PDA

View Full Version : Are British Intelligence Stupid?



fred
11-Mar-10, 11:28
That is twice in the last week Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, has said that they did not know America was torturing suspects till 2007. First to the House of Lords and now at a lecture in London.

Don't they read the newspapers?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/exmi5-head-us-hid-torture-tactics-from-uk-1918945.html

ducati
11-Mar-10, 12:18
That is twice in the last week Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, has said that they did not know America was torturing suspects till 2007. First to the House of Lords and now at a lecture in London.

Don't they read the newspapers?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/exmi5-head-us-hid-torture-tactics-from-uk-1918945.html

No but it's a secret Shhhhh!

golach
11-Mar-10, 12:22
No but it's a secret Shhhhh!

Your wrong ducati........its a Conspiracy [lol]

Phill
11-Mar-10, 14:19
Are British Intelligence Stupid?

No more so than the Americans I'd say. MOSSAD are pretty good, 'cept fer passports. Let the side down there a bit.

I think the Intelligence part of the name was just a bit of an in joke when they formed, especially for the CIA.

Anyway, didn't she say "she" knew nothing about it?
Plausible(?) deniability!

dafi
11-Mar-10, 17:50
I dont think they are stupid, i think they think we are stupid tho!!

Anfield
11-Mar-10, 18:03
That is twice in the last week Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, has said that they did not know America was torturing suspects till 2007. First to the House of Lords and now at a lecture in London.

l (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/exmi5-head-us-hid-torture-tactics-from-uk-1918945.html)

Do any of Heads of Departments know what their departments are doing:


Those that can do,
Those that can't, become Heads of Departments or Department Managers

ducati
11-Mar-10, 18:30
Do any of Heads of Departments know what their departments are doing:


Those that can do,
Those that can't, become Heads of Departments or Department Managers


Oh dear, promotion prospects not looking good?

John Little
11-Mar-10, 18:30
In 1957 President Eisenhower found that he was being forced to spend billions of dollars on building up America's strike capability to face a growing threat from the Soviet Union. The fear at this time was fuelled by talk of the 'bomber gap' which later became the 'missile gap'. Ike was wanting to do things in domestic politics but so much cash was siphoning into arms that he could not do much domestically. He was getting three different estimates of Soviet strength from army, navy and air force - and it was in their interests to exagerrate the soviet capability to increasde their share of the pot. So he did a really intelligent thing.

He called in Allen Dulles, the Head of the CIA and asked him for his estimate of soviet capability. Dulles poured out facts and figures that came to yet another set of figures. So Eisenhower asked him - 'How do you know this Mr Dulles- where is the intelligence coming from?'

Long Silence.

'Actually sir, they are guesstimates'.

Questioned further Dulles admitted that the CIA had not succeeded in placing a single agent anywhere in the soviet bloc; Human intelligence (Humint) did not exist. Elint - electronic intelligence was being jammed. Because the government wanted figures on which to base policy, strategy and spending, the CIA guys - and the army, navy and air force, just ..... made it up.

So in the area of intelligence it is no surprise to me that the Head does not know what the tail is doing.

Phill
11-Mar-10, 19:09
Pretty much the same now innit, WMD's etc.

A rough guess is good enough. Or just make it up!

northener
11-Mar-10, 19:13
I think they're all very clever.

George Brims
11-Mar-10, 21:08
In 1957 President Eisenhower found that he was being forced to spend billions of dollars on building up America's strike capability to face a growing threat from the Soviet Union. The fear at this time was fuelled by talk of the 'bomber gap' which later became the 'missile gap'. Ike was wanting to do things in domestic politics but so much cash was siphoning into arms that he could not do much domestically. He was getting three different estimates of Soviet strength from army, navy and air force - and it was in their interests to exagerrate the soviet capability to increasde their share of the pot. So he did a really intelligent thing.

He called in Allen Dulles, the Head of the CIA and asked him for his estimate of soviet capability. Dulles poured out facts and figures that came to yet another set of figures. So Eisenhower asked him - 'How do you know this Mr Dulles- where is the intelligence coming from?'

Long Silence.

'Actually sir, they are guesstimates'.

Questioned further Dulles admitted that the CIA had not succeeded in placing a single agent anywhere in the soviet bloc; Human intelligence (Humint) did not exist. Elint - electronic intelligence was being jammed. Because the government wanted figures on which to base policy, strategy and spending, the CIA guys - and the army, navy and air force, just ..... made it up.

So in the area of intelligence it is no surprise to me that the Head does not know what the tail is doing.

This whole business continued for a long time, and inspired the plot of Le Carre's "Russia House".

Bazeye
11-Mar-10, 21:59
Pretty much the same now innit, WMD's etc.

A rough guess is good enough. Or just make it up!

Whenever i see the letters WMD, I always think of alcopops.:eek:

John Little
11-Mar-10, 22:13
"This whole business continued for a long time, and inspired the plot of Le Carre's "Russia House"

I didn't know that. What I knew is that it inspired Eisenhower to ask one of the US's top businessmen to get the view and opinions of 100 of his peer's view from their dealings with Russia. The Gaither report was a vision of Hell which appeared to show the Russians were ahead of the Yanks. It said they had 4000 missiles when they had none capable of hitting the US. It said they had 6000 nuclear bombers when they had 40..

The Cold war was a great game of smoke and mirrors fuelled by spectres cooked up by western intelligence. The Russians looked formidable but their kit was prehistoric compared to the toys the Yanks cooked up with R & D in the 60sThey were never the threat they were made out to be.

Western intelligence does not have a good track record for accuracy.

fred
11-Mar-10, 22:21
"This whole business continued for a long time, and inspired the plot of Le Carre's "Russia House"

I didn't know that. What I knew is that it inspired Eisenhower to ask one of the US's top businessmen to get the view and opinions of 100 of his peer's view from their dealings with Russia. The Gaither report was a vision of Hell which appeared to show the Russians were ahead of the Yanks. It said they had 4000 missiles when they had none capable of hitting the US. It said they had 6000 nuclear bombers when they had 40..

The Cold war was a great game of smoke and mirrors fuelled by spectres cooked up by western intelligence. The Russians looked formidable but their kit was prehistoric compared to the toys the Yanks cooked up with R & D in the 60sThey were never the threat they were made out to be.

Western intelligence does not have a good track record for accuracy.


Inaccuracy with the Soviet Union can be understood but America are supposed to be our allies and they didn't exactly keep it a secret they were torturing people. It was in all the papers about the black sites, the water boarding, the enhanced interrogation techniques. Everybody else knew.

John Little
11-Mar-10, 22:35
The trouble is that I think we are in danger of letting moral outrage run away with reality. The west have been top dogs in the world for a very long time - and you don't get that through being terribly nice to people over a cup of tea.

Yes - I agree that in a nice Guardian reading (I do) human rights (I support them) sort of way it is disgraceful that our secret services carry out these sorts of things.

But if we cut to Realpolitik there is nothing new here; it's been going on for a long time. In the exercise of power it is often necessary for those who wish to retain power to do nasty things.

Over the years I have heard too many stories from ex service people to believe that what we were doing in Malaya and Kenya in the 50s, Ireland from the late 60s, the Gulf, the Falklands, Bosnia ... was Boys Own stuff.

The trouble is that we want it both ways. We want it fair, clean, above board and full of altruistic self-abnegating self-sacrifice. But we want to come out on top.
And to do that we play dirty - and are very good at it.

Sometimes we get a glimpse at what is underneath and we do not like it being done in our name.

This is not to say I approve of the agenda. I think the war on terror is purest shite. Guantanamo Bay is a manifestation of US fears, just like the non-existent bombers and missiles.

But what standard are we judging the Yanks by? Some notional idea that these sort of things are not supposed to happen?
But they do.

And sometimes we need people with the strength to do what is necessary.

This may not be the time and occasion - but sometimes, for the survival of our own civilsation our friends and our own, do nasty things.

We need to find a balance between what we would like to see, but what we know is necessary.

AND THIS IS ONLY A STREAM OF MY OWN THOUGHTS; i DO NOT EXPECT AGREEMENT, APPROVAL AND WILL NOT TAKE REBUTTAL PERSONALLY

northener
11-Mar-10, 23:26
The notion of stress-free interrogation is very nice, but as JL has put very well, reality is somewhat different.

I do not agree with Guantanamo Bay or the torturing of individuals, but you have to ask yourself - If exorting information through force could give you leads to prevent the deaths of your own family...would you still say torture was not to be used?

The Drunken Duck
11-Mar-10, 23:34
I think they're all very clever.

Me too. I like that guy who drives the Aston Martin and bonks all those birds. He's ace.

I heard he is looking for some guy who has all the answers and secrets "they" *nudge nudge wink wink* dont want to come out. Apparently he has the answers to everything ever about recent conflicts and has chosen to slowly release all this super secret info that will rock the world's politicans and Intelligence gurus' onto a community website somewhere.

Unless this font of all non knowledge posts using an easily identifiable name he should be alright though.

fred
11-Mar-10, 23:46
The notion of stress-free interrogation is very nice, but as JL has put very well, reality is somewhat different.

I do not agree with Guantanamo Bay or the torturing of individuals, but you have to ask yourself - If exorting information through force could give you leads to prevent the deaths of your own family...would you still say torture was not to be used?

This is how they try to sell torture to the public, with imaginary situations designed to put fear into people which never happen in reality. Once the people accept torture on principle it leaves them free to torture anyone they like, perhaps one day a member of your family.

The American government does not need to have evidence of anyone's guilt to torture them, they do not need to have been tried, not even charged with a crime. All they need to do is say "he is a terrorist" and they can torture away. People have been labelled terrorist in America for no other crime but peaceful protest against illegal wars.

Torture is wrong, torture is evil, under all circumstances. Torture is not condoned by any civilized society.

bekisman
12-Mar-10, 00:12
Torture is wrong, torture is evil, under all circumstances. Torture is not condoned by any civilized society.

Fred, I've got your wife, and I've put her into a sealed room underground where the air will be exhausted in 24 hours. I am the only one who knows exactly where she is. I am standing in front of you. What are you going to do?

fred
12-Mar-10, 00:27
Fred, I've got your wife, and I've put her into a sealed room underground where the air will be exhausted in 24 hours. I am the only one who knows exactly where she is. I am standing in front of you. What are you going to do?

Ring my mistress and give her the good news.

I'm not married BTW.

To the best of my knowledge your hypothetical situation has never happened and is not likely to happen. How many of the people tortured by America had someone locked in a sealed room? None.

So here is another situation, the cause is threatened, the cause is all important to you, someone has information which will stop the threat to the cause, is it right to torture them?

Not so much another situation, the same situation.

Torture is wrong, it is accepted as being wrong by every civilized society. Nothing you say can make it right. Nothing you say can stop it being evil.

Phill
12-Mar-10, 00:34
Torture is wrong, torture is evil, under all circumstances. Torture is not condoned by any civilized society.

Until it suits the purpose.

fred
12-Mar-10, 00:41
Until it suits the purpose.

Well no, once a society condones torture it ceases to be civilised.

Phill
12-Mar-10, 01:43
Well no, once a society condones torture it ceases to be civilised.

Then society has never been civilised.

Except in the disassociated world of dinner parties and sociable afternoon teas.

Aaldtimer
12-Mar-10, 04:19
Well no, once a society condones torture it ceases to be civilised.

But..."There's no such thing as society"...Margaret Thatcher, c1986.[disgust]

Aaldtimer
12-Mar-10, 04:20
Well no, once a society condones torture it ceases to be civilised.

But..."There's no such thing as society"...Margaret Thatcher, c1986.[disgust]

And, those nice Taleban chappies wouldn't resort to that sort of thing, would they?

northener
12-Mar-10, 08:08
Well no, once a society condones torture it ceases to be civilised.

But that hasn't answered my question, Fred. And it's realistic scenario, regardless of whether it's your wife, mum, dad or whoever.

We all have our ideas of 'civilized society' but when the situation involves those who we love, the notion of 'civilized society' goes straight out of the window.

Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

ducati
12-Mar-10, 08:20
Well no, once a society condones torture it ceases to be civilised.

Well that happened a long time ago.

We tortured people in pre history though the middle ages to ...when do you think it stopped so we could restart it now?

fred
12-Mar-10, 09:42
But that hasn't answered my question, Fred. And it's realistic scenario, regardless of whether it's your wife, mum, dad or whoever.

We all have our ideas of 'civilized society' but when the situation involves those who we love, the notion of 'civilized society' goes straight out of the window.

Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

So are you saying that if someone you loved needed an organ transplant but was a rare blood group you would be justified in murdering someone you didn't like so an organ would become available?

The ends never justify the means. Especially when your fictitious scenario is used to justify the torture of innocent people.

fred
12-Mar-10, 10:14
Well that happened a long time ago.

We tortured people in pre history though the middle ages to ...when do you think it stopped so we could restart it now?

Well torture certainly never used to be condoned in Britain, children were taught that societies which did condone torture were barbaric, taught that that was what made our society superior. If evidence of torture was uncovered the government would be quick to stress that it was a few sadistic bad apples responsible and heads would roll. Britain signed international treaties agreeing not to use torture and the use of evidence obtained by torture can not be used in British courts.

Then we got a particularly sadistic bunch in charge of the American government who wanted to torture people, wanted to make it legal for them to torture people, not only that wanted to make it acceptable for them to torture people. How do you do that? How do you take pure evil and convince the masses it is good? you get your mates at Fox to brainwash the mindless masses, you get them to make a TV series full of impossible hypothetical scenarios where torture is the only way possible for good to triumph over evil and the mindless masses will fall for it.

Then when they take a poor innocent farmer from Afghanistan, who has been turned into the Americans as an Al Qaeda member for the reward money, torture him to death, take his young children and torture them, sexually assault them, in front of him to make him talk the people won't object.

bekisman
12-Mar-10, 10:19
Ring my mistress and give her the good news. I'm not married BTW. Torture is wrong, it is accepted as being wrong by every civilized society. Nothing you say can make it right. Nothing you say can stop it being evil.

Fred, I've got your Mother, Father, Girlfriend, and I've put her into a sealed room underground where the air will be exhausted in 24 hours. I am the only one who knows exactly where she is. I am standing in front of you. What are you going to do?

Come on Fred, now this is the situation, what are you going to do? (I know what I would do).

Anfield
12-Mar-10, 10:26
Fred, I've got your Mother, Father, Girlfriend, and I've put her into a sealed room underground where the air will be exhausted in 24 hours. I am the only one who knows exactly where she is. I am standing in front of you. What are you going to do?

).

Is this one of the forms of tortures condoned by USA/UK governments, or have you been watching too much TV

ducati
12-Mar-10, 10:28
Well torture certainly never used to be condoned in Britain

I don't believe that. I just think it wasn't common knowledge. As long as the people (including me) didn't have their noses rubbed in it, they would turn a blind eye to pretty much anything if it meant they would be kept safe and comfortable.

I think if you are surprised and horrified about what the security services get up to in your name, you are probably a bit naive. It certainly doesn't come as a surprise to me.

golach
12-Mar-10, 10:29
Fred, I've got your Mother, Father, Girlfriend, and I've put her into a sealed room underground where the air will be exhausted in 24 hours. I am the only one who knows exactly where she is. I am standing in front of you. What are you going to do?

Come on Fred, now this is the situation, what are you going to do? (I know what I would do).
Hypothetically of course, I would suspect Fred would do nothing, and then would blame the American Government and the Israelis.

fred
12-Mar-10, 10:33
Fred, I've got your Mother, Father, Girlfriend, and I've put her into a sealed room underground where the air will be exhausted in 24 hours. I am the only one who knows exactly where she is. I am standing in front of you. What are you going to do?

Come on Fred, now this is the situation, what are you going to do? (I know what I would do).

What would you do? Would you take someone's 5 year old daughter and plunge their hands and feet into molten lead in front of them until they told you what you wanted to hear?

Now none of those who have been tortured by America have had anyone in a sealed room, none have actually been found guilty of any crime so far so get real, stop trying to justify the unjustifiable with the ridiculous.

This isn't a democracy we live in any more, it's a Murdocracy, the people can be programmed to think what the government wants them to think. Brainwashed to accept the unacceptable.

fred
12-Mar-10, 10:37
Hypothetically of course, I would suspect Fred would do nothing, and then would blame the American Government and the Israelis.

This thread isn't about me, it isn't about what I would do.

How come whenever I raise important issues about world events the org bullies immediately try to turn the thread around and talk about me instead?

golach
12-Mar-10, 10:56
This thread isn't about me, it isn't about what I would do.

How come whenever I raise important issues about world events the org bullies immediately try to turn the thread around and talk about me instead?

So anyone who disagrees with you and your policies that you post on the Org is a bully?
Fred it does not work like that sorry. What you consider important issues about world events, others may find boring, inane and repetitive.

The Drunken Duck
12-Mar-10, 11:00
Has to be said ..

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5941/threadrocks.jpg

fred
12-Mar-10, 11:13
So anyone who disagrees with you and your policies that you post on the Org is a bully?
Fred it does not work like that sorry. What you consider important issues about world events, others may find boring, inane and repetitive.

I said anyone who makes personal attacks against me instead of discussing the issues is a bully.

Do you understand? Why is it not possible to discuss important issues on this forum without the same people coming in making their personal remarks about me every time? Can you not conceive that someone can be opposed to torture because it is evil not because they don't like Americans and are anti Semitic? Why do you always try to put the blame on me? Why do you always try and turn the discussion round to be about me? Why is your answer to everything to accuse me of being racist?

Your one and only contribution to this discussion has been a personal attack against me. You are deliberately trying to disrupt the thread.

John Little
12-Mar-10, 11:29
Yes - I have to say I don't understand this either. This is an interesting thread and Fred makes some interesting points; he makes me think (which offsets the onset of Alzheimers!)
It ain't about Fred. I'm at work now and can't think about this - until later.
But whatever I say will not be about Fred.
Conflict of ideas, not people is better.

As Churchill said; Better jaw jaw jaw, than war war war.

highland red
12-Mar-10, 11:44
I honestly don't know how the powers that be can claim ignorance now as mysterious aircraft have been in transit within certain UK airfields for a long time now.

Anfield
12-Mar-10, 12:02
This thread isn't about me, it isn't about what I would do.

How come whenever I raise important issues about world events the org bullies immediately try to turn the thread around and talk about me instead?

Shows how poor their arguments are.

bekisman
12-Mar-10, 12:11
Is this one of the forms of tortures condoned by USA/UK governments, or have you been watching too much TV

Sound of bugle? He CAN look after himself you know [lol]

The Drunken Duck
12-Mar-10, 12:29
I said anyone who makes personal attacks against me instead of discussing the issues is a bully.

Do you understand? Why is it not possible to discuss important issues on this forum without the same people coming in making their personal remarks about me every time? Can you not conceive that someone can be opposed to torture because it is evil not because they don't like Americans and are anti Semitic? Why do you always try to put the blame on me? Why do you always try and turn the discussion round to be about me? Why is your answer to everything to accuse me of being racist?

Your one and only contribution to this discussion has been a personal attack against me. You are deliberately trying to disrupt the thread.

In what way was Golach's comment a "personal attack" Fred ??, he gave an opinion and nothing more.

You are being a bit of a hypocrite considering you quite happily go around calling the views of people who have more information than you on certain issues "bovine excrement" and belittling anyones view which doesnt correspond to your own. Then, when you get the same back you act like a petulant little child who decides that you are being bullied because people dare to disagree or challenge you.

Curious though. If you are so concerned about "torture" etc etc how come you refused to answer my very polite PM about how you feel about the behaviour of the Iraqi's in Kuwait in 1990 when they invaded a soveriegn nation, raped, murdered, tortured and looted and then set fire to the natural resources of the area when they left. I only ask as you only seem to be interested in "torture" issues when it gives you a chance to rant against the society you live in from a paranoid and shockingly naive closed mind.

I think you are an intelligent guy Fred and have given you rep in my short time here for the points you make I agree with, I will continue to do so in the future. But on the Iraq/Torture/Forces are all baby killer garbage you devote most of your time to you are being a boring Troll in my view.

bekisman
12-Mar-10, 12:29
What would you do? Would you take someone's 5 year old daughter and plunge their hands and feet into molten lead in front of them until they told you what you wanted to hear? - [5 year old daughter'? nah this is a big nasty chap laughing in your face' Now none of those who have been tortured by America [ nope this is not America, it's a remote spot in Caithness] have had anyone in a sealed room, none have actually been found guilty of any crime so far so get real, stop trying to justify the unjustifiable with the ridiculous. This isn't a democracy we live in any more, it's a Murdocracy, the people can be programmed to think what the government wants them to think. Brainwashed to accept the unacceptable.

Please, Please Fred this NOT about you, it's a 'get real' general question. OK, as you won't can't answer, to make it easier what would be your thoughts on these; "But the killer - serving his life sentence at HMP Garth in Leyland, Lancs - has refused to say where he buried Helen" and "A wealthy landowner was jailed for life today for murdering his estranged wife — but still refuses to reveal where he hid her body" and "Brady moors killer refuses to say where he buried Keith Bennett" - these people are standing in front of you; taunting. . I hasten to add these are actual facts, not based in the USA.
Me? ref the original I would do anything to get them to reveal the whereabouts of my loved one who will die if I do not 'help' this mocking person to reveal.

fred
12-Mar-10, 12:48
Please, Please Fred this NOT about you, it's a 'get real' general question. OK, as you won't can't answer, to make it easier what would be your thoughts on these; "But the killer - serving his life sentence at HMP Garth in Leyland, Lancs - has refused to say where he buried Helen" and "A wealthy landowner was jailed for life today for murdering his estranged wife — but still refuses to reveal where he hid her body" and "Brady moors killer refuses to say where he buried Keith Bennett" - these people are standing in front of you; taunting. . I hasten to add these are actual facts, not based in the USA.
Me? ref the original I would do anything to get them to reveal the whereabouts of my loved one who will die if I do not 'help' this mocking person to reveal.



To use torture on those people would not only be illegal but immoral and make us worse that they are.

This does not alter the fact that the vast majority of those tortured by the American government have never been charged with any crime. Many have been released without charge. These are innocent people being subjected to the horrors of hell not your hypothetical kidnappers.

Abu Ghraib happened because the commanders there had written authorisation from Rumsfeld himself authorising the use of "enhanced interrogation methods" or torture as we call it in the rest of the world. Once you use your hypothetical scenarios to justify the unjustifiable the genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to control it. You have given the sadists the green light.

fred
12-Mar-10, 12:55
Could I please ask that people do not mess with text attributed to me and only put in the attributions box text that I have typed.

You may think it makes sense but years from now someone could well be searching the archives for anything they can use against me (it happens) and it might not make sense to them.

fred
12-Mar-10, 13:05
In what way was Golach's comment a "personal attack" Fred ??, he gave an opinion and nothing more.

You are being a bit of a hypocrite considering you quite happily go around calling the views of people who have more information than you on certain issues "bovine excrement" and belittling anyones view which doesnt correspond to your own. Then, when you get the same back you act like a petulant little child who decides that you are being bullied because people dare to disagree or challenge you.

Curious though. If you are so concerned about "torture" etc etc how come you refused to answer my very polite PM about how you feel about the behaviour of the Iraqi's in Kuwait in 1990 when they invaded a soveriegn nation, raped, murdered, tortured and looted and then set fire to the natural resources of the area when they left. I only ask as you only seem to be interested in "torture" issues when it gives you a chance to rant against the society you live in from a paranoid and shockingly naive closed mind.

I think you are an intelligent guy Fred and have given you rep in my short time here for the points you make I agree with, I will continue to do so in the future. But on the Iraq/Torture/Forces are all baby killer garbage you devote most of your time to you are being a boring Troll in my view.

Post #105 (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=671074&postcount=105) on the birth defects thread might answer your question.

Anfield
12-Mar-10, 13:18
Sound of bugle? He CAN look after himself you know [lol]

Mission Accomplished, Agent Bekiman return to base asap.
Once again, you have defeated a right wing rant with your use of a post, which confirms that when losing an argument, personalise the issue.
Well done
We shall contact you again for next assignment

northener
12-Mar-10, 13:22
So are you saying that if someone you loved needed an organ transplant but was a rare blood group you would be justified in murdering someone you didn't like so an organ would become available?

The ends never justify the means. Especially when your fictitious scenario is used to justify the torture of innocent people.

A fine avoidance of my question Fred. I salute you.:Razz

Your first paragraph has no connection with my question whatsoever, as well you know.

The secong paragraph is misleading, I am justifying nothing.

