Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

[detective-boy]

Citations, please.

Apparently he's written a pamphlet which has all the evidence in it - "Notes from NeverNeverland" or something - available from all shite booksellers for £9.99 ... but, sadly, there's nothing on the internet ...

 

[nino_savatte]

BUT. I. DIDN'T. YOU. FUCKING. THICK. CUNT.

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.

This is the best you can do, cretin. You suggested that the 'confessions' given by KSM were reliable because people always give reliable information under torture. And that the use of torture is not necessarily relevant; this is the general thrust of your 'argument'.

I called you on it and you didn't like it. Your attitude towards others (who disagree with you) is atypical of a copper. You're a bullying cunt who thinks he's a cut above the rest because you used to carry a fucking truncheon. You're sad, pathetic exicuse for a human being.

You should have a look at your sentence construction too. Pillock.

Fuck off, die and be quick about it.

 

[nino_savatte]

Apparently he's written a pamphlet which has all the evidence in it - "Notes from NeverNeverland" or something - available from all shite booksellers for £9.99 ... but, sadly, there's nothing on the internet ...

Post edited.

 

[nino_savatte]

You are mixing up several concepts.

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

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

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

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.

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

And "evidence" is a judicial concept which amounts to an account admitted into judicial proceedings. Something admitted as evidence may, or may not be the "truth".

Here you try to apply a philosophical argument to evidence gleaned through the use of torture. What the fuck do interrogation methods in this country have to do with the rendition and torture of a terror suspect by the US and its subcontractors in other parts of the world?

You attempt to project your own cultural attitudes onto something that lies outside of your cultural experience....unless there's something that you aren't telling us.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Apparently he's written a pamphlet which has all the evidence in it - "Notes from NeverNeverland" or something - available from all shite booksellers for £9.99 ... but, sadly, there's nothing on the internet ...

I am very glad that somebody of your calibre belittles me so.

 

[nino_savatte]

To be honest I think his confession is more likely to be unreliable due to his clear desire to be the biggest terrorist mastermind since that bloke in the Bond films with the fluffy white cat rather than due to him making up confessions because of the way he has been treated.

(As I understand it, he is sharing the glory with old Osama though - he was the sort of blue sky thinking guy (a sort of terrorist John Birt, if you like) and Osama took the good ideas and made them happen.)

Though not unreliable because of any torture that may have been involved. So praytell, what makes you such an expert on torture and its viability as an effective method of extracting confessions?

So because I disagree with you, you chuck as many insults in my direction that you could muster. That's why I said "once a cop always a cop" because cops don't brook disagreement or opposition.

Go and wave your truncheon in someone else's face.

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

Sorry? Not sure what you're saying here, Bob. It seemed that you were attacking me, so I reciprocated.

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

You what? I've read your posts, cunt and you seem to have trouble understanding the fact that you are no longer THE LAW.

Go fuck yourself, flatfoot.

 

[nino_savatte]

Absolutely. I would not disagree with a single word of that.

I think that the US, in the way they are treating people, are very, very significantly making the situation worse.

And as for their hypocrisy, their continued refusal to submit to any international jurisdiction when it comes to the conduct of their forces takes the fucking biscuit ...

You appear to be adopting a series of contradictory positions on this thread. Here you complain about the US and their treatment of prisoners but baulk at the very idea that torture may have been used and information obtained which is, at best, faulty. When it was suggested that the use of torture when obtaining confessions was unreliable, you appeared to disagree with this.

What is your position?

 

[nino_savatte]

It hasn't changed a whit. Show me how it appears to have changed.

Still not following you here, Bob. To what are you referring?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Still not following you here, Bob. To what are you referring?

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.

Again, it hasn't changed a whit, show me how it appears to have changed. Since the reply was in reference to a post you'd changed i had thought the logical chain was clear.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Sorry? Not sure what you're saying here, Bob. It seemed that you were attacking me, so I reciprocated.

Then you were being paranoid, there at least. I was not attacking you, nor was i even attacking your points with any malice, that is not how your post read to me. A clear and unambiguous accusation of malice from you. But again i dont' think this is going to go anywhere (productive).

 

[nino_savatte]

Again, it hasn't changed a whit, show me how it appears to have changed. Since the reply was in reference to a post you'd changed i had thought the logical chain was clear.

I think you're being obtuse for the sake of it, quite frankly. I'm not going to bother asking you to reread my post because it's pointless.

 

[nino_savatte]

Then you were being paranoid, there at least.

It's easy to dismiss someone as "paranoid" because you don't like what they're saying. You've taken a leaf out of JC2's book of debate. Give yourself a big pat on the back.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

It's easy to dismiss someone as "paranoid" because you don't like what they're saying. You've taken a leaf out of JC2's book of debate. Give yourself a big pat on the back.

