# I don't care either...



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I received this email and I like it.

I DON'T CARE

The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq....... Please Read It!

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?
Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our
shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all
over the world,
mostly
Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated"
when an overworked American soldier kicked it or ot it wet? Well, I
don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in
Iraq come out and
fight like men instead of disrespecting their own
religion by hiding in
mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow
themselves up in search of
nirvana care about the innocent childrn within range
of their suicide
bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending
that their First
Amendment liberties are somehow derived from
international law instead
of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave
marine roughing up an
Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I
don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi
prisoners who have been
humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing
incident, rest assured
that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head
when he is told not
to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can
take it to the bank
that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran
and a prayer mat, and
fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars,
is complaining
that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can
absolutely believe in
your heart of hearts that I don't care.

and oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's
spelled "Koran" and
other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ----
you guessed it - -
- I don't care ! ! ! ! !

If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all
your e-mail
friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people
responsible for this
ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all
means hit the delete
button.

Should you choose the latter, then please don't
complain when more
atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in
our great country.

I am not deleting this, I am sending it on, but only
after I add:

ME TOO!

Biker DaddyDawg

A Combat Vet that knows what it means.
Life Member DAV
Life Member VFW
US Army

Support Our Combat Troops


----------



## deathwind (Apr 17, 2005)

Exactly like me I DON'T CARE EITHER.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Indeed, who needs to follow national conventions? Fight fire with fire I always say. If we aren't as horrible as the terrorists we can't beat them.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

MT you are an ignorant person indeed. I think you should go out and find a solider and buy them a beer and thank them. Not just for this war, but the one's in the past that has kept your A$$ free. In another country,the spew that comes out of your mouth would have your head laying on a dusty mat and some one else would be saying " I don't care".

If you don't like it then I will gladly pay for your one way ticket to go to another country and preach about how bad you had it in this great country. Your screen name should read Militant_Pu##Y. YOu are a very ungreatfull, selfabsorbed idiot.

sorry to others for that but he has finally ****** me off :******: :******: :******: :******:


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

We are not AS HORRIBLE as the terrorists. How do you compare desecrating the Queeran to flying an airplane into the WTC, or compare a suicide bombing that kills dozens of people to a few naked prisoners. These acts do not even compare to eachother.


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

Tigger likes to screw with a lot of people on here and one time he even ran away with his tail between his legs. Saying we are all pig headed and he will not be able to change anyones mind.. If tigger tried to buy me a beer for my nine years of service in the Air Force I think I would give him a bath with it.

Oh ya Tigger what is it you do in the outdoors again. you never answered my before leaving the first time


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Right on sotaman, I admire you for serving our country. 

I'm right with the I don't care anymore crowd, they wouldn't want me over there.


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

Militant has really gotten me angry now. I have a friend that just came home last night after serving 6 months over in Iraq. Let me tell you, he has some stories.


----------



## zettler (Sep 7, 2002)

maple lake duck slayer said:


> ... I have a friend that just came home last night after serving 6 months over in Iraq. Let me tell you, he has some stories.


For better or worse, these are the people WE ALL need to hear from.

Thank him for his service and invite him to share.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I don't want this to turn into all the other threads where we get into a political debate with MT. It's opinions are well noted and annotated in numorous threads. I posted this as my opinion.

I respect everyone that has served in one capacity or another. heck, I would gladly buy Mr. Gohon a beverage of choice and sit and drink one with him because of his service. I respect that. i am not saying I respect the whole person concept, I am saying I respect the service to my/our country and it is that to which I am paying homage.

To all of those that have served in our all volunteer military, I appreciate you and what you have done. To those that have wanted to but were unable to fullfill that desire, thanks for trying and I'll buy you one too.

For those of you on the couch telling the rest of us how bad this country is and how messed up it is, hug nuts. Know why?

"'Cause I don't care."

ps...Really Mr. Gohon, I would treat for the first round whether you would choose to accept it or not.


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

Rude

I respect your opinion. I am just sick and tired of Tigger brining nothing to the table but bull crap banter that he is well know for I wish he would have just stayed gone

I have served nine years and am shooting for twenty with one trip overseas in the fight on terrririsom. My older brother is at 15 years in the army and he has about 12 trips over there he is special forces so he goes for a mission not like the big army. My old man did thirty years in the Army reserves.

So if Tigger is really 16 as he claims I don't have any respect for a punk no matter the age that can not rescpect the U S of A more then some terrirost. I can't type half of the things I think of the low down scondroul he is.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I take offense at despicable acts that some soldiers commit, not the soldiers. If you cannot make that separation we will have one sick, corrupted military.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I take offense at despicable acts that some soldiers commit, not the soldiers. If you cannot make that separation we will have one sick, corrupted military.


I am sorry I even posted this. I appologize to everyone that read this.

MT, I can only say that I hope you make it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The only "dispicable acts that some soldiers commit' that you take offense at is the US military you two-faced, corrupt, insurgent zealot! you come in here and spew your crap and slap every decent American here in the face with the liberties that the very same people have earned for you and you are not even worthy of licking the bottom of their feet! I find you so repulsive and ignorant that I used to try in my mind to make exceptions for you that you are a product of your up-bringing or something but I know truely beleive that you are an imp that is placed on this site for the sole purpose of contributing nothing other then your spin crap to piss people off!


I don't support breaching internation conventions, like the Geneva Convention, or torturing prisoners. Evidently this makes me an insurgent. You really need to check your anger, it is clouding your view heavily.


----------



## johnsona (Dec 4, 2003)

Okay guys, settle down. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so there's no reason to rag on them for it, even if you think it's bull. MT isn't breaking any forum rules (as far as I know) by posting his opinion, so let it go, and if you have a serious problem with it and can't discuss it like adults on here, take care of it in PM's at least. Tony Turner, you probably better remove that name calling line of your post before a moderator has to have a word with you about it, because I think that is against the rules. :huh:

Also, and I don't always agree or disagree with what he's saying, but MT is typing some pretty short posts, and that can be taken out of context pretty easily. So before you turn into the hulk, maybe ask him to explain what he means. If he's young, so what, that's just another viewpoint that he brings to some of the forums where we don't usually have that angle. It doesn't mean he's totally ignorant or dumb.

To his credit, although most don't like him, I've read a few of MT's posts that I thought to be insightful and quite wise. His dry humor isn't so bad sometimes either.

That's just my :2cents:.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

So you are basing your ideas and opinions on a handful of soldiers that have lost their cool in the heat of battle because they are fighting a group of terrorist that refuse to wear uniform that singles themselves out from every women, old man and young adult. Run into protected buildings that we can not fire upon because of religious meaning. Or bundle a young man up in explosives and send him into a populated area, mostly civilians, and detonate himself, so a soldier can watch the man standing next to him have a piece of shrapnel rip through his throat. There is nothing you can do, you can't return fire, you can't pursue the enemy, the only thing you can do is pick up the pieces of all the innocent and your fellow soldiers and send them home to their families. Dang right our soldiers are going to get angry and possibly handle a captive a little rough&#8230;.I DON'T CARE. Almost every post I have read by you seams like you are defending this group that hides munitions in schools, and public buildings, hide behind women when they are fired upon and then shot them in the leg so our soldiers stop to help the wounded instead of pursue them. These people you so defend and say we have no reason being in their country are the same ones that will have no problem coming into your house and slitting your throat and your families throat and smile about it, why, not because you did any thing physically to harm them, but because they feel they are doing the right thing because you are an American infidel and don't pray to Allah. These feelings that they have for us are not from what GWB has done, he has only taken the battle to them instead of being on our soil.

Do I condone the actions of this handful of soldiers, NO. But I sure do support my country and the men and women who are defending us.

My last response to tigger, I have scrapped you off the bottom of my shoe for good.


----------



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

I just want to put my say in on this thread. I'm 27 years old and new to the Air Force. I decided it was my time to serve my country and give back a little bit, because SHE has given me so much to be thankful for I can't begin to add it up. In two days I leave North Dakota behind and head down to Louisiana to start my career in the U.S. Air Force, working on B-52's. 
More of our public that has no connection to the military needs to go to a basic military base and see what OUR young men and women go through and see how proud they are to serve their country!! They have no idea the sacrifice they go through to become defenders of this nation. When my parents came down to Lackland, AFB, to see me this past fall they were in awe of what they saw there. They had the utmost respect for the military before then, but when they got there, that respect increased everyday they were there. I encourage everyone to go to San Antonio, TX on any weekend and see all the new Air Force BMT graduates and their families and see just how proud they both are of their commitment to this great nation!!
Next time you see someone in uniform, go up to them and shake their hand and tell them thanks for their service and keeping them safe at night. Trust me, it almost brings a tear to my eye when someone does that to me.

Thanks for your time.

A1C Hannesson
H2OfowlND


----------



## Gary Bottger (Nov 24, 2004)

H2O, Rude and the rest of the brave men and women that fight to keep this nation free Thank You. H2O - Just watch out for those piliots. lol Great bunch of guys are you getting in with.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So you are basing your ideas and opinions on a handful of soldiers that have lost their cool in the heat of battle because they are fighting a group of terrorist that refuse to wear uniform that singles themselves out from every women, old man and young adult.


Absolutely not. My opinion of the military as a whole is not changed, simply my opinion of said persons.



> Dang right our soldiers are going to get angry and possibly handle a captive a little rough&#8230;.I DON'T CARE.


