Torture? I went through worse in basic training

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Rook1545
 


okay Saudi Arabia indirectly/directly gives money to hamas hezbollah and some of the princes fund these teriost training camps. IRAN FUNDS ALL terriost groups and provides them with training. This does not count the many other goverments who give terriosts safe haven.

Maybe if your head was out of your ass and you would see these things but then again what do I know? Cause you are so right.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]


...so knowing all of that, you can show me documentation that Hamas and Hezbollah have declared jihad on the West? Nope, didn't think so, they are all about fighting Israel, which btw is not a western nation, it is middle east.

I would like PROOF that Iran funds ALL terrorist groups. I would love to see you link them to a group like the Tamil Tigers, which are a terrorist group, from Asia.

My head is not so far up my ass to see that you are just making wild accusations with absolutely no proof. Anyone can spout lies and semi-truths without facts, it doesn't make them correct.

I never said I was right, I said I wanted proof. There is a big difference between me being right and you being wrong.




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


It works both ways guy, Show me proof that they are not? Untill then I guess we will agree to disagree.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THESE METHODS END OF DISCUSSION


I don't care if the president, congress, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, every governor, every legislator in the United States approved it. It is Illegal, torture is a power DENIED to the government, period. END OF DISCUSSION.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 



A good start would be to read your constitution, open your eyes, and quit defending the sickening and unconstitutional acts of these people.

I mean, honestly, you are hear defending the actions in one breath, then condemning the "retards"(because THERE'S a mature word) who are perpetrating them.

Pretty sad, and seriously flawed, logic there.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 24-4-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   



Your right and when the time comes I will. But when Our nation continues to elect these retards what are we supposed to do?



When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free



This has always spoken volumes to me.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by ImzadiDax]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


When the time comes? YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE WORKING OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTITUTION!

You, my friend, are in dereliction of your sworn duty.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 24-4-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


See? You're confused.

You're trying to use US law and apply it outside the US in a time of war.

Folks are trying to apply the Geneva Conventions to persons who do not rate protection under the Geneva Conventions, and it's clearly spelled out. God!

US law applies to US territory. US law does not apply during war on foreign soil, and especially for enemy non-uniformed combatants. Get over it.

And I didn't say anything about a foreign gun owners. I specifically said a non-uniformed combatant.

They historically have been shot on the spot - unless you wanted to squeeze them for information.

Just like spies. Or soldiers caught out of uniform trying to hide. Summarily executed. No appeal. No crime. Allowed and legal.

This is the most stupid non-topic I've ever heard of. One must be very careful for what they wish for. It may be your city that goes up in smoke because we always had to start interrogations with "please."

[edit on 23-4-2009 by dooper]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Rook1545
 


It works both ways guy, Show me proof that they are not? Untill then I guess we will agree to disagree.


The point is that you originally said that there were nations on earth that had governments that were solely dedicated to bringing dow the Western way of life. I simply asked for which countries those were.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Will lets see I am but one man So do I take on my army and government by my self? Do I fire the first shots to be gunned down, and then discredited as nut job? I know for sure a large part of you won’t stand with me? So why should I stand up and fire the shots when no one is behind me.


MY Stance on these interrogation tactics is this (cause it does seem that I have not really clarified myself) These tactics are in fact not torture, If you were to use the definition of torture like some others here have then everyday life is such. To me torture is what we saw in Vietnam and Abu Garib(sp) And maybe its even possible that the tactics today did not help anything at all. If that is the case then we should look for other methods. But when all you can come up with is it is wrong and not have alternative ideas then don’t speak about it till you do. I hope I make since to some, but I guess to many I wont.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 24-4-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


See? You're confused.

You're trying to use US law and apply it outside the US in a time of war.

Folks are trying to apply the Geneva Conventions to persons who do not rate protection under the Geneva Conventions, and it's clearly spelled out. God!

US law applies to US territory. US law does not apply during war on foreign soil, and especially for enemy non-uniformed combatants. Get over it.

And I didn't say anything about a foreign gun owners. I specifically said a non-uniformed combatant.

They historically have been shot on the spot - unless you wanted to squeeze them for information.

