Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

Aldebaran · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
Yes

No.

He could, doesn't mean that he did. But then you ask another question, and another, when he starts being unable to answer the details you know that he's distorting the truth and turn up the voltage a bit.

1. Whihc details. How do you know about them and what exactly?
2. More torture is leading to more truth? Or does it infact leads to more of the "truth" you want to hear (and eventually suggest).

Depends what the crime is doesn't it, say conspiracy to commit murder?

No evidence on mere confession possible without - let alone before - trial.

salaam.

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

Aldebaran said:
That is not "all". The fact that you were under threat and/or torture made you unable to remember the event clearly and out of free will (let alone its details.) That on its own makes the confession a distortion of truth.

salaam.

Source? Proof?

You're making assertions that are as far as i can see totally baseless. I call bullshit on this one.

Or are you saying that making a child tell you the truth about how they pulled their sister's hair makes that confession untrue? They don't' admit it out of free will often.

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

Aldebaran said:
No.

Yes. see how much fun this is

Aldebaran said:
1. Whihc details. How do you know about them and what exactly?
2. More torture is leading to more truth? Or does it infact leads to more of the "truth" you want to hear (and eventually suggest).

The passports were found, if they were printed with a particular machine then it may be possible to tell from them. If the bank accounts used to fund the terrorists were memorised he may know them. If he hid the plans in Switzerland then they may be written down. If he did organise it there may be a hundred and one facts that can show his involvement, or there may be none. You are yet to show that there must be none and that's exactly what you're trying to do.

Aldebaran said:
No evidence on mere confession possible without - let alone before - trial.

salaam.

Evidence and trials are separate entities. Other than that i'm afraid i don't get your point.

Aldebaran · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
Source? Proof?

First source - available to everyone- is simple logical reasoning. Second source can be found within every normal education in Law and Jurisdiction.

Or are you saying that making a child tell you the truth about how they pulled their sister's hair makes that confession untrue? They don't' admit it out of free will often.

If they don't admit out of free will when interrogated then you can't accept it as "truth", no matter how much your suspicion or the account of the sister points towards it being true.

salaam.

Yossarian · Mar 17, 2007

Of course much of what is said under torture is likely to have some truth in it - especially stuff like 'Ouch, this really hurts!', but if it's unreliable stuff, which it clearly is, then shouldn't it all be treated as if it was 100% untrue?

rocketman · Mar 17, 2007

Does anyone really still believe anything at all that comes out of the mouth of the US military-industrial complex?

I don't.

This confession is too convenient, let's see the US account for the murder of Matty Hull. Let's see the US account for the lies it told to justify the invasion of Iraq. Let's see the US account for claims that it trained death squads before the invasion took place. Let's see the US account for its false intelligence pre-war. Let's see the US account for the export of thousands of cluster bombs to Israel in the last days of Israel's invasion of the Lebanon which were then used against civilians even as the Israeli's knew a peace deal was coming.

If they own up to their sheer nastiness, then maybe we can bellieve them a little more.

Right now I'm one of the 'innocent until proven guilty in an open public court of law' as regards this Khalid feller.

Aldebaran · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
You are yet to show that there must be none and that's exactly what you're trying to do.

No, all you do is listing circumstantial evidence of involvement, leading to suspicion thereof.

Evidence and trials are separate entities. Other than that i'm afraid i don't get your point.

You didn't get my point. Evidence is no evidence unless - and until - confirmed as being such during trial.

salaam.

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

Aldebaran said:
First source - available to everyone- is simple logical reasoning. Second source can be found within every normal education in Law and Jurisdiction.

Then find me it. Find me the source that says torture makes your memory invalid.

If they don't admit out of free will when interrogated then you can't accept it as "truth", no matter how much your suspicion or the account of the sister points towards it being true.

salaam.

If they admit it of free will why do you assume it's the truth? If you know, indisputably that someone did something, they lie and claim they didn't, you torture them till they admit it (ie. confess) does that make their confession untrue? Of course not. But that's what you are saying happens.

You didn't get my point. Evidence is no evidence unless - and until - confirmed as being such during trial.

Then your point is worthless. Evidence exists before it is shown at trial, guilt is ascertained at trials. The evidence found before hand is tested, examined and studied, not created in court.

