Well, they'd find out when the cops were at their "top secret meeting place" with guns drawn. Or when the bomb doesn't go off.
And I think you misunderstand what I mean by "ticking bomb". What I mean is that the plan is know to be going on or that it will be completed within a day or so. I don't mean that there is a literal ticking bomb in a van somewhere. It might even be that the suicide bomber is someone else. The point is that the time is limited and the potential casualties are large.
"Unless you work for the government or you are part of the Coalition forces, you can't really tell what types of tortures they are doing there."
(Hint: "Essayons" is the motto of the U.S. Army Engineers. I am a part of the Coalition Forces.)
"have you been deprived of sleep for a week? 168 hours of white noise? repeated messages and no rest? any idea what's that like."
I've been though things close to that. Less than two hours of sleep for eight days straight, the same annoying sounds blaring constantly for days and weeks on end. Unless I could refer to constant rockets, mortars, and carbombs, which I dealt with for more than a year...those would tend to put a little stress on a person, wouldn't you say? So yeah, I've got a pretty good idea what that's like.
"got to remember that with this "group" of extremists there will be no ticking bomb, these are suicide bombers they don't leave the bomb in a van, post box or bin to wait until rush hour. they walk in at rush hour themselves. no deadlines or warnings man walks out his house, down the street and boom. if they were going to detonate a nuke on manhattan they wouldn't leave it by the side of the road for some to come and defuse it would be in the back of a van. you can't stop a bomb after that stage. therefore with suicide tactics the ticking bomb scenario is void."
They'd put a nuke in the back of a van, and there's no stopping it after that? Really? Boy, you think the government would train people to disarm bombs...
And not all of them are suicide bombers. Many times (MANY), they do just what you said--leave a bomb by the side of the road, and hopefully it hits somebody they don't like. May be Coalition Forces, may be civilians, who knows--depending on the type of reciever, they might can detonate it when they want to and try to hit military, but some are simply timed and placed. Trust me on that.
"The point is that the time is limited and the potential casualties are large."
Well said. In which case, we need to be informed of the situation immediately, and there's no time for being "nice". What is more important, the possibility of hundreds, thousands, possibly more innocent lives being lost, or the comfort of a suspected terrorist?
Essayons is the motto of the U.S. Army Engineers? Really? Damn, I never knew that.(BTW I am NOT trying to be sarcastic or anything)
"Feed me."
Understood. I don't know if it's for the entire Corps of Engineers, but I know it is for Combat Engineers.Originally Posted by T-MaN
"They'd put a nuke in the back of a van, and there's no stopping it after that? Really? Boy, you think the government would train people to disarm bombs..."
well yeah because the guy sat in the van would happily have his finger over the button. kinda late to disarm once he gets sorrunded and decides to press that down. he ain't gonna let some bomb expert come into his van and happily disarm the thing.
"And not all of them are suicide bombers. Many times (MANY), they do just what you said--leave a bomb by the side of the road, and hopefully it hits somebody they don't like"
not being there when the bomb detonates is a very awkward suicide bombing wouldn't you say? you kinda need to be there to commit suicide and all. other wise it's just a bombing. a bt like trying to shooting yourself while pointing the gun up.
do people honestly believe that the mission in iraq and afghantistan so totally failed? wasn't the point to smash al-qaeda? kinda pointless if your still so scared you'd see inoccent people tortured and killed.
sasquatch would mind being a suspected terrorist? like mozzam begg? have your door kicked in? dragged off to cuba? tortured for 3 years? or don't you care? guess it would never happen to you would it? you're not some damn "towelhead" or "paki" are you? no chance of it ever happening to you. so why care? ask yourself would you be happy to be where mozzam begg was a few months ago and is that what you call the great american dream?
not like empathy for man tortured nearly half to death ever crossed the mind of the american people in their great conquest. shouldn't we trying to rise above this? proving we are better than these people? or is lowering ourself down to their level what america is best at? why not when we have convicted them lets have a public crucifiction? or stone them? that would be jolly fun. if you want to free the world free it don't imprison it's people and torture them.
