Cynic Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 You can't torture someone to get a confession it just doesn't work. If you won't stop until they say they did it then what are you achieving? Doing it to get information you know they have that you can then verify once you have it is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I'm sure you could, but then they don't just take some random person off the steet and ask them if they planted a bomb, they would usualy have other information that would lead them to think you had planted a bomb. If I was part of a group and was waterboarded along with the others, and one of the members admitted to planting the bomb and the children were saved I would think it was a small price to pay for saving their lives. I have in the past put my life in danger to save other, waterboarding does'nt kill you. Such as the information that led to the death of de menzies (spelling?) ...or the info about Iraq having WMD's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Personally, I would admit that truthlogic speaks truth and logic. Or is that going a bit far? No one would believe you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alrockman Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 One has to question who the greatest danger is from. Since the war on terror, it's now possible to get arrested for taking a photo, kidnapped and detained without trial in a foreign country and have all your emails read by the government. And monitoring forums and IP address for people with extremist views on torture and stuf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alrockman Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Such as the information that led to the death of de menzies (spelling?) That’s the purpose of terrorism, every one becomes a suspect and mistakes happen. . What’s the difference between a terrorist and an innocent civilian? A terrorist looks like a civilian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scallyboy Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 i'd confess to not been thirsty anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARANTED Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 That’s the purpose of terrorism, every one becomes a suspect and mistakes happen. . What’s the difference between a terrorist and an innocent civilian? A terrorist looks like a civilian. That is a similarity and not a difference, so is your own prejudiced suspicion enough to shoot/ arrest/kill someone? Should the offence be one of being in public looking like a Muslim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alrockman Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 That is a similarity and not a difference, so is your own prejudiced suspicion enough to shoot/ arrest/kill someone? Should the offence be one of being in public looking like a Muslim? Why do you always have to talk about Muslims, you have a one track mind, not all terrorists are Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists. I suppose I could have worded the question better, How can the security forces tell the difference between a terrorist and a civilian? The problem with stopping a terrorist is that they may not have broken a law until they kill a bus full of people, and if you have information that they are going to do it, they have to be stopped. If the person you suspect is on the bus and you think he is about to detonate a bomb. Do you shoot him or wait to see what happens. If nothing happens he walks away if he detonates the bomb a bus full of people are dead. I’d shoot him and worry about the consequences after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARANTED Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Why do you always have to talk about Muslims, you have a one track mind, not all terrorists are Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists. I suppose I could have worded the question better, How can the security forces tell the difference between a terrorist and a civilian? The problem with stopping a terrorist is that they may not have broken a law until they kill a bus full of people, and if you have information that they are going to do it, they have to be stopped. If the person you suspect is on the bus and you think he is about to detonate a bomb. Do you shoot him or wait to see what happens. If nothing happens he walks away if he detonates the bomb a bus full of people are dead. I’d shoot him and worry about the consequences after. That is the point though, if you the capacity of mind to know the difference I may be inclined to agree with you but it is a big enough IF to suggest most of those making such noises are ill equipped to judge and would be using their prejudices to make their decision. Can you give us a hint what qualifies you to decide who is a terrorist and what would you base your judgement on? Turn that argument on it's head then so should a Muslim guy with a beard be carrying an automatic weapon for protection so that he can shoot the rather prejudiced fellow first just in case he is about to shoot him for looking like what the prejudiced chap of low intelligence decides what a terrorist should look like? Of course and ask questions later, surely self preservation is the name of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Couldn't resist....sowwy. Altering other members posts for your own amusment is against foum rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.