What If a Nuke Was Set To Explode Tomorrow ?

[SavannahMann]

What a total crock of shit. I've truncated your long diatribe of worthless blather to focus on some key points.

A). Every one of your articles was written not by a neutral, open-minded person, but someone key on denouncing torture as ineffective and outdated, as taught them in the modern lexicon, despite the fact that it was used effectively for thousands of years! If it was so ineffective, why was it used down through history?

Despite the fact that it yields inaccurate information, morons like you believe it is effective. One of the big wins according to the CIA was the location of Bin Laden. Yet, the CIA’s actual report says that the lead was generated by interrogating people who were NOT being tortured. When they asked the people, under torture, they LIED about not knowing anything about the lead. The CIA said that the fact that the people lied while being tortured, told them that this was good information. So let me get this straight. We tortured the people to get the truth, and we got lies, and we consider it a victory? Wait. That doesn’t make any sense. We tortured Khalid Sheik Mohammed because he wouldn’t tell us the truth, and after the torture was ongoing, he still lied to us, and that is the proof it works?

B). You use people as "expects" simply because they held some loose title in intelligence for a couple of years. Maybe they were only in counterintelligence for a couple years because they sucked? Maybe they are promoting this anti-torture stance to the press now because that is what is being drilled into their own heads? Tell me, how much actual torture experience did any of these people have if no one was ever using it?

I have also used the Soviet/Russian experience including the story of Andrei Chikatilo who was a serial killer. Chikatilo was captured, and interrogated for nine days using the most severe questioning possible. And let’s be honest, the Soviet version of Miranda is to tell you to ignore the blood stains in the room from the people who were there before you. Chikatilo did not answer the questions. Then the last day they could hold him, they sent in a Psychiatrist to talk to him. The Psychiatrist did exactly what the FBI, and police interrogators as well as Army Intelligence say to do. He formed a connection with the subject, and in TWO HOURS got Chikatilo to confess. TWO HOURS. For Nine days beatings, threats, none of it worked. Two hours the game was up.

You say there is no similarity between the two, but what are we supposed to go off of? The CIA report can’t point to any victories gained from torture. The ones they try to point to are obviously lies. Like when they credited Khalid Sheik Mohammed with giving up the plot on the Liberty Tower, a plot that was stopped a full year before Mohammed was captured. Or the argument that the torture subjects who lied while being tortured, told them that the link to Bin Laden was totally good.

C). You actually have the nerve to flout the article above, basically saying that in the Dark ages, they weren't very effective at getting people to admit to being Witches and Warlocks as proof of torture's ineffectiveness ignoring that it was a failure because THERE WERE NO WITCHES AND WARLOCKS TO CONFESS TO BEING!

In other articles, they set up mock experiments to test waterboarding, while the person undergoing it KNOWS it will only go so far as an experiment and will be stopped at some point, as if it were a real substitute for a real terrorist undergoing unknown and unlimited methods, then using the faux results as a measure for the real thing used in the field?!

So let me get this straight. We can’t use the CIA’s own report on the matter, because that is not an accurate reflection of the results. We have to take the word of people with NO PROOF to back it up. We can’t use studies, scientific investigations, or psychological reports. We can’t use the FBI who are the ones who questioned the people after the CIA was told hands off and gained a lot more intelligence information than the CIA did.

That is like arguing I have to prove the the sun is in the sky. But I can’t walk you outside to point at it. I can’t use photographs, drawings, paintings, video, or any other representatation. I must convince you that the sun is in the sky right now, and any evidence I use, including dragging you outside and pointing, is not Germaine to the discussion.

D). If torture didn't work, then why do the most militant countries intend on internal security use it? Why did the mobs and Mafia use it? Try sneaking into North Koreas, Russia, Iran, etc., and be accused of spying; what do you think they do, ply you with blueberry pie and brownies? Do you think ISIS gets information? You talk or they cut off your head. One of the key attributes of the Saddam Hussein regime was how well he controlled Iraq and kept the peace. And how it all fell apart after he was gone. Want to know why he so tightly held law and order in Iraq? Torture! His two sons were exquisite experts on REAL torture, and it WORKED. As with the Mob, you did not cross them, you cooperated, you gave them the information, PERIOD.

Again, you ask a question, and reject the answer. Torture is about power, like rape. It gives you the illusion of power over the victim. It does not force them to bend to your will, that’s why the population of Iraq did not flood out to the streets to fight to the last to defeat the invaders. That’s why a vast majority of the Iraqi civilians did NOT raise up after the invasion to make it impossible for the American Army to even survive. If they had raised up in mass, the way Americans would if we were invaded, we would have been lucky to make it back to the ships to get the hell out of there.

Despite the presence of torture in those militant countries, the people do resist. Look at East Germany. The Stasi was one of the most prevalent secret police forces in the world. The estimates are that between one in ten, and one in five were either Stasi or informers to the Stasi. Yet, East Germany fell apart in what, three days, when the citizenry rushed the wall to West Berlin.

Hungarians did the same thing? How many times did the Soviets have to rush in the stop the rebellion? Yet, despite the threats of torture, and prison for life, the people continued pretending to obey didn’t they?

In Venezuela there is an active black market, and the people have demonstrated numerous times to demand change. This despite the authoritarian ability to jail your opponents at any old whim you like.

In the Soviet Union, there was an active black market. People would smuggle western goods up from Hungary, via Yugoslavia. Despite the torture and brutality, people still did it. Why?

China has rounded up every group of dissidents that crop up, and still more keep cropping up. The repression and brutality haven’t worked, the one thing that seems to placate the people the most is the slow march to freedom.

E). You keep saying torture is ineffective, only because you might get false information from people just to stop the treatment, but the pretext of this thread is that YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY INFORMATION AT ALL ANY OTHER WAY, and now what will you do, try torture or let his nuke go off! And your answer is let the nuke go off!

If history is any indication, the most we are going to get is lies when we torture the person. Why go that route? We don’t need lies, we need the truth.

Imagine you are betting on a horse race. You need a lot of money, so the long shot is the fastest way to get that money. Do you bet your last dollar that Gluefactory Reject will win? Or do you bet that the favorite will come in first? The favorite has the best odds of victory. In every endeavor we go with the most likely chance of success. We don’t bet the farm on a Hail Mary, which is what Torture is.

The reason the Military Intelligence folks have rejected the Torture is not just because of the law. The reason is they debrief the prisoners we get back who have been tortured. World War II, Korea, Vietnam. We talk to them, and we learn how effective the torture has been by the results from our own troops experiences. In World War II a P-51 pilot was shot down and captured by the Japanese after the Bomb went of at Hiroshima. The Japanese tortured him, and he honestly had no idea how many bombs we had, or how the hell the bombs worked.

The Japanese torurtured him until he said we had a hundred bombs. The Japanese believed that, because they believed in the Torture.

We tortured a guy and he swore among other things that bin Laden and Saddam were cooperating. We believed him, because the interrogators were convinced we had broken him. He lied. He lied and the information was given a high rating of accuracy and we moved. How many Americans died because we believed a lie from a guy we tortured? How many Veterans are living on the streets psychological wrecks because of what they endured in Iraq based upon a LIE? How many people are waking up today, in pain, trying to strap on a prosthetic limb to get through the day because someone LIED to us under torture?

So the only defense left of the CIA torture program is that the CIA is just inept at the practice. All they have gotten are lies, and even their most successful result was to get more lies from the people they tortured.

Why go with the least likely to succeed method?

F). You consider water-boarding cruel and unusual punishment, but you don't consider nuking the largest city in the world so? In the context of stopping such a holocaust, little can be deemed "cruel," or "unusual" when trying to stop such a disaster in face of the fact that it is all you have left to try. What is so unbelievable is that you are more concerned for the rights of this one man, probably not even a citizen, an enemy combatant bent on your destruction at any cost, than you are the rights of the millions of people he would kill!

First, it is cruel and unusual. That is not debatable. Second, what is the goal of a terrorist attack? Sun Tzu is the Father of war, and he lived 2,500 years ago. The rules for winning war were written down then, and if you want to win the war, then follow those rules. If you want to lose, flaunt them. The basic premise is whatever you do, do not do what the enemy wants you to.

I could give a thousand examples of it, but you wouldn’t listen.

G). None of the "experts" in torture cited are truly experts. How can they be? How much experience do they actually have in actual torture? Western civilization has been divesting itself of the practice for a long time on ethical grounds, and what passes for "torture" in the modern age is called "enhanced interrogation." I submit that NONE of these people know jack about real torture. You want to see torture, ask a POW from Nam or Korea what the Asians used. Ask Kim Jong-Un or Putin about torture. They know how to torture a person. They don't give a flying crap about your "rights" and you will tell them what they want to know. What we call "torture" now is a joke in comparison and these people laugh at us.

Odd, since torture didn’t expose the Serial Killer Andrei Chikatilo. The Russians caught him by using an American developed technique, even though they didn’t know it was the American Technique. Yet, hey Torture just works. You can’t point to it, you can’t give examples of it working. Oh there are a few, but a vast majority of the cases result in people LYING to stop the Torture.

There are few real experts in torture to speak from authority in the West now. The mind was made up long ago to give up torture, and ever since the rationale has been invented to justify it. Now you try to claim that anyone arguing for the merits of torture must be some sort of fiend or savage or sadist, when it is merely a tool of war to be used when there is no other choice. If we had so effective an alternative, why do people languish in our prisons for years without extracting what we want to know?

