Cheney Admits To Torture!

[Lonan3]

Was the British bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism?

[theman]

But it is a tricky situation, if the only way to get information from a terrorist is from torture then is it right to torture that person? And what sort of information warrants torturing someone?

Faced with a situation where a person has been captured who is known behond doubt to have planted a device that will kill hundreds in the next 24hrs, there is a choice. 1. Use the namby pamby bleeding heart liberal method and give them food and drink and ask them nicely. 2. Use any method to hand and put them through extreame mental and physical pain and pump them full of psycho-complient drugs until they tell you where the device is. I know my choice and it doesn't involve being nice. That my idealistic, misanthropic young student is the type of situation where torture can be justified. Mind you I wouldn't be averse to methods being practiced on peadophiles just to perfect them and fpr fun.

na no need for drugin them up. wood chistle & hammer put the kettle on

[Lao]

The bombing of Dresden was part of a tactic which would induce terror and was aimed at civilian rather than military targets, however it was an act of war not terrorism, as Germany knew who was attacking them and could do it in return.

 

it could be called unethical, although many in the know would probably argue its necessity.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Was the British bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism?

 

Yes, completely. It matters not whether it was part of a strategy or a tactic in a war. Civilians were attacked and the purpose was the cow the population into suing for peace.

 

I do not believe that the question of knowing who is attacking you and that it can be reciprocated need enter into such a definition. And the term act of war can be applied to terrorist and non-terrorist acts. I think the dislike that exists for some people for calling Dresden and Hiroshima terrorist acts rests more on the belief that such attacks were the right things to do.

What about the dropping of the nuclear bomb? This to me is terrorism as well.

 

But this is all just semantics which takes us away from the original premise of this thread, torture.

(which by the way gets my vote.)

 

A vote for what though? Not arguing but if we mean that all terrorists should be tortured if they hold information necessary to save the lives of innocents then it could be a simply issue. But the fact that you cannot always determine who a terrorist is, know what information they hold, and have to stand by the values of your society and nation all make it very complicated. I mean, I am completely against the treatment of people in Abu Graib and Guantanamo. But in a situation where someone undoubtedly holds the necessary information to preven deaths then I can understand a liberal's dilemma, it would appear foolish and dangerous to not resort to torture if needed to extract the information. But in doing so it will compromise the values of the liberal and the democracy he lives in. It's why the British government was seemingly happy to have suspects flown to other countries where torture is used, which was a bit of a naughty thing to do considering Britain is supposed to forbid torture.

[Sebrof]

Was the British bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism?

 

Yes, completely. It matters not whether it was part of a strategy or a tactic in a war. Civilians were attacked and the purpose was the cow the population into suing for peace.

 

I do not believe that the question of knowing who is attacking you and that it can be reciprocated need enter into such a definition. And the term act of war can be applied to terrorist and non-terrorist acts. I think the dislike that exists for some people for calling Dresden and Hiroshima terrorist acts rests more on the belief that such attacks were the right things to do.

What about the dropping of the nuclear bomb? This to me is terrorism as well.

 

But this is all just semantics which takes us away from the original premise of this thread, torture.

(which by the way gets my vote.)

 

A vote for what though? Not arguing but if we mean that all terrorists should be tortured if they hold information necessary to save the lives of innocents then it could be a simply issue. But the fact that you cannot always determine who a terrorist is, know what information they hold, and have to stand by the values of your society and nation all make it very complicated. I mean, I am completely against the treatment of people in Abu Graib and Guantanamo. But in a situation where someone undoubtedly holds the necessary information to preven deaths then I can understand a liberal's dilemma, it would appear foolish and dangerous to not resort to torture if needed to extract the information. But in doing so it will compromise the values of the liberal and the democracy he lives in. It's why the British government was seemingly happy to have suspects flown to other countries where torture is used, which was a bit of a naughty thing to do considering Britain is supposed to forbid torture.

 

Dresden and Hiroshima were both examples of making war on civilians, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. But the acts were carried out openly by soldiers in uniform, and the definition of terrorism that I subscribe to does not embrace war pursued by regular soldiers.

 

S

[WTF]

Was the British bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism?

 

Yes, completely. It matters not whether it was part of a strategy or a tactic in a war. Civilians were attacked and the purpose was the cow the population into suing for peace.

 

I do not believe that the question of knowing who is attacking you and that it can be reciprocated need enter into such a definition. And the term act of war can be applied to terrorist and non-terrorist acts. I think the dislike that exists for some people for calling Dresden and Hiroshima terrorist acts rests more on the belief that such attacks were the right things to do.

What about the dropping of the nuclear bomb? This to me is terrorism as well.

 

But this is all just semantics which takes us away from the original premise of this thread, torture.

(which by the way gets my vote.)

 

A vote for what though? Not arguing but if we mean that all terrorists should be tortured if they hold information necessary to save the lives of innocents then it could be a simply issue. But the fact that you cannot always determine who a terrorist is, know what information they hold, and have to stand by the values of your society and nation all make it very complicated. I mean, I am completely against the treatment of people in Abu Graib and Guantanamo. But in a situation where someone undoubtedly holds the necessary information to preven deaths then I can understand a liberal's dilemma, it would appear foolish and dangerous to not resort to torture if needed to extract the information. But in doing so it will compromise the values of the liberal and the democracy he lives in. It's why the British government was seemingly happy to have suspects flown to other countries where torture is used, which was a bit of a naughty thing to do considering Britain is supposed to forbid torture.

 

Dresden and Hiroshima were both examples of making war on civilians, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. But the acts were carried out openly by soldiers in uniform, and the definition of terrorism that I subscribe to does not embrace war pursued by regular soldiers.

