Thai PM: CIA’s interrogations in Thailand, an internal USA matter

[Thai at Heart]

Yeap, when it comes to foreign country operations in another country I expect it comes down to being able to use a embassy/consulate/mission status loophole in international law and the host country basically goes into the Three Monkeys state of mind.

Capture.JPG

Even if foreign missions have the status of sovereign non-Thai territory, the question remains how the detainees were transported to the mission (and whether they were initially apprehended on Thai soil). As far as I know, beam-me-up-Scotty transporters have not yet been developed, which means that US agents (or Thais) must have held individuals against their will on Thai soil without due process. This is the equivalent of kidnapping, even if the individuals' ultimate destination was not Thai territory. The loophole only opens so far....

Presumably they were teleported and the Thai authorities never even knew these people had entered Thailand at all.......right...

I mean not knowing would mean Thailand had subverted its sovereignty right....

[BritTim]

BritTim, your full of crap..

(Minor grammatical point: the contraction of you are is you're. Your is a possessive pronoun.)

On the "substance" of your post, I assure you I am quite regular with no symptoms of constipation.

If you want to express disagreement on the content of my post, you would do better by trying to point out where you believe it is incorrect rather than just using an infantile insult.

[Christie Paul]

This is of course rotten and disgraceful.

But which countries are prepared to resist the demands of the US?

There are a few. But not many.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Christie Paul

[me313]

The trickle-down theory of subservience: absolutely no personal accountability for actions committed as puppet state which has become a repository of torture activities run by covert authoritarian CIA agencies and their puppets serving below them, ostensibly some must have been Thai nationals. Like a sieve of compliance with no resistance and full cooperation. To say this is an internal CIA matter, bearing no responsibility on Thai authorities, or even the US government agencies like the Consulate or Embassy in Bangkok, is to say that Thai people have nothing but passive compliance and absolute agreement with all actions, so much so that they can't even claim the personality to admit to having participated since they are just absolutely null and void of personality in the matter. All rebounds back to their puppet masters in the CIA, they are so empty and compliant there is nothing to blame them for.

Hyperbolic as this is, I find it not far from the reality I see that has become the welcoming society beckoning investors to help form a unified "peaceful" country ruled by martial law, in case there is any opposition.

[oneday]

The real question they are avoiding is "did the Thai government know about this detention center and more to the point did they cooperate with the US". I'm sure that is what people want to know. The answer to these questions is NOT an internal US matter. Until they answer these questions I'm sure this will continue to be a controversial subject.

What the new PM will never seem to understand is that there will always be tough questions to answer to the public and he cannot just duck the questions for the sake of a "peaceful country". He's living in a dream world if he thinks the public will accept these kinds of answers.

The real question.????.....what is important here is that the USGovernment at the time endorsed the activities of the CIA.

Lets not try to shift responsibilty to 3rd party countries that as friends of the USA cooperated with the then US Government.

Thr Thai PM is correct....this is an internal US matter...don't try to drag the current Thai government into this mess..

Too late, I already did drag them into it. Now what'cha gonna do?

[oneday]

The real question they are avoiding is "did the Thai government know about this detention center and more to the point did they cooperate with the US". I'm sure that is what people want to know. The answer to these questions is NOT an internal US matter. Until they answer these questions I'm sure this will continue to be a controversial subject.

What the new PM will never seem to understand is that there will always be tough questions to answer to the public and he cannot just duck the questions for the sake of a "peaceful country". He's living in a dream world if he thinks the public will accept these kinds of answers.

"The public"...Foreigners are a tiny minority in Thailand and as far as Thai people is concerned I suspect 99% of them don't give a sh#t about this issue. To the majority of the locals the past is irrelevant, the future is uncertain, and the only time frame that is worth thinking about is today and tonight:).

Can't disagree with you there.

[oneday]

The real question they are avoiding is "did the Thai government know about this detention center and more to the point did they cooperate with the US". I'm sure that is what people want to know. The answer to these questions is NOT an internal US matter. Until they answer these questions I'm sure this will continue to be a controversial subject.

What the new PM will never seem to understand is that there will always be tough questions to answer to the public and he cannot just duck the questions for the sake of a "peaceful country". He's living in a dream world if he thinks the public will accept these kinds of answers.

The real question.????.....what is important here is that the USGovernment at the time endorsed the activities of the CIA.

Lets not try to shift responsibilty to 3rd party countries that as friends of the USA cooperated with the then US Government.

Thr Thai PM is correct....this is an internal US matter...don't try to drag the current Thai government into this mess..

Ah, the ubiquitous US government hater. Tons of you guys out there.

[oneday]

The real question they are avoiding is "did the Thai government know about this detention center and more to the point did they cooperate with the US". I'm sure that is what people want to know.

No, people don't care - particularly, Thai people don't care - and particularly, Thai people don't care one iota if some American or western busybodies care or not. Only you and some of your armchair activists seem to care, and as I pointed out, no one cares that you care.

