than defeating what could be the single largest threat we face, popular opinion would plummet, taxes would probably rise, unemployment would rise, price of living would rise etc. I realise this and yet I still think the result would be worth it. The way I see it is that there will be a war, sometime, between Islam and pretty much everyone else. I'd rather nip it in the bud now than perhaps those extremists, which I believe are growing in number by the day and have not even begun to reach critical mass, getting nuclear weapons from neighbouring Israel or Pakistan. Which is I think where we differ again, I don't believe there can be real peace from Islamic nations. I'm looking for the least loss of life as well, we just have different ways to go about it. And if torture helps, which I think it does, go for it with a sour taste in your mouth and a lifetime of sleepless nights.
-
The way I see it is that there will be a war, sometime, between Islam and pretty much everyone else. I'd rather nip it in the bud now than
There are ~1.6bn Muslims in the world today. Killing them all off in order to prevent global warfare is not a workable alternative in any conceivable reality.
perhaps those extremists, which I believe are growing in number by the day and have not even begun to reach critical mass, getting nuclear weapons from neighbouring Israel or Pakistan.
You're prepared to advocate quite a serious, costly, morally indefensible, strategy in order to prevent Islamist extremists getting hold of Israeli nuclear weapons!?!?!? Ways to ensure that Islamic extremists get hold of nuclear weapons in the shortest possible amount of time:
1. Make it the only possible way they can avoid genocide against Muslims.
2. Make it the only possible way they can avoid genocide against Muslims.
3. Make it the only possible way they can avoid genocide against Muslims.
The first effect your policy would have would be to send the death toll from Islamic terrorism through the roof.
-
Say you've just been in a skirmish against (everything is hypothetical and slightly ridiculous, but I hope it illustrates a point) the IRA. You capture one guy that hid in a bathroom as you were doing a floor sweep. However these guys have three of your SAS buddies who were injured by an IED who you assume have either been killed or taken somewhere. You have probably only a couple of hours at most to get this guy to talk. Making friends will take too long, so you shoot out one of his kneecaps and remove the nails from three fingers all the while asking where they were heading tonight and if they've seen any other of your guys. That might just get you an answer, even if it's not the one you're looking for at least you've done all you could for your mates.
The only answer that will get you is the first location he can think of which is as far away from where he's been as possible. Clearly you have no moral compunction against torture, so he has nothing to lose by telling you a pack of lies -- you may torture him anyway if you defuse the bomb, for all he knows. And that's if his information is useful in saving your friend, which you cannot possibly know.
Meanwhile, if he lies to you, he gains the benefit of killing one of the enemy, and doesn't lose anything.
-
Not saying kill them all off. That's insane. You realise these people in Islamic countries have no choice other than Islam? Let them have a choice, if they choose Islam, fine, but over a while (like I said, I think 200 years might be enough) more and more will choose not and the minority won't be able to get the support they get now, they'll just end up fighting guerrilla like they are now, but completely ineffectively as the countries would have western tech and ideals which will be more popular.
Right in this plan I conveniently forgot that Muslims will be trying to defend themselves, silly me. No, Israel, if needed, is reinforced by the west. I don't care how many AK-47s you can get in the hands of extremists: tactics, discipline and better tech will win out.
In the example, sure the subject might tell you lies then you either go walking in the sand for a few hours but the alternative is that you get the truth and you can save a mate. You're thinking like a) rationality wins over versus extreme pain. I doubt that immensely. And b) He's a smart (relative) terrorist. I doubt that immensely too.
-
You did, I quote, suggest that we "level" entire countries, Rob. :P
I'm not sure any more what you ARE suggesting in policy terms. Nobody here is arguing that people shouldn't have a choice about whether or not to be a Muslim...
-
Yeah but that's not the same as killing them all, plenty are here living in the west. The ones in countries that keep producing terrorists, those countries I'd be happy with leveling.
-
Which countries would those be then? Many Muslims associated with terrorism do have links with the West. The 7/7 bombers were all Brits, for instance.
Assuming you limit your attentions to Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, that's still a population of 175,000,000 people you want to kill off. Including the West's second most powerful ally in the region, after Israel. That's a terrible idea from a practical as well as an ethical perspective.
-
You know what they say about making assumptions.