The horrible truth is that torture works. That's why it has been employed for centuries. But like CFCs and Chlordane, we simply want a cleaner, neater alternative that leaves our conscience clearer. All your experts who say torture doesn't work, they merely don't know how to really, effectively torture anyone to make it work. It's become a lost skill in the West. They have never even done it. What could they know?

Ah, so the Tortue works, you know it. But the CIA who is using it, is just incompetent. So if the “experts” who are using it for the CIA are incompetent at it, what do you hope to gain by torturing the guy?

You have co-opted this thread

to be about a moral issue when in fact the question of the thread was if it came down to torture to get where the bomb was or letting it blow, what would you do? I guarantee you that if I start choking your mother, your wife, your daughter, killing them, you are NOT going to stand by and argue for my rights. You are going to beat me over the head with a tire iron, shoot me, do ANYTHING YOU FUCKING HAVE TO DO TO STOP ME. You won't be worried about "cruel and unusual" punishment as wrongwinger claims, and that was the whole point of this thread. All you people co-opting the thread about the MORALITY of torture are fucking hypocrites. The question in the OP was never a MORAL one but a question of STRATEGY to win in a terrorist crisis and war scenario, and every one of you "moral objectors" would be the FIRST PERSON to violate my rights and inflict cruel and unusual punishment on me or another person if they started killing a loved one in your family and you only had seconds to act.

But the scary thing is that if it ever really came down to where we only had minutes or hours to do the right thing to stop a nuclear holocaust and the death of millions, we might not do it because we have tied our own hands with endless legal constructs, and that is the GREATEST tool our enemies have to use against us--- --- our own laws which bind us more than they do aid us in defeating our enemies.

I watched a documentary about Afghanistan. It paralleled the lessons we learned in Vietnam. In the documentary the Army Captain was speaking to the local village elders. The Captain wanted to find out where a man who had lived in the Village was now, he was suspected of being a Taliban member. The Elders wanted to talk about the Americans shooting the farmers in the fields. The Captain waved that away, he said he was not going to talk about things that happened before he got there, and that it didn’t happen anymore.

The Village had been soured by our actions before the unit ever got there.

When the war started, there was a very effective propaganda picture we were giving to the Afghani and Iraqi people. It showed a Terrorist hiding behind women and children and shooting at the Americans. The lower half of the paper showed an American standing between the terrorists and the women and children. The thousand words that picture summed up was that we worked to protect the innocent, from the bad guys, while they used the women and children as shields.

Those pictures are really not accurate in the minds of the people anymore. Our drone bombing of weddings in the hopes of getting one bad guy helped destroy that truth. It was Bush, Obama, and everyone else who screwed that up.

The really fucked up thing about this scenario that the entire thread is based upon is that it is absolute bullshit. Nuclear Weapons give off a lot of Gamma Radiation. We can detect that from a low flying plane. Even if it is shielded by lead, and it would take a lot of lead, every entrance into New York City has Gamma Ray detectors. These things pick up radiation all the time. Cancer Patients undergoing Radiation Therapy can set it off. Every Port in the nation has scanners so sensitive that they pick up radiation from Ovens. Seriously. The heating element of an oven is dense enough it gives off trace readings of Radiation.

I work in the Transportation field, I know this for a fact. Personally. One of our guys started Radiation therapy, and he set off the scanners at the port. The trace residue of the therapy was enough to set off a scanner that he was driving through.

New York police launch system to detect and track radiation

So unless the bomb was safe within a box several feet thick of lead, concrete, and probably Steel and Titanium, the trace residue of Radiation would be detected. Of course, if it was transported into the city in such a structure, it would weight so much that it would be easy to track from the broken asphalt and concrete as the truck tore up the roads.

But no, the ticking time bomb scenario requires that you torture someone. It is called Logical Insanity. The answer is logical, to an insane situation. But the problem is that the logical answer, isn’t the best answer. Look at your own replies. You have decided that the other alternatives haven’t worked. Thus taking an improbable scenario and making it absolutely insane. A nuclear bomb that evaded the radiation detection systems in place at all the border points. Ok, it might have been brought up across the desert from Mexico to the United States.

Then it somehow avoided setting off the detection systems scattered around the nation. Ok, unlikely but I suppose it is possible. Then it entered New York City by some means that avoided the fixed detectors, and never came close to any cop who has a portable unit in his car, or van. Um, well I suppose there is a one in a million chance.

Then we learn about it, and flying a plane with detectors over the city doesn’t give us the results. Ok, really really unlikely. We learn that someone brought a bomb in, from some sort of informant, and facial recognition software can’t find him. Ok, this is starting to sound like a really bad Hollywood movie. The informant who told us of the bomb can’t tell us where it is. Let’s say it was electronic surveillance that picked it up, and nobody noticed until the bomb was in the city despite that sort of thing having the highest priority in the computers like the NSA center in Utah.

Well if all those safeguards failed, and somehow we get our hands on someone who knows about the bomb, because we learned about him somehow, but not the person planting the bomb, then we “have to torture him”.

Because the scenario only works if the guy we catch isn’t the bomber. Because the bomber would set the bomb off as soon as possible, and take his place in Paradise. So the bomb can’t be in the city yet, because he damn sure would have set if off it it was. So those radiation detection systems would not have come into play yet.

It is insanity. You keep limiting reality to the point where you want me to say torture works. In Fantasyland where this scenario is taking place, I suppose there torture might work. Because then the person writing the script would say it worked. But other than some low budget Hollywood B movie the scenario could not happen.

Torture does not give you reliable information. That is not based upon the people who don’t know. That is from the CIA’s own experience with it. That is based upon the militant people you laude for doing it to our people.

You would be surprised how many units in Vietnam were commanded by Ted Williams. Because when our pilots and troops were tortured for information, that was the most common answer they gave. A lie they could remember easily. That is based upon debriefing our troops when we got them back.

The Soviets used the NKVD to torture the Germans in Russia. They rarely got good information, and the reverse was also true. The Germans who tortured the Russians rarely got good information. One example from Stalingrad was a Russian Soldier who was tortured to give up the location of his unit, and the weapons. He “broke” and led the Germans to the one path to get to his comrades. The one path was the one location where the Russians had a working Machine Gun.

The Germans believed it, because like you they believed in the Torture. I guess that example, with all the others of it providing bad information, were just people inept at the practice of torturing.

But if we are going to write off all the failures of torture as being ineptly applied, then what are we to base the belief it works on?

I believe in God. I believe without a doubt. I still wear a St. Michael’s medallion today. A replacement for the one that broke years ago, which I wore when I jumped out of Airplanes in the Paratroopers. I believe. I believe the very nature of the universe screams to us that there is a God. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there is no God. It is a possibility. But I consider that possibility to be more likely than the idea you can torture someone to stop the bomb in 24 hours.

Because the “victories” you claim the experts of the CIA have, took months of torture to get “results”. The results were that the people being tortured lied to the CIA. More than 150 sessions with Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

How many more people do we have to torture before the CIA figures out how to do it to get the truth? Twenty? Fifty? Two hundred? If we reach that point, and they still are not getting truth reliably, what then?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

New York city is full of democrats. Let the bomb detonate.

You are not invited to my parade being thrown in my honor then

Your loss, there will be FREE BEER, oh yes my dear, much free beer!

I do not drink so free beer is meaningless.

The loss of many democrats now, that is something to celebrate.

 

[Pop23]

Lets look at the two scenario's and the end results:

1. After resisting normal interrogation tactics the dude doesn't talk and, as a last resort torture was used and failed as well. The bomb goes off and somewhere between 1 and 8 million Americans die, many more millions are afflicted by the fallout, the Financial hub of the United States is destroyed and a large portion of the Country is left uninhabitable for decades to come.

The American people would rally around the person that performed the torture as someone that was willing to risk everything in the attempt to save life's. More to the point, they would shun those that tried to make the man a scapegoat. The world would realize that no protocol exists when dealing with Terrorism at this scale and would rule that there were no better choices than to attempt torture.

Reality would be, that a death toll, at this magnitude has never happened in a single act, in the history of the world. The chaos would be so emense that no one would bat an eye that someone complicit in the horrendous was tortured. The world would be so busy dealing with the economic damage that would be caused worldwide, that the fact that a Terrorist was tortured would be about 15,000 on the list of things to be worried about.

2. After resisting normal interrogation tactics the dude doesn't talk and, as a last resort torture was used and worked. The bomb was found and disarmed.

After assessing the potential damage and death toll, and after months and months of Media speculation as to what a successful detonation would have caused, not only to the United States, but the chaos that would have been caused worldwide, no one, absolutely no one, except the Terrorists (who are now being chased down and destroyed by every nation on the face of the earth) would give a flying fuck how the information was ascertained.

There might be a few activists that would want the interrogators head on a platter, but they would soon be pointed out and accused of taking the side of the Terrorist and be in fear of their own life's. Politicians would invite the interrogator to campaign with them, and if he did, they would most certainly win.

You lose dudes. There simply exist certain scenario's that, doing everything humanly possible is the right thing to do.

Damn, someone should write a book using this!

10% of the profits is all I ask!

 

[candycorn]

If we have 100%, unassailable proof that the guy we have in custody knows where this bomb is, and we only have 24 hours before it goes off and we have exhausted all other forms of persuasion, I would probably be okay with it.

In this scenario the '100% unassailable proof' is that some guy said it. That was just before he sold a taxi driver to the CIA.

Well, as I understood it, the stakes are either don’t torture the guy or let the bomb go off and millions of innocent people die.