 

S

 

soldiers in uniform perhaps, but openly?? do you really think the residents of hiroshima and nagasaki even saw the planes?? let alone the pilots, hardly open??. regular soldiers in uniform?? who defines that? the IRA you see on TV at funerals all seemed to wear the same clothes ( uniform?) with a ballaclava to hide their identity, just like the SAS. are the SAS terrorists?? and lets not forget the CIA funding of certain south american groups, are they CIA funding terrorists? are the CIA terrorists??

[Sebrof]

Dresden and Hiroshima were both examples of making war on civilians, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. But the acts were carried out openly by soldiers in uniform, and the definition of terrorism that I subscribe to does not embrace war pursued by regular soldiers.

 

S

 

soldiers in uniform perhaps, but openly?? do you really think the residents of hiroshima and nagasaki even saw the planes?? let alone the pilots, hardly open??. regular soldiers in uniform?? who defines that? the IRA you see on TV at funerals all seemed to wear the same clothes ( uniform?) with a ballaclava to hide their identity, just like the SAS. are the SAS terrorists?? and lets not forget the CIA funding of certain south american groups, are they CIA funding terrorists? are the CIA terrorists??

 

The bombing trips to Hiroshima and Dresden were just as open as the German bombing trips to the UK. No difference at all.

 

S

[immortalpuppet]

Just what good is int obtained by torture anyway?

 

If i was captured and pumped full of drugs then had my balls hooked up to the mains i would tell them anything......(although i might just prolong it for shits and giggles!) There are better ways of getting good information but as usual the US dont seemed to have a grasp on how to deal with terrorists. I have no doubt that the UK carry out naughty ways of getting information but its an art we have been perfecting/covering up for a long time.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Dresden and Hiroshima were both examples of making war on civilians, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. But the acts were carried out openly by soldiers in uniform, and the definition of terrorism that I subscribe to does not embrace war pursued by regular soldiers.

 

S

 

Why do you subscribe to that definition? But even if it is war pursued by regular soldiers it involves attacks on civilians and creating fear was the purpose.

 

I tend to think by excluding acts carried out by regular soldiers it is an attempt to give such acts a sense of legitimacy or to perceive such acts as exceptional based on moral position of the person defining it.

[Sebrof]

Dresden and Hiroshima were both examples of making war on civilians, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. But the acts were carried out openly by soldiers in uniform, and the definition of terrorism that I subscribe to does not embrace war pursued by regular soldiers.

 

S

 

Why do you subscribe to that definition? But even if it is war pursued by regular soldiers it involves attacks on civilians and creating fear was the purpose.

 

I tend to think by excluding acts carried out by regular soldiers it is an attempt to give such acts a sense of legitimacy or to perceive such acts as exceptional based on moral position of the person defining it.

 

I think I need to expand on that slightly.

 

When I said "soldiers in uniform" I took it as understood that they would be operating in formal conditions of war - declared war. If soldiers are used in a situation outside a war, I would guess they would not be wearing uniforms. The operations would be clandestine.

 

The reason I subscribe to this definition is that it fits with most descriptions of terrorism and terrorist. But there are many, and you can take your pick.

 

S

[WTF]

Dresden and Hiroshima were both examples of making war on civilians, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. But the acts were carried out openly by soldiers in uniform, and the definition of terrorism that I subscribe to does not embrace war pursued by regular soldiers.

 

S

 

soldiers in uniform perhaps, but openly?? do you really think the residents of hiroshima and nagasaki even saw the planes?? let alone the pilots, hardly open??. regular soldiers in uniform?? who defines that? the IRA you see on TV at funerals all seemed to wear the same clothes ( uniform?) with a ballaclava to hide their identity, just like the SAS. are the SAS terrorists?? and lets not forget the CIA funding of certain south american groups, are they CIA funding terrorists? are the CIA terrorists??

 

The bombing trips to Hiroshima and Dresden were just as open as the German bombing trips to the UK. No difference at all.

 

S

 

not disputing that really, just pointing out that it was not exactly hand to hand combat, the point was are non military targets acts of terrorism.

[mojomonkey]

I'm spending New Year in Dresden. I'll report back my findings.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Just what good is int obtained by torture anyway?

 

If i was captured and pumped full of drugs then had my balls hooked up to the mains i would tell them anything......(although i might just prolong it for shits and giggles!) There are better ways of getting good information but as usual the US dont seemed to have a grasp on how to deal with terrorists. I have no doubt that the UK carry out naughty ways of getting information but its an art we have been perfecting/covering up for a long time.

 

I agree entirely. It is not as if you could be sure of the truth of what is gained from torture. And when it comes to prosecutions torture is inadmissable in the legal systems of most countries, I think.

 

The reason I subscribe to this definition is that it fits with most descriptions of terrorism and terrorist. But there are many, and you can take your pick.

 

I think that state terrorism, which was more common than the non-state should be incorporated into our understanding of terrorism.

[Sebrof]

I think that state terrorism, which was more common than the non-state should be incorporated into our understanding of terrorism.

 

Judging by the name, it already has been.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think that state terrorism, which was more common than the non-state should be incorporated into our understanding of terrorism.

 

Judging by the name, it already has been.

 

S

 

Well yes, but don't you think that current popular perceptions of terrorism tend to be solely related to non-state terrorism? Maybe it is because of the modern growth of this form of terrorism, but I don't think people tend to perceive the state use of violence against the populace as ever being terrorism. It is possible that a reason for this may be that from liberal democratic point of view the state's use of violence is legitimate and the extent of this violence varies, so when such violence is perceived to be excessive we do not immediately use a term that completely delegitimises what the state does naturally. I don't know, maybe I am talking crap.