What I am doing is trying to open up the Torture debate into seeing if there would ever be any justification for extracting information through force.
My point being that if those who are close to you personally were in some imminent life-threatening danger, would you sanction the level of torture meted out at Guantanamo Bay to extract the information necessary to keep your own loved ones alive? Or would you stand by your principles and watch people die?

I know I'd be hard pushed to maintain my attitude towards torture in that situation.....

Anfield
12-Mar-10, 13:29
I think the answer is that Afghanis/Iraqis and other people, have given their lives in defending their countries against foreign aggressors.

The Drunken Duck
12-Mar-10, 13:30
Post #105 (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=671074&postcount=105) on the birth defects thread might answer your question.

Pathetic Cop Out.

My PM asking for your view was sent BEFORE that post asking you to ignore me. Obviously that question is uncomfortable for you as it points out an uncomfortable truth of those you see as beyond reproach.

I now realise why so many ignore you. You arent interested in debate or discussion or broadening your horizons on issues, you are just an Internet Attention Addict rattling away on one subject.

northener
12-Mar-10, 14:01
I think the answer is that Afghanis/Iraqis and other people, have given their lives in defending their countries against foreign aggressors.

Enlighten me, how does that relate to the States' knowledge (or not) of torture, the use of torture and the question regarding whether torture would ever be justified?

Anfield
12-Mar-10, 14:48
Enlighten me, how does that relate to the States' knowledge (or not) of torture, the use of torture and the question regarding whether torture would ever be justified?

Your question was a hypothetical one about a factual issue. Torture should never ever be condoned, irrespective of who carries it out.

Sticking to factual issues there is documented proof that America has used methods of torture to obtain "information".
What puzzles me about this "information" is that they are still no nearer finding Bin Laden than they were 9 years ago.

If he is, the mastermind behind all the supposed terroist attacks in the world, why do they not use 100% of their, and other countries intelligence resources to locate him, instead of of using indiscrimate carpet bombing of Afghanistan in the hope that they may blow up a cave containing him.

John Little
12-Mar-10, 15:28
It is possible not to condone something yet recognise that it goes on

It is also possible to recognise that in our world nasty things are sometimes necessary if regrettable

What we aspire to is not the same as what we have.

Aragorn in Lord of the Rings was bitter about being looked down on by Barliman Butterbur, landlord of the Prancing Pony. He said that there were things not a day's jorney from his inn that would freeze his blood and destroy his world if it were not for those who guarded him without his knowing.

People guard our world.
I do not condone what they do.
But I do not condemn what they do.

Further I would say that the concept of necessary evil is worthy of consideration. We do not live in Utopia, and, short of that ideal we have to deal with what is real and what is desirable.

But without them I do not think our world would stand.

I eat meat.
I do not care to look in the abbatoirs- and I do not condemn the butchers.

northener
12-Mar-10, 15:46
Your question was a hypothetical one about a factual issue. Torture should never ever be condoned, irrespective of who carries it out.



Avoidance, pure and simple. It's all very well finger wagging and having fine ideals, but as soon as this issue is brought down from a remote concept to a personal level there is invariably a deathly silence on this one.

I've already stated that i do not agree with torture.

And, more to the point, I have stated in this thread, that if my own personal loved ones were in an imminent life threatening situation and I knew someone was holding back on information that could save them, my moral standards would be sorely tried.

I've nailed my colours firmly to the mast on this one, would you care to do the same - or shall I take avoidance as an admission that you would do the same?

Over to you on that one.......



Sticking to factual issues there is documented proof that America has used methods of torture to obtain "information".
What puzzles me about this "information" is that they are still no nearer finding Bin Laden than they were 9 years ago.

If he is, the mastermind behind all the supposed terroist attacks in the world, why do they not use 100% of their, and other countries intelligence resources to locate him, instead of of using indiscrimate carpet bombing of Afghanistan in the hope that they may blow up a cave containing him.

Nicely brought round to Afghanistan...

If you are that ignorant that you believe all this interrogation is purely to 'find' Bin Laden then you are showing an absolute lack of knowledge regarding Intelligence and it's uses. No point in duiscussing further, methinks.

Now, 'sticking to torture issues', what's your answer to my question?

bekisman
12-Mar-10, 16:17
Mission Accomplished, Agent Bekiman return to base asap.
Once again, you have defeated a right wing rant with your use of a post, which confirms that when losing an argument, personalise the issue.
Well done
We shall contact you again for next assignment

My, my we are funny today, right wing rant? by jove you've certainly led a sheltered life if you think that was a rant.. and no, it's not 'personal' - Come on, lighten up old chap.
Sorry for delay in replying, but just returned from jaunt out west to see a Crofter :lol:

Anfield
12-Mar-10, 16:20
Where I was brought up we used to have a bus service numbered 61.
The start and finish destinations were about 2 miles from each other but it used to "go all around the houses" to get there, a bit like your post.

(1) "..brought down from a remote concept to a personal level.."

How do you answer a question which is straight from the plot of a TV program/film.
My answer to any question raised is that I would do what I believe is right by my own beliefs, just as i would expect my family and friends to do.

(2) "..If you are that ignorant that you believe all this interrogation is purely to 'find' Bin Laden then you are showing an absolute lack of knowledge regarding Intelligence and it's uses.."

Read my reply above, carefully. I did not state that they are

northener
12-Mar-10, 17:28
Thankyou, Anfield.

I think I've proved my point quite nicely.[lol]

Goodbye.

Boozeburglar
12-Mar-10, 17:56
Aragorn in Lord of the Rings was bitter about being looked down on by Barliman Butterbur, landlord of the Prancing Pony. He said that there were things not a day's jorney from his inn that would freeze his blood and destroy his world if it were not for those who guarded him without his knowing.

Lol.

Tolkein makes it all make sense as usual.

Anfield
12-Mar-10, 18:15
My point being that if those who are close to you personally were in some imminent life-threatening danger, would you sanction the level of torture meted out at Guantanamo Bay to extract the information necessary to keep your own loved ones alive? Or would you stand by your principles and watch people die?

.

My answer to your question was "..that I would do what I believe is right by my own beliefs, just as i would expect my family and friends to do.."

Please clarify how you reckon that: "I think I've proved my point quite nicely"

fred
12-Mar-10, 18:49
A fine avoidance of my question Fred. I salute you.:Razz

Your first paragraph has no connection with my question whatsoever, as well you know.

The secong paragraph is misleading, I am justifying nothing.

What I am doing is trying to open up the Torture debate into seeing if there would ever be any justification for extracting information through force.
My point being that if those who are close to you personally were in some imminent life-threatening danger, would you sanction the level of torture meted out at Guantanamo Bay to extract the information necessary to keep your own loved ones alive? Or would you stand by your principles and watch people die?

I know I'd be hard pushed to maintain my attitude towards torture in that situation.....

But that is not what we are talking about here, what we are talking about is the American government and military taking people who have committed no crime and torturing them. We are talking about real things things, things which have happened, things which are still happening.

In November 2002 our Ambassador to Uzbekistan sent a diplomatic telegram to MI5 among others informing them that the CIA were receiving information obtained by torture there.

Yet the ex head of MI5 claims MI5 did not know America was using torture till 2007.

fred
12-Mar-10, 18:55
It is possible not to condone something yet recognise that it goes on

It is also possible to recognise that in our world nasty things are sometimes necessary if regrettable

What we aspire to is not the same as what we have.

Aragorn in Lord of the Rings was bitter about being looked down on by Barliman Butterbur, landlord of the Prancing Pony. He said that there were things not a day's jorney from his inn that would freeze his blood and destroy his world if it were not for those who guarded him without his knowing.

People guard our world.
I do not condone what they do.
But I do not condemn what they do.

Further I would say that the concept of necessary evil is worthy of consideration. We do not live in Utopia, and, short of that ideal we have to deal with what is real and what is desirable.

But without them I do not think our world would stand.

I eat meat.
I do not care to look in the abbatoirs- and I do not condemn the butchers.

And if one day someone decides it is necessary to torture you or your family? What then?

Boozeburglar
12-Mar-10, 19:58
And if one day someone decides it is necessary to torture you or your family? What then?

Depends which one.

John Little
12-Mar-10, 20:44
Fred - that is exactly the point. Nobody gets the chance.

If we lived in a world where some other ideology held sway then maybe I would be tortured. For listening to music, for wearing a beard, for drinking alcohol; for making a profit, for owning land, for wearing glasses etc

People have been tortured in the last few years for all of these things - aye and killed.

There are people who guard me. As long as they do their job me and mine will not be face what millions of other people do face.

Yes I don't like torture.

But i do thank my lucky stars that me and mine and my way of life and freedoms are protected. I cannot be imprisoned and tortured - a situation that has been brought about through no accident of history, but by struggle, blood and sacrifice.

fred
12-Mar-10, 21:02
There are people who guard me. As long as they do their job me and mine will not be face what millions of other people do face.


So let me put a hypothetical situation for a change, not one so far in the realms of fantasy as some in this thread mind.

You are walking down the road one night and a police car screeches to a halt and a load of policemen jump on you and drag you off to the police station. There has been a murder and the eye witnesses gave a perfect description of you. The police are certain it must be you who did the crime, the eyewitnesses say the murderer looked just like you but they have no solid evidence, no forensics, no murder weapon.

Would the police, the people who guard you, be justified in torturing you till you told them what you did with the murder weapon?

John Little
12-Mar-10, 21:28
Funnily enough I know someone to whom something very similar happened. He was arrested and whisked away to a concrete building out in the country and grilled in a dark room by 8 men sitting round in a semi-circle. They accused him of being a "traitor". He was then imprisoned with no clothes on in a featureless room with no furniture, and 3 inches of water on the floor.
He had to defecate in his cell, urinate in his cell, and when he asked for water the guards laughed and told him he had plenty. He had to stand in the water, sit in the water and sleep in the water.
Occasionally the guards beat him
They tortured him too with a car battery and some wires.
They also beat him up and he was grilled repeatedly by the men in the dark room who told him he was a traitor and asked him to name his accomplices.

After 6 months he was removed from his prison and thrown out of a car in front of his house. His daughter is one of my friends on Facebook


You ask what justification for torturing me and asking me where the murder weapon is.

There is no murder weapon. Any more than I am a traitor or that I have accomplices. But the people who do this need no justification. They do it because the setup in their country lets them do it.

My acquaintance did not live in this country.

Such rights and liberties as we have are conferred by the society we live in. The very values you espouse are possible here because the structure of society and the controlling elites allow you to express them.

But in the world this freedom is not universal.

There is no justification for torture.

Nonetheless it is done because it can be done and is encouraged by those in power.

The justification is rooted in the extent to which they can get away with it.

I have seen people arrested and charged with crimes by the police in this country. yes - - my personal experience.

I have also seen them thrown out of court - because that is what our courts are for.

Yet what we have is fragile.
And the mentalities of a lot of people are not as ours - people who would despise Liberal values, who spit on notions of democracy and would wish to see- Communism,. Fascism, A Caliphate, a sphere of influence,- whatever.

To a balanced, fair, sane and rational mind - and you surely have one, then torture is not justified.

Yet I counsel you that if you enjoy what you have, then it is purchased at a price. Torture of those who do not like us ,ay be one of the costs. So is exploitation of the developing world, globalisation, the whole world financial set up and a large amount of our voting record on human rights in Europe and the UN.

If you look too deep and do not like what you see, then consider how the world could be in other circumstances...

fred
12-Mar-10, 21:52
Yet what we have is fragile.
And the mentalities of a lot of people are not as ours - people who would despise Liberal values, who spit on notions of democracy and would wish to see- Communism,. Fascism, A Caliphate, a sphere of influence,- whatever.


Well yes, what we have is very fragile and the moment we condone torture is when we become those Communists and Fascists. Our abhorrence of torture is one of those Liberal values we prize and without it we become the same as them, extremists who believe the end justifies the means, traitors prepared to sell our souls for security.

gleeber
12-Mar-10, 22:04
Well yes, what we have is very fragile and the moment we condone torture is when we become those Communists and Fascists. Our abhorrence of torture is one of those Liberal values we prize and without it we become the same as them, extremists who believe the end justifies the means, traitors prepared to sell our souls for security.