Torture is antiquated. We are America, we are better than the sorry terrorists and backwards third world countries that torture. This is not to mention that torture doesn't produce credible results and we may be torturing someone innocent.



> These people you so defend and say we have no reason being in their country are the same ones that will have no problem coming into your house and slitting your throat and your families throat and smile about it, why, not because you did any thing physically to harm them, but because they feel they are doing the right thing because you are an American infidel and don't pray to Allah.


I don't defend terrorists nor insurgents. I defend the Muslim faith and Arabs as a whole, with the exception of those radicals who comprise the terrorists and insurgents.



> Do I condone the actions of this handful of soldiers, NO. But I sure do support my country and the men and women who are defending us.


No one is ragging on the military. We need to be able to differientiate between the military and those who have gone out of line and done illegal things.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

> I respect your opinion. I am just sick and tired of Tigger brining nothing to the table but bull crap banter that he is well know for I wish he would have just stayed gone


Right on!! :beer:


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

i am 17 an new to the ARNG and "I dont care either" to an extent
- if i was over there (and someday i hope to be) and my best bud next to me was just shot because an insurgent hid behind an innocent child during a fire fight to protect himself, i might let loose on him if i got a hold of him
MT-what do you exactly consider torturing? Just curious


----------



## SODSUCKER (Mar 24, 2005)

I enjoyed this topic for the first 2 posts. But then it went to he!!.

Thank you everybody who or has served our country, including my nephew.

SODSUCKER


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I consider torture to be any of the methods outlined by the UN, the Geneva Convention, and all international treaties considering torture, and waterboarding.

Your situation is different than torturing prisoners in a safe facility, and it is different than killing an entire family for revenge.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

MT- tell us what the Geneva Convention says about torture


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

That is way to much information to post, I'll link to it.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm



> MT, I can only say that I hope you make it.


Apology accepted.


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

Tigger how was your deer hunting season or ice fishing season??


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

SFC RUDE...... Thanks for posting this.. I dont care either. Maybe MT can take his talk on this thread to the politics form??

This thread was started for supporters of our war on terror.
You know what really eats my craw, its people posting something they really know nothing about. Im talking first hand real life experience.
The life and death and the reality. Not what we see on the news or read.
Its easy for us to sit in our comfy little world while our brave and probably scared soldiers are risking thier life so I can sit here and type without worring about being shot or having my head cut off while im still wide awake and alive.
Ask my Father what he thinks of war. He lives across the street in a retirement home. He will be really easy to find as he is missing a leg and is in a wheel chair....WWII.

Pround Member..
Bullis Post 84
Squadron 84
Sons of the American Legion


----------



## hoosier dhr (Jul 24, 2003)

Screw the Geneva convention!!!!!!

The UN should be kicked out of These Great United States. :******:

We are the Greatest Nation in the world, our military should be able to do what ever needed to finish the job.

We have given so much to the entire world and look at the thanks we get uke:

Thanks to all Military past and present, keep up the *great* work!


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Just thought I would post the true story on this letter and it's author. There is a statement by Pam on the bottom of the letter. Most of these letters are either false or written by someone with political motivation. The guy who wrote this is a free lance writer and political speech writer for, guess who? Anyway, to give stories like these credit, people attach either popular names, or in this case, common people to give some sort of value to the email. The letter is as written, but it was written as a form of propeganda, to influence a certain group of people, which it has. Giving it a no name auther, gives it a sense of patriotism...you know...this common person feels the exact same way I do. That is exactly how they want us to react. I could care less one way or the other, we all believe what we want and have our justifications one way or the other. The letter is correct, the auther isn't. Does not change a belief or opinion, it reinforces one, either way. The age of mass propeganda is among us. It really does annoy me to no end when people post stuff, when they have no idea of the source or its accuracy. That is the success of this administration, fall in line with the rest of the sheep, don't ask questions, or you hate your country. To bad being American is anti-American. I bet George and the boys got sick of hearing how they shouldn't question King George, until they kicked his *** outta the country. Please research these spam mails before we post them hear, don't be a sheep. If you believe in the message, great, but correct the source in your post. :sniper:

Here is the original story and the story behind it.

'll Care If . . .

Claim: The relative of a soldier serving in Iraq penned the 'I'll care if . . ." polemic.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2005]

Here is a strong lady!!!!

Could not have said this any better myself! especially today - The lady that wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq. Read it!

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all!

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I'll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek's lies did a few weeks ago.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and - you guessed it - I don't care!" I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!!!!!

Origins: Although the article quoted above has come to be attributed to a Pam Foster, it is actually the work of Doug Patton, a freelance columnist and political speechwriter. The e-mail-circulated version leaves off his two opening paragraphs and adds a closing "I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!" statement that wasn't in his original, but it is otherwise a faithful copy of his article, which was first published on the gopusa.com web site on 6 June 2005 under the title "Ask Me if I Care About 'Mishandling' of Koran" and which has since been reproduced on a number of other web sites.

Pamela Foster said this of how her name came to be associated with Doug Patton's article:
Hey everyone,
Just wanted to let those of you that haven't contact me that I forwarded the "I Don't Care" to my nephew serving in Baghdad after someone forwarded it to me. I don't remember who that was, nor did I think much about it until I received long distance phone calls and lots of e-mail. Everyone has been nice except for some whacko who thinks this government planned and executed 9/11. I responded that we would take up a fund for him and we would send him to any country to live that wasn't here! In any case, someone else let me know last week that a columnist named Doug Patton (google him) wrote the article and I notifed him of the response and what had happened when I forwarded the e-mail. I still don't know how it got on the "NET", but I am glad. Lots of people have sent me thank yous and some have said they would send to their government representatives and more than one has told me they sent it to the President! WOW! Had no clue what I was getting started. Anyway, God Bless everyone and the USA!

Barbara "forward movement" Mikkelson


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

SFC Rude, thanks for posting this.

*I DON'T CARE EITHER!*

*To all who are serving now and those who have in the past. THANK YOU!*

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> SFC Rude, thanks for posting this.
> 
> *I DON'T CARE EITHER!*
> 
> ...


Agreed! THANKS RUDE!

Ryan

.


----------



## Reflex (Feb 27, 2006)

Thanks SFC Rude. :beer: I would much rather read stuff posted by you than stuff posted by a hippy like Fireball. uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

As an American who cares about freedom, justice, and security, I care.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> As an American who cares about freedom, justice, and security, I care.


MT your inference that anyone who states they don't care isn't about freedom, justice, and security is BEYOND ridiculous and borderline slanderous.

But hey I DON'T CARE about what the rest of the world (AND YOU) think about this topic!

I think you need to join the military or better yet... go join some relief organization that will fly you to IRAQ. Go walk around Baghdad for a few days and see if the Fanatics love you enough to CARE about saving your sorry azz from a throat slitting. Let's see which side you run to for protection of your life... Until then... just move on to the next thread.... We are tired of your rhetoric.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Human right have to be upheld regardless. We get better intelligence from friendly interrogation than beatings and dog attacks. Thos who support torture care more about revenge than security.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Reflex said:


> Thanks SFC Rude. :beer: I would much rather read stuff posted by you than stuff posted by a hippy like Fireball. uke:


Hey now Reflex!  Not all hippies are bad! Just the radical PETA loving ones! I'm a hippy on certain issues ... But not when it comes to supporting the war and our troops!

Don't paint all hippy's with a broad brush! :beer: You should have said "stuff posted by radical liberals hell bent on winning political seats irrespective of the effect on those fighting over there!"

8)

Ryan

.


----------



## zettler (Sep 7, 2002)

I have to admit a fondness for Heinlein and his view of *citizenship as something that is not simply granted like a prize in a Cracker Jack box but earned. *

He wrote of it in one of his works where people acquire the right to vote only after two years of voluntary service to the State (or governmental body). That service can be as much civil as military, where at some point in their lives, individuals sacrificed their own interests in favor of society as a whole, as too often the predominant view is that the individual benefits from the State-maintained social (services too) organization without making a major pledge to society in return.

It was his opinion that those who made that sacrifice would have a greater sense of responsibility in electing their governing officials and charging them with better performance from the State. And for those who did subscribe to this philosophy would not be discriminated against, but rather, left outside the centers of decision making.

So when I hear someone who preaches that they care about freedom, justice, and security, and whose only vested interest is that they were born into this society, then I choose to discount their viewpoints when placed along side those who have made that sacrifice. [/u]


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Human rights supercede civil and military service. We are all human, and we all have a say in how others are treated. I choose to respect the human rights of others. One of the byproducts is better information from prisoners that can help to maintain the security of our nation and our military troops.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Human rights supercede civil and military service. We are all human, and we all have a say in how others are treated. I choose to respect the human rights of others. One of the byproducts is better information from prisoners that can help to maintain the security of our nation and our military troops.


I tend to agree with Zettler's assessment of Heinlein.

MT the right to vote is not a Human Right. What Zettler is saying is that since you haven't been in the military or participated in a voluntary service for the state. Therefore your rhetoric is just that....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT the right to vote is not a Human Right. What Zettler is saying is that since you haven't been in the military or participated in a voluntary service for the state. Therefore your rhetoric is just that....


No one is discussing the right to vote. The right to vote is not an inherent human right. We are discussing torture and human rights violations.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> No one is discussing the right to vote. The right to vote is not an inherent human right. We are discussing torture and human rights violations.


