I'd confess too with a Sears Die Hard attached to my privates.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confesses
- Thread starter ChopsJazz
- Start date
Another political thread...I'll just step out before all the nut jobs post up their conspiracy theory lunicy.
For terrorist standards, he's is a complete p#$$y. Especially as a #3 in Al Qaida. No more virgins in heaven for him.
BTW, I've always wanted to jab someone with a cattle prod!
BTW, I've always wanted to jab someone with a cattle prod!
I understand that the translation was 72 pearls (even worse) than 72 virgins.
What happens after they have 72 virgins in heaven?
Play a harp and consume holy baklava?
What happens after they have 72 virgins in heaven?
Play a harp and consume holy baklava?
I don't think there's such a thing as "holy baklava." I think non-muslims put a huge emphasis on this whole "72 virgins" concept. I haven't read the Quran in a few years, and I'm sure it's included in there, but many ideologies in the Quran aren't meant to be taken literally. It's for that reason that the Quran can be applied to any society in any time period. I don't think this applies anyway to Khalid as he's most def. going to a place not usually called Heaven.
I hope you realize that Baklava is a greek/turkish dish.
These type of comments just continue the "Stupid American" stereotype.
BTW, I case you are wondering, I am not Muslim or of middle eastern origin.
KSM confessed to almost every Al Quiada plot, including the personal beheading of Daniel Pearl. Seems suspicious...although he was the #3 man in Al Quaida...hmmm
Screw it...kill him!
Screw it...kill him!
Wow, some interesting thoughts here.
My reason for posting (perhaps I should have been more straightforward) was not to start a bigoted, racist rant, but was instead meant to draw attention to the fact that, after years of "interrogation" KSM has finally confessed to being the kingpin coordinator of the 1993 WTC bombing, the attempted 2001 American Airline shoe bombing, and 9/11. The US government admitted that his confessions came after enduring more waterboarding than practically any other 9/11 prisoner. BTW, waterboarding used to be a form of torture until US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez changed the definition of torture in 2004.
It is common knowledge that torture often results in bad information, hence my statement that "I'd confess too...", as verified by former Viet Nam POW US Senator John McCain.
My reason for posting (perhaps I should have been more straightforward) was not to start a bigoted, racist rant, but was instead meant to draw attention to the fact that, after years of "interrogation" KSM has finally confessed to being the kingpin coordinator of the 1993 WTC bombing, the attempted 2001 American Airline shoe bombing, and 9/11. The US government admitted that his confessions came after enduring more waterboarding than practically any other 9/11 prisoner. BTW, waterboarding used to be a form of torture until US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez changed the definition of torture in 2004.
It is common knowledge that torture often results in bad information, hence my statement that "I'd confess too...", as verified by former Viet Nam POW US Senator John McCain.
It is also common knowledge that many times coerced confessions result in usable information as verified by interrogators themselves. (McCain also said many times people "give up the goods" when appropriate techniques are used)
If dunking sworn enemies like Khalid Sheik Mohammed in water has the possibility of saving innocent lives, I'm dunking that guy all day long. And no, that doesn't make me as bad as him. The difference being that I'm trying to save innocent lives and he is trying to end innocent lives...big difference.
Last edited:
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Hugh's pink dress photos are more of a confession, and also more newsworthy, than this.
I hope you realize that Baklava is a greek/turkish dish.
These type of comments just continue the "Stupid American" stereotype.
BTW, I case you are wondering, I am not Muslim or of middle eastern origin.
Baklava or Baklawa is a rich, sweet pastry found in many cuisines of the Middle East, the Balkans and South Asia and developed in Ottoman cuisine. It is made of chopped nuts, usually walnuts or pistachios, layered with phyllo pastry, sweetened with sugar or honey syrup.
In Turkey, it is particularly associated with the city of Gaziantep.
History
The history of baklava is not well-documented; but although it has been claimed by many ethnic groups, the best evidence is that it is of Central Asian Turkic origin, with its current form being developed in the imperial kitchens of the Topkapı Palace.
