Yeah, let's feel sorry for those poor terrorists

Who feels sorry?

Lets start with those who cry over so-called torture methods.

Like John McCain.

Heretic wrote:

Like John McCain.

Difference is McCain wouldn't fly an airplane into a building or cut your head off because you didn't believe in his god.

**on a side note- when is this board bug going to be fixed?? I have to hit quote on every post to see what people are posting**

Ohhmama wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Like John McCain.

Difference is McCain wouldn't fly an airplane into a building or cut your head off because you didn't believe in his god.

So? Why is that any different than any other war ever?

I wrote:

Dangerous people witholding important information is not a new scenario for the intelligence community.

Quote :

It would be reassuring to think that somebody close to Obama had handed him a copy of a little-known book called Camp 020: MI5 and the Nazi Spies. This was published by the British Public Record Office in 2000 and describes the workings of Latchmere House, an extraordinary British prison on Ham Common in the London suburb of Richmond, which housed as many as 400 of Hitler's operatives during World War II. Its commanding officer was a man named Col. Robin Stephens, and though he wore a monocle and presented every aspect of a frigid military martinet (and was known and feared by the nickname "Tin-Eye"), he was a dedicated advocate of the nonviolent approach to his long-term guests. To phrase it crisply—as he did—his view was and remained: "Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information."

To give you some of the flavor of this prohibition, I ask you to consider the case of the German agent codenamed "TATE," who was parachuted into England in September 1940, at a time when almost all of continental Europe was under Hitler's control and when neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had entered the war against Germany.* Taken to Camp 020, TATE stubbornly maintained that he was a Danish refugee. An external interrogator unused to the rules of Ham Common was exasperated by this initial stubbornness and "followed TATE to his cell at the close of that first interrogation and, in flagrant violation of the Commandant's rigid rule that no physical violence should ever be used at Ham, struck the agent on the head. The incident led, on immediate representations by the Commandant, to the instant recall of [the offending officer] from the camp." One blow to the head at a time when undefended British cities were being blitzed every night, and the brute was out of there for good.

Nor is this all. TATE was then put to the inconvenience of intensive questioning, which included the distinct suggestion that he had been betrayed by a close Nazi friend. He ended up making a full confession, leading his captors to the place where he had concealed his transmitter, and then using it to send false intelligence back to Germany. The British wartime records conclude that "skilful direction of his activities and reports provided not only opportunity for deception of the enemy, but gained advance information leading to the detection of other agents and their neutralization."

All the while London was being turned to rubble.

Quote :

As Col. Stephens wrote, following the words quoted above about how "violence is taboo" and that it "lowers the standard of information":

"There is no room for a percentage assessment of reliability. If information is correct, it is accepted and recorded; if it is doubtful, it should be rejected in toto."

In other words, it is precisely because the situation was so urgent, so desperate, and so grave that no amateurish or stupid methods could be permitted to taint the source. Col. Stephens, who was entirely devoted to breaking his prisoners and destroying the Nazis, eventually persuaded many important detainees to work for him and began to receive interested inquiries "from the FBI and the North West Mounted Police, from the Director of Security in India to the Resistance Movements of de Gaulle, the Belgians and the Dutch." It would be nice to think that even now, American intelligence might take a leaf from his ruthless and yet humane book.

Seriously... what makes this conflict so different, other than the fact that your really, really scared?

Yes, I am (shaking as we speak)- which is why I sit in front of my window with my big gun waiting for any resemblance of a middle easterner to walk by so I can blow them away..

Posting the same article again in a different thread? *yawn*

Ohhmama wrote:

Posting the same article again in a different thread? *yawn*

And yet you still haven't answered my questions... in this thread or the other.

Heretic wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Posting the same article again in a different thread? *yawn*

And yet you still haven't answered my questions... in this thread or the other.

How is this war different? Did you even look at the video I posted? It was said terrorists have people bringing in suitcases of anthrax to set off in our country, for one thing.

Ohhmama wrote:

How is this war different? Did you even look at the video I posted? It was said terrorists have people bringing in suitcases of anthrax to set off in our country, for one thing.

So? Americans die in every conflict. What's so intrinsic to their deaths via anthrax (or any other mechanism) that makes what was morally unacceptable (as well as prosecutable) decades ago morally acceptable today, especially since a make believe anthrax attack isn't anywhere near as bad as the UK had it in WWII?

So? You asked for an example and I gave one. I don't remember a time where "the enemy", ie muslim terrorists (not immigrants) are bringing in anthrax to use against us on our soil because they hate us.

Ohhmama wrote:

So? You asked for an example and I gave one.

