The "war on terror" is a "mistake",
03USMC
Active member
Could care less if their country of origin lopps their melons off with a scimetar, BFD.
What gives me the Willies is whats gonna happen to the ones who's countries won't accept their return. What do we do with them. I get an awful feeling we'll keep em in detention right up to the point some suit decides to give em green cards.
What gives me the Willies is whats gonna happen to the ones who's countries won't accept their return. What do we do with them. I get an awful feeling we'll keep em in detention right up to the point some suit decides to give em green cards.
AB_Shorts_Momma
Milforum Otaku
Valid point! gee, one more thing to be concerned about!
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Agreed.
I get sick and tired of bleeding heart, tree and bunny hugging liberals, continuing bitter bleating regarding the human rights abuse of terrorists.
They seem to forget the abuse of human rights of their victims, Allied soldiers and innocent civilians who are killed or maimed by these so called “freedom fighters.”
If roasting a terrorist over an open fire to get information that could save the life of a a single Allied solider or innocent civilian, then I say, “Go for it, roast the scum bag.”
perseus
Active member
Make no mistake about it they have been subject to torture by any reasonable definition of the word, Water boarding, stress positions, prolonged cold and sleep deprivation, just about anything that doesn't leave a physical scar. If it isn't torture they wouldn't bother to say anything would they? Any alleged statements should take this into account assuming the court doesn't belong to the kangaroos.
Even if some are guilty and I have no doubt some are, what is the difference between what they do, and the enemy targeting enemy civilians in WW2 (whichever side you were on). Did the Luftwaffe and instigators of the V weapons face torture for bombing London indiscriminately as a terror tactic? Perhaps we such torture allied servicemen guilty of warcrimes as well?
As I said before, perhaps there is justification for torture under extreme circumstances, say you are trying to find out where a terrorist has planted a WMD as a hypothetical example. However, torturing them 'for a bit a fun' is the attitude which will get the liberals fuming, and rightly so in my opinion. The torturers are no better than the tortured in this case, at least the latter think they are fighting for something worthwhile rather than sadistic pleasure, however delusional this is.
Even if some are guilty and I have no doubt some are, what is the difference between what they do, and the enemy targeting enemy civilians in WW2 (whichever side you were on). Did the Luftwaffe and instigators of the V weapons face torture for bombing London indiscriminately as a terror tactic? Perhaps we such torture allied servicemen guilty of warcrimes as well?
As I said before, perhaps there is justification for torture under extreme circumstances, say you are trying to find out where a terrorist has planted a WMD as a hypothetical example. However, torturing them 'for a bit a fun' is the attitude which will get the liberals fuming, and rightly so in my opinion. The torturers are no better than the tortured in this case, at least the latter think they are fighting for something worthwhile rather than sadistic pleasure, however delusional this is.
Last edited:
AB_Shorts_Momma
Milforum Otaku
Perseus,
You cannot hug your friendly terrorist, tell him he's been a bad boy (or girl), and expect him to never do it again! Think of Gitmo as a "time-out".
Gitmo is not a POW camp, therefore the analogy of war is not really valid. Those residing at Gitmo against their will are there for a reason. We, the American people, really don't want to feed and house others for an extended period of time on our dime! IMHO, most of us aren't crazy about Gitmo, BUT it seems to fall on the US to help most of the world, and then the rest of the world seems to feel the need to criticize our methods.
You have effectively pointed out what you perceive to be the problem; what do you feel the solution is?
You cannot hug your friendly terrorist, tell him he's been a bad boy (or girl), and expect him to never do it again! Think of Gitmo as a "time-out".
Gitmo is not a POW camp, therefore the analogy of war is not really valid. Those residing at Gitmo against their will are there for a reason. We, the American people, really don't want to feed and house others for an extended period of time on our dime! IMHO, most of us aren't crazy about Gitmo, BUT it seems to fall on the US to help most of the world, and then the rest of the world seems to feel the need to criticize our methods.
You have effectively pointed out what you perceive to be the problem; what do you feel the solution is?
BritinAfrica, you make fun of bleeding hearts, but fail to remember important things.
Many people are abused because they tried to defend their rights.
But the main point is:
Only criminals can abuse a human being. And we are not the kind to rent criminal services. When we catch criminals, we put them in jail. Is it simple enough for everybody?
Your citizens dont like dangerous people. We want to see them in cages/jails... Okay? I dont want to see my kids growing in a world where dangerous people are hired by the state to do jobs.
We allow people capable of killing in SELF DEFENSE ONLY.
So you cannot harm a person who cant harm you.
We can allow some abuses in extreem situations... In survival situations... Exemple:
If you catch a terrorist who knows that one of his team mates is heading for a market with a car bomb...