The real question should be this.

Lets say you have this either/or scenario but switch around the nationalities to where it is an American terrorist who planted a bomb in Tehran or wherever and it has 24 hours to go off and the only way to stop it was to torture the american, your brother…

Would you hold it against the Iranians or whomever if they did it?

You see, what the question is really about is how far do you think a nation should go to protect it’s citizens. The OP wouldn’t be able to comprehend the reversal of roles; he’s mentally deficient, incredibly xenophobic, and intellectually weak.

 

[xband]

Lets look at the two scenario's and the end results:

1. After resisting normal interrogation tactics the dude doesn't talk and, as a last resort torture was used and failed as well. The bomb goes off and somewhere between 1 and 8 million Americans die, many more millions are afflicted by the fallout, the Financial hub of the United States is destroyed and a large portion of the Country is left uninhabitable for decades to come.

The American people would rally around the person that performed the torture as someone that was willing to risk everything in the attempt to save life's. More to the point, they would shun those that tried to make the man a scapegoat. The world would realize that no protocol exists when dealing with Terrorism at this scale and would rule that there were no better choices than to attempt torture.

Reality would be, that a death toll, at this magnitude has never happened in a single act, in the history of the world. The chaos would be so emense that no one would bat an eye that someone complicit in the horrendous was tortured. The world would be so busy dealing with the economic damage that would be caused worldwide, that the fact that a Terrorist was tortured would be about 15,000 on the list of things to be worried about.

2. After resisting normal interrogation tactics the dude doesn't talk and, as a last resort torture was used and worked. The bomb was found and disarmed.

After assessing the potential damage and death toll, and after months and months of Media speculation as to what a successful detonation would have caused, not only to the United States, but the chaos that would have been caused worldwide, no one, absolutely no one, except the Terrorists (who are now being chased down and destroyed by every nation on the face of the earth) would give a flying fuck how the information was ascertained.

There might be a few activists that would want the interrogators head on a platter, but they would soon be pointed out and accused of taking the side of the Terrorist and be in fear of their own life's. Politicians would invite the interrogator to campaign with them, and if he did, they would most certainly win.

You lose dudes. There simply exist certain scenario's that, doing everything humanly possible is the right thing to do.

Damn, someone should write a book using this!

10% of the profits is all I ask!

Write a dad burn book and take 100 percent of the profits!

Edit: My Aunt is a best seller and she can hook you up with her publisher and be your ghost writer if your pen writes at a 7th Grade level. My pen writes at a 7th Grade level and no insult intended or meant. Poetry is my forte and the title of the Poem is paramount and the same with Prose to draw reader's interest.

 

[Pop23]

If we have 100%, unassailable proof that the guy we have in custody knows where this bomb is, and we only have 24 hours before it goes off and we have exhausted all other forms of persuasion, I would probably be okay with it.

In this scenario the '100% unassailable proof' is that some guy said it. That was just before he sold a taxi driver to the CIA.

Well, as I understood it, the stakes are either don’t torture the guy or let the bomb go off and millions of innocent people die.

The real question should be this.

Lets say you have this either/or scenario but switch around the nationalities to where it is an American terrorist who planted a bomb in Tehran or wherever and it has 24 hours to go off and the only way to stop it was to torture the american, your brother…

Would you hold it against the Iranians or whomever if they did it?

You see, what the question is really about is how far do you think a nation should go to protect it’s citizens. The OP wouldn’t be able to comprehend the reversal of roles; he’s mentally deficient, incredibly xenophobic, and intellectually weak.

Wouldn't blame them a bit.

Why would you think we would. Killing 8 million people in a single event is unacceptable no matter where. War might be different, but a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

 

[candycorn]

If we have 100%, unassailable proof that the guy we have in custody knows where this bomb is, and we only have 24 hours before it goes off and we have exhausted all other forms of persuasion, I would probably be okay with it.

In this scenario the '100% unassailable proof' is that some guy said it. That was just before he sold a taxi driver to the CIA.

Well, as I understood it, the stakes are either don’t torture the guy or let the bomb go off and millions of innocent people die.

The real question should be this.

Lets say you have this either/or scenario but switch around the nationalities to where it is an American terrorist who planted a bomb in Tehran or wherever and it has 24 hours to go off and the only way to stop it was to torture the american, your brother…

Would you hold it against the Iranians or whomever if they did it?

You see, what the question is really about is how far do you think a nation should go to protect it’s citizens. The OP wouldn’t be able to comprehend the reversal of roles; he’s mentally deficient, incredibly xenophobic, and intellectually weak.

Wouldn't blame them a bit.

Why would you think we would. Killing 8 million people in a single event is unacceptable no matter where. War might be different, but a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

We’ll see where the OP comes down on such a scenario….

I doubt he’ll see it that way.

 

[Pop23]

Lets look at the two scenario's and the end results:

1. After resisting normal interrogation tactics the dude doesn't talk and, as a last resort torture was used and failed as well. The bomb goes off and somewhere between 1 and 8 million Americans die, many more millions are afflicted by the fallout, the Financial hub of the United States is destroyed and a large portion of the Country is left uninhabitable for decades to come.

The American people would rally around the person that performed the torture as someone that was willing to risk everything in the attempt to save life's. More to the point, they would shun those that tried to make the man a scapegoat. The world would realize that no protocol exists when dealing with Terrorism at this scale and would rule that there were no better choices than to attempt torture.

Reality would be, that a death toll, at this magnitude has never happened in a single act, in the history of the world. The chaos would be so emense that no one would bat an eye that someone complicit in the horrendous was tortured. The world would be so busy dealing with the economic damage that would be caused worldwide, that the fact that a Terrorist was tortured would be about 15,000 on the list of things to be worried about.

2. After resisting normal interrogation tactics the dude doesn't talk and, as a last resort torture was used and worked. The bomb was found and disarmed.

After assessing the potential damage and death toll, and after months and months of Media speculation as to what a successful detonation would have caused, not only to the United States, but the chaos that would have been caused worldwide, no one, absolutely no one, except the Terrorists (who are now being chased down and destroyed by every nation on the face of the earth) would give a flying fuck how the information was ascertained.

There might be a few activists that would want the interrogators head on a platter, but they would soon be pointed out and accused of taking the side of the Terrorist and be in fear of their own life's. Politicians would invite the interrogator to campaign with them, and if he did, they would most certainly win.

You lose dudes. There simply exist certain scenario's that, doing everything humanly possible is the right thing to do.

Damn, someone should write a book using this!

10% of the profits is all I ask!

Write a dad burn book and take 100 percent of the profits!

That would take far too much away from my Beer Drinking time.

But I will amend my offer, 10% in cash or Beer, or a combination of both is perfectly acceptable.

 

[irosie91]

whatevah it takes

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Einstein let Pandora out of the box. Nuke New York City because they are tards beyond all recognition.

Nah....that would be Oppenheimer.

 

[cnm]

Well, as I understood it, the stakes are either don’t torture the guy or let the bomb go off and millions of innocent people die.

The bomb some guy said was there, before he went off to sell another taxi driver to the CIA. But I get your point, you are a sheep. Some guy says 'terrorist' and you say 'how high?'.

 

[Pop23]

Well, as I understood it, the stakes are either don’t torture the guy or let the bomb go off and millions of innocent people die.

The bomb some guy said was there, before he went off to sell another taxi driver to the CIA. But I get your point, you are a sheep. Some guy says 'terrorist' and you say 'how high?'.

At the risk of 8,000,000 deaths?

Sorry, you remain the fool.

 

[candycorn]

Well, as I understood it, the stakes are either don’t torture the guy or let the bomb go off and millions of innocent people die.

The bomb some guy said was there, before he went off to sell another taxi driver to the CIA. But I get your point, you are a sheep. Some guy says 'terrorist' and you say 'how high?'.

Whatever.

 

[Pop23]

Well, as I understood it, the stakes are either don’t torture the guy or let the bomb go off and millions of innocent people die.

The bomb some guy said was there, before he went off to sell another taxi driver to the CIA. But I get your point, you are a sheep. Some guy says 'terrorist' and you say 'how high?'.

And why, knowing he won't be tortured, would the guy just hold out until the bomb does not go off.

Thousands of FBI and CIA would be investigating the "taxi driver" to tell if the guy was a real threat. Within hours, well before the torture scenario would come into play, those answers would be clear.

And you are naive.

 

[toobfreak]

Can you believe how detached these liberals are ?

No. It's amazing.

Can anyone imagine Eisenhower, Bradley,or Patton ordering their soldiers to arrest Nazis, as if they were holding up a convenience store ?

No. Before progressivism took hold of our sanity, we actually fought wars to win, quickly, overwhelmingly, and with no concern for the interests of the enemy attacking us. Wars went on for months or a couple of years and were done. We got in, did the job and got out. Now we can never get out, never win, never get finished. As always, Liberals aspire as enemy combatants themselves against their own country under the guise of being a "higher conscience" or authority. In reality, they are like a ball and chain around our ankle and progressivism needs to be recognized and treated for what it is: a serious, dangerous mental disorder that threatens every level of our culture.

Progressives have come in here and tried to totally hijack this thread and steer it into being about THEIR moral objections when in fact, the topic of this thread was a question of STRATEGY: you have no choice left but to torture the captured terrorist to make him reveal the location of a nuke in time to stop it, or stand there and let it go off destroying all of New York City, and these fucking, lying progressives can't bring themselves that under those terms, you have to do whatever to save your country! They are too hypocritical to admit they would bash your fucking head in to stop you in an instant if you were threatening their family and loved ones, and try to stand here quoting articles and rules on why we must never treat our enemy badly?