Armchair activists?

[DaffyDuck]

Let's get the focus of attention back on the USA. Remember, the USA carried out torture, not Thailand. A group of American soldiers on Thai soil is not the same thing as a load of American tourists on Thai soil. What about American soldiers in Germany ? Are they (were they) regarded the same as a bunch of American tourists in Germany ?

Actually, Thailand should use this event to extract some benefits from America. Yes, Thailand, go and say to America "look, you have made us look bad on the world stage due to this, make sure your war games on Thai soil next year will be on a greater scale, and tell your soldiers to spend more freely during the war games, and hand over a loan at a discount rate of interest to us."

Life, you ought to extract the benefits when you can.

Agreed - considering the fingerwagging from John Kerry and the U.S. State department about the 'evil Thai military government', Prayuth should pick up the phone (or one of the ambassadors with better English skills should) and lecture Kerry in no uncertain terms on the meanings of "hypocrite", while explaining that the U.S. Is only one Thai press release away from a global embarrassment.

Then again, as I keep pointing out, Prayuth has far more important issues that he prioritizes - above and beyond the needs of petty Farang armchair politicos, or silly hypocritical superpowers.

[retarius]

I'm not sure I understand this attitude. He hates Thaksin why not blame it all on Thaksin as it was done on his watch.....or did it go on for a lot longer than we know about?

[retarius]

Let me get this right. Some Forum Board members are totally against "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as sleep deprivation, water boarding, electro shocking of the genitals, etc. All this because it violates the "Human Rights" of known or suspected terrorists whose only goal right now is to kill innocent civilians through acts of terror. The same ones who will chop your head off while praising "Allah". I am totally against those techniques my self, due to time constraints utilizing them. Hours, perhaps days wasted to gather necessary Intel to prevent an upcoming slaughter of innocents. What about the basic "Human Right" to Life for the intended victims of a Terror Attack?. Reading most of these Posts, they're mostly regarding the CIA, interrogation facilities, sovereignty of Thailand and the usual bashing of America, and really nothing about saving lives or preventing terror attacks. My solution is simple and quick. I'll gather up five suspected terrorists, who I am 100% sure they know something about to happen. I'll cuff them and blindfold them and place them in a chopper. My crew will fly out over the Sea at about 1500 meters in elevation. I'll open the chopper door and ask the one who I think is the toughest of the bunch of them, questions on what He knows. If He refuses to talk or spits in my face, I'll thrown him out the open door with the others watching. I guarantee you, the others will sing like canaries and valuable Intel will be gathered to prevent an upcoming terror attack. Fly back to base for debriefing. Mission Accomplished. I don't believe that anyone who is willing to kill innocent Men, Women, Children and Babies has any rights to be called "Human" in the first place. They lost that, along with any compassion or sympathy from me. Who has a quicker or better Intel gathering technique than mine? Let me know.

You didn;t rea the report....it said clearly torture doesn't work and didn't lead to any meaningful saving of lives.

[SinCityGr8One]

Let me get this right. Some Forum Board members are totally against "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as sleep deprivation, water boarding, electro shocking of the genitals, etc. All this because it violates the "Human Rights" of known or suspected terrorists whose only goal right now is to kill innocent civilians through acts of terror. The same ones who will chop your head off while praising "Allah". I am totally against those techniques my self, due to time constraints utilizing them. Hours, perhaps days wasted to gather necessary Intel to prevent an upcoming slaughter of innocents. What about the basic "Human Right" to Life for the intended victims of a Terror Attack?. Reading most of these Posts, they're mostly regarding the CIA, interrogation facilities, sovereignty of Thailand and the usual bashing of America, and really nothing about saving lives or preventing terror attacks. My solution is simple and quick. I'll gather up five suspected terrorists, who I am 100% sure they know something about to happen. I'll cuff them and blindfold them and place them in a chopper. My crew will fly out over the Sea at about 1500 meters in elevation. I'll open the chopper door and ask the one who I think is the toughest of the bunch of them, questions on what He knows. If He refuses to talk or spits in my face, I'll thrown him out the open door with the others watching. I guarantee you, the others will sing like canaries and valuable Intel will be gathered to prevent an upcoming terror attack. Fly back to base for debriefing. Mission Accomplished. I don't believe that anyone who is willing to kill innocent Men, Women, Children and Babies has any rights to be called "Human" in the first place. They lost that, along with any compassion or sympathy from me. Who has a quicker or better Intel gathering technique than mine? Let me know.

Okay, I'll bite:

So let's say you were picked up by foreign inteligence agents. This was clearly a mistake (to you anyway) since you're innocent and didn't do anything nor have you been planning to. Because of a mistake or misunderstanding (e.g. mistaken eye witness report, poor quality CCTV footage, language barriers, stupid joke overheard or intercepted, etc) the agents think you've got something of value to them, but suspect you are being difficult. So they decide to "help you help them" by waterboarding you and electrocuting your genitals. That didn't work -- you don't have anything to tell them. So they decide to throw you out of a helicopter and kill you.

