Torture - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #1 10-23-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Go reread the line of argument that you attempted to advance in which you excused the bloody murder of whomever the Al Qaedistas could capture because the American colonies behaved in the same fashion against the English soldiers during the Revolutionary War for Independence.

Ignoring the part about Washington's men behaving in a similar fashion to Bin Laden's (I don't recall the precise number of civilians that Washington tortured, I expect you must have the figures or you wouldn't have advanced such a specious argument), you opined that they colonies didn't follow the Geneva Conventions. Well no shirt, Sherlock, there wasn't any Geneva Conventions back then. Asking them to abide by that which wouldn't exist for another 50 years (in it's early form) is a high bar, indeed.

Careful, you'll sprain your back from such contortions. The part I was referring to, surprised it wasn't obvious, was the practice of some of the Yankees of fighting w/o the benefit of a uniform and then melting back into the population.

The notion that it is fine and dandy and will further our interests to imprison, for virtually a life sentence, ignorant fools from Afg. and Pak. because they were fighting out of uniform boggles my mind.

Doesn't matter that there was no GC at that time (Rev. war) -- point is, it's human nature to use whatever you have at your disposal to defeat a more powerful foe. Not pretty but there it is.

German undercover agents in plain clothes are far different than Afg/Pak dudes in their own country.

Again, you are unable to recognize a simple truth, instead contorting words and arguments in an attempt to hang onto your supposed superior knowledge on all matters.

Botnst · #2 10-23-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

1. The part I was referring to, surprised it wasn't obvious, was the practice of some of the Yankees of fighting w/o the benefit of a uniform and then melting back into the population.

2. The notion that it is fine and dandy and will further our interests to imprison, for virtually a life sentence, ignorant fools from Afg. and Pak. because they were fighting out of uniform boggles my mind.

3. Doesn't matter that there was no GC at that time (Rev. war) -- point is, it's human nature to use whatever you have at your disposal to defeat a more powerful foe. Not pretty but there it is.

4. German undercover agents in plain clothes are far different than Afg/Pak dudes in their own country.

5. Again, you are unable to recognize a simple truth, instead contorting words and arguments in an attempt to hang onto your supposed superior knowledge on all matters.

1. If you constrain your analogy to just the non-uniformed militias then you'll also know how the English treated them. I am sure you will agree taht our current treatment of illegal combatants is far, far better than the English treatment of colonists.

2. Straw dog. Nobody that I am aware of has advocated virtual life sentences for the illegal combatants. In fact, most of them have already been released or repatriated to their home countries.

3. The Conventions is EXACTLY the point. You and others argue that we should be observing them even though the murdering bastard Al Quedistas do not.

4. According to the Geneva Conventions and American law there is no difference.

5. Could help yourself, could you?

B

cmac2012 · #3 10-23-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

4. According to the Geneva Conventions and American law there is no difference.

5. Could help yourself, could you?

4. Perfect example of the law being an ass. There is a huge difference.

5. Coherent sentences, please.

cmac2012 · #4 10-23-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

2. Straw dog. Nobody that I am aware of has advocated virtual life sentences for the illegal combatants. In fact, most of them have already been released or repatriated to their home countries.

3. The Conventions is EXACTLY the point. You and others argue that we should be observing them even though the murdering bastard Al Quedistas do not.

2. Many are still held, w/o limbo as their companion.

3.And how does one civilze the savage? By sinking to his level?

Botnst · #5 10-23-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

2. Many are still held, w/o limbo as their companion.

3.And how does one civilze the savage? By sinking to his level?

2. Many? How many?

3. Savages? What savages? I sure as heck don't think the people of Afghanistan or Iraq are savages. the ones I have met (men only, sadly) have been reasonably bright and literate. I assume that the women are about the same (except for the Afghan women who, though of probably equal intelligence, had been intentionally kept in repressive ignorance by the Taliban). They simply live in a different culture. In the case of the Afghans, mostly rural pastoralists or agriculturalist; in the case of Iraqis, far more varied. But in neither case are they savages.

cmac2012 · #6 10-23-2007, 08:58 PM

You speak left and right of Al Qaedistas in terms normally reserved for savages. Suddenly, you're all genteel and stuff.

cmac2012 · #7 10-23-2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Many? How many?

S'funny, they won't take my calls down there. Last I heard it was a few hundred.

If it had been closed and/or depopulated, we'd have heard about it.

Colin Powell said, "I wouldn't close Guantanamo tomorrow, I'd close it this afternoon."

aklim · #8 10-23-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

point is, it's human nature to use whatever you have at your disposal to defeat a more powerful foe. Not pretty but there it is.

So why can't we do the same? Why not have a "no holds barred" fight?

cmac2012 · #9 10-23-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So why can't we do the same? Why not have a "no holds barred" fight?

We used 'daisy cutter' bombs on Afg. We used depleted uranium munitions, missiles (drone fired frequently), and helicopters equipped with night vision goggles against Iraq. I'd say we're pretty close to being 'no holds barred' in our combat.

aklim · #10 10-23-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

We used 'daisy cutter' bombs on Afg. We used depleted uranium munitions, missiles (drone fired frequently), and helicopters equipped with night vision goggles against Iraq. I'd say we're pretty close to being 'no holds barred' in our combat.

Pretty close? Your concentration is on munitions. It has been proved that munitions alone do not win a war like we have today. Munitions are but a small portion. If the other side had the same weapons, we'd be extinct.