What would you confess to if water boarded 183 times?

[alrockman]

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?

 

What?

[Kaimani]

Finlay after 8 year in Guantanamo bay and being subjected to at least 183 waterboarding techniques Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is finally to stand trial.

 

after 8 years of torture he has finally admitted too:

 

911

2002 Bali bombings, Indonesia,

1993 World Trade Center bombing,

the murder Daniel Pear

and the shoe bomber plot

 

 

without going into to detail about any of the above ,

 

after 8 years of torture what would you admit too?

 

what kind of person would you be after 183 water boarding sessions?

 

 

 

and why have us as a society accepted torture for our so called safety?

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12964588

 

 

 

 

This guy was really responsible for all these and he was still not considered a big enough threat to have the same kind of surveillance as osama et al had?

And 183 times for them to get the information? Surely he must have broken at some point at let it all out. Unless he broke at 183, told him everything they wanted to know and then they stopped. It doesn’t make sense. Why carry on if the guy is confessing? Was he doing some sort of ‘I did this but will only tell you more if you torture me a little more’ thing?

To show it doesn’t work there are many people who were water boarded, confessed to all sorts only for it to be proved they didn’t actually do anything then were released.

 

You would think, as someone said, ‘they’ll have some evidence’ but just a quick search of some of the ‘evidence’ used in these cases is ridiculous.

This sort of thing continues, together with the loss of civil liberties, increase in recruitment etc then the terrorists are winning the ‘war on terror’ hands down.

[WARANTED]

What?

Exactly, don't go into a hypnotic trance it does add up to asking if a pre-emptive strike by your suspected terrorist can be expected, although he knows he is innocent but finds his life is in danger due to prejudice and ignorance of people like you? Should he be prepared to shoot you first and then ask questions later?

[alrockman]

Exactly, don't go into a hypnotic trance it does add up to asking if a pre-emptive strike by your suspected terrorist can be expected, although he knows he is innocent but finds his life is in danger due to prejudice and ignorance of people like you? Should he be prepared to shoot you first and then ask questions later?

 

What are you talking about? Why do you rant incoherently when you don’t have an answer?

[Plain Talker]

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?

 

You could always put forward these crimes:-

 

Walking in a built up area in a loud shirt?

 

Possession of an offensive Wife?

[Plain Talker]

...or the info about Iraq having WMD's?

 

Ah, but remember, you'd have to get the confession out of them within forty-five minutes, wouldn't you?

[WARANTED]

What are you talking about? Why do you rant incoherently when you don’t have an answer?

I thought I asked the question and you were supposed to answer my dear, so you are in a trance? Just let your subconscious do the understanding as your conscious mind seems to have given up already Just relax and read it again and then attempt a reply please.

[poppins]

Well Obama wanted Guantanamo closed because of some eveil people called Bush *& Chaney, Ooops, he's up for re-election he wants it to stay open now

[alrockman]

I thought I asked the question and you were supposed to answer my dear, so you are in a trance? Just let your subconscious do the understanding as your conscious mind seems to have given up already Just relax and read it again and then attempt a reply please.

 

I asked the questions and you ranted incoherently.

 

This is the question you answered with your incoherent rant.

 

How can the security forces tell the difference between a terrorist and a civilian?

[WARANTED]

I asked the questions and you ranted incoherently.

 

This is the question you answered with your incoherent rant.

No sir it wasn't the post that you couldn't understand and called it an incoherent rant because it was convenient to do so perhaps, was a reply to this assertion posted by yourself

Originally Posted by alrockman

 

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.

Again my reply was that if the guy feels his life is in danger due to people like you deciding he is a terrorist should he be prepared to defend himself with a pre emptive strike? Is that still not clear, the question is where do you draw the line at who has more right to protect themselves?