Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Instead of congratulating ourselves for shutting down the detention EIT program, we should ask whether its closure is leading us to kill people we might otherwise capture.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment: 

    Do you think we should sexually assault prisoners?

    Do you think we should torture one prisoner infront of another prisoner from whom we want information

     

    No because 1 they may like and 2 the other may be a voyeur!

    anymore assinine questions from the kiddie room

    [QUOTE] 

    You really should try to avoid jumping into the middle of exchanges you weren't following. You keep making an @ss of yourself.




    1 -Its a message board and  2-again I could not careless what you think about me.

    Anymore assinine comments?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Do you think we should torture one prisoner infront of another prisoner from whom we want information?"

    Depends what supposed 'torture' the prisoner is given.

    Beaten to within an inch of his life--no. US intelligence never did so...they had supervision and legal guidance.

    Being humiliated verbally, and kept in a cold room and kept sleep deprived, YES. Then, I would approve, since it is not "torture",  even though the phony Left defines any coercion at all as torture...

    Again, "coercive interrogation" led to Obama's biggest triumph, the killing of Bin Lade...the irony is amazing.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Do you think we should torture one prisoner infront of another prisoner from whom we want information?"

    Depends what supposed 'torture' the prisoner is given.

    Beaten to within an inch of his life--no. US intelligence never did so...they had supervision and legal guidance.

    Being humiliated verbally, and kept in a cold room and kept sleep deprived, YES. Then, I would approve, since it is not "torture",  even though the phony Left defines any coercion at all as torture...

    Again, "coercive interrogation" led to Obama's biggest triumph, the killing of Bin Lade...the irony is amazing.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    The left's twisted morality pose on this topic too often comes in fits and starts, with the most righteous of the lot declaring Bush a war criminal for his interrogation techniques while granting absolution to the man who champions a far more brutish approach. One wonders where these secular televangelists have gone in a week when BBC reporters tell of an 8-year-old girl having her young skin pierced by a drone bomb’s shrapnel while watching her grandmother being blown to a thousand pieces in front of her young eyes."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-scarborough-rips-on-waterboarding-2012-12#ixzz2JbZfa71V
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    The left's twisted morality pose on this topic too often comes in fits and starts, with the most righteous of the lot declaring Bush a war criminal for his interrogation techniques while granting absolution to the man who champions a far more brutish approach. One wonders where these secular televangelists have gone in a week when BBC reporters tell of an 8-year-old girl having her young skin pierced by a drone bomb’s shrapnel while watching her grandmother being blown to a thousand pieces in front of her young eyes."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-scarborough-rips-on-waterboarding-2012-12#ixzz2JbZfa71V
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    The left's twisted morality pose on this topic too often comes in fits and starts, with the most righteous of the lot declaring Bush a war criminal for his interrogation techniques while granting absolution to the man who champions a far more brutish approach. One wonders where these secular televangelists have gone in a week when BBC reporters tell of an 8-year-old girl having her young skin pierced by a drone bomb’s shrapnel while watching her grandmother being blown to a thousand pieces in front of her young eyes."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-scarborough-rips-on-waterboarding-2012-12#ixzz2JbZfa71V



    So let me get this straight.

    The only correct 'morality' position from you chickenhawks is that the US should unnecessarily risk the lives of US military members to try and capture terrorists only so that they can be brought to a prison and tortured, at the pleasure of the wingnuts.

    You wingnut cowards would be willing to accept the responsibility for any mission that failed and then sit in the same room of the families of servicemen as their bodies are defiled and dragged through the streets.

    All because you think they may have information.

    The same type of information that was so immediate that baby-Bush, in the 7 yrs he had KSM, didn't act on.

     

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

     

    Someone explain to me how it would be possible to insert a spec op team into Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, capture a target and then exfiltrate the team and prisoner. And do it repeatedly, for each target.

