Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

He spend's most of his time being economical with the truth and the only picture he is drawing is of his surreal and twisted view of other people's posted view's , and if that is your Idea of fun then you must have a very warped sense of humour .

Greek,

==============

"No doubt someone will post that, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'. Well to me that won't wash. If someone wants to kill me or my family they are terrorist, full stop."
=====================


Perhaps, why many American and British soldiers were tortured for information in Iraq and Afghanistan and then later killed.

I have to admit I think in some situations, probaly, I would transgress what I think should be universal standards. That is I might use "brute" force.

However, it is "said" the reliability of information gained by "torture" is in general unreliable.


Another problem, is the assumption those being tortured are guilty without "trial" and "sentence".

I would hate for my children to be taken off the street by the police, and assumed to be guilty because of association or by the presumption of the arresting officers.

I think with all its limitations I do not like those lines being crossed.


Go back to the Japanese treatment of British, American (as well as other countries) prisoners of war .


In their culture those actions were justified.

I hope we don't descend to that level again.

It is easy to get use to using violence and be desensitised to make it common practice.

I agree with most of what Fred say's in his post , but in the case of a bomb about to kill 100's quick physical torture I would agree with but in other case's non physical interrogation is more effective.

Fred,

Will break my own rule and reply to your post.

1 Soldiers in war don't usually have a choice, they have to 'fight' for their country. Terrorists have a choice.

2 In no way did I advocate taking people off the street without substantial evidence against them. Our security forces know who most of them are.

3 Information obtained by torture obviously can be unreliable, but such information often leads to evidence.

4 The torture of our forces in Afghanistan/Iraq is of course wrong, the same as torture against their troops. Soldiers of most countries are just that soldiers. It is very rarely that a country is totally akin to terrorism, even countries such as North Korea or our next present danger Iran.

I am not saying that torture is right. But only that sometimes to do right is to leave yourself at the mercy of those that do wrong. Justification sometimes has to play a main role.

As to brute force. Where does brute force become torture. It is a fine line, I think you will agree.

If your response to the above is argued as per relevant points I will have no problem coming back to you, but if as usual you reply in terms that do not relate, then I won't.

Regards Greek.

AlDs,

I don't think anybody is a lost cause.

Therefore I suggest you review Churchill's biographies and thoughts on Europe following the end of WW2.

Those thoughts may surprise you.

In many ways his views on the British Empire appalled me, but I have to remember that he was a man of his past and "period". In that context although outdated his views were not abnormal.

One of the problems Churchill had with Roosevelt and Americans, was his attitudes and ideas for the future of "The Empire", however he was in favour of a more integrated Europe and not a Francophobe.

==================


N,

Thanks again. I am glad somebody is alert at the back of the class.

8-)

Isn't it better when they play the ball and not the man don't you think.

Shut up Stan you Idiot , lol.

So he trusted the French ? or did he want an integrated Europe what out them . If he were alive today his view on Europe would be the same has Thatcher.

Greek,

I am not implying that you advocate "torture", but think that you may be appearing to condone it, albeit "only" in certain circumstances.

The problem is where does the slippery slope begin.
------------------

The statement ;

"Soldiers in war don't usually have a choice, they have to 'fight' for their country. Terrorists have a choice."


The circumstances, in which many "terrorists" develop, do not allow for many other pathways.

Generally, they seem to emerge from groups, which are, or feel oppressed "Economically" , "religiously" or "culturally". (I think the most important is "economically".)

The only weapons apparent to them for "reparation" is "terrorism", or "violence" or similar.

Look at Burma in the present and consider for yourself, as one of the disenfranchised, how do you make "advancements" without resorting to violence.

It may be possible, but a man/woman has only one lifetime to achieve it and benefit from any "achievement". (Frustrating.)

I think that one has to address "terrorism" directly, but at the same time address the causes of the "aberrant behaviour".

This has to eventually happened and has been done in these "sorts" of "conflicts".

Eg. Ireland with it mixture of causes.


Go in peace!

Aid.

Were you turned down by a French girl when you were very young?

Fred,

You say, 'I am not implying that you advocate "torture", but think that you may be appearing to condone it, albeit "only" in certain circumstances. The problem is where does the slippery slope begin'.

I have to agree, I do under certain circumstances condone it, and I agree re the slippery slope.

You say, 'The circumstances, in which many "terrorists" develop, do not allow for many other pathways'.