Ok MT I sure hope you find some Islamist websites and are SPAMMING them as hard as you are here. They need to all play fair and observe the Geneva convention for prisoner rights. I mean gosh... I'm sure everything the USA is doing is much harsher/violent than the what our enemy is doing correct? In your little perfect world only the USA should be chastized and condemned for it's behaviour. Maybe at the same time you are trying to fight this unconventional war with conentional war treaties, you could also ring up Osama and the other radical Muslims to start fighting a conventional war? Tell them to put on uniforms, take up ranks, and challenge the other side to a straight up fight on neutral ground. If they really stand for what they believe, they should stand up and take account of their proclamations.

MT I think it is about time we start calling a spade a spade with this War on Terror. A new convention needs to be drawn up whereby we setup new guidelines for Terrorist Wars. Since we are being hamstrung by conventional rules of war for conventional enemies, it no longer makes sense for us to be bound by rules that noone else but us plays by. I've' quite frankly had it with seeing innocent relief workers getting their throats slashed by maniacs who only know one type of reasoning. "He with the bigger sword and stronger constitution wins."

I think we need to start holding some of the very things the militants hold dear to make them re-consider their actions. If we manage to identify a militant, we will capture and execute their family. No court, no second chance. When they start fighting for their family's way of life and survival, maybe they will see that we will continue to pursue the rest of their family long after they have gone to see Allah.

Until we start intimidating them and making them back down, they are laughing at our efforts to stop them. They know no boundary, they have no respect for any human rights on any country's soil (including IRAQ), they are willing to sacrfice their life at the drop of a hat, and they have no regard for anything except a religion..... Well we are fighting a war not against a country but an ideal.

MT you talk in grandiose terms about human rights. I am a huge proponent for human rights. Unfortunately we are not making the rules of this engagement. Our enemy is using any rules it takes to make a difference.

I say we should consider doing the same.

It is time for the rules of the game to change.

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> They need to all play fair and observe the Geneva convention for prisoner rights. I mean gosh... I'm sure everything the USA is doing is much harsher/violent than the what our enemy is doing correct?


Are we not better than the terrorists and insurgents? Why should we turn to violent techniques when they are not only barbaric, but also ineffective? Why should we stoop to their level?



> Tell them to put on uniforms, take up ranks, and challenge the other side to a straight up fight on neutral ground. If they really stand for what they believe, they should stand up and take account of their proclamations.


One could argue that most every war is a "new" type of war, but human rights do not change.



> Since we are being hamstrung by conventional rules of war for conventional enemies, it no longer makes sense for us to be bound by rules that noone else but us plays by.


What is the use in fighting them for using such horrid techniques if we turn to them ourselves? How can we claim to be on the moral high ground if we use the same barbaric tactics as they do? How exactly does a ban on prisoner torture "hamstring" our military?



> I've' quite frankly had it with seeing innocent relief workers getting their throats slashed by maniacs who only know one type of reasoning. "He with the bigger sword and stronger constitution wins."


How does relief workers getting killed relate? You seem incapable of making the separation between the rules used to fight enemy combatants and the rules used to extract information from a prisoner.



> If we manage to identify a militant, we will capture and execute their family. No court, no second chance.


You advocate killing women and children or innocent relatives for the actions of an individual? Such beliefs are no better than those of the insurgents and terrorists.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

> They need to all play fair and observe the Geneva convention for prisoner rights. I mean gosh... I'm sure everything the USA is doing is much harsher/violent than the what our enemy is doing correct?





Militant_Tiger said:


> Are we not better than the terrorists and insurgents? Why should we turn to violent techniques when they are not only barbaric, but also ineffective? Why should we stoop to their level?


Ineffective? If they are so ineffective why do the terrorist video the be-headings and release the footage to Al Jezerra TV? It is because they realize that the violence intimidates the general American public who then start demanding we get out of the area for fear their loved one could succumb to such a fate. How are we sure it is ineffective? Have we ever employed such a tactic on a widespread consistent basis? Maybe it is time to use their own tactics against them..... What we are doing now is not turning the tide very fast.



> Tell them to put on uniforms, take up ranks, and challenge the other side to a straight up fight on neutral ground. If they really stand for what they believe, they should stand up and take account of their proclamations.





Militant_Tiger said:


> One could argue that most every war is a "new" type of war, but human rights do not change.


Once again you assume they are playing us on an even battlefield of human rights. Did I miss where they have been abiding by the Geneva convention?



> Since we are being hamstrung by conventional rules of war for conventional enemies, it no longer makes sense for us to be bound by rules that noone else but us plays by.





Militant_Tiger said:


> What is the use in fighting them for using such horrid techniques if we turn to them ourselves? How can we claim to be on the moral high ground if we use the same barbaric tactics as they do? How exactly does a ban on prisoner torture "hamstring" our military?


We aren't fighting them because of their "horrid" _techniques_ of war. We are fighting them for their terrorist actions.

Banning prisoner torture hamstrings our military because _this particular _enemy is emboldend when we are not as violent as they are willing to be. Unless we are willing to admit that we are fighting a terrorist war against radical militant Islam, and that we are going to use any methodology by which to win the war, we are playing a game with a different deck of cards than the opponents. I don't like putting our military at a disadvantage simply to appease some distant war mongers such as yourself.



> I've' quite frankly had it with seeing innocent relief workers getting their throats slashed by maniacs who only know one type of reasoning. "He with the bigger sword and stronger constitution wins."





Militant_Tiger said:


> How does relief workers getting killed relate? You seem incapable of making the separation between the rules used to fight enemy combatants and the rules used to extract information from a prisoner.


Are the terrorists killing the relief workers for a different reason? Are the relief workers prisoners captured to achieve a particular political/military means? Let's switch the analogy to a captured and beheaded American Military soldier. Does that change the equation for you? Do you not think that a captured individual is not tortured irrespective of their job military vs. non-military?



> If we manage to identify a militant, we will capture and execute their family. No court, no second chance.





Militant_Tiger said:


> You advocate killing women and children or innocent relatives for the actions of an individual? Such beliefs are no better than those of the insurgents and terrorists.


At this point why not? Why not change the rules of the game? If a terrorist realized his actions might incite retribution on his family and that his actions have far more dire consequenses than just his own meaningless death... WHY NOT? Yep those are the same beliefts as the terrorists (Their is no insurgency they are all terrorists now...we won't go there for purposes of this discussion though) I say we start considering advocating their kind of law... An eye for an eye... A publicly recorded & televised beheading for a beheading...

How could their be protests from their side? We are only repeating and using the very same tactics as they are using....

If any other countries have a problem with it, I say they have a legitimate voice provided they make up more than 51% of the International force on that field of engagement. Until then.. Shut up or put up....Your countrymen aren't doing the dying...we make up our rules when it's our American blood being spilled.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Ineffective? If they are so ineffective why do the terrorist video the be-headings and release the footage to Al Jezerra TV? It is because they realize that the violence intimidates the general American public who then start demanding we get out of the area for fear their loved one could succumb to such a fate. How are we sure it is ineffective? Have we ever employed such a tactic on a widespread consistent basis? Maybe it is time to use their own tactics against them..... What we are doing now is not turning the tide very fast.


I was suggesting that abusive techniques used in the pursuit of information do not yield reliable results.

Your suggestion is rather radical. You advocate beheading people on television to play mind games with their people? Why exactly are we going to bother fighting them if we become them?



> Once again you assume they are playing us on an even battlefield of human rights. Did I miss where they have been abiding by the Geneva convention?


That isn't the way it works. Being a modern and civilized nation we are required morally and socially to uphold human rights even when the enemy does not.



> We aren't fighting them because of their "horrid" techniques of war. We are fighting them for their terrorist actions.


Where do you make the separation?



> Banning prisoner torture hamstrings our military because this particular enemy is emboldend when we are not as violent as they are willing to be.


So you recommend using torture techniques just because the enemy is particularly violent. It is rather evident that you care more about revenge and mind games than you do national security.



> Unless we are willing to admit that we are fighting a terrorist war against radical militant Islam, and that we are going to use any methodology by which to win the war, we are playing a game with a different deck of cards than the opponents.


This is accepted, who are you speaking of that disagrees?



> I don't like putting our military at a disadvantage simply to appease some distant war mongers such as yourself.


What disadvantage is this? Can you give me some specific examples? How am I a war monger when I am decidedly against the war in Iraq?



> At this point why not (kill women and children in revenge)?


Why not? Because we are CIVILIZED HUMANS! You may be on our side, but you are no less radical than the insurgents and terrorists that we are at war with.



> An eye for an eye


I wonder what Jesus would have to say about that?


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Ben, I'll have to side with you on this one. I say that we bomb Pennsylvania until there's nothing left but rubble, just to show the terorists that we aren't afraid to do anything, and we are even more hardcore than them. MT, suppose we just let these terrorists carry out their humanitarian-killing... what example will that set for the rest of them for years to come? We can't let these people off thinking that Americans are soft!


----------



## Reflex (Feb 27, 2006)

Ben Elli said:


> Reflex said:
> 
> 
> > Don't paint all hippy's with a broad brush! :beer: You should have said "stuff posted by radical liberals hell bent on winning political seats irrespective of the effect on those fighting over there!"
> ...


Thats what I meant... :lol: :lol:

American propaganda is :thumb: Nobody complained like this when we were in WW2. It's sad that writers have to write stuff like this to get people to unite. If someone has a problem with how the country is run, move to the middle east and worry about getting your head cut off with a 6" knife. Hell, I'll even buy your ticket and drive you to the airport. It's liberalism like this, that makes us look like an easy target. How far out of their way do they go to make sure that their prisoners are comfortable and have a holy bible? If I had to "torture" someone to save the lives of Americans.....you bet your *** I would, in a heart beat.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

In World War Two, guys weren't generally getting interrogated by way of electrodes to the testicles either, at least not that I know of.


