# Torture? Fuhgedaboudit. Easier to just kill 'em **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244 "2014-12-14T23:18:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/21 "2014-12-15T08:08:15Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I am fine with signature strikes. I think it is a very clever way of dealing with the problem of militarily engaging with our enemy. They are much cheaper than invading a sovereign state, they seem to be effective in that they are mostly killing militants, and they help to keep our enemies on the defensive. Although on some level I care about the killing of civilians in the targeted countries, I care more about the civilians of the USA and our allies than the deaths of civilians who probably share much of the identity and ideology of our enemy. In other words, you support terrorism, as long as it’s _American_ terrorism. And what makes you assume that it’s mostly killing militants? Or that it does anything but create more enemies faster than it kills them? > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Attacking the USA is the highest aspiration of these militants because of the precedent set by Osama bin Laden and their narrative on American involvement with Muslims and the Middle East. :rolleyes: And of course it has _nothing at all_ with the fact that we are murdering them indiscriminately. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/22 "2014-12-15T12:05:04Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > they seem to be effective in that they are mostly killing militants. How would you know that? If US intelligence doesn’t even know the identity of the victims, how could they (let alone how could _you_) state they’re mostly killing militants? What proves that the system isn’t so flawed that 90% of the targets are unrelated with any terrorist activity? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/23 "2014-12-15T17:32:58Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I am fine with signature strikes. I think it is a very clever way of dealing with the problem of militarily engaging with our enemy. They are much cheaper than invading a sovereign state, they seem to be effective in that they are mostly killing militants We don’t really have any way of knowing that. And just because something is easy to do doesn’t make it right. Sure, this is better than the invasion of Iraq, but that should not be the yardstick we measure goodness by. > [@](#): > > Although on some level I care about the killing of civilians in the targeted countries, I care more about the civilians of the USA and our allies than the deaths of civilians who probably share much of the identity and ideology of our enemy. Probably? You’re OK with killing someone because they “probably” share some ideology with our enemies? > [@](#): > > Ceasing to attack al-Qaeda will only allow the organization more opportunity to carry out new attacks on allied targets. To efficiently continue to attack al-Qaeda we have to use this signature strike tactic. On what basis do you make that claim? > [@](#): > > In your OP and other posts on the topic, you seem very distressed by the idea that the War on Terror is a never-ending war. On the other hand I am distressed by the idea that we unilaterally declare it over. It’s going to last well beyond our lifetimes and I think all Americans should get used to the idea. What I’m distressed by is the idea that the unusual actions a nation takes when it is at war now becomes SOP because we’re always at war. That’s a dangerous mindset. > [@](#): > > Attacking the USA is the highest aspiration of these militants because of the precedent set by Osama bin Laden In most cases this is simply not true. al Qaeda isn’t even a coherent organization and it certainly doesn’t have coherent goals. It’s a loose affiliation of actors, many of whom have no interest outside their own territory. > [@](#): > > and their narrative on American involvement with Muslims and the Middle East. Well, we’re doing a hell of job of validating that narrative. That’s part of the problem. > [@](#): > > They will continue to plan attacks on the US and our allies, and so we should continue to fight. In the past decade I’ve seen American become more and more efficient at killing these militants so I think this fight can be sustainable without adversely effecting our economy. I’m not arguing that we should stop fighting against those who actually threaten us. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/24 "2014-12-15T19:02:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > IOW, these people targeted MIGHT be people who belong to a group that MIGHT be plotting terror attacks agains the US. **This is a mindset that treats much of the world as expendable if we have some reason to fear it, whether that fear is rational or not. And then we wonder why they hate us**. Congratulations! You’ve just described the US military and every US police force! ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/25 "2014-12-15T19:34:31Z")
My problem with torture, one of many problems actually, is that when you torture, you’re 100% in control and can therefore try other strategies, ones that work or ones that are more humane. Often on the field of battle, you control only a bit of the battlefield and even less of the information. It is literally impossible to decide the loyalties and motivations of a hundred people running around in the back alleys of a city. A little bit of collateral damage, when justified by rigorous intelligence and regulations on the rules of engagement, is ok under some circumstances. While killing is back, I personally consider torture more morally reprehensible. When you torture, you’re basically saying that you’re going to do the worst possible thing even though you have the choice not too. Its completely unlike an active battlefield, where often you don’t have choices and you make decisions based on the knowledge and power that you have. So while in battle, you may accidentally become bad through poor choices, as a torturer, you’re choosing it. That’s why its worse ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/26 "2014-12-15T19:45:12Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Congratulations! You’ve just described the US military and every US police force! I actually had a bit in that post tying it to the recent issues around Police killings of young black men, but decided it wasn’t worth the derail into that topic since there are already so many threads about it. But yes, there are eery similarities. