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.



page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by LogiosHermes27

In this situation that you posited, the needs of the many outweigh those of the few.

In the case of the killing/assassination of what's his name in Yemen, no I don't support it. These situations must be judged on a case by case basis. There is a lot of grey area here.

What constitutes a "clear and present" danger? As the old saying goes, I don't know, but I'll know it when I see it.

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by TsukiLunar

So, saving 40m lives does not justify the torture you inflicted on one man?

You are consistently avoiding the fact that Ive stated in all posts but one on this thread, that torture is not a reliable means of getting information from people, especially those who are convinced they are right, and are suffering for a greater good.

So until you comment on why you are posting with the insinuation that the torture would absolutely without doubt be 100% successful with 100% accurate information before the "point of no return", so to speak, I cant keep going in circles with you, as your asking these questions with a faulty premise.

That is ridiculous. Idealism can do those things too. Think of Hitlers idealism.

The world is fine (if not way better off than in the past). At any rate, place the blame on an abstract concept is hardly fair. Not to mention idealism plays a huge role in how the world functions to begin with. So this point is moot.

Idealism under the philosophy of the ends justify the means can result in any horror imaginable. Idealism is not an issue. "End justify the means" is an issue, and extremely dangerous one for those who truly and honestly believe it, and have the means of executing ANY means to reach their ends.

No matter how noble the ends, if the means used to get there are evil, those ends are irrevocably corrupted.

I am coming from a "I want to save as many lives as possible even if i have to sacrifice my soul to Satan himself" stand point.

What about the other two questions that proceeded the one you answered?
edit on 10/13/2011 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:16 PM

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27

Originally posted by grumpydaysleeper
You have to consider the fact that millions of lives are at stake.An unprecedented amount will be innocent children. I would have to say find out where the bombs are by any means necessary! As he is an American born terrorist in cahoots with the enemy---he's lost his rights.
He is also a traitor to his country!
edit on 13-10-2011 by grumpydaysleeper because: (no reason given)

What about the Fifth Amendment, would you care or would you have a second thought in your decision.

Of course I would care but when it comes to the lives of millions....what about their rights? to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
edit on 13-10-2011 by grumpydaysleeper because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

So until you comment on why you are posting with the insinuation that the torture would absolutely without doubt be 100% successful with 100% accurate information before

Its an option. And quite frankly the only one that time allows for.

What about the other two questions that proceeded the one you answered?

Ok, i will address them.

And how do you figure I would be dead?

I had assumed since you were deciding the lives of 40m people that you would have the decency to die with them. Guess not. So, you will escape?

And if I was dead, why wouldnt I still have my principles?

This one is easy. You are dead.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:28 AM
Since is rambling in Arabic that we will not judge him, Allah will. Assuming he keeps that up and he is put through the legal system, he will be incompetent, crazy, and will not be tried.... So much for the legal system

Since he is invoking Allah, it should be assumed he is Muslim. Time to cook up a few pork brat's on the grill for his last supper. Skin a very large hog that he will be stuffed into before he is he is interned after having his genitals removed and fed to pigs......... No family jewels no virgins. If he has not whistled anchor's away before all that, then he knows his fate. Next.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:31 AM
For those of you that are in favour of tortureing the so-called terrorist, first of all you have to ascertain whether the man is serious or not, he could be just a nut-job trying to call attention to himself. So you may torture someone who is completely innocent of doing nothing more than a hoax. How would you feel then?

Plus, plenty of people have held out to torture for more than 2 hours. The human body is quite capable of extreme pain for a very long time.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:29 AM
I think my position on al-Awlaki's murder has been made quite clear since I interviewed the Presidential candidates about it in May. This situation is quite different.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was a horrendous miscarriage of justice. There is no real evidence that he had committed any crime at all other than being a loudmouth scumbag. We could have waited a year, two, or ten years to bring him to trial and the result would be the same. Here we have an altogether different scenario.