----------



## Reflex (Feb 27, 2006)

Different times back then boy. Even with all the liberal whiners now a days we have what you lefty kids call "torture". We didn't have many of you back in the day.....probably a whole hell of alot worse than what we do now.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

> Ineffective? If they are so ineffective why do the terrorist video the be-headings and release the footage to Al Jezerra TV? It is because they realize that the violence intimidates the general American public who then start demanding we get out of the area for fear their loved one could succumb to such a fate. How are we sure it is ineffective? Have we ever employed such a tactic on a widespread consistent basis? Maybe it is time to use their own tactics against them..... What we are doing now is not turning the tide very fast.





Militant_Tiger said:


> I was suggesting that abusive techniques used in the pursuit of information do not yield reliable results.
> 
> Your suggestion is rather radical. You advocate beheading people on television to play mind games with their people? Why exactly are we going to bother fighting them if we become them?


Ahh so you are acquiescing to my to my interpretation and backing away from your earlier statement. Excellent. You may be learning that when you awaken this sleeping tiger that it is better for you to duck tail and not challenge me when I get seriously interested in pounding your ego into the dirt.

Yes my suggestion _is_ radical! I started my whole point by saying maybe it is time we think about turning the tables on the radical terrorists. It's time the terrorists feel the wrath of the sleeping giant that they insist on poking in the eye. All of our fancy weapons, advanced technology and military muscle cannot defeat an army of women cowards that hide within mosques, plant anonymous roadside devices and hide behind innocent civilians in order to "fight" a war. They are a bunch of cowards who wouldn't be able to defend themselves in a common fist fight let alone a normal battle with the average American soldier. Therefore we need to adapt our strategy and methods to fight the war on their terms by their rules. We will push them back into their ratholes in the desert to mull over their failures, while providing a free Iraq a chance at a new beginning. Without the negative influences of the Taliban, militant clerics, Syrians, and Iranians, the Iraqi people would choose to live in peace. We will take the fighting spirit out of the hands of the terrorists when we put them in fear of destroying their families lives if they perform a transgression against a free people. The only thing besides the Koran that these freaks care about is their immediate family. Take that away and all they have left is their God.



> Once again you assume they are playing us on an even battlefield of human rights. Did I miss where they have been abiding by the Geneva convention?





Militant_Tiger said:


> That isn't the way it works. Being a modern and civilized nation we are required morally and socially to uphold human rights even when the enemy does not.


Says you. I'm suggesting it is time we consider pulling out of the Geneva convention. None of our enemies follow it. None of them care what "modern" nations think. All they care about is what Allah says. What I'm suggesting is a radical alternative. A nation needs to evolve it's policies to survive in an ever changing world. Enough is enough. As I mentioned in a previous post ... you don't seem to be "getting it" yet... I thought you were supposed to be rather bright? WE WILL CREATE A NEW CONVENTION, whereby we will reset the rules to address the tactics of terrorist nations that don't subscribe to the Geneva convention. These terrorist nations have brought this wrath down upon themselves and shouldn't start crying when we come in and kick their azzes using their own tactics against them!

[siteimg]3935[/siteimg]



Militant_Tiger said:


> What is the use in fighting them for using such horrid techniques if we turn to them ourselves?





> We aren't fighting them because of their "horrid" techniques of war. We are fighting them for their terrorist actions.





Militant_Tiger said:


> Where do you make the separation?


MT you asked me originally what is the use of fighting them for using such horrid techniques if we turn to them ourselves.... You are DENSE at times.. We would use these techniques to demoralize them at their own game thereby reducing their fervor to fight, ultimately turning the tide in the war. We need to do something so INCREDIBLY shocking that they pause before considering to engage us again. We aren't fighting them for their beheadings. We are fighting them for trying to destabilize Iraq and for their ultimate goal for the rest of the world thru their effort to infiltrate militant Islam into non Islamic free countries.

[siteimg]3937[/siteimg]



> Banning prisoner torture hamstrings our military because this particular enemy is emboldend when we are not as violent as they are willing to be.





Militant_Tiger said:


> So you recommend using torture techniques just because the enemy is particularly violent. It is rather evident that you care more about revenge and mind games than you do national security.


[siteimg]3936[/siteimg]
You know MT I think I'm going to start playing your same little immature game of putting words in another's mouth with your "interpretations" of someones character. You have a nice little habit of trying to use inflammatory words to frame an argument the direction you want to argue it. That is pathetic of you.

I _recommend_ using the *exact same *techniques that are currently being used against us. This doesn't have to do with revenge. It has to do with ending a violent terrorism element that pervades the world. Our national security is already high enough. Let's take the battle to the women cowards who refuse to stand up and identify themselves.



> I don't like putting our military at a disadvantage simply to appease some distant war mongers such as yourself.





Militant_Tiger said:


> What disadvantage is this? Can you give me some specific examples? How am I a war monger when I am decidedly against the war in Iraq?


Our military is at a disadvantage every time they have to consciously behave in a different manner than their enemy would behave in the same situation. Every time we need to handle prisoners with kid's gloves it hamstrings our military's ability to quickly efficiently get vital information about the terrorists. Because of Liberal spin whiners such as yourself and others, our military has to hold itself to a standard so high that it often impedes progress. The enemy does what it needs to do to make a point, including beheading someone to instill fear. If you can't figure out how frustrating it must be for our troops to have to fight a war against a coward enemy who hides behind women and children in mosques and then gets randomly blown up by IUD's, to then be able to capture some puke a$$hole who is clearly a terrorist combatant but you can't kick the guy in the temple for blowing your buddy's leg off because "we" are a humane fighting machine and now we can't hurt him because he falls under Geneva rules.... MT you have no SERIOUS clue as to how difficult our troops have it over there. You sit around in your cozy little room getting fat and typing on your computer, while these guys are over there getting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because of all the crap they've seen. They are tired, worn out and generally fed up with the BuLLSh!t they have to fight under.

You have the audacity to come into this thread and try and tell the guys here that you will only take the moral high ground and can NEVER understand HOW it could be that out of 100,000 troops we have a couple bad apples who get WAY more press than they deserve. Well MT I've got news for you. Those troops would come home and kick your A$$ to high hell if you told them your little moral high ground in a bar. It sounds all rosy and perfectly logical when you are sitting in the safety of your parent's house and you have lots of time to consider all the different risk/reward possiblities. Our troops are often making split second decisions that they have to live with for the rest of their lives.



Militant_Tiger said:


> At this point why not (kill women and children in revenge)?





Militant_Tiger said:


> Why not? Because we are CIVILIZED HUMANS! You may be on our side, but you are no less radical than the insurgents and terrorists that we are at war with.


[siteimg]3938[/siteimg]

Agreed MT did I NOT imply just that in my previous post? I'm proposing a radical new policy to combat rules of engagement from terrorists that make no sense. There is a reason it is _radical_... It's an attempt to combat the reality of what our troops are facing.

Yes we are civilized humans. However war is hell, and it often takes unconventional means to get the war over. Look at what we had to do to end WWII with Japan. Do you remember the answer from reading your AP history book? Do civilized countries drop atomic bombs on cities? Did we do it more than once? Was it required to drop the second one? Why did we do it?



> An eye for an eye





Militant_Tiger said:


> I wonder what Jesus would have to say about that?


Wouldn't the better question be .... "What would Mohammed say about that?" :evil:

From a Christian perspective....

Not only would it be illogical for God to say, "I love you, so justice no longer matters," were he to adopt such an attitude, the Almighty's entire reign would crumble. Justice is the very foundation of God's rulership.

*Psalms 89:14* Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you.

A commitment to justice is an inseparable part of divine perfection.

*Exodus 34:6* And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, (7) maintaining love to thousands, and *forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished*; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

*Hebrews 10:30 *For we know him who said, "It is _*mine*_ to avenge; I will repay," . . .

"An eye for an eye" comes from God's description of the divinely ordained judicial system for ancient Israel. The Almighty is far too smart not to be intensely practical. He, better than anyone in the universe, understands the need for law and order in fallen humanity. He knows the chaos we would quickly slide into if there were no earthly justice. This is so vital that even though most people have never been protected by ancient Israel's judicial system, the Lord of all has lovingly ordained that other institutions fill this role throughout humanity, right down to modern times and to your society.

*Romans 13:1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (2) Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. (4) For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. *He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer*.

*1 Peter 2:13 *Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, (14)or to *governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong *and to commend those who do right.

(Emphasis mine)

I suggest you give up arguing this thread. This is all I have to say on the matter....

Have a good night.

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Reflex said:


> Different times back then boy. Even with all the liberal whiners now a days we have what you lefty kids call "torture". We didn't have many of you back in the day.....probably a whole hell of alot worse than what we do now.


I don't suppose "back in the day" includes the Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson or Clinton, or Carter years, eh?

What we call "torture" is torture. That is accepted. I don't suppose you would want to be beaten, electrocuted, or nearly drowned either.

Different times, but human rights never change.


----------



## Reflex (Feb 27, 2006)

These schools got all you kids all screwed up. I bet you would have a different view if it was your daddy or mommy (who probably still tuck you in at night) were getting there heads SAWED OFF BY A FRIGGIN KNIFE. How the hell would you feel if the man that gave you life was trying to scream but couldn't because his windpipe was full of blood. They don't show us no mercy. Human rights my ***.

