Cover ups don't mean all government reports are lies. But they still couldn't find a single example of torture helping anyone.
The guy pulling the trigger not knowing it was a wedding party doesn't mean the attack is any less evil. Justifying these attacks, knowing what they were, makes me think me initial impressions of you were wholly justified.
This is a good argument for not raining death out of a blue sky.
Correct. There are generally clear rules of engagement on these operations (ROI) and plans are routinely cancelled if there is evidence innocent civilians will be affected. Bill Clinton famously called off an operation against Bin Laden himself because he was concerned about nearby civilians
That's exactly what happens when you torture someone, even if you're just lying through your teeth and making it up to stop the pain as the evidence shows.
Bad intel.
Why would you think I meant it as an insult? You seem to feel addressed by that, which is kind of weird.
Doing a year of mandatory service, being part of the Home Guard (essentially the rapid response reserve force some of those who complete their service get drafted into) and volunteering for courses to rise through the ranks, has not kept me from being a snowflake in the eyes of those broke-brained enough to use the word. So no, I don't think it'd make much of a dent in the number of "hyper offended snowflakes".
Life is not this black and white. There is no situation where said torturing garantuees saving ten lives. Thus there is no situation where torture is okay.
Maybe using the term snowflake is worse than being a person that doesn't respect the men and women who'd put their own life at risk to save strangers in dangerous situations without thinking twice.
It might be a generational thing. Many of today's young voters seem to have their entire views on the military informed by the Iraq War and the subsequent debates about interventionism.
I have criticised some of the posts I felt were needlessly hostile towards those that serve, but I tried to be as respectful as possible while doing so. So if you're accusing me of applying different standards or something, don't worry, I'm not.
Of course it does, come on now. While being a teacher is a super important job they still don't risk their lives doing their job. Well, not outside the US at least.
Not in those aspects, but it would have in others unquestionably. There's no denying that there is a big percentage of today's generation who is soft and whiny about everything and are constantly on the lookout for the next thing to be outraged about. I'm sure having been in the army would have benefitted them in more than one way, which doesn't mean that I think they would have changed their values and morals on most important issues of course.
It's actually something that you are particularly taught, you can't trust intel from physical or mental torture. If you work in human intelligence, your job is to get intel with little contact, you do the same job than the police but you have the means to reach places that the police can't.
Yep....that's why signals and human are the best varieties. The target rarely knows they are providing information.
Given that the vast, vast majority of military personnel serves in administrative or support roles (signals, logistics, engineers), I really don't think it does. If you're frontline infantry and does something worthy of respect and recognition, then that's another matter entirely. Just as with anyone else. Simply signing up or being conscripted does not mean you automatically deserve more respect than someone who chose a different career or wasn't conscripted.Of course it does, come on now. While being a teacher is a super important job they still don't risk their lives doing their job. Well, not outside the US at least.
There are certainly people who are offended by anything, but I don't think there's a big percentage of them, and certainly not enough to just label a whole generation as snowflakes. I mean, you get labeled a snowflake for calling out sexism and bigotry these days, and you get accused of being an SJW or of virtue signaling if you stand up on behalf of victims of inequality. So at what point do you go from just being a decent person to being an easily offended snowflake? There is no clear line that separates the two, and people have wildly different standards for when the terms apply. Even here, on RedMenaceCafe, you'll find people throwing those terms at others for simply saying that the Lukaku chant was problematic, or arguing in favour of United having a women's team.
Fair enough, probably.
I can assure you there is you just never hear about it. When you hear about all those foiled terror plots on the news how much information do you really get? Not much at all.
Speculating about how terrorplots might be unfoiled is not an argument. You wrote down a story resembling an episode of Homeland to back up your point, that's not evidence. I'm also not saying that torture is not an effective way to extract information, I'm saying it's too extreme. Your intel may be wrong and the person you're torturing maybe innocent. Sometimes people, even mighty morphing army people, make mistakes.I can assure you there is you just never hear about it. When you hear about all those foiled terror plots on the news how much information do you really get? Not much at all.
Here’s a scenario. A neighbour tips off police about suspicious behaviour. Surveillance reveals plot to attack civilians. Interceptions reveal more people are involved while attack day looms. Arrest of suspect one will just accelerate the rest of the cells actions. How do you handle this situation?
Invade the suspects home and extract information in any way possible starting from cooperation but use threats and force as last resort. Carry out further arrests and stop the plot. Weeks or months later release limited information in the media about it. Go back to how much information you know of the 20 odd plots foiled in the UK over the last few years and consider how real that scenario could be.