I think the good thing about our systym of governemt is that on paper there are some very civilised human rights laws. Torture must be an awful, exoerience and I would rather not imagine it. However it happens.
The important thing is that the laws stay on the paper.
Won't matter then how stupid intelligence is.

rich
12-Mar-10, 22:06
What espionage is - is treachery.
At least that's the message I take home from John Lecarr(excuse the spelling.)
So you wouldn't expect to find the truth lying around in the road would you?
The squeals of indignation from certain sections of the ORG completely miss the point.
And the obsession about torture verges on the pornographic.
There is a rich and interesting (if highly unreliable!) body of literature about intelligence gathering. Why not do some reading around the subject...take 18th century revolutionary France as a starting point.....

rich
12-Mar-10, 22:18
Did I say the 18th century? In fact the 16th century saw the beginning of intelligence work - the dark side of Good Queen Bess!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Francis_Walsingham

fred
12-Mar-10, 22:27
What espionage is - is treachery.
At least that's the message I take home from John Lecarr(excuse the spelling.)
So you wouldn't expect to find the truth lying around in the road would you?
The squeals of indignation from certain sections of the ORG completely miss the point.
And the obsession about torture verges on the pornographic.
There is a rich and interesting (if highly unreliable!) body of literature about intelligence gathering. Why not do some reading around the subject...take 18th century revolutionary France as a starting point.....

This torture has nothing to do with espionage. The reward offered by America for information about Al Qaeda members looks attractive to an Afghani farmer so he turns in a neighbour he doesn't much like. The Americans arrest him and torture him to tell them who his accomplices are but he can't tell them anything, he doesn't know anything, he's just a poor farmer. So they electrocute him and put him in ice water till he nearly dies from hypothermia and they take him to the point of drowning and revive him to half kill him again but he can't tell them what he doesn't know. Then eventually his body goes limp and lifeless and they dump him in a ditch and the truth really is lying around in a road somewhere.

What else is there to know?

fred
12-Mar-10, 22:29
I think the good thing about our systym of governemt is that on paper there are some very civilised human rights laws. Torture must be an awful, exoerience and I would rather not imagine it. However it happens.
The important thing is that the laws stay on the paper.
Won't matter then how stupid intelligence is.

There seem to be a lot of laws on paper getting ignored lately.

Maybe instead of just having laws on paper we had a system whereby those who break them can be held to account?

Yoda the flump
12-Mar-10, 22:32
Maybe instead of just having laws on paper we had a system whereby those who break them can be held to account?

A completely different discussion altogether me thinks!

gleeber
12-Mar-10, 22:37
There seem to be a lot of laws on paper getting ignored lately.

Maybe instead of just having laws on paper we had a system whereby those who break them can be held to account?

That's another good thing about our system of government. If your caught breaking the laws on the paper, your in trouble.
Some people will wriggle and squirm for a while but eventually the truth comes out no matter if your the president or the pauper.

fred
12-Mar-10, 22:48
That's another good thing about our system of government. If your caught breaking the laws on the paper, your in trouble.
Some people will wriggle and squirm for a while but eventually the truth comes out no matter if your the president or the pauper.

I'm looking at the Un Convention Against Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html) and seeing a few areas where Britain seems to be in contravention. Why is nobody being prosecuted?

rich
12-Mar-10, 22:54
This thread began with the book written by the lady who was in charge of Britain's security services. It was about intelligence gathering. So it's not me who's off target.

John Little
12-Mar-10, 22:58
"Why is nobody being prosecuted?"

Because that's how the world is.

And we do not sell our souls for security.
That's how the world is.

We may not like it so - but it still is.

gleeber
12-Mar-10, 22:59
I'm looking at the Un Convention Against Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html) and seeing a few areas where Britain seems to be in contravention. Why is nobody being prosecuted?

I dunno.
Sometimes these things go on for yonks with everyone covering their own backs. Eventually though most people who break the law written on paper will get done for it. Its not a perfect system of government but Ill take it until a perfect one comes along.

bekisman
12-Mar-10, 23:03
Where oh where is this perfect world - I've lived / travelled in 32 of 'em; ain't seen it yet...

rich
12-Mar-10, 23:05
This thread is boring me to distraction.

fred
12-Mar-10, 23:15
This thread began with the book written by the lady who was in charge of Britain's security services. It was about intelligence gathering. So it's not me who's off target.

My apologies, I must have misunderstood the first post.

fred
12-Mar-10, 23:19
"Why is nobody being prosecuted?"

Because that's how the world is.

And we do not sell our souls for security.
That's how the world is.

We may not like it so - but it still is.

About time we were getting together and changing it then.

John Little
12-Mar-10, 23:34
If a thread bores anyone, then the obvious remedy is to ignore it.

I find the thread interesting.

The trouble with me is that I am too old - some might even say cynical, and I know far too much history.

In 1512 Machiavelli wrote in the Prince, that the good ruler needed to combine the three qualities of Necessitas, Fortuna, and Virtu.

Necessitas implied the ability to do whatever was necessary, with utter and complete pragmatism, in order to achieve ones ends.

Fortuna was about having the ability to work whatever happened in the daily twists and turns of events into one's advantage.

Virtu was about being true to your ends, without deviating and with utter ruthlessness.


I found it shocking. Young people do. But what he wrote is as true today as then - it's Realpolitik.

But as I have grown older I have realised that there are people who wield power in the world- they rule it, shape it and bend it to their own fashion.
By reading I have become familiar with many of them through letters, diaries and autobiographies. Churchill, Lloyd George, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Khrushchev etc etc.

Many of them as human beings were (apparently certain words are not allowed here, even in context) contemptible.

But, objectively, they knew the usages of power. And on the whole I benefit from what they did.

Policy is based on intelligence. It is all about information. Accurate information.
Without accurate information, money, lives and resources are squandered.


They get the information.

I have no power to influence how they do this. Intelligence gathering has always been a dirty game - always. I merely observe, note and analyse.
I can do so because I have certain freedoms. I live on a rock - but I know that things crawl under the rock - and it was always that way - and always will be.
I also know that the first casualties of any revolution are always the young chaps who try to change the world for the better because they think they can.

When I was a very young chap I did not know this. But I do now.

Sometimes B's are necessary.

I'm going away for the weekend so will not be chipping in.

Fred; your idealism is refreshing and I would the world was fulll of people like you. The thread rocks, so rock on.

Catch you next week.

fred
13-Mar-10, 00:07
Catch you next week.

Have a nice one.

Phill
13-Mar-10, 01:56
the people can be programmed to think what the government wants them to think. Brainwashed to accept the unacceptable.
No, just too many sheep that that are happy to live in ignorance.


I honestly don't know how the powers that be can claim ignorance now as mysterious aircraft have been in transit within certain UK airfields for a long time now.
Not mysterious, normal planey looking things, medical flights apparently :cool:


If a thread bores anyone, then the obvious remedy is to ignore it. I find the thread interesting.

Aye, quite agree.

scotsboy
13-Mar-10, 13:46
To get back to the original question, which was:

Are British Intelligence Stupid?

Then I would say, no, I think they are extremely intelligent. I would suggest those that think British Intelligence stupid are the ones who require to broaden their education...............and I am taking a broad corporate perspective here and not targeting individuals who may (or may not) have posted on this thread.

fred
13-Mar-10, 15:24
To get back to the original question, which was:

Are British Intelligence Stupid?

Then I would say, no, I think they are extremely intelligent. I would suggest those that think British Intelligence stupid are the ones who require to broaden their education...............and I am taking a broad corporate perspective here and not targeting individuals who may (or may not) have posted on this thread.

Then one can only assume they are lying to us. Talking of liars I see that Carl Rove has been in the UK and talking on BBC television trying to justify the unjustifiable by lying about how many lives they saved. Under the terms of the UN Convention Against Torture, which Britain signed, it was the British government's duty to arrest him and put him on trial.

bekisman
13-Mar-10, 15:28
Then one can only assume they are lying to us. Talking of liars I see that Carl Rove has been in the UK and talking on BBC television trying to justify the unjustifiable by lying about how many lives they saved. Under the terms of the UN Convention Against Torture, which Britain signed, it was the British government's duty to arrest him and put him on trial.

Thought his name was 'Karl' Rove?

scotsboy
13-Mar-10, 15:53
Then one can only assume they are lying to us. Talking of liars I see that Carl Rove has been in the UK and talking on BBC television trying to justify the unjustifiable by lying about how many lives they saved. Under the terms of the UN Convention Against Torture, which Britain signed, it was the British government's duty to arrest him and put him on trial.

We can assume what we like, and what they tell us is neither here nor there.

Anfield
13-Mar-10, 16:01
Thought his name was 'Karl' Rove?

Exactly, the problem with "Intelligence" is thatthey pick up on small things to suit their arguments, but miss out on the important bits i.e. truth..

Just to remind us all, can you tell us, How many weapons of Mass destruction did "Intelligence" say was in Iraq, and secondly, how many were actually found.

Just numbers please, with no waffle

scotsboy
13-Mar-10, 16:07
Exactly, the problem with "Intelligence" is thatthey pick up on small things to suit their arguments, but miss out on the important bits i.e. truth..

Just to remind us all, can you tell us, How many weapons of Mass destruction did "Intelligence" say was in Iraq, and secondly, how many were actually found.

Just numbers please, with no waffle

Good point Anfield, I can't remember any numbers being quoted..................and they found none..............intelligence;)

bekisman
13-Mar-10, 16:55
Exactly, the problem with "Intelligence" is thatthey pick up on small things to suit their arguments, but miss out on the important bits i.e. truth..

Just to remind us all, can you tell us, How many weapons of Mass destruction did "Intelligence" say was in Iraq, and secondly, how many were actually found.

Just numbers please, with no waffle

Well I thought he was called 'Karl'.

Anfield
13-Mar-10, 19:02
Well I thought he was called 'Karl'.

"Well Mr Bush and Mr Blair, I thought they looked like Weapons of Mass Destruction"

http://www.postmanpatshop.com/*/Toys/The-SDS-sorting-Office-Mini-Playset-With-Figure/1063X01CK000

The United Nations' former chief weapons inspector in Iraq told the official inquiry into the war that he had cautioned Tony Blair the month before the 2003 invasion about the possibility that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be found.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7051059/Hans-Blix-warned-Tony-Blair-Iraq-might-not-have-WMD.html

fred
13-Mar-10, 19:25
Good point Anfield, I can't remember any numbers being quoted..................and they found none..............intelligence;)

I remember the number 45 being bandied about a lot, 45 minutes to them being used against us. That sort of gave the impression that if they had details such as that they couldn't possibly be wrong about their existence.

These are a different sort of lie, people have always told lies occasionally even governments when they thought they couldn't be found out, it used to be considered ethically wrong to lie. Today with the use of falsehoods and the media they set out to deliberately create a false reality, like the use of a TV series to change peoples perception of torture. It doesn't matter if the lie is obvious the masses can be made to believe it, repeat it often enough it becomes true. It doesn't matter if you are caught out, no one is going to do anything about it. This is a new form of politics based on the rulers creating the reality the masses live in, it is no longer a sin to lie it has become a virtue.

scotsboy
13-Mar-10, 19:40
I remember the number 45 being bandied about a lot, 45 minutes to them being used against us. That sort of gave the impression that if they had details such as that they couldn't possibly be wrong about their existence.

These are a different sort of lie, people have always told lies occasionally even governments when they thought they couldn't be found out, it used to be considered ethically wrong to lie. Today with the use of falsehoods and the media they set out to deliberately create a false reality, like the use of a TV series to change peoples perception of torture. It doesn't matter if the lie is obvious the masses can be made to believe it, repeat it often enough it becomes true. It doesn't matter if you are caught out, no one is going to do anything about it. This is a new form of politics based on the rulers creating the reality the masses live in, it is no longer a sin to lie it has become a virtue.

Not sure I agree Fred. I think politicians/rulers/those in control have always lied, it is just more difficult to get away with it now.

bekisman
13-Mar-10, 20:00
"Well Mr Bush and Mr Blair, I thought they looked like Weapons of Mass Destruction"

http://www.postmanpatshop.com/*/Toys/The-SDS-sorting-Office-Mini-Playset-With-Figure/1063X01CK000

The United Nations' former chief weapons inspector in Iraq told the official inquiry into the war that he had cautioned Tony Blair the month before the 2003 invasion about the possibility that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be found.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7051059/Hans-Blix-warned-Tony-Blair-Iraq-might-not-have-WMD.html

Postman Pat what are you on about? maybe he got lost with his letter, it's a right nuisance going up Warrington Road and down to Cross Lane, much better via Steley Way.. anyway, straight answer to the thread question is 'No'.

fred
13-Mar-10, 20:09
Not sure I agree Fred. I think politicians/rulers/those in control have always lied, it is just more difficult to get away with it now.

