Waterboarding...

[Elhuero]

<-------- bloodthirsty american


In this war on terror I think it's very important to take prisoners.

I just don't think we need to keep them that long.

[Irving]

Can someone clear something up for me? What is all this talk about uniforms? Wouldn't everyone be wearing life jackets in case they fall and have to wait for the boat?

[StagLefty]

I mean, I can understand saying what you're saying when you're pissed off because they just dropped some of our buildings.
H.

What about the 3,000 lives ?

[Great-Kazoo]

"On the battlefield anything goes, line em up when caught and shoot."

So when our troops get captured, they should be lined up and shot, and we're just like, "Ok, that's fair and reasonable."

I mean, you have to be able to perceive the situation from points of view other than your own. Understanding how they perceive it will allow you some insight into how they'll respond. We don't torture, because We. Are. Better. Than They Are. We use to be able to say it. Now we're just hypocrites.

NO...... we would be Hyprocrites IF we did a podcast of us beheading them.

As for fair and reasonable, while sympathetic to our military both past and present (navy here) I have family members who have been in the sandbox, some going back for the 3rd time. I have no sympathy, sorrow, or regret for anything that happens to MUSLIM EXTREMIST.
They have decided to not only attack military, but also civilian targets, the majority being fellow Muslims. IF they only attacked Military targets, then yes i would reconsider some of my statements/beliefs. HOWEVER since they are non discriminatory in their attacks, they have no foundation saying it is a JIHAD against the INFIDEL AMERICA.
All they are interested in doing is killing, maiming, torturing etc. That is why they are called TERRORIST.

[Troublco]

I find myself having difficulty choosing the words I want to express my feelings on this. The bleeding hearts who are so concerned with how we're treating those poor unfortunate souls who happen to consider a 2 year old child as a legitimate target bother me. Maybe they should haul themselves down to the local Army or Marine recruiter and sign up for a 4 year tour as Ground Infantry, so they can go over and make a difference in how those poor unfortunate muslim extremists are being treated instead of judging the way the folks that are in the thick of it are handling it.

Flat out, an Infidel to them is ANYONE not a muslim. Babies, children, women, men, they don't care. The more, the better. They find the most creative and nasty ways to take care of their prisoners, while we fret and cry that the poor unfortunate souls in Guantanamo Bay don't have enough Korans, or that their prayer rugs aren't good enough, or whatever.

I wonder, how many of the folks who are so concerned about how we're treating those poor, poor muslim extremists would be all that concerned if the person on the Al Jazeera video being beheaded with a knife was their buddy, brother, uncle, nephew, son, etc? Are they going to cry that the poor, misunderstood muslim isn't to blame and should be gently brought around and made to understand that they shouldn't do those bad things? All right now, go play nice! I doubt it. I don't think their moral high ground would stand that test.

Their religion teaches them that it's OK to kill us. We, on the other hand, have to be nice to them. Heck, if we legitimately kill too many with headshots we have investigators go over there and grill the troops. One Taliban bigwig gets a bloody lip from a Navy SEAL, those SEALs are done for, Baby! Never mind that the Taliban guy would gut their wives or girlfriends in front of them for sport.

Well, if you want to cry for them you go right ahead. I think we can deal with the torture/abuse problem simply and expediently by NOT TAKING PRISONERS. If they are on the field of battle with a gun and no uniform, shoot them right there and be done with it. No abuse. No torture. No problems.

[SA Friday]

Even in this war, there will eventually be a peace. Atrosities, tortures, violations of the geneva convention and the helsinki accords lengthens that time. Justifying our violations because they did one thing or another is irrelevent. It's an arguement rife with faulty logic. We can't control their actions, but we are capible of controlling our own. The difference is rolling into a village in Iraq and Afghanistan and having maybe one or two hostiles not willing to do anything vs rolling into the same village and everyone is willing to die to kill you.

There is a time and place for everything. The time and place for these tactics are very very very rare, and I have yet to have seen it appropriate in any aspect of either war. Considering I've been involved in the targeting, capturing, killing (through Ke strike), and interrogation of a few of these guys, I might have a clue.

[Hoosier]

I must be the "bleeding heart liberal", which makes me laugh; who wants to "cry for the extremists" even though I said no such thing. I have a different opinion on whether it's in our best interests torture people and I'm OK with that; so call me whatever you want.

Whatever, if you don't want us to follow our own rule of law when we deal with another actor, then don't gripe when they do the same, I suppose.

I think the only thing else I'll say is that if the situation was reversed, and another country controlled our land, the members of this forum would be the irregulars not in uniform with guns making them pay.

Most of the people in Iraqi and Afghanistan never met an Al Queda agent, they just don't like having another country rolling through their streets. How many relatives would you have to lose before you decided to make some IED's? How many kids were 10 years old when we came, saw their fathers bagged and taken away, are 17 now and want revenge?

A lot of problem stems from treating all these people as if they're just Haji's who flew planes into WTC, and it just isn't the case.

o7 Peace out

[tmckay2]

Even in this war, there will eventually be a peace. Atrosities, tortures, violations of the geneva convention and the helsinki accords lengthens that time. Justifying our violations because they did one thing or another is irrelevent. It's an arguement rife with faulty logic. We can't control their actions, but we are capible of controlling our own. The difference is rolling into a village in Iraq and Afghanistan and having maybe one or two hostiles not willing to do anything vs rolling into the same village and everyone is willing to die to kill you.

There is a time and place for everything. The time and place for these tactics are very very very rare, and I have yet to have seen it appropriate in any aspect of either war. Considering I've been involved in the targeting, capturing, killing (through Ke strike), and interrogation of a few of these guys, I might have a clue.

the big issue here for me is the reasoning behind the tactics. its not like we are doing waterboarding to every person we capture. its not like we are putting a hot iron on their face, cutting off fingers, etc. its not like its happening all the time. while i agree you need to be careful in this matter because of the problems it can cause in peace time, i think we have to try to remember we want to get to peace first before we worry about that. we aren't waterboarding for sport (not knowingly by the brass anyway) we are trying to get vital info to save american lives and bring the real criminals to justice sooner rather than later. you can't assume we can ever rid the world of terrorists. its not possible. too many people are fed junk at a young age, are victims of unfortunate circumstances and will inevitably take it out on us. certainly you don't want to fuel the fire, but i don't think we are risking that here. these terrorists aren't like fighting the french, or british or something. waterboarding probably makes them laugh. they do far worse things. waterboarding won't cause them to "up the ante" because it comes nowhere close to what they do. i am 100&#37; against waterboarding every tom, dick and harry we come across, but in situations where we think they have very important information? absolutely. all it is is a fear tactic. we aren't permanently harming them. we aren't killing them. its the fear that drives the give up of information. if these were uniformed, organized afghani soldiers then i 100% agree it should not be allowed. but with terrorists? i think its a gray area we should exploit when absolutely needed

[SA Friday]

all it is is a fear tactic. we aren't permanently harming them. we aren't killing them. its the fear that drives the give up of information.

Fear of death, right? I think that's a fear that might be exploitable in the right circumstances with this tactic. The problem is the ones we really want information from are the the ones that are the biggest zealots. They are willing to die and willing to watch every one in their family die and bask in the perceived glory of those deaths. The results from tactics like this are worthless with a zealot. There are other interrogation tactics more effective with this type of detainee/prisoner.

[Elhuero]

I think the only thing else I'll say is that if the situation was reversed, and another country controlled our land, the members of this forum would be the irregulars not in uniform with guns making them pay.

not by blowing myself up at the mall.

those that legitimize terrorism are fools