Any country under Islamic law, remove Islamic law, give people a choice on what they want. Give them actual freedom, build Costa Coffees, encourage young people to rebel against their parents. Western things. IF the countries (more certain parts of countries really) keep producing terrorists, level them. you're still not getting the 'This isn't about making friends or allies' thing. It doesn't matter if we lose any eastern allies except Israel.
I disagree that many Muslim terrorists have links in the west. The organisations do, sure, but only so far as muslims here think that they're an ideal to follow. Actual born and bred English Muslims probably have a cousin or uncle or whatever in some mid east country but that doesn't mean they have links there.
@Joek You've mentioned ethics or morality in each post. There is no point. I think your ethics are naive, you think mine are reprehensible. We both know that, there's no point in discussing it.
-
Any country under Islamic law, remove Islamic law, give people a choice on what they want.
What do you do if or when they want Islamic law? (To take Egypt as an example, the Muslim Brotherhood are doing better now that there are free elections in the country than they were when the country was a dictatorship.)
I disagree that many Muslim terrorists have links in the west.
You can disagree that Western countries produce Islamic terrorists all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they do. 5 7/7 bombers, 5 21/7 bombers, 2 shoe bombers, 4 of the 5 who planned the attacks on Glasgow airport, to name just some high profile cases, have links with, either citizenship or long-term residency in, the UK.
IF the countries (more certain parts of countries really) keep producing terrorists, level them
Are you going to expand this to any country which produces any terrorists, or is it merely Muslim terrorists? If the former, it's unworkable: you'd have to start with the US, and good luck with that. If the latter, you're not doing anything which will actually protect us. Just killing in the name of Islamophobia. In the UK since 2010, there are 5 successful terrorist attacks listed on Wikipedia. 4 were against Mosques From 2000-2010, there were 7 successful IRA bombings, and 4 successful Islamist attacks. This excludes Northern Ireland, and so most IRA activity.
-
Oh dear, you're doing that thing where you're substituting my words for your own. Yikes! First a couple of word nuances for you, you seem to not quite get the meaning, but that's ok, as always I'm here to help!
links= association with (usually both/all parties are aware of the others involvement)
produced= came from (if you need help with this one, see your teacher)
Yes the terrorists from 7/7 etc were British born and were Islamic. Does that explicitly mean that they have ties with terrorist organisations? Oh no, of course not! And really it should be you arguing that side but oh well, I'm quite comfortable reversing roles. Which either means your original comment was that British people have links with Britain, which is completely useless, or as I thought (giving you perhaps too much credit here), that the bombers had links with terrorist organisations, which I disagree with. Because there is no hard evidence either way, I'm not sure you can say I'm definitively wrong here.
Just the ones that threaten the non-Islamic world, so yes these ones happen to be Muslims. If Taoists were threatening the non-Taoist world, then I'd be advocating a preemptive strike against the mighty and prosperous Taoist countries! Is it Islamophobia? No! It's survivophilia! Lets ask why there were only 5 successful terrorist attacks, when there were so many more planned ones. Ok, ok I'll tell you, sheesh you, getting all this knowledge from me! Pfft. It's because our secret service guys and gals are just too darn good at their jobs! Give the terrorists a break you might say, they have to win sometimes! Ha ha Skippy! Well actually no. They don't, and really it would be so much better if they never won! At all! Then we wouldn't even know about them and largely pointless hypothetical discussions could be almost entirely avoided! Boy, you've sure given me a lot to think about though! I even looked up how Egypt have been getting on! It oddly seems like you were perhaps widely mistaken! 24 March this year 529 Muslim Bro's were sentenced to death! Oops! And in April, on the fifteenth of the month former members were banned from running in presidential and parliamentary elections. If this is them doing better, I wouldn't have liked to see them doing worse! (Just kidding, of course I would!) As an aside, they've also been labelled terrorists by their own people!
Egypt it seems wants Sharia Law! Wow it looks so good on paper! You never get grief for not shaving, women never need to worry about what to wear! (Black is so slimming when worn from head to toe and not only is it this seasons look, it's every seasons look!) Women aren't allowed to touch men (handshakes and the like, mind out the gutter, you!) who aren't directly related. Two of the greatest gifts bestowed upon man is denied to them (beer and bacon) (*Thinking for a moment, some of the best things begin with 'B' Bacon, beer, boobs, Brighton, bear-claws, beer.*) which is punishable by flogging iirc.