Vryonis (1971) identified the ancient Greek gastris, kopte, kopton, or koptoplakous, mentioned in the Deipnosophistae, as baklava, and calls it a "Byzantine favorite". However, Perry (1994) shows that though gastris contained a filling of nuts and honey, it did not include any dough; instead, it involved a honey and ground sesame mixture similar to modern pasteli or halva .
Perry then assembles evidence to show that layered breads were created by Turks in Central Asia and argues that the "missing link" between the Central Asian folded or layered breads (which did not include nuts) and modern phyllo-based pastries like baklava is the Azerbaijani dish Bakı pakhlavası, which involves layers of dough and nuts, but not thin phyllo dough, which probably was developed in the kitchens of the Topkapı Palace. Indeed, the sultan presented trays of baklava to the Janissaries every 15th of Ramadan in a ceremonial procession called the Baklava Alayı. (Wasti, 2005)
Other claims about its origins include: that it is of Assyrian origin, dates back to ancient Mesopotamia, and was mentioned in a Mesopotamian cookbook on walnut dishes; that al-Baghdadi describes it in his 13th-century cookbook; and that it was a popular Byzantine dish. But Claudia Roden and Andrew Dalby find no evidence for it in Arab, Greek, or Byzantine sources before the Ottoman period.
The oldest known recipe for a sort of proto-baklava is found in a Chinese cookbook written in 1330 under the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty under the name güllach. (Buell, 1999) A similar dessert called "güllac" is found in modern Turkish cuisine.
From talking torture to sharing recipes for greek food.
While I believe there will always be some questions about the credibility of the confession and the means in which they were obtained, you are making some unfounded and inaccurate claims here, unless I've missed a recent press release detailing interrogations techniques used on KSM.
Also, I believe you are backwards about the acceptance of waterboarding...it did not become legal after 2004. It was more commonly accepted prior to 2004 and we even used it in SERE training of our own troops.
Torture and confessions aren't much fun to talk about. Thinking about Middle Eastern food got me thinking about falafel.
You guys in The Village and New Haven are lucky to have a Mamoun's (http://www.mamounsfalafel.com/) close by. I miss the falafels at that place :smile:
Don't mean to drag this along but...
So because Americans serve eggnog at parties, as a tradition, it is now considered holy? Baklava is a common pastry in the Middle East, sure, but that doesn't make it holy to Muslims. Just as eggnog is common in America or Tea is a very common drink to serve in England, Baklava is a common pastry in the Middle East.
All this talk has got me a little hungry, I can really have some sweet sticky Baklava right now. :biggrin:
In my mind, I see the problem coming to giving what weight to the following.
1.) Definition of morality , 'good' and 'evil' as it affects rules of engagement.
Legal/military, religious, cultural and personal beliefs will affect this, of course. However, there is the natural reaction to 'kick the other guys' asss' if you feel that he's hurt you, or those that are dear to you (friends, family, country..) This goes both ways. When that or those which are important to the other side is hurt (family, country, religion) the same instinct applies...
3.) The 'value' of the prospective information that the person might have, and to what means 'we' should 'go to get them.
Self-explanitory.
4.) The reliability of the information of the method employed.
Obviously, one desires to utilize the most effective method, which are going to be 'restricted' by the other variables mentioned. If the weight of the other variables is 'zero' then, the torture method may be without limits. If the other variables have weight, then it will take certain paths and others not...including torture. The question is , at what costs and is it *really* effective? What happens when the wrong/good guy is ‘tortured’, or gets the death penalty (in criminal cases, not war) when in fact he/she is innocent. This has happened many times, and is sad, as ‘The Life of David Gale’ so vibrantly demonstrates.
5.) The reciprocity affect from the method imposed and whether or not we care about 'influence' or gaining the respect in combat (I know farfetched.. ) of the other side when it comes to their definition of #1 & #2, demonstrate that we are more 'moral' and 'fair' or whether we just don’t care.
--I think this is the most important.