Yossarian · Mar 17, 2007

rocketman said:
Right now I'm one of the 'innocent until proven guilty in an open public court of law' as regards this Khalid feller.

It seems extremely likely that this Khalid guy is indeed responsible for some very nasty shit indeed, but the US has handled the whole thing so spectacularly wrongly that they've practically managed to hand the moral high ground to the guy who planned 9/11!

Yossarian · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
Then find me it. Find me the source that says torture makes your memory invalid.

You don't believe that the effects of psychological torture can lead to memory disorders? If that's the case, I think you need to read up on the subject.

rocketman · Mar 17, 2007

Yossarian said:
It seems extremely likely that this Khalid guy is indeed responsible for some very nasty shit indeed, but the US has handled the whole thing so spectacularly wrongly that they've practically managed to hand the moral high ground to the guy who planned 9/11!

I thought Osama planned it? That's what they said last week.
Do you think the US would be less of a target if it wasn't so incompetent and imperialistic in its handling of international relations? Perhaps if they spread food, rather than bombs; education, not bullets; and medicine, not trade embargoes, perhaps if they were a better international citizen then 9/11 would never have happened in the first place.

Naturally, murder is wrong, and that includes friendly fire.

But US foreign policy has been a disaster. Look at Latin America, Look at Cuba, Look at the Middle East, look at all the hell-holes the US has managed to create by its incompetent meddling.

I urge all US Urbanites to get involved in your own politics. The only superpower this world needs now is one to spread the best of humanity: food, education, shelter, medicine, compassion, love, equality. Put a government together that focuses on this, and we'll have a much, much, much better world inside five years. And it'll probably cost less than war, at every level.

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

Yossarian said:
You don't believe that the effects of psychological torture can lead to memory disorders? If that's the case, I think you need to read up on the subject.

You miss the point. If a bomber knows a serrial number he inscribed on a bomb, one that no one in the general public knows about (common practice) and he admits it under torture it does not mean that the torture suddenly gave him divine knowledge.

It can make you admit to things you didn't do, given time it can convince you that you might have even done it ( i said this in my first post ) it does not mean it happens in every case as aldebran assumes and claims.

Yossarian · Mar 17, 2007

rocketman said:
Do you think the US would be less of a target if it wasn't so incompetent and imperialistic in its handling of international relations? Perhaps if they spread food, rather than bombs; education, not bullets; and medicine, not trade embargoes, perhaps if they were a better international citizen then 9/11 would never have happened in the first place.

Naturally, murder is wrong, and that includes friendly fire.

But US foreign policy has been a disaster. Look at Latin America, Look at Cuba, Look at the Middle East, look at all the hell-holes the US has managed to create by its incompetent meddling.

I urge all US Urbanites to get involved in your own politics. The only superpower this world needs now is one to spread the best of humanity: food, education, shelter, medicine, compassion, love, equality. Put a government together that focuses on this, and we'll have a much, much, much better world inside five years. And it'll probably cost less than war, at every level.

Aldebaran · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
Then find me it. Find me the source that says torture makes your memory invalid.

Ask any psychologue and/or neurologue.

If they admit it of free will why do you assume it's the truth? If you know, indisputably that someone did something, they lie and claim they didn't, you torture them till they admit it (ie. confess) does that make their confession untrue? Of course not. But that's what you are saying happens.

I said it makes the confession unreliable, hence not giving the truth or the whole truth .

Evidence exists before it is shown at trial

No. It is brought forward as constituting evidence, which is different to being considered to provide for valid evidence.

The evidence found before hand is tested, examined and studied, not created in court.

It is *tested* on its truth and trusworthyness in court, hence it *is* "created" as being de facto evidence during and by the procedure of independent trial.
Unless you think a judge and jure needs to believe all that is bought forward by parites as "evidence" since and because this material was, as you say, "tested, examined and studied" beforehand?

salaam.

rocketman · Mar 17, 2007

Yossarian said:

Sure thing, but why oh why oh why are there no politicians saying this (that I know of)? What is it with our secular and spiritual leaders that they are blind to the opportunity for peace here?

