Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

[rocketman]

You asked, i answered, i did forget the techincal problems, apparently good torturers are hard to find.

What is the point to the process? Depends why you're interrogating someone doesn't it.

The point is brutalisation: of the victim of torture, of the political group of the tortured - and - much more importantly - the brutalisation of the torturer and the people in whose name the torture is being meted out in.

So you are a brute. You are a torturer. Because you condone it.
Because you condone torture, you are as morally reprehensible as any terrorist suspect, and have sacrificed any moral imperative you may think you possess.

You cruel, cruel, man. Vlad the Impaler at least was from a different time.

 

[detective-boy]

.. you just don't have the honesty to admit that you've caught yourself in a contradiction.

No. I haven't. I have asked three times for you to provide any link to demonstrate what you allege I have said. You haven't. That is because you can't. Because I didn't.

YOU are the one shouting your mouth off with allegations you can't substantiate.

For the record - should anyone be foollish enough to ever believe another word you post - my position is very simple. I do not support the use of torture, at all, by anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

Even though, sometimes, the information obtained by such methods may be accurate.

 

[nino_savatte]

No. I haven't. I have asked three times for you to provide any link to demonstrate what you allege I have said. You haven't. That is because you can't. Because I didn't.

YOU are the one shouting your mouth off with allegations you can't substantiate.

For the record - should anyone be foollish enough to ever believe another word you post - my position is very simple. I do not support the use of torture, at all, by anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

Even though, sometimes, the information obtained by such methods may be accurate.

You keep demanding this evidence but I suspect it's your way of being evasive.

You suggested that people who are tortured may not lie and thus the confession given is solid proof of culpability. I said that it wasn't and you proceeded to behave like a complete and utter cock because I dared to disagree with you.

Nice try with the smear tactic. Pick that up in the force too, did you?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

This has the same level of equivalence as the argument in favour of capital punishment. Those who argue in its favour, aren't too concerned by the thought that an innocent could be executed. Their counter-argument tends to go thus" Well, mistakes happen". Tell that to the relatives of the deceased.

Yes it does, which is why i do not support capital punishment either.

You have to accept that it can work, you have to accept that there are reasons it's still used. You don't have to like it and you don't have to accept it as part of life.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The point is brutalisation: of the victim of torture, of the political group of the tortured - and - much more importantly - the brutalisation of the torturer and the people in whose name the torture is being meted out in.

Always brutalisation? Bollocks it is, you say this and don't even try to back it up. Your obsession with politics is utter shit, if you torture someone to get their pin number you're not doing it to hurt the tories/labour/lib dems, it's to get the money, perhaps a bit of sadistic joy too, but not always. Your grasp of the topic is pathetically narrow.

So you are a brute. You are a torturer. Because you condone it.
Because you condone torture, you are as morally reprehensible as any terrorist suspect, and have sacrificed any moral imperative you may think you possess.

You cruel, cruel, man. Vlad the Impaler at least was from a different time.

You are a complete fruitloop aren't you?

Come back when your high has finished and we can try talking then.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes it does, which is why i do not support capital punishment either.

You have to accept that it can work, you have to accept that there are reasons it's still used. You don't have to like it and you don't have to accept it as part of life.

I don't accept that the use of torture is either natural or reasonable. I don't accept that it is effective and my position on this still stands.

I'm off now. This conversation is just going around in circles. No wonder all the others fucked off from this thread.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I don't accept that the use of torture is either natural or reasonable. I don't accept that it is effective and my position on this still stands.

I'm off now. This conversation is just going around in circles. No wonder all the others fucked off from this thread.

Yet you haven't even tried to show that it is never effective. Your position is completely unsupported by logic, only by emotions. If you won't discuss the entire crux of the discussion then of course you're not going to get anywhere.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yet you haven't even tried to show that it is never effective. Your position is completely unsupported by logic, only by emotions. If you won't discuss the entire crux of the discussion then of course you're not going to get anywhere.

I'm not here to defend or apologise for torture; which is a violation of human rights. Your logic is the logic of the spreadsheet; the cold statistic that devalues human life. I have used logic here, only you dismiss it as "emotional" as it doesn't conform to the contours of science. There is nothing emotional about my position, you have resorted to a smear tactic in order to shore up your wholly indefensible position as an apologist for human rights violators everywhere.

You can call that "emotional" if you want but I know better.

 

[rocketman]

You are a complete fruitloop aren't you?
Come back when your high has finished and we can try talking then.