Well put Ben. I kinda got sucked into arguing with a lefty. I noticed he didn't reply to you this last time. I think we got us a Peta boy (MT). :eyeroll: I bet MT never wings a duck either.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> They are a bunch of cowards who wouldn't be able to defend themselves in a common fist fight let alone a normal battle with the average American soldier.


Absolutely, so why do you advocating using the very techniques that they use?



> Ahh so you are acquiescing to my to my interpretation and backing away from your earlier statement. Excellent.


Not at all, you simply misread my statement.



> We will take the fighting spirit out of the hands of the terrorists when we put them in fear of destroying their families lives if they perform a transgression against a free people. The only thing besides the Koran that these freaks care about is their immediate family.


How can you advocate killing woman and children for the wrongs of someone else? Not only is that not justice, it is not human.



> Take that away and all they have left is their God.


Oh indeed, because there hasn't been enough killing in the name of God over the course of history.



> A nation needs to evolve it's policies to survive in an ever changing world.


You are not suggesting an evolution, you are suggesting a devolution.



> WE WILL CREATE A NEW CONVENTION, whereby we will reset the rules to address the tactics of terrorist nations that don't subscribe to the Geneva convention.


You see, we are attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of the people of these countries. How do you suggest doing so when we no longer have the moral highground? Why should they ever play nice when we are just as bad as the barbarians we are killing?

Why you posted a picture of Muhammed I do not know. I am however certain that you are a bigot in the worst sense of the word.



> You have a nice little habit of trying to use inflammatory words to frame an argument the direction you want to argue it. That is pathetic of you.


There is no need to change your words around. You have radical, illogical and volatile views .



> It has to do with ending a violent terrorism element that pervades the world. Our national security is already high enough. Let's take the battle to the women cowards who refuse to stand up and identify themselves.


Evidently you don't understand how a terrorist is born. You see, terrorists (unlike a race of people) cannot be killed off. There will always be more of them, sometimes more and sometimes less depending on the techniques used to curtail them. You suggest using techniques just as radical as they use. This will produce yet more terrorists and turn the rest of the civilized  world against us.



> Our military is at a disadvantage every time they have to consciously behave in a different manner than their enemy would behave in the same situation.


Where do you get your information from Patton? I don't recall hearing that, ever.



> Every time we need to handle prisoners with kid's gloves it hamstrings our military's ability to quickly efficiently get vital information about the terrorists.


You see, you are leaving out key facts. Violent torture doesn't produce information, it produces lies to get that person to stop the torture. If you ever ask someone who has been tortured or someone who has used the techniques you will see what I am talking about. Our military gets poor grade information from that kind of interrogation, and it puts our country and our soldiers at risk just to allow individuals to express their anger.



> Because of Liberal spin whiners such as yourself and others, our military has to hold itself to a standard so high that it often impedes progress.


I really don't want to imagine what your ideal civilization would look like. Somehow I guess it would be a lot like Afghanistan under the Taliban.



> If you can't figure out how frustrating it must be for our troops to have to fight a war against a coward enemy who hides behind women and children in mosques and then gets randomly blown up by IUD's, to then be able to capture some puke a$$hole who is clearly a terrorist combatant but you can't kick the guy in the temple for blowing your buddy's leg off because "we" are a humane fighting machine and now we can't hurt him because he falls under Geneva rules....


Except for when it isn't a terrorist you are working with. You have this jingoistic attitude that every situation is just like the movies. That is not reality.



> You sit around in your cozy little room getting fat and typing on your computer, while these guys are over there getting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because of all the crap they've seen. They are tired, worn out and generally fed up with the BuLLSh!t they have to fight under.


Yeah, beating a possibly innocent man is a real stress reliever. You make me sick.



> You have the audacity to come into this thread and try and tell the guys here that you will only take the moral high ground and can NEVER understand HOW it could be that out of 100,000 troops we have a couple bad apples who get WAY more press than they deserve


Do you know why it gets a lot of press? Becuase we are AMERICA. We are held to a higher standard because we are the best.



> Our troops are often making split second decisions that they have to live with for the rest of their lives.


Are we not talking about interrogating prisoners? Is the guy going to run away? You could argue that there might be a bomb somewhere and only beating the person will produce answers, but are forged answers any better than no answer at all?

You have no place arguing that we should fight the insurgents, you are no better than them.

With citizens like you, who needs terrorists?


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

It's all very clear now. Ben Eli:
1.) Wants the United States Army to kill women and children
2.) Wants the United States Army to cut people's heads off
3.) Wants the United States Army to use terrorist techniques

This goes without saying...Ben Eli must be a radical Muslim under the disguise of a Christian conservative! It's easy to see, by Ben Eli posting pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, he is just trying to get us all to join the terrorist cause!!! His extremist views have led me to this conclusion. He is just pretending to be an America lover, but really he is just a American hating Muslim radical. Once a traitor, always a traitor.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

Well put Reflex!! I find it amazing how everyone can hammer on MT and he still trys to prove a pointless point. I agree that if it was his family who was being beheaded I doubt that he would have the same idea. Come on MT give it up!! If our country is so bad than why dont you go ahead and march right on over there and fight for the terrorists. Maybe the will give a s%&t about your idea of "human rights."


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> It's all very clear now. Ben Eli:
> 1.) Wants the United States Army to kill women and children
> 2.) Wants the United States Army to cut people's heads off
> 3.) Wants the United States Army to use terrorist techniques
> ...


T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 you and MT are cast out of the same mold.

Do you EVEN know what those images are? Ok boys time to go to bed for the night. Your curfew is past. Turn off the monitor and go back to bed. Put your jammies on...

MT as I stated before I'm done arguing each point with you. I suggested a radical alternative possibility. That does not make me any of the things you have tried painting me as. At this point I'm just considering (out loud on a message board) possible alternative radical potentially controversial suggestions. I'm not suggesting they are easy considerations. I realize there are many potential drawbacks. I realize I might even offend those on here who have supported me in other discussions in the past. I guess I just want to open people up to other possibilities.

I'm getting tired of the status quo. I'm tired of American Troops being the political pawns of the world. I'm tired of young idealistic kids dying for rich men's causes as much as I'm tired of them dying needing to play by rules that don't put them on an even playing field.

I really don't care what you think. You have proven yourself someone unworthy of response. Come back to me in a couple years as a US Special Forces Operator. Otherwise you are just a typical teenager from the "ME" generation who hasn't got a realistic clue of life yet.

Just remember kid. I"ve identified myself on these boards many times. Heck I even have a real pic of me for my AVATOR. That is a ton more than can be said for you hiding behind your anonymous computer screen. The amount of time you spend on these boards is outrageous. If you are honestly one individual person doing all of these posts, you have no life. The very thing you need to do to get more perspective in the world is to get out from behind that screen and live and learn. How can you possibly do that posting responses 20-75 times a day?

Things you need to seriously spend some down time pondering....

Ryan

.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

You can put me on the I DON'T CARE list. Great read, the wife and I enjoyed it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Ben I said this once and I will say it again, your suggestions are as un-American as one can possibly get. Your propositions make you not one iota better than the terrorists.


----------



## Reflex (Feb 27, 2006)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Ben I said this once and I will say it again, your suggestions are as un-American as one can possibly get. Your propositions make you not one iota better than the terrorists.


Hell ya he is better than the terrorists.......Ben can hit what he shoots at!!!! :sniper: :rollin:


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

Ben's posts are un-American? Come on MT pull your head out and take a good deep look at what you say!!


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Human right have to be upheld regardless. We get better intelligence from friendly interrogation than beatings and dog attacks. Thos who support torture care more about revenge than security.


MT,

Please regail us on how you have aquired such a vast knowledge of the effects of torture and the product thereof. I must have missed in your numerous postings where you have discussed your past military service that gave you such perfect insight into the effects of torture.

Please MT, tell us where you have grasped such first hand knowledge or like you like to say, prove to me the effects of 'friendly toture (I have never heard of 'friendly toture' by the way) and if there is a 'friendly toture', the difference with a 'non-friendly toture'.

Please MT, spread the great wealth of knowledge you have gained in your worldly travels and experiences.

Prove it or go back to bed kid.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Why even try to argue an easy to understand point with MT and alphabet soup boy? You might as well go and beat your head against the wall, it will be just as effective and you'll feel better. They, or he, or she, or whatever it is, will grow up someday and understand what is really going on in the world. Try to remember back when you were young and dumb and smarter than everyone else. 
MT and alphabet soup, please post your mugshot(s)? This would help everyone understand your shortsightedness.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I've watched a C-SPAN interview with an interrogator who I believe worked at Abu-Ghraib. He said that he got better and more information when he buddied up to the person than when he beat the person or torture them. I've also read articles online stating the same. Simply put, when you torture someone, they will tell you anything to get you to stop. When you are nice to a person, you can convince them that telling you the truth will be best for them and their country.

Ben Elli suggests using the very tactics that the bottom feeding terrorists use, and as such he is no better than they are.


