It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:17 PM
reply to post by SyphonX

The thing is that a scenario like that is a really desperate one. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If this happened in real life and the civilian population knew about it then they would probably demand the government to do anything possible to extract the information from the terrorists. They would probably be okay with invading or nuking the terrorist's homeland as well..

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:47 AM

Don't be surprised by the fact that the governments subsidize
these types of 'movies', TV 'shows' and other forms of 'media'.
Because we know that the do, it's a fact.
(just as they subsidized the TV evangelists)

There is another option besides the
propaganda machine that is used to groom the masses,
learn to THINK as an individual.


posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Aeons

In the end, after all the questions, it is STILL a yes/no answer. Could you do it, or couldn't you? If you don't want to answer, say so, instead of assuming you're smarter than people who answered the question.

I guess the answer then is - I could find a better way when half tanked and you can't even conceive of anything other than yes or no on a good day.

Enjoy your Fallacy of Logic.

Aeon, by drugging the person and finding a better way means you are not torturing them. By using any other method, you are not torturing. In essence you are saying that you would find a better way than torturing. This means no you would not torture.

No - I would PREFER not to.

I believe that institutionalized torture is a way for perverts to have the government siphon their prey to them. Period. There is no need EVER for it.

However, would I break someone's fingers if it meant finding a sniper on the field? Probably. Unless there was another way.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

All the problems you just listed for drugs induced information is the same problem of torture induced information.

How do you screw up torture information? Assume that all your agents will talk. Teach them to lie. Lie early, lie often, lie fantastically and lie realistically. To babble insanely (not hard in the circumstances I'm sure). That way, when they start to tell the truth it is so mixed up in lies that telling the lies from the truth is the work of weeks and weeks.

Worse, in order to "prove" that it works, they have then torture MORE people in the same way to try and get more information to see if they cross-check.

So, you have EXACTLY the same problem. Only, now you've got an institution of torture backed up by pseudo science and people who are getting off on it.

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by ToneDeaf

The assumption that anyone that disagrees is not thinking for themselves is a laughable one. Much less blaming a phantom for everything that doesn't say what you want it to say.

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by Aeons

Might wish to reacess what it is exactly you think I am saying and get back to me. I assure you, you don't have it correctly.

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by teapot

Too many generalities to be realistic. Sorry.

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by fonenyc

Hard to evacuate a city when you don't know which ones. Or do you propose evacuating all cities in such a situation?

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by andrewh7

Yes because a situation only goes how you say it should. Gotcha.

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by SyphonX

It's amazing the sheer amount of high and mighty boneheads will come to lord their opinion over those they view as intellectual inferiors.

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:40 PM
Interesting thread. Not the OP so much as the responses.The OP has a major flaw in the scenario and the options we are given to choose from. I believe most of the responses are complete BS bravado. In my previous career there were big talkers who would start barfing if a bum puked or spit on them... real hard core folks out there.Probably would have fainted if they had to chose to kill to live or in the defense of another
Torture and murder is another animal.. and in the OP scenario I do not see it being productive. Youd make him and his family a group martyrs in the service of Allah.. so much for that whole torture an d murder to get info idea, eh?

I am ashamed to admit that my previous career has desensitized me very much. Its easy to admit here as I dont have judgmental eyes on me
I am desensitized more than I should be.. in my opinion. I feel I may be capable of more than just violence if I perceived a threat to my children or I needed to be brutal to reach an end to something that Id consider important. For myself alone, I probably woulnt be brutal. Im more motivated to pull out the stops for others.. like my family or the weak or defenseless. I do believe we have an obligation ( by god, the universe, being a human.. whatever reason) to shelter and defend the little things and the defenseless things. Im unsure if I would kill for or in defense of someone I couldnt identify with or feel a need to protect. KWIM?? I dont think killing would bother me much, but murder would. To me there is a difference. I dont think I would feel very bad afterward because I woudlnt just kill willy nillly.. Id have to have a reason and a good one to put myself inthe situation where that was a possibility in the first place. If I had that..a reason... no telling what Id do or how brutal I would be honestly.

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by Advantage

As I pointed out earlier. It's rather easy to write a loved one off as dead. It's a whole different matter to sit and watch them die painfully.

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Was it (the OP) a test? Did I fail?

In my world, physical violence, no matter the provocation, just does not factor as the first resort. Unless of course, if I were subject to the Milgram experiment, in which case, who knows?

edit on 25/11/2010 by teapot because: edit

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:15 AM
reply to post by teapot

No it was a question. To which you responded in generalities like many have. Terrorists would have no qualms letting their familes die and etc. Which is what I was talking about. As I have pointed out a number of times now. It's relatively easy to write someone of as dead it is a wholly different matter to watch them die.
And that is just addressing one generalization I saw.

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 07:08 AM
Sry for diggin' this up, but I have kinda different answer to that situation.

Well, torturing that guy and/or his relatives is one thing.
But you should also understand, that it's impossible to get acess to, create, and plant nukes all by yourself.

So my answer, as a president, would be kinda simple - immediatelly contact all representatives of muslim terrorist organisations around the world, explain em situation, and ensure them that if the nukes blow up, there will be a massive nuclear retalliation on Middle East & associated countries, since they're taking it to the level of nuclear war (this kind of information should be only provided to terrorist organisations, and not to be made public, to evade the political consequences in case retaliatory strike wont be needed)
Provide this kind of information to him too.... and officially declare DEFCON 2. Begin evacuation of said cities. So all involved parties will have no doubts about what's coming. (of course inform allies, Russia and China about the situation, and give em real-time access to what are you doing/going to do. To avoid thermonuclear WW3)

I can guarantee this way you will get Al-quaeda, Hezbollah and all other islamic terrorist organisations and their sponsors doing EVERYTHING to help you.
edit on 29-3-2011 by Knjaz because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:18 PM
The material world is the unthinkable.


posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:31 AM
I watched this movie recently.

And for all those who say "How does numbers get into morals?", "its not right", they sound like a women who belongs to the kitchen. It's innocent humans out there damn it. You don't care about innocent lives, you don't care about their families, you are absolutely fine if they blow into pieces, all you care is the culprit should't be tortured, he needs to be treated with self respect. JUST LISTEN TO YOURSELF.

If someone says he is gonna kill millions, then i wouldn't mind what H did in the movie.
I would gladly make his family suffer before his eyes (if it is the only option available) until he speaks out. (Mind you getting to his family would be the last option, just like in the movie).

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 10:42 PM
a reply to: Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Put me in the place and time, then the decision will be made.

posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:02 AM
There are non-harmful means of getting answers out of people, torture is actually a last resort.

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in