That's why we would shoot the guy, then disarm the bomb. This isn't that difficult to figure out.
I just pointed out that they're not all suicide bombers, and you come back with some sarcastic remark about suicide bombers. It's alright though, I'm sure everybody else understood what I said."And not all of them are suicide bombers. Many times (MANY), they do just what you said--leave a bomb by the side of the road, and hopefully it hits somebody they don't like"
not being there when the bomb detonates is a very awkward suicide bombing wouldn't you say? you kinda need to be there to commit suicide and all. other wise it's just a bombing. a bt like trying to shooting yourself while pointing the gun up.
Was Mozzam Begg an American? Why would I give a damn about the "American Dream" for somebody that's not American? They're not entitled to the same rights under law that Americans are entitled to. And no, I wouldn't see any reason that I would be suspected to have anything to do with terrorism.sasquatch would mind being a suspected terrorist? like mozzam begg? have your door kicked in? dragged off to cuba? tortured for 3 years? or don't you care? guess it would never happen to you would it? you're not some damn "towelhead" or "paki" are you? no chance of it ever happening to you. so why care? ask yourself would you be happy to be where mozzam begg was a few months ago and is that what you call the great american dream?
Comparing the use of "cruel" interrogation methods and the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians every year is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
Torture is everywhere. It is used on both men and women, as well as on young teens. Sometimes it is used on completely innocent people and sometimes it isn't. Just recently I've heard that in New York, a muslim girl was taken by the cops in charges of "future terrorist" just because she wrote an essay on Jihad. Now no one knows what is being done to her.
Going back to what I was saying before. Torture is used everywhere. I just used an example from New York because I just RECENTLY heard it ( like 3 minutes before typing all this up ). People are charged depending on what they do, and where they do it. No one knows whether anyone captured is innocent or is truly a "terrorist". Most authorities just arrest people because of what they do, or how they look like.
Eventually, by hideous torturings, the captured person will say that he/she is in relation with terrorism just to escape the beatings or whatever else they do as tortures around the world nowadays. Thus forever labelling the innocent captive as a terrorist. This could be the case in most places.
"Feed me."
mozzam begg was a british man living in pakistan, my comment on the great american dream was that is the great american dream to take foreigners from their homes, ship them half way acroos the globe for 3 years and torture them? what all of a sudden all foreigners don't have rights as well? everyone, EVERYONE is entitled to basic human rights no matter what race, nationality or creed the are even if they are mass murders, rapist, war criminals or the most hated man in the world, hitler, mugawbe, pol pot and stalin should all be treated with the same human rights that we all are. that's what's was agreed to by the united states.
now for the US to turn round for it to say "we changed our laws so know we can mentally abuse and both physically and mentally torture this for 3 years" or "he's foreign so why should i give a damn" or "we think he's a bad man so we should be able to break his skull"
and sasquatch to shoot the man would be illegal under american law. you need to give prior warning before a police officer discharged his fire arm. and if you don't give prior warning you don't know if they are a danger, and if you don't know if they are a danger you might just be shooting someone sat in their van wating for a friend. try explaing that one to his wife "yeah we thought he was a terrorist so he blew his brains out, sorry about that one, maybe next time we'll find a real terrorist"
sasquatch you never actually answered my question, there are after all american prisoners in quantanamo bay. would you mind having your door kicked in and dragged off to cuba for 3 years without any contact with the outside world and be tortured? is that the future of americans you are fighting for? because that can happy regardless of innocence, it's happened before it can happen again? is that the kind of thing you would like to happen to you? if not then why should it happen to other innocent men?
Everybody is entitled to human rights. But not everybody is entitled to the rights of American citizens, or the even the rights of enemy Prisoners of War.
