Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

should terrorist be tortured to save innocent lifes? Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    You've gotten confused about what we were discussing.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    I don't believe anyone in the intelligence business, ever, relies on a single source - be it documentary, electronic or human.
    Quite. And what I'm saying is that torture is not a useful source to add to these.


    You'll note that this is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing.
    I thought it was exactly what you were arguing. Perhaps you didn't put it across well.


    Which is what a lot of people have said, but still nobody has provided the remotest shred of proof.
    Would you like to prove your side instead? That would make the argument easier.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    No I clearly made a distinction.

    I said there must be a a reason for something to be classed as "torture", but if it is then oppose it.

    Some do, some don't. If tomorrow someone defines handcuffing a subject as torture, you would oppose it automatically too?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Which is all rather meaningless since the last sentence excuses acts performed by the state in the interests of law and order. What is more, plenty of what we don't consider torture is can easily be considered to cause physical or mental suffering.
    Sure, that's an ambiguous bit in the definition, but aside from that it's pretty obvious what torture is from that definition. In fact, it's generally pretty obvious to anyone, definition or no definition, what torture is. The only people who would claim otherwise are those who are trying to make excuses for torture.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    Show
    This is In2deeps and Axes posts about light physical or psychological torture.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Axes:

    light physical torture like sleep deprivision or psycological torture can indeed get results.

    In2deep:

    Evidence

    Axes:

    Evidence? This is similar to how people are brought to confess crimes in regular investigations, only far more gruelling. Oh, and most nations on earth do it, so I suppose theres a reason for it.


    This is you continuing that discussion about light physical or psychological torture.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    You:

    ..So you don't have any evidence.

    Axes:

    Academic research tests on 'torture' have never, to the best of my knowledge, been conducted. What we do know is that various methods are used even by countries that formally denounce torture, so it must have some use. Draw your own conclusions.


    This is where Renal jumps in.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    You:

    Oh, and there's been plenty of academic research into torture. People do PHDs in this sort of thing. I'd look it up, but I'm not the one making the claims.

    Renal:

    I've seen two academic papers, one Restricted and one Secret. What have you seen?


    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    This is In2deeps and Axes posts about light physical or psychological torture.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Axes:

    light physical torture like sleep deprivision or psycological torture can indeed get results.

    In2deep:

    Evidence

    Axes:

    Evidence? This is similar to how people are brought to confess crimes in regular investigations, only far more gruelling. Oh, and most nations on earth do it, so I suppose theres a reason for it.


    This is you continuing that discussion about light physical or psychological torture.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    You:

    ..So you don't have any evidence.

    Axes:

    Academic research tests on 'torture' have never, to the best of my knowledge, been conducted. What we do know is that various methods are used even by countries that formally denounce torture, so it must have some use. Draw your own conclusions.


    This is where Renal jumps in.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    You:

    Oh, and there's been plenty of academic research into torture. People do PHDs in this sort of thing. I'd look it up, but I'm not the one making the claims.

    Renal:

    I've seen two academic papers, one Restricted and one Secret. What have you seen?


    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    To anyone that says terrorists shouldn't be tortured, go watch this film, then get back to me:


    Until you do, you are living with your head in the sand.

    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ***Frann***)
    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.
    Hum...But they are killing innocent people e.g. your day to day worker. You are harming someone in aid to save innocent people. Harming innocents is the lowest of the low, and harming a terrorist is not the same.

    How does harming someone in order to save people count as unneeded? You are harming someone to save the lives of others....That is not the same as harming someone for ****s & giggles.
    The difference is the Taliban are bad people. You have to remove the dangerous notion of "everyone is innocent in their own way" and draw a line. The Taliban are out to destroy peoples way of life and pretty much enslave them, whilst supporting Al Qaeda (this is the important part). Al Qaeda are out to inflict their way of life onto others by killing innocent people - what makes someone innocent is when they are not breaking the law of their own land. Whether that is always morally right is a different question & topic. So the Taliban would be torturing for the wrong reasons - yes it may be to save their loved ones, but they are not innocent as they are harbouring people who kill innocents. I hope that makes sense

    A circle of violence is never good but usually brought about by one party being too ignorant to see where they have gone wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Hum...But they are killing innocent people e.g. your day to day worker. You are harming someone in aid to save innocent people. Harming innocents is the lowest of the low, and harming a terrorist is not the same.

    How does harming someone in order to save people count as unneeded? You are harming someone to save the lives of others....That is not the same as harming someone for ****s & giggles.
    The difference is the Taliban are bad people. You have to remove the dangerous notion of "everyone is innocent in their own way" and draw a line. The Taliban are out to destroy peoples way of life and pretty much enslave them, whilst supporting Al Qaeda (this is the important part). Al Qaeda are out to inflict their way of life onto others by killing innocent people - what makes someone innocent is when they are not breaking the law of their own land. Whether that is always morally right is a different question & topic. So the Taliban would be torturing for the wrong reasons - yes it may be to save their loved ones, but they are not innocent as they are harbouring people who kill innocents. I hope that makes sense

    A circle of violence is never good but usually brought about by one party being too ignorant to see where they have gone wrong.
    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...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ***Frann***)
    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...
    Yes but we are the baddies for what reason? They simply have not stopped and thought about what they are saying. They simply think "We are being attacked, therefore the person doing the attacking is the baddie!" without questioning whether it is a good thing to harbour Al Qaeda or not.
    They set out to force people to do their bidding, that hardly sounds a noble cause.
    What do they want revenge for? They were hiding people who attacked the US...So what did they expect or more to the point, did they think at all? Probably not.
    In my eyes they are lesser human beings. But so are rapists, murderers, racists and so on.
    You seem to think that torturing would be done to fulfil some twisted desire rather than to help save truly innocent people. I don't believe torturing shows panic. Torturing shows that the nation will do everything in its power to save its people. That is a good thing, not to do so shows a dangerous and exploitable weakness.

    Have you seen the film Unthinkable?
    Plus may I ask as to why you were in solitary confinement? And why would you not wish it upon someone who as guilty of a crime and by doing so you could save lives? Does that not make you selfish for not wanting to shoulder the difficult burden in order to save lives?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.