LAWS AGAINST TORTURE were created for one very good and clear reason: so that in conventional combat, say Germany fighting Great Britain, and soldiers are captured on each side, that we treat them with civility because one day the war will be over and we all go home. LIKE ALL LAWS, our lawmakers never seem to think things through and get it right with provisions for if it isn't a normal war, if it isn't normal soldiers, but enemy combatants trying to destroy the country with terrorism. Here, you don't have a guy flying a plane dropping bombs ot shooting a rifle, you have a lone combatant coming in with maybe a nuke trying to create an EMP, a dirty bomb, etc., and you are not holding him for what he has done but what he MAY DO, and you need to STOP THE ACT.

In such a case, the combatant is acting as a traitor, a terrorist, and TRAITORS DESERVE NO LENIENCY, yet that is exactly what these blind fools with mash potatoes for brains are arguing: for the rights and leniency towards terrorists whom would kill us all if they could.

They argue about what does it say about the civility of our modern culture to still use torture? But we don't! But what would it say of our sanity if in a matter of grave terrorism like 9/11, if we let the event occur without trying to stop it? Yeah, New York blew up but at least we didn't water-board the guy?!!

In normal combat it has been ruled out, but in matters of national terrorism where a combatant is threatening human catastrophe on a monstrous scale, to argue for leniency towards them and to use anything less than ANY MEANS NECESSARY to get their cooperation, is nothing short of itinerant stupidity and treason beyond measure, and such a person should be prosecuted for rendering aid and comfort to the enemy.

But look: we can't even do that anymore and now have two people who gave aid and comfort to the enemy who not only didn't face the death penalty, but in one case, was released by Obama, and the other now runs for the Senate? Eisenhower and Patton would be spinning in their graves.

Eisenhower understood that. Patton understood that. That these idiots here apparently cannot points to a serious mental defect to their brains that if not corrected on a national level will someday lead to our own undoing, for if we as a nation can no longer fight a war to win without fighting an even bigger internal war with ourselves questioning our actions and motives at every level, we are destined to crumble as a country, and our enemies no longer have to defeat us but merely endure long enough until we defeat ourselves.

 

[toobfreak]

What a total crock of shit. I've truncated your long diatribe of worthless blather to focus on some key points.

A). Every one of your articles was written not by a neutral, open-minded person, but someone key on denouncing torture as ineffective and outdated, as taught them in the modern lexicon, despite the fact that it was used effectively for thousands of years! If it was so ineffective, why was it used down through history?

Despite the fact that it yields inaccurate information, morons like you believe it is effective. One of the big wins according to the CIA was the location of Bin Laden. Yet, the CIA’s actual report says that the lead was generated by interrogating people who were NOT being tortured. When they asked the people, under torture, they LIED about not knowing anything about the lead. The CIA said that the fact that the people lied while being tortured, told them that this was good information. So let me get this straight. We tortured the people to get the truth, and we got lies, and we consider it a victory? Wait. That doesn’t make any sense. We tortured Khalid Sheik Mohammed because he wouldn’t tell us the truth, and after the torture was ongoing, he still lied to us, and that is the proof it works?

B). You use people as "expects" simply because they held some loose title in intelligence for a couple of years. Maybe they were only in counterintelligence for a couple years because they sucked? Maybe they are promoting this anti-torture stance to the press now because that is what is being drilled into their own heads? Tell me, how much actual torture experience did any of these people have if no one was ever using it?

I have also used the Soviet/Russian experience including the story of Andrei Chikatilo who was a serial killer. Chikatilo was captured, and interrogated for nine days using the most severe questioning possible. And let’s be honest, the Soviet version of Miranda is to tell you to ignore the blood stains in the room from the people who were there before you. Chikatilo did not answer the questions. Then the last day they could hold him, they sent in a Psychiatrist to talk to him. The Psychiatrist did exactly what the FBI, and police interrogators as well as Army Intelligence say to do. He formed a connection with the subject, and in TWO HOURS got Chikatilo to confess. TWO HOURS. For Nine days beatings, threats, none of it worked. Two hours the game was up.

You say there is no similarity between the two, but what are we supposed to go off of? The CIA report can’t point to any victories gained from torture. The ones they try to point to are obviously lies. Like when they credited Khalid Sheik Mohammed with giving up the plot on the Liberty Tower, a plot that was stopped a full year before Mohammed was captured. Or the argument that the torture subjects who lied while being tortured, told them that the link to Bin Laden was totally good.

C). You actually have the nerve to flout the article above, basically saying that in the Dark ages, they weren't very effective at getting people to admit to being Witches and Warlocks as proof of torture's ineffectiveness ignoring that it was a failure because THERE WERE NO WITCHES AND WARLOCKS TO CONFESS TO BEING!

In other articles, they set up mock experiments to test waterboarding, while the person undergoing it KNOWS it will only go so far as an experiment and will be stopped at some point, as if it were a real substitute for a real terrorist undergoing unknown and unlimited methods, then using the faux results as a measure for the real thing used in the field?!

So let me get this straight. We can’t use the CIA’s own report on the matter, because that is not an accurate reflection of the results. We have to take the word of people with NO PROOF to back it up. We can’t use studies, scientific investigations, or psychological reports. We can’t use the FBI who are the ones who questioned the people after the CIA was told hands off and gained a lot more intelligence information than the CIA did.

That is like arguing I have to prove the the sun is in the sky. But I can’t walk you outside to point at it. I can’t use photographs, drawings, paintings, video, or any other representatation. I must convince you that the sun is in the sky right now, and any evidence I use, including dragging you outside and pointing, is not Germaine to the discussion.

D). If torture didn't work, then why do the most militant countries intend on internal security use it? Why did the mobs and Mafia use it? Try sneaking into North Koreas, Russia, Iran, etc., and be accused of spying; what do you think they do, ply you with blueberry pie and brownies? Do you think ISIS gets information? You talk or they cut off your head. One of the key attributes of the Saddam Hussein regime was how well he controlled Iraq and kept the peace. And how it all fell apart after he was gone. Want to know why he so tightly held law and order in Iraq? Torture! His two sons were exquisite experts on REAL torture, and it WORKED. As with the Mob, you did not cross them, you cooperated, you gave them the information, PERIOD.

Again, you ask a question, and reject the answer. Torture is about power, like rape. It gives you the illusion of power over the victim. It does not force them to bend to your will, that’s why the population of Iraq did not flood out to the streets to fight to the last to defeat the invaders. That’s why a vast majority of the Iraqi civilians did NOT raise up after the invasion to make it impossible for the American Army to even survive. If they had raised up in mass, the way Americans would if we were invaded, we would have been lucky to make it back to the ships to get the hell out of there.

Despite the presence of torture in those militant countries, the people do resist. Look at East Germany. The Stasi was one of the most prevalent secret police forces in the world. The estimates are that between one in ten, and one in five were either Stasi or informers to the Stasi. Yet, East Germany fell apart in what, three days, when the citizenry rushed the wall to West Berlin.

Hungarians did the same thing? How many times did the Soviets have to rush in the stop the rebellion? Yet, despite the threats of torture, and prison for life, the people continued pretending to obey didn’t they?

In Venezuela there is an active black market, and the people have demonstrated numerous times to demand change. This despite the authoritarian ability to jail your opponents at any old whim you like.

In the Soviet Union, there was an active black market. People would smuggle western goods up from Hungary, via Yugoslavia. Despite the torture and brutality, people still did it. Why?

China has rounded up every group of dissidents that crop up, and still more keep cropping up. The repression and brutality haven’t worked, the one thing that seems to placate the people the most is the slow march to freedom.

E). You keep saying torture is ineffective, only because you might get false information from people just to stop the treatment, but the pretext of this thread is that YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY INFORMATION AT ALL ANY OTHER WAY, and now what will you do, try torture or let his nuke go off! And your answer is let the nuke go off!

If history is any indication, the most we are going to get is lies when we torture the person. Why go that route? We don’t need lies, we need the truth.

Imagine you are betting on a horse race. You need a lot of money, so the long shot is the fastest way to get that money. Do you bet your last dollar that Gluefactory Reject will win? Or do you bet that the favorite will come in first? The favorite has the best odds of victory. In every endeavor we go with the most likely chance of success. We don’t bet the farm on a Hail Mary, which is what Torture is.

The reason the Military Intelligence folks have rejected the Torture is not just because of the law. The reason is they debrief the prisoners we get back who have been tortured. World War II, Korea, Vietnam. We talk to them, and we learn how effective the torture has been by the results from our own troops experiences. In World War II a P-51 pilot was shot down and captured by the Japanese after the Bomb went of at Hiroshima. The Japanese tortured him, and he honestly had no idea how many bombs we had, or how the hell the bombs worked.

The Japanese torurtured him until he said we had a hundred bombs. The Japanese believed that, because they believed in the Torture.

We tortured a guy and he swore among other things that bin Laden and Saddam were cooperating. We believed him, because the interrogators were convinced we had broken him. He lied. He lied and the information was given a high rating of accuracy and we moved. How many Americans died because we believed a lie from a guy we tortured? How many Veterans are living on the streets psychological wrecks because of what they endured in Iraq based upon a LIE? How many people are waking up today, in pain, trying to strap on a prosthetic limb to get through the day because someone LIED to us under torture?