EG: If we employ a definition of interrogation that is considered by enough as ‘torture- then it's probably unreasonable that the other side will not be motivated to reciprocate. It's probably reasonable to think that the harder we 'torture' then harder 'they' will. It's definitely the other way around in this conflict. If you know your guys are getting beat up and tortured, are you are hard pressed to give their guys milk cookies and a movie. However, if you know that your guys are getting milk & cookies (right..), than aren't you going to be motivated to do the same? Abu Ghrab (sp?) is an excellent example. It is way unfair to the solider to know that soldiers following that scandal were in greater danger of being hurt because of completely irresponsible decisions by the Abu Ghrab management. It was avoidable, it shouldn't have happened.
My take:
I think the last point is the most important. I believe in doing to someone what you would have them do unto you. In war, as avoidable as it appears to be in human history (kind of like death & taxes..)- I expect to kill or be killed regardless of which side I am on inwar. If someone is physically attacking me, or I am attacking someone - in offense, and not defensive measures -, I expect to use whatever physical means I have to stop them/me. I'd hope not to be fatal, but it's hard to say.
In war, interrogation falls under the principle, and it carries weight and responsibility. In my glass box, I do not believe that all means of interrogation should be considered ok and suspect as others, that the reliability is questionable, or even low. It should be something that we should mutually follow, such as the Geneva convention rules, even if the other side is not employing it.... We know that the harder, more lethal and 'immoral' methods the other side uses, the more so we are pressured to do. The more and harder we hurt them, the less inclined they will be to stop. It is a cyclical war of violence. "What about if we, the good guys are wrong, and because the methods employed were not 'effective' enough and something catastrophic happened as a result of that 'failure'?"I think principle has more weight then speculative results of torture. This belief stems from the believe in God and that he is the ultimate judge which we all will be with...If that assumption was not the case - and that this life was it - I can see how that prinicple might be more bendable.. but that's just me.
On the other hand, the less lethal methods, I think there is some influence to do the same. Maybe, some day, we can put down our arms, talk and make some compromises (hmm.. sounds like marriage, just kidding )
The principle of "it's better for one man to die then the country to perish" is wrong. Jesus was crucified under that and the impact was significantly greater had that not been the case.
It's funny.. as I write this, although I consider myself conservative, I'm finding that this view and others may be considered very liberal..
I’m sure people will disagree, strongly, but at least give it some consideration..
1.) Definition of morality , 'good' and 'evil' as it affects rules of engagement.
Legal/military, religious, cultural and personal beliefs will affect this, of course. However, there is the natural reaction to 'kick the other guys' asss' if you feel that he's hurt you, or those that are dear to you (friends, family, country..) This goes both ways. When that or those which are important to the other side is hurt (family, country, religion) the same instinct applies...
3.) The 'value' of the prospective information that the person might have, and to what means 'we' should 'go to get them.
Self-explanitory.
4.) The reliability of the information of the method employed.
Obviously, one desires to utilize the most effective method, which are going to be 'restricted' by the other variables mentioned. If the weight of the other variables is 'zero' then, the torture method may be without limits. If the other variables have weight, then it will take certain paths and others not...including torture. The question is , at what costs and is it *really* effective? What happens when the wrong/good guy is ‘tortured’, or gets the death penalty (in criminal cases, not war) when in fact he/she is innocent. This has happened many times, and is sad, as ‘The Life of David Gale’ so vibrantly demonstrates.
5.) The reciprocity affect from the method imposed and whether or not we care about 'influence' or gaining the respect in combat (I know farfetched.. ) of the other side when it comes to their definition of #1 & #2, demonstrate that we are more 'moral' and 'fair' or whether we just don’t care.
--I think this is the most important.
EG: If we employ a definition of interrogation that is considered by enough as ‘torture- then it's probably unreasonable that the other side will not be motivated to reciprocate. It's probably reasonable to think that the harder we 'torture' then harder 'they' will. It's definitely the other way around in this conflict. If you know your guys are getting beat up and tortured, are you are hard pressed to give their guys milk cookies and a movie. However, if you know that your guys are getting milk & cookies (right..), than aren't you going to be motivated to do the same? Abu Ghrab (sp?) is an excellent example. It is way unfair to the solider to know that soldiers following that scandal were in greater danger of being hurt because of completely irresponsible decisions by the Abu Ghrab management. It was avoidable, it shouldn't have happened.