It really dicks me off how stupid our useless leaders and figureheads are.

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

Aldebaran said:
Ask any psychologue and/or neurologue.

No, i asked you. Put up or shut up.

Aldebaran said:
I said it makes the confession unreliable, hnece not giving the truth or the whole truth .

Then you don't understand the meanings of the words. A statement that is true can be unreliable because of uncertainty (ie in the case of torture). A reliable statement can be wrong.

Aldebaran · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
You miss the point. If a bomber knows a serrial number he inscribed on a bomb, one that no one in the general public knows about (common practice) and he admits it under torture it does not mean that the torture suddenly gave him divine knowledge.

How exactly do you know nobody else can know this number? Maybe the interrogator fabricated the bomb.

it does not mean it happens in every case as aldebran assumes and claims.

I don't assume or claim anything of the kind. I try to explain to you why confession under pressure (let alone by torture) is invalid by default.

salaam.

rocketman · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
No, i asked you. Put up or shut up.

Now, I've been seeing this turn up a lot on Urban, I have also faced it in meetings, one of those things where if someone has the temerity to disagree with someone who is at the time adopting a 'holier-than-thou' position, then the so-called 'wise person' turns around and says: "Oh you disagree, so what you gonna do to make it better then?"

That is of course the verbal equivalent of asking how long a piece of string is, it's not actually a discussion, but dictatorial behaviour designed to help achieve an end.

My response to this these days is to say, just because I see a fault or problem in such-and-such a proposal doesn't mean I have to fix it, the fault is there, that's what we now know.

Yossarian · Mar 17, 2007

rocketman said:
Sure thing, but why oh why oh why are there no politicians saying this (that I know of)? What is it with our secular and spiritual leaders that they are blind to the opportunity for peace here?

It really dicks me off how stupid our useless leaders and figureheads are.

I agree, shame we can't draft in Chavez or somebody else who tells it like it is to take over from Blair...

Aldebaran · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
No, i asked you.

You are the one claiming that I am wrong. Prove it.

Then you don't understand the meanings of the words.

English not being my language, possibly you or me get other meanings of words.

A statement that is true can be unreliable because of uncertainty (ie in the case of torture). A reliable statement can be wrong.

Finally you found something I continue to say in my posts, with exeception of the simple, logical conclusion that no unreliable confession can be true.

salaam.

rocketman · Mar 17, 2007

Yossarian said:
I agree, shame we can't draft in Chavez or somebody else who tells it like it is to take over from Blair...

Or maybe we could hold free and open elections in which all political parties were banned, at which local people stood for local, national and international issues to an electorate that took an interest in those issues.

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

rocketman said:
Now, I've been seeing this turn up a lot on Urban, I have also faced it in meetings, one of those things where if someone has the temerity to disagree with someone who is at the time adopting a 'holier-than-thou' position, then the so-called 'wise person' turns around and says: "Oh you disagree, so what you gonna do to make it better then?"

That is of course the verbal equivalent of asking how long a piece of string is, it's not actually a discussion, but dictatorial behaviour designed to help achieve an end.

My response to this these days is to say, just because I see a fault or problem in such-and-such a proposal doesn't mean I have to fix it, the fault is there, that's what we now know.

I think you misinterpret it's use here then. I think Aldebaran is wrong and want to see him try to justify his offhand dismissal of my points. I don't think he can. If he can provide a source to show he's right i'll acknowledge the point, since he can't i wont' need to. (Remember the original point, as seen in post #92 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5772264&postcount=92 )

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

Aldebaran said:
You are the one claiming that I am wrong. Prove it.

You made a claim, i called for a source on it. You start making like Jazzz when asked about explosives. The burden of proof is on you, the person who made the claim.

I continue to say in my posts, with exeception of the simple, logical conclusion that no unreliable confession can be true.

salaam.

Then you're wrong and we've nothing to discuss on the matter other than your (rather stupid) claim that:

Aldebaran said:
The fact that you were under threat and/or torture made you unable to remember the event clearly and out of free will (let alone its details.)

Yossarian · Mar 17, 2007

rocketman said:
Or maybe we could hold free and open elections in which all political parties were banned, at which local people stood for local, national and international issues to an electorate that took an interest in those issues.