Hai do u liek mai sauz? You'll hate it, it's full of all kinds of nasty things like perspective and experience. http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/04/07/support-sharia-law-world/
-
I'm feeling like armadillo and its too early for this but I also can't sleep so here go-eth bloody nothing:
- Pretty sure nobody here is advocating Sharia law, Rob. That said, its worth noting that like any other legal system Sharia is often implemented piecemeal, so for example Tunisia (which is effectively secular) still uses the sharia rules on a few matters like divorce or inheritance. Indeed its a set of codes that areintended to be interpreted by judges, so no two implementations are actually alike, which may mean your definition needs a bit more nuance than simply "Islamic law".
- The Brotherhood have been crushed *since* the army retook power, which isn't exactly a democratic rejection of their principles. You yourself stipulated that people should have a choice, which I assume/hope precludes "crushingly corrupt military junta".
- Not sure what you're arguing with regard to the bombers. Given most of our severe terror attacks have been home grown, don't you therefore feel it's reasonable to conclude that if they didn't have links abroad then we should, I dunno, deal with the problem here? I think that in any case it should be taken as obvious that the international situation fuels radicalism whether or not you think k there are formal links. Hate preachers on the web - often based around the world - will use the realities of western intervention, torture programmes, and so on to persuade young and impressionable people back here that the western system is fundamentally against Islam. This then makes them more susceptible to the idea of "democracy and western morals aren't designed for people like me", and from thence to " bring down the system", and ultimately in a few cases to violent actions against the system. The legacy of Western interventionism is a key part in that - if it was just "which country is most free and has least truck with religious law" as the targeting mechanism then I'm fairly certain wed be getting rather lower levels of terrorism and Sweden or Iceland rather higher. I think you're vastly underestimating the reach and communications ability of extremists, in believing that basically they are just mindless evil drones who we can bomb along with their families to no consequence.
In any case, I appreciate I might well be misinterpreting you here (and I apologise if so) so I'd appreciate a more thorough going over of your basic policy ideas. Firstly, how do you in practical terms propose to remove Islamic law from all fifty or so states who have it? Second, if you're right and bombers here aren't linked to terrorist networks abroad, how will that keep us safe? Thirdly, what actually is your policy toward areas that produce terrorists after the imposition of western law? How many terrorists are needed to destroy what sort of area? Do you have any concerns at all about radicalising survivors?
- Isn't a better question to ask "why do people want to kill us in the first place"? And secondly "what are the most effective and workable methods we can use to reduce that threat?". I'm fairly sure neither of those questions leads to an answer of let the security services brutally torture people".
-
That is the very reason I use the term Islamic law instead of Sharia Jub. The laws they have are always influenced at least by sharia and adhered to strictly at most. I believe this is a bad thing, for me, laws should be *only* influenced by what is best for the people and that the ones who make them should be putting the population first. Sharia, loosely or strictly, does not do that in any way. It segregates population and imposes harsh and unjust penalties for things which we consider freedoms in the west.
I was pedantically choosing how to interpret joeks post as he has done so many times.
About the bombers: they feel like they have links abroad and are fighting for a cause bigger than themselves. This isn't in any doubt. However as to whether anyone abroad actually knows who they are: I doubt it. Basically because Islam is worldwide they technically have links worldwide, however this is a useless point in and of itself. Using the term links as having contacts, getting arms and equipment from overseas (which is not useless to argue in and of itself), I'm saying I doubt that. But I also have just as much to go on as anyone who says otherwise so its purely speculation.
Also I'd say we are dealing with the problem here, its taking time, there is no easy fix and it is more than just a problem here, we can't just look to our own borders and screw the rest of the world. I believe that as a western power we have a moral obligation to help fight this wherever it is. Which is partly why I'm such a fan of the US, they know they're the de facto world peacekeeping service because they are the most powerful force (in ideals) for good and they do what they think is right by taking action, unlike a lot of other western countries which are content to talk about it. Sometimes it goes tits up, but at least they try.