And i'll take one out of yours and say : i've edited my post.

And a furrther edit: Don't like what you are saying? You mean i don't like that you're claiming i was laying into you? Yes, i don't like it because it's not true. I don't know who's book you're taking leaves out of but they aren't helpful ones.

 

[TAE]

Apparently he's written a pamphlet which has all the evidence in it - "Notes from NeverNeverland" or something - available from all shite booksellers for £9.99 ... but, sadly, there's nothing on the internet ...

There's your citation, Laptop.

 

[paimei01]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...36913&hl=en

Search at 1hour and 29 minutes in the movie above. You will see how the confessions of Khalid Mohammed were obtained :
"Whatever we need to do to get the truth out"
"Block his breathing with an artificial respiration machine"
Also there is the mental torture : torturing his children in front of him or just threaten him that his children will be tortured.

 

[nino_savatte]

And i'll take one out of yours and say : i've edited my post.

And a furrther edit: Don't like what you are saying? You mean i don't like that you're claiming i was laying into you? Yes, i don't like it because it's not true. I don't know who's book you're taking leaves out of but they aren't helpful ones.

You really aren't making any sense now.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You really aren't making any sense now.

Alright hows this:

You have said my position has changed, it hasn't.

You have said i critisised you for doubting the reliability of KSM's confession, i didn't.

From where i'm typing you appear to be doing exactly what you accuse me of, being deliberatly obtuse, because your seeming inability to follow a thread of conversation is rather hard to believe.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

There's your citation, Laptop.

a real pleasure to be attacked by such talentless non-entities as yourself.

 

[nino_savatte]

Alright hows this:

You have said my position has changed, it hasn't.

You have said i critisised you for doubting the reliability of KSM's confession, i didn't.

From where i'm typing you appear to be doing exactly what you accuse me of, being deliberatly obtuse, because your seeming inability to follow a thread of conversation is rather hard to believe.

You seem to always want to twist things around, bob. Why is that?

I have followed the thread and you're just being pompous (as usual).

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You seem to always want to twist things around, bob. Why is that?

I have followed the thread and you're just being pompous (as usual).

It appears to me at least that you read some of the thread, went away and did not read the intervening posts before replying to something on your return. As such you made some rather stupid comments. If that's the case then have the guts to say so, if not then please, please tell me how i'm twisting your words.

Pompous? Perhaps, but if so i could say you're being your usual abusive, bad mannered and obtuse self too. Then again you'd just latch onto that and ignore the rest of the post...

 

[nino_savatte]

It appears to me at least that you read some of the thread, went away and did not read the intervening posts before replying to something on your return. As such you made some rather stupid comments. If that's the case then have the guts to say so, if not then please, please tell me how i'm twisting your words.

Pompous? Perhaps, but if so i could say you're being your usual abusive, bad mannered and obtuse self too. Then again you'd just latch onto that and ignore the rest of the post...

This is fairly typical of you, bob. Tell you what, I 'll just leave you to it. I've tried communicating with you but it seems that you're just too fucking full of yourself to even make the effort.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

This is fairly typical of you, bob. Tell you what, I 'll just leave you to it. I've tried communicating with you but it seems that you're just too fucking full of yourself to even make the effort.

When you say you don't understand i have tried to explain. If you're too good to waste your time to do the same then what can i do? Ad hominems are about all i've seen out of you in this thread.

 

[nino_savatte]

When you say you don't understand i have tried to explain. If you're too good to waste your time to do the same then what can i do? Ad hominems are about all i've seen out of you in this thread.

You have consistently adopted what appears to be a non-position but seem to have trouble with the very idea that confessions given under duress are not necessarily reliable.

Here's your first post:

Doesn't make them untrue, if he was involved in planning operations then he'll have seen and worked on hundreds of different plans, nearly all discarded or judged impractical.

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.

I have already quoted this once. But here you seem to be saying that the use of torture may not be effective, though the use of language alsos suggests that you have adopted a non-position.

Detective Boy seems to think that any confession given under torture is reliable.

Despite that, there is nothing to prevent them being right. I'm sure lots of things admitted during torture are actually 100% accurate.

You appear to be missing the point here:

So if you do know something and you get tortured you lie automatically? Some of the information given as a result of torture will be correct, statistically if for no other reason.

Doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's an effective method, but just because it was tortured out doesn't make it a lie, just suspect/unreliable unless there are ways to confirm it.

Did anyone say that people would automatically lie when tortured? You made the assumption. So if the use of torture is likely to be an unreliable method of extracting information, why use it? Furthermore what do you mean by "automatically lie"?

Just because he was tortured into it does not make it a lie. Just because he confessed does not make it true.

