Every captive is a potential
source of information, and we need to get that information, whatever the
cost. Tit for tat, and when you're dealing with folks who behead innocents
for the sheer terror it creates, the gloves of legalism are off.

Are you personally satisfied that every prisoner subjected to interrogation
beyond that generally recognized as legal and civilized has "beheaded innocents
for the sheer terror it creates", or is it enough that they are of the same
ethnicity as the criminal *******s and that there's a very slim chance one or
two of them *could be* involved in beheadings?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Every captive is a potential
source of information, and we need to get that information, whatever the
cost. Tit for tat, and when you're dealing with folks who behead
innocents
for the sheer terror it creates, the gloves of legalism are off.

Are you personally satisfied that every prisoner subjected to
interrogation
beyond that generally recognized as legal and civilized has "beheaded
innocents
for the sheer terror it creates", or is it enough that they are of the
same
ethnicity as the criminal *******s and that there's a very slim chance one
or
two of them *could be* involved in beheadings?

Point taken , Gould... but do you recognize that Americans are targeted for
simply looking and talking like Americans? Or that places that Americans
are know to gather are targeted in the hopes that a few Americans will be
there?

And these Americans civilians are infinitely more innocent than the illegal
combatant terrorist that you are concerned about?

I'll wager the dead from the twin towers wish they could be illegally
interrogated by the US Army instead of burning to death, eh?

Jack

Jack

It seems funny that you are "for" the values that were set back in a
different time (Geneva, etc), but seemingly against other values that sprung
forth during that same time (wholesome, christian family values).

Not guilty. I am not against wholesome family values, Christian or otherwise.

Maybe
those "rules" of war are outdated in these modern times, as you liberals say
the Christian values are?

Since you introduced Christianity- how would Jesus treat these prisoners? Would
he inflict painful or demeaning punishments while proclaiming "An eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth?" Maybe not, according to passages like Matthew 5:
39-50

If Christianity isn't obsolete, how could an agreement (convention) that people
captured during a war would be treated humanely be obsolete? I don't think that
can swing two ways.

In
some cases, we simply sweep a neighborhood and scoop up all the military
age
men.

Cite?

The release of almost 2000 prisoners after the Abu Grhaib scandal broke last
spring.
They would never have let these people go
if they had any real evidence they had been shooting at US troops.

Meanwhile, we did just *arrest* Sadam, proving we
aren't barbarians, huh?

It will take more than one isolated act to prove, or disprove, our barbarity.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

The release of almost 2000 prisoners after the Abu Grhaib scandal broke
last
spring.
They would never have let these people go
if they had any real evidence they had been shooting at US troops.

And how many of those 2000 are now shooting at our troops and making IEDs?
It's very likely that many more of our soldiers would be alive today if
those 2000 were still in custody.


Meanwhile, we did just *arrest* Sadam, proving we
aren't barbarians, huh?

It will take more than one isolated act to prove, or disprove, our
barbarity.

See Abu Grhaib above.

And how many of those 2000 are now shooting at our troops and making IEDs?


A greater number than would have been if they hadn't been treated to our
hospitality at Abu G.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
And how many of those 2000 are now shooting at our troops and making
IEDs?


A greater number than would have been if they hadn't been treated to our
hospitality at Abu G.

Nice try, no cigar. We released a lot of baddies to appease the idiot media
and libs. Besides, your reasoning above is a great reason to have kept them
in there. At least until the hostilities are over and the GIs out of there.
After all, there were in there for a reason, eh?

Jack

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
Shhh, Harry... adults are talking. Didn't your parents teach you any
manners?

Go do what you do best, Jackoff...but cover your keyboard.

Experience is the best teacher, eh?

Jack

FishWisher wrote:
I mean armchair quarterbacks like you.

Your point is that we should "fight fair". I think that's your point.

You should think harder.

... This
war is like nothing we've dealt with before. Every captive is a potential
source of information, and we need to get that information, whatever the
cost.

By torture?

Frankly, any method that turns us into the bad guys means that we lose.
Is this the "higher level of morality" that President Bush is supposed
to adhere to?

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:
I'll tell you what, you convince the insurgents to stop cutting off
the heads of our people, and laying booby traps in corpses and in
vehicles, and maybe we'll back off on the "comfort tactics' we employ
on our prisoners.....


Aren't you forgetting something?

1- we invaded their country

2- we're supposed to be the good guys

3- we control what we do, not them

DSK

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:14:30 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
I'll tell you what, you convince the insurgents to stop cutting off
the heads of our people, and laying booby traps in corpses and in
vehicles, and maybe we'll back off on the "comfort tactics' we employ
on our prisoners.....


Aren't you forgetting something?

1- we invaded their country

Irrelevant.


2- we're supposed to be the good guys

Yea, but it's all relative.

3- we control what we do, not them


It seems to me, that we place ourselves a great tactical disadvantage
by steadfastly proclaiming to adhere to "the rules", while our enemy
freely flaunts its indifference to following "the rules".

Dave