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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


The second bomb's existance wasn't known to the team.




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


right, but they would be going in with equipment to detect it, and they surely would have found both. you wouldnt just stop at one.. though I knew there were 4 bombs like an hour before it ended.. movies are so predictable.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I would not do it for a number of reasons.

First of all this person places his cause above human life, even his own. He does not care about the consequences to his family. He has brought these weapons in knowing that he could be killed and his family imprisoned at the very least. If multiple nuclear devices went off, there would be fallout all over the country also poisoning his family. He does not have a problem with them dying.

The 2nd reason is that you could not trust the information. Your torture would only reinforce his opinion of you as evil and why you need to be destroyed. He would try to lead you on a wild goose chase to waste your time and spread out your resources.

The main reason is that I believe all life is interconnected and precious. My version of God is that it is everything and I am part of it. To try and justify the torture and killing of innocents will only put me on the same path as the man who has set the nuclear devices. This person may believe that our civilization is evil and needs to be destroyed. He is trying to measure and justify something morally wrong by its outcome, which he believes is right. Many of us do this all day long. It starts with lying. We may do it because we are afraid or because it will have a good outcome. An example would be a police officer who pads his report to put someone away. He has justified hurting someone because he believes he is doing something good. Changing our viewpoint and understanding of ourselves will change the world. It starts with dropping the illusion of the 'self' and the understanding that it is all one.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Why? Like I said, the main character figured it out shortly before the bomb went off. How often does anyone drag around equipment they don't feel they need? And if they bombs were detectable, why would they need to find out exactly where they where anyway?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


His family was caught trying to leave the country.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Because the equipment is most likely a hand held geiger counter. It would have registered a signal in two seperate locations in the vacinity.. but its entertainment, movies.. so it doesnt matter.. they wanted fear..

moral of the story is we should sometimes put our bullheadedness aside, and talk to our enemies.. or read the geiger counter



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

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


His family was caught trying to leave the country.

His family would be guaranteed a place in heaven according to his beliefs. They would be martyrs. Living out their normal lives could not assure this. He is doing them a favor according to his religion.

This movie is used to try and sell torture. It is part of a process of acclimation of the public. It is part of the destruction of our Constitution and basic human rights. In other words those who rule can do anything they want, because ,of course, they are keeping us safe. Lose your fear.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


The enemy wasn't talking.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


His family would be guaranteed a place in heaven according to his beliefs. They would be martyrs. Living out their normal lives could not assure this. He is doing them a favor according to his religion.


Then why does those pesky Arabs appear pissed when we bomb their homes?


This movie is used to try and sell torture. It is part of a process of acclimation of the public. It is part of the destruction of our Constitution and basic human rights. In other words those who rule can do anything they want, because ,of course, they are keeping us safe. Lose your fear.


I don't see that. I see it asking a very saliant question as to what extremes someone should, could or would go to.

On a side note. We live in a savage world. If you don't play with that very simple very true fact in mind you will lose, everytime. Especially when playing against those that have absolutely no compunction against doing it to you
edit on 20-11-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 

Of course it is selling torture. By having the nuclear bomb go off at the end it is implying that people were killed because we didn't torture. If only the agent had killed the child in front of the man then he would have complied. It is using the tactic of fear to sell torture and compliance. It is saying that by allowing the rulers to run amok they will be able to keep you safe.

I have a new theory. How about we stop dropping bombs on people. Then we don't have to worry about them being mad at us and retaliating back. I reference you back to my original post. You don't have to win because there is nothing to gain and nothing to lose. You have it all already. Enjoy the journey.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


Of course it is selling torture. By having the nuclear bomb go off at the end it is implying that people were killed because we didn't torture. If only the agent had killed the child in front of the man then he would have complied. It is using the tactic of fear to sell torture and compliance. It is saying that by allowing the rulers to run amok they will be able to keep you safe.


Sometimes not persuing all options can get you killed. Even the morally repugnant ones. And it didn't say he would've complied. You are miswording things to your advantage, OF COURSE he wouldn't have complied had they just killed the kids in front of him. Threat and show the willingness to follow through with said threat would've brought compliance.
As was shown with how the guy reacted.


