Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst 123456789101116 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 379
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    They are classified as "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war" because, technically, we are not at war. I believe they are being given the courtesy of being considered "prisoners of war" and given those rights accordingly. I do not believe they are being treated nearly as badly as a couple of misguided reports would like us to believe otherwise.
    I guess you will be pleased if they treat captured Americans, whether civilian or military, the same way we treat them at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

    Please indicate your approval.
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    I guess you will be pleased if they treat captured Americans, whether civilian or military, the same way we treat them at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

    Please indicate your approval.
    I'm sure Nicholas Berg, Jack Hensley, or Eugene Armstrong would rather have been treated as poorly by their captors as those at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo...I dunno, shall we ask them??

    Please indicate your approval of THEIR treatment.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    I guess you will be pleased if they treat captured Americans, whether civilian or military, the same way we treat them at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

    Please indicate your approval.
    I agree, I would be pleased if the terrorists would treat their prisoners/hostages (only) as bad as the average prisoner in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, even if some US prisoners were tortured and/or killed (as far as I remember 26 prisoners were officially killed in US custody - which is probably in the same range as the number of hostages killed by terrorists).

    One can argue that some Iraqi hostages (e.g. those who were not captured for political reasons, but only for money) were treated better than what some US prisoners experienced, but still, on average you cannot compare the two.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I'm sure Nicholas Berg, Jack Hensley, or Eugene Armstrong would rather have been treated as poorly by their captors as those at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo...I dunno, shall we ask them??

    Please indicate your approval of THEIR treatment.
    I got here late today and you beat me to it, but I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Nudist, do you really believe that Berg's beheading was reactionary? I think not. Those extremists weren't glued to the TV looking to one-up anyone at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. They are sick individuals with no value placed on human life, theirs, civilians, military personnel, women, children, and GASP!, even yours. I see no point in offering any sort of comfort to someone who would slit your throat as soon as he could if he had the chance.

    My guess is that they treat anyone they capture, whether it's American civilians or soldiers, or international relief workers, far worse than the worst cases at Abu Ghraib. We haven't heard of any Taliban or Iraqi detainees having their heads cut off. Surely if it happened Newsweek or CNN would've aired it by now.

    Hmmm, let me see, dirty Koran placed too close to a toilet, or losing my head? Wow, that's a really tough choice. Those detainees sure do have it rough. Let 'em spend an hour with me and then see if they're still complaining about a Koran with a few pages missing.

    There's my approval.
    I'm back!
  5. #105  
    Well said.
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    I got here late today and you beat me to it, but I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Nudist, do you really believe that Berg's beheading was reactionary? I think not. Those extremists weren't glued to the TV looking to one-up anyone at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. They are sick individuals with no value placed on human life, theirs, civilians, military personnel, women, children, and GASP!, even yours. I see no point in offering any sort of comfort to someone who would slit your throat as soon as he could if he had the chance.

    My guess is that they treat anyone they capture, whether it's American civilians or soldiers, or international relief workers, far worse than the worst cases at Abu Ghraib. We haven't heard of any Taliban or Iraqi detainees having their heads cut off. Surely if it happened Newsweek or CNN would've aired it by now.

    Hmmm, let me see, dirty Koran placed too close to a toilet, or losing my head? Wow, that's a really tough choice. Those detainees sure do have it rough. Let 'em spend an hour with me and then see if they're still complaining about a Koran with a few pages missing.
    As mentioned above, I don't agree with nudist, but it is not as easy as a Koran placed too close to a toilet.

    Official reports confirm that over 30 prisoners died, and we can safely assume that some of them died as the result of interrogations and/or homicide. Being beheaded is bad, but being killed in the dungeons of Abu Ghraib or another prison is not really any better, even if no video camera was present...

    Here's more, I guess I could look up another source, too, fact is the numbers are from official reports: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May27.html

    Take the case of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, the former chief of Iraqi air defenses, who died Nov. 26 at a detention facility at Al Qaim, northwest of Baghdad. After his death the Pentagon released a statement reporting that "it appeared Mowhoush died of natural causes." That was a lie. In fact, according to an autopsy report, Gen. Mowhoush died of "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression." According to documents first obtained by the Denver Post, two soldiers slid a sleeping bag over him and rolled him repeatedly from his back to his stomach; one then sat on his chest and covered his mouth. Only after the Denver Post's report last week did the Pentagon acknowledge the truth and say that a homicide investigation was underway.

    So, what is better, a cut throat or "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression." Both are horrible, obviously.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #107  
    Seems a no-brainer...hmmm...I can jack off in front of roomful of gaurds, and be dog-piled on top of some other prisoners...or...

