CONSERVATIVES SHILL FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISM
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at 05:51PM It seems to me that the Conservative Party in power will be every bit as squeamish and gutless in dealing with the threat posed by Islamic terrorism as is the current bunchof Labour dhimmis.
"The former shadow Home Secretary has accused British intelligence services of “outsourcing torture”.
David Davis has urged the Government to launch a judicial inquiry into allegations terror suspects were mistreated, saying there was "hard evidence". The Tory MP cited the case of convicted terrorist Rangzieb Ahmed, who claimed he was offered bribes to drop allegations that he was tortured in Pakistan.
What's the PROBLEM with torturing Islamic terrorists if it can help save so much as ONE precious life? Oh - too nasty for you? We're at war - deal with it. Davis is hopeless on this - he is too busy scoring points against McDoom that he fails to see he encourages the Binyam Mohammed's of this world.
Conservatives, Dhimmis 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (14)
Two reasons.
1. It is self-defeating. If we torture people it is a massive recruiting sergeant for the other side "See what these infidels do, we must fight them". cf Abu Ghraib.
2. The cornerstone of democracy is respect for human values and human rights. If you slide on that, where do you stop? In what way can you claim to be any better than the people you oppose? Where would you draw the line at what is allowable and what is not?
I have to agree with you there!
Better 100 innocents die than we upset a known terrorist or encroach on his rights? What if one of the 100 was a member of your family. Of course we are better than them but to suggest that we treat scum with kid gloves when this may mean the slaughter of the innocents is not a line I will accept.
If we torture people it is a massive recruiting sergeant for the other side "See what these infidels do, we must fight them".cf Abu Ghraib.
So before we tortured them ... the terror was just for fun?
The cornerstone of democracy is respect for human values and human rights.
Oh please.
Where is the actual evidence that Britain is complicit in this 'torture'? So a few liars and terrorists (oops sorry, I mean completely innocent individuals who were accidentally caught in Afghanistan or wherever) are egged on by human rights lawyers to say they were tortured blah blah and we are expected to believe it. I can assure you that everyone I have spoken to says 'tough'. Mind you; I dont mix with the metropolitan elite, I am not an MP or work for MSM.
How can we possibly tell the Pakistanis what to do with detainees in their own country? Should an MI5/6 officer be in the cell 24 hours a day every day to make sure that no torture takes place? So what if MI5 has given the Pakistanis a list of questions to ask the detainees? Isn't that what co-operation is all about?
>>before we tortured them ... the terror was just for fun?<<
He didn't say that. He said they use such stories for propaganda and recruitment, and he's right.
And what if we torture a suspect who genuinely knows nothing but blurts whatever he thinks his interrogators want him to hear in order to stop the pain, leading the authorities onto a huge and wasteful goose chase while the real terrorists carry out their carnage at leisure.
Forget the morality of torture for a moment. In practical terms it is a lazy, inconsistent and counter-productive strategy. It is the weapon of last resort for those who are clueless. It is no substitute and is indeed a hindrance to the only policy that works and matters - effective but painstaking quietly obtained and knowledgeable intelligence.
It seems odd that the same people who enthusiastically endorse the routine use of torture by the state cannot accept the use of cctv, even when it helped to identify the 7/7 bombers and the perps of a later attack on the underground.
But I know not to expect consistency.
All that is being proposed is the used of the same "enhanced interrogation" techniques employed in NI in the early 70s which as we know did so much to reduce tensions and increase the affection in which the authorities were held.
Azir/David.
There's a margin for debate over this.
The term 'torture' (by the State) is very much the love-child of the media because it conjures up satanic rituals and makes for good 'copy'. But any seasoned military man will tell you it is usually self-defeating.
If you read Andy McNab's accounts and those of fighter pilot Peters (I forget his other name), both of whom were captured by Iraqis in the 90s, their stories never mention torture by their captors.
But... what they endured was being repeatedly "beaten-up" to extract information, with the subsequent loss of teeth, black eyes, ruptures, and kidney damage.
To some this may be splitting hairs but there IS a difference, and it's widely accepted in the case of war.
We're at war with militant Islam. It is not necessary to torture captured terrorists (most of whom are not military men who are trained to withstand heavy punishment anyway), so leave it to 'conventional means' that will get the same results.
There's more than one way to skin a cat...David.
We can't torture wannabe terrorists because we need to win their hearts and minds, moral high ground etc . . . That is typical leftist BS. Muslims are taught to hate us in accordance with the wishes of their prophet because we are infidels and nothing will change that at all.
Point of correction, Bernard: militant islam wishes to conquer us by force and terror whereas 'moderate' islam wishes to conquer us through the wombs of their women. Both policies have been stated by people who are representative of each strand. The bottom line is that islam is making war on us so we must extirpate the traitors from within our people who would facilitate a muslim conquest, and then return to their lands of origin the muslims who have been allowed entry.
I seem to remember he was the man you defended and supported some time ago. I have a muich longer memory than some of your contributors. Oh well your insanity and racism will find you out. And what you say has been recorded under incitement to racism. No doubt *the state* which you revile will defnd you. But hopefully itll not come to that, because i dont want to see my tax money wasted on defending racists. Obviusly this wont be published. But just so you know to expect a knock on the door.
'launch a judicial inquiry into allegations terror suspects were mistreated'
But Mr Vance thinks if you're lifted you MUST be guilty.
'What's the PROBLEM with torturing Islamic terrorists'
Idiotic, truly idiotic.
The rules of rightworld:
Torturing brown people - get it on
Id cards for white people - the new holocaust.