That I'd like to see but I think the best we can hope for in that respect is a coalition government next time around so at least we don't have a single party calling the shots.

Aldebaran · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
I think you misinterpret it's use here then. I think Aldebaran is wrong and want to see him try to justify his offhand dismissal of my points. I don't think he can. If he can provide a source to show he's right i'll acknowledge the point, since he can't i wont' need to. (Remember the original point, as seen in post #92 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5772264&postcount=92 )

Ask anyone who was ever under torture.
Ask any psychologue about it.
Ask any neurologue about it.

If you don't believe all those people, just ask to be tortured to find out how much - and in detailed detail - you can remember of an event they want you to confess.

Almost forgot: go to US military website where in detail the purpose of their so called "interrogation techniques" is explained (sorry can't be bothered to look for such terrorist websites) and find out that among those purposes is mentioned "disorientation".

salaam.

laptop · Mar 17, 2007

Aldebaran said:
no unreliable confession can be true.

But it can.

But it can't be knowledge (which typically is defined as being all of "true, justified belief").

As I said earlier, in different words.

E2A: and if something is true but not knowledge, then its truth is irrelevant, accidental, random, no better than tossing a coin as a basis for decision...

rocketman · Mar 17, 2007

Bob_the_lost said:
I think you misinterpret it's use here then. I think Aldebaran is wrong and want to see him try to justify his offhand dismissal of my points. I don't think he can. If he can provide a source to show he's right i'll acknowledge the point, since he can't i wont' need to. (Remember the original point, as seen in post #92 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5772264&postcount=92 )

Well you would think that, wouldn't you? After all, it doesn't fit your way of seeing things.

I'm pretty aware that torture takes place in Guantanamo Bay. I'm pretty unimpressed by evidence drawn under torture. I think the fact that this is taking place does nothing to enhance the US moral imperative in this. I believe that by practising torture, the US is no better morally than the terrorists it claims to be fighting with.

And I'll believe US claims when they are proven in an open court, not when distributed in a press release. How can anyone trust a country which built nuclear bombs for Israel, while propogating an argument for non-proliferation (which comes down to, if you join the US axis of evil, you can have a nuke, if you are outside of that axis, then you can't have one).

Double standards and hypocrisy do not justify torture.

rocketman · Mar 17, 2007

Yossarian said:
That I'd like to see but I think the best we can hope for in that respect is a coalition government next time around so at least we don't have a single party calling the shots.

That's a shame really, isn't it? The notion of democracy subsumed by some party-led oligarchy.

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

Aldebaran said:
Ask anyone who was ever under torture.
Ask any psychologue about it.
Ask any neurologue about it.

If you don't believe all those people, just ask to be tortured to find out how much - and in detailed detail - you can remember of an event they want you to confess.

Almost forgot: go to US military website where in detail the purpose of their so called "interrogation techniques" is explained (sorry can't be bothered to look for such terrorist websites) and find out that among those purposes is mentioned "disorientation".

salaam.

For the last time i'm asking you to provide a source or some evidence to back up your claim. Torture does not mean that a memory is automatically false. It means that it can be false. Because something is unreliable does not make it untrue.

If you do not understand the terms in use then google has a perfectly functional dictionary, use it.

Bob_the_lost · Mar 17, 2007

rocketman said:
Double standards and hypocrisy do not justify torture.

No shit. Now tell me how that has even the slightest relevance to the point under discussion between Aldebaran and I about the effect torture has on memories. :rolleyes:

If you want to have a rant about the immorality of it all then do so, but don't bring me into it by quoting me unless you're going to address something i say.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

Elsewhere

Elsewhere

TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

Get thee behind me, Santa

Taxed and tested

TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

Elsewhere

Get thee behind me, Santa

Get thee behind me, Santa

Taxed and tested

Elsewhere

Get thee behind me, Santa

TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

Taxed and tested

Elsewhere

TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

Taxed and tested

Get thee behind me, Santa

TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

Taxed and tested

Elsewhere

Elsewhere

Get thee behind me, Santa

TheMadArab.IslamicFascist

Freudenschade

Taxed and tested

Taxed and tested

Elsewhere

Elsewhere

Similar threads