My take:
I think the last point is the most important. I believe in doing to someone what you would have them do unto you. In war, as avoidable as it appears to be in human history (kind of like death & taxes..)- I expect to kill or be killed regardless of which side I am on inwar. If someone is physically attacking me, or I am attacking someone - in offense, and not defensive measures -, I expect to use whatever physical means I have to stop them/me. I'd hope not to be fatal, but it's hard to say.
In war, interrogation falls under the principle, and it carries weight and responsibility. In my glass box, I do not believe that all means of interrogation should be considered ok and suspect as others, that the reliability is questionable, or even low. It should be something that we should mutually follow, such as the Geneva convention rules, even if the other side is not employing it.... We know that the harder, more lethal and 'immoral' methods the other side uses, the more so we are pressured to do. The more and harder we hurt them, the less inclined they will be to stop. It is a cyclical war of violence. "What about if we, the good guys are wrong, and because the methods employed were not 'effective' enough and something catastrophic happened as a result of that 'failure'?"I think principle has more weight then speculative results of torture. This belief stems from the believe in God and that he is the ultimate judge which we all will be with...If that assumption was not the case - and that this life was it - I can see how that prinicple might be more bendable.. but that's just me.
On the other hand, the less lethal methods, I think there is some influence to do the same. Maybe, some day, we can put down our arms, talk and make some compromises (hmm.. sounds like marriage, just kidding
)The principle of "it's better for one man to die then the country to perish" is wrong. Jesus was crucified under that and the impact was significantly greater had that not been the case.
It's funny.. as I write this, although I consider myself conservative, I'm finding that this view and others may be considered very liberal..
I’m sure people will disagree, strongly, but at least give it some consideration..
Thats what I was going to say. It's already been proven scientifically that testimony, confessions, received via torture are invalid. People will admit to anything regardless if they did it if you put them in enough pain.
Some see it as a victory. I see it as another sad for America.
Sorry, but your facts about coerced confessions are incorrect.
Think of it this way:
If you know the answer to a question that your interogators are asking, for instance (and for simplicities sake), if they want to know your date of birth, you might initially tell them the wrong date, but as the methods that they employ become more severe, you will, through simple self-preservation, tell them your actual birth date. They will then take all of the answers you have given them, and follow up on them, sorting out the good answers from the bad. It is like detective work, some leads will go nowhere and some will solve the puzzle. Of course, this kind of interogation is to gain useful knowledge to save lives, not to just torture people for revenge, etc. That kind of torture is wrong, and there is a big difference between the two.
If coerced confessions did not work at all, do you think governments would waste time, money, and manpower to train people in these techniques?
screw eggnog! screw bakalava! screw crawdads! i had sushi tonight! Along with..... green tea ice cream and.... vanilla mochi and..... chocolate mochi and.... strawberry mochi and...... my favorite...... mango mochi!
Seems like Good food, cold beer, goes hand in hand with torture and confession to me!
Seems like Good food, cold beer, goes hand in hand with torture and confession to me!
Brown v. Mississipi (1936) -- physical coercion violates 4th Amendment
Chambers v. Florida (1940) -- psychological coercion violates 4th Amendment
Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) -- psychological coercion not admissible
Are you sure? I thought a baklava was worn over the face to protect you from cold. :biggrin:
Come on guys, we all know the ONLY reason he would confess to anything is because the Bush camp tortured him. It's all a part of the 9-11 conspiracy and Bush blowing up the World Trade Center. I mean it's been a few years since Halliburton/Cheney made any money from government contracts. It was ok when the Clintoneasta's hired Halliburton in Kosovo. Liberals WILL be the END of this country. I would much rather have a known sex offender(WJC) in office!
ChopsJazz, for somebody who is offended by a little foul language you sure like to stir the pot.
I would much rather have a known sex offender(WJC) in office!ChopsJazz, for somebody who is offended by a little foul language you sure like to stir the pot.
You seem to forget that the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to American citizens. Or are you suggesting that our founding documents were meant to apply to everyone in the entire world? Your kidding, right?
Maybe when a terrorist is picked up on the battlefield, one of our troops should Mirandize them (you know, read them their rights..."you have the right to remain silent",etc.)
Unbelievable....
Similar threads