Are you saying that's okay? You wouldn't mind this kind of treatment? You are after all a "suspected terrorist", even if you're innocent.

You just bit you lip:

I said 100% sure, not I think, not 99% sure, but 100% sure. Read my post again. You are day dreaming about serious shit here. Mistakes, misunderstandings, blah, blah, blah. Stupid Joke, Huh? There are no misunderstandings or mistakes because these individuals have been suspects for a long time, even with supporting Intel from from other Countries. Next time you're in swampy, tell the security there not to check your bag because it has a bomb in it. Yeah, that's a stupid joke, that will get you beat senseless, if that were possible. There are very, very few mistaken identities regarding possible terrorist suspects. Governments know who they are because they have been on watch lists a very long time. Are you aware that up to 40% of "supposedly innocent" Gitmo releases have returned to terrorist activities? So, stop day dreaming and let's not say if, "I was picked up by a foreign intelligence service." Look what's going on right now in the Lindt Cafe in Sydney. 40 innocent hostages taken by a suspected terrorist with a black flag. (ISIL?) Some how he fell through the cracks in order to pull this off. Failure in Intel? "Our approach is to resolve this peacefully. It might take a bit of time but that is our approach,"Deputy NSW Police Commissioner Catherine Burn told journalists .Authorities want to resolve this peacefully? Dealing with terrorists, peacefully? Not me. 1) Qualified Sniper 2) H ead Shot 3) Bang 4) Hostages released unharmed 5) Perp to the Morgue. You day dream with your fantasies. I'll stand by my Post.

[BritTim]

You just bit you lip:

I said 100% sure, not I think, not 99% sure, but 100% sure. Read my post again. You are day dreaming about serious shit here. Mistakes, misunderstandings, blah, blah, blah. Stupid Joke, Huh? There are no misunderstandings or mistakes because these individuals have been suspects for a long time, even with supporting Intel from from other Countries. Next time you're in swampy, tell the security there not to check your bag because it has a bomb in it. Yeah, that's a stupid joke, that will get you beat senseless, if that were possible. There are very, very few mistaken identities regarding possible terrorist suspects. Governments know who they are because they have been on watch lists a very long time. Are you aware that up to 40% of "supposedly innocent" Gitmo releases have returned to terrorist activities? So, stop day dreaming and let's not say if, "I was picked up by a foreign intelligence service." Look what's going on right now in the Lindt Cafe in Sydney. 40 innocent hostages taken by a suspected terrorist with a black flag. (ISIL?) Some how he fell through the cracks in order to pull this off. Failure in Intel? "Our approach is to resolve this peacefully. It might take a bit of time but that is our approach,"Deputy NSW Police Commissioner Catherine Burn told journalists .Authorities want to resolve this peacefully? Dealing with terrorists, peacefully? Not me. 1) Qualified Sniper 2) H ead Shot 3) Bang 4) Hostages released unharmed 5) Perp to the Morgue. You day dream with your fantasies. I'll stand by my Post.

There are many sources that confirm, sadly, that many "known" terrorists are eventually cleared and released after years of mistreatment. Here is a short article that may encourage you to check facts rather than stating what you want to believe without evidence:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/former-state-department-official-team-bush-knew-many-at-gitmo-were-innocent/275327/

[kaydee412]

You just bit you lip:

I said 100% sure, not I think, not 99% sure, but 100% sure. Read my post again. You are day dreaming about serious shit here. Mistakes, misunderstandings, blah, blah, blah. Stupid Joke, Huh? There are no misunderstandings or mistakes because these individuals have been suspects for a long time, even with supporting Intel from from other Countries. Next time you're in swampy, tell the security there not to check your bag because it has a bomb in it. Yeah, that's a stupid joke, that will get you beat senseless, if that were possible. There are very, very few mistaken identities regarding possible terrorist suspects. Governments know who they are because they have been on watch lists a very long time. Are you aware that up to 40% of "supposedly innocent" Gitmo releases have returned to terrorist activities? So, stop day dreaming and let's not say if, "I was picked up by a foreign intelligence service." Look what's going on right now in the Lindt Cafe in Sydney. 40 innocent hostages taken by a suspected terrorist with a black flag. (ISIL?) Some how he fell through the cracks in order to pull this off. Failure in Intel? "Our approach is to resolve this peacefully. It might take a bit of time but that is our approach,"Deputy NSW Police Commissioner Catherine Burn told journalists .Authorities want to resolve this peacefully? Dealing with terrorists, peacefully? Not me. 1) Qualified Sniper 2) H ead Shot 3) Bang 4) Hostages released unharmed 5) Perp to the Morgue. You day dream with your fantasies. I'll stand by my Post.