Then your argument is even more poorly constructed than I anticipated. You didn't just provide an example, you provided a hypothetical; a make believe scenario that hasn't even occurred. But the possibility of hypotheticals, of such terrorists attacks on American soil have always existed, and will always exist no matter what we do... whether it be decades ago during WWII, Islamic terrorists now, or radicals two hundred years from now.

And that brings me back to my question... What's so intrinsic to their possible deaths via anthrax (or any other mechanism) that makes what was morally unacceptable (as well as prosecutable) decades ago morally acceptable today? There must be some quantifiable variable new to this equation that wasn't present when we were prosecuting regimes for employing the same techniques we're using today. Seriously... What is it that makes our hypotheticals worse than the reality of the UK in WWII? Or were the Brits simply that hardcore?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/al-qaeda-in-alexandria/

Be afraid. Coming soon, near you.

UrRight wrote:

Be afraid.

It takes so little these days, doesn't it?

Quote :

Terrorists: Coming Soon To a Neighborhood Near You

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, past chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and now candidate for governor of Michigan, said at a press conference last week that Obama is going to take terrorists "away from Gitmo and plunk them down in the middle of Michigan, in the middle of Kansas, in the middle of Virginia or in the middle of New York."

They actually want people to believe that the Obama administration is just going to drop off Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on the corner of Main and Elm. Heck, they'll probably give him a gun and some C-4 too. All of this is patently absurd. Why mince words? It's a baldfaced lie.

When the detainees from Gitmo are transferred out, they will be housed in maximum security prisons. That might mean military prisons, like the Navy brig that housed Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla in South Carolina. Or it might mean a civilian prison like the Florence, Colorado Supermax prison where Padilla is currently being held after being found guilty.

The Colorado Supermax facility also houses Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Zacarias Moussaoui, Wadih el-Hage, Ramzi Yousef, Richard Reid (the "shoe bomber") and Mahmud Abouhalima, as well as domestic terrorists like Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph and the Unabomber. Most have been held there for more than a decade without incident.

There were 425,000 POWs held in the United States during WW II, eight of them right here in Michigan. They included Camp Allegan, Camp Owosso and Fort Custer in Battle Creek. There are about 250 men left at Gitmo. But be afraid....be very afraid....and don't forget to blame the other party for your fear so you'll vote for us.

Wow, that's even scarier.

Like I said, it takes so very little these days.

Here's a link to a good article about the nation's view of torture is changing.
What Jesus Would Not Have Done

Quote :

At long last, a prominent Christian conservative has called waterboarding what it is: torture. Last week, Richard Land, an official with the Southern Baptist Convention, said the practice is unethical and "violates everything we stand for."
"There are some things you should never do to another human being, no matter how horrific the things they have done. If you do so, you demean yourself to their level," said Land, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission

LoisLane wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5310729/Poison-gas-puts-50-Afghan-schoolgirls-in-hospital.html

Quote :

"I am pretty sure whoever has done this is against education for girls, but I strongly ask the parents not to be discouraged by such brutal action and send their children to school," said Noor Jahan, a ninth grader at Ura Jalili Girls' High School.

Islamic women and men for that matter will never be free from the tyranny of their corrupt governments and religious leaders without education. If the majority of the Islamic population were literate they would see that the Koran does not condone such evil. This is exactly why I am so repulsed by most religion. I don't like seeing it used as a tool to control. These women deserve the education necessary to think for themselves.

HEY, WATCH AIR FORCE ONE AGAIN. Nighty-night...sleep tight.

And, ditto, Pauly, I'm with you in your opinion.

UrRight wrote:

HEY, WATCH AIR FORCE ONE AGAIN. Nighty-night...sleep tight.

And, ditto, Pauly, I'm with you in your opinion.

Well and I also appreciate Lois bringing this story to our attention. I know a lot of times Islam is equated to inhumane terrorism, but we forget that there are many Muslims out there who are just living their day to day lives trying to get by like these girls in that school trying to get an education. The global community has really failed these people.

paul87920 wrote:

UrRight wrote:

HEY, WATCH AIR FORCE ONE AGAIN. Nighty-night...sleep tight.

And, ditto, Pauly, I'm with you in your opinion.

Well and I also appreciate Lois bringing this story to our attention. I know a lot of times Islam is equated to inhumane terrorism, but we forget that there are many Muslims out there who are just living their day to day lives trying to get by like these girls in that school trying to get an education. The global community has really failed these people.

The Muslim extremists in the Middle East want to deprive womem of education so that it is easier to exploit them. Many of the most vociferous critics of the fundamentalist groups in the Muslim world have been women so it is easy to see why they want to stifle women. The United States has contributed to the problem by supporting brutal regimes in the Middle East for economic reasons.