So the only defense left of the CIA torture program is that the CIA is just inept at the practice. All they have gotten are lies, and even their most successful result was to get more lies from the people they tortured.

Why go with the least likely to succeed method?

F). You consider water-boarding cruel and unusual punishment, but you don't consider nuking the largest city in the world so? In the context of stopping such a holocaust, little can be deemed "cruel," or "unusual" when trying to stop such a disaster in face of the fact that it is all you have left to try. What is so unbelievable is that you are more concerned for the rights of this one man, probably not even a citizen, an enemy combatant bent on your destruction at any cost, than you are the rights of the millions of people he would kill!

First, it is cruel and unusual. That is not debatable. Second, what is the goal of a terrorist attack? Sun Tzu is the Father of war, and he lived 2,500 years ago. The rules for winning war were written down then, and if you want to win the war, then follow those rules. If you want to lose, flaunt them. The basic premise is whatever you do, do not do what the enemy wants you to.

I could give a thousand examples of it, but you wouldn’t listen.

G). None of the "experts" in torture cited are truly experts. How can they be? How much experience do they actually have in actual torture? Western civilization has been divesting itself of the practice for a long time on ethical grounds, and what passes for "torture" in the modern age is called "enhanced interrogation." I submit that NONE of these people know jack about real torture. You want to see torture, ask a POW from Nam or Korea what the Asians used. Ask Kim Jong-Un or Putin about torture. They know how to torture a person. They don't give a flying crap about your "rights" and you will tell them what they want to know. What we call "torture" now is a joke in comparison and these people laugh at us.

Odd, since torture didn’t expose the Serial Killer Andrei Chikatilo. The Russians caught him by using an American developed technique, even though they didn’t know it was the American Technique. Yet, hey Torture just works. You can’t point to it, you can’t give examples of it working. Oh there are a few, but a vast majority of the cases result in people LYING to stop the Torture.

There are few real experts in torture to speak from authority in the West now. The mind was made up long ago to give up torture, and ever since the rationale has been invented to justify it. Now you try to claim that anyone arguing for the merits of torture must be some sort of fiend or savage or sadist, when it is merely a tool of war to be used when there is no other choice. If we had so effective an alternative, why do people languish in our prisons for years without extracting what we want to know?

The horrible truth is that torture works. That's why it has been employed for centuries. But like CFCs and Chlordane, we simply want a cleaner, neater alternative that leaves our conscience clearer. All your experts who say torture doesn't work, they merely don't know how to really, effectively torture anyone to make it work. It's become a lost skill in the West. They have never even done it. What could they know?

Ah, so the Tortue works, you know it. But the CIA who is using it, is just incompetent. So if the “experts” who are using it for the CIA are incompetent at it, what do you hope to gain by torturing the guy?

You have co-opted this thread

to be about a moral issue when in fact the question of the thread was if it came down to torture to get where the bomb was or letting it blow, what would you do? I guarantee you that if I start choking your mother, your wife, your daughter, killing them, you are NOT going to stand by and argue for my rights. You are going to beat me over the head with a tire iron, shoot me, do ANYTHING YOU FUCKING HAVE TO DO TO STOP ME. You won't be worried about "cruel and unusual" punishment as wrongwinger claims, and that was the whole point of this thread. All you people co-opting the thread about the MORALITY of torture are fucking hypocrites. The question in the OP was never a MORAL one but a question of STRATEGY to win in a terrorist crisis and war scenario, and every one of you "moral objectors" would be the FIRST PERSON to violate my rights and inflict cruel and unusual punishment on me or another person if they started killing a loved one in your family and you only had seconds to act.

But the scary thing is that if it ever really came down to where we only had minutes or hours to do the right thing to stop a nuclear holocaust and the death of millions, we might not do it because we have tied our own hands with endless legal constructs, and that is the GREATEST tool our enemies have to use against us--- --- our own laws which bind us more than they do aid us in defeating our enemies.

I watched a documentary about Afghanistan. It paralleled the lessons we learned in Vietnam. In the documentary the Army Captain was speaking to the local village elders. The Captain wanted to find out where a man who had lived in the Village was now, he was suspected of being a Taliban member. The Elders wanted to talk about the Americans shooting the farmers in the fields. The Captain waved that away, he said he was not going to talk about things that happened before he got there, and that it didn’t happen anymore.

The Village had been soured by our actions before the unit ever got there.

When the war started, there was a very effective propaganda picture we were giving to the Afghani and Iraqi people. It showed a Terrorist hiding behind women and children and shooting at the Americans. The lower half of the paper showed an American standing between the terrorists and the women and children. The thousand words that picture summed up was that we worked to protect the innocent, from the bad guys, while they used the women and children as shields.

Those pictures are really not accurate in the minds of the people anymore. Our drone bombing of weddings in the hopes of getting one bad guy helped destroy that truth. It was Bush, Obama, and everyone else who screwed that up.

The really fucked up thing about this scenario that the entire thread is based upon is that it is absolute bullshit. Nuclear Weapons give off a lot of Gamma Radiation. We can detect that from a low flying plane. Even if it is shielded by lead, and it would take a lot of lead, every entrance into New York City has Gamma Ray detectors. These things pick up radiation all the time. Cancer Patients undergoing Radiation Therapy can set it off. Every Port in the nation has scanners so sensitive that they pick up radiation from Ovens. Seriously. The heating element of an oven is dense enough it gives off trace readings of Radiation.

I work in the Transportation field, I know this for a fact. Personally. One of our guys started Radiation therapy, and he set off the scanners at the port. The trace residue of the therapy was enough to set off a scanner that he was driving through.

New York police launch system to detect and track radiation

So unless the bomb was safe within a box several feet thick of lead, concrete, and probably Steel and Titanium, the trace residue of Radiation would be detected. Of course, if it was transported into the city in such a structure, it would weight so much that it would be easy to track from the broken asphalt and concrete as the truck tore up the roads.

But no, the ticking time bomb scenario requires that you torture someone. It is called Logical Insanity. The answer is logical, to an insane situation. But the problem is that the logical answer, isn’t the best answer. Look at your own replies. You have decided that the other alternatives haven’t worked. Thus taking an improbable scenario and making it absolutely insane. A nuclear bomb that evaded the radiation detection systems in place at all the border points. Ok, it might have been brought up across the desert from Mexico to the United States.

Then it somehow avoided setting off the detection systems scattered around the nation. Ok, unlikely but I suppose it is possible. Then it entered New York City by some means that avoided the fixed detectors, and never came close to any cop who has a portable unit in his car, or van. Um, well I suppose there is a one in a million chance.

Then we learn about it, and flying a plane with detectors over the city doesn’t give us the results. Ok, really really unlikely. We learn that someone brought a bomb in, from some sort of informant, and facial recognition software can’t find him. Ok, this is starting to sound like a really bad Hollywood movie. The informant who told us of the bomb can’t tell us where it is. Let’s say it was electronic surveillance that picked it up, and nobody noticed until the bomb was in the city despite that sort of thing having the highest priority in the computers like the NSA center in Utah.

Well if all those safeguards failed, and somehow we get our hands on someone who knows about the bomb, because we learned about him somehow, but not the person planting the bomb, then we “have to torture him”.

Because the scenario only works if the guy we catch isn’t the bomber. Because the bomber would set the bomb off as soon as possible, and take his place in Paradise. So the bomb can’t be in the city yet, because he damn sure would have set if off it it was. So those radiation detection systems would not have come into play yet.

It is insanity. You keep limiting reality to the point where you want me to say torture works. In Fantasyland where this scenario is taking place, I suppose there torture might work. Because then the person writing the script would say it worked. But other than some low budget Hollywood B movie the scenario could not happen.

Torture does not give you reliable information. That is not based upon the people who don’t know. That is from the CIA’s own experience with it. That is based upon the militant people you laude for doing it to our people.

You would be surprised how many units in Vietnam were commanded by Ted Williams. Because when our pilots and troops were tortured for information, that was the most common answer they gave. A lie they could remember easily. That is based upon debriefing our troops when we got them back.

The Soviets used the NKVD to torture the Germans in Russia. They rarely got good information, and the reverse was also true. The Germans who tortured the Russians rarely got good information. One example from Stalingrad was a Russian Soldier who was tortured to give up the location of his unit, and the weapons. He “broke” and led the Germans to the one path to get to his comrades. The one path was the one location where the Russians had a working Machine Gun.

The Germans believed it, because like you they believed in the Torture. I guess that example, with all the others of it providing bad information, were just people inept at the practice of torturing.

But if we are going to write off all the failures of torture as being ineptly applied, then what are we to base the belief it works on?

I believe in God. I believe without a doubt. I still wear a St. Michael’s medallion today. A replacement for the one that broke years ago, which I wore when I jumped out of Airplanes in the Paratroopers. I believe. I believe the very nature of the universe screams to us that there is a God. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there is no God. It is a possibility. But I consider that possibility to be more likely than the idea you can torture someone to stop the bomb in 24 hours.

Because the “victories” you claim the experts of the CIA have, took months of torture to get “results”. The results were that the people being tortured lied to the CIA. More than 150 sessions with Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

How many more people do we have to torture before the CIA figures out how to do it to get the truth? Twenty? Fifty? Two hundred? If we reach that point, and they still are not getting truth reliably, what then?

IN SUMMATION: What a total crock of shit. Traitors deserve no leniency, and this thread is about creating a winning STRATEGY to stop a nuclear holocaust, not your pet moral objections to torture, which has already been banned for normal combat situations! Either stay to the topic or get off the thread!

