Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

Bob_the_lost said:
No "Oh sorry Bob, i missed that"

No. "Yeah, sorry, you didn't criticise those who were sceptical about KSM's confession at all"

If you want a polite discussion i'm more than willing to try. Throwing around accusations of Nazism (not you) or innacurate claims of critisism (you) doesn't help that.

You what? You have a habit of deliberately misreading my posts. I haven't thrown any "innacurate claims of critisism" at anyone. I am merely stating my position; which is that of the sceptic. DB and you leapt in with characteristic enthusiasm.

Okay, I've just noticed this.

This confesion isn't worth much, he'd need to give confirmable details (that only the planners could know) to make it belivable. Any details that could prove that he really did organise it will be classified up the wazzoo and certainly wont' be released. In this matter at least i don't trust the US authorities as far as i can throw a six foot blood drinking lizard.

You seem to have changed your position somewhat since you posted this.
 
nino_savatte said:
This is speculation. Have a look at what you type before you post it.



The word "perhaps" indicates uncertainty. You're speculating.
I know that. Where did i say i wasn't speculating, where did i have a go at anyone for speculating? The only time i can remember doing that in this thread was when Aldebaran got confused between truth, reliability and the nature of the two when you torture someone.

Yes it is speculation, i've done plenty, as has more or less everyone who's been contributing to this thread. Am i supposed to be sorry about this? It's obviously speculation. You asked a question for which there could be no definite answer. That's what you get, clearly labeled speculation, not speculation dressed up as fact which should be challenged.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
I know that. Where did i say i wasn't speculating, where did i have a go at anyone for speculating about what was said? The only time i can remember doing that in this thread was when Aldebaran got confused between truth, reliability and the nature of the two when you torture someone.

Yes it is speculation, you want some more? I've done plenty as has more or less everyone who's been contributing to this thread. Am i supposed to be sorry about this? It's obviously speculation. You asked a question for which there could be no definite answer. That's what you get.

I've edited my post.
 
nino_savatte said:
I haven't thrown any "innacurate claims of critisism" at anyone.
nino said:
But you may criticise those of us who are sceptical about KSM's confessions
That's exactly what you did here. We have bad blood and it's a perfectly valid interpretation, i've read it again and i don't think i can find an interpretation that isn't attacking me in some manner. But i don't think we're going to get anywhere with this.
 
detective-boy said:
You are mixing up several concepts.

No. You fail to think beyond your pre-designed frame(s). Not a first.

The "truth" is an absolute. It is what is, it is what happened.

And as such only known by those who directly, immediately underwent it.

A witness may or may not know the "truth" because our perception of things, and our memory of things is less than perfect.

Miracle. You picked something up of what I posted.

A willing witness, telling their honest recollection, will usually be pretty close to providing the "truth" or, at least, their honest perception of it.

A second similar miracle as above.

An unwilling witness, making something up, will be telling a lie. That lie will usually not be the truth or, at least, not their honest perception of it.

Third miracle in a row.

A tortured witness may or may not provide honest recollection or lies.

Wrong. Re-read my posts to understand why. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again.

And "evidence" is a judicial concept which amounts to an account admitted into judicial proceedings.

Wrong. The use of the word evidence is not limited to the judicial concept thereof.(Hint to avoid some more of your patronising idiocy: You are in fact trying to lecture someone with 3 law degrees.)

Something admitted as evidence may, or may not be the "truth".

Fourth miracle.
Why do you keep repeating what I said and - in addition - as if you come with something original? I think everyone posting here knows such basic principles.

salaam.
 
nino_savatte said:
It's far easier to believe what the press or what the official channels say than to use your brain - non? But then, cops will only see this one way: towelhead who is labelled "AQ's mastermind confesses to almost every terrorist activity since 1945".
BUT. I. DIDN'T. YOU. FUCKING. THICK. CUNT. :mad: :mad:

You thought I said that because I am an ex-copper and that is what you expected me to say. Which is why you are a bigot. So fuck off and die.
 
nino_savatte said:
It should make DB foam at the mouth.
Why? I agree with everything which is said.

Which you would find expressed in my posts on this thread if you'd actually care to read them ... you can read can't you?

Cunt.
 
detective-boy said:
If the interrogators had knonw nothing about the guns or the hiding place previously, the finding of them based on the information provided WOULD be proof of the accuracy / truth of the confession. Wouldn't it? (Unless, of course, you say it could just have been a happy bloody coincidence that the prisoner made up a spot which just happend to have some guns buried there ... )

No, like I mentioned, he could have the information from no matter who or no matter where.

detective-boy said:
That is EXACTLY what I have been arguing from the outset. Some of what someone under totrture says may be true, some may be false.

