Saturday, August 29, 2009
On the effectiveness of torture
Crossposted from Althouse's comments on this post:
Any libtard who blindly asserts that 'torture doesn't work' is a half-witted, naive little panty-waist talking out of his ass.
Torture works. It always has. The threat of torture works. It always has. Not in every single instance with every single suspect, but damn well enough and consistently enough.
Here's where the typical pony-tailed pinko tries to assert "yeah, it's effective at getting the victim to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear."
That's because the libtard shitbird is an amateur, and he read about torture committed by amateurs, and therefore, in his ignorance he cannot conceive that other people are professionals.
Torture is extremely effective at extracting confirmable information, where the victim cannot be certain that the information is not already known to the interrogator, and where the detaining power is sufficiently brutal - or is perceived to be sufficiently brutal - that the victim has a reason to believe that his lot will become substantially worse if he is caught in a lie.
This is not difficult to do where the detaining power is organized and disciplined about tracking information received and shares it among the interrogators, carefully keeping track of known and unknown, confirmed and unconfirmed information.
In some cases, less intense forms of interrogation are effective BECAUSE more brutal interrogations were performed on others, and the subject of the less intense interrogation has no idea whether the first guy broke or not - but must assume he has.
I keep seeing libtards argue crap they don't understand till they're blue in the face.
There are legitimate moral arguments why we should not practice torture - putting aside definitional problems. But every time some ignorant fool argues that it just isn't effective, he makes an utter clown of himself.
Any libtard who blindly asserts that 'torture doesn't work' is a half-witted, naive little panty-waist talking out of his ass.
Torture works. It always has. The threat of torture works. It always has. Not in every single instance with every single suspect, but damn well enough and consistently enough.
Here's where the typical pony-tailed pinko tries to assert "yeah, it's effective at getting the victim to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear."
That's because the libtard shitbird is an amateur, and he read about torture committed by amateurs, and therefore, in his ignorance he cannot conceive that other people are professionals.
Torture is extremely effective at extracting confirmable information, where the victim cannot be certain that the information is not already known to the interrogator, and where the detaining power is sufficiently brutal - or is perceived to be sufficiently brutal - that the victim has a reason to believe that his lot will become substantially worse if he is caught in a lie.
This is not difficult to do where the detaining power is organized and disciplined about tracking information received and shares it among the interrogators, carefully keeping track of known and unknown, confirmed and unconfirmed information.
In some cases, less intense forms of interrogation are effective BECAUSE more brutal interrogations were performed on others, and the subject of the less intense interrogation has no idea whether the first guy broke or not - but must assume he has.
I keep seeing libtards argue crap they don't understand till they're blue in the face.
There are legitimate moral arguments why we should not practice torture - putting aside definitional problems. But every time some ignorant fool argues that it just isn't effective, he makes an utter clown of himself.
Labels: detainees, ethics, The Left, War on Terror, Warfighting
Monday, June 01, 2009
The Killing of Tiller
A few quick thoughts about the killing of Tiller, the Kansas abortionist.
--Tiller himself was a childhood friend and neighbor to a professional acquaintance of mine. To draw things into perspective, this acquaintance of mine writes that, whatever anyone thinks about the man's profession, he was always a nice guy, and was a good father to his children.
--The shooting is an attack on and an affront to the rule of law.
--The libtards - drooling imbeciles to a man - are trying to frame the shooting as an act of terrorism. No. Any useful definition of the term terrorism requires the targeting of innocents in order to bring about a change in behavior. If Tiller's shooter were a terrorist, he would have targeted Tiller's family, friends, neighbors, people walking by the clinic, or whatever. Terrorism would have targeted anybody EXCEPT Tiller.
The fact that the killer targeted Tiller himself, and ONLY Tiller makes him not a terrorist, but an assassin.
-- The libtards are also framing the shooting as hypocritical. Again, they're wrong. If any individual who was not a strict Quaker-style pacifist were absolutely convinced that Tiller was a serial murderer of children, then NOT taking action to stop him would be a hypocritical act.
-- The libtards are also trying to hang the shooting on Bill O'Reilly. Yes, these bobble-headed ignoramuses who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Randi Rhodes made reference to assassinating President Bush, who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Matt Malloy referred to Vice President Dick Cheney as "A destroyer," "an eater of human flesh," when artist Richard Serra magazine portrayed an American President as a cannibal eating the head off of a child, all of a sudden these hypocritical bastards are fainting at O'Reilly's overheated rhetoric, when O'Reilly did nothing but accurately state what this cretin did for a living and said what he thought of it, without sugarcoating it.
--Tiller himself was a childhood friend and neighbor to a professional acquaintance of mine. To draw things into perspective, this acquaintance of mine writes that, whatever anyone thinks about the man's profession, he was always a nice guy, and was a good father to his children.
--The shooting is an attack on and an affront to the rule of law.
--The libtards - drooling imbeciles to a man - are trying to frame the shooting as an act of terrorism. No. Any useful definition of the term terrorism requires the targeting of innocents in order to bring about a change in behavior. If Tiller's shooter were a terrorist, he would have targeted Tiller's family, friends, neighbors, people walking by the clinic, or whatever. Terrorism would have targeted anybody EXCEPT Tiller.
The fact that the killer targeted Tiller himself, and ONLY Tiller makes him not a terrorist, but an assassin.
-- The libtards are also framing the shooting as hypocritical. Again, they're wrong. If any individual who was not a strict Quaker-style pacifist were absolutely convinced that Tiller was a serial murderer of children, then NOT taking action to stop him would be a hypocritical act.
-- The libtards are also trying to hang the shooting on Bill O'Reilly. Yes, these bobble-headed ignoramuses who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Randi Rhodes made reference to assassinating President Bush, who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Matt Malloy referred to Vice President Dick Cheney as "A destroyer," "an eater of human flesh," when artist Richard Serra magazine portrayed an American President as a cannibal eating the head off of a child, all of a sudden these hypocritical bastards are fainting at O'Reilly's overheated rhetoric, when O'Reilly did nothing but accurately state what this cretin did for a living and said what he thought of it, without sugarcoating it.
Labels: Abortion, Crime, ethics, Politics
