It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Unthinkable": What would you do? Could you do the "Unthinkable"?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The situation.
A man has set nuclear devices in multiple cities of whatever country you live in. He is a fanatic is not likely to tell you anything not even the cities they are in unless his demands are met. He has a family and is in custody. Every other approach has failed and the bombs will go off tomorrow. What would you do? Torture and perhaps harm his children in an effort to save perhaps millions of men, women and children? Or let them die? Would you do the unthinkable?

My first response was: "Oh heck no! I could never be that monstrous!". And then I thought about it. I would do it. And eat a bullet afterwards.

The question is the plot from this movie:

Plot

An FBI counter-terrorism team and a black-ops agent are assigned to interrogate an American Muslim man named Yusuf (Sheen), formerly named Younger, who claims to have nuclear bombs planted in three U.S. cities[2] that will go off if his (at first, unstated) demands are not met.

Using extreme torture as a method of interrogation, "H" (Samuel L. Jackson) attempts to force Yusuf to reveal the locations of the nuclear bombs. Also involved is Special Agent Helen Brody of the FBI (Moss) who, at the same time, is leading a team trying to locate the bombs using other information. Once H is authorized to interrogate Yusuf, he quickly shows his capability and cruelty by chopping off one of Yusuf's fingers with a small hatchet. Horrified, Special Agent Brody attempts to put a stop to the measures. Her superiors make it clear that the potentially disastrous consequences necessitate these extreme measures. As the plot unfolds, H escalates his methods (with Brody as the "good cop") and Yusuf, trained in resisting torture, maintains his silence.

When Brody accuses Yusuf of faking the bomb threat in order to make a point about the moral character of the United States government, he breaks down and agrees that it was all a ruse. He gives her an address to prove it, but visiting the address triggers a C-4 explosion at a nearby shopping mall, killing 53 people. Angry at the senseless deaths, Brody takes a scalpel and begins cutting Yusuf's chest. It is clear, though, that Yusuf is not afraid. He justifies the deaths by comparing them to the greater number of Muslim deaths by American hands. Yusuf then makes his demands: he would like the President of the United States to announce a cessation of support for puppet governments and dictatorships in Middle Eastern countries and a withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East. The group immediately dismisses the possibility of his demands being met, citing the United States' declared policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

H falters in his belief that the bombs' location will be revealed until Yusuf's wife is found and detained. He brings her in front of her husband and threatens to mutilate her in front of him. Brody and the others begin to take her away from the room in disgust. Out of desperation, H slashes her throat and she bleeds to death in front of Yusuf. Still without cooperation, H tells the soldiers to bring in Yusuf's two children, a young boy and a girl. Outside of Yusuf's hearing, he assures everyone that he will not harm the children. Yusef's children are brought in and H makes it clear that he will torture them if the locations of the bombs are not divulged. Yusuf breaks and gives three addresses (in New York, Los Angeles and Dallas), but H does not stop, forcing the others to intervene. Citing the amount of missing nuclear material Yusuf potentially had at his disposal (some 15-18lbs were reported missing, with about 4-1/2lbs needed per device), H insists that Yusuf has not admitted anything about a hence-unreferenced fourth bomb. When Brody refuses to retrieve the children for H, he unstraps Yusuf, who then manages to get ahold of a revolver and commits suicide. Brody walks out of the building with Yusuf's children. (This is the end of the original Direct-to-DVD version.)

Extended Version: A FBI bomb disposal team arrives at one of the disclosed locations and resets the timer to prevent the bomb from going off. As the FBI are celebrating however, behind a nearby crate, the originally unconfirmed fourth bomb's timer counts down to zero. The screen immediately cuts to black and the credits roll.

Unthinkable@wikipedia.org




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The problem with something like this is, even if you torture or kill the family in an attempt to get the terrorist to talk, you have no guarantee that it will make him tell you where the bombs are. It just bring you down to his level and makes you no better than he is.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
some, would be easier than others. being mildly autistic with cognitive thought still intact, this would be as easy for me as pulling the car into the garage. you tell him he will never be harmed. you then shoot his wife in the foot. then the other, then the knees, bandaging as you go, then the hands/ arms. if he still says nothing, drag her into a back-room and fire a round into the ceiling just as the sedatives you just shot her up with begin taking effect. in his eyes she is now dead and may talk. if not, his children may have to experience pain in order to save billions of people, it is a small price to pay, but in the end, his family SHOULDNT be killed. there are many ways to make it look like they were killed, and would be far better. either way, he will never see his wife and family again, even if the need quite a bit of physical therapy/compensation money. most people just assume you have to be brutal to interrogate, that pain to the prisoner is the answer, and usually take it too far. truth is that a lot can be accomplished with a small amount of collateral damage (to show him that the screams of pain are real) then a lie that to him is the truth, what he would expect to happen. truth is that it may not even work. i know if i were the one in the seat, there is nothing that would stop the event just because something i care about is taken from me. in the end i will be dead anyway, along with anyone in custody, and would be a waste of their time. remember, they are for the most part brainwashed religious fanatics, right? thats what our government tells us, but somehow torturing their kids would change that so drastically? it seems a lose/lose



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Na i would not do it fact, fbi like our mi5 are just murderers looking for innocent people to kill, while everyone else laughs.