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > My problem with torture, one of many problems actually, is that when you torture, you’re 100% in control and can therefore try other strategies, ones that work or ones that are more humane. Often on the field of battle, you control only a bit of the battlefield and even less of the information. It is literally impossible to decide the loyalties and motivations of a hundred people running around in the back alleys of a city. A little bit of collateral damage, when justified by rigorous intelligence and regulations on the rules of engagement, is ok under some circumstances. While killing is back, I personally consider torture more morally reprehensible. > > When you torture, you’re basically saying that you’re going to do the worst possible thing even though you have the choice not too. Its completely unlike an active battlefield, where often you don’t have choices and you make decisions based on the knowledge and power that you have. So while in battle, you may accidentally become bad through poor choices, as a torturer, you’re choosing it. That’s why its worse I suppose there isn’t a lot of value in debating which is worse, because they’re both bad. Let’s just say that of all the people we tortured, one died. Of all the people we “signature struck”, pretty much all of them died. And let’s keep this in perspective. European countries have a lot more to fear from Islamic Extremists than the US does, and yet we’re the ones bombing the shit out of the places. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/27 "2014-12-15T20:58:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Seems that we have moved from: > > 1. Let’s fire a missile at this known aQ operative, because he’s in an area not accessible to conventional methods of capture. > > to: > > 1. Let’s fire a missile at this known aQ operative, even though we know that he’s also with some innocent civilians and we’re going to kill them, too. > > to: > > 1. Let’s fire a missile at this group of folks who may or may not be aQ operatives, but who seem to be traveling in way that aQ does. You don’t understand. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/28 "2014-12-15T21:34:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I suppose there isn’t a lot of value in debating which is worse, because they’re both bad. Let’s just say that of all the people we tortured, one died. Of all the people we “signature struck”, pretty much all of them died. We don’t have to debate it but I think torture is worse, for the reasons I’ve stated above. I can see the logic in signature strikes, given the target. There is no logic that we have to torture, absolutely none, and no logic that allows torturers to get away with what they’ve done ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/29 "2014-12-15T22:02:29Z")
So when do we start the domestic signature strike program? Would everyone be OK with that? Or are there no suspicious looking Americans? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/30 "2014-12-15T22:28:55Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > FTR, I completely agree with Mace’s OP and wish we had a like button. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Had you heard of “signature strikes” before? If so, you’re more of a news junkie than I am… I first heard the term last Sunday on Meet The Press. After spending the first part of the show becoming enraged at DICK Cheney, I wrapped up the show being pissed off at President Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/31 "2014-12-15T22:48:11Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > So when do we start the domestic signature strike program? Would everyone be OK with that? Or are there no suspicious looking Americans? We already do that. We just use cops instead of drones to kill random Scary Black Men and Suspicious Brown People. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/32 "2014-12-16T00:34:44Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > So when do we start the domestic signature strike program? Would everyone be OK with that? Or are there no suspicious looking Americans? [Stop and frisk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City) used signatures but was almost always nonlethal. > [@John Mace](#): > > Sure, this is better than the invasion of Iraq, but that should not be the yardstick we measure goodness by. One of the many weird aspects of this conversation. Democratic administrations are actually rather hawkish, by basically any standard outside of the US. I wouldn’t quite say that we live in a military state, but I think it’s fair to characterize it as a militaristic one. Hell, I’m pretty hawkish by world standards -eg I think the US for now is a necessary hegemon- and I’m somewhat more dovish than your typical Democratic administration. One of many problems is that our peace wing doesn’t interface very well with the national security establishment. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/33 "2014-12-16T01:20:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > We already do that. We just use cops instead of drones to kill random Scary Black Men and Suspicious Brown People. Cite, please? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/34 "2014-12-16T05:20:04Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And what makes you assume that it’s mostly killing militants? Or that it does anything but create more enemies faster than it kills them? > [@clairobscur](#): > > How would you know that? If US intelligence doesn’t even know the identity of the victims, how could they (let alone how could _you_) state they’re mostly killing militants? What proves that the system isn’t so flawed that 90% of the targets are unrelated with any terrorist activity? A large majority of the studies performed on the topic support the idea that mostly militants are being killed. They’re listed in Wikipedia under the drone program in Pakistan. What I think I can be reasonably certain of is that the methods of acquiring these numbers are not very precise or accurate and exaggerated by both sides of the argument. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > We don’t really have any way of knowing that. And just because something is easy to do doesn’t make it right. Sure, this is better than the invasion of Iraq, but that should not be the yardstick we measure goodness by… ‘Easier’ was a poor term. What I appreciate about the program is that it seems to be effective while becoming less expensive to operate over time. It’s cost is balanced against our economy while promoting our goals. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Probably? You’re OK with killing someone because they “probably” share some ideology with our enemies? I am willing to live with it given the circumstances we are in. I would much prefer that the only American presence in these places were tourists, not drones spreading fear among thugs and innocents alike, but I am willing to live with it because I am not willing to give terrorist organizations another opportunity to effectively plan another 9/11 or any of the other bombings that occurred before and after. I am happy to take in any of the innocents stuck in these awful places as refugees. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > On what basis do you make that claim? Roughly every chaotic place in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia is spawning militant Muslim terrorist organizations that dominate these places. Then either these groups or groups utilizing they’re territory attack the USA. They do it without regard to how we do or do not interfere with them. It’s just part of their game plan; I think it’s a way to get famous and enhance recruitment. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > What I’m distressed by is the idea that the unusual actions a nation takes when it is at war now becomes SOP because we’re always at war. That’s a dangerous mindset. I would prefer more transparent oversight of these programs because many of them have led to abuse, but we will be doing this for a long time to come. Just ask Russia, Turkey, China, Israel, Colombia, and so on, but these insurgencies can come to an end without prejudging what that end is and unilaterally declaring it. In the meantime, we can do our best to make sure our approach fits our values. That is why Iraq and our use of torture or so awful to me. These represent abuses that would never had occurred if we stuck with what we at least say we view as right and wrong. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > In most cases this is simply not true. al Qaeda isn’t even a coherent organization and it certainly doesn’t have coherent goals. It’s a loose affiliation of actors, many of whom have no interest outside their own territory. But many of those who work with them do. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, we’re doing a hell of job of validating that narrative. That’s part of the problem. We’ll always validate their narrative no matter what we do. We should just worry about keeping them weak at low cost to ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/35 "2014-12-16T05:39:11Z")
Well, sure, but part and parcel to that, decreasing the number of our sworn enemies, is not making more of them. Kill somebody’s cousin who actually is an enemy of America, good chance he will follow the ethic of blood feud and swear revenge. Bad enough. But kill the innocent cousin of somebody who might not _yet_ be our enemy, or maybe even might be persuaded to help us… ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/36 "2014-12-16T05:49:27Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > A large majority of the studies performed on the topic support the idea that mostly militants are being killed. > > ‘Easier’ was a poor term. What I appreciate about the program is that it seems to be effective while becoming less expensive to operate over time. It’s cost is balanced against our economy while promoting our goals. Leaving aside the morality, there’s still an open question as to the overall effectiveness of these drone attacks. Even if you accept the claim that they’re killing mostly militants, we still don’t know if their existence is creating more militants than they’re eliminating. If we kill ten militants and eleven take their place, we’re losing. > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I am willing to live with it given the circumstances we are in. I would much prefer that the only American presence in these places were tourists, not drones spreading fear among thugs and innocents alike, but I am willing to live with it because I am not willing to give terrorist organizations another opportunity to effectively plan another 9/11 or any of the other