You make a big deal out of this "torture", when for one thing, you don't have a clue what's going on in American prison camps--and even if you think you do, it's nothing near "torture"--and for another, it's not a method of entertainment, it's a method of extracting information that can and does save innocent lives, both military and civilian. (Don't bother bringing up Abu Gharab, that was mainly for entertainment, that was illegal, and that is being dealt with.)
Shooting a man with his finger on the trigger of a bomb that would kill millions is illegal? Where the hell did you get that? If he must be shot, he must be shot. Now, they might try to shoot the detonator out of his hand, or they might try to wound him so that they can drag him away and take control of the situation, but neither would be illegal. We're not talking about some dad sitting in a minivan waiting for his kids, we're talking about a terrorist with a nuke, are we not? Where are you getting this stuff from? Oh wait, nevermind, I think I know.
How many American civizens are in Gitmo? And what ties did they have that got them sent there?
Umm that isn't exactly innocent. If she was saying that Jihad is good or something like that, I can understand why NY cops would be concerned when a new yorker starts writing about jihad. I'd probably report her to the cops if she was saying that Jihad was good and that Osama was her hero. Secondly, who says she's been sent anywhere? The cops arrested her, not Homeland Security.Torture is everywhere. It is used on both men and women, as well as on young teens. Sometimes it is used on completely innocent people and sometimes it isn't. Just recently I've heard that in New York, a muslim girl was taken by the cops in charges of "future terrorist" just because she wrote an essay on Jihad. Now no one knows what is being done to her.
Anyway I can see the need for detaining someone on suspicion of terrorism for a good long time. 3 years seems a bit long if there isn't evidence, but you need some time to investigate -- and while the investigation is happening the terrorists are planning the attacks. the best way is to get them off the streets and then investigate. Like I said no torture unless you know that he was involved in a "ticking bomb" type plot, but detention is probably neccesary.
Jihad is not supporting people like Osama or anything. True, there may be suspicion on her, but what kind of idiot would write something like that in America, especially in New York City? Maybe the girl was trying to prove something else. Maybe she was trying to show that not all Muslims support people like Osama (and any other terrorist's) tyrannical ambitions.
IF she had done something like this, wouldn't you say that it is unfair for her to be held captive like that? What if she is currently being tortured? I can understand that the people of NY city will be worried and all, but seriously, what kind of idiot would write something about Jihad there unless she had something good to prove?
"Feed me."
I don't think anyone would have been even questioning her had her essay been titled "Jihad teh sux" or "Jihad on Osama and Terrorism". But as you say, anyone in the USA with a brain knows better than to talk about Jihad, especially in NYC. That doesn't mean it was to prove something. Since the war on terrorism is largely waged on Jihadists, saying things about Jihad is a great way to get yourself in a lot of trouble fast. That's reality. Since we don't have her actual essay, we'll never know what she actually said.
But the thing is that it's remarkably easy to smuggle all kinds of things into the country and getting the components to make a bomb is also easy. Enough plutonium for a nuclear explosion is the size of a grapefruit. That being the case, letting a terror suspect remain on the streets until the grand jury hears all the evidence makes it easier to commit terrorism. So if there's enough to suspect them, they should not be on the streets. You can't appologize later if a 2nd 9/11 happens. It's not like Bush or Gonzales can visit the next ground zero and say "oops we really should have caught the guy when his English teacher called us about his Jihad Essay." Now as far as torture -- no she shouldn't be tortured unless the cops have evidence that there is a plot going down that she knows how to stop.
what has been documented as being going on in cuba, what is in the us "torture manuals" is torture. that's plain fact, it's defined very simply in geneva, un human rights, eu human rights, the red cross and red crescent statements. what has been documented and been snactioned by the us government is torture that's not even up for debate. just because the us government changes it's own laws does not change that fact.
shooting a man in a van which you suspect has a bomb without prior warning is illegal yes. you can't prove he has a bomb unless you see it, otherwise he's a man in van whihc you suspect has a bomb. it may or may not have a bomb in it. you could have all the intellgence in the world but until you see that bomb he is a man suspected of having a bomb. iraq qas suspected of cupporting al qaeda, of having wmd, tora bora was suspected have housing huge bunkers where al-qaeda lived, many people have been in cuba with intelligence. is that the information with which you would kill this man you suspect? you can't go round shooting suspects can you? because we aren't talking about a man in a van with a bomb, we are talking about a suspected man. killing him without warning is therefore illegal.