Personal attack and slander, I demand a referee intervention,

Don't talk to me like that. I did not talk to you in that way: I neither defamed your character, nor did I slander you.

I want your IP address so I can sue you for your slanderous accusation ("when your high has finished") in a public place.

You gonna give me your address?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Personal attack and slander, I demand a referee intervention,

Don't talk to me like that. I did not talk to you in that way: I neither defamed your character, nor did I slander you.

So you are a brute. You are a torturer.

You cruel, cruel, man.

You're trying to tell me you weren't on drugs when you wrote that bilge? That's more worrying.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm not here to defend or apologise for torture; which is a violation of human rights. Your logic is the logic of the spreadsheet; the cold statistic that devalues human life. I have used logic here, only you dismiss it as "emotional" as it doesn't conform to the contours of science. There is nothing emotional about my position, you have resorted to a smear tactic in order to shore up your wholly indefensible position as an apologist for human rights violators everywhere.

You can call that "emotional" if you want but I know better.

I didn't ask you to defend torture, i asked you to think rather than react. You stated amongst other things:

"The only person who is satisified with any of this is the torturer."

You're using sweeping generalisations to subsitute for having to think and you're using emotive reasoning only because you know my factualy based logic is correct.

 

[rocketman]

You're trying to tell me you weren't on drugs when you wrote that bilge? That's more worrying.

You are a cruel man. You think torture is something that is sometimes acceptable. I don't have to be on drugs to see that that puts you on the same moral footing as any terrorist. You're both killers with no regard to human rights.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You are a cruel man. You think torture is something that is sometimes acceptable. I don't have to be on drugs to see that that puts you on the same moral footing as any terrorist. You're both killers with no regard to human rights.

Read the damned thread you jibbering fuckwit. I have said repeatedly that it's not acceptable. Are you really as stupid as you appear?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Personal attack and slander, I demand a referee intervention,

Don't talk to me like that. I did not talk to you in that way: I neither defamed your character, nor did I slander you.

I want your IP address so I can sue you for your slanderous accusation ("when your high has finished") in a public place.

You gonna give me your address?

upsetting as you find his comments, I hope that you agree on reflection suing this poster is inadvisable.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

You keep demanding this evidence but I suspect it's your way of being evasive.

You suggested that people who are tortured may not lie and thus the confession given is solid proof of culpability. I said that it wasn't and you proceeded to behave like a complete and utter cock because I dared to disagree with you.

Nice try with the smear tactic. Pick that up in the force too, did you?

now now--he's only doing his job

 

[Bob_the_lost]

upsetting as you find his comments, I hope that you agree on reflection suing this poster is inadvisable.

It'd be interesting (intellectually) to see how it turned out since rocketman's accused me of being a torturing nazi reincarnation of vlad the impaler. But i appreciate your help Larry.

 

[rocketman]

 

[nino_savatte]

now now--he's only doing his job

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[nino_savatte]

I didn't ask you to defend torture, i asked you to think rather than react. You stated amongst other things:

"The only person who is satisified with any of this is the torturer."

You're using sweeping generalisations to subsitute for having to think and you're using emotive reasoning only because you know my factualy based logic is correct.

Oh but you were asking me to defend/apologise for torture. Sorry to break this to you but your logic is fatally flawed.

You cannot be against torture and then claim it is effective. It's a paradox.

 

[nino_savatte]

Read the damned thread you jibbering fuckwit. I have said repeatedly that it's not acceptable. Are you really as stupid as you appear?

Your position is contradictory.

 

[laptop]

You cannot be against torture and then claim it is effective. It's a paradox.

Yes you can and not it's not, unless you're some kind of parody of a utilitarian.

And no, this observation doesn't say anything about whether BTL's posts are sensible. To claim that would be the same kind of logic error.

Both of you, go away and read the entire output of John Rawls and, for contrast, Mary Midgeley. See you after

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes you can and not it's not, unless you're some kind of parody of a utilitarian.

And no, this observation doesn't say anything about whether BTL's posts are sensible. To claim that would be the same kind of logic error.

Both of you, go away and read the entire output of John Rawls and, for contrast, Mary Midgeley. See you after

Well, tbh, I've had enough of this thread and it's circular conversations. It bores the living fuck out of me.

 

[TAE]

You cannot be against torture and then claim it is effective. It's a paradox.

I think you can, but you risk being very misunderstood.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think you can, but you risk being very misunderstood.

Sure, now I can understand why people think it is effective; but from all that I have read on the matter, I have reached the conclusion that it is no more effective than capital punishment is an effective deterrent to would be murderers.