US torturing terror suspects?

you can't just go kill them because you won't get them all, you have to make them give up their allies so that you can find them and put them to the sword, or gun, or bomb, or bare hands, whatever weapon you have available.
 
I disagree. If knockin the tar out of one Terrorist gets you information to save one innocent. It is well worth your skinned knuckles.
 
I disagree. If knockin the tar out of one Terrorist gets you information to save one innocent. It is well worth your skinned knuckles.

and ususally many more lives are saved rather then just one, when a terrorist talks through pain he pills his guts and then you can save numerous lives
 
03USMC said:
Israel is an example of how the fundamentalists work.
Yeah the run of the mill suicide bomber may come from the lower class and be disgruntled. But who is financing it . Money men like Bin Laden who have made up their minds that they are the Mahdi. Cause you darn sure can't buy symtex with goats.

That would be why I mentioned the upperclasses that don't have much to do. Honestly, terrorism needs to be destroyed by stability. Torturing a suspect adds fuel to the fire and threatens Stability. Once a nation is stable; people are working and they don't have time for holy wars, the boss wantes them in at 8 and the kids need to get new shoes.
 
which is why you don't let it go public , you don't tell everyone that your getting info from a terrorist by force, cause then the ACfaggetLU won't get off your damn back
 
Jason Bourne said:
which is why you don't let it go public , you don't tell everyone that your getting info from a terrorist by force, cause then the ACfaggetLU won't get off your damn back

We live in an age where the media has access to everything, and people know what's going on; Saddam never publically tortured anybody; but Iraqi's knew what was going on.
 
he publicly executed people, still we need to keep a tighter wrap on our media, John Walsh was talking about before too, he said that no other country can you turn on the tv and see the police about to raid your house so that you can get a heads up but in America you can, cause the medai don't take no for an answer
 
r031Button said:
That would be why I mentioned the upperclasses that don't have much to do. Honestly, terrorism needs to be destroyed by stability. Torturing a suspect adds fuel to the fire and threatens Stability. Once a nation is stable; people are working and they don't have time for holy wars, the boss wantes them in at 8 and the kids need to get new shoes.


But how do you induce stability without destroying the destabilizing factor.The terrorists fight against any attempt to stabilize the societies, because it does not fit into their agenda.
 
Jason Bourne said:
nothing fits into their agenda except beheading americans and blowing themselvves up

by definition a terrorist is somebdy using violence for ideological reasons.

Honeslty, I'm sure they're a whole branch of some university filled with people smarter then I am answering that question. All I have to say is that you need to avoid distablizing the enviroment by doing things like tortuing captives.
 
I don't know that I consider the Abu Guife (sp?) scandal torture. Degrading yeah okay. The problem is this. Against this enemy normal intelligence gathering methods are spotty at best. To kill em you have to find em. So the question remains. How important is saving the lives of innocent non combatants whom these cowards prefer to target?
 
I'll agree with you on that one. I don't think this would be an issue had America not disbanded the Iraqi army; American's need more troops to be able to be every where, because witht he small number in Iraq; it's impossible to enforestabilty.
 
But that was kind of darned if you do darned if you don't. How effective would the Iraqi Army actually have been, after the meat grinder they went thru?
 
I can't awsner that, if nothing else, you wouldn't have as many "loose" weapons floating around Iraq; with as many unemployed bitter, trained youngmen either.
 
If the weapons were not there they would be imported from Iran, Syria or some other Terrorist Friendly fiefdom.
If the former Soliders are bitter about no longer being in the service then why aren't they flocking in droves to the National Police/Defense Force. They get paid.

Sorry don't wash.
 
*sigh*

how about this, someone invades your home, disbands your military.
wouldn't you be suspicious? wouldn't you fight back?

and if you were in a neibouring country, wouldn't you think that you're next? and that it would be better to get your hits in first?

all i'm saying is that even you don't agree, at least try and see the other side of the arguement, this is where understanding comes from.
 
03USMC said:
If the weapons were not there they would be imported from Iran, Syria or some other Terrorist Friendly fiefdom.
If the former Soliders are bitter about no longer being in the service then why aren't they flocking in droves to the National Police/Defense Force. They get paid.

Sorry don't wash.

I think it may have something to do with Iraqi Nationalism. I mean if your army is disbanded by a foreign power, then reinstated under a new name; would you join up? Think about it, if the USMC was disbanded by an invading nation, would you then join up with the ADF?
 
Jason Bourne, calm yourself. Any further use of obscenities will result in a ban.

chewie, if you don't have anything to say, don't make a post. :)sigh: is spam)
 
r031Button said:
I think it may have something to do with Iraqi Nationalism. I mean if your army is disbanded by a foreign power, then reinstated under a new name; would you join up? Think about it, if the USMC was disbanded by an invading nation, would you then join up with the ADF?

Or it could have something to do with the fact that they are prime targets and targets of choice for the terrorists. Look who's getting hit. Police Stations.
The terrorists are attempting to destroy what little infrastructure does exist. In the beginning recruitment was going well. But now.
 
Back
Top