Just like spies. Or soldiers caught out of uniform trying to hide. Summarily executed. No appeal. No crime. Allowed and legal.

This is the most stupid non-topic I've ever heard of. One must be very careful for what they wish for. It may be your city that goes up in smoke because we always had to start interrogations with "please."

[edit on 23-4-2009 by dooper]


I'm sorry friend, but you are the one who is confused.

1)The soldiers of this country are bound to the constitution, no matter where in the world they are located.

2)We are not in a declared war right now, so your statement becomes even more irrelevant.

3)I argued that the geneva treaty is not applicable. THE CONSTITUTION is.

4)US law is FULLY applicable to ALL OF OUR SOLDIERS.

5)A "non-uniformed combatant" is about as generic as calling someone a "terrorist". It can be applied to anyone, at anytime, for anything. Try not to be so obtuse.

6)It is disgusting to me that, this far removed from the lies(and after they have been admitted to), you still want to buy into it.

READ THE CONSTITUTION PEOPLE.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

MY Stance on these interrogation tactics is this (cause it does seem that I have not really clarified myself) These tactics are in fact not torture, If you were to use the definition of torture like some others here have then everyday life is such. To me torture is what we saw in Vietnam and Abu Garib(sp) And maybe its even possible that the tactics today did not help anything at all. If that is the case then we should look for other methods. But when all you can come up with is it is wrong and not have alternative ideas then don’t speak about it till you do. I hope I make since to some, but I guess to many I wont.



I can get where you are coming from on this, honestly I can. Compared to what used to happen this is pretty tame. The problem I have is that, while it pales in comparison to previous ideas of torture, it is still wrong.

My problem with it is this part:


But when all you can come up with is it is wrong and not have alternative ideas then don’t speak about it till you do.


That, to me, is just not right. It is throwing out the baby with the bath water. We either should have a) thought about what we were going to do with these guys before we dicided to keep them around, or, b)stuck to techniques that we use in other law enforcement situations that get results. Just because these people aren't Americans does not mean he have to result to early 20th century interogation tactics.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


Okay I understand where you are coming from. I know most likely if I say to you they do far worse to our troops then we do to theres, you are prolly going to say take the high road. And maybe we should, or maybe we shouldnt. But if someone comes into my yard and hurts my family, I am going to do the same to them. Maybe thats barbaric, and maybe its not but to hell with it when the world can finally get together and think happy joy joy thoughts people like me can finally do the same. But untill that day comes I wont rest untill there all destroyed or I am either way.

That goes for all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 24-4-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Okay I understand where you are coming from. I know most likely if I say to you they do far worse to our troops then we do to theres, you are prolly going to say take the high road. And maybe we should, or maybe we shouldnt. But if someone comes into my yard and hurts my family, I am going to do the same to them. Maybe thats barbaric, and maybe its not but to hell with it when the world can finally get together and think happy joy joy thoughts people like me can finally do the same. But untill that day comes I wont rest untill there all destroyed or I am either way.

That goes for all enemies both foreign and domestic.


For me it is not about the high road or not. It is about innocent or guilty. If it can be proven 100% without any doubt at all that these people are guilty of heinous crimes against others, then giver. I believe that once you have infringed on the rights of others, that you have forfieted your own rights.

The problem is that, like you pointed out, if someone harms your family, you will whatever it takes until your last breath that you will get revenge. If you think about it, alot of these people, that is all they are doing. Yeah they might be an enemy combatant, but WHY are they? Some people hate our way of life and want to do us harm. Then sure fill your boots with jumper cables and car batteries. But if they are just doing what we ourselves would do in thier position, can you really fault them. The more look at it, the less black and white it becomes and more shades of gray. People are like that, they like the black and white, it makes things easier. I bet it was easier to get all angry with what I was writing when it didn't seem like we had any ideas in common.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Rook1545
 


It works both ways guy, Show me proof that they are not? Untill then I guess we will agree to disagree.


Are you out of your mind? The burden of proof lays on the person making the claim. That would be like me trying to prove that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


Yes it is a grey matter. But I guess we can agree to disagree, and sorry for some of the offhand comments toward you. No harm no foul.






top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join