Its OK

[Reg Edwards]

It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Advice to torturers - while you are at it keep photographers away.

 

[Paul Burke]

Reg Edwards wrote:

It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Advice to torturers - while you are at it keep photographers away.

You are proposing that American citizens, and perhaps yourself or your
own children, should be tortured. What's sauce for the goose....

Paul Burke

 

[Wouter van Ooijen (www.vo]

It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Advice to torturers - while you are at it keep photographers away.

You are suspected of terrorising this newsgroup - please come over to
my house for a tourture.



Wouter van Ooijen

-- ------------------------------------
http://www.voti.nl
PICmicro chips, programmers, consulting

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> schreef in bericht
news:c7g2um$15t$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Advice to torturers - while you are at it keep photographers away.

Yes, everything is OK, including invading countries that are suspected
to own WMD's. God Bless the Reg Edwards of America.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Reg Edwards wrote:

It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Ho...hummmm...

I suspect you confuse what someone *says* they believe and with what
they believe. What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have
trouble with?


I never cease to be amazed at those that don't understand that as soon
as you let someone do something for a supposed special purpose, they
will always end up doing that thing for any purpose.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 May 2004 13:28:54 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
<g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote:

It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Please explain how one gets information from a dead person.

John

 

[Reg Edwards]

It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Advice to torturers - while you are at it keep photographers away.



You are proposing that American citizens, and perhaps yourself or your
own children, should be tortured. What's sauce for the goose....

Paul Burke

==========================

Torturers are normal conscientious people and have a job to do.
Photographers are occupational handicaps and should be banned. Torture
should not be made a public spectacle and should be kept off TV. Terrorists
and their families can expect to be tortured in order for the Authorities to
discover the names and addresses of associates, suppliers and bankers. Its
only common sense. That's why there are suicide bombers.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 May 2004 15:21:07 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
<g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote:

Please explain how one gets information from a dead person.

==========================

By the time they are dead they have already been emptied.

That makes no sense. You are probably an armchair torturer, as RSW is
an armchair communist. The "communism" and the "information" are just
excuses for violent fantasies of pain and death.

John

 

[Reg Edwards]

You are suspected of terrorising this newsgroup - please come over to
my house for a tourture.

======================

I am much obliged to you for an invitation to your torture chamber. The
distinguished honor you pay me is accepted. Shall I bring my own bottles of
whisky?

By the way, please, no photographer.

 

[Reg Edwards]

Please explain how one gets information from a dead person.

==========================

By the time they are dead they have already been emptied.

 

[Paul Burke]

Reg Edwards wrote:

Torturers are normal conscientious people and have a job to do.
Photographers are occupational handicaps and should be banned. Torture
should not be made a public spectacle and should be kept off TV. Terrorists
and their families can expect to be tortured in order for the Authorities to
discover the names and addresses of associates, suppliers and bankers. Its
only common sense. That's why there are suicide bombers.

But terrorists are people too, they work very hard and are very
dedicated to their calling. Rapists work unsocial hours. And Satan is
only one of God's poor creatures, isn't he?

I don't think I've ever heard or seen as disgusting a statement,
including those of Bin Laden, as the one you have made. Ordinary honest
murderers are upstanding citizens by comparison.

Paul Burke

 

[Reg Edwards]

I suspect you confuse what someone *says* they believe and with what
they believe. What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have
trouble with?

========================

No confusion. Guilty or innocent has nothing to do with it. Time is the
essence. The worthy objective, pure and simple, is to minimise human misery
and total loss of human life.

As for Saddam, the most sophisticated 'truth' drugs are being used. He must
already be drained of anything of any use. But nevertheless, he will have
to die before being brought to some sort of a trial. Its more economical
that way and, anyway, the truth is best hidden.

The Americans and the Internationals, under the protection of the american
air and ground forces, now have full control of Iraqi oil wells and
pipelines to the coasts. What happens in the cities with their unfortunate
populations is of secondary interest and relatively minor importance.

The next moves are into the oil-rich resources and pipelines of Central Asia
and have already been taken. Then China itself.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Reg Edwards wrote:

I suspect you confuse what someone *says* they believe and with what
they believe. What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have
trouble with?

========================

No confusion. Guilty or innocent has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. You obviously think it would be impossible for you to
be a suspect, and hence be tortured for something you knew nothing
about. Dream on.

Indeed, you are an ideal candidate to be another Sadam. You believe
*anything* is justified, so long as it suits whatever ends you, in your
infinite wisdom, think the end should be.

Quite frankly, you wish to torture innocent people, that makes you one
disgusting mother f&*%er.

Time is
the essence. The worthy objective, pure and simple, is to minimise
human misery and total loss of human life.

Ho hummm...