If by lip you mean tongue, then sure.

You didn't answer my questions, but I'm aware doing so would expose your fallacy. You're advocating for war crimes and having a low standard for the "good guys" while holding the "bad guys" to a higher one. That makes it difficult to have a realistic and meaningful discussion on the subject. In short, what you're advocating is both illegal and counter productive.

The definition of "suspect" is: "a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offence". The operative word here is "thought". In other words, it is not proven or otherwise established that the person is guilty, it's merely "a feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true" (definition of "suspicion"). So again, you fall on your own sword.

You have to distinguish between "suspected terrorists" and "convicted terrorists". There's a huge difference between the two, but I realize it can be convenient to lump them in together, though not very wise. You may have heard of the "presumption of innocence" principle where a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Your assertion that there are "very, very few mistaken identities" are simply false, see: http://www.dw.de/how-innocent-citizens-become-terror-suspects/a-16934329 and http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845. Intelligence work is very hard and mistakes happen, but we must not fuel the fire by committing war crimes and exacerbating the problem.

Do you honestly think that a person who is imprisoned without trial, kept for years and tortured, and then deemed innocent and released, does not harbor any bad feelings towards the ones responsible? Do you think they are more or less likely to become what they were suspected of in the first place after this treatment? This approach is counter productive because for every one that is treated this way many more are affected (family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc) and turned against us. And the person itself may very well become something they had no intention of becoming to begin with. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your approach is basically helping the enemy, not hurting them. If you don't realize that, you're the one daydreaming, but hopefully this will wake you up.

I'm not going to comment on the situation in Sydney, except to say I'm glad they're not making rash and reckless decisions without sufficient information or thought. Unlike you.

[american12bthai]

the NSA is all up in thailand with very sensitive information. why does no one complain about that?

the CIA made a deal with the THaksin clan to do this. so i guess it looks like another deal was made. BUT who profits this time?

[DaffyDuck]

Dealing with terrorists, peacefully? Not me. 1) Qualified Sniper 2) H ead Shot 3) Bang 4) Hostages released unharmed 5) Perp to the Morgue. You day dream with your fantasies. I'll stand by my Post.[/size]

You're wasting your time - you're talking to guys who believe that there's no real proof against bin laden and that he was just misunderstood and needs a hug... or some similar idiocy.

[SinCityGr8One]

You just bit you lip:

I said 100% sure, not I think, not 99% sure, but 100% sure. Read my post again. You are day dreaming about serious shit here. Mistakes, misunderstandings, blah, blah, blah. Stupid Joke, Huh? There are no misunderstandings or mistakes because these individuals have been suspects for a long time, even with supporting Intel from from other Countries. Next time you're in swampy, tell the security there not to check your bag because it has a bomb in it. Yeah, that's a stupid joke, that will get you beat senseless, if that were possible. There are very, very few mistaken identities regarding possible terrorist suspects. Governments know who they are because they have been on watch lists a very long time. Are you aware that up to 40% of "supposedly innocent" Gitmo releases have returned to terrorist activities? So, stop day dreaming and let's not say if, "I was picked up by a foreign intelligence service." Look what's going on right now in the Lindt Cafe in Sydney. 40 innocent hostages taken by a suspected terrorist with a black flag. (ISIL?) Some how he fell through the cracks in order to pull this off. Failure in Intel? "Our approach is to resolve this peacefully. It might take a bit of time but that is our approach,"Deputy NSW Police Commissioner Catherine Burn told journalists .Authorities want to resolve this peacefully? Dealing with terrorists, peacefully? Not me. 1) Qualified Sniper 2) H ead Shot 3) Bang 4) Hostages released unharmed 5) Perp to the Morgue. You day dream with your fantasies. I'll stand by my Post.

If by lip you mean tongue, then sure.

You didn't answer my questions, but I'm aware doing so would expose your fallacy. You're advocating for war crimes and having a low standard for the "good guys" while holding the "bad guys" to a higher one. That makes it difficult to have a realistic and meaningful discussion on the subject. In short, what you're advocating is both illegal and counter productive.

The definition of "suspect" is: "a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offence". The operative word here is "thought". In other words, it is not proven or otherwise established that the person is guilty, it's merely "a feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true" (definition of "suspicion"). So again, you fall on your own sword.

You have to distinguish between "suspected terrorists" and "convicted terrorists". There's a huge difference between the two, but I realize it can be convenient to lump them in together, though not very wise. You may have heard of the "presumption of innocence" principle where a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Your assertion that there are "very, very few mistaken identities" are simply false, see: http://www.dw.de/how-innocent-citizens-become-terror-suspects/a-16934329 and http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845. Intelligence work is very hard and mistakes happen, but we must not fuel the fire by committing war crimes and exacerbating the problem.