No it's far easier to get away with it now, harder to do without found out but easier to get away with. For what a politician would once have been thrown out in disgrace for now they are rewarded. Justice Department officials who prostituted themselves and lied about the legality of torture are still in top well paid jobs. Goldsmith who lied about the legality of war, Blair who lied about just about everything lands Middle East Peace Envoy job. They are not only getting away with it they are being rewarded for it.

Phill
13-Mar-10, 21:33
They are not only getting away with it they are being rewarded for it.


It's jobs for the boys, unfortunately the masses (us) are not in the right club of this set of boys.

Are we confusing political BS with Intel here.

fred
13-Mar-10, 21:51
It's jobs for the boys, unfortunately the masses (us) are not in the right club of this set of boys.

Are we confusing political BS with Intel here.

When we aren't living in a reality based world what is the difference? No need for the intelligence services to get facts when reality is created. You go along with the lie and you are rewarded or you try and make the public aware of what is happening and end up like David Kelly.

ducati
13-Mar-10, 21:54
When we aren't living in a reality based world what is the difference? No need for the intelligence services to get facts when reality is created. You go along with the lie and you are rewarded or you try and make the public aware of what is happening and end up like David Kelly.

Nothing wrong with my reality-speak for yourself

fred
13-Mar-10, 22:20
Nothing wrong with my reality-speak for yourself

So how come when I start a thread about torture people come out with the plot from a fictional television program while ignoring the reality.


No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 2 UN Convention Against Torture



"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

--Bush White House aide explaining the New Reality

sandyr1
14-Mar-10, 00:38
Do any of Heads of Departments know what their departments are doing:
Those that can do,

Those that can't, become Heads of Departments or Department Managers


Of course not! These systems are so big and the Politicians are what they are...talking heads!

sandyr1
14-Mar-10, 01:02
Interesting story......Intel info

In the late 60's the FLQ in Canada....(Quebec) were on a rampage and later killed a business man and took a Brit Trade Commissioner named James Cross hostage.
So it came to pass that 'Intelligence' showed that there was to be a secret meeting at a barn in a community. As the Gov't didn't want the meeting to take place they ordered the RCMP to stop the meeting......easier said than done...So many avenues were considered....but there was nothing that was obvious for the situation...until one smart Mountie thought..I have the answer...
Yes, he burned the barn down!!
30 years later this dark secret was found out....just
how the thingy works..........

Anfield
14-Mar-10, 01:15
There are an awful lot of burnt out buildings in N/Ireland and they were not burnt down by Irishmen

ducati
14-Mar-10, 05:20
So how come when I start a thread about torture people come out with the plot from a fictional television program while ignoring the reality.

Eh? Postman Pat? :confused

scotsboy
14-Mar-10, 12:10
No it's far easier to get away with it now, harder to do without found out but easier to get away with. For what a politician would once have been thrown out in disgrace for now they are rewarded. Justice Department officials who prostituted themselves and lied about the legality of torture are still in top well paid jobs. Goldsmith who lied about the legality of war, Blair who lied about just about everything lands Middle East Peace Envoy job. They are not only getting away with it they are being rewarded for it.

Would tend to agree with that Fred. Not sure if it is reported much in the UK, but Blair does get a hard time in the Middle East media about his current "role", which seemed to revolve around securing market outlets for Tesco in te region.............until Tesco baulked at how much "commission" he wanted.

John Little
15-Mar-10, 19:55
Hello - I'm back and catching up.

Fred - I get the idea that you are very young and idealistic.
This confirms me in this thought;
"...it used to be considered ethically wrong to lie"

By whom? And in what age? Tell me and I will furnish you with examples to the contrary.

Lies and dissembling dominate our history; show me an age when they did not.

Even our form of democracy is Plato's noble lie.

I saved the editorial page from last Saturday's Guardian because I though a phrase or two in it were relevant.

"Politics is ultimately about interests. Morals and highfalutin principles have their place, but a more reliable truth is that government and countries usually act in their own self-interest..."

IMHo that is true - always has been and always will be - so one has to apply the philosophical razor to one's understanding of the world.

I tell you as a truth that there are many things about this world that I would change. But I cannot for I have not the power. Even if I were President of the US. There are discourse groups, mind-sets and interests against which I am utterly and completely powerless. Even if I were to die on a barricade shouting 'Vive la revolucion', I would not shift a single moiety of nastiness from the world.

So what I cannot change I must accept and live with it. Within the limits of what I do I try to live a decent life, generally do good; I do not torture and I do not lie on the whole - depending on what those are classified as.

I am not my brother's keeper. But there is good I can do; and that is what I do in my own small way..

Utopia may come one day - who knows - but it will come if and when it is ready. I does not come merely because we say things should be in a particular way. Will naivity change the world? Will bits of paper do it?

No - the world changes as mentalities change - a long drawn out process with so many variables to boggle the imagination. The real change you want is in the mind.

fred
15-Mar-10, 20:32
Hello - I'm back and catching up.

Fred - I get the idea that you are very young and idealistic.
This confirms me in this thought;
"...it used to be considered ethically wrong to lie"

By whom? And in what age? Tell me and I will furnish you with examples to the contrary.


I'm old enough to have seen the changes over the last decade. Not long ago an American president left office in disgrace, not because he had an affair, because he lied. He wasn't the first.



Lies and dissembling dominate our history; show me an age when they did not.

Even our form of democracy is Plato's noble lie.

It didn't used to be, Neocon philosophy though is based very much on Plato.



I saved the editorial page from last Saturday's Guardian because I though a phrase or two in it were relevant.

"Politics is ultimately about interests. Morals and highfalutin principles have their place, but a more reliable truth is that government and countries usually act in their own self-interest..."

I think it's been accepted for a long time that torture is not in the self interests of the people of a country, that is why most countries have signed conventions against it. But then there are many things going on which are not in the interests of the people, two illegal wars to start with, two illegal wars based on downright bare faced lies. Fought by British servicemen for the benefit of foreign corporations. There is a big difference between governments not revealing the truth to the people for their own benefit and a government telling bare faced lies for the benefit of a small number of very wealthy people.

I don't like invoking Godwin but your philosophy smacks very much of that of Nazi Germany, nothing wrong with genocide, that's just realpolitik, nothing wrong with telling lies, the people are too stupid to be told the truth.



No - the world changes as mentalities change - a long drawn out process with so many variables to boggle the imagination. The real change you want is in the mind.

Too right it is, I'm out to alter minds, get them back based on reality. The internet is a wonderful tool, a revolution in man's development, let's make it a tool for good, use it to tell the truth.

John Little
15-Mar-10, 21:37
It's clear that you have a taste for hyperbole.
Genocide indeed. There are lines which even I draw.

But it ain't just neo-cons who draw on Plato. There is not a single functioning Democracy on the face of the earth. And there never was.

You've seen the lies. Now see the hypocrisy on which the world runs as cars do on petrol. You may rage against the machine all you like but you will not change it.

You say that torture is not in the intererests of the people perpetrating it. Francis Walsingham may have differed in his view of that and so might Chideok Tichborn. What they say Fred, and what they do are not the same

They talk the democratic walk, they talk the human rights talk - but they don't mean it. They don't keep to it; they never have and they never will.

The illegal wars should tell you that.
They are not new either, whether over Opium, or bits of France, or gold in the veld.

My position draws not so much from Nazi Germany - which is you giving rein to a shibboleth- but to William of Ockham. We have two views of the world here. Mine is simpler than yours for you wish to change everything whereas I know I cannot. I therefore prefer to study mine in depth, not yours. But you, by all means, may carry on banging your head against the wall of the world's indifference- until you get fed up with it and realise the truth. Then you will start to change what you can and not what you wish you could. Or simply get old and bitter.

I do assure you that the former is preferable.

BTW - when did it not used to be?? The whole of history runs on mendacity. Don't you know that?

fred
15-Mar-10, 22:38
It's clear that you have a taste for hyperbole.
Genocide indeed. There are lines which even I draw.

But it ain't just neo-cons who draw on Plato. There is not a single functioning Democracy on the face of the earth. And there never was.

You've seen the lies. Now see the hypocrisy on which the world runs as cars do on petrol. You may rage against the machine all you like but you will not change it.

You say that torture is not in the intererests of the people perpetrating it. Francis Walsingham may have differed in his view of that and so might Chideok Tichborn. What they say Fred, and what they do are not the same

They talk the democratic walk, they talk the human rights talk - but they don't mean it. They don't keep to it; they never have and they never will.

The illegal wars should tell you that.
They are not new either, whether over Opium, or bits of France, or gold in the veld.

My position draws not so much from Nazi Germany - which is you giving rein to a shibboleth- but to William of Ockham. We have two views of the world here. Mine is simpler than yours for you wish to change everything whereas I know I cannot. I therefore prefer to study mine in depth, not yours. But you, by all means, may carry on banging your head against the wall of the world's indifference- until you get fed up with it and realise the truth. Then you will start to change what you can and not what you wish you could. Or simply get old and bitter.

I do assure you that the former is preferable.

BTW - when did it not used to be?? The whole of history runs on mendacity. Don't you know that?


Well no. The world depends on honesty, civilisation depends on honesty. If you buy a car from someone you trust them to give you the car as they said they would once you have given them the money, if there were no trust there would be no commerce. Without truth there could be no laws, if it were accepted that everyone who signed an agreement would break it there would be no point in having agreements.

Every civilisation believes in right and wrong, good and evil. It's generally accepted that honesty is good and right, dishonesty is wrong and evil.

There will be bad people who abuse the trust which is necessary for civilisation to exist, always have been and always will be but we must always see them for what they are. To say that because it has always happened it makes it right is as ludicrous as is saying it should be accepted because it is inevitable. Rape has always happened murder has always happened but that doesn't make them right and it is no reason to say "oh well, we can't do anything about it might as well accept it".

Torture is evil, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.

Tubthumper
15-Mar-10, 22:42
... I'm out to alter minds, get them back based on reality. The internet is a wonderful tool, a revolution in man's development, let's make it a tool for good, use it to tell the truth.
Whose reality, yours? And what truth, that which is actually true in the sense of 'Realis Happenandium' (or really having happened) or 'realis Inmamindium' or that which is suggested in the sensational electronic fantasyland that is the web-dweller's domain?

Anfield
15-Mar-10, 23:14
Whose reality, yours? And what truth, that which is actually true in the sense of 'Realis Happenandium' (or really having happened) or 'realis Inmamindium' or that which is suggested in the sensational electronic fantasyland that is the web-dweller's domain?

In this instance, the UK government has admitted that people were tortured by the Americans. Proof enough for me

Stavro
15-Mar-10, 23:15
I don't know about British Intelligence being stupid, but I know that some people are definitely stupid -

Talking of US soldiers, maimed or able-bodied, thinking that Uncle Sam was going to take care of them, President Obama said -

"Look, it's an all volunteer force. Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It doesn't compute. I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country. I wasn't asking for blood, just money ... With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."

John Little
15-Mar-10, 23:21
"To say that because it has always happened it makes it right"

Nobody has said this.

"civilisation depends on honesty" No - it depends on co-operation, which is done for multifarious reasons, many selfish - read some Bentham or Mill.

"If you buy a car from someone you trust them". You may - I do not necessarily do so.

"Without truth there could be no laws" Non sequitur. Law has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with power to impose. And what exactly is truth?

"if it were accepted that everyone who signed an agreement would break it there would be no point in having agreements."

But that's international politics - more agreements are broken than kept. I may not approve but that's the way things are.

"It's generally accepted that honesty is good and right, dishonesty is wrong and evil." Sometimes it is politic, even moral not to be honest. And saying these things does not mean you practice them.

Your world view appears very black and white - there are shades of grey and even colours.

"There will be bad people who abuse the trust which is necessary for civilisation to exist, always have been and always will be but we must always see them for what they are."

Yes - and they rise to power because they want it. We see them for what they are and hope they are batting for our side.

"oh well, we can't do anything about it might as well accept it".

You have an alternative? Pray elucidate - but no hyperbole please; concrete proposals.

"Torture is evil, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it"

Agreed. But I do not deal in moral absolutes. I recognise necessity. And reality.

You have an aversion to reality.

fred
15-Mar-10, 23:36
"Torture is evil, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it"

Agreed. But I do not deal in moral absolutes. I recognise necessity. And reality.

You have an aversion to reality.

The reality is that torture is not necessary. We can get along just fine without it. The reality is that if we break out treaties on torture then the contract is null and void, any British person captured by a foreign power can be tortured. I remember when Britain was proud of their treatment of prisoners in WWII, how everyone said the Japanese were evil for the way they treated their prisoners, how the Germans were evil for the way they treated the Jews.