 

[SavannahMann]

Can you believe how detached these liberals are ?

No. It's amazing.

Can anyone imagine Eisenhower, Bradley,or Patton ordering their soldiers to arrest Nazis, as if they were holding up a convenience store ?

No. Before progressivism took hold of our sanity, we actually fought wars to win, quickly, overwhelmingly, and with no concern for the interests of the enemy attacking us. Wars went on for months or a couple of years and were done. We got in, did the job and got out. Now we can never get out, never win, never get finished. As always, Liberals aspire as enemy combatants themselves against their own country under the guise of being a "higher conscience" or authority. In reality, they are like a ball and chain around our ankle and progressivism needs to be recognized and treated for what it is: a serious, dangerous mental disorder that threatens every level of our culture.

Progressives have come in here and tried to totally hijack this thread and steer it into being about THEIR moral objections when in fact, the topic of this thread was a question of STRATEGY: you have no choice left but to torture the captured terrorist to make him reveal the location of a nuke in time to stop it, or stand there and let it go off destroying all of New York City, and these fucking, lying progressives can't bring themselves that under those terms, you have to do whatever to save your country! They are too hypocritical to admit they would bash your fucking head in to stop you in an instant if you were threatening their family and loved ones, and try to stand here quoting articles and rules on why we must never treat our enemy badly?

LAWS AGAINST TORTURE were created for one very good and clear reason: so that in conventional combat, say Germany fighting Great Britain, and soldiers are captured on each side, that we treat them with civility because one day the war will be over and we all go home. LIKE ALL LAWS, our lawmakers never seem to think things through and get it right with provisions for if it isn't a normal war, if it isn't normal soldiers, but enemy combatants trying to destroy the country with terrorism. Here, you don't have a guy flying a plane dropping bombs ot shooting a rifle, you have a lone combatant coming in with maybe a nuke trying to create an EMP, a dirty bomb, etc., and you are not holding him for what he has done but what he MAY DO, and you need to STOP THE ACT.

In such a case, the combatant is acting as a traitor, a terrorist, and TRAITORS DESERVE NO LENIENCY, yet that is exactly what these blind fools with mash potatoes for brains are arguing: for the rights and leniency towards terrorists whom would kill us all if they could.

They argue about what does it say about the civility of our modern culture to still use torture? But we don't! But what would it say of our sanity if in a matter of grave terrorism like 9/11, if we let the event occur without trying to stop it? Yeah, New York blew up but at least we didn't water-board the guy?!!

In normal combat it has been ruled out, but in matters of national terrorism where a combatant is threatening human catastrophe on a monstrous scale, to argue for leniency towards them and to use anything less than ANY MEANS NECESSARY to get their cooperation, is nothing short of itinerant stupidity and treason beyond measure, and such a person should be prosecuted for rendering aid and comfort to the enemy.

But look: we can't even do that anymore and now have two people who gave aid and comfort to the enemy who not only didn't face the death penalty, but in one case, was released by Obama, and the other now runs for the Senate? Eisenhower and Patton would be spinning in their graves.

Eisenhower understood that. Patton understood that. That these idiots here apparently cannot points to a serious mental defect to their brains that if not corrected on a national level will someday lead to our own undoing, for if we as a nation can no longer fight a war to win without fighting an even bigger internal war with ourselves questioning our actions and motives at every level, we are destined to crumble as a country, and our enemies no longer have to defeat us but merely endure long enough until we defeat ourselves.

Where in the name of God did you learn your history? I ask because your version of History is unique in that it is bereft of any facts.

World War II. Half a million German POW’s were sent all the way back to the United States. They were stored in some 700 camps around the nation. The Germans were willing to surrender to the Americans, because they knew the Americans would treat them well. This meant that the Nazi soldiers our troops fought did not fight to the limit because being captured by the Americans was preferable to either death, or being captured by the Soviets who would abuse them.

2.8 million German Soldiers surrendered on the Western Front. That would be the front with the Americans and British gang.

German prisoners of war in northwest Europe - Wikipedia

Eisenhower, Patton, and the rest knew that it was good to take prisoners. It weakened the enemy, and affected enemy moral. How you are unaware of this is anyone’s guess. I can only assume that because John Wayne never took any in the Longest Day, that you figured none were taken.

When I was rolling into Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division in Desert Storm, we had a story told to us about the lead elements of the Third Brigade. They had come across an entire unit of Iraqi Soldiers with their weapons stacked, sitting in formation, with their hands on their heads. The reason according to the story was that there was an American of Iraqi descent who had been visiting relatives when the war started, and had been drafted and sent to the Army. He had told the Iraqi Soldiers that Americans did not abuse prisoners like the propaganda from Saddam was claiming. He told them that Americans followed the rules. He told them that we will not shoot them for sport, or commit any of the other atrocities that it was claimed we would.

We learned in Vietnam after the fact that those people who had done those things, fed the propaganda image of us created by the NVA and VC. We thought we were acting tough and showing the enemy how serious we were. We were really turning them against us, and creating more enemies for us to fight.

Killing a soldier in battle is one thing. Absolutely justifiable, and necessary. But abusing prisoners, and killing those trying to surrender have never been allowed, even when George Washington was fighting the British.

It is an established historical fact that even the dreaded Hessian Calvary that terrorized the battlefields decided to remain after the war. Why? They were treated humanely. The fact that more of the fledgling American soldiers died in POW camps run by the British than in battle is again established.

NASA reached the moon largely because the German Scientists ran and hid to avoid dying at the hands of the SS in the hopes of surrendering to America. Werner Von Braun the visionary who is most responsible for us reaching the moon was intelligent enough to know who the good guys were.

The FBI who took over interrogations of Terrorist Prisoners got better results without the torture than the CIA did with it. With one exception. Those who had been tortured still resisted. Why? Well they had been tortured why not resist?

I honestly don’t know where you idiots learned history. You decry Liberals and education so much you must work overtime to make sure you don’t learn a damned thing from history.

When it looked like the unit I was assigned to was heading into Haiti I briefed my soldiers. I told them that if they saw someone with a weapon, he was to be an enemy who would be engaged, or shot for you simpletons. But I told them if they are unarmed, you are not to fire. If anyone fires one round at an unarmed person who is complying with instructions they will be arrested by me, personally, and brought up on charges.

I knew those words. Because the Sergeant who led me into Iraq told them to me and my mates. My Platoon Sergeant confirmed those words, and the Lieutenant told us the same thing.

We kill the enemy in battle, we do not kill them when they are surrendering. These rules have been in effect since George Washington was fighting what appeared to be a hopeless battle against an insurmountable foe.

All you armchair heroes, all you keyboard commandos should look up some of this history and traditions you claim to be respecting, because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

If America was Great then, it wasn’t because we were monsters. It was because we were not.

 

[toobfreak]

Can you believe how detached these liberals are ?

No. It's amazing.

Can anyone imagine Eisenhower, Bradley,or Patton ordering their soldiers to arrest Nazis, as if they were holding up a convenience store ?

No. Before progressivism took hold of our sanity, we actually fought wars to win, quickly, overwhelmingly, and with no concern for the interests of the enemy attacking us. Wars went on for months or a couple of years and were done. We got in, did the job and got out. Now we can never get out, never win, never get finished. As always, Liberals aspire as enemy combatants themselves against their own country under the guise of being a "higher conscience" or authority. In reality, they are like a ball and chain around our ankle and progressivism needs to be recognized and treated for what it is: a serious, dangerous mental disorder that threatens every level of our culture.

Progressives have come in here and tried to totally hijack this thread and steer it into being about THEIR moral objections when in fact, the topic of this thread was a question of STRATEGY: you have no choice left but to torture the captured terrorist to make him reveal the location of a nuke in time to stop it, or stand there and let it go off destroying all of New York City, and these fucking, lying progressives can't bring themselves that under those terms, you have to do whatever to save your country! They are too hypocritical to admit they would bash your fucking head in to stop you in an instant if you were threatening their family and loved ones, and try to stand here quoting articles and rules on why we must never treat our enemy badly?

LAWS AGAINST TORTURE were created for one very good and clear reason: so that in conventional combat, say Germany fighting Great Britain, and soldiers are captured on each side, that we treat them with civility because one day the war will be over and we all go home. LIKE ALL LAWS, our lawmakers never seem to think things through and get it right with provisions for if it isn't a normal war, if it isn't normal soldiers, but enemy combatants trying to destroy the country with terrorism. Here, you don't have a guy flying a plane dropping bombs ot shooting a rifle, you have a lone combatant coming in with maybe a nuke trying to create an EMP, a dirty bomb, etc., and you are not holding him for what he has done but what he MAY DO, and you need to STOP THE ACT.

In such a case, the combatant is acting as a traitor, a terrorist, and TRAITORS DESERVE NO LENIENCY, yet that is exactly what these blind fools with mash potatoes for brains are arguing: for the rights and leniency towards terrorists whom would kill us all if they could.

They argue about what does it say about the civility of our modern culture to still use torture? But we don't! But what would it say of our sanity if in a matter of grave terrorism like 9/11, if we let the event occur without trying to stop it? Yeah, New York blew up but at least we didn't water-board the guy?!!

In normal combat it has been ruled out, but in matters of national terrorism where a combatant is threatening human catastrophe on a monstrous scale, to argue for leniency towards them and to use anything less than ANY MEANS NECESSARY to get their cooperation, is nothing short of itinerant stupidity and treason beyond measure, and such a person should be prosecuted for rendering aid and comfort to the enemy.