    As much as you chickenhawks think spec ops are all Rambo's, no one is going to risk an entire team in a hostile country, with no support to capture one target. The rewards don't come close to the risk of losing 7/8/10 guys in a hostile foreign country. Not to mention the fact that if the shiiat does hit the fan- the PR the terrorists would get from dragging the bodies of the soldiers through the streets would be devastating.

    If ya'll think it's worth the risk, then get your backsides down to the nearest recruiting station and sign up. They'll teach ya everything ya need to know ...

     



    I don't think anyone is recommending that we send in commandos to capture people. What they are saying is that it is hypocritical to exaggerate about definitions of "torture" and claim you are all for "American values" and then shoot rockets out of nowhere at terrorist suspects with the knowledge that there will be innocent people killed as well. 

     

    Really, how can one crow about how saintly you are by banning whatever you define as "torture" and then kill thousands of innocent civilians, including children, with the drones? If BUsh were doing this you would be howling about how evil he was. 

    Yeah, sure, a suspect in detention is different than one you suspect in the field. That's more of a legal argument. Morally speaking, what's the difference? Not a shiiteload. 

    Personally I am OK with both. Interrogate with the most effective means possible and shoot the missles from drones. 

     

     

     

    In war, innocent people get killed. That is a fact of life.

    The idea that the people surrounding a known terrorist don't know that said terrorist's objective is to kill Westerner's, doesn't exactly make these people out to be as 'innocent' as some would like you to believe. Yes, they might not actively participate in the terrorist actions but they are aiding and abetting the terrorist by harboring him/her. Didn't baby-Bush say as much with his 'with us or against us' speech?

    And just quit with your strawman arguments by trying to project what everyone would say. It's a bullshiat cop out.

    The use of drones strikes, and the resulting collateral damage, is akin to the bombing runs of WWII or Vietnam. In fact, they are much more discriminant and precise, reducing said collateral damage to a minimum.

    You wage war with the most effective, most advanced weapons in your arsenal.

    You don't send soldiers on what could be a failed mission if you don't have to.

    To paraphrase Gen Patton; "You don't win wars sacrificing lives for your cause, you win wars making the other guy sacrifice his life for his cause."

     

    And by-the-by, the idea of capturing these terrorists is exactly the argument presented by the OP. It's either that or just leave them alone to continue to plot attacks. Pick one.

    There are no other alternatives.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

     

    You chickenhawks are hilarious!!!

    Yep, the CIA and the rest of the US security apparatus can't keep secret prisons in never-before-heard-from countries in the remote corners of the world secret or the techniques they used out-of-sight behind the doors of those prisons, but the US military can keep secret all these supposed 'black-ops' which require a few hundred personnel and accompanying aircraft to penetrate various countries radar systems (both civlian and military) insert spec-ops and then drag an unwilling prisoner dozens of miles out of that same country - all without someone, somewhere seeing or hearing about it.




    LOL really you claim to be a former spec op guy but, then you claim that BS above about needing a few hundred personnel with air support is necessary for a "BLACK OP"?

    It wouldnt be a freaking black op if that was what was need!! LMAO what a tool

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    You chickenhawks are hilarious!!!

    Yep, the CIA and the rest of the US security apparatus can't keep secret prisons in never-before-heard-from countries in the remote corners of the world secret or the techniques they used out-of-sight behind the doors of those prisons, but the US military can keep secret all these supposed 'black-ops' which require a few hundred personnel and accompanying aircraft to penetrate various countries radar systems (both civlian and military) insert spec-ops and then drag an unwilling prisoner dozens of miles out of that same country - all without someone, somewhere seeing or hearing about it.

     


    LOL really you claim to be a former spec op guy but, then you claim that BS above about needing a few hundred personnel with air support is necessary for a "BLACK OP"?

     

    It wouldnt be a freaking black op if that was what was need!! LMAO what a tool

     




     

    OMFG, are you serious?

    A pathetic poltroon like you is trying to call me on my experience?