Do you honestly think that a person who is imprisoned without trial, kept for years and tortured, and then deemed innocent and released, does not harbor any bad feelings towards the ones responsible? Do you think they are more or less likely to become what they were suspected of in the first place after this treatment? This approach is counter productive because for every one that is treated this way many more are affected (family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc) and turned against us. And the person itself may very well become something they had no intention of becoming to begin with. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your approach is basically helping the enemy, not hurting them. If you don't realize that, you're the one daydreaming, but hopefully this will wake you up.

I'm not going to comment on the situation in Sydney, except to say I'm glad they're not making rash and reckless decisions without sufficient information or thought. Unlike you.

First of all, YOU leave my Phallus out of this conversation. You hear me? Get real man, I will say for the last time and then I'm done with with you and your debate. I said 100% sure, not 99%, not 98% but ONE HUNDRED PERCENT! What part of 100% sure, don't you understand? I am not referring to a possible suspect. I am saying 100% without the shadow of a doubt that this person of interest is harboring information regarding a potential terrorist operation. Let me say it one more time for you. 100% positively sure through surveillance, wiretapping, email reading, the works. Got that 100% now straight in your head? I stand by my original post. Daydreaming too, Huh? Tell that to the Families of the 3 civilians killed by the dead fanatic hostage situation in Sydney. Also, tell that to the families of the 120+ young students murdered in Pakistan by the Taliban today. Wake up and smell the coffee! Civilization is at WAR for survival against certain elements that co-inhabit this Planet who would have no problem chopping off your head all the while you would be crying for your life and your neck to be spared. I care more for the safety of civilians, male or female, young and old that have a "Right" to LIVE free and unencumbered from a terrorist act by any individual or group. Unfortunately, there are some people like yourself that just DON'T get it and are too concerned by a number of "What if's" or "Maybe's" Bullshit! I want to the hear canaries sing! And sing LOUD! Listen up, opinions are just like , everybody got one. You have yours and I have mine. My opinion has not changed one iota by your rebuttal. Over and Out! Carry On!

Edited December 20, 2014 by metisdead
Image containing profanity removed.

[SinCityGr8One]

Dealing with terrorists, peacefully? Not me. 1) Qualified Sniper 2) H ead Shot 3) Bang 4) Hostages released unharmed 5) Perp to the Morgue. You day dream with your fantasies. I'll stand by my Post.[/size]

You're wasting your time - you're talking to guys who believe that there's no real proof against bin laden and that he was just misunderstood and needs a hug... or some similar idiocy.

Thanks Daffy! Gotta agree with you.

[kaydee412]

First of all, YOU leave my Phallus out of this conversation. You hear me? Get real man, I will say for the last time and then I'm done with with you and your debate. I said 100% sure, not 99%, not 98% but ONE HUNDRED PERCENT! What part of 100% sure, don't you understand? I am not referring to a possible suspect. I am saying 100% without the shadow of a doubt that this person of interest is harboring information regarding a potential terrorist operation. Let me say it one more time for you. 100% positively sure through surveillance, wiretapping, email reading, the works. Got that 100% now straight in your head? I stand by my original post. Daydreaming too, Huh? Tell that to the Families of the 3 civilians killed by the dead fanatic hostage situation in Sydney. Also, tell that to the families of the 120+ young students murdered in Pakistan by the Taliban today. Wake up and smell the coffee! Civilization is at WAR for survival against certain elements that co-inhabit this Planet who would have no problem chopping off your head all the while you would be crying for your life and your neck to be spared. I care more for the safety of civilians, male or female, young and old that have a "Right" to LIVE free and unencumbered from a terrorist act by any individual or group. Unfortunately, there are some people like yourself that just DON'T get it and are too concerned by a number of "What if's" or "Maybe's" Bullshit! I want to the hear canaries sing! And sing LOUD! Listen up, opinions are just like <deleted>, everybody got one. You have yours and I have mine. My opinion has not changed one iota by your rebuttal. Over and Out! Carry On!

Are you trying to say that you have proof? Then there's this thing called a trial. That's where a suspect is either acquitted or convicted of the things he or she is on trial for. If the person is convicted then they are sentenced. Otherwise they're considered innocent and go free. This all happens in a court of law. If you're not opposed to reading, I suggest you get a dictionary and look up these words. They're pretty crucial to a civilized society and the modern world. Unfortunately, your ideas of just whacking people by throwing them out of helicopters and whatnot will still prove to be a little tricky as they're still war crimes.

The antics you're advocating might have worked in the middle ages (or rather, you could get away with it then), but humanity has advanced a wee bit since then. In this day and age they simply do not work anymore, in fact they're counterproductive. This is evidenced by the findings of the intelligence committee and published in their report. I know facts can be a bother, but you don't seem too affected by them so I trust you'll be all right.