But now, it seems, all they have to do is say it was necessary and that makes it all right.

Tubthumper
15-Mar-10, 23:39
Some of the Country's brightest and best go into the intelligence business. They're not well paid in the greater scheme of things. They do their best in circumstances that are incredibly mundane and mind-numbing, terrifying and possible terminal, operating either at the forefront of technology or with ancient disfunctional equipment. And often they do it out of pride, duty or even just sheer bloody-mindedness. Against a backdrop where their country doesn't acknowledge their existence, criticises their every move, hamstrings them from acting against people who wish to do horrible things to their countrymen, demands progress and advantage for themselves, while robbing their countrment blind or avoiding paying taxes.

Why do you people bay for the blood of those who would murder your children, yet bay for the heads of those who would torture to find those who would murder your children before they get the chance?

fred
15-Mar-10, 23:56
Some of the Country's brightest and best go into the intelligence business. They're not well paid in the greater scheme of things. They do their best in circumstances that are incredibly mundane and mind-numbing, terrifying and possible terminal, operating either at the forefront of technology or with ancient disfunctional equipment. And often they do it out of pride, duty or even just sheer bloody-mindedness. Against a backdrop where their country doesn't acknowledge their existence, criticises their every move, hamstrings them from acting against people who wish to do horrible things to their countrymen, demands progress and advantage for themselves, while robbing their countrment blind or avoiding paying taxes.

Why do you people bay for the blood of those who would murder your children, yet bay for the heads of those who would torture to find those who would murder your children before they get the chance?

But I know of at least one case where someone was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, dowsed in cold water, subjected to mock execution, a pistol placed to his head and the trigger pulled, suspended by his arms and it turned out he was completely innocent.

How on earth can you justify barbaric treatment like that, how can the ends possibly justify the means?

Tubthumper
16-Mar-10, 00:02
But I know of at least one case where someone was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, dowsed in cold water, subjected to mock execution, a pistol placed to his head and the trigger pulled, suspended by his arms and it turned out he was completely innocent. How on earth can you justify barbaric treatment like that, how can the ends possibly justify the means?
If it meant my daughter wasn't blown to bits, I'd turn on the tap. And so would you.

fred
16-Mar-10, 00:11
If it meant my daughter wasn't blown to bits, I'd turn on the tap. And so would you.

When you see what you just justified you'll wish you hadn't stopped ignoring me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B0U320100312

Tubthumper
16-Mar-10, 00:14
When you see what you just justified you'll wish you hadn't stopped ignoring me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B0U320100312
I'm not going to look. Why should I? I've seen some gory stuff, I've done my bit. I'm actually quite happy living in this country, for all its faults.
You have once again avoided the question, you chancer.
I'm becoming more and more impressed with your trollicity, it beggars belief that you've got away with it this long, you old rogue!
Respect!!:)

fred
16-Mar-10, 00:28
I'm not going to look. Why should I? I've seen some gory stuff, I've done my bit. I'm actually quite happy living in this country, for all its faults.
You have once again avoided the question, you chancer.
I'm becoming more and more impressed with your trollicity, it beggars belief that you've got away with it this long, you old rogue!
Respect!!:)

If you refuse to look at the evidence then there is little point in discussing it.

If it meant your daughter wasn't blown to bits you would subject another human being to the horrors of hell.

If it meant your daughter wasn't abused by a paedophile ring? What then?

Tubthumper
16-Mar-10, 00:36
If you refuse to look at the evidence then there is little point in discussing it.
Give me a clue then, is it a fluffy rabbit?

If it meant your daughter wasn't blown to bits you would subject another human being to the horrors of hell.
Er, yes. In the event that I was in a position to make a reasoned judgement, taking into account all information available to me in the circumstances, weighing up the potential harm (to everyone's daughters as well as my own) against the likely degree of force required to negate the threat (in my own estimation, again based on the situation on the ground) I would take action commensurate with (a) the means available to me and (b) within the bounds of 'minimum necessary force' as established by precedent. I would, of course, be aware of the fact that the case would be tried in the UK under common law, not contract law.

If it meant your daughter wasn't abused by a paedophile ring? What then? See above.

sandyr1
16-Mar-10, 02:12
Gosh your here also Tubs...Poor Fred!

John Little
16-Mar-10, 12:29
I went to bed.

"But now, it seems, all they have to do is say it was necessary and that makes it all right. "

This does not follow.

Something may be necessary.

But it may not be all right.

Soldiers kill.

But killing is not all right.

Yet it may be necessary.

I've said my piece; I have nothing more to contribute here I think; it's good to exchange ideas, but where positions are clear I think we must simply agree to differ.

See you on another matter.

Boozeburglar
16-Mar-10, 12:53
If you refuse to look at the evidence then there is little point in discussing it.

If it meant your daughter wasn't blown to bits you would subject another human being to the horrors of hell.

If it meant your daughter wasn't abused by a paedophile ring? What then?

Is their no limit to how low you will go in your cynical use of emotive analogy?

fred
16-Mar-10, 18:44
Is their no limit to how low you will go in your cynical use of emotive analogy?

When I get so low I have to resort to deliberately disrupting threads to make sensible debate impossible I'll start worrying.

When I get so low I have to start threads to slag other users off because I don't have any facts to argue against them I'll start worrying.

When I get so low as to be defending torturers and paedophiles I'll start worrying.

Torturers paedophiles and the org bullies...what a combination.

baggins
16-Mar-10, 18:49
Perhaps denial to knowledge of such things rids the the guilt out of the mind.:confused

Tubthumper
16-Mar-10, 19:25
When I get so low I have to resort to deliberately disrupting threads to make sensible debate impossible I'll start worrying.
When I get so low I have to start threads to slag other users off because I don't have any facts to argue against them I'll start worrying.
When I get so low as to be defending torturers and paedophiles I'll start worrying.
Torturers paedophiles and the org bullies...what a combination.
Fred, face up to your failure. You ran away crying because people wouldn't agree with your twisted and warped view of the world. You locked the thread without ever posting any evidence that the allegations you support were true. You cried 'bullies' because you were losing the argument. It's all a conspiracy, yet again. And you never ever consider the fact that the accused might be innocent.
You are a chancer and a fraud. A charlatan. A big baby. And now you've had a chance to mull it over and you're now lumping torturers, paedophiles and the 'org bullies' together? You're a very sad man.
Please post links to evidence in the Hollie Greig case Fred. Let the people see how you're right Fred. Show them how the conspiracy gathers pace, and how we masons are victimising you!
Edit: You could also get the thread about your failure withdrawn, that way your embarassment stays hidden.

fred
16-Mar-10, 21:24
Fred, face up to your failure. You ran away crying because people wouldn't agree with your twisted and warped view of the world. You locked the thread without ever posting any evidence that the allegations you support were true. You cried 'bullies' because you were losing the argument. It's all a conspiracy, yet again. And you never ever consider the fact that the accused might be innocent.
You are a chancer and a fraud. A charlatan. A big baby. And now you've had a chance to mull it over and you're now lumping torturers, paedophiles and the 'org bullies' together? You're a very sad man.
Please post links to evidence in the Hollie Greig case Fred. Let the people see how you're right Fred. Show them how the conspiracy gathers pace, and how we masons are victimising you!
Edit: You could also get the thread about your failure withdrawn, that way your embarassment stays hidden.

Well now as what you want to think at least I'm not a paedophile apologist.

Anfield
16-Mar-10, 21:45
The initial post on this threa was about "whether British Intelligence were stupid".

Another thread has brought up the Omagh bombings, and after reading the link below, from an accredited UK newspaper, people may also think that British Intelligence were in part, responsible for the Omagh bombing.


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/was-vital-intelligence-about-the-omagh-bomb-withheld-14723567.html

Phill
16-Mar-10, 23:15
Take a step back and consider what the intelligence services do, how they operate and where they operate. Also consider the "enemy" past and present and their modus operandi.
The system's not perfect but then it's not playing on level playing field either.

On the surface the Omagh issue revolves around intelligence, undercover operatives and surveillance ops. Similar issues were going on with the Manchester bombings and no doubt others.

Issues about Afghan & Iraqi operations and the methods employed in certain theatres and by our forces and others, the torture / rendition operations by the US aided by many other states.

The Taliban, IRA, Al Qa'ida, UDA etc, etc, etc. They all signed up to international conventions on war, human rights etc ?
Sometimes there is a need to fight fire with fire.

Some parts of these murky, grey, questionable legality, dirty and difficult operations are better left alone as so not to give the current "enemy" any more insight or help that assists their causes.
No it doesn't sit well in a "decent" society, whilst we sit in our armchairs by the fireside enjoying our cup of tea, or wee tipple. But maybe that is why the majority of us can do just that.

Now I am not saying it's right, proper or fair. I do consider the impact these types of things have had on innocent people but consider the impact that the opposing acts have and have had on civilian people.
And looking at things in hindsight, like NI, especially now the peace process is moving forward, is very easy compared with acting within live operations in a conflict a situation.
And yes, to a degree the truth should be known. But after x years and £millions is it going to bring back the dead?

Anfield
17-Mar-10, 00:09
Phil,
If I thought that the Intelligence Service had learnt anything from its mistakes, I could agree with some of the points you make.
However, you only have to look at some recent mistakes to realise that it has not learnt anything;

Weapons of Mass Destruction were never found in Iraq

How many innocent people have died when a house containing a "important Al-Qaeda/Taleban leader" have been bombed

Phill
17-Mar-10, 00:28
However, you only have to look at some recent mistakes to realise that it has not learnt anything;

Weapons of Mass Destruction were never found in Iraq

This is / was pure fiction via Bambi for him to justify his part of a deal with Dubya. Nothing to do with intelligence services.


How many innocent people have died when a house containing a "important Al-Qaeda/Taleban leader" have been bombedWhat are the exact details of these? Is this purely black and white or are we in the middle ground of the Taliban et al using civilians as defence, moving round constantly. Again operating in a live conflict with dynamic situations rapidly changing without the full facts of hindsight isn't going to be perfect.

Moira
17-Mar-10, 01:05
.....
Edit: You could also get the thread about your failure withdrawn, that way your embarassment stays hidden.

What exactly are you implying Tubthumper? Spit it out in easy to understand sentences please. :D

luskentyre
17-Mar-10, 01:14
When I get so low I have to resort to deliberately disrupting threads to make sensible debate impossible I'll start worrying.

When I get so low I have to start threads to slag other users off because I don't have any facts to argue against them I'll start worrying.

When I get so low as to be defending torturers and paedophiles I'll start worrying.

Torturers paedophiles and the org bullies...what a combination.

There's a grain of arrogance running through this post which I find worrying. It's almost like you refuse to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Instead you choose to lash out at other posters and even compare them to torturers and paedophiles.

With regard to the topic, I've long since discovered that it's possible to find "facts" to back up any argument. As a result we end up bickering about subjects where we may hold a similar viewpoint, but fuelled with different "facts".

At the end of the day I believe we're left with our personal opinions and values.

One thing I will say is that "the powers that be", will always know a helluva lot more than you, or I, so our viewpoints are often formed on a lack of information and speculation (and dare I say, paranoia). I'm not saying we should accept things without question, but I choose to have a bit of faith in people who are more informed than the general public will ever be (and often for good reasons).

golach
17-Mar-10, 01:20
What exactly are you implying Tubthumper? Spit it out in easy to understand sentences please. :D

Say it in Verse Tubs, I would love it :lol:

fred
17-Mar-10, 02:23
There's a grain of arrogance running through this post which I find worrying. It's almost like you refuse to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Instead you choose to lash out at other posters and even compare them to torturers and paedophiles.

Ah, so I'm arrogant as well now am I?



With regard to the topic, I've long since discovered that it's possible to find "facts" to back up any argument. As a result we end up bickering about subjects where we may hold a similar viewpoint, but fuelled with different "facts".

So how come they don't post any of their facts? How come all they post is personal abuse?



At the end of the day I believe we're left with our personal opinions and values.

Those who are allowed to air them without getting shouted down by the org bullies.



One thing I will say is that "the powers that be", will always know a helluva lot more than you, or I, so our viewpoints are often formed on a lack of information and speculation (and dare I say, paranoia). I'm not saying we should accept things without question, but I choose to have a bit of faith in people who are more informed than the general public will ever be (and often for good reasons).