Rread my posts again. Or let's make it easy, since you seem to be unable to grasp the simple concept I explained therein

1. Free confession if not deliberately falsified by the confesser = the best guarantee for truth.
2. Confession extracted under toruture, or any other kind of coercion = absence of free will and imposition of pain/fear = disorientation = falsified memory = unreliable outcome even if containing parts that are factually true = at the very best producing a "half truth" = a distortion of the full truth = a lie.

You can add a few more steps but the inevitable conclusion is alsways the same: distortion of the full truth = therefore a lie.

The ONLY argument I have been having is with the fuckwits like Aldebaran and nino_savette who seem to think no-one under torture EVER uttered a single true word.

Falling back on attempts to insult the opponent is not only a sign of desperation, but in addition sign of a lack of decent upbringing.
Deliberate distortion of the content and/or intention/meaning of the arguments of the opponent gives indication of the same.

You do both... It isn't very clear what you try to achieve but that can hardly be my problem.

salaam
 
detective-boy said:
No. YOU ask anyone.

I did, more then one, more then once, in function of advisor for the defence.

detective-boy said:
Treated as if it were untrue, maybe (but I am sure there are lots of examples where interrogators have acted on information obtained by torture believing it to be true).

What torturers *believe* to be true is of no significance to what actually *is* true.

BUT NOT NECESSARILY NOT TRUE IN REALITY.

You can't stop repeating what I write. Strange.

If everything was, as a matter of fact, fals why would anyone have to consider it as if it were false ...

Don't act as if you are so stupid not to know why.

salaam.
 
Aldebaran said:
The use of the word evidence is not limited to the judicial concept thereof.(Hint to avoid some more of your patronising idiocy: You are in fact trying to lecture someone with 3 law degrees.)
God help the fucking legal profession if you are the product of three degrees. :rolleyes:

Your "miracles" are actually what I have consistently posted. The miracle is that YOU have now realised that. The reason I have posted them in simple terms is that you and others seemed to have difficulty understanding them when I used words of more than one syllable.

I have read your posts repeatedly. To the point of losing the will to live. There is nothing in them which proves that a tortured person will never provide accurate, true information. There is lots about whether it is reliable. There is lots about whether we should treat it as being true. But there is fuck all about why it simply can't be true. It is self-evident it can. Has no tortured person ever accurately provided their name to their torturer?

I assumed you and others were using a legal definition of "evidence". What definition are you using?
 
Aldebaran said:
No, like I mentioned, he could have the information from no matter who or no matter where.
But if he didn't. It's bloody pretend. To prove a point that there CAN be independent proof of the accuracy of something said under torture. IF HE BLOODY DIDN'T. Are you being deliberately thick?

even if containing parts that are factually true
Hurrah. You've finally got the fucking point. That is the ONLY thing I have been trying to point out - some of what is said under torture MAY be true. See, it wasn't difficult, was it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
From The Independent today, just by way of an update:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's dramatic confessions before a US military hearing are beginning to backfire on the Bush administration. Legal experts are casting serious doubt about their validity as evidence, and human rights activists say they only illuminate a "sham process" of justice in the US war on terror, including the apparent use of torture on Mohammed and potentially dozens of other al-Qa'ida suspects.
source
 
detective-boy said:
God help the fucking legal profession if you are the product of three degrees.

I don't think you have much an idea of "the profession".

Your "miracles" are actually what I have consistently posted. The miracle is that YOU have now realised that.

So sorry for you, but it is in my posts all along.

The reason I have posted them in simple terms is that you and others seemed to have difficulty understanding them when I used words of more than one syllable.

Falling back on the simplicity of "insult" in your "argument"? You making aclown of yourself can't be my problem.

I have read your posts repeatedly. To the point of losing the will to live.

You can always ask for clarification if you don't understand me.

There is nothing in them which proves that a tortured person will never provide accurate, true information.

Read my easy summary.

I assumed you and others were using a legal definition of "evidence". What definition are you using?

I am. Which has no influence on my remark.

salaam.
 
detective-boy said:
But if he didn't. It's bloody pretend. To prove a point that there CAN be independent proof of the accuracy of something said under torture. IF HE BLOODY DIDN'T. Are you being deliberately thick?

How can you know he didn't/couldn't know from secundary sources what he confessed to ?
That is the first and last question to be asked.
Answer: You can't.

Hurrah. You've finally got the fucking point. That is the ONLY thing I have been trying to point out - some of what is said under torture MAY be true. See, it wasn't difficult, was it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It is there all along. Not my fault you fail to see it.
One or two factual true bits still don't make such a confession true.

By the way: If you can't act as an adult, please refrain to answer my posts. I feel as if I'm in Kindergarten.

salaam.
 