Your heart may be in the right place, but unfortunately you're delusional. That's a fancy word for saying you're 100% sure of something that's been proved wrong.

[DaffyDuck]

Seeing as how he is advocating applying medieval strategies against opponents that are still squarely living in medieval times, this seems appropriate, and functional.

[kaydee412]

Seeing as how he is advocating applying medieval strategies against opponents that are still squarely living in medieval times, this seems appropriate, and functional.

But wouldn't that would bring us down to the same level as them? Every time reports of torture come out there's an outrage both at home (i.e. public opinion with the countries fighting the war) and in the countries affected. And the enemy exploits it for all it's worth. I'm simply advocating for being smarter about this. It is much harder for the enemy to operate effectively (e.g. without detection, with sufficient logistical support, generally not raising suspicion, etc) without the support of the local population. So how would one go about strengthening local support and thus likely get a vast human-sensor network that would provide intel and other support? One way is to give them what they need, like building infrastructure such as a functioning clean water supply, proper sewage systems, access to basic health care, reliable electricity, communications, etc. Basically things that help the locals, but cannot be seized and used against us by the enemy. In the past we've given our "allies" (at the time) weapons, but as things change we face the wrong end of that stick. I think education is key, but it's slow and building schools have often resulted in the enemy murdering the teachers and the schools destroyed or shut down. Perhaps a less controversial first step such as a working postal system or increased inter-village trade (and thus communication) is a a less risky step. I think much of the support for these groups come from poverty, ignorance and the fact that the locals are not able to organize and support each other -- and the enemy either exploits that to their advantage or simply kills them. There's a limit to how much abuse one can take so I guess at some point some will remember the old "if you can't beat them, join them" saying. So to sum up, I believe if we win over the population bit by bit and kill the enemy's local support, I hope we can gradually eradicate this.

Edited December 17, 2014 by kaydee412

[DaffyDuck]

But wouldn't that would bring us down to the same level as them?

It wouldn't, and it doesn't.

Look, I understand your concern, and I side with it - but it doesn't address the immediate needs to eliminate the rabid dogs.

Look, I love dogs. A lot. But once in a while, a rabid dog, or an uncontrollable animal simply leaves no other option but to destroy it, or it will not only always be a danger to your environment, your family and friends, but it will also infect others.

So to sum up, I believe if we win over the population bit by bit and kill the enemy's local support, I hope we can gradually eradicate this.

Yes, in the long run, I entirely agree. In fact, the majority of the foreign populations in Islamic countries *are* already on our sides. Much of the local populations in Afghanistan or Iraq are informing on extremist militants, and giving intelligence to our troops to help kill these extremists - why? Because the majority of the casualties of these extremists are local civilians, not American or allied troops.

Little known statistic is that with the increase of drone strikes, local populations have seen a significant reduction in local casualties - because the drones target both the leaders, but also the militants striking the civilian populations.

I entirely agree that we need to provide the civilian population with support, and the ability to provide for their families and lead a peaceful, prosperous life - yet, at the same time, we need to effectively destroy (read: kill) those who are locally standing in the way, and are attempting to kill those who seek our support.

Just like rabid dogs.

[SinCityGr8One]

First of all, YOU leave my Phallus out of this conversation. You hear me? Get real man, I will say for the last time and then I'm done with with you and your debate. I said 100% sure, not 99%, not 98% but ONE HUNDRED PERCENT! What part of 100% sure, don't you understand? I am not referring to a possible suspect. I am saying 100% without the shadow of a doubt that this person of interest is harboring information regarding a potential terrorist operation. Let me say it one more time for you. 100% positively sure through surveillance, wiretapping, email reading, the works. Got that 100% now straight in your head? I stand by my original post. Daydreaming too, Huh? Tell that to the Families of the 3 civilians killed by the dead fanatic hostage situation in Sydney. Also, tell that to the families of the 120+ young students murdered in Pakistan by the Taliban today. Wake up and smell the coffee! Civilization is at WAR for survival against certain elements that co-inhabit this Planet who would have no problem chopping off your head all the while you would be crying for your life and your neck to be spared. I care more for the safety of civilians, male or female, young and old that have a "Right" to LIVE free and unencumbered from a terrorist act by any individual or group. Unfortunately, there are some people like yourself that just DON'T get it and are too concerned by a number of "What if's" or "Maybe's" Bullshit! I want to the hear canaries sing! And sing LOUD! Listen up, opinions are just like <deleted>, everybody got one. You have yours and I have mine. My opinion has not changed one iota by your rebuttal. Over and Out! Carry On!

Are you trying to say that you have proof? Then there's this thing called a trial. That's where a suspect is either acquitted or convicted of the things he or she is on trial for. If the person is convicted then they are sentenced. Otherwise they're considered innocent and go free. This all happens in a court of law. If you're not opposed to reading, I suggest you get a dictionary and look up these words. They're pretty crucial to a civilized society and the modern world. Unfortunately, your ideas of just whacking people by throwing them out of helicopters and whatnot will still prove to be a little tricky as they're still war crimes.