So what does it make it then, bob? The truth? You don't appear to be taking a position but get wound up by the very suggestion that "torture does not produce reliable information". Why is that?

This is typical, I guess you missed DB's ad hominems. I replied to him in kind and where have I used ad hominems in my replies to you - eh?

Ad hominems are about all i've seen out of you in this thread.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Did anyone say that people would automatically lie when tortured?

Yes. I did say to read the thread but that's what Aldebaran was saying, as soon as someone is being tortured any information they tell you will be untrue.

You made the assumption. So if the use of torture is likely to be an unreliable method of extracting information, why use it? Furthermore what do you mean by "automatically lie"?

Why use torture? Unreliable information can be checked, corroborated and assesed, no information means you've still got nothing. Just because it can give you bollocks sometimes does not mean that it doesn't work often enough to make it effective.

So what does it make it then, bob? The truth? You don't appear to be taking a position but get wound up by the very suggestion that "torture does not produce reliable information". Why is that?

I'm getting irritated by people who think that just because torture is morally wrong they can apply the same lack of thought and sweeping generalisations to everything else to do with it. For example "may get innacurate information" does not equal "never gets accurate information". There's been some deeply stupid shit posted on this thread along those lines and it does get up my nose. If you look i think i was consistent about only attempting to challenge those points.

This is typical, I guess you missed DB's ad hominems. I replied to him in kind and where have I used ad hominems in my replies to you - eh?

DB's weren't aimed at me, but you have accused me by implication or flat out statement of hypocircy, being deliberatly obtuse, determined to twist your statements, too full of myself to try to communicate and pompous. In most of those posts you avoid responding to anything i've typed, it's like talking with a bad temptered Jazzz at times.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes. I did say to read the thread but that's what Aldebaran was sayingm as soon as someone is being tortured any information they tell you will be untrue.

Why use torture? Unreliable information can be checked, corroborated and assesed, no information means you've still got nothing. Just because it can give you bollocks sometimes does not mean that it doesn't work often enough to make it effective.

I'm getting irritated by people who think that just because torture is morally wrong they can apply the same lack of thought and sweeping generalisations to everything else to do with it. There's been some deeply stupid shit posted on this thread along those lines and it does get up my nose.


DB's weren't aimed at me, but you have accused me by implication or flat out statement of hypocircy, being deliberatly obtuse, determined to twist your statements, too full of myself to try to communicate and pompous. In most of those posts you avoid responding to anything i've typed, it's like talking with a bad temptered Jazzz at times.

The use of torture is morally wrong and you appear to accept that it, but you seem unwilling to countenance any suggestion that a) it should not be used because it is inhumane and b) the confession given by the tortured are unreliable.

So do you approve of the use of torture or not, bob?

In most of those posts you avoid responding to anything i've typed, it's like talking with a bad temptered Jazzz at times

Rubbish. You're pretty bad tempered yourself, bob. I guess it's easier to tell someone else that they're "bad tempered" than to take a look at yourself.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So do you approve of the use of torture or not, bob?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5773553&postcount=199
If you have read the thread then you've missed a lot.

The use of torture is morally wrong and you appear to accept that it, but you seem unwilling to countenance any suggestion that a) it should not be used because it is inhumane and b) the confession given by the tortured are unreliable.

a) I have never made such a statement, nor have i ever said that someone who's made such a statement is wrong.
b) Unreliable does not mean worthless. I don't think i've taken issue with any posts that say that the results are unreliable, especially since that's what i've been saying throughout the thread.

Rubbish. You're pretty bad tempered yourself, bob. I guess it's easier to tell someone else that they're "bad tempered" than to take a look at yourself.

Oh i know i'm bad temptered, i've removed numerous slurs from my posts because they weren't helpful. I'm doing (almost) my best to keep this polite. That does not mean that you haven't engaged in exactly what i describe in that post, nor do you try to deny it (this time, probably omission by accident rather than admission of fault).

 

[nino_savatte]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5773553&postcount=199
If you have read the thread then you've missed a lot.


a) I have never made such a statement, nor have i ever said that someone who's made such a statement is wrong.
b) Unreliable does not mean worthless.


Oh i know i'm bad temptered, i've removed numerous slurs from my posts because they weren't helpful. I'm doing (almost) my best to keep this polite. That does not mean that you haven't engaged in exactly what i describe in that post, nor do you try to deny it (this time, probably omission by accident rather than admission of fault).

Well, you don't appear to be condemning the use of torture, particularly when statements such as this give an altogether different impression.

Unreliable does not mean worthless.

 

[detective-boy]

Detective Boy seems to think that any confession given under torture is reliable.

No. I don't.

Find an (in context) quote to that effect or withdraw it. (I'll give you a clue - the quote you use includes the word "lots", not "any")

Now.