Hate preachers are on the streets of Leicester, London, Nottingham as well as the web. The number of Muslims that go to some of these rallies is staggering. The guys on the web, sure they're bad and usually the most abhorrent in what they say. But as we know it's much easier to sit at a pc and talk bollocks than it is to actually form a rally in the street and take your hate out there. The people that *just* watch the online hate speech are less likely to actually go out and do things than the ones that attend the rallies. Free speech is fine, I have no problem in theory with them speaking hate in the streets or online but where does the line exist if there is one? Can freedom of speech protect people who are trying to radicalise otherwise moderates? Sure. Does it give them the right to be dicks? Yep. (And thank hell for that, otherwise I'd be done for) But does it give them the right to tell a group of people to attack buildings/places/people?
Worth a mention also are the number of Muslims that demonise ISIL, terror groups and preach the advancement of Muslim law to catch up with the rest of the world. I might be tempted to say that they outnumber the hate preachers online but I'd be guessing. I do look at both sides and that giant chasm in the middle. So why not let these guys gather more and more publicity until Sharia is modernised you might say? It'd be nigh impossible, they have Grand Imams and Grand Mufti (they get to wear casual clothes in mosques) but these guys by necessity follow Islam to the letter, which means that these guys aren't going to want to change The Quran (which dictates Sharia). Sunni Islam also has a sort of extra set of rules that give them their name: these are more like Buddhism where you try and emulate the prophet Mohammed, it's known as an unobtainable goal but is worthy in pursuit anyway. I don't know which take precedence but I can't imagine that they'd conflict much if at all anyway.
As a perhaps interesting aside: Muslims can eat pork and such if it is the only form of sustenance as life is valued above all. This isn't confined to Muslim life in that particular passage as far as I can tell. The groups that attack people 'for Allah' are choosing which part of the Quran to accept. Just in case that needs reinforcing.
Back to argument! The bombers that target the UK and the US (and more recently, France, Holland) are usually homegrown. They get our news but they also have access to news from abroad which (like all news) is tinted by whoever (producer, journalist, etc). The ones in Saudi, Iran whatever have censorship on loads of media so...meh I doubt they get an accurate picture of what we're doing or why.... Which is unsurprising given that the general population of those countries doesn't know either.
How do we remove Islamic law? Occupy the country and have Islamic law not matter with people using that law on their side in defense of actions to be treated as a criminal. Over a long time, the benefits of not having Islamic law would shine through and it would be accepted. This is something new I considered, if Sharia law updates to modern principles, hell, have Sharia modelled on a conservative western society but add in the 'don't eat pork and don't drink' clause. But like I said I don't think it will until either hell freezes over or the Grand Imams/Grand Mufti are modernised by force, by us. Although I don't know which would happen first ;) How does taking out the centre of Islam cause a drop in activity of Islamic bombers here? It moves their priorities from attack to defense, it takes away the belief in a unified Islamic world if their home provinces are gone. Places that produce terrorists after the imposition of western law: level the buildings, give them no place to hide, force them out and kill them. How many terrorists are needed to destroy what sort of area? Is that the setup for a racist bar joke? Seriously I have no idea what you're asking. If you mean how much devastation can one man cause? Then there is no answer, there are far too many variables. At least, a few kills with a gun, at most perhaps a building. Maybe you're overestimating the power of homemade explosives but they aren't capable of taking down a building unless you happen to be an architect and have stockpiled it for a while... and can get access to the building while carrying a covered wheelbarrow. Concerns about radicalising survivors? Good reason not to leave any I guess, but yeah that is a problem. Which is why it'd have to be over a long period of time. Take the population of the UK for a sec. People my grandparents age tend to have a mistrust of Germans for WW2, rationally or irrationally. People our age don't really give a damn what they did 70 years ago. Along that mentality, 200 years afterwards, nobody will care. It'll be demonised in history books and kids in school will be bored by it.
Why do they want to kill us is an easy question to answer. The Quran tells them to. How do we reduce the threat? Neutralise the threat with lethal force. And how do we neutralise the threat? I'd argue torture is a useful if distasteful part of it. You argue that it isn't...Useful, not distasteful. I don't believe they're mindless, or that you can kill them without consequence, but I do believe that the consequence is less.
-
Why do they want to kill us is an easy question to answer. The Quran tells them to.
