The Student Room Group

should terrorist be tortured to save innocent lifes?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Annoying-Mouse
Seems like you're the one who is confused. Axes, stated:

"Academic research tests on 'torture' have never, to the best of my knowledge, been conducted."

That's is where you and Renal little debate starts. But, Axes wasn't referring to any sort of torture rather a research on whether or not torture works this can be seen by his debate with In2deep in which they are arguing about whether or not light psychological torture works. Don't randomly accuse people of being confused.


Axes wasn't, no. But I'm not having this debate with Axes, I'm having it with Renal, who specifically asked me to back up my claim that plenty of research and academic papers had been written on torture- since that was actually the only claim I made. So yes, he is confused about what he asked me.
Original post by In2deep
The previous posters who said yes are absolute savages. No to torture in all cases.

You do realise that people confess to anything just to stop the pain right? And even if this was not the case, I would still fully abhor this barbarous act.


You abhor barbarous acts, yet you're a muslim..interesting.
Reply 102
Avatar for In2deep
In2deep
14
Original post by Axes
Some do, some don't. If tomorrow someone defines handcuffing a subject as torture, you would oppose it automatically too?



No! You misunderstand, what I meant was, there must be a reason why something is classified as torture but if I personally consider as torture (pretty vague, but just assume this doesn't change over time) then I reject it.

But you are right, the problem really lies in defining torture in the first place, both personally and by governments.
Original post by missygeorgia
Axes wasn't, no. But I'm not having this debate with Axes, I'm having it with Renal, who specifically asked me to back up my claim that plenty of research and academic papers had been written on torture- since that was actually the only claim I made. So yes, he is confused about what he asked me.


Spoiler



This whole discussion has revolved around whether psychological or light physical torture works. So, it does seem like it's you that is confused because you seemed to have at one point been discussing whether psychological or light physical torture works and you're now discussing 'physical and psychological effects of trauma' or something unrelated to the main point.
Our society has become too soft, too wimpish and morally unsure of itself and its right to exist, too scared to defend and assert itself.

Not healthy.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse

Spoiler



This whole discussion has revolved around whether psychological or light physical torture works. So, it does seem like it's you that is confused because you seemed to have at one point been discussing whether psychological or light physical torture works and you're now discussing 'physical and psychological effects of trauma' or something unrelated to the main point.


No, the discussion STARTED regarding whether torture works, but then Renal and I went off on a tangent about how much research and academic papers there are regarding torture. At no point did I make and claims about whether torture worked- I purely made comments on the availability of academic material on torture. A discussion can start off as one thing and go off in another direction- which it did, when Renal asked me how many papers I'd seen regarding torture.
Original post by LazyWorseThanInfidel
I would like to hear you say that again if your family was kidnapped, murdered, raped and tortured by terrorists and we had a man in prison who is holding information that could lead to their release.


I'd like to hear you say that again when it is you/your family who is the party who might hold information.
Original post by missygeorgia
No, the discussion STARTED regarding whether torture works, but then Renal and I went off on a tangent about how much research and academic papers there are regarding torture. At no point did I make and claims about whether torture worked- I purely made comments on the availability of academic material on torture. A discussion can start off as one thing and go off in another direction- which it did, when Renal asked me how many papers I'd seen regarding torture.


But, his comment was based on your comment which was based on whether torture works. So, it is pretty obvious that Renal was discussing that.

Original post by nexttime
I'd like to hear you say that again when it is you/your family who is the party who might hold information.


Nice... +1
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 108
Avatar for Axes
Axes
2
Original post by In2deep
No! You misunderstand, what I meant was, there must be a reason why something is classified as torture but if I personally consider as torture (pretty vague, but just assume this doesn't change over time) then I reject it.

But you are right, the problem really lies in defining torture in the first place, both personally and by governments.



The issue is that people who define those things have, in many cases, an angle. While many human rights organizations would like to attach the definition to many more things, the government will attempt to traet it at its most minimalistic definition. Thus, whether sleep deprivision is legitemate in your/my eyes or not depends on what we think of the act itself, not how it is defined by one or more organizations.
I do agree with you to some extent, but by torturing them it's making you just as bad as them; you are creating pain to help people (in our minds the greater good), they are creating pain for what they consider to be the greater good.
I know for a fact that if I were in a room with a terrorist who was threatening to kill my family or friends that he would not leave that room in one piece, which is why I'm so glad it's not up to me, HOWEVER - inflicting pain on someone to get answers is never right, what if they genuinely don't know the answers, they are just one piece in the puzzle, you'd be creating unneccessary pain and suffering to someone.
And another thing (which is what changed my opinion many moons ago), imagine this the other way around; You're younger brother has just been sent out to Afghanistan and is kidnapped by the Taliban for 'terrorism' of which he knows little about -just that his section have been deployed to kill a number of Taliban insurgents- and so the Taliban torture him to the verge of death. If he does survive he will never be the same person again. How would you feel towards the Taliban now? Even more hatred than you already do? Want revenge? Starting to think of ways of inflicting the same pain on them as they did to your brother?
It eventually turns into a viscous circle of pain, hatred, causing terror to pain etc etc etc. and that's no good to anyone.
Reply 110
Avatar for F i s
F i s
Certainly, the value of one life cannot be compromised with 1,000. Humanity should be cherished as one unity and we should not segregate and commit crimes against humanity.
Reply 111
Avatar for Swell
Swell
14
No because as strange as it sounds Terrorists are human beings too. And to torture them is taking away their rights. And besides surely knowing "your fellow comrade" was being tortured, it would make you more determined to carry out your orders blah de blah de blah.

