It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why not treat captured terrorists the way they treat their captives?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caetano
I just have a question for those who are pro America and against the "terrorist".

If some country or group of countries invaded the US, because the considered the US a threat to the world, and in the process they killed thousands of Americans, including your family, how would you react?

Fight, along with the rest of NATO.



I think many of you would do exactly like those "terrorists". You would use bombs, guerrilla warfare, kidnapping, and other non convencional tactics that you consider terrorism, and I consider a simple consequence of war. They are no rules in war, and when a side is much more weak than the other, that side is forced to use the weapons they have.
Maybe you think that the right thing to do by the Iraqui resistance is to wage war against the US in a convencional way. They are not stupid

No I dont think we would.
In war there are rules, human laws.




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
Exactly how many died the instant the atomic bomb went off? Hundreds of thousands of people died in milliseconds. I was talking time frame the actual amount of time. If you want to talk about counts of people then you want to talk about the amount of Africans and Indians killed for manifest destiny? Think again.


as i stated before, if you are going to continue to show your ignorance, i'm going to continue to call you on it. research research research.

what happened to africans and american indians is by no means right or excusable. however, in regards to africans, it was their own people who sold them into slavery, and hundreds of thousands of american lives (both southern and northern) were sacrificed in blood to pay for those sins and right the wrong of slavery. in regards to the indians, again, what happened was in no way excusable, but it is the same story over and over in world history. the larger more advanced group pushes the smaller less advanced people off the land. its the same thing the indians were doing to each other for thousands of years before the europeans arrived. its the exact same history of every single country in existence today. it's called survival of the fittests. it's cruel, but its just human nature.



Such as civilian carrying guns you might want to tell that to the security forces or mercenaries the US army hired to do “light” work in Afghanistan and Iraq.


nope, it definitely applies to some of those guys...not all (some are merely training police officers and are not actually combatants). the problem is, that it's not these "mercenaries" that are being kidnapped and beheaded. its innocent civilians who are trying to help rebuild the infrastructure and help the people.



(also the people behind most of the atrosities in Iraq)


you want to provide some proof for these claims?




BTW again international law has already deemed the invasion and occupation of Iraq as illegal. That is why America did not sign on to the international court. They seem to believe they are higher in standing that the rest of the word. Sound very supscuos to me almost arrogant.


again, how about some sources? the UN has an excellent website, so it shouldnt be too hard for you (until you find out that you are wrong).



As the point on prisoners; not telling love ones where they are and not letting international observers see the camps puts major dout on your claims of good stewardship of prisons. Abu Garab show your premise is wrong. Let international groups in then let me get a more balanced view of what your claims are. Because I can’t just take your word for it. And again the US claims that they do not have to follow the Geneva conventions. Which includes contact with family. Which they do not allow.


you know, at some point you are going to have to start doing some research for yourself. i'm just about sick and tired of doing it for you.
no, they do not fall under the geneva conventions because they are not uniformed combatants.



You did not pull yourself up not without a support structure geared to giving wealth benifits to whites. Which is historical. You might want to read the transcripts of the Katrina victims and still see if that is the case. Take the rose colored glasses off.


ahh, now you show your true racist colors. i guess the naacp doesnt give wealth support to african americans. i guess african americans dont get advantage points in college applications simply because of the color of their skin. i guess minorities dont get added points on exams for federal employment simply because of the color of their skin, or additional funding to start private businesses for the same reasons.....should i go on?

in regards to katrina....another horrible tragedy, but yet again you show a complete ignorance of the facts. the mayor and governor are completely responsible for that debacle. they were offered assistance over and over and replied over and over that it wasnt needed. then they realized their mistakes, and pointed the finger at the federal government. you do realize, dont you, that legally the federal government cannot step in until specifically requested by the local and state governments. a little tidbit that always seems to get left out when talking about NO.



BTW what party line? Do you know..? I do not belong to a party both are corrupt.


actually you have shown yourself quite thoroughly to be an active member in the ignorance party. you dont support your opinions with any data, you make outlandish claims without sources, and you make direct attacks upon others with racial undertones. yup, that's all pretty damn ignorant in my book.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Caetano
If that was true the US had to declare war to North Coreia, 90% of Africa, some countries in South America, some countries in Asia.
I don't think that anyone would believe that escuse.