Aldebaran said:
It is there all along. Not my fault you fail to see it.
One or two factual true bits still don't make such a confession true.
Where?

Where, prior to that post, is there a single word in your posts which acknowledges that any single thing in an admission gained by torture could actually be true.

Quote me one. You've pompously suggested I may like to aks for your help in understanding. Well I am now. Quote me one, just one place where you had previously acknowledged that anything could be true.

Don't launch into a diatribe.

Don't ask another question.

Don't simply state that "it is".

Don't simply simply raise another point (probably one that I have absolutely no issue with).

Try, for once in your life, to simply do what you are asked.

Find me one previous post where you accept that.

Or withdraw your allegation that there is one.
 
Aldebaran said:
How can you know he didn't/couldn't know from secundary sources what he confessed to ?
That is the first and last question to be asked.
Answer: You can't.
You clearly find it intellectually impossible to conceive of hypothetical situations. It is a waste of time debating anything with you. Welcome to ignore. :mad: :mad:
 
detective-boy said:
You clearly find it intellectually impossible to conceive of hypothetical situations.

Correction: you fail to see the simple fact that only a free, undistorted, confession can be taken for a guarantee to truth.
In addition you fail to grasp the simple concept of what I gave you even child-like summarized.

It is a waste of time debating anything with you. Welcome to ignore. :mad: :mad:

Bye. Play along in your Kindergarten.

salaam.
 
Aldebaran said:
Bye. Play along in your Kindergarten.
I'll find more intellectually stimulating company. I cannot believe that you are as stupid as you appear. You must, therefore, be dishonest and mendacious in your postings and your choice to ignore simple questions to which you know there is no answer.

You'll be missed.

Not.
 
detective-boy said:
I'll find more intellectually stimulating company.

To each his level.

I cannot believe that you are as stupid as you appear.

It is nothing new to me that normal people can't follow my reasonings. Most of the time however they manage to say that without descending to Kindergarten level. That you seem to be unable to do this could give you some indication about your own intellectual development.

You must, therefore, be dishonest and mendacious in your postings and your choice to ignore simple questions to which you know there is no answer.

Look, self-chosen self-made clown, here is an other simple idea for you to ponder about: If someone posts I am on "ignore", why would I waste time in answering any previous post made by that person?

Bye again. Have fun.

salaam.
 
Aldebaran said:
Look, self-chosen self-made clown, here is an other simple idea for you to ponder about: If someone posts I am on "ignore", why would I waste time in answering any previous post made by that person?
Perhaps so that they could demonstrate to other posters that they were not the lying, devious twat that they appear to have been demonstrated to be.

By the way - I didn't say you were on ignore. I'll just fucking ignore you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
detective-boy said:
Perhaps so that they could demonstrate to other posters that they were not the lying, devious twat that they appear to have been demonstrated to be.

I think other posters are intelligent enough to formulate their own quesiotns, if they have any.
You on the other hand simply fail to understand my posts and from there make some ridiculous assumptions combined with ridiculous childish behaviour, which you then present as "questions".
You seriously don't expect me to take you for something else then a self-professed clown?

By the way - I didn't say you were on ignore. I'll just fucking ignore you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

+

you said:
Welcome to ignore.

me said:
Look, self-chosen self-made clown, here is an other simple idea for you to ponder about: If someone posts I am on "ignore", why would I waste time in answering any previous post made by that person?

Try again when ready to behave like an adult.

Bye again.

salaam.
 
you are wasting your time with d-b by & large: he twists every fact & assertion to belittle other posters. His postings are useful to show how even the reasonable version of PC Plod isn't, when pushed. Afternoon All!
 
Aldebaran said:
Wrong. The use of the word evidence is not limited to the judicial concept thereof.(Hint to avoid some more of your patronising idiocy: You are in fact trying to lecture someone with 3 law degrees.)
.

That's too bad, most people get it after only one degree.

'Evidence' is a juridical concept used by laypeople, but often incorrectly.
 
Aldebaran said:
It is nothing new to me that normal people can't follow my reasonings..

Don't flatter yourself into thinking that people find you obtuse due to your possession of intellectual depth. It happens because you're talking shit a lot of the time.
 
Aldebaran said:
I think other posters are intelligent enough to formulate their own quesiotns, if they have any.
You on the other hand simply fail to understand my posts and from there make some ridiculous assumptions combined with ridiculous childish behaviour, which you then present as "questions".
You seriously don't expect me to take you for something else then a self-professed clown?



+





Try again when ready to behave like an adult.

Bye again.

salaam.


Someone should be selling popcorn: an intellectual grudge match between Aldebaran and Detective Boy. This is what the internet is all about!
 
Back
Top Bottom