But look: we can't even do that anymore and now have two people who gave aid and comfort to the enemy who not only didn't face the death penalty, but in one case, was released by Obama, and the other now runs for the Senate? Eisenhower and Patton would be spinning in their graves.

Eisenhower understood that. Patton understood that. That these idiots here apparently cannot points to a serious mental defect to their brains that if not corrected on a national level will someday lead to our own undoing, for if we as a nation can no longer fight a war to win without fighting an even bigger internal war with ourselves questioning our actions and motives at every level, we are destined to crumble as a country, and our enemies no longer have to defeat us but merely endure long enough until we defeat ourselves.

Where in the name of God did you learn your history? I ask because your version of History is unique in that it is bereft of any facts.

World War II. Half a million German POW’s were sent all the way back to the United States. They were stored in some 700 camps around the nation. The Germans were willing to surrender to the Americans, because they knew the Americans would treat them well. This meant that the Nazi soldiers our troops fought did not fight to the limit because being captured by the Americans was preferable to either death, or being captured by the Soviets who would abuse them.

2.8 million German Soldiers surrendered on the Western Front. That would be the front with the Americans and British gang.

German prisoners of war in northwest Europe - Wikipedia

Eisenhower, Patton, and the rest knew that it was good to take prisoners. It weakened the enemy, and affected enemy moral. How you are unaware of this is anyone’s guess. I can only assume that because John Wayne never took any in the Longest Day, that you figured none were taken.

When I was rolling into Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division in Desert Storm, we had a story told to us about the lead elements of the Third Brigade. They had come across an entire unit of Iraqi Soldiers with their weapons stacked, sitting in formation, with their hands on their heads. The reason according to the story was that there was an American of Iraqi descent who had been visiting relatives when the war started, and had been drafted and sent to the Army. He had told the Iraqi Soldiers that Americans did not abuse prisoners like the propaganda from Saddam was claiming. He told them that Americans followed the rules. He told them that we will not shoot them for sport, or commit any of the other atrocities that it was claimed we would.

We learned in Vietnam after the fact that those people who had done those things, fed the propaganda image of us created by the NVA and VC. We thought we were acting tough and showing the enemy how serious we were. We were really turning them against us, and creating more enemies for us to fight.

Killing a soldier in battle is one thing. Absolutely justifiable, and necessary. But abusing prisoners, and killing those trying to surrender have never been allowed, even when George Washington was fighting the British.

It is an established historical fact that even the dreaded Hessian Calvary that terrorized the battlefields decided to remain after the war. Why? They were treated humanely. The fact that more of the fledgling American soldiers died in POW camps run by the British than in battle is again established.

NASA reached the moon largely because the German Scientists ran and hid to avoid dying at the hands of the SS in the hopes of surrendering to America. Werner Von Braun the visionary who is most responsible for us reaching the moon was intelligent enough to know who the good guys were.

The FBI who took over interrogations of Terrorist Prisoners got better results without the torture than the CIA did with it. With one exception. Those who had been tortured still resisted. Why? Well they had been tortured why not resist?

I honestly don’t know where you idiots learned history. You decry Liberals and education so much you must work overtime to make sure you don’t learn a damned thing from history.

When it looked like the unit I was assigned to was heading into Haiti I briefed my soldiers. I told them that if they saw someone with a weapon, he was to be an enemy who would be engaged, or shot for you simpletons. But I told them if they are unarmed, you are not to fire. If anyone fires one round at an unarmed person who is complying with instructions they will be arrested by me, personally, and brought up on charges.

I knew those words. Because the Sergeant who led me into Iraq told them to me and my mates. My Platoon Sergeant confirmed those words, and the Lieutenant told us the same thing.

We kill the enemy in battle, we do not kill them when they are surrendering. These rules have been in effect since George Washington was fighting what appeared to be a hopeless battle against an insurmountable foe.

All you armchair heroes, all you keyboard commandos should look up some of this history and traditions you claim to be respecting, because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

If America was Great then, it wasn’t because we were monsters. It was because we were not.

QUIT AVOIDING THE OP AND TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, TROLL! If you are not going to use torture, are you going to let him blow up New York? What is your sane, effective alternative to "enhanced interrogation?" ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

[SavannahMann]

Can you believe how detached these liberals are ?

No. It's amazing.

Can anyone imagine Eisenhower, Bradley,or Patton ordering their soldiers to arrest Nazis, as if they were holding up a convenience store ?

No. Before progressivism took hold of our sanity, we actually fought wars to win, quickly, overwhelmingly, and with no concern for the interests of the enemy attacking us. Wars went on for months or a couple of years and were done. We got in, did the job and got out. Now we can never get out, never win, never get finished. As always, Liberals aspire as enemy combatants themselves against their own country under the guise of being a "higher conscience" or authority. In reality, they are like a ball and chain around our ankle and progressivism needs to be recognized and treated for what it is: a serious, dangerous mental disorder that threatens every level of our culture.

Progressives have come in here and tried to totally hijack this thread and steer it into being about THEIR moral objections when in fact, the topic of this thread was a question of STRATEGY: you have no choice left but to torture the captured terrorist to make him reveal the location of a nuke in time to stop it, or stand there and let it go off destroying all of New York City, and these fucking, lying progressives can't bring themselves that under those terms, you have to do whatever to save your country! They are too hypocritical to admit they would bash your fucking head in to stop you in an instant if you were threatening their family and loved ones, and try to stand here quoting articles and rules on why we must never treat our enemy badly?

LAWS AGAINST TORTURE were created for one very good and clear reason: so that in conventional combat, say Germany fighting Great Britain, and soldiers are captured on each side, that we treat them with civility because one day the war will be over and we all go home. LIKE ALL LAWS, our lawmakers never seem to think things through and get it right with provisions for if it isn't a normal war, if it isn't normal soldiers, but enemy combatants trying to destroy the country with terrorism. Here, you don't have a guy flying a plane dropping bombs ot shooting a rifle, you have a lone combatant coming in with maybe a nuke trying to create an EMP, a dirty bomb, etc., and you are not holding him for what he has done but what he MAY DO, and you need to STOP THE ACT.

In such a case, the combatant is acting as a traitor, a terrorist, and TRAITORS DESERVE NO LENIENCY, yet that is exactly what these blind fools with mash potatoes for brains are arguing: for the rights and leniency towards terrorists whom would kill us all if they could.

They argue about what does it say about the civility of our modern culture to still use torture? But we don't! But what would it say of our sanity if in a matter of grave terrorism like 9/11, if we let the event occur without trying to stop it? Yeah, New York blew up but at least we didn't water-board the guy?!!

In normal combat it has been ruled out, but in matters of national terrorism where a combatant is threatening human catastrophe on a monstrous scale, to argue for leniency towards them and to use anything less than ANY MEANS NECESSARY to get their cooperation, is nothing short of itinerant stupidity and treason beyond measure, and such a person should be prosecuted for rendering aid and comfort to the enemy.

But look: we can't even do that anymore and now have two people who gave aid and comfort to the enemy who not only didn't face the death penalty, but in one case, was released by Obama, and the other now runs for the Senate? Eisenhower and Patton would be spinning in their graves.

Eisenhower understood that. Patton understood that. That these idiots here apparently cannot points to a serious mental defect to their brains that if not corrected on a national level will someday lead to our own undoing, for if we as a nation can no longer fight a war to win without fighting an even bigger internal war with ourselves questioning our actions and motives at every level, we are destined to crumble as a country, and our enemies no longer have to defeat us but merely endure long enough until we defeat ourselves.

Where in the name of God did you learn your history? I ask because your version of History is unique in that it is bereft of any facts.

World War II. Half a million German POW’s were sent all the way back to the United States. They were stored in some 700 camps around the nation. The Germans were willing to surrender to the Americans, because they knew the Americans would treat them well. This meant that the Nazi soldiers our troops fought did not fight to the limit because being captured by the Americans was preferable to either death, or being captured by the Soviets who would abuse them.

2.8 million German Soldiers surrendered on the Western Front. That would be the front with the Americans and British gang.

German prisoners of war in northwest Europe - Wikipedia

Eisenhower, Patton, and the rest knew that it was good to take prisoners. It weakened the enemy, and affected enemy moral. How you are unaware of this is anyone’s guess. I can only assume that because John Wayne never took any in the Longest Day, that you figured none were taken.

When I was rolling into Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division in Desert Storm, we had a story told to us about the lead elements of the Third Brigade. They had come across an entire unit of Iraqi Soldiers with their weapons stacked, sitting in formation, with their hands on their heads. The reason according to the story was that there was an American of Iraqi descent who had been visiting relatives when the war started, and had been drafted and sent to the Army. He had told the Iraqi Soldiers that Americans did not abuse prisoners like the propaganda from Saddam was claiming. He told them that Americans followed the rules. He told them that we will not shoot them for sport, or commit any of the other atrocities that it was claimed we would.

We learned in Vietnam after the fact that those people who had done those things, fed the propaganda image of us created by the NVA and VC. We thought we were acting tough and showing the enemy how serious we were. We were really turning them against us, and creating more enemies for us to fight.

Killing a soldier in battle is one thing. Absolutely justifiable, and necessary. But abusing prisoners, and killing those trying to surrender have never been allowed, even when George Washington was fighting the British.

It is an established historical fact that even the dreaded Hessian Calvary that terrorized the battlefields decided to remain after the war. Why? They were treated humanely. The fact that more of the fledgling American soldiers died in POW camps run by the British than in battle is again established.