No it just means they picked him first, dear lord why do people use that exscue?



ahahaah do you sincerely believe that? Do you think that the US is going to irradicate all dictatorships and governments that don't respect human rights??
The US don't have the military strenght, political courage, support of the public opinion or economical power to do such an unbelievable thing.
I hope you're just joking.hehehe



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
name calling where are our YOUR sources?" All I heard is noise as you cover your ears and say LA,LA,LA. My questions is if i give you the source will you take them to heart of will you dismiss it as slanted media for which seems to be you favortie way to get out of hearing the facts.

BTW did you read the transcripts that fast? because if you did you would know what you said was just way off the mark.

also about race you are also off the mark look ath te cenus data and compute wealth, salary, race, and sex.

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caetano
ahahaah do you sincerely believe that? Do you think that the US is going to irradicate all dictatorships and governments that don't respect human rights??

I do believe that the coaltion is not going to liberate all the countries.

No I dont, look if they wanted the oil all they needed to do was advance and take over the oilfield, the UK was in command of many areas where the oil fields where.


The US don't have the military strenght, political courage, support of the public opinion or economical power to do such an unbelievable thing.
I hope you're just joking.hehehe

Yeah and no country or force does ethier.
I dont see why it wouild be unbelievable to think of such a thing.
Would you like to live under sadam?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
What about all the innocent men, women, and children you guys kill and maim in your daily bombings of Iraq? Even before this phony war on terror was hatched, the US was bombing poor Iraqis. They've been bombing them since the Gulf War. Most people think that the bombings ended when the Gulf War ended, and started again now with the war on terror....no. They have been bombing ever since, there was no hault in the bombings between 1991 and 2001.

Since the start of ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'', there have been over 30,000 civilians killed in bombings alone. 12 people were killed yesterday by a US military strike in Baghdad, according to CNN. It was an entire family, their house was leveled. On top of that, that was just one of 57 air strike missions yesterday, according to CNN.

Even worse than the bombings were the economic sanctions that were put on Iraq after the Gulf War. The United States had completely overwhelmed the Iraqi Army in the Gulf War, obviously. In fact, it is said that all the US needed to do was raise the money it would cost for the gas to drive to baghdad to end the war, such disarray was the country in. But what did Lord Bush do? He called the troops back. He couldve easily have removed Saddam, but he left the monster in to be played another day.....

But, even though they couldve got rid of the monster and didnt, they still said he is there, and hes a monster, so we need to have sanctions. And between 1991 and 1999, over 1,000,000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the sanctions, over half of them children.

Dont take my word for it, Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State for Bill Clinton, was interviewed on FOX News in 1999, and they were talking about the sanctions. Here is a direct quote.

Interviewer: ''You know, Mrs. Albright, since 1991, over 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions, over 500,000 of them children. I mean, thats more children then died in Hiroshima. And we have to ask, is the price worth it?''
Madeleine Albright: ''Well, it's a very difficult decision, but we think the price, we think the price is worth it.''

Well, what the hell did it achieve?! They announced, in the end, that it achieved nothing at all, because they had to go and bomb 'em again!!

Why arent you guys stating the obvious, your government is LYING to you. I was watching an interview with Condeleeza Rice, and I actually heard her say, ''Bush doesn't lie.'' BUSH ONLY FRICKEN LIES! THATS ALL HE DOES! He lied about 9/11, thats been proven. In fact the families of the victims of that day got together and filed a lawsuit against the Bush Administration, in which they claim that they had prior knowledge of 9/11, and purposely decided to do nothing. The lawyer representing these families went on FOX, where he was verbally assaulted. Eventually the families dropped their lawsuit due to threats and intimidation by the Government! Did you know that? Go check it out.

He is lying about Afghanistan. He said he went in there to get Bin Laden, Bin Laden was never found. They said they went in to Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, even though they were the ones who put the Taliban in power. I read an article about it in the Associated Press. And I have a friend named Nawaz Khan who moved here from Afghanistan right after the invasion began, and he said the Taliban were not half as bad as the American press made them out to be. And most of the top Taliban and Al Queda leaders were flown out to safety to Pakistan, by the US, 3 months after the war began. I read that on BBC.com, the largest news organization on the planet. Most of the supposed Al Queda that were captured were either insignificant foot soldiers, or people that were completely innocent.

