What If a Nuke Was Set To Explode Tomorrow ?

[toobfreak]

I’ve answered it a dozen times.

Link to even one of them?

Oh and replying to a post is not trolling.

It is when the answer constantly tries to change the topic from where it started.

 

[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.

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.

BINGO. The man GETS IT. One Avo Uvezian cigar for you!

 

[Care4all]

I ask all posters to this thread to answer the following question with a YES or NO answer. Add more if desired, but please don't omit a yes or no answer.

Suppose a terrorist was captured and being interrogated by the FBI. Suppose he told the agents that a nuclear bomb was scheduled to be detonated in New York City, within 24 hours. With an estimated 2017 population of 8.6 Million, and despite being distributed over a massive land area of about 302.6 square miles, New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States.

If this nuclear bomb, of significant size and power, were exploded, it would kill millions of people, and be the most horrific single event in human history. And suppose the terrorist said he knew who the perpetrator was in charge of this heinous act, his location, the location of the device to be used to detonate the bomb, and how to easily disable it.

Bear in mind that torture is illegal under US law (Title 18 of US Code, Section 2340A)​

So here's the question. >> Would/should we allow millions of fellow Americans to be incinerated and radiated by this monstrous event, or would/should we do whatever it takes (including torture) to get this information from this terrorist, if it's apparent that that would stop the bomb ?

YES or NO.

NO. He'd simply send you on a wild goose chase, he plans to die as a martyr anyway.... better to use proven interrogation techniques...

 

[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.

BINGO. The man GETS IT. One Avo Uvezian cigar for you!

And a beer, DO NOT FORGET THE BEER!

 

[Pop23]

I ask all posters to this thread to answer the following question with a YES or NO answer. Add more if desired, but please don't omit a yes or no answer.

Suppose a terrorist was captured and being interrogated by the FBI. Suppose he told the agents that a nuclear bomb was scheduled to be detonated in New York City, within 24 hours. With an estimated 2017 population of 8.6 Million, and despite being distributed over a massive land area of about 302.6 square miles, New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States.

If this nuclear bomb, of significant size and power, were exploded, it would kill millions of people, and be the most horrific single event in human history. And suppose the terrorist said he knew who the perpetrator was in charge of this heinous act, his location, the location of the device to be used to detonate the bomb, and how to easily disable it.

Bear in mind that torture is illegal under US law (Title 18 of US Code, Section 2340A)​

So here's the question. >> Would/should we allow millions of fellow Americans to be incinerated and radiated by this monstrous event, or would/should we do whatever it takes (including torture) to get this information from this terrorist, if it's apparent that that would stop the bomb ?

YES or NO.

NO. He'd simply send you on a wild goose chase, he plans to die anyway.... better to use proven interrogation techniques...

And when they fail? BOOM. Nice knowin ya 8 million. Tickets to the Opra will be much easier to get now.

You can't make this shit up, you really really can't!

 

[protectionist]

No reason for this thread to have gone to 35 pages and 350 posts, It was finished 4 days ago, when it started. Of course you don't allow some screwball to blow 8 million people to bits.

If there is anything you can do to stop that, you take that action. Little schoolkids are unanimous on that. Why ? Because they haven't yet fallen under the spell of liberal lunacy-indoctrination.

I see 21 posts in my alert list right now. I'm not going to even look at them. This read is over.
Liberasl have hung themselves worse than I thought they would.

 

[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.

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.

I give the reasons for what I believe. You can’t point to any success of torture, but still believe. I can point to all sorts of evidence that it is the most ineffective method of gaining information, including the CIA’s own report. Yet, one of us twists things. How is the one who uses facts to support his position the one twisting things?

 

[SavannahMann]

No reason for this thread to have gone to 35 pages and 350 posts, It was finished 4 days ago, when it started. Of course you don't allow some screwball to blow 8 million people to bits.

If there is anything you can do to stop that, you take that action. Little schoolkids are unanimous on that. Why ? Because they haven't yet fallen under the spell of liberal lunacy-indoctrination.

I see 21 posts in my alert list right now. I'm not going to even look at them. This read is over.
Liberasl have hung themselves worse than I thought they would.

Little school kids are calling for gun control, do we need to do that now because little school kids know it?

 

[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.

I give the reasons for what I believe. You can’t point to any success of torture, but still believe. I can point to all sorts of evidence that it is the most ineffective method of gaining information, including the CIA’s own report. Yet, one of us twists things. How is the one who uses facts to support his position the one twisting things?

Those tortured most often are killed after the torture is completed. Hard to admit you did then, cause you're dead!

Those tortured prisoners that gave the information while being tortured don't often admit they did when let go.

True story related to me by my Uncle, a Survivor of the Bataan Death March.

The stories he told would curl your teeth little dude. And those that broke, NOT A MAN ON EARTH WOULD BLAME THEM! NOT ONE!