We have:
1. Video evidence of a bomb being planted.
2. Uranium or otherwise radioactive residue on the suspect, proving that he did in fact come in contact with a WMD.
3. A silent suspect.
4. 40 Million people who will die in 2 hours if he doesn't talk.

I'd definitely call in Jack Bauer AND Samuel L. Jackson.

I'm normally a very peaceful man with a conscience, and I don't think I could do what would need to be done in order to get this man to talk; not myself. However, with 40 million lives at stake, I'm not for a second above ordering someone else - someone who has no conscience - to do it for me on behalf of the American people. Although extraordinary measure may have to be taken, I just don't want to see it.

One thing I would do in addition to the other scenarios I've read: If it comes down to 1/2 hour or so before the bombs detonate and he still hasn't talked - even with his skin flayed and burnt, and the bodies of his wife and children laying mutilated at his feet - I'd force the man to watch as I ordered the nuclear football brought in and I programmed a MIRV attack on Mecca, Medina and his hometown.

I would tell him, "From the moment I turn this key, those missiles will fly on course to the two holiest sites in Islam, and your home villlage, from bases in South Dakota. It will take them one half of an hour to reach their targets. If you tell me where the bombs are in time to defuse them, I will order the missiles to self-destruct. However, If even one of the bombs you built goes off, I will let the missiles reach their targets and your holy land will be a sea of glass that no one will be able to set foot on for ten thousand years."

If that doesn't change his mind, after everything else he has been through, I don't know what will.

Oh, by the way... If I had to launch real missiles because he has "people watching" or a mole inside of the White House (what episode of 24 doesn't?) there is no way I would launch missiles that had functioning warheads on them; either that, or I would give the self-destruct order in time. Because even if a nuke did go off in the US as the result of the actions of a terrorist group it would still not be sufficient justification for wiping out two more cities. I think the threat would be just as "real" as the real thing. Now if the attack had been ordered by the government of Saudi Arabia itself, then yeah; glass it.

Also, I think losing Mecca and Medina would serve as a warning to the rest of the Muslim world: "Homie, you best chill, like now. Allah couldn't stop us from destroying your holy cities could he? F with us again, and you'll ALL be crispy critters."

I don't envy any man who assumes the mantle of the Presidency. If you have any kind of conscience at all, you HAVE to feel bad about innocent deaths that come about as the result of your decisions - especially a decision to vaporize a city!

It's too bad that President Obama doesn't have a conscience.
edit on 10/14/2011 by OldCorp because: Corrected for grammar. I'm my own Grammar Nazi!

edit on 10/14/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:35 AM

Originally posted by ludshed
I thought 24 ended? Another season?

Funny, but I think if I answer he is a terrorist, I'd be a hypocrite, and on that note.... you can put any label on someone, but in this serious of a case, he IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE BOMB... not someone who is just anti-govt and they can try to trace the acts against dozens of people for giving the wrong answer on a forum.

God Bless America!!!!

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:53 AM
If you were looking at this objectivley then yes.. no matter what your views were on it you would need to get the information as quickly as possible by any means possible...

to understand... any religous fundamentalist cannot be reasoned with as they believe they are acting out the word of there saviour and will go to an enlightened place.. this being chrisitna/jew/muslim or any other religon...
this is sadly how the mentality of a religous fundamentalist differs from someone whom is willing to reason/sanely asses a situation or even more importantly base there descisions on a personal sense of moral as opposed to be willing to allow a higher power to bare the burden of your actions (and thus having a clear concious)

Sadly the only real method would be to torture the would be bomber in question if you only had two hours...

however if you had a longer period of time, you could possibly use there religous veiws against them, allowing them to question how there actions would be judged etc. usuing clerics of there religon, pointing out home many followers of there religon, innocents etc. killed...

this situation you have posted comes down to time...