How many people at Guantanemo Bay are completely innocent of even the misdemeanor crimes they are being held for? Many of them. 3 years now, they have been locked up there, with no trial, with no lawyer, no charges were ever filed, according to CNN.com. That didnt stop the US soldiers from torturing them though....

They lied about Iraq. They said they went in to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. They even admit that they went in under false pretenses, and if you keep up with the news you should know that. Give them credit though, they finally removed their evil puppet Saddam. They installed a UN government to replace him. Any one who knows will tell you the UN is the world-government in making.

It is common knowledge, among the Iraqi population, that the occupational forces are really the ones behind the suicide attacks on civilians. This is according to the Al-Faisal family, who I know personally (I am not Arabic, by the way). They have family in Iraq who they are in contact with on a weekly basis, and this is what people are saying over there.

Homeland Security laws, such as the USA PATRIOT ACT, destroy the US constitution that Bush has taken an oath to preserve and defend! That alone, should ring some bells in your head. Read the Patriot Act for yourself, theyre counting on you not doing so. It abolishes several ammendments of the constitution.

So, I suggest you all find out who is really behind this ''terrorism'', and who really stands to gain from it. You'll see, it is Bush and the New World Order.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

[edit on 5-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

[edit on 5-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

[edit on 5-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

[edit on 5-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
What about the people that get killed, raped, murdered, kidnapped and threatened everyday by insurgents hiding behind the screen of "Freedom fighters"?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
name calling where are our YOUR sources?" All I heard is noise as you cover your ears and say LA,LA,LA.


then you arent even reading my posts, because each one has sources to substantiate the remarks....unlike yours. not a single source except for one lone reference to transcripts that i am supposed to know immediately about and where they are to be found.



My questions is if i give you the source will you take them to heart of will you dismiss it as slanted media for which seems to be you favortie way to get out of hearing the facts.


and i guess you know this from the plethora of sources you have provided that i have "debunked." its kind of hard for me to dismiss sources you havent bothered to provide.



BTW did you read the transcripts that fast? because if you did you would know what you said was just way off the mark.


see above.



also about race you are also off the mark look ath te cenus data and compute wealth, salary, race, and sex.


which you have so generously provided for me.


sorry, but i'm not doing anymore of your legwork for you. you want to make claims, provide the proof.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Is that enough to justify being there still? the insergence were not there when Sadam was there. and no i would not like to live under a one party system wait a min... i do.


And i have did the work but i do not want to hear anything when you see it. because you have not debunked anything but double talked about the G convention almost like Bill O on Fox. LOL

how can you say the prisoners are taken care of well about the convention but the convention does not apply. Pick one please? propaganda is usless to mouthpieces they can't get it right


also on your "source" two of your sources were about japan and you totally missed the point i was making which you convenintly left out. and the third about the conventions which you just said you do not have to follow.


and agin what sources???

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Why not treat captured terrorists the way they treat their captives?

You mean behead them, cut their throats, or shoot them?
(sometimes two or three of these at once)
Gee ... that certainly would cut down on the number of
complaints about GITMO. There wouldn't be any prisoners
left. Wonder if we'd get more respect from the terrorists
if we did things the old fashioned way .. the way THEY do them?

Interesting question. I'll have to give it some more thought.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
What about all the innocent men, women, and children you guys kill and
maim in your daily bombings of Iraq? Since the start of ''Operation Iraqi
Freedom'', there have been over 30,000 civilians killed in bombings alone.
Oh? 30,000 civilians eh? How accurate is that number?
Where did it come from? How many of those alleged civilians were
actually terrorist insurgents in civilian clothing (they all wear civies)?
How many of those were killed by insurgents?


the economic sanctions that were put on Iraq after the Gulf War.

The economic sanctions put on Iraq didn't do any damage to the country.
What DID was Saddam stealing the billions in the Oil for Food scandal.
Billions that were supposed to go for food, health care, and education.