are we really saying here that "you're not american so you don't have the same rights because of where you live" isn't that a tad ridicolus? what happened to all men are born equal?
and as of this girl. are we to arrest everyone with a certain view? round up all the communists while we are at it? am i to be arrested for my views as well? it becomes a very very tricky area when you arrest someone for their views doesn't it? don't be so stupid as be doomed to repeat history here. i'm not even going to put in the reference to nazi germany because frankly it's so obvious here it's not necessary.
If I thought the guy was going to blow up an entire city block unless I shot him, then I'd shoot him. Like I said, you can't take back a terrorist attack after it's happened. You can appologize to the guy's family and even give them money afterward for damages etc. This isn't like shooting a guy in the back of the head because he might have robbed somebody. That is wrong. But the question isn't "justice". It's a question of safety. The question is essentially whether if the worst case was true, which worst case would you be able to live with?
Case 1: The guy in the van is a terrorist with a bomb.
a.) You shoot the guy. He can't set off the bomb and therefore no innocent people are killed.
b.) You don't shoot him. He sets off the bomb and lots of innocent people die.
Case 2: The guy is not a terrorist
a.) You shoot the guy. He dies, but no one else does. you appologize to his family.
b.) You don't shoot him. nothing happens.
Obviously in a perfect world, you'd know whether there was a bomb in the truck, and then we would know which choice to make. The world isn't perfect. The cops on the scene are going to have to make a choice here. In my mind, it's far worse to have the bomb go off than not.
There is a difference between Jihad and Communism. Communism isn't by itself violent. Jihad is more like a person advocating the violent overthrow of a government or system. There is an implied threat in supporting a jihad that just doesn't exist in Communism or any other political theory. So writing a paper advocating Jihad is similar to writing a paper supporting the violent overthrow of the US government (which is illegal and will get you a night in jail talking to the FBI). You will only be arrested if you are advocating the violent overthrow of a government.
How is writing an essay on Jihad similar to overthrowing the US government? It could mean other things as well you know. The first impression that people get when they see a muslim person writing a paper on Jihad is that that person is a terrorist, or that they are related to a terrorist. What if people saw a non-muslim person writing a paper on Jihad? Would they arrest that person too? I don't think that they would. Lately, most things have been focused on muslims. I could be wrong seeing how I am not part of any government, but I can get a grasp of what's going on in the world by watching the news. So far of what I've seen, any suspicious acts by muslims are immediately taken as "terrorist" aggressions. What if "OTHER" extremist groups are doing the terrorist bombings and the muslims are getting blamed for it? It seems pretty logical. Other non-muslim terrorists are taking their chances to blow stuff up and not worrying because muslims will eventually get blamed. Proper evidence is needed to figure out who is actually behind most of the bombings. Some of the extremist groups admit that they have done the attacks, but some of them don't, and the blame gets pinned on the muslims. This kind of thing is happening everywhere around the world. Most governments are now blaming muslims as the prime terrorist groups.
I could be totally wrong, but every time I watch the news or read it, there is always something about "muslims suspected of terrorist agressions ", or "More suicide bombs by muslim terrorists "
Lately, I haven't even heard anything about any other attacks made by other extremist groups around the world. All I hear is muslims did this, muslims did that... and so on. The whole world is standing on edge to see what kind of "diabolical plot the muslims will think of next" instead of what kind of "diabolical plot terrorists will think of next". The term "terrorist" is now mostly being directed at muslims.
Once again, I could be totally wrong seeing how I'm only speculating with what I see on T.V. or read on the newspapers. If anyone else can disprove what I've said, I'll glady take back everything I've said here.
"Feed me."
Posting Permissions
:temigi: 