    I CAN BEG AND PLEAD FOR MY LIFE AS MY CAPTORS SAW MY HEAD OFF WITH A MACHETE, AND THEN HOLD IT OVER THEIR HEADS LIKE SOME FRIGGIN TROPHY! ALL THE WHILE BEING CAPTURED ON VIDEO, AND AIRED FOR THE WORLD, INCLUDING MY LOVED ONES, MY MOTHER, MY WIFE, MY CHILDREN TO SEE!

    Wow...tough choice, Nudist.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Here's more, I guess I could look up another source, too, fact is the numbers are from official reports: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May27.html
    I can always tell how an article is going to go when:
    A) There's no name on the article, just "Editorial". You know right there this is a very slanted opinion.
    B) President Bush is referred to as Mr. Bush. He's President Bush from the day he gets elected until the end of time, regardless of whether or not you like his politics.

    As far as the truth of the article, I don't doubt these types of things happen. I've never said they don't, nor am I naive enough to believe they don't, although Nudist would have you believe these types of things don't happen to American POWs except as retribution for some prior atrocity. And I can't think of many ways that are worse to die than by asphyxiation (burned alive is probably worse). But as I stated earlier, I am willing to allow US policies on interrogation to be "bent", sometimes severely, to prevent another 9/11. Of course, I don't condone this for the average Taliban footsoldier where there is nothing to gain, but in the case of Maj. Gen. Mowhoush, I can see where excelerated techniques may have been necessary. There are different degrees of interrogation, and I don't find severe sensory deprivation to be above and beyond humane.

    And to expand on Insertion's comment, there's a world of difference between being humiliated on video tape by being scared by barking dogs or forming a human pyramid, and begging for your life and then having your head cut off so that those cowards who can't even show their faces on the tape can get off that night. And having your parents or children see the highlights on CNN.

    If that happened to someone I cared about, and I got one of them alone in a room for an hour, they'd pray for asphyxiation.
    I'm back!
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Seems a no-brainer...hmmm...I can jack off in front of roomful of gaurds, and be dog-piled on top of some other prisoners...or...

    I CAN BEG AND PLEAD FOR MY LIFE AS MY CAPTORS SAW MY HEAD OFF WITH A MACHETE, AND THEN HOLD IT OVER THEIR HEADS LIKE SOME FRIGGIN TROPHY! ALL THE WHILE BEING CAPTURED ON VIDEO, AND AIRED FOR THE WORLD, INCLUDING MY LOVED ONES, MY MOTHER, MY WIFE, MY CHILDREN TO SEE!

    Wow...tough choice, Nudist.
    So what exactly is the difference between US guards murdering a prisoner (I mean homicide, not self-defence etc.) and a terrorist killing a hostage? Of course one difference is that the terrorist wants to spread terror. That no camera took pictures in the case of prisoners killed is also quite a difference for the relatives watching, but for the victims? Are you sure the prisoners killed did not plead for their lives?

    Here are more examples: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in645601.shtml
    (again a ultra-left news source, I know, but the cases are from Pentagon etc. information)

    Another soldier was sentenced to 25 years in prison last month after pleading guilty to murder in the death of an Iraqi National Guard member. His unit was not identified.
    Two other Fort Carson soldiers face courts-martial on manslaughter charges in connection with an unrelated death in Iraq — that of the drowning of an Iraqi civilian in the Tigris River. ...
    The military was already looking into at least three deaths in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, dating back to December 2003. It has yet to release the results of any of the investigations.
    But a CIA contractor has been charged in the United States with using a flashlight to beat a prisoner who later died in the eastern town of Asadabad in June 2003.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Seems a no-brainer...hmmm...I can jack off in front of roomful of gaurds, and be dog-piled on top of some other prisoners...or...

    I CAN BEG AND PLEAD FOR MY LIFE AS MY CAPTORS SAW MY HEAD OFF WITH A MACHETE, AND THEN HOLD IT OVER THEIR HEADS LIKE SOME FRIGGIN TROPHY! ALL THE WHILE BEING CAPTURED ON VIDEO, AND AIRED FOR THE WORLD, INCLUDING MY LOVED ONES, MY MOTHER, MY WIFE, MY CHILDREN TO SEE!

    Wow...tough choice, Nudist.
    well, Insertion, as your cohort said above "I am willing to allow US policies to be "bent", quite a bit in some instances, to ensure that another 9/11 doesn't happen. Take that as you will."

    Maybe they determined that beheading was necessary to prevent or discourage another invasion and occupation by foreign forces. When one side bends the rules, it give license to the other side. "waaaahhh. they bent them MORE than we did!"