     

    Okay spanky;

    How many personnel does it take to service, repair and fuel a c130? To load-out and fly it? From which service branch are these people and equipment? How many personnel in that branch are involved in planning flight routes, gathering intel on possible hostile weapons and disseminating that intel?

    How many personnel does it take to service, repair, arm and fuel a Blackhawk? To load out and fly it?

    How many personnel does it take to do background intel on the target and the AO? To gather and organize the satellite images, reports, comms and intel and disseminate that to the team?

    How many levels of the chain of command does such a mission have to pass through before it get's to operational level?

    How many personnel does it take to gather all the intel that leads to the mission getting green lighted? How many personnel are involved in that decision?

    How many personnel does it take to monitor the mission as it goes operational? To monitor the location of the target, hostiles in the AO and the comms channels?

    How many pieces of equipment and personnel are placed on standby in case the shiat hits the fan and the mission goes south?

     

     

     

     

    Don't worry chickenhawk, those are rhetorical questions because I know you don't know the answer yet you think you know what's involved in such missions.

    Like I said, you idiots rely on novels and Hollywood movies to form your ignorant views of the world. Everybody is Rambo, right spanky?

    Sorry, I prefer reality.

     

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:


    Why is there no difference between what you do with a soldier who is shooting at you, and a soldier who has been disarmed and captured? 




    1.) the people we kill with drones are NOT actively "shooting at you"!!

    2.) the prisoners are captured while they were "shooting" at us.

    3.) there is no collateral damage or innocent people killed in EIT's!

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTES]


    1. That is simply because of the manner in which they choose to make war against us. Why should that give them immunity?

    2. So too were German POWs.

    3. False. We might not have the right person. The fact of gitmo and torture was used as a recruiting tool to create even more terrorists (there's your collateral damage).

    3. Also completely irrelevant. "Collateral damage" doesn't matter because, again, the distinction between an active enemy on his chosen field of battle....and a POW...

    [/QUOTE]

    1. It doesnt give anyone immunity and no one ever said it should. Why does it give us the right to assasinate them and those around them?

    2. The German POW's followed the rules of war; there is no such thing with extremist; who hide among civilians and murder innocents on purpose.

    3. Collateral damage absolutely matters or we would just carpet bomb areas to kill a few terrorist! btw: the shieks home with hiswife kids was not his "chosen field of battle"

     

     

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    4. The people surrounding a terrorist sure know what his occupation is.




    Even the Children?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    How about people outside in street who are killed or injured?

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    4. The people surrounding a terrorist sure know what his occupation is.


    Even the Children?




    If they're old enough, yes. That's one reason terrorism is perpetuated, kids are indoctrinated early.

    And if they're not old enough, their parents, who are responsible for them, certainly know this.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    as·sas·si·nate

    /əˈsæsəˌneɪt/ Show Spelled [uh-sas-uh-neyt] Show IPA

    verb (used with object), as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing. 1. to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.  

     

    People shooting at each other from trenches doesnt meet this definition; true?

    When a snipe kills it does however

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    4. The people surrounding a terrorist sure know what his occupation is.


    Even the Children?

    If they're old enough, yes. That's one reason terrorism is perpetuated, kids are indoctrinated early.

    And if they're not old enough, their parents, who are responsible for them, certainly know this.



    So, it's ok to kill small children since it's the parents fault?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    as·sas·si·nate

    /əˈsæsəˌneɪt/ Show Spelled [uh-sas-uh-neyt] Show IPA

    verb (used with object), as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing. 1. to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.  

     

    People shooting at each other from trenches doesnt meet this definition; true?

    When a snipe kills it does however



     

    It most certainly does include people shooting from trenches. You aim, you fire and you intend to kill your target 'suddenly' and with 'premeditation'.


    That definition makes every member of the US military who has been in combat and actually aimed his weapon at the enemy an assasin, right?

     
Sections
Shortcuts