But what did Lord Bush do? He called the troops
back. He couldve easily have removed Saddam, but he
left the monster in to be played another day.....

So it would have been okay to do all this liberating and rebuilding
and fighting insurgents 15 years ago, but today it's just big bad
America doing evil?

Guess why Bush 41 didn't go to Baghdad? Because the UNITED
NATIONS didn't want him to. They gave him authorization to
go only into Kuwait and as far into Iraq as it took
to liberate Kuwait. They placed Baghdad and Saddam off limits.
THAT's what you get when a world leader listens to the United Nations.


1,000,000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the
sanctions, over half of them children..... Dont take my word for
it
I won't. Go get us facts (not made up by Saddam)
that show 1 million Iraqis died because of Sanctions. Show that
there actually were 1 million dead. Show that they died from
Sanctions and not because Saddam stole all the billions that
were supposed to be going to them.


Madeleine Albright
DID NOT say that 1 million
died. She answered a question without saying that the person
asking was correct, and without agreeing with the figure. She
gave a PC answer. (Albright isn't the sharpest tool in the shed either)



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Re: The original question.

We've sgned a few treaties, and passed a few laws that say we shouldn't do these things...they haven't....

if you don't like the treaties that we've signed, or the laws that are on the books, work to change them, announce to the world that you will not abide by these treaties anymore. until then, american should be bond by it's words and agreements.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought

And i have did the work but i do not want to hear anything when you see it. because you have not debunked anything but double talked about the G convention almost like Bill O on Fox. LOL


again, sources? you say you've done the legwork, where is it?



how can you say the prisoners are taken care of well about the convention but the convention does not apply. Pick one please? propaganda is usless to mouthpieces they can't get it right


nope, that's not what i said. this is what i said:



and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (again). the liberal media's definition of torture is standing for hours on end combined with sleep deprivation. techniques used on our own men and women to prepare them for war. the other isolated incidents are just that....isolated incidents, and the perpetrators have been and are being punished. its an unfortunate fact of war that if you take an army trained to win a war and try to make jailers and peacekeepers out of them you are going to have these kinds of incidents. it doesnt make it right, but neither does it mean that this is US policy. you do realize that civilians carrying weapons are legally spies under the geneva convention and can be summarily executed as such under international law. of course not, because you havent researched anything. we give them three squares a day and their own quran. i'd say we treat them a helluva lot better than the international rules of warfare say we have to.


and then i followed up with this:



you know, at some point you are going to have to start doing some research for yourself. i'm just about sick and tired of doing it for you.
no, they do not fall under the geneva conventions because they are not uniformed combatants.


i even gave you the link to the geneva conventions to read for yourself. i cant help it if youre too damn lazy to actually read it.



also on your "source" two of your sources were about japan and you totally missed the point i was making which you convenintly left out. and the third about the conventions which you just said you do not have to follow.


you wanna tell me what it is that i so conveniently left out? because all you have just said is that you have a point to make....not what exactly that point is.



and agin what sources???


ok, i will try to make this as simple as i can for you.

the words that are in red are links to sources. if you click on those with the left mouse button, it will take you directly to the web page from which i am drawing my facts. if you need any more tips on how to use this site, please fill free go to the board questions page where all of the features are explained in detail.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
This moral high ground crap is a bunch of BS,


Perhaps for you. My morals mean something to me.



The difference between Us and them is When/If We torture, We are punishing Murders and Terrorists, Not innocent people.


Punishing? PUNISHING? The purpose of torture is to punish people? I thought the military claimed they torture people to get information from them, not to punish them... That's messed up!



The only way We would ever become like them is if We intentionaly harmed innocents.


We have harmed innocents. We have killed innocents. We have tortured innocents. WE ARE THEM!

As regards the original question. Why don't we treat them like they treat us... it's very simple. Who and what dictates how you behave? Your own self judgment or the actions someone else? If we change our behavior because of what someone else does, we are weak.

The strong, moral, honorable person (or country) behaves to his own standard regardless of others' behavior. That is true strength. The weak, immoral, dishonorable person (or country) bases his actions on that of others.

To respond in kind also shows lack of intelligence, imagination and character.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
the point of how many people died in one bomb blast in Japan.