@Vato I chuckled.
That's not really any different from a lot of the older generation having their entire views on the military informed by the Vietnam war. And the generation before that on WW2.
The word snowflake is a word that many from the older generations go to because they can't move with the times, and they can't evolve with the standards and views of the majority today. So instead they resort to stupid labelling as some lame attempt to discredit an argument and make it look like you're the problem when the issue is a lot of the time actually them and their archaic and stubborn refusal to grow up and enter the current century with the rest of us. But yet after labelling everyone who doesn't wish to be a cnut to other human beings a snowflake for not agreeing with them, they then moan when they're all labelled as racist or sexist for something and cry foul that you just lump them in with others and label them and how it doesn't help address the problem, because double standards and all that. In this day and age, nobody on either side is actually concerned with having a discussion that results in insight or progress. They are already convinced they're right and the other side is wrong and they just want to shout the loudest, or try to pour scorn on the other side, laugh them off, or win every argument.
No I gave you an example which isn't that far off what actually happens. There's a pre-charge detention of 14 days for terrorist suspects. What happens during those 14 days rarely sees the light of day.
Yes because getting offended by the font on a restaurant menu is moving with the times
Nobody gets offended by fonts on a restaurant menu, or if so then it was just one stupid person and not indicative of left-leaning liberals. You're just being ridiculous and exaggerating as if it gives you any kind of legitimate point at all which really only goes to prove the point I was making in the post you quoted.Yes because getting offended by the font on a restaurant menu is moving with the times
I could probably mention a million of ridiculous things people have been offended about. The term snowflake is loosely used to describe such people, its not coincidental that the majority are millenials. I never equated snowflake to liberals or conservatives. It has nothing to do with ones political views. I'd see myself as very much a left-leaning liberal.
Go on then. I'd wager that you're just exaggerating again. The term snowflake is very much tied to political views, because it's used almost exclusively by the right to describe people on the left as their point of view tends to be that liberals are offended by everything these days. 'Snowflake libtard' etc. It may have originated elsewhere, but it's not how it's used today. You don't see those on the right referring to other right leaning people as snowflakes, not generally in discourse anyway. There will be the odd exception.
One thing to bare in mind though, is how technology has evolved. Ask yourself this, how did you see those you deem 'snowflakes' and I would be willing to bet the majority are on platforms that didn't exist in past generations.Of course it does, come on now. While being a teacher is a super important job they still don't risk their lives doing their job. Well, not outside the US at least.
Not in those aspects, but it would have in others unquestionably. There's no denying that there is a big percentage of today's generation who is soft and whiny about everything and are constantly on the lookout for the next thing to be outraged about. I'm sure having been in the army would have benefitted them in more than one way, which doesn't mean that I think they would have changed their values and morals on most important issues of course.
I'm not really going to list you a million things because that's just a figure of speech, you surely understand what it means and if you don't then that's another gripe people have with snowflakes, taking things too literally.
This.
You may not put them in the same category but many, many people do and that's who I was describing in the post that you quoted. Of course I know you're not going to list a million things, but you didn't try to list any, it was probably 3 or 4 things you could mention, maybe 10 but you made it sound like it was a massive amount and I was wagering that it wasn't at all. Instead you were being dramatic and using that to masquerading as substance as if it further proved a point you were trying to make, but really you didn't offer up anything at all beyond 'being offended at fonts' which nobody is.
It also conveniently ignores the fact that throughout pretty much the entirety of human history there have been things people got easily offended by and things that people couldn't say. For a long time in a lot of societies you couldn't really criticise religion. People were appalled by swearing and crude language. And by homosexuality. And by just about anything which didn't fit in with their preconceived worldview.Snowflake doesn't have a political connotation at all. It doesn't matter whether you're a liberal or a conservative, the term snowflake means you're easily offended. So a hipster being offended by someone eating a hamburger is not more of a snowflake than an American hillbilly screaming DON'T TOUCH MA RIGHT TO HAVE GUNZZZ.
If anything, conservative Christians are probably the most snowflakey in general, or rather, conservative religious people in general.
That's the thing about conservatives, any form of progress offends them, it's right there in the word. Conservatives are the enemies of progress, they're basically dragging us down. Feck em.
I don't know about the British Navy but in France that's possible.
Wouldn't it be frowned upon for people in counter terrorism to talk about their modus operandi? Even I'm not allowed to talk about the way we do stuff at work.
Is that a serious question you would expect me to answer?
He didn't reveal anything that you wouldn't see in Strike Force.