Look, dude, this sort of argument has been used to justify all manner of
things. A famous president summed it up, something like, "those who are
willing to sacrifice freedom for security, will find that they have
neither security or freedom"

This is so trivially obvious, its unreal. You can not allow the state to
do what it pleases on the pretext that it is better for us all. As soon
as you allow the state to do what it wishes for a particular reason, it
*will* do it for any reason. Its that simple.

Despite claims to the contrary, only brought about because we have world
wide coverage that misguides as what is really happening for the ends of
politicians. e.g. Only about 200 out of 100,000,000 potentials, non
family related child kidnappings occur a year (US). i.e. It doesn't
happen statistically. Terrorism is not that large an issue in the west.
How often do you actually hear about bombs going off in the UK? You are
1000's of times more likly to get a kicking from the local skinheads
when you leave the pub, then be subjected to an act of political
terrorism.

You want to give up the rights of *innocent* people, to be free of state
control in their own homes, just to eliminate an essentially, non
existent problem.? This is simply daft.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Bill Sloman]

"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote in message news:<c7g2um$15t$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...

It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Advice to torturers - while you are at it keep photographers away.

The operative word here is "suspects". The intelligence services quite
sensibily suspect that many perfectly ordinary seeming people are
terrorists in deep cover. If you torture any of them for long enough
they will admit that they are terrorists - torture victims mostly end
up telling the torturers exactly what the torturers want to hear.
Sometimes what they tell the torturers is true, but it can be quite
difficult to identify true confessions in the torrent of testimony
that a competent torturer can extract.

Your justification only works if the alleged terrorist knows something

 

[Reg Edwards]

If you torture any of them for long enough
they will admit that they are terrorists - torture victims mostly end
up telling the torturers exactly what the torturers want to hear.
===========================

Agreed. So the art of information-gathering against terrorism lies in the
choice of suspects to be rounded-up.

But if the objective is minimisation of the total loss of human life,
torturers and their employers, all the way up to the President, cannot be
guilty of committing crimes against humanity. In a war there will be
unavoidable casualties amongst the innocent.

Ii is he who illegally declares war who is guilty.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On 7 May 2004 16:13:49 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote in message news:<c7g2um$15t$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
It is OK to torture suspect terrorists to death. The information so
obtained may save a greater number of lives.

Advice to torturers - while you are at it keep photographers away.

The operative word here is "suspects". The intelligence services quite
sensibily suspect that many perfectly ordinary seeming people are
terrorists in deep cover. If you torture any of them for long enough
they will admit that they are terrorists - torture victims mostly end
up telling the torturers exactly what the torturers want to hear.
Sometimes what they tell the torturers is true, but it can be quite
difficult to identify true confessions in the torrent of testimony
that a competent torturer can extract.

I'm sure Reg is well aware of this, Bill. He has demonstrated in the
past a *very* dry wit and the ability to troll and play devil's
advocate to the nth degree. I believe he's having you all on, or
leading the argument over to what he really wants to say which will
probably be quite the reverse. Reg has been around longer than all of
us and ain't as daft as his original post would suggest - not by a
long chalk.
--

The BBC: licenced at public expense to spread lies.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:30:51 +0100, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

I'm sure Reg is well aware of this, Bill. He has demonstrated in the
past a *very* dry wit and the ability to troll and play devil's
advocate to the nth degree. I believe he's having you all on, or
leading the argument over to what he really wants to say which will
probably be quite the reverse. Reg has been around longer than all of
us and ain't as daft as his original post would suggest - not by a
long chalk.

Repeat after me:

Irony doesn't work on usenet.
Irony doesn't work on usenet.
Irony doesn't work on usenet.
Irony doesn't work on usenet.
Irony doesn't work on usenet.

Keep that up for a while.

John

 

[Peter O. Brackett]

John:

[snip]

Repeat after me:

Irony doesn't work on usenet.
Irony doesn't work on usenet.
Irony doesn't work on usenet.
Irony doesn't work on usenet.
Irony doesn't work on usenet.

Keep that up for a while.

John
[snip]

Yes it does.

Mark Twain [Samuel Clements] showed us how to present irony in short letters
many years before the Internet.

As Twain did when sending posts from his Mississippi river boat lo those
many years ago, one simply places the
simple sentence, "This was writ ironic." at the end of such a posting.

I presume that our dear Reg [A resident USENET master of irony.] has not yet
read Twain.

--
Peter

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:37:18 GMT, "Peter O. Brackett"
<none@no-such-domain.nul> wrote:

has not yet
read Twain.

Perhaps he also forgot the Americans' reputed lack of any sense of
irony, either!

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 19:25:31 +0100, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:37:18 GMT, "Peter O. Brackett"
none@no-such-domain.nul> wrote:

I presume that our dear Reg [A resident USENET master of irony.] has not yet
read Twain.

Perhaps he also forgot the Americans' reputed lack of any sense of
irony, either!

No, it's just that the original post didn't meet our high standards.

John