    The point is, you justify and dismiss ANY treatment we administer, yet are outraged at whatever they do. I am sure they did alot of begging for their lives during lethal interrogation, and I'm likewise sure that much more has happened that WAS NOT reported on CNNBCBS.

    I don't think we can ignore treaties and international law and "bend" whatever rules WE choose, then condemn the enemy for brutal behavior.

    you do! you make that very clear.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    The point is, you justify and dismiss ANY treatment we administer
    Prove this claim.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #112  
    ....Final Jeopardy theme plays in background...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    As far as the truth of the article, I don't doubt these types of things happen. ... And I can't think of many ways that are worse to die than by asphyxiation (burned alive is probably worse). But as I stated earlier, I am willing to allow US policies on interrogation to be "bent", sometimes severely, to prevent another 9/11.
    You think you are WAAY above the terrorists, but you are willing to use the very same methods - or even worse methods, since, as you say, death by asphyxation (how the Iraqi prisoner was killed) is worse than death by cutting the throat (how the hostages were killed).

    Also, you saying it is ok to "bend" interrogation policies to the point where prisoners are tortured to death is quite telling. You are a shining example of moral superiory over Islamistic terrorists and the rest of the world in general, thanks for this great statement.

    In addition, you saying this is justified in order to "prevent another 9/11" shows that you still believe in the fairy tale link between Iraq and 9/11. The man killed was an officer in the Republican Guard, not a terrorist, and he certainly had no link to 9/11, and also not to WMDs, since they didn't have any at that time, just in case you "forgot" that, too....
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So what exactly is the difference between US guards murdering a prisoner (I mean homicide, not self-defence etc.) and a terrorist killing a hostage?
    <snipped for space>
    There is none. What the Hell kind of question is this?

    Of course, if you would read your articles, you'll note Court Martial for US Troops.

    Please, homework assignment Clu, find me an article of those cowardly savages who behead being brought up on charges. I'll give you as much time as you need.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    There is none. What the Hell kind of question is this?

    Of course, if you would read your articles, you'll note Court Martial for US Troops.

    Please, homework assignment Clu, find me an article of those cowardly savages who behead being brought up on charges. I'll give you as much time as you need.
    I am glad you agree that guards murdering prisoners are as bad as terrorists murdering hostages.

    Just as murdering soldiers are prosecuted by US laws, the Islamistic terrorists are prosecuted by the authorities of Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. There are very few exceptions to that, Syria and Iran come to mind. The majority of the population of Muslim countries do not agree with the actions of Islamistic terrorists, just as most Americans don't support prisoners being beaten to death.

    Of course there is some support for terrorism in Muslim countries, just as e.g. jmill72x supports US interrogation policies being bent to the point where prisoners are tortured to death.

    In the special case of Iraq, I don't know of specific examples of terrorist being brought up on charges. I guess most are just killed in the process of trying to catch them, or we don't hear of the trials in case they are caught, or - probably the most frequent case - they cannot be caught because the Iraqis and the US troops lack the means to catch them. There must be a reason why there are still daily terrorist attacks with dozens of Iraqis killed almost every day.
    Last edited by clulup; 05/18/2005 at 11:25 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You think you are WAAY above the terrorists, but you are willing to use the very same methods - or even worse methods, since, as you say, death by asphyxation (how the Iraqi prisoner was killed) is worse than death by cutting the throat (how the hostages were killed).

    Also, you saying it is ok to "bend" interrogation policies to the point where prisoners are tortured to death is quite telling. You are a shining example of moral superiory over Islamistic terrorists and the rest of the world in general, thanks for this great statement.

    In addition, you saying this is justified in order to "prevent another 9/11" shows that you still believe in the fairy tale link between Iraq and 9/11. The man killed was an officer in the Republican Guard, not a terrorist, and he certainly had no link to 9/11, and also not to WMDs, since they didn't have any at that time, just in case you "forgot" that, too....
    Wow, I'm a "cohort" now?

    You did a nice job twisting a lot of what I said, so I'll retort to both you and Nudist.

    Yes, asphyxiation is a horrible way to die, but we didn't video tape it and flaunt it and do a little dance after the prisoner was killed and make all kinds of outrageous statements like "The blood of this man is on your hands, infidel America!" and send it to every sympathetic Arab TV station as a recruiting tool. I don't believe, and I know neither of you do either, that the CIA is currently showing Maj. Gen. Mowhoush's death at college campuses this spring as a CIA recruiting tool. "Look at what you get to do if you forget that job at American Express and work for the CIA! You too can torture and kill Iraqi military prisoners!" The end (death) was the same, but the means (interrogation vs sport) is quite a bit different. Surely you both see and understand that.