The antics you're advocating might have worked in the middle ages (or rather, you could get away with it then), but humanity has advanced a wee bit since then. In this day and age they simply do not work anymore, in fact they're counterproductive. This is evidenced by the findings of the intelligence committee and published in their report. I know facts can be a bother, but you don't seem too affected by them so I trust you'll be all right.

Your heart may be in the right place, but unfortunately you're delusional. That's a fancy word for saying you're 100% sure of something that's been proved wrong.

If I'm Delusional, You're Nuts.

[SinCityGr8One]

But wouldn't that would bring us down to the same level as them?

It wouldn't, and it doesn't.

Look, I understand your concern, and I side with it - but it doesn't address the immediate needs to eliminate the rabid dogs.

Look, I love dogs. A lot. But once in a while, a rabid dog, or an uncontrollable animal simply leaves no other option but to destroy it, or it will not only always be a danger to your environment, your family and friends, but it will also infect others.

So to sum up, I believe if we win over the population bit by bit and kill the enemy's local support, I hope we can gradually eradicate this.

Yes, in the long run, I entirely agree. In fact, the majority of the foreign populations in Islamic countries *are* already on our sides. Much of the local populations in Afghanistan or Iraq are informing on extremist militants, and giving intelligence to our troops to help kill these extremists - why? Because the majority of the casualties of these extremists are local civilians, not American or allied troops.

Little known statistic is that with the increase of drone strikes, local populations have seen a significant reduction in local casualties - because the drones target both the leaders, but also the militants striking the civilian populations.

I entirely agree that we need to provide the civilian population with support, and the ability to provide for their families and lead a peaceful, prosperous life - yet, at the same time, we need to effectively destroy (read: kill) those who are locally standing in the way, and are attempting to kill those who seek our support.

Just like rabid dogs.

Thanks for your support, Daffy. We are both on the same page. There are certain elements or groups that co-habit this Planet of ours, who view Life as having little value. It's all about them living their next life in Paradise. I am not inferring that this entire group feels that way, so I am limiting my views to the extreme elements that unfortunately make the headlines on a daily basis proving my point on how they murder the innocents. kaydee412 is probably a nice guy, but we definitely have polar opposite views on how to deal with certain situations. If he is trying to have me reconsider my views, he definitely is wasting his time. I want to hear canaries sing as loud as possible. Chok Dee!

[SinCityGr8One]

Seeing as how he is advocating applying medieval strategies against opponents that are still squarely living in medieval times, this seems appropriate, and functional.

But wouldn't that would bring us down to the same level as them? Every time reports of torture come out there's an outrage both at home (i.e. public opinion with the countries fighting the war) and in the countries affected. And the enemy exploits it for all it's worth. I'm simply advocating for being smarter about this. It is much harder for the enemy to operate effectively (e.g. without detection, with sufficient logistical support, generally not raising suspicion, etc) without the support of the local population. So how would one go about strengthening local support and thus likely get a vast human-sensor network that would provide intel and other support? One way is to give them what they need, like building infrastructure such as a functioning clean water supply, proper sewage systems, access to basic health care, reliable electricity, communications, etc. Basically things that help the locals, but cannot be seized and used against us by the enemy. In the past we've given our "allies" (at the time) weapons, but as things change we face the wrong end of that stick. I think education is key, but it's slow and building schools have often resulted in the enemy murdering the teachers and the schools destroyed or shut down. Perhaps a less controversial first step such as a working postal system or increased inter-village trade (and thus communication) is a a less risky step. I think much of the support for these groups come from poverty, ignorance and the fact that the locals are not able to organize and support each other -- and the enemy either exploits that to their advantage or simply kills them. There's a limit to how much abuse one can take so I guess at some point some will remember the old "if you can't beat them, join them" saying. So to sum up, I believe if we win over the population bit by bit and kill the enemy's local support, I hope we can gradually eradicate this.

I can't stop laughing on your day dreaming proposals about building sewers, clean water facilities, infrastructure, blah, blah, blah. After spending a couple Trillion Dollars in Afghanistan over the past 12 years, Afghanistan has grown the LARGEST Opium crop the World has ever seen this year! Are you on some sort of medication or something. I really can't believe you actually believe what you are writing! I have an idea. Fly to Kabul, Afghanistan yourself ASAP. Try somehow going up to the tribal areas without getting killed. If you survived the trip, meet with some Tribal Elders and tell them your plans to bring them out of the 10th Century. If you survive the meeting, which I highly doubt, make it back to Kabul without getting kidnapped or killed again. Get back on the computer and if you still have your fingers and hands, type a post and tell me how you made out. Chok Dee! You'll need plenty of that! I'd rather hear canaries sing.

