Nadine- before you said I said you said "only torture works". Now you are claiming something completely different. So this is a case of bait and switch. Just so you know that I know that's what is going on. Ok - let's see how THIS claim holds up.
Obviously we now agree that I did not say you said "ONLY" torture works. Right? You aren't saying that any more. You realize you've shifted your claim, right?
OK
You say:
"You claimed - completely wrongly - that I had claimed that it was a routine news item that "torturing works". I never said that."
You also said:
"There have been real world cases where the police or intelligence forces have captured a 'ticking bomb' - usually the driver or the handler of a suicide bomber, sometimes the bomber himself, and they have been made to talk. I know it has happened in Israel; I don't know what methods were used."
So. I took your claim that there were "cases" to mean there was more than one. Thus it was not extremely rare. You don't make it sound like it is rare. Would you like to tell us now it is rare? That's fine. Please- tell me that this is the highly atypical case. Would you like to tell me cases like this almost never happen? That's fine. That would explain why you could not find a link. Go ahead. Tell me that. I'll agree with you! But rarity was not something implicit in your post- at least not for me.
You claim "they have been made to talk". Since you were in a discussion about torture, I can't imagine you were talking about something else. Were you talking about something else?
This is the post you were replying to:
Message 23508180
I did not exactly claim you said it was a routine news item. I said: "If it is a routine news item..."- as the inference in your post was that there were cases and you had read about them. I assumed you meant us to understand that you thought this happened frequently, or at least not rarely- and that the event was not highly exceptional. And at that time when it was first posted you did not quibble with "routine"- instead you went out and got a case that showed you didn't understand what the "ticking time bomb case" means to most people. Your definition is rather odd.
So
1. You do not say I said you said "only torture works" (in other words, I was right)
2.I did not say you said that it was routine that torturing works. What I did was suggest I had taken an inference from your post (that would be the "if"- which you were free to take issue with). Remember, you are the one who told me, I think, that I was wrong to think these things rarely happened.
siliconinvestor.com
In that post you tell me about "all those good cops" who are tempted to use it- which again makes me think YOU think the problem is not rare. I am happy to agree the problem is rare. That was, actually, one of my points. So you agreeing with me would be fine.
And oddly enough in that very same post you imply I said "torture never works". I don't think I've ever said that. I'm wary of generalizations with the words "never" and "always". But you did to me what you thought I did to you- but you actually did it, whereas I did not. :-) Interesting, isn't it? I got a real chuckle out of that- I can tell you. FWIW I did say out intelligence experts say torture doesn't work- but of course that means it doesn't work as a tool. The bad results outweigh any good it might do- or so they say in the trade. I tend to think their arguments have merit. |