This is explicitly bullarmadillo. The Quran permits warfare (unsurprising for a book written when it was), but if you wish to ban the Quran for promoting warfare you should also be banning the Bible, Torah, etc, which can be used in an equally aggressive manner. I think it's relatively clear historically that the relationship between the religion of states and their or their populaces' levels of aggression is minimal; this is an absurdly simplistic answer. Indeed as you point out, there are alternative interpretations of the Quran, so you yourself clearly understand there's a lot more depth to this problem.
As to survivors, you're simply not thinking in realistic terms. People have this awkward tendency to move around and have links over relatively long distances, even in the wilderness of Waziristan. It's not a question of blasting a direct area into a crater - the person likely to be radicalised isn't necessarily the guy in the next house, it's the man two villages down, or living in a different city, whose childhood friend or uncle or grandmother you just blew up because they happened to live a hundred metres from a gun-armed nutter. For most given areas (short of carpet bombing on a scale that the entire world doesn't have the munitions to support) there will be more survivors than casualties and there's not much you can do about that. The fact is that we don't have the manpower or money to adopt a scorched earth strategy of this type over an area as large as "the Islamic world". The whole of the US and UK armed forces might be able to occupy one country effectively at a time, perhaps two, but not fifty. Strategically speaking, you're just vastly overestimating our capabilities.
I'm arguing that torture isn't useful, I should add, not because I don't also think it's extremely distasteful - I just feel like the fact it's useless might be a better way to approach it when arguing with you specifically.
-
Is it now?
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (disbelief) is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others) and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists and villains)"
Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
I most certainly do not wish to ban the Quran; As I've said multiple times: I have nothing against the religion. I hate Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever if they follow a holy book to the damn letter. They all preach violence against non-believers at some point. The groups that attack people 'for Allah' are choosing which part of the Quran to accept. Just in case that needs reinforcing.
At least read what I write please. I really don't know how many more times in how many different ways I can say that this isn't because they like the Quran, it's the Islamic culture that I despise, not the religion.
BTW, we do actually have the ability to carpet bomb the entire world about 7 times over. The US, more like a hundred times. The survivors are an unfortunate side effect but all treatments have a side effect and I'd rather it be them suffering it than us. I've also said it is unfeasible in terms of money and manpower in pretty much my third post or something. If Muslim uprisings keep happening in China, they might actually be up for it. What I'm thinking would certainly not just be US/UK I've already said that's insane.
-
As to the Quran, I meant the "you" in the generic rather than personal sense (sorry for the confusion there) - and indeed, was just making the point you agreed with, that most major religions can be interpreted in that way. What I wanted to say more broadly is that "the Quran tells them to" is then not a sufficient case, because clearly not all Muslims have that reading of what is ultimately the same text. Most modern Islamic scholars consider terrorism to fall under the category of murder rendering it totally forbidden, Sunni Islam at least contains a very specific taboo against killing women or children, there's a clause telling you that you're not allowed to attack anyone without due notice, only official governments are allowed to declare wars, etc. The Quran is obviously written in a world where warfare is expected, but there are a fairly good number of rules in there that should wholly preclude blowing yourself up on a tube train. So your question is "why do some Muslims follow some passages and others follow different ones" - and that's the question that I believe can be partly, if not wholly, answered by looking at the modern context of warfare.
Ultimately I'm just not sure why you're continuing to advocate a strategy you directly admit is unfeasible, in opposition to a strategy that you've never really coherently made a case against. You also don't quite seem to have taken on board the idea that radicalising survivors is not in fact a "side effect" in terms of growing anti-western terrorism, it's a core mechanic. If you start blowing up large parts of the Middle East with nuclear weapons because a tiny percentage of the populations there would like to blow us up, then you will be with every strike actively increasing the number of people who have a significant personal reason for wanting to blow us up in response. Your idea that this "shifts them to defence" also ignores a major reality of modern warfare, which is its asymmetry. Faced with heavy bombing, radicals will be more desperate to conduct terror attacks to shake public support for bombing campaigns - it's not like they're going to stay and defend themselves against a hydrogen bomb, they're not quite that stupid. Compared to all those problems with a predominantly aggression based strategy, what's actually wrong with not torturing people, avoiding blowing people up where possible, and working with allies on the ground to strengthen civil society in the Middle East and persuade people that being part of a more westernised society might actually be a good thing?