Again I agree, although that is often down to endocrine their minds, and in those instances it has to be their hard luck if they are caught. They still should be 'Interrogated' as my previous post, if doing so will save lives.

You say, 'I think that one has to address "terrorism" directly, but at the same time address the causes of the "aberrant behavior".

Again agree. The problem though is often that the route that we take to address terrorism goes badly wrong. Some of these people have been brainwashed so much that we as the enemy will never be able to change the way they feel. There is only so much we can do.

As to Burma, again I agree. But there is a difference in fighting against those who oppress you and targeting civilians.

As to Ireland. Sort of agree although I feel we played it too soft and that the problem, although no where near as bad is re-surfacing.

Blimey Fred. I am agreeing with you 4 and a half times out of five.

Greek.

Another fear which I have about "torturing" somebody for information, is that they may not have any information to "give".

When do you stop?

Is it at the point of confabulation?

At such a point do you continue to torture based on the confabulation?

I would not like my grandchildren to be apprehended, labelled "probable terrorist", because he was my grandchild, associated with me, or knew some of my past "friends" and then subjected to torture.

Various members of my wife's family were subjected to "imprisonment" on similar pretexts to the above, simply because they were not communist adherents. (Reported to the authorities by "friends or neighbours", on the bases of minor transgressions.)

Again agree. But a terrorist always has some info no matter how small. That is why I feel the best use of so called torture is to use drugs. There are many drugs available that can be used to get people to talk. Of course any info given/obtained must be checked out before being acted upon.

How many of the 150,000 plus of the Iraqis killed by American and British forces were members of the military forces at the time of killing or future terrorists.

That war and actions in Afghanistan have provided the manure for polarisation (and their "misdirection") of the youth of many other countries.

What is appropriate reparation and would it resolve the ongoing problems?


These two episodes have probably caused years of disaffection and will take years to remedy.

Violence in itself condones violence, but soemtimes without it seems impossible to "efficiently" resolve immediate problems.

Greek,

"
Of course any info given/obtained must be checked out before being acted upon."

Sorry, once again.

If the information can be "checked out", that implies that there is already information on the "subject", and/or there are other sources from where "similar" information can be obtained.

This would seem to imply that the torture is unnecessary and therefore not justifiable.

============

Just a non-thinking thought.

Isn't life complicated?

Bush and Blair are Christians and the main threat to our way of life are from Muslim terrorist , so isn't radical interpreting of religion one of the main reason's

I told Fred 2 year's ago to buy gold share's instead of messing with those hi tec shares

Greek,

Some of these people have been brainwashed so much that we as the enemy will never be able to change the way they feel. There is only so much we can do.


Have to challenge once again.

If they have been brain-washed by external agencies, or subjected to active indoctrination, leading to change, or modification of their basic concepts and beliefs about themselves and the world about them.

Then one suppose their attitudes, feelings, and actions, or reactions to the world around them would be changed.

Unless the individual intellectual processing is psychotic, the process of indoctrination for most people is a common place affair. The majority of people are able to upgrade their beliefs throughout the majority of their lives. (Belief in Father Xmas, or that England can win the Triple Crown this year.)

(Daily advertisements, in the media, modify opinion and the tastes of the general public, everyday. People move from loving Margarine to butter and back again to Margarine.)

This would suggest any brain-washing, with the help of the skilful experts can be modified strongly held views.

Getting the right approach, and the results wished for, by attempting to do so, is the difficulty.

Unfortunately, when beliefs are formed, they often develop a psychotic intensity or element to them.

Perhaps, this can be seen in those who adhere too strongly to the religious, or ideological beliefs of various political parties, or religious groups.

Ald,

I told Fred 2 year's ago to buy gold share's instead of messing with those hi tec shares

I don't recall that piece of advice, but would have been a lot better off it I had followed it. (Thanks anyway.)

Hopefully, I will learn from my mistakes and live long enough to have a chance not to repeat them.

Retrospectively, I regret many decisions I have made, but at the time thought I was making the best choices available to me.

Fifty years on, I can remember, when I was 20, that some suggested that I wouldn't make 30. Sticking around just to annoy them.

Does anybody know who pays for the "business entourage" holidaying with Cameron in China?

Does the costs for the trip come out of the Public Purse?

They are worth ever penny who ever pay's

It was about the time that we were invested in Bewell or some such name , they had a anti asthma drug, did you hold SEO as well ?