NASA reached the moon largely because the German Scientists ran and hid to avoid dying at the hands of the SS in the hopes of surrendering to America. Werner Von Braun the visionary who is most responsible for us reaching the moon was intelligent enough to know who the good guys were.

The FBI who took over interrogations of Terrorist Prisoners got better results without the torture than the CIA did with it. With one exception. Those who had been tortured still resisted. Why? Well they had been tortured why not resist?

I honestly don’t know where you idiots learned history. You decry Liberals and education so much you must work overtime to make sure you don’t learn a damned thing from history.

When it looked like the unit I was assigned to was heading into Haiti I briefed my soldiers. I told them that if they saw someone with a weapon, he was to be an enemy who would be engaged, or shot for you simpletons. But I told them if they are unarmed, you are not to fire. If anyone fires one round at an unarmed person who is complying with instructions they will be arrested by me, personally, and brought up on charges.

I knew those words. Because the Sergeant who led me into Iraq told them to me and my mates. My Platoon Sergeant confirmed those words, and the Lieutenant told us the same thing.

We kill the enemy in battle, we do not kill them when they are surrendering. These rules have been in effect since George Washington was fighting what appeared to be a hopeless battle against an insurmountable foe.

All you armchair heroes, all you keyboard commandos should look up some of this history and traditions you claim to be respecting, because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

If America was Great then, it wasn’t because we were monsters. It was because we were not.

QUIT AVOIDING THE OP AND TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, TROLL! If you are not going to use torture, are you going to let him blow up New York? What is your sane, effective alternative to "enhanced interrogation?" ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I’ve answered it a dozen times. You must have some ADD going on.

Oh and replying to a post is not trolling.

 

[Pop23]

Can you believe how detached these liberals are ?

No. It's amazing.

Can anyone imagine Eisenhower, Bradley,or Patton ordering their soldiers to arrest Nazis, as if they were holding up a convenience store ?

No. Before progressivism took hold of our sanity, we actually fought wars to win, quickly, overwhelmingly, and with no concern for the interests of the enemy attacking us. Wars went on for months or a couple of years and were done. We got in, did the job and got out. Now we can never get out, never win, never get finished. As always, Liberals aspire as enemy combatants themselves against their own country under the guise of being a "higher conscience" or authority. In reality, they are like a ball and chain around our ankle and progressivism needs to be recognized and treated for what it is: a serious, dangerous mental disorder that threatens every level of our culture.

Progressives have come in here and tried to totally hijack this thread and steer it into being about THEIR moral objections when in fact, the topic of this thread was a question of STRATEGY: you have no choice left but to torture the captured terrorist to make him reveal the location of a nuke in time to stop it, or stand there and let it go off destroying all of New York City, and these fucking, lying progressives can't bring themselves that under those terms, you have to do whatever to save your country! They are too hypocritical to admit they would bash your fucking head in to stop you in an instant if you were threatening their family and loved ones, and try to stand here quoting articles and rules on why we must never treat our enemy badly?

LAWS AGAINST TORTURE were created for one very good and clear reason: so that in conventional combat, say Germany fighting Great Britain, and soldiers are captured on each side, that we treat them with civility because one day the war will be over and we all go home. LIKE ALL LAWS, our lawmakers never seem to think things through and get it right with provisions for if it isn't a normal war, if it isn't normal soldiers, but enemy combatants trying to destroy the country with terrorism. Here, you don't have a guy flying a plane dropping bombs ot shooting a rifle, you have a lone combatant coming in with maybe a nuke trying to create an EMP, a dirty bomb, etc., and you are not holding him for what he has done but what he MAY DO, and you need to STOP THE ACT.

In such a case, the combatant is acting as a traitor, a terrorist, and TRAITORS DESERVE NO LENIENCY, yet that is exactly what these blind fools with mash potatoes for brains are arguing: for the rights and leniency towards terrorists whom would kill us all if they could.

They argue about what does it say about the civility of our modern culture to still use torture? But we don't! But what would it say of our sanity if in a matter of grave terrorism like 9/11, if we let the event occur without trying to stop it? Yeah, New York blew up but at least we didn't water-board the guy?!!

In normal combat it has been ruled out, but in matters of national terrorism where a combatant is threatening human catastrophe on a monstrous scale, to argue for leniency towards them and to use anything less than ANY MEANS NECESSARY to get their cooperation, is nothing short of itinerant stupidity and treason beyond measure, and such a person should be prosecuted for rendering aid and comfort to the enemy.

But look: we can't even do that anymore and now have two people who gave aid and comfort to the enemy who not only didn't face the death penalty, but in one case, was released by Obama, and the other now runs for the Senate? Eisenhower and Patton would be spinning in their graves.

Eisenhower understood that. Patton understood that. That these idiots here apparently cannot points to a serious mental defect to their brains that if not corrected on a national level will someday lead to our own undoing, for if we as a nation can no longer fight a war to win without fighting an even bigger internal war with ourselves questioning our actions and motives at every level, we are destined to crumble as a country, and our enemies no longer have to defeat us but merely endure long enough until we defeat ourselves.

Where in the name of God did you learn your history? I ask because your version of History is unique in that it is bereft of any facts.

World War II. Half a million German POW’s were sent all the way back to the United States. They were stored in some 700 camps around the nation. The Germans were willing to surrender to the Americans, because they knew the Americans would treat them well. This meant that the Nazi soldiers our troops fought did not fight to the limit because being captured by the Americans was preferable to either death, or being captured by the Soviets who would abuse them.

2.8 million German Soldiers surrendered on the Western Front. That would be the front with the Americans and British gang.

German prisoners of war in northwest Europe - Wikipedia

Eisenhower, Patton, and the rest knew that it was good to take prisoners. It weakened the enemy, and affected enemy moral. How you are unaware of this is anyone’s guess. I can only assume that because John Wayne never took any in the Longest Day, that you figured none were taken.

When I was rolling into Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division in Desert Storm, we had a story told to us about the lead elements of the Third Brigade. They had come across an entire unit of Iraqi Soldiers with their weapons stacked, sitting in formation, with their hands on their heads. The reason according to the story was that there was an American of Iraqi descent who had been visiting relatives when the war started, and had been drafted and sent to the Army. He had told the Iraqi Soldiers that Americans did not abuse prisoners like the propaganda from Saddam was claiming. He told them that Americans followed the rules. He told them that we will not shoot them for sport, or commit any of the other atrocities that it was claimed we would.

We learned in Vietnam after the fact that those people who had done those things, fed the propaganda image of us created by the NVA and VC. We thought we were acting tough and showing the enemy how serious we were. We were really turning them against us, and creating more enemies for us to fight.

Killing a soldier in battle is one thing. Absolutely justifiable, and necessary. But abusing prisoners, and killing those trying to surrender have never been allowed, even when George Washington was fighting the British.

It is an established historical fact that even the dreaded Hessian Calvary that terrorized the battlefields decided to remain after the war. Why? They were treated humanely. The fact that more of the fledgling American soldiers died in POW camps run by the British than in battle is again established.

NASA reached the moon largely because the German Scientists ran and hid to avoid dying at the hands of the SS in the hopes of surrendering to America. Werner Von Braun the visionary who is most responsible for us reaching the moon was intelligent enough to know who the good guys were.

The FBI who took over interrogations of Terrorist Prisoners got better results without the torture than the CIA did with it. With one exception. Those who had been tortured still resisted. Why? Well they had been tortured why not resist?

I honestly don’t know where you idiots learned history. You decry Liberals and education so much you must work overtime to make sure you don’t learn a damned thing from history.

When it looked like the unit I was assigned to was heading into Haiti I briefed my soldiers. I told them that if they saw someone with a weapon, he was to be an enemy who would be engaged, or shot for you simpletons. But I told them if they are unarmed, you are not to fire. If anyone fires one round at an unarmed person who is complying with instructions they will be arrested by me, personally, and brought up on charges.

I knew those words. Because the Sergeant who led me into Iraq told them to me and my mates. My Platoon Sergeant confirmed those words, and the Lieutenant told us the same thing.

We kill the enemy in battle, we do not kill them when they are surrendering. These rules have been in effect since George Washington was fighting what appeared to be a hopeless battle against an insurmountable foe.

All you armchair heroes, all you keyboard commandos should look up some of this history and traditions you claim to be respecting, because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

If America was Great then, it wasn’t because we were monsters. It was because we were not.

QUIT AVOIDING THE OP AND TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, TROLL! If you are not going to use torture, are you going to let him blow up New York? What is your sane, effective alternative to "enhanced interrogation?" ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Honestly, the dude has a problem with the very History he professes to understand.

He is trying to equate that a TERRORIST, from a boarderless entity, is the same as a UNIFORMED SOLDIER from a nation WE ARE AT DECLARED WAR WITH.

The Left can't DO ANYTHING WITHOUT TWISTING FACTS.

Savannah Fofanna Ammana Panna Mo Manna, wants us to believe that we should afford the same respect to a Terrorist THAT WANTS TO INFLICT MASS CASUALTY TO CIVILIAN POPULATION BASE, as we would a UNIFORMED SOLDIER FROM A NATION, that oh by the way, MAY HAVE BEEN CONSCRIPTED INTO DUTY!

He, and the rest of these progressives can't face FACTS.

Sure CONSCRIPTS will often surrender based on how they will be treated by their ENEMIES THAT UNDERSTAND WAR. BUT A TERRORIST WON'T.

If he had a point, he would not need to twist everything. BUT HE DOES.