bombings that occurred before and after. I am happy to take in any of the innocents stuck in these awful places as refugees. > > Roughly every chaotic place in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia is spawning militant Muslim terrorist organizations that dominate these places. Then either these groups or groups utilizing they’re territory attack the USA. They do it without regard to how we do or do not interfere with them. It’s just part of their game plan; I think it’s a way to get famous and enhance recruitment. This indicates where we need to start putting more resources. Yes, we need to fight the terrorists that now exist. But in the long run, we need to change the conditions that produce terrorists. That’s the only way we’ll really win this war. > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > We’ll always validate their narrative no matter what we do. We should just worry about keeping them weak at low cost to ourselves. It’s an asymetric situation. We can never weaken them to the point where they can’t attack us back. Terrorism is a tactic that the weak can use against the strong. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/37 "2014-12-16T07:19:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Leaving aside the morality, there’s still an open question as to the overall effectiveness of these drone attacks. Even if you accept the claim that they’re killing mostly militants, we still don’t know if their existence is creating more militants than they’re eliminating. If we kill ten militants and eleven take their place, we’re losing. Unless we’re taking 15-20 years between attacks - allowing each terrorist time to create and raise a future terrorist to take his place - by my math if you have killed 10 terrorists and discover 11 more, then originally there were 21 terrorists and you’ve successfully halved their number. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/38 "2014-12-16T08:03:45Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I am willing to live with it given the circumstances we are in. I would much prefer that the only American presence in these places were tourists, not drones spreading fear among thugs and innocents alike, but I am willing to live with it because I am not willing to give terrorist organizations another opportunity to effectively plan another 9/11 or any of the other bombings that occurred before and after. I am happy to take in any of the innocents stuck in these awful places as refugees. What makes you think that the drones strikes will do anything but help any such “terrorist” organizations? What is your argument against them committing terrorism when we are committing terrorism against them like this? And what makes you think that any innocents are going to be safer to take in than any “terrorists”, given that you’ve declared yourself to be their mortal enemy and support killing them, their friend and their family? You’re giving them _perfectly reasonable_ motivations to want vengeance upon you. Innocents are not harmless when you’re the bad guys, and _we are._ > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > We’ll always validate their narrative no matter what we do. We should just worry about keeping them weak at low cost to ourselves. That attitude just shows how much we dehumanize everyone outside our borders. We’re not even willing to admit that they have human emotions, that they might be angry with us for slaughtering their friends and families. No; they are inhuman, mechanical hate machines who hate us exactly the same no matter what we do. And you are repeating many of the same arguments that have been used to support torture. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Unless we’re taking 15-20 years between attacks - allowing each terrorist time to create and raise a future terrorist to take his place - by my math if you have killed 10 terrorists and discover 11 more, then originally there were 21 terrorists and you’ve successfully halved their number. :dubious: Do you think that terrorists are grown in pods from fetuses or something? What makes you think it would take more than months or weeks to find more “terrorists”? And what makes you think that killing 10 “terrorists” won’t create a hundred or a thousand? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/39 "2014-12-16T14:51:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, sure, but part and parcel to that, decreasing the number of our sworn enemies, is not making more of them. Kill somebody’s cousin who actually is an enemy of America, good chance he will follow the ethic of blood feud and swear revenge. Bad enough. > > But kill the innocent cousin of somebody who might not _yet_ be our enemy, or maybe even might be persuaded to help us… Not sure we can say that first sentence is true. “Sworn enemies” have families, too, and there is no reason to believe that all of them are already on the other side. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244/40 "2014-12-16T14:57:59Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Unless we’re taking 15-20 years between attacks - allowing each terrorist time to create and raise a future terrorist to take his place - by my math if you have killed 10 terrorists and discover 11 more, then originally there were 21 terrorists and you’ve successfully halved their number. Despite the talk of breeding terrorists, that’s just a metaphor. People don’t need to be raised from birth to be a terrorist. They can convert to being a terrorist at any age. So if you kill ten terrorists in a community, eleven of their friends and relatives who had not been terrorists can convert in response to the deaths. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-fuhgedaboudit-easier-to-just-kill-em/707244.md?page=3)