----------



## mossy512 (Jan 7, 2006)

EXACTLY--- I am ex-U.S. Navy ( Should have been USMC ), But still DAMN PROUD My wife and I have a grandson in the Corps ( SEMPER FI ) and I am VERY proud of him and all the others in ALL branches doing what needs to be done. He has already been toIraq and his unit has been attached to the 13TH Marine Expiditionary Unit and they stand a chance of going to Afgahnistan. If it weren't for our military and vets (living and dead) we would not have the freedom we have. ANYONE who thinks anything being done to win this war or to get information is an atrosity, you need to get a grip. We are trying to win a war against an enemy as horrid as Hitler just more cowardly. These want to hit and run to hide they won't stand and fight like MEN. If you know anyone in service now or has been (wether they served in war or peace) THANK them for their service and sacrifices. I hope and pray we can finish this business and bring ALL our men and women home soon. In the meantime we (my wife and I) fully support our troops. As for those who don't like and want to complain about how bad we have it in this great nation make note that all I have to say is---- IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT LEAVE IT. I have no time for losers or crybabies. :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :beer: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

P.S. If it were me that found Hussein in that tunnel, he wouldn't have come out alive. I would have sworn he went for one of the guns down there with him.

SEMPER FI, IF YOU DON'T LOVE IT LEAVE IT


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You have blasted many people on here for the same thing. Why don't you enlist in the military and gain some first hand knowledge so when you begin to spew your spin you have some credibility to base your opinions on and not some show you watched where some guy said something.


Because I care too much about this country and human rights to beat a man just to prove that you get better inelligence from non violent interrogation techniques.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I've watched a C-SPAN interview with an interrogator who I believe worked at Abu-Ghraib. He said that he got better and more information when he buddied up to the person than when he beat the person or torture them. I've also read articles online stating the same. Simply put, when you torture someone, they will tell you anything to get you to stop. When you are nice to a person, you can convince them that telling you the truth will be best for them and their country.


I see. So you are going off of info that you 'think worked at...' but you have no first hand knowledge and are unable to speak of this subject with your personal knowledge. The best you can come up with to state facts of what you said is an interview with one person that you saw on T.V., interesting. Your whole basis for what you said is second hand passed information but you have personal experience, just regertitation of information that you saw on TV.

You have blasted many people on here for the same thing. Why don't you enlist in the military and gain some first hand knowledge so when you begin to spew your spin you have some credibility to base your opinions on and not some show you watched where some guy said something.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

I have a hard time believing that MT is a 16 year old kid!
Way to articulate and informed to be at that age! I have
no clue what MT maybe. Much as I know, he could be my
neighbor.

FYI, my neighbor is in his 50's and enjoys eating cheetos
and surfing porn!


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

MT- there werent pp back in WW2 that strapped bombs to themselves and blew themselves up in a crowd of innocent pp


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Lindberg9 said:


> MT- there werent pp back in WW2 that strapped bombs to themselves and blew themselves up in a crowd of innocent pp


The Japanese used terrorist techniques and tortured their prisoners too. You can claim that every war is a "new kind" of war and keep supporting breaches of international conventions and basic human rights, or you can act civilized and prove that we are better than these sorry bastards.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

MT--- Everything you are saying you have watched on TV or have gotten from some other media outlet....well that tells you something. The media will only report what they think is good news. They will not report the life soldiers are saving or the fact that many in Iraq like what the US is doing. They will report that someone miss handled a religous book, a prisioner who is complaining that they were tortured (he is a prisioner...what did he do to get there???), a cartoon of muhammod, etc. You get my point. The US wrong doings is making the news....not the good they are doing. That is the media. That is what makes good news. People are blasting President Bush right now....so anything that will make him look bad they will report. That is the biggest problem right now. Good and bad. It is good that they can report what is happening right to the minute. But they only report the bad.

Also MT----this is a war. I agree that human rights should not get violated, but it is war. If people are trying to kill you or your friends. What would you do to try to stop it. I know I would like to think I would do the human rights thing....but who knows. I have never been in that situation. I might go a different route. That is why I thank every solider I see. They are over there doing it and protecting the freedoms of our nation by all means necessary. The media you get your info from should be thanking them so they can report, the good and the bad.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Amen, Mr. Smith


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> *I agree that human rights should not get violated*, but it is war.


I completely agree with the first part, though you contradict yourself.

I know that the US troops are doing good things. I also know that they are doing bad things. I am not going to shut myself off from the bad.



> he is a prisioner...what did he do to get there??


You presume guilt until proven innocent. That flys in the face of all that we stand for.



> People are blasting President Bush right now....so anything that will make him look bad they will report.


He certainly doesn't make it tough these days.



> They are over there doing it and protecting the freedoms of our nation by all means necessary.


My freedoms wern't threatened by Iraq, but being that this is a politics forum I will let it go.

Many of you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that there is some life or death situation and that soldiers are being punished for making a split second decision. This is the exception and not the rule. In most of these cases we are talking about prisoner abuse in prisons. These bad apples beat and torture prisoners in settings far from the front lines.

When one uses violent interrogation tactics they get poor information. Anyone who truly cares about the security of the armed forces and this country will support nonviolent methods of interrogation.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

MT----In war you are guilty if you are on the other side. I know I contradicted myself. But what is meant by that statement. What would you do. I hope I would go the human rights route, but who knows. I am not there. So I am not going to rip people that are there. Because I don't know the whole situation. DO YOU, WHERE YOU THERE?

The bush statement....have you been at his press confrences or are you just seeing clips like the rest of us. You don't know what provocted into making comments. He might just have said them on his own. But who knows. I have seen reporters get what they out of interviews. They can keep bombing away with questions til you get fed up and then just start to blurt out anything.

Also I know what you are stating about the tactics some us. The information might not be as accurate. But these are the same people that are blowing themselves up for a leader who is in hidding. Maybe these tactics are getting good information. I don't know I am not there. again WERE YOU THERE????

Also your freedoms were threatened. When a nation is run by a dictator that has hatered for the US. Your freedoms are in jeopardy. If you can not see that fact, plain and simple. You don't know or respect your freedoms. Also if you are for human rights like you state you are. You should be for this war. They are helping the people of Iraq to have freedom. They will not have to worry about getting killed by a ruler just because they have an opinion. Sadam Killed a village for one assasination attempt. Did the us blow up or wipe out dallas for JFK? What Sadam did in that city is a huge violation of human rights.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So I am not going to rip people that are there. Because I don't know the whole situation. DO YOU, WHERE YOU THERE?


To be quite honest you can't justify human rights violations to me. I will rip people who are there for violating human rights because they need to be kept in check. We don't unleash the dogs of war when we go to battle.



> The bush statement....have you been at his press confrences or are you just seeing clips like the rest of us. You don't know what provocted into making comments. He might just have said them on his own. But who knows. I have seen reporters get what they out of interviews. They can keep bombing away with questions til you get fed up and then just start to blurt out anything.


I watch CSPAN. I see most conferences in their entirety. If this president can't stand the heat of media questioning he should get out of the kitchen. The truth prevails, he should try that.



> But these are the same people that are blowing themselves up for a leader who is in hidding. Maybe these tactics are getting good information. I don't know I am not there. again WERE YOU THERE????


Again, you get better information from nonviolent interrogation than from violent methods. If you really care about this country and about the troops you will support nonviolent methods of interrogation to ensure that we have the best possible information.



> Also your freedoms were threatened. When a nation is run by a dictator that has hatered for the US. Your freedoms are in jeopardy. If you can not see that fact, plain and simple. You don't know or respect your freedoms. Also if you are for human rights like you state you are. You should be for this war. They are helping the people of Iraq to have freedom.


Hussien did not pose a threat to the United States when we went to war. I know my freedoms better than most and I am certain that I would have them today if we didn't invade Iraq.

It is not the role of the United States to police the globe. We do not have the right nor the resources to do so.



> Sadam Killed a village for one assasination attempt.


Some would argue that we have killed 30,000 in the pursuit of the man who plotted an assassination attempt, too.



> They will not have to worry about getting killed by a ruler just because they have an opinion.


They only have to worry about daily explosions and sectarian violence. The cure seems worse than the malady.


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

Tigger I knew I would not have to look to long to find your nonsence.. Do you ever go to school anymore?? or are you to busy ice fishing or hunting man we all know that can't be it because you got to be the only guest on here with over three thousand posts of nothing but worthless crap. Go crawl back in your hole


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I've got as much time as it takes to get the truth out.


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

Well you seem to think there is a lot of truth to spread when do you get time to get out and enjoy the outdoors??


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

Mt
How can u be certain you would have the same freedoms today- what if you were on an innocent plane ride that was hyjacked and crashed into a desolate field in michigan-alot of "what ifs" could have happened

You live in a free nation so dont take your freedoms for granted-the iraqis sure arent


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> How can u be certain you would have the same freedoms today- what if you were on an innocent plane ride that was hyjacked and crashed into a desolate field in michigan-alot of "what ifs" could have happened


Because the Iraqis didn't hijack any planes.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

Alquida there big guy and they were and still are house in Iraq


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Lindberg9 said:


> Alquida there big guy and they were and still are house in Iraq


They weren't then, but they certainly are now. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I've got as much time as it takes to get the truth out.


The problem is that the truth according to M_T is not necessarily the truth. You have proven to me that your idea of the truth is twisted so far out of whack that it is both laughable and sad. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida

But you're free to manufacture your own truth if you choose.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

I guess there have never been any terrorist camps anywhere in iraq-i should take a class with MT-very smart kid


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Lindberg9 said:


> I guess there have never been any terrorist camps anywhere in iraq-i should take a class with MT-very smart kid


That wasn't the question, the question was did they have any involvement with 9/11. They didn't.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

An opinion article:

Washington Times
March 28, 2006
Pg. 20

What The Captured Documents Show

By Mona Charen

President Bush has made errors, as all humans do, but one thing he has not been guilty of is bad faith. The same cannot be said of his critics.