And still, the person who will abuse this terrorist, will have to face a judge. Who will try to determine if it was worth the abuse of this man's rights.
Why all of this? Because its what honest people do. Because if you dont respect this way of thinking, people will hate you. And you will be supporting terrorism by giving it a meaning.
So once again I'm totally against systematic torture. I think that the only thing that is systematic, would be a reeducation camp. Where we take these people to show them that they were under the influence of extremist ideas.
And once again BritinAfrica. You have to know, that in the countries the Coalition invaded after 9/11... There was A LOT of people who were innocent, and suffered heavy losses because of the war.
Think of Iraq. Nothing to do with 9/11 attacks. And yet, look at the death tolls.
You what is the meaning of this? It means that the people who attack coalition forces are innocent and in their right. They fight an invading army. They are freedom fighters. And the soldiers fighting them are invaders fighting for wrong motives.
And the locals who fight with the invading armies are traitors to their people.
The terrorist are the ones who murder civilians and car bomb markets. And these are a few. They make a lot of noise. but they are minority.
Let Iran take the god damned Iraq... It will solve the problem.
Many people are abused because they tried to defend their rights.
But the main point is:
Only criminals can abuse a human being. And we are not the kind to rent criminal services. When we catch criminals, we put them in jail. Is it simple enough for everybody?
Your citizens dont like dangerous people. We want to see them in cages/jails... Okay? I dont want to see my kids growing in a world where dangerous people are hired by the state to do jobs.
We allow people capable of killing in SELF DEFENSE ONLY.
So you cannot harm a person who cant harm you.
We can allow some abuses in extreem situations... In survival situations... Exemple:
If you catch a terrorist who knows that one of his team mates is heading for a market with a car bomb...
And still, the person who will abuse this terrorist, will have to face a judge. Who will try to determine if it was worth the abuse of this man's rights.
Why all of this? Because its what honest people do. Because if you dont respect this way of thinking, people will hate you. And you will be supporting terrorism by giving it a meaning.
So once again I'm totally against systematic torture. I think that the only thing that is systematic, would be a reeducation camp. Where we take these people to show them that they were under the influence of extremist ideas.
And once again BritinAfrica. You have to know, that in the countries the Coalition invaded after 9/11... There was A LOT of people who were innocent, and suffered heavy losses because of the war.
Think of Iraq. Nothing to do with 9/11 attacks. And yet, look at the death tolls.
You what is the meaning of this? It means that the people who attack coalition forces are innocent and in their right. They fight an invading army. They are freedom fighters. And the soldiers fighting them are invaders fighting for wrong motives.
And the locals who fight with the invading armies are traitors to their people.
The terrorist are the ones who murder civilians and car bomb markets. And these are a few. They make a lot of noise. but they are minority.
Let Iran take the god damned Iraq... It will solve the problem.
HokieMSG
Active member
Amen and well said. IF the administration ever figures out what to do with them I will be surprised. Very surprised.
I wonder if we release all of the detainees, how many of them will return to Al-Queda and continue their war against the US (It has happened already in one case). http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php
Then the bunny huggers (great term, Britin) will wring their hands and demand why more money wasn't spent on intel when the republicans were in office.
Last edited:
HokieMSG
Active member
You can't have it both ways. You decry the methods used by the US then try to justify their use?
NOBODY is for systematic torture (i.e. torture for the sake of it)
I wonder how many Iraqi deaths can be attributed to Saddam, Khofi Annan, and all of the foreign corporations that profited from the oil for food program.
You call it an invading army, but I wonder how many Iraqi's would call it a liberating army?
Iran take Iraq. No F'n way the US is going to let that happen. They fought against each other for years and all it did was destroy both countries. The minute Iran kills a US soldier it's go time. Course PBOB would likely try to negotiate with the Iraninans and end up paying them for our percieved agression.
senojekips
Active member
I think that you are living in denial of the facts. There was, and most probably still is, a long standing culture of torture that is well documented (and we still probably don't know the half of it).
Try telling that to the family of a totally innocent cab driver, (this has been admitted by the military) who was beaten to death, whilst being "softened up" prior to being tortured. This is only one of the documented cases. Knowing the military's propensity for "keeping things in house" I have no doubt we haven't even scratched the surface.
It was further stated that had he not died, his legs would have had to have been amputated anyway.
Don't kid yourself, systematic torture, is alive and well in the military prisons.
03USMC
Active member
Not arguing that cases like this do exisit and things like this do happen. When they do happen the Military takes it on the chin and in all cases this might not be fair as there are other entities involved that are keeping to the shadows and letting the military take the heat for their actions.
I can't say what I'd really like to do to them, cause it might offend somebody on here, but I can say that what I'd like to do makes what Vlad Tepes did to muslims look kind and gentle.