I have a new theory. How about we stop dropping bombs on people. Then we don't have to worry about them being mad at us and retaliating back. I reference you back to my original post. You don't have to win because there is nothing to gain and nothing to lose. You have it all already. Enjoy the journey.


What exactly did I say that suggested to you I did not advocate not dropping bombs on people? How about addressing exactly what I said and not trying to distract? If they would view their families' deaths as a martyrdom. Why exactly would they get emotional when we drop bombs on their houses? They went to Allah after all or so they believe.


edit on 20-11-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

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



What exactly did I say that suggested to you I did not advocate not dropping bombs on people? How about addressing exactly what I said and not trying to distract? If they would view their families' deaths as a martyrdom. Why exactly would they get emotional when we drop bombs on their houses? They went to Allah after all or so they believe.


edit on 20-11-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)


Even though you view them as martyrs you would still miss them. It would also reinforce your view that the other side is evil. This would create an obligation to destroy the evil. We all know that the good must fight against the evil. This is what is taught in the custodial religions.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
whats the right thing to do" here's the issue discussed at length in a harvard philosophy class


edit on 20-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
It's unthinkable so I can't think about it to consider if I'd do it. Since it is unthinkable, I might do it without thinking of the ramifications.


In all seriousness, I wouldn't do it, since it's probably a very deadly sin. Even to save millions. I'm not responsible for their lives. Anyone can die at any time, so everyone is probably responsible at every moment for how they live their lives up to their death. If they die perhaps they can go to heaven, but I'd personally be accountable for my own sins. So from a God-fearing point of view, no.

On the other hand, if I didn't believe in God or the possibility of hell this would be a much more complicated question.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
There is no justice in torture. You do not torture innocent people no matter how many people are saved. Maybe one day you may realize the way of God. Life is a classroom and if you were to take the bait on this one then you failed.

The physical is not as important as the spiritual. We are all part of God to harm another is to harm oneself. If this lesson has to be learned by our physical conscience then it is what it is. to make that decision yourself to torture a child to stop millions from dieing then you failed not only in your own path but the path of everyone.

We end hurting each other not by changing others but by changing ourselves, one person in the mirror at a time. To do what the OP has suggested is to keep perpetuating our disease of pain we inflict upon another. To do what is suggested keeps the vicious cycle going. We cannot change each other only ourselves. Millions may die yet millions will be reincarnated. An act of evil done by you to stop a worst evil act is what keeps this horro show of the inhuman condition repeating itself.

We must all see this fact collectively. If we all turn the other cheek we will find peace.

It all starts with the man in the mirror. Look at him/her and ask her/him to change his/her ways. It is so simple to find our peace yet we collectively react as an animal.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I'd pull out the fast penta.

See, most things aren't Either A or B.

Though I can see why stupid people only see A and B.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


So a question where the answer is either yes or no can be interpreted as not yes and not no at the same time?


I really don't see this as a gray question with room for ambiguous answers. It's either yes or no. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but logic.

EDIT: I think I'll change my answer to "only on Tuesdays" so I can have my cake and eat it too.
edit on 21-11-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
No, two answers are generally a logical fallacy.

Not always. But most of the time.

You and I walk into an ice cream store. I say, "You want chocolate or strawberry" you say, "I hate strawberry" we both conclude you clearly want chocolate.

Of course, the ice cream store actually carries 300 flavours. But logically I presented you with only two options, so obviously the store only has two types of ice cream.

Last time I went , I tried the Chili Spice Gelato.
edit on 2010/11/21 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


The problem is there aren't three hundred different choices available, but two. Yes or no.

I can understand that this may be an uncomfortable for some, but the question is: 'Could you do the "Unthinkable"?'
edit on 21-11-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Aeons
 


The problem is there aren't three hundred different choices available, but two. Yes or no.

I can understand that this may be an uncomfortable for some, but the question is" 'Could you do the "Unthinkable"?'


No, there isn't only two options.

There really isn't. The fact that this isn't clear to you is really really sad.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join