-
Why still advocate? All this is completely hypothetical. Ideals and such. It's not like anyone here has a workable way of getting them to stop being dicks. I've not heard one from you until now. Working with allies on the ground....How does that help? Will they suddenly decide that actually, the familial ties they have with members of these organisations are worth less than being friends with a westerner and having the delights of Krispy Kreme doughnuts? No way in hell. Will helping them form proper democratic governments stop the attacks? No, you'll still get the Quran being interpreted towards violence by the same people and you'll get new enemies from the cluster who don't want a democracy. (And in this case, torture sure as hell won't help) It'll help their general population, sure. But why do we give a damn about them? They're not our people to look after.
Basically I'm saying there would be no positive results for us. The people that are fanatical enough to blow themselves up on our public transport won't be having their minds changed.
The Quran telling them to *is* enough reason for some people, then when inspired by a preacher and equipped by immigrants from mid east that's all they need to do something retarded.
You really think that ISIL will just give up territory because it's the smart thing to do if we bomb them? I doubt it. Yeah terror attacks will increase but we'll also be able to foil vastly more of them because of the destruction of their military infrastructure. Tighter border controls are obviously another part, but I naturally assumed that was a given.
-
Basically, the way I see it is this: there's a pool of "already radicalised" people - and you're right that in many cases those people won't be reachable through alliance and dialogue, though not in all (to take a non-Islamic example, look at the number of ex-IRA leaders who are distinctly not blowing people up in Stormont, sure NI is still a mess but it's nothing like as bloody or dangerous as it was). However, the pool which you seem to be half denying the existence of is the "potential radicals" - mostly male, mostly young, people with relatively few life prospects given the war-torn state of the modern middle east, people without a say in their society. These are the people who ISIS want to reach out to and radicalise as fighters or terrorists. If these people have more stability in their life, better opportunities, more democratic rights, etc, they are less likely to feel like they desperately hate the world so much that they're prepared to blow themselves to pieces, or indeed harbour/quietly accept those who do.
People aren't born radical - and as you yourself noted, this is a long term fight. The key aim in terms of safety is to make radicalism less normalised and less acceptable among ordinary populations in the Middle East, to drain out the flow of manpower that fuels terrorism. Even if I didn't give a damn about the people of the middle east (which I do, because as much as I feel a very strong affinity for my country I don't think an accident of where I was born geographically should dictate my basic moral stance towards a person), it would still in my view be mind-numbingly short sighted not to think long term about how we can decrease radicalisation. Enforced occupations beyond a certain point just don't work towards that end, for most of history occupied states have just been a continual bloody mess to try and keep a vague level of control over. Bombing only works if you're literally conducting a mass extermination or terror campaign, which I've outlined my concerns with on sustainability grounds (though as I'm sure you know I'd also consider the death toll unacceptable). Without those two legs, the general population has to take centre stage, because it (and particularly its younger part) is the basic pool both of potential radical support and potential western support in years to come.
So what does work? Having people who are on their feet and able to decide about their own future, having leaders in these communities who can see the benefits of people not killing each other and will act to nip radicalism in the bud, and in the case of groups like ISIS or the Taliban removing their legitimacy by ensuring that a workable civil society is able to provide law and reasonable justice without corruption. The Taliban managed to hold territory for so long after 2001 partly because their Islamic courts are far less corrupt than Afghan ones - which is changing, but it's a slow process and one we didn't spend enough time working on. Similarly, we should've spent more money than we did (and we spent a bit, but nowhere near enough) on providing jobs in frontier areas to give young men better alternatives to running around pointing guns at people. In the case of failed state situations like Yemen or Somalia, we could be doing a lot more to strengthen those elements of the system that are working, particularly in terms of getting the economy more functional - all these things reduce the manpower and sympathy that terrorist leaders get.
EDIT: also I might call this one a day here, I think we're getting to a stage where we're both butting our heads against a wall owing to our different ideas on who it's worth treating as a fully fledged member of the human race and stuff like that. Also I have a hellish cold and am not in the right mood for this (sorry!).
-
I think calling it a fortnight wouldn't be much of an exaggeration :P
Alrighty bud, I see where you're coming from, I don't agree with all of it but I know what you're getting at.