Only America has killed so many people this fast.
More than any suicide bomber or roadside bomb.

You need to learn respect.
I know the covn. every person in the army had to carry the card in WWII. i know them very well. I will give you your sources but i am so afraid you are not going to see the truthof it because of your disregard of international ideas of brotherhood.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Ok guys and gals, I STRONGLY suggest that you read this link and take the time to ponder it's meaning:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (again). the liberal media's definition of torture is standing for hours on end combined with sleep deprivation. techniques used on our own men and women to prepare them for war.

I just wanted to point out that the 'liberal media' are not the only ones who have defined sleep deprivation as torture. The US State Department does as well.



The law provides prisoners with the right to humane treatment and provides prisoners the right to an attorney; however, the police and security forces sometimes abuse detainees physically and verbally during detention and interrogation, and allegedly also use torture. Allegations of torture are difficult to verify because the police and security officials frequently deny detainees timely access to lawyers, despite legal provisions requiring such access. The most frequently alleged methods of torture include sleep deprivation, beatings on the soles of the feet, prolonged suspension with ropes in contorted positions, and extended solitary confinement. Defendants in high-profile cases before the State Security Court claimed to have been subjected to physical and psychological abuse while in detention. Government officials deny allegations of torture and abuse.

Jordan



PA security officials torture and abuse prisoners by threatening, hooding, beating, and tying detainees in painful positions, forcing them to stand for long periods of time, depriving them of sleep and food, and burning detainees with cigarettes and hot instruments.

Palestinian Authority



Commonly employed methods of torture reported by the HRF's treatment centers include: Systematic beatings; stripping and blindfolding; exposure to extreme cold or high-pressure cold water hoses; electric shocks; beatings on the soles of the feet (falaka) and genitalia; hanging by the arms; food and sleep deprivation; heavy weights hung on the body; water dripped onto the head; burns; hanging sandbags on the neck; near-suffocation by placing bags over the head; vaginal and anal rape with truncheons and, in some instances, gun barrels; squeezing and twisting of testicles; and other forms of sexual abuse.

Turkey

Sleep deprivation may not be the worst thing that can happen to you but according to US State Department reports, it is considered torture.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Would they really object if we simply beat and beheaded captured terrorists?



"You can do it, cut his fricking head off!"

[edit on 5-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Go get the proof. Its out there for anyone who looked, and dont tell me what Albright said, i have a copy of the tape. My Iraqi friends have confirmed to me that this is the case, in fact, there were probably muchmore than 30,000 people that died. BBC admits there were at least 30, 000 killed. Not insurgents, they made that perfectly clear.

And, wake up, insurgents are being controlled by the same forces that are waging the war on terrorism. See, thats the common sense. Its all for the movie that we are being told. They are creating cover-stories to justify their actions! Why is that so hard to believe? Why is that so hard to swallow? Top government officials are getting angry and releasing documents: the government knew about 9/11, and funded the ''terrorists''. Really they were just there to take the blame. Same with Saddam, same with Bin Laden, and same with Bush! He is not the one controlling what is happening, he is a puppet as well, there to interact with the public, and take the blame!

I dont care if you dont believe my statistics, those are the actual statistics. If you look out there, you will find it. I have Iraqis confirming these damn statistics. What more proof do you need?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
the point of how many people died in one bomb blast in Japan.


if you go back to the post in question (which you obviously didnt bother to read...big flipping surprise) you will find that not only did i post the numbers, but they are in the source as well.



Only America has killed so many people this fast.
More than any suicide bomber or roadside bomb.


you just dont get it, do you? horrific as it was, hiroshima and nagasaki saved 10 times the number of lives that were lost. ignorance is bliss i guess.



You need to learn respect.


this coming from a person who makes rascist innuendos when faced with his own inability to actually debate the subject at hand.



I know the covn. every person in the army had to carry the card in WWII. i know them very well. I will give you your sources but i am so afraid you are not going to see the truthof it because of your disregard of international ideas of brotherhood.


lmao....yeah right you'll give me the sources. you've got more excuses than carter's got liver pills. let me go back and count....yup thats the fifth time youve made that statement....guess what? still no sources. just another troll with complete ignorance of the real world. get a clue.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join