They should be dealt with, but certainly not through torture or the death penalty etc.

Lets me honest, if you believe in any of those sorts of punishments you're a reet tool. :fuhrer:
I'm not disagreeing with you as I can see where you are coming from, but you say "the Taliban are bad people" but they're not to them, we are the baddies! They're not a modern day Hitler as society portrays them; they first set out to make Afghanistan a better place and they have since got power and power = greed. Yes they think that their race is superior (which is like Hitler) but they want revenge, and probably just power, too. As a nation we forget that they've lost lives too because the media and politicians are giving this image that they are lesser human beings. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely NO sympathy with these people and I don't believe for one second that it says anywhere in the Koran to smear their own faeces in bombs, but to torture them? Nah, I'm not convinced. The result the Taliban want is fear. And to torture the bombers shows panic, which is what the Taliban want, I know that no-one could ever live with themselves if they let innocent lives be lost, but wouldn't it be the same or worse if the end result were to be the same and they tortured someone too?
I just can't see the justification anywhere - when I stepped out of solitary confinement after 2 weeks I swore to God that I would never wish that on anyone, and I'm going to stick by that descision for the rest of my life...
Original post by Axes
The issue is that people who define those things have, in many cases, an angle. While many human rights organizations would like to attach the definition to many more things, the government will attempt to traet it at its most minimalistic definition. Thus, whether sleep deprivision is legitemate in your/my eyes or not depends on what we think of the act itself, not how it is defined by one or more organizations.


Sleep deprivation, regardless, is still torture(mentally and physically), because it causes the victim extreme distress.
Reply 114
Avatar for Axes
Axes
2
Original post by Remarqable M
Sleep deprivation, regardless, is still torture(mentally and physically), because it causes the victim extreme distress.



Take it a step further, and any kind of 24 hour interrogation that takes place at a police station can cause extreme distress. It is meant to pressure the victim to the extreme, so is that torture too?
The thing is, I completely agree with everything you're saying but I'm trying so hard to see the good in people, and understand terrorism from their POV. I don't at all think torturing people would be done to fulfil some twisted desire. To quote Simon Cowell's awful cliche; my heart wants to rip the fcukers to shreds, even if they've just been involved with terrorism and if they've got information about a bomb then everything should be done to stop it going off, but my head says that we as a nation may have more problems if we go down this route. Suppose someone was innocent? Suppose the spook got carried away with the torture and the suspect was maimed for life - his country would take revenge. I just don't think that anyone has the right to inflict pain on someone else, no matter what they have done. Easiest thing to do - release the terrorist into the public with "terrorist" tattooed on his forehead and let nature take it's course...
And no I haven't seen the unthinkable, what's it about?
I was in solitary confinement when I was sectioned, and it's probably one of the worst experiences in my life. It was only for 2 weeks but I spoke to no-one. I wasn't mad but being in solitary almost turned me! I had nothing to do, no books, no paper, no games, no telly, no magazines - just myself and my situation for 2 whole weeks.
And also, I would always take the burden for saving someone's life - I'm just like that, I'd like to think that should a gun be pointed at someones chest, I would stand in front of it and take the bullet myself, I'd certainly do whatever it takes to save someone else's life - even if it were a murderer. So no, I don't think I'm being selfish; I just know how much things like torture can affect a man - look at the cases PTSD in the forces...
Original post by nexttime
I'd like to hear you say that again when it is you/your family who is the party who might hold information.


If someone in my family was in the Taleban I would not feel as much empathy for him.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
But, his comment was based on your comment which was based on whether torture works. So, it is pretty obvious that Renal was discussing that.


It wasn't 'obvious' at all, since my comment never made an argument regarding whether torture works. My comment was on the availability of material on torture- I never made an argument one way or the other regarding whether torture works.
Original post by LazyWorseThanInfidel
If someone in my family was in the Taleban I would not feel as much empathy for him.


They might be part of a more domestic terrorist organization e.g. animal rights movement, or some other cause (perhaps one you agree with) where someone you/your family are remotely connected to may or may not be planning something violent.

Even if your family member was guilty - would you condone torture then?
Original post by nexttime
They might be part of a more domestic terrorist organization e.g. animal rights movement, or some other cause (perhaps one you agree with) where someone you/your family are remotely connected to may or may not be planning something violent.

Even if your family member was guilty - would you condone torture then?


The only sort of terrorists I am concerned about are the ones that might blow up a train in my city tomorrow. If I was in government I would vote for it to be used on them.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you