Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

[mudwhistle]

happy thanksgiving to you too.

thanks for your gracious concession

I gave you no fucken concession you lying fucken bastard.

Fuck off.

I hope you choke on your fucken turkey.

so the discussion goes on. yay

you said the detainee was in iraqi hands when he got roughed up, you said his injuries happened during the capture. you are in check, and so far it looks like you are the lying fucken bastard but i will give you the benefit of the doubt, hanlon's razor and all.

don't choke on the wild turkey reflux. i would be so sad to lose such a skilled debater to interact with.

Once again you twist my words to fit your argument.

I never said when the injuries happened YOU LYING FUCK.

Too bad you can't win an argument without this silly tactic.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I gave you no fucken concession you lying fucken bastard.

Fuck off.

I hope you choke on your fucken turkey.

so the discussion goes on. yay

you said the detainee was in iraqi hands when he got roughed up, you said his injuries happened during the capture. you are in check, and so far it looks like you are the lying fucken bastard but i will give you the benefit of the doubt, hanlon's razor and all.

don't choke on the wild turkey reflux. i would be so sad to lose such a skilled debater to interact with.

Once again you twist my words to fit your argument.

I never said when the injuries happened YOU LYING FUCK.

Too bad you can't win an argument without this silly tactic.

haha, you clown. in several posts you alluded to how the injuries happened. no, you did not use the exact phrase i used to describe what you wrote. now there is a silly tactic. repeating your lame insult is also a lame tactic. i suggest using a bigger font in purple color next time, booger-eating poopy head.

 

[mudwhistle]

so the discussion goes on. yay

you said the detainee was in iraqi hands when he got roughed up, you said his injuries happened during the capture. you are in check, and so far it looks like you are the lying fucken bastard but i will give you the benefit of the doubt, hanlon's razor and all.

don't choke on the wild turkey reflux. i would be so sad to lose such a skilled debater to interact with.

Once again you twist my words to fit your argument.

I never said when the injuries happened YOU LYING FUCK.

Too bad you can't win an argument without this silly tactic.

haha, you clown. in several posts you alluded to how the injuries happened. no, you did not use the exact phrase i used to describe what you wrote. now there is a silly tactic. repeating your lame insult is also a lame tactic. i suggest using a bigger font in purple color next time, booger-eating poopy head.

If I knew I was speaking to an 8th grader this discussion would have never happened in the first place.

Go sell your shit to someone else clown.....

 

[L.K.Eder]

Once again you twist my words to fit your argument.

I never said when the injuries happened YOU LYING FUCK.

Too bad you can't win an argument without this silly tactic.

haha, you clown. in several posts you alluded to how the injuries happened. no, you did not use the exact phrase i used to describe what you wrote. now there is a silly tactic. repeating your lame insult is also a lame tactic. i suggest using a bigger font in purple color next time, booger-eating poopy head.

If I knew I was speaking to an 8th grader this discussion would have never happened in the first place.

Go sell your shit to someone else clown.....

dammit you owned me. good night

 

[Kalam]

- Really?

Indeed. We can all agree that killing innocents is tragic and blameworthy. On the other hand, if the person who is killed has committed a particularly heinous crime -- which is certainly a possibility for mercenaries in a war zone -- I can't say that I'd mourn their deaths. That isn't to say that the mercenaries in question were guilty of anything.

- I can see being bent at Rumsfeld and the like for outsourcing convoy security, but I have a hard time thinking those guys that were killed were assholes for taking a job escorting convoys.

I'm inherently distrustful of anybody who fights for money. From what I've heard, Blackwater is even worse than that.

Are you kidding? Do you no know what happened to those guys post-ambush?

After they were already dead? Burning them was obviously not an appropriate course of action; fire is God's punishment only. Displaying their bodies was unnecessary.

Are you playing semantics games with peoples lives? They were in a Mitsubishi SUV driving through town. Not shooting anyone. Not causing trouble of any kind. And they were shot up, pulled from their vehicles, mutilated and put on display. Does that sound like battle to you? Cos it sounds like a terrorist act meant to send a message to me.

To call it a "terrorist act" would be disingenuous; the public display of enemy or criminal corpses has never been an uncommon practice. I agree that the display in this case was unnecessarily gruesome, but should we really be applying the "terrorist" label so loosely?

I'm assuming you have a problem with "shock and awe". If so, is this the 2 wrongs make a right school of thought? Is that really the best you can do?

I was simply pointing out that the United States is guilty of terrorism as you define it. As long as we're discussing the notion that "two wrongs don't make a right," keep in mind that these terrorist acts were supposedly perpetrated by the United States in response to other terrorist acts.

Should I pull out all the beheadings, usually of innocents? Wanna justify those too?

I don't see how extralegal beheadings are pertinent to the discussion at hand. I don't believe that anybody in this thread has expressed support for killing innocents.

Did you forget the mutilation and display of the bodies hanging from a bridge? Where exactly does that fit in to thousands of years of military tactics?

It fits quite well, actually. It would be disingenuous to claim that the insurgents' display of their slain enemies' bodies had no historical precedent. The British, for example, prominently exhibited the impaled heads of executed criminals on London bridge until the mid-17th century.

The plain fact here is you're defending terrorist acts.

Frankly, I don't believe that any action can be considered an act of terror unless it involves the deliberate killing of civilians.

Weren't you just admonishing Saladin about being labelled an Islamo-fascist?

With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, yes. I was poking fun at Ghook's use of the term to describe any Muslim he dislikes.

From these recent posts it looks like you may be illuminating the path for him.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I do not support the murder of those who have committed no crime, but I think very, very lowly of mercenaries. I dislike Blackwater in particular.

Blackwater accused of murder in 'crusade to eliminate Muslims' - Times Online

 

[Si modo]

An enemy and a war criminal got a fat lip while or after being captured in a war zone.

Why the fuck are the captors being prosecuted for this?

This administration is no friend of the military (or the IC). That is crystal clear.