One thinks of those liberals and Democrats who accused President Bush of "lying" about weapons of mass destruction and about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq particularly now, because two weeks ago, after an unaccountable delay of three years, the administration declassified and released thousands of documents captured from Saddam Hussein's regime. They offer more proof of what we've already learned from other sources: that Saddam was in collusion with al Qaeda; that he did instruct his people on hiding evidence of WMDs; and that he did support worldwide terror.

Before turning to the documents, though, it is worth pausing for a moment to dwell on the bad faith of Mr. Bush's opponents. The whole world knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons at least twice: once against the Iranians and once against the Kurds within Iraq. (He had also threatened to use them against Israel.) The whole world further knew that Saddam engaged in a protracted game of cat and mouse with United Nations weapons inspectors, first throwing roadblocks in their path and finally expelling them from the country (a violation of the cease-fire agreement that followed the 1991 Gulf War, which required Iraq to account for its weapons and prove that they had been dismantled and destroyed).

The entire world also knew that the U.S. and Britain had not rushed to war with Iraq. To the contrary, the build-up to the 2003 invasion was lengthy and deliberate, giving ample time to the Iraqi dictator to hide or destroy his WMDs.

And yet when coalition forces failed to find caches of weapons, the cry on the left was "Bush lied." It doesn't even make logical sense. Why would Mr. Bush want to launch a war on false pretenses? Would he purposely create a political problem for himself? Why? To enrich Halliburton? This is fever swamp talk. Yet it was heard among leading members of the Democratic Party, not just in the MoveOn.org milieu.

Nor was it correct to claim, as so many on the left did, that Mr. Bush altered the rationale for war after he failed to find WMDs. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, on the eve of the invasion, the president sketched his vision of a democratic Iraq that he hoped would begin the transformation of the despotic and violent Middle East into something more enlightened and free. He mentioned "disarming" Iraq by force, but it was far from the sole rationale for war.

Three years in, we are hearing from the summer soldiers. The pacification of Iraq is proving more difficult than anticipated. Even some on the right are throwing in the towel. But as the Wall Street Journal wisely editorialized, the consequences of failure -- by which they mean capitulation on our part -- would be utterly catastrophic.

The radical Islamists will claim that they defeated the United States and chased us out of Iraq just as they defeated the Soviets and chased them out of Afghanistan. And every moderate-leaning Arab and Muslim in the world will shrug his shoulders and give up. It will embolden the terrorists tremendously to see the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. The corresponding plunge in morale at home will rival if not exceed post-Vietnam syndrome. Iran will seize the opportunity to impose a Shi'ite theocracy on Iraq, and Afghanistan will feel the reverberations and tremble on its still shaky foundations.

Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein. When bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan, the Iraqi documents contain a handwritten note saying, "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location" (Afghanistan). The notes also reveal that Osama bin Laden suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding U.N. inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored."

Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.

huntin1


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

if i am not correct, which i amsure u will correct me if i am not, the 9/11 panel said there was no link between the alquida group and the the gov't of iraq


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You are right M_T there has been no direct evidence showing that Saddam had any thing to do with 9/11.

However, the evidence is there that he was involved with al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda is Osama, Osama and al-Qaeda were involved with 9/11.

You just choose not to see it.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> However, the evidence is there that he was involved with al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda is Osama, Osama and al-Qaeda were involved with 9/11.


He did not aid in 9/11, that is the bottom line.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

When you were a little kid,or if u still are, did you ever take a drawing book and a pencil and CONNECT THE DOTS, 
You are so one sided on this issue that u are refusing to even consider the facts
Ryan


----------



## Reflex (Feb 27, 2006)

I wanna know why M_T is even on a HUNTING AND FISHING FORUM????? Shouldn't you be helping Engrid Newkirk or working for some liberal community college some where.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Lindberg9 said:


> When you were a little kid,or if u still are, did you ever take a drawing book and a pencil and CONNECT THE DOTS,
> You are so one sided on this issue that u are refusing to even consider the facts
> Ryan


The single most trusted comission on the issue says he didn't have a thing to do with it. You are free to create facts as you please, doesn't make it true.


----------



## Cleankill47 (Jan 19, 2006)

First off, thanks to all who have served. If it weren't for college coming up, I'd be fighting, shooting, and bleeding right next to you, a USMC Sniper. But, since the topics at hand aren't such, I guess I'll have to address them.

Militant_Tiger,

"The Truth", as you so lovingly call it, has the capability to be far from where you think it is. Unfortunately, not everything in the press is true, simply for the fact that the Government does everything in its power to keep the people calm, since that accomplishes much more than keeping people informed. (The L.A. Riots) Now I am not a conspiracy freak, nor do I follow any of them, but it does make considerable amount of sense for the Government to keep certain things quiet, to change this, or tweak that, to try and keep the peace overall throughout the country.

I don't care if Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, he tortured his own people, and as far as I know, (due to the new released papers) aided Osama Bin Laden. So, if he (or Osama) were in front of me, and someone gave me a 9mm or a .45 and said "Have at him", I would very quickly solve one of the world's greatest problems, and I wouldn't flinch, because although someone can be nice when they have to, doesn't mean they'll keep being that way once you let them go. How many murderers have been interviewed on the Discovery channel who seemed like nice guys? Would you let them go just because they promised you something, contract or not? They are on Death Row, some have been waiting for years, and because of the legal process, Saddam is now in the court system. If just _one_ person, one _American_ screws something up, he won't balk at the chance to get out by using the system against itself. And we would have to let him go.

Now, to address the 'torture' issue:

If you had a daughter who's boyfriend was stalking her, or gave her a black eye and you couldn't prove it, wouldn't you take a little action on your own? Now try to picture that someone has just killed one, or even a few friends that you have served with, and known since high school, or even just since Basic, and you've got this person, who's directly responsible, in the desert with a few sticks and some surgical equipment. Tell me nothing will happen, and mean it. Can you? I can't.

Here's who we need:

General "Black Jack" Pershing.

Born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, Mississippi 
Died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C. 
1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska 
1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War 
1901 Awarded rank of Captain 
1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadier General 
1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines 
1916 Made Major General 
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies 
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff 
1924 Retires from active duty 
Education: 4 Years-West Point

One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it's interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.

So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.

The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.

They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a muslim fanatic anywhere in the world.

Now, the question is, Where can we find another Black Jack Pershing?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If you had a daughter who's boyfriend was stalking her, or gave her a black eye and you couldn't prove it, wouldn't you take a little action on your own? Now try to picture that someone has just killed one, or even a few friends that you have served with, and known since high school, or even just since Basic, and you've got this person, who's directly responsible, in the desert with a few sticks and some surgical equipment. Tell me nothing will happen, and mean it. Can you? I can't.


You assume guilt until proven innocent. You may like to beat someone for revenge, but you cannot because there are human rights agreements that we have signed because we are a modern country.



> I don't care if Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, he tortured his own people, and as far as I know, (due to the new released papers) aided Osama Bin Laden.


We don't have the right to invade countries as we please. We already invaded Saddam once for what he did to his own people, you can't try him twice for that crime. He did not aid Osama around or during 9/11.



> Unfortunately, not everything in the press is true, simply for the fact that the Government does everything in its power to keep the people calm, since that accomplishes much more than keeping people informed.


That is why I am relying on the 9/11 comission.

Note that not everything the government says is true either.



> First off, thanks to all who have served. If it weren't for college coming up, I'd be fighting, shooting, and bleeding right next to you, a USMC Sniper. But, since the topics at hand aren't such, I guess I'll have to address them.


Everyone could use an excuse like that. If you really wanted to you would be there now.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

Mt- if you knew even the slightest bit about the military you would no that thre are things that interfere with the deployment of college soldiers. At least he joined the armed forces and isnt hiding behind a computer pointing out all the problems with our troops and or the government/militaries actions in Iraq


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Lindberg9 said:


> Mt- if you knew even the slightest bit about the military you would no that thre are things that interfere with the deployment of college soldiers. At least he joined the armed forces and isnt hiding behind a computer pointing out all the problems with our troops and or the government/militaries actions in Iraq


I believe he implied that he would have joined had it not been for college. If I am mistaken, I retract my remark.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

MT----You keep using the guilt until proven innocennt....it time of war if you are on the otherside....you are guilty. That is a fact. If you are going to kill a US troop or have been trained to you are guilty. The US soliders that are using the torture methods are not pulling out the innocent people. They are doing it towards troops or people that have tried to kill them or are trained to kill them.

I agree totally that you have to obey all the laws governing war. But sometimes people slip and need to be kept in check.

Also you are so big on the human rights issue and you oppose the US in Iraq. How can that be. One of the biggest reasons the US is over there is to give or get human rights to the Iraqi people. Also that is why the US polices the world.

MT you do a great job of opening up peoples minds getting them to think. But you yourself need to do the same.

I know it is hard on a forum to do that because you are facing a multi front battle. You get thrown off of different disscussions and what not.

But if you are only 16.....you have a lot of living and learning to do. Also you are relying way too much of your info on the media. You should talk to people who have been over seas....fighting the war, civilian contractors, or just people who have visiting from another country. Ask those vistors there veiws of everything going on.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT----You keep using the guilt until proven innocennt....it time of war if you are on the otherside....you are guilty. That is a fact.