    As for my "moral superiority", again, there's quite a bit of difference between crashing a plane with innocent civilians into the side of an office building, or walking into a crowded market in Gaza with a jacket made out of bombs strapped to your chest, versus interrogating a prisoner to death. Again, the end may be the same, but the means are very different.

    And as for the link between Iraq and 9/11, I never drew that parallel, you did. I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    I am willing to allow US policies on interrogation to be "bent", sometimes severely, to prevent another 9/11. Of course, I don't condone this for the average Taliban footsoldier where there is nothing to gain, but in the case of Maj. Gen. Mowhoush, I can see where excelerated techniques may have been necessary. There are different degrees of interrogation, and I don't find severe sensory deprivation to be above and beyond humane.
    I clearly draw a distinction between the Taliban and Iraq, and I never implied that interrogating Maj. Gen. Mowhoush had anything to do with 9/11. I simply said that if bending the rules prevents it from happening again, then so be it. Obviously the CIA felt there was a need to interrogate him, and neither of us are privy to that information. And in the last sentence, you'll see that I specifically refer to "severe sensory deprivation", and nowhere do I refer to chopping off fingers, breaking bones (although in the right case, I'm sure both might work), or death. "Severe sensory deprivation" and "death" are not synonymous, last time I checked.

    Oh, and Nudist, as far as this goes:
    Quote Originally Posted by Nudist
    I don't think we can ignore treaties and international law and "bend" whatever rules WE choose
    these are US interrogation policies, not international interrogation policies, so we can "bend" them or revoke them however we see fit. We aren't ignoring any international laws as each country has their own laws for interrogation. Ask the Pakistanis, they've been more than willing to interrogate Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners, and their policies are far more liberal than ours.
    I'm back!
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Yes, asphyxiation is a horrible way to die, but we didn't video tape it and flaunt it and do a little dance after the prisoner was killed and make all kinds of outrageous statements like "The blood of this man is on your hands, infidel America!" and send it to every sympathetic Arab TV station as a recruiting tool. I don't believe, and I know neither of you do either, that the CIA is currently showing Maj. Gen. Mowhoush's death at college campuses this spring as a CIA recruiting tool. "Look at what you get to do if you forget that job at American Express and work for the CIA! You too can torture and kill Iraqi military prisoners!" The end (death) was the same, but the means (interrogation vs sport) is quite a bit different. Surely you both see and understand that.
    Killing by cutting the throat is more quick and humane than torturing to death. Showing the killing on video is less humane than doing it in secrecy in a dark dungeon, I agree on that.

    Showing the atrocities on video is not sport for them, it is their way of fighting what they perceive as the US forcing their power and their lifestyle onto the Muslim world. I don't agree with that view nor with their methods.

    Torturing, also including torturing to death is a way of gathering information you condone.

    I clearly draw a distinction between the Taliban and Iraq, and I never implied that interrogating Maj. Gen. Mowhoush had anything to do with 9/11. I simply said that if bending the rules prevents it from happening again, then so be it. Obviously the CIA felt there was a need to interrogate him, and neither of us are privy to that information. And in the last sentence, you'll see that I specifically refer to "severe sensory deprivation", and nowhere do I refer to chopping off fingers, breaking bones (although in the right case, I'm sure both might work), or death.
    You wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    But as I stated earlier, I am willing to allow US policies on interrogation to be "bent", sometimes severely, to prevent another 9/11. Of course, I don't condone this for the average Taliban footsoldier where there is nothing to gain, but in the case of Maj. Gen. Mowhoush, I can see where excelerated techniques may have been necessary. There are different degrees of interrogation, and I don't find severe sensory deprivation to be above and beyond humane.
    If you did not mean a link between General Mowhoush and 9/11 then I am sorry for the misunderstanding. As far as the methods you find ok are concerned: You condone what happened to General Mowoush, and you know very well that he did not die of "sensory deprivation". Soldiers sat on his chest while his head was covered with a bag until he suffocated. I can also think of no reason why he should have been tortured anyway. The war was won, and he was not a terrorist. Maybe the soldiers got angry because he kept lying about the WMD's?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18.    #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You are a shining example of moral superiory over Islamistic terrorists and the rest of the world in general, thanks for this great statement.
    And at this point, let's not forget that you guys were the keepers of the gold teeth of 6million holocaust victims for your nazi clients. No soap will ever wash that off.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #119  
    there are those that continually try and make history....
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    I guess you will be pleased if they treat captured Americans, whether civilian or military, the same way we treat them at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

    Please indicate your approval.
    They have and do, but we're glad to send you over to negotiate !

Posting Permissions