HokieMSG
Active member
As 03USMC has stated, in many cases the prisoners are held in military jails. But there are "other" alphabet agencies involved in the interrogations. Let me say a few things here.
1. If something goes wrong, and it usually does the military gets the black eye.
2. While many people (myself included) find this type of treatment sickening, it is a necessary evil. (necessary for our security)
3. In the case you stated above, I can guarantee an Article 32 investigation. Though I suppose the media will not report that or any convictions that might result.
4. I don;t dispute that torture is likely occuring. Have I seen any? No.
Have I participated in any? No. Would I report it if I saw it? Absolutely.
I have to disagree Hokie, I see nothing about the treatment of the detainees any worse than what they do to us, I saw on the news about one man who was drug thought the streets and hung upside down from a bridge to die.
I see my neighbor who is still alive, but only half of him came home from Iraq, they never found the other half, he'll be in pain the rest of his life, so as far as I'm concerned, theres nothing wrong with what they get.
I see my neighbor who is still alive, but only half of him came home from Iraq, they never found the other half, he'll be in pain the rest of his life, so as far as I'm concerned, theres nothing wrong with what they get.
HokieMSG
Active member
Agree, with you but the US always takes the moral high ground as a matter of policy. (It is after all the best place to put the artillery). Seriously though. I am in total agreement that the insurgents should be treated as they have treated our citizens. But this is a slippery slope as it is very easy for this to escalate beyond our control. Maybe Keyser Soze had it right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyser_Söze
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
My view might be somewhat simplistic, but:-
A 100 pound fella 5 feet 2inches kicks a 250 pound 6 feet 6inches fella in the wedding tackle. The big fella kicks the crap out of the little fella. Who's to blame?
Thats what happened in 9/11
Damien435
Active member
In Rome, even under the Republic, confessions were not admissible as evidence unless they were given under torture, we've come a pretty long way from those days. Torture is incredibly unreliable, a person being tortured will say anything to make it stop which means an innocent man will sign a blank confession allowing his captors to write whatever they wish in order to make the punishments end.
BritinAfrica, I just love your exemples.
Makes me remember university and philosophy classes... good memories with funny exemples like yours.
But you dont give a real conclusion. But the situation is very complex. And you dont ask questions neither...
Let's try again, you are in a highschool. And you see a weak geek come and attack the striker of the soccer team.
Or let me give you a much better exemple. You see a weak boy in highschool attack the girl friend (a cheerleader) of the strong guy in the soccer team... Stabbing her in the chest with a pen.
So? That explains why the whole soccer team comes and beat the living hell out of every weak boy in highschool.
But let's question why it happened. Because, you were stuck in how it happened. It's very pertinent to ask "how" when something incredible happens... If you see a 6year old beat the living hell out of a Navy SEAL. You can ask how...
But here, nothing surprising happened, so asking how isnt pertinent.
And here are some theories:
The weak boy was jealous. And decided that nobody have the right to have a girlfriend because he cant have one.
The weak boy is a mean bastard and decided to hurt the strong guy. But as he was strong, he decided to attack his girl friend instead, where he can make a lot of damage.
The weak boy wants political power in the highschool and decided to use shock and awe to use fear to take power. So he used a horrible way to attack and terrorise the highschool.
The strong boy was a bully. And the weak boy wanted to commit suicide because his life was awful, but decided to take a little piece of his enemy with him. So he attacked the only spot where he could do damage.
So? Let's play with our brains.
Makes me remember university and philosophy classes... good memories with funny exemples like yours.
But you dont give a real conclusion. But the situation is very complex. And you dont ask questions neither...
Let's try again, you are in a highschool. And you see a weak geek come and attack the striker of the soccer team.
Or let me give you a much better exemple. You see a weak boy in highschool attack the girl friend (a cheerleader) of the strong guy in the soccer team... Stabbing her in the chest with a pen.
So? That explains why the whole soccer team comes and beat the living hell out of every weak boy in highschool.
But let's question why it happened. Because, you were stuck in how it happened. It's very pertinent to ask "how" when something incredible happens... If you see a 6year old beat the living hell out of a Navy SEAL. You can ask how...
But here, nothing surprising happened, so asking how isnt pertinent.
And here are some theories:
The weak boy was jealous. And decided that nobody have the right to have a girlfriend because he cant have one.
The weak boy is a mean bastard and decided to hurt the strong guy. But as he was strong, he decided to attack his girl friend instead, where he can make a lot of damage.
The weak boy wants political power in the highschool and decided to use shock and awe to use fear to take power. So he used a horrible way to attack and terrorise the highschool.
The strong boy was a bully. And the weak boy wanted to commit suicide because his life was awful, but decided to take a little piece of his enemy with him. So he attacked the only spot where he could do damage.
So? Let's play with our brains.