150,000 murders in usa in ten years, and i know for a fact that electronic mind control exist in uk since 1992 when i was at school.

That shows police like fbi are solicitating murder, as they could use these techs to find out if people on death row are innocent.

Fbi or mi5 have no interest in truths or saving lifes.
edit on 11/20/2010 by andy1033 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


I wasn't talking about any government agency. What would YOU do?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AnnieMaine
 


I wouldn't like it. But, I would do what I had to save lives. Doesn't mean I could live with myself afterwards. Couldn't just walk away saying it wouldn't work anyway. We are talking about ALOT of innocent lives in the balance.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hypocrites
 


You couldn't half "butt" it. To do otherwise would be you gambling with millions of lives.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I would do anything to prevent the bombs going off. I see no moral dilemma to do whatever it takes with few lives. In fact it would be unmoral not to use all means. That is of course when assuming that the guy is really the culprit.

What now? Why did you ask?

-v



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


No judgment. Merely a hypothetical to see how people think they would react. I find it funny the sheer amount of people that have thus far tried to avoid it in so many words. Simple fact of the matter is though none of us really know what we'd do. We can have a good idea but we don't truly know. To quote a song I in particularly love:

I would tell you about the things
They put me through
The pain I've been subjected to
But the Lord himself would blush
The countless feasts laid at my feet
Forbidden fruits for me to eat
But I think your pulse would start to rush

Now I'm not looking for absolution
Forgiveness for the things I do
But before you come to any conclusions
Try walking in my shoes
Try walking in my shoes

You'll stumble in my footsteps
Keep the same appointments I kept
If you try walking in my shoes
If you try walking in my shoes

Morality would frown upon
Decency look down upon
The scapegoat fate's made of me
But I promise now, my judge and jurors
My intentions couldn't have been purer
My case is easy to see

I'm not looking for a clearer conscience
Peace of mind after what I've been through
And before we talk of any repentance
Try walking in my shoes
Try walking in my shoes

You'll stumble in my footsteps
Keep the same appointments I kept
If you try walking in my shoes
If you try walking in my shoes
Try walking in my shoes

Now I'm not looking for absolution
Forgiveness for the things I do
But before you come to any conclusions
Try walking in my shoes
Try walking in my shoes

You'll stumble in my footsteps
Keep the same appointments I kept
If you try walking in my shoes

You'll stumble in my footsteps
Keep the same appointments I kept
If you try walking in my shoes
Try walking in my shoes
If you try walking in my shoes
Try walking in my shoes



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


another reason i would "kill" the family with sedatives to just appear dead. reason 1 is that if its successful and u file your report, they would see that his family wasnt killed as most people would expect, and were just part of an act and didnt know it. and reason 2 is that nowadays the government would just drop the dude off and say "this is the guy" and if hes innocent. its easy to say "my bad ackmed, ur family isnt really dead tho, they are just in a bit of pain having bullets taken out of their bodies, but hey, u gotta admit u seemed like the terrorist eh?"



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hypocrites
 


If he didn't see them actually die. Painfully. Most likely he would write it off as a fake. It must be unmistakable. Which is impossible without actually doing it.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I would not do what you describe.

Not my place, and i would not do what you would do anyway.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


if someone shoots your wife 8 times throughout the body then drags them to a back-room, makes it look like they cap her, then drag a body bag out (trailing blood) for someone else in the room "to dispose of" you wouldn't believe them? you sure as hell are a lot less predictable than every other human ive met. probably dont believe they cant find osama either



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


Explain to me how it is moral, to take his and his family life over any one else. Numbers are numbers, morals have nothing to do with numbers. Your just rationalising and fantasising about torturing and murdering peopel to save others.

How does numbers get into morals?

If something is wrong it is wrong.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


So a million innocent lives are not more important than 2 or 3?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Kindly don't attack others for their opinions. As I asked you. A million innocent lives are not more important than 2 or 3?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


The little scenario is lacking a bit. What makes you think that harming his family would do any good in the first place? What assurances do you have?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Simple human instinct. What guarntee do you have it wouldn't work?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
are you kidding me - yes you torture them - who cares about him - he doesn't care about you or your family, friends, neighbors

The protection of one - does not justify the harm to many



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by andy1033
 


So a million innocent lives are not more important than 2 or 3?


How does morals come into numbers. Torture and murder are torture and murder. I am not sure you can justify killing a family to save a million lifes based on morals.

Thats all i am saying. How do you know a million lifes are more important than a few in some family? Surely a number is just a number, and any deaths are the same, still wrong.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join