also as a foot note... this may not be agree'd by most people but i firmly believe that people misunderstand human rights.... (because of there name)... these things are essentially human privelages..everyone on this planet depending on the country/continent etc. they live in are asked to live by a set of rules... in western society (at least) the rules we are asked to live with a relativley easy... dont kill, dont rape, dont take advantge of the disavantaged, dont steal, generally dont be a d#k and act your age... if you live by these rules you have every right then to expect to be treated like a civilised person i would never expect anyone sticking to the fundemental rules of dont be a d#k to be treated in a bad way by politicians/medical/police/military. however if you act like a d#k then you have every right to be treated like one.. how people can expect to be treated with "human rights" i feel its time we change this word to "human privelages" people in jail for rape/child abuse murder should be treated as such... people who use there religon to hide behind it to perform acts of mass murder or attempted mass murder or even pretend and can be proven to activley try to make peoples lives worse with fear of somthing that isnt going to happen have vvoided these privelages.. essentially willingly stripped themselves of hummanity so why be allowed such rights??

haha the question above my be a thread within its self... i appreaciate there are some grey area's in there.. however our current penal system, way of dealing with issues like the one which has been put forward by th OP clearly doesnt work...

like an unsigned human contract.. help others.. be nice... dont fight in bars, steal, cheat, generally be a d#k and reap the benefits (the benefits will only exsist once you removed the rights from those not willing to stick to these rules) then governments will free up alot of money for helping the good people.

Just my thoughts/Rant.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:02 AM
reply to post by LogiosHermes27

american citizen has the right to a trial.
arrest him, seize his computer, go through his trash. let the investigators gather information. (no torture)

wait out the 2hrs. it all could still be a hoax.


posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:07 AM
mind reading : Obama "give him full pardon, when he tells us were it is and that he may go free"
Ron Paul: "what country is he from? threaten to nuke it if he says nothing"
the thing i would do:
Me as a civilian:
"let me have him for ten minutes, he tell ya where it is just no questions as to how i will do it, no drugs will be used"
ok hard core yes, but in a real world situation where lives can be saved you bet, they are nut jobs of the up most, no trials no "oh we can not do that to them", bull pucky, they would do it to us in a heart beat!!!! If they could they would kill us, or all that do not see things their way.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:40 AM
This is a situation that is far too extreme to play reasonable what-if games with. And even if it's not, so what?

I'm not against using torture because it hurts people; I'm against using it because it doesn't work. Putting somebody under duress addles their brain, makes their intell spotty and nigh useless.

Torturing this man will addle his brain, torturing his family will only strengthen his resolve further that what he is doing is right and make him clam up even more.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:46 AM
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
study mid evil times, the knew how to make you talk and tell the truth, if you told the truth you died quickly if you lied you died slowly. which way is the best way?slow and painfully or quick and painless.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:21 AM
Yeah, they also ducked witches too and burned heretics!

2nd line

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:15 AM
All of those political figures would choose the same option. Is this supposed to steer us into favoring a particular candidate?

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:40 AM

Originally posted by nineix
That was a pretty good movie:


Unthinkable Trailer

Edit: Arg, I'm schlow. other people already thinking the same thing.
edit on 13-10-2011 by nineix because: (no reason given)

Hahaha Others are thinking unthinkable things.

I liked the idea anyway, pity no one's playing along...

Because I guess, if they do play along, they're either guilty of the things they accuse people in positions of power of doing, OR if they do nothing, they may be guilty of allowing world war 3.

Heh... Im glad it's all in the US.. We'd probly give the guy enough beer till he "love yas all" and gives up the plan.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:03 AM
How much is US govt paying you to post such crazy diss-info distraction post??

I mean really ??

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 08:50 AM
Vice grips+nipple=confession

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by Wotan

I wouldnt bat an eye, dont make a threat to 40k+ innocent peope's livesl and expect it to all be ok, he deserves whatever he gets

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 10:26 AM
i'd tell the man the us will take out every muslim anywhere effectivley making islam completely extinct if he doesnt tell them were the bombs are then i'd kill his wife and 30 more muslims infront of him then i'd tell him im going to drop a nuke on mecca in 10 mins ... then if he didnt talk i'd drop the nuke on mecca

then i'd tell the rest of the armed forces islam has attacked the usa shoot to kill anything islamic anywhere

then i'd address the people to do the same


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in