[kaydee412]

But wouldn't that would bring us down to the same level as them?

It wouldn't, and it doesn't.

Why not? If we're opposed to them fighting this war using terroristic acts like kidnappings, torture and beheadings, how can you with a straight face legitimize our use of the same tactics (imprisonment without trial, torture, killing)? In my book that seems blatantly hypocritical. And the public opinion seems to agree with me as well given the outcry of disgust every time this is reported.

Just to make sure we're clear: I don't think we're in disagreement on whether neutralizing the enemy is the right thing to do. Clearly that's our goal since we're at war. However, I'm not sure we see eye to eye on what I regard as a sanctioned widespread use of indiscriminate torture of suspected, but innocent people. I think that strategy is hurting us more than it's helping and unnecessarily prolonging the fight. Sure, if you have the enemy in your sight, take them out, but getting to that point is the hard part.

[kaydee412]

Thanks for your support, Daffy. We are both on the same page. There are certain elements or groups that co-habit this Planet of ours, who view Life as having little value. It's all about them living their next life in Paradise. I am not inferring that this entire group feels that way, so I am limiting my views to the extreme elements that unfortunately make the headlines on a daily basis proving my point on how they murder the innocents. kaydee412 is probably a nice guy, but we definitely have polar opposite views on how to deal with certain situations. If he is trying to have me reconsider my views, he definitely is wasting his time. I want to hear canaries sing as loud as possible. Chok Dee!

Well, you might be in the same book or maybe even chapter (if it's a long one), but saying you're on the same page might be pushing it. DaffyDuck is actually able to appreciate the big picture and the complexity of the problem. You're simply playing a losing game of whack-a-mole without considering the underlying drivers. We're not disagreeing on whether we should fight the enemy -- we should -- but whether the criticisms in the report are valid or not, and whether there are strategies that could be more effective.

You've been harping on about hearing canaries sing for a while now so here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VudvdlyJX04. Put on headphones and crank the volume.

[kaydee412]

I can't stop laughing on your day dreaming proposals about building sewers, clean water facilities, infrastructure, blah, blah, blah. After spending a couple Trillion Dollars in Afghanistan over the past 12 years, Afghanistan has grown the LARGEST Opium crop the World has ever seen this year! Are you on some sort of medication or something. I really can't believe you actually believe what you are writing! I have an idea. Fly to Kabul, Afghanistan yourself ASAP. Try somehow going up to the tribal areas without getting killed. If you survived the trip, meet with some Tribal Elders and tell them your plans to bring them out of the 10th Century. If you survive the meeting, which I highly doubt, make it back to Kabul without getting kidnapped or killed again. Get back on the computer and if you still have your fingers and hands, type a post and tell me how you made out. Chok Dee! You'll need plenty of that! I'd rather hear canaries sing.

What's so funny about it? Why do you think the farmers are growing opium crops as opposed to other agricultural products? Could it be that their economy has collapsed and that there is little adequate infrastructure and a lack of basic services? Or that they have an AK47 pointed at them? So it's either grow opium crops at a much better price, under the protection of the local rulers, or death (murdered or starve/freeze to death). What would you choose for you and your family? I'm going to (perhaps foolishly) extend you the courtesy of assuming you're a grown man, with some schooling, except for the numerous evidence to the contrary, and hear you out on this. So please tell me why this is so funny.

Your suggestion of meeting with the tribal leaders is actually a strategy employed by the coalition forces for years. It's proven very effective in creating dialog and through that a mutual understanding and cooperation. Of course, unlike you, they don't actively try to insult them. I suggest you educate yourself on the country a bit before digging your hole even further. You may want to start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali. The Afghans has has lived by this code for thousands of years so I have hope you should be able to comprehend it.

[kaydee412]

If I'm Delusional, You're Nuts.

Wow -- great comeback! By the way, what's up with the initial caps? Were you working on your next issue of AQ and had a hard time switching back? Perhaps you should take a break and chill out with some canary songs.

[DaffyDuck]

Why not? If we're opposed to them fighting this war using terroristic acts like kidnappings, torture and beheadings, how can you with a straight face legitimize our use of the same tactics (imprisonment without trial, torture, killing)?

We're defending ourselves from people that brutally attacking us and our people. Furthermore, our goal is also to prevent the death of additional countless civilian locals, which these attackers consistently kill and harm.

Not coddling dozens of bad guys in order to save thousands of innocent lives is fine by me.

And the public opinion seems to agree with me as well given the outcry of disgust every time this is reported.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

A majority of Americans think that the harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were justified, even as about half of the public says the treatment amounted to torture, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

By a margin of almost 2 to 1 — 59 percent to 31 percent — those interviewed said that they support the CIA’s brutal methods, with the vast majority of supporters saying that they produced valuable intelligence.

In general, 58 percent say the torture of suspected terrorists can be justified “often” or “sometimes.”