The powers that be said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I said there was none.

Who was better informed?

Tubthumper
17-Mar-10, 13:30
Well now as what you want to think at least I'm not a paedophile apologist.
This will be the Fred that claims he's persecuted, and bemaons the fact that people call him names? So what are you calling me? Where have i ever apologised for paedophillia?
All my posts have been in support of the rule of law in out country, in that hysterical witch-hunts with absolutely no basis in fact, whether conducted in person, on the internet or in a newspaper are illegal and against the principles that govern us namely 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'having the right to defend oneself'.
You, on your self-appointed crusade against 'them', 'the establishment', 'the power that be'' are totally wrong. And when anyone teries to point that out, you accuse them of being a paedophile apologist or supporter of torture. You seek only attention for your paranoid conspiracy ravings.
I state again, sir, you are a chancer, a troll, a charlatan, and now a hypocrite.

Tubthumper
17-Mar-10, 13:40
Say it in Verse Tubs, I would love it :lol:
Moira, Golach - Part of Fred's hysteria comes from the thread I started the other night, after he spat the dummy and closed his thread. There was a poem 9or rather a song). Unfortunately as Fred or one of his acolytes considered it nasty, it was withdrawn.
Basically, throughout the evening I called on Fred to present evidence or facts to reinforce the Hollie Greig case. His source is two dodgy web 'news' sites and a report in the P&J that quoted Hollie's mother's 'claims & allegations'.
It becomes apparent that under all the hysteria and bluster and viral demands, the allegations about this nasty case all come from one place and there is nothing to back them. And when I asked Fred to back them up, he went all paranoid and abusive on me, like he usually does. So I kept demanding evidence and finally he claimed he was being bullied and closed his thread.
No poems Gollach - Fred thinks they're victimisation:lol:

Anfield
17-Mar-10, 13:41
This is / was pure fiction via Bambi for him to justify his part of a deal with Dubya. Nothing to do with intelligence services.

What are the exact details of these? Is this purely black and white or are we in the middle ground of the Taliban et al using civilians as defence, moving round constantly. Again operating in a live conflict with dynamic situations rapidly changing without the full facts of hindsight isn't going to be perfect.

So we went into an illegal war with no Intelligence

That's jolly rotten is it not, Taleban people moving around like that, it is not the British thing to do.

As the insurgents resistance shows no sign of decreasing surely it means that their leaders have not been killed, and that what we are witnessing is the indiscrimanate slaughter of Afghanistanis in the hope that they may kill a resistance fighter

northener
17-Mar-10, 13:44
Phil,
If I thought that the Intelligence Service had learnt anything from its mistakes, I could agree with some of the points you make.
However, you only have to look at some recent mistakes to realise that it has not learnt anything;

......

Anfield, that is an over simplistic generlisation that really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Anyone who has any dealings with the Military - or Civilian Law agencies -when it comes to Surveillance and Intelligence gathering will tell you that what the public gets to know about is ony a tiny, tiny fraction of what is going on at any moment in time.

Invariably, the only time anything is heard in the media is when there's been a cock-up or when there's the need to make capital out of a success in the interest of the State. Everything else is dealt with quietly and without fuss.

A good example is the SAS, most people in Britain had never heard of this lot (or the SBS) prior to the Iranian Embassy bunfight. But they'd been very active in many areas for donkeys years by that time whilst the Great Unwashed remained largely oblivious to their existance. Post Iranian Embassy, they couldn't get out of the limelight...and they don't like that.

To quote a famous line out of a film regarding the Publics' ignorance of what operations and surveillance are taking place at any one time..."You can't handle the truth!"*:Razz




* I don't mean you personally, Anfield.

Phill
17-Mar-10, 14:22
So we went into an illegal war with no Intelligence
I believe we went into an illegal war with misinformation based on political string pulling. I wouldn't be putting the blame on James Bond & co here.



That's jolly rotten is it not, Taleban people moving around like that, it is not the British thing to do.
....... what we are witnessing is the indiscrimanate slaughter of Afghanistanis in the hope that they may kill a resistance fighterNo it's just not cricket is it!

And no, it's not indiscriminate slaughter of innocents in the hope of nobbling a few bad guys.
There will be cockups but I do not believe any Western or regular NATO/UN military force operates like that.

fred
17-Mar-10, 15:46
And no, it's not indiscriminate slaughter of innocents in the hope of nobbling a few bad guys.
There will be cockups but I do not believe any Western or regular NATO/UN military force operates like that.

But the British and American governments denied Iraq replacement parts and chemicals for their water treatment plants in their sanctions knowing full well that the resulting epidemics would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It is documented, government advisers warned of the consequences and they went ahead anyway and caused the deaths of over half a million children.

That wasn't a cockup and it demonstrates perfectly the total lack of regard our government has for civilian lives.

golach
17-Mar-10, 15:59
The invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops that began 2 August 1990 was met with international condemnation, and brought immediate economic sanctions against Iraq by members of the UN Security Council, not just by Britain and the United States, facts fred, stick to the facts.

Stavro
17-Mar-10, 16:35
There was a poem 9or rather a song). Unfortunately as Fred or one of his acolytes considered it nasty, it was withdrawn.

It would require more than what you claim to have considered it "nasty," Tub. I notice that it has not even entered your head to consider that it was you who were being a lot more than "nasty," starting a thread for no purpose other than ridiculing a member. Such a thread could be started about yourself very easily, but no one else would stoop that low.



Basically, throughout the evening I called on Fred to present evidence or facts to reinforce the Hollie Greig case. His source is two dodgy web 'news' sites and a report in the P&J that quoted Hollie's mother's 'claims & allegations'.

Anyone who is remotely interested in the Hollie Greig case can read the thread posts for themselves, can they not? And when they do, they will see a different reality to what you are trying to paint here.


It is never you yourself that is the problem, Tub, but always someone else.

scotsboy
17-Mar-10, 16:57
A bit........well more than a bit off thread.......but in all of this stuff re the child abuse case, all people are asking for is facts, and there appear to be little to support the claims, or the credibility of Robet Green the "ädviser". It is not the "facts" and "claims" that have been made public that tell the story, more the information that has not been made public. This is a good blog on the issue:

http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/robert-green/

Tubthumper
17-Mar-10, 18:17
It would require more than what you claim to have considered it "nasty," Tub. I notice that it has not even entered your head to consider that it was you who were being a lot more than "nasty," starting a thread for no purpose other than ridiculing a member. Such a thread could be started about yourself very easily, but no one else would stoop that low.
So someone calling me a paedophile sympathiser and torture supporter isn't as low as me accusing someone of being a chancer?? Wow!

Anyone who is remotely interested in the Hollie Greig case can read the thread posts for themselves, can they not? And when they do, they will see a different reality to what you are trying to paint here.
That reality being a series of allegations with no verifiable basis, and no evidence presented. As I've continually pointed out and as Fred always seems to manage to disregard, as it doesn't fit his version of reality.

It is never you yourself that is the problem, Tub, but always someone else.
Aye, right enough. :confused

rich
17-Mar-10, 20:08
Scotsboy, thanks for the blog. The introductory post is excellent. Sutrely it is now time to retire Fred's thread. In the name of decency Fred, give it up!

northener
17-Mar-10, 20:10
A bit........well more than a bit off thread.......but in all of this stuff re the child abuse case, all people are asking for is facts, and there appear to be little to support the claims, or the credibility of Robet Green the "ädviser". It is not the "facts" and "claims" that have been made public that tell the story, more the information that has not been made public. This is a good blog on the issue:

http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/robert-green/



Succinctly covers what I believe in a manner that I can only aspire to.

fred
17-Mar-10, 23:33
Scotsboy, thanks for the blog. The introductory post is excellent. Sutrely it is now time to retire Fred's thread. In the name of decency Fred, give it up!

Why would I retire a thread about British Intelligence and torture just because scotsboy posts a link which provides no evidence, just character assassination of the victims and those trying to help them in the Hollie Grieg case?

Why are you so desperate for the facts of the case not to be discussed here anyway? Why do you want everyone to just accept scotsboy's link as gospel and not discuss any of the things it missed out? Why don't you want anyone to put the other side of the argument?

Scotsboy's link just presented one person's opinion, a very biassed opinion based entirely on supposition, why would you want to suppress all other opinions?

Phill
17-Mar-10, 23:37
So where are we upto on Brit Intel and torture then?

The boss lady said she didn't know, so she didn't know. What's the issue?

Yoda the flump
17-Mar-10, 23:46
Torture, hmm - interesting reading

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8571929.stm

So, taking the high moral ground if fine but if you were in this situation could you really say how you would react?

Stavro
17-Mar-10, 23:49
"You can't handle the truth!"


But we are handling the truth, northener.

Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction" and were not any form of threat to these Isles. That is a fact. Even British Intelligence were saying that.

Afghanistan was no threat to these Isles.

Iran is no threat to these Isles.

The SAS has suffered enormous losses in Afghanistan (over 50% of the force).

We are bringing this stuff out, but some people seem to want to keep the masses ignorant of what is happening in the world, reducing the debate to mindless name-calling and point-scoring in the process. (No, I am not referring to you here.)

Phill
17-Mar-10, 23:56
The SAS has suffered enormous losses in Afghanistan (over 50% of the force).


Where's that gem come from?

Couple of Bloody big regiments for 50% percent to go unnoticed, was it just SAS or other SF too?

Stavro
18-Mar-10, 00:00
Where's that gem come from?

Couple of Bloody big regiments for 50% percent to go unnoticed, was it just SAS or other SF too?

Unnoticed by who?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7052605.ece

golach
18-Mar-10, 00:02
Unnoticed by who?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7052605.ece


When did one sixth become 50%!!!!!!!!!!!

fred
18-Mar-10, 00:04
Torture, hmm - interesting reading

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8571929.stm

So, taking the high moral ground if fine but if you were in this situation could you really say how you would react?

As your link says that is a revamp of an experiment conducted over 50 years ago. The original experiment was into how easy it was for the average person to be controlled and manipulated, made to do things they would never normally do, made to do things against their nature.

The results of the original experiment were very disturbing, it showed that a figure perceived to be a person of authority, white coat and clip board, could make people do just about anything whether they wanted to or not.

This experiment is just as disturbing, the media, it appears, has exactly the same power but more so.

Stavro
18-Mar-10, 00:08
When did one sixth become 50%!!!!!!!!!!!

17% then. My mistake. Read the 17% as referring to deaths, rather than the total unable to fight through either death or serious injury.

Phill
18-Mar-10, 00:11
Unnoticed by who?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7052605.ece


At best propaganda to try and lull the Taliban into a false sense of security, at worse a load of tosh.

golach
18-Mar-10, 00:13
17% then. My mistake. Read the 17% as referring to deaths, rather than the total unable to fight through either death or serious injury.

Well well Stavro makes mistakes!!!!!!! I thought you could walk on water, [lol]

bekisman
18-Mar-10, 00:13
The SAS has suffered enormous losses in Afghanistan (over 50% of the force).

50%?

'The death toll includes three from the SBS, one SAS officer, three SAS reservists, one member of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), and four members of the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG)'.

Stavro
18-Mar-10, 00:15
At best propaganda to try and lull the Taliban into a false sense of security, at worse a load of tosh.

Afghanis read The Times Online in their caves, do they?

Stavro
18-Mar-10, 00:16
Well well Stavro makes mistakes!!!!!!! I thought you could walk on water, [lol]

Nope. Don't let me detract you from answering the other issues in that particular post. You know, the ones you avoided.

Phill
18-Mar-10, 00:22
Afghanis read The Times Online in their caves, do they?

Absolutely old boy!

You know as well as I do that we are not dealing with a bunch of cave dwelling, thicko, uneducated sheep herders. As much as some like to perpetuate that myth.

Actual figures for these regiments (and their reserves and "affiliates") are not going to be easily obtainable by anyone.

Stavro
18-Mar-10, 00:25
Absolutely old boy!

You know as well as I do that we are not dealing with a bunch of cave dwelling, thicko, uneducated sheep herders. As much as some like to perpetuate that myth.


That must be why, after seven years, they are still looking for the caves that Rumsfeld told everyone were there.

Now I understand. :D

fred
18-Mar-10, 00:29
Well well Stavro makes mistakes!!!!!!! I thought you could walk on water, [lol]

They reckon the only people never make mistakes are the ones that never do anything.

Like the ones on internet forums who only ever post to insult other users, never actually add anything to the debate themselves.

golach
18-Mar-10, 00:31
They reckon the only people never make mistakes are the ones that never do anything.