The only issue being that you DON'T know if that person is on the other side, and you don't know what they have done. You presume guilt until proven innocent, and that flys in the face of what America stands for.



> The US soliders that are using the torture methods are not pulling out the innocent people. They are doing it towards troops or people that have tried to kill them or are trained to kill them.


So they are getting revenge as opposed to getting good information? That is a weak trade off.



> Also you are so big on the human rights issue and you oppose the US in Iraq. How can that be. One of the biggest reasons the US is over there is to give or get human rights to the Iraqi people. Also that is why the US polices the world.


The reasoning was to remove WMDs. They changed the mission halfway through and claimed that it was a humnaitarian mission. 30,000 some odd Iraqis have died. The cure is as bad as the malady.

The United States does not have the right nor the resources to police the globe.



> You should talk to people who have been over seas....fighting the war, civilian contractors, or just people who have visiting from another country. Ask those vistors there veiws of everything going on.


A friend of mine is an Iraqi Shi'ite who still has a lot of family in Baghdad. I try to get most of information from the horse's mouth, as such I watch CSPAN more than anything else. The media is generally a trustworthy source provided that you can pick out and ignore evident bias.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The only issue being that you DON'T know if that person is on the other side, and you don't know what they have done. You presume guilt until proven innocent, and that flys in the face of what America stands for.


The troops do know who is on the otherside.....If they are shooting at a US troop. They are on the otherside.

I totally agree that the US does not have the resources to police the world. But we are the only country that will police the world. Try to imagine what the world would be like if the US did not police the world. Look at the past wars. I know the US has egg on its face from the Vietnam war. Imagine what Sadam would have done if the US did not go over the first time. Ask your friend if Sadam was a good leader or if he is happy that Sadam is out of power.


----------



## Cleankill47 (Jan 19, 2006)

All right, MT, what exactly is it that you are trying to say, huh? So far, all I have seen is contradiction after contradiction, and you just keep talking, but you haven't really said anything, have you?



> He did not aid Osama around or during 9/11.


You certainly post a lot about what other people across the world are doing, and, to be blunt, How the hell would _*you*_ know?



> You assume guilt until proven innocent. You may like to beat someone for revenge, but you cannot because there are human rights agreements that we have signed because we are a modern country.


So you mean that you wouldn't kick the guy's a$$ who hurt your daughter? And you wouldn't kill the guy who killed your friends? Where is your reasoning? (I shouldn't have made it seem like you had him captured, but wouldn't you shoot back? You know they have no such agreements when they capture our people, so why give them hope? The whole point of this war is to get them to surrender, and they won't do that if they think we are going to be civil the whole way through it.)



> Note that not everything the government says is true either.


I _know_ that, what I said was that everything _you_ hear that _you_ keep attesting to, isn't necessarily the truth, and that you shouldn't preach something that you haven't seen with your own eyes.



> Everyone could use an excuse like that. If you really wanted to you would be there now.


How dare you flip my words around, you inconsiderate, haughty little lout. If I did not have the chance to go to college, then yes, I would proudly be a Marine. Just because I don't jump at the chance to fight, doesn't mean I wouldn't do it proudly if I had to.

It is people like you who make it difficult to live in peace, and you should seriously consider a change of your thought process before you go typing B.S.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The troops do know who is on the otherside.....If they are shooting at a US troop. They are on the otherside.


It is not that cut and dry. One cannot assume guilt.



> Try to imagine what the world would be like if the US did not police the world.


I assure you that there would be far less anti-American sentiment. We don't have the right to police the globe.



> Quote:
> He did not aid Osama around or during 9/11.
> 
> You certainly post a lot about what other people across the world are doing, and, to be blunt, How the hell would you know?


The 9/11 Comission, and every other trustworthy source on the topic.



> So you mean that you wouldn't kick the guy's a$$ who hurt your daughter? And you wouldn't kill the guy who killed your friends? Where is your reasoning? (I shouldn't have made it seem like you had him captured, but wouldn't you shoot back? You know they have no such agreements when they capture our people, so why give them hope? The whole point of this war is to get them to surrender, and they won't do that if they think we are going to be civil the whole way through it.)


We have a justice system for a reason. Your situations are a far cry from the torture that occurs in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.



> I know that, what I said was that everything you hear that you keep attesting to, isn't necessarily the truth, and that you shouldn't preach something that you haven't seen with your own eyes.


If people only spoke about what they see with their own eyes, we wouldn't have many historians.



> Quote:
> Everyone could use an excuse like that. If you really wanted to you would be there now.
> 
> How dare you flip my words around, you inconsiderate, haughty little lout. If I did not have the chance to go to college, then yes, I would proudly be a Marine. Just because I don't jump at the chance to fight, doesn't mean I wouldn't do it proudly if I had to.
> ...


You know I could claim that if it wasn't for college I would be in the Marines too, that doesn't make it true. The Marines need new blood, if you really wanted to be there, you would be.


----------



## Cleankill47 (Jan 19, 2006)

Quote: 
The troops do know who is on the otherside.....If they are shooting at a US troop. They are on the otherside.

It is not that cut and dry. One cannot assume guilt.

So, you wouldn't shoot at someone who was shooting at you, because you aren't sure whose side they're on? It doesn't matter if they're 'guilty', war is war, and if you're in it, then you want to be the one standing, not the other guy.

MT, if you hate the U.S. so much, then go live overseas. I'm getting tired of your bashing of the policies and actions of the gov't.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So, you wouldn't shoot at someone who was shooting at you, because you aren't sure whose side they're on? It doesn't matter if they're 'guilty', war is war, and if you're in it, then you want to be the one standing, not the other guy.


That is the hollywood type of thinking, that there are good guys and bad guys and that is that. The guys that are being interrogated are assumed to be guilty, and are assumed to be terrorists. They haven't been proven as such, and they are innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Alright.....I am getting sick of repeating myself. If someone fires upon a US troop they are against the US......so they are guilty. In war that is the way it is.

Also the anti-american thing.......yes, People are anti-american of the policing thing. But they are also anti-american because of propaganda, the freedoms that US citizens have, the arrogance of US people, US citizens have a better life (some instances), Most US citizens get an education, Most US citizens are not starving, medical treatment that is available, etc.

What I am saying is people are jealous of the freedoms and oppurtunities that are in the US...so in turn they dislike the US.

It is human nature not to like something or someone if their situation is better than yours or better off than you.

Example: The homecoming Queen in a huge school.... People will name call (call them spoiled, snotty, snobby, preppy, etc.) How many of those people have sat down and talked with homecoming queen. Probabbly not to many.

Get my point many people who have the anti-american feelings have never lived outside of there country and are just going off of nothing but jealousy. (I know that is an arrogant statement....but the truth. I have talked with many people from different countries. I have back packed Europe, lived in Hostels. I have had this discussion over and over when I was in Europe for 3 months. I studied abroad in Australia. I visited Japan on business for 3 weeks) Yes the US has done things to have the hatred at them. But many are basing there anti-american hatred off of jealousy. That is just plain and simple. You can not change my thinking because I have discussed with many people, and have visited many countries.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Alright.....I am getting sick of repeating myself. If someone fires upon a US troop they are against the US......so they are guilty. In war that is the way it is.


It is not that black and white. These people being tortured are not all found as enemy combatants.



> What I am saying is people are jealous of the freedoms and oppurtunities that are in the US...so in turn they dislike the US.


It takes more than jealousy to get someone to kill themselves to kill you.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> It takes more than jealousy to get someone to kill themselves to kill you.


Now you are talking religion not politics. Jihad (killing themselves to reach their religous heaven) is a religious belief. The Iraqi insurgents or militants are using religous beliefs to help fuel thier cause or want to fight the US. Religion and politics don't mix!

Ask your friend this....If the Iraqi militants just wanted the US out of the country why don't they just help establish a new goverment? The US will leave once the a new goverment gets its feet under them.

Now since you are so non-violent and human rights motivated. Why don't the millitants just work with the US and get a involved with creation of the new goverment.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

They want their government, not a US aided government.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

OK.........I give you a challenge. You go out and find one goverment out in the world (an established goverment that is working...not one in the congo that gets over thrown in two weeks.) that is not is some shape or for US aided.

Now that means no trade with the US, no Help from US (that is red cross or any international aid programs that the US has any dealings in.), millitary help, millitary base, etc.

One thing they need to realize is that every goverment is US aided is some way shape or form.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Chuck Smith said:


> OK.........I give you a challenge. You go out and find one goverment out in the world (an established goverment that is working...not one in the congo that gets over thrown in two weeks.) that is not is some shape or for US aided.
> 
> Now that means no trade with the US, no Help from US (that is red cross or any international aid programs that the US has any dealings in.), millitary help, millitary base, etc.
> 
> One thing they need to realize is that every goverment is US aided is some way shape or form.


Policing the globe is different than trading with the US.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

ttt


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> They want their government, not a US aided government.


You are totally contradicting yourself.......US aid in any shape or form is US aid.

Now I gave you a challenge....are you going to accept it or not.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Example: The homecoming Queen in a huge school.... People will name call (call them spoiled, snotty, snobby, preppy, etc.) How many of those people have sat down and talked with homecoming queen. Probabbly not to many.


Chuck: Somebody must have talked to the homecoming queen up in Langdon. She was like 6-7 months pregnant when they crowned her homecoming queen.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

live2hunt: now "talked  " and talked are two different things.....


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

:withstupid:


----------

