posted at 1/31/2013 4:58 PM EST
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
The website you mocked (1) is not "the left", and (2) cited sexual assault and torturing other prisoners as things it opposes.
Perhaps you should trade in for a smaller brush?
posted at 1/31/2013 4:58 PM EST
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
The website you mocked (1) is not "the left", and (2) cited sexual assault and torturing other prisoners as things it opposes.
Perhaps you should trade in for a smaller brush?
This post has been removed.
posted at 1/31/2013 8:06 PM EST
posted at 1/31/2013 8:06 PM EST
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
posted at 2/1/2013 9:19 AM EST
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.
It wouldnt be a freaking black op if that was what was need!! LMAO what a tool
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
posted at 2/1/2013 10:50 AM EST
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
posted at 2/1/2013 10:51 AM EST
In response to Newtster's comment:
Your logic leads to the conclusion that in war, we should take no prisoners. Or at least, if we do, we can shoot them at will. Because other times, when they are shooting at us, we shoot at them.
This post has been removed.
posted at 2/1/2013 10:56 AM EST
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
In response to Newtster's comment:
2.) the prisoners are captured while they were "shooting" at us.
3.) there is no collateral damage or innocent people killed in EIT's!
This post has been removed.
posted at 2/1/2013 11:06 AM EST
In response to tvoter's comment:
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!
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...
posted at 2/1/2013 11:10 AM EST
In response to Newtster's comment:
Ok, and all I'm saying is that they worked out precisely what works in past wars and somehow didn't need to resort to waterboarding (what I consider psychological torture) to get their information.
As for the other post, I draw the line somewhere right next to waterboarding or at it.
Other things are too vague. "Temperature extremes"? Well how extreme? If you put someone in a meat freezer until they develop hypothermia and frostbite you're probably somewhere near the torture line if not over it. That sort of question depends entirely on the extent of what you're doing and how much it looks like "I'll cause physical pain to make you talk"
This post has been removed.
posted at 2/1/2013 11:18 AM EST
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"
This post has been removed.
posted at 2/1/2013 11:41 AM EST
In response to tvoter's comment:
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...
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"
[/QUOTE]
1. Don't be daft. I'm saying it isn't assinating them. I'm saying it's the equivalent of shooting at the guys in the other trench. They won't be nice and form a regular army for us to engage. It isn't "assasination" for that reason.
2. Then that's another reason not to consider drone strikes "assination". They don't form an army and follow the rules of war, so, when we shoot at them we do it as we have to. Still doesn't bear on the question of what happens once we've actually captured one.
3. ....collateral damage matters because we don't want to kill civilians. However, it isn't relevant to the question of what we do once we've captured a suspected terrorist. It's also an unfortunate consequence, but, how else can we fight them? We simply cannot put the necessary teams in all these foreign countries.
posted at 2/1/2013 11:42 AM EST
In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
4. The people surrounding a terrorist sure know what his occupation is.
posted at 2/1/2013 11:42 AM EST
How about people outside in street who are killed or injured?