Like the ones on internet forums who only ever post to insult other users, never actually add anything to the debate themselves.

Carry on fred, I am loving it [lol]

Phill
18-Mar-10, 00:53
That must be why, after seven years, they are still looking for the caves that Rumsfeld told everyone were there.

Now I understand. :D


Maybe!

Rumsfeld....hmmm:eek:

Aaldtimer
18-Mar-10, 04:13
17% then. My mistake. Read the 17% as referring to deaths, rather than the total unable to fight through either death or serious injury.


Nothing mentioned about only the death figures:-

"Serious injuries have left more than 70 unable to fight, while 12 have been killed. It means the forces have lost about a sixth of their full combat capacity"

Sorry Stav, your wriggling on a hook again![disgust]

RecQuery
18-Mar-10, 08:40
Perhaps its obfuscated stupidity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ObfuscatingStupidity) it could also just be a line, I mean government ministers and officials wouldn't even recognised MI5 or MI6 in the past when asked about them.

fred
18-Mar-10, 10:29
A bit........well more than a bit off thread.......but in all of this stuff re the child abuse case, all people are asking for is facts, and there appear to be little to support the claims, or the credibility of Robet Green the "ädviser". It is not the "facts" and "claims" that have been made public that tell the story, more the information that has not been made public. This is a good blog on the issue:

http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/robert-green/

I too have a link, from the BBC website this morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8573829.stm


As a priest in 1975 Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings where children signed vows of silence over complaints against paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth.

Smyth was eventually convicted of dozens of offences against children.

But despite allegations being previously investigated by church officials, including Cardinal Brady, it was almost 20 years before he was brought to justice.


I wonder if in 1975 people were questioning the credibility of the victims rather than examining the facts. I wonder how many children Brendan Smyth abused in those 20 years.

Boozeburglar
18-Mar-10, 12:51
We are bringing this stuff out, but some people seem to want to keep the masses ignorant of what is happening in the world, reducing the debate to mindless name-calling and point-scoring in the process. (No, I am not referring to you here.)

You are deluded if you think your tuppence on a small community message board makes any difference.

Why are you wasting so much time here? If you really wanted to get involved there are much better ways.

What exactly is it you are 'bringing out', except stories that are already all over the net?

Tubthumper
18-Mar-10, 13:18
You are deluded if you think your tuppence on a small community message board makes any difference. Why are you wasting so much time here? If you really wanted to get involved there are much better ways. What exactly is it you are 'bringing out', except stories that are already all over the net?
Have to watch what I say as I've been gagged - the org bullies complained about my postings!
What indeed BB? So many nuggets of information thrown to us here on this provincial forum. Is the intention of the 'conspiracy clique' to force debate and get all Caithness people to agree that we are subject to control at every turn, that the powers that be are doing things without our permission, that we are surrounded by cover-ups at every level?
But I can't say anything about that or someone will start ganging up on me...:eek:

Anfield
18-Mar-10, 16:38
Have to watch what I say as I've been gagged - the org bullies complained about my postings!

for "postings" try "bullying"


Is the intention of the 'conspiracy clique' to force debate and get all Caithness people to agree that we are subject to control at every turn, that the powers that be are doing things without our permission, that we are surrounded by cover-ups at every level?
But I can't say anything about that or someone will start ganging up on me...:eek:

No one is asking you to agree to anything. The role of a forum is an "online discussion site" (wiki)

A discussion is where two or more people can talk about, usually, the same topic.

And yes, the powers that be are doing things without our permission, like starting an illegal war in Iraq amongst others

Stavro
18-Mar-10, 16:41
... someone will start ganging up on me...:eek:

"Someone"? A gang of one isn't much of a gang. :)

ducati
18-Mar-10, 16:49
"Someone"? A gang of one isn't much of a gang. :)

Over the field telephone: "OK men surround them" - "What, both of us?" Attributed to an SAS NCO in Aden

sandyr1
18-Mar-10, 16:51
Have to watch what I say as I've been gagged - the org bullies complained about my postings!
What indeed BB? So many nuggets of information thrown to us here on this provincial forum. Is the intention of the 'conspiracy clique' to force debate and get all Caithness people to agree that we are subject to control at every turn, that the powers that be are doing things without our permission, that we are surrounded by cover-ups at every level?
But I can't say anything about that or someone will start ganging up on me...:eek:


FYI...I thought your posts et cetera, were rather intelligent.

And Fred.. Some of what you say I agree with, but there must be a Standard, a Benchmark for Criminal Charges and Convictions. Yes some do slip beneath/thru the system, and yes there are cover ups, but we are in a much better society when we don't 'shoot first and ask Questions later'!

Did you not know of this Famous English phrase...'Tis better that 100 Guilty men go free than one Innocent man be hanged'!

Something to think on! s

northener
18-Mar-10, 17:29
But we are handling the truth, northener.

Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction" and were not any form of threat to these Isles. That is a fact. Even British Intelligence were saying that.


I'd read the thread title again if i were you Stavro, You've just confirmed they're not stupid.....




Afghanistan was no threat to these Isles.


Iran is no threat to these Isles.



What have these statements got to to do with British Intelligence and whether they're stupid or not? Please explain.....




The SAS has suffered enormous losses in Afghanistan (over 50% of the force).


Stav - I'll ask you to produce your source for this groundbreaking revelation.




We are bringing this stuff out, but some people seem to want to keep the masses ignorant of what is happening in the world, reducing the debate to mindless name-calling and point-scoring in the process. (No, I am not referring to you here.)

Fair comment, fella.

Stavro
18-Mar-10, 19:56
I'd read the thread title again if i were you Stavro, You've just confirmed they're not stupid.....

The thread title is a question, not a statement. I have not called them stupid in terms of their abilities or otherwise, but they are used by politicians. They are expected to support the government with data and when they do not, then strange things happen (Dr Kelly) or the government just ignores them or twists their words around.

British Intelligence was saying that their were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In that respect, they were not stupid but correct. And they have been proved to be correct.



What have these statements got to to do with British Intelligence and whether they're stupid or not? Please explain.....

The association lies in the fact that British Intelligence were used (as in, manipulated), to further a political agenda arranged months or even years beforehand.



Stav - I'll ask you to produce your source for this groundbreaking revelation.

Now don't be lazy, northener; read the posts that you have skipped. :)

northener
18-Mar-10, 20:37
The thread title is a question, not a statement. I have not called them stupid in terms of their abilities or otherwise, but they are used by politicians. They are expected to support the government with data and when they do not, then strange things happen (Dr Kelly) or the government just ignores them or twists their words around.

British Intelligence was saying that their were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In that respect, they were not stupid but correct. And they have been proved to be correct.




The association lies in the fact that British Intelligence were used (as in, manipulated), to further a political agenda arranged months or even years beforehand.




Now don't be lazy, northener; read the posts that you have skipped. :)

Guilty as charged on the last one, M'Lud. :Razz

fred
18-Mar-10, 21:00
Did you not know of this Famous English phrase...'Tis better that 100 Guilty men go free than one Innocent man be hanged'!

Something to think on! s

But is it better that a hundred innocent children be abused than those reported of abuse be properly investigated and tried?

sandyr1
18-Mar-10, 21:07
But is it better that a hundred innocent children be abused than those reported of abuse be properly investigated and tried?

Yes Fred, but we cannot, and must never take the law into our own hands. We must let the system work, for right or for wrong/ for good or for bad.
Yes there are looholes but........................
If we did as some people say, then we would be as bad as those we loathe!

scotsboy
18-Mar-10, 21:17
But is it better that a hundred innocent children be abused than those reported of abuse be properly investigated and tried?

So would you use the same logic in the detention and treatment of those suspected of planning acts of terrorism?

fred
18-Mar-10, 21:17
Yes Fred, but we cannot, and must never take the law into our own hands. We must let the system work, for right or for wrong/ for good or for bad.
Yes there are looholes but........................
If we did as some people say, then we would be as bad as those we loathe!

I don't think proper investigation and trial is taking the law into our own hands.

If the police have taken the easy option in not bringing charges against people because they have power and influence then the public have a right to know. Raising public awareness is not taking the law into our own hands.

sandyr1
18-Mar-10, 21:35
Yes I understand what you are saying...I guess we have to trust our authorities!
I really don't think in Modern times that there are all the cover ups we hear off. I understand of what you talk, but I think there has been enough of a stink over these allegations that things would have happened.
Am an outsider looking in....best I can say....

Scotsboy...I think that extreme offences, e.g. Terrorism, can and will be treated differently, but one must adhere to the Laws of the Land...if not there would be chaos....The Authorities sometimes bend the law but to forget about it...well we are then worse than those people we are critical of.
I think all Countries have certain laws for emergency situations....

Tubthumper
18-Mar-10, 21:37
So would you use the same logic in the detention and treatment of those suspected of planning acts of terrorism?
Do I sense a contradiction somewhere?

fred
18-Mar-10, 22:05
So would you use the same logic in the detention and treatment of those suspected of planning acts of terrorism?

Well yes of course I would, obviously if there is evidence anyone is planning acts of terrorism it should be thoroughly investigated and they should be tried in a court of law.

Just as if there is actual evidence someone has been abusing children it should be thoroughly investigated and they should be tried in a court of law.

Anfield
20-Mar-10, 19:19
If you think our Intelligence is stupid, what about the Spanish?

Earlier on this week they released photos of five people, whom the Spanish said were ETA terrorists involved in the killing of a polieman in Paris.

Turns out that they were in fact Spanish firemen who were on a climbing holiday in France.

Good job for them that Assistant CommissionerCressida Dick was not on case.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Eta-Suspects-Shown-By-French-Police-On-CCTV-Footage-Are-Actually-Firemen-On-Holiday/Article/201003315577807?f=rss

scotsboy
22-Mar-10, 19:00
Somewhere in here I am sure the use of torture was discussed. I had an interswting chat with someone last night in Bahrain who was waxing lyrical about Scotland and their favourite Scotsman, who just happened to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Henderson_(police_officer)

He seemingly did a splendid job in Bahrain (sic)

Tubthumper
22-Mar-10, 21:25
I don't think proper investigation and trial is taking the law into our own hands.
And what about if proper investigation has taken place and no charges are to be brought because of lack of evidence or it becomes obvious that the allegations were fantasy? Must it still be taken to court to satisfy YOUR paranoid desires? And if there was a not guilty verdict, would you and your like be satisfied? No, you'd shout cover-up and keep on ranting. Like youse always do. And pay no attention to what is going on, like you always do.

If the police have taken the easy option in not bringing charges against people because they have power and influence then the public have a right to know.
See above. Just because you feel threatened by authority figures like the police, politicians, the army, the church, the social work department, the fire brigade, the masons, the local chip shop, the nursery class, a dog in the street... it doesn't mean that ordinary non-paranoid types like ourselves (you know, the gullible juvenile ones) should be persecuted.

Raising public awareness is not taking the law into our own hands.
Spreading (or assisting in the spread of) malicious lies IS taking the law into ones own hands. Mob rule

Phill
22-Mar-10, 22:58
The SAS has suffered enormous losses in Afghanistan (over 50% of the force).



I find it's interesting that part of our SF's are currently jollying around the Highlands lobbing themselves out of perfectly serviceable aircraft.

fred
23-Mar-10, 01:30
Somewhere in here I am sure the use of torture was discussed. I had an interswting chat with someone last night in Bahrain who was waxing lyrical about Scotland and their favourite Scotsman, who just happened to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Henderson_(police_officer)

He seemingly did a splendid job in Bahrain (sic)

While we are back on the subject of torture.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-military-intelligence-ran-renegade-torture-unit-in-iraq-1924784.html

scotsboy
23-Mar-10, 04:37
While we are back on the subject of torture.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-military-intelligence-ran-renegade-torture-unit-in-iraq-1924784.html


It is obviously a natural practice Fred, it occurrs in nature, so why should it be discriminated against?

fred
23-Mar-10, 11:00
It is obviously a natural practice Fred, it occurrs in nature, so why should it be discriminated against?

I don't seem to be able to follow your logic there, maybe you could explain it.

Tubthumper
23-Mar-10, 13:24
Fred, you haven't responded to my post #190 on this thread. Could you oblige please? If it's not too much trouble.

scotsboy
23-Mar-10, 15:05
I don't seem to be able to follow your logic there, maybe you could explain it.

I'm just being flippant Fred.........following on from the gay B&B thread.