George Bush's Statement of Faith

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
so nine total......wow pol pot, stalin, and hitler must be turning in their graves.  

I don't think our founding fathers are resting well.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

When speaking about torturing 'terrorists' where do you pull the line?

What defines a terrorist?

Is it required for the said person to be found guilty to a terrorist act of some sort or is it enough to just oppose US military forces somewhere around the world?

What I'm getting here is that are standard combatants of certain areas automatically treated as terrorists even if they were fighting against an occupying force in their country i.e. having nothing to do with ideals of terrorism.

I believe they are. And that's where your logic also fails.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SaburoS
I don't think our founding fathers are resting well.

well that's assuming these guys were tortured in the first place.  Abused probably, but tortured.......

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
When speaking about torturing 'terrorists' where do you pull the line?

What defines a terrorist?

Is it required for the said person to be found guilty to a terrorist act of some sort or is it enough to just oppose US military forces somewhere around the world?

What I'm getting here is that are standard combatants of certain areas automatically treated as terrorists even if they were fighting against an occupying force in their country i.e. having nothing to do with ideals of terrorism.

I believe they are. And that's where your logic also fails.

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?
That's a powerful ideal that seperates the civilized from the others.
You *have* to believe that they are all terrorists to justify their *treatment*.
That's where your thinking fails.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
well that's assuming these guys were tortured in the first place.  Abused probably, but tortured.......

I take it you're assuming they were not tortured.
Abusing prisoners is a form of torture.
*Abusing* people under certain conditions can lead to innocent people agreeing to anything.
Everyone has a limit before they lose it.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SaburoS
I take it you're assuming they were not tortured.
Abusing prisoners is a form of torture.
*Abusing* people under certain conditions can lead to innocent people agreeing to anything.
Everyone has a limit before they lose it.

I think people are innocent until proven guilty.  But, interrogation is a nesecary evil on a battlefield.  I think this is all blown out of proportion in order to hurt president bush.....wich it does, and every other soldier in the field doing his job.

I do not see any evidence of a systematic policy concerning torture.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think people are innocent until proven guilty.  But, interrogation is a nesecary evil on a battlefield.  I think this is all blown out of proportion in order to hurt president bush.....wich it does, and every other soldier in the field doing his job.

I do not see any evidence of a systematic policy concerning torture.

I take it you're saying it is okay to "abuse" the innocent under certain conditions?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Sorry SaburoS I didn't mean that as a reply to your post.. I mean the logic of those who think it's ok to abuse prisoners fails. It fails if the conditions of fair trial are not met.

War makes things so difficult. So if one would say that a car bombing in iraq is terrorism if it kills 20 civillians on site.

What if that car bomb was primarily targeted at a US tank for example?

How does that differ from the guided bomb droped from an F16 to a AAA position sitting on top of an appartment building? Both are collateral damage. Both are planned, both know well that civillians will die.

So when you look at it from the side that suffers, they make no difference.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SaburoS
I take it you're saying it is okay to "abuse" the innocent under certain conditions?

  No I don't condone that either but again I don't see a wide spread systematic policy that promotes it here.  

Then again I trust the operators out in the field to make the call way before I trust a politician in washington to do so.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Sorry SaburoS I didn't mean that as a reply to your post.. I mean the logic of those who think it's ok to abuse prisoners fails. It fails if the conditions of fair trial are not met.

War makes things so difficult. So if one would say that a car bombing in iraq is terrorism if it kills 20 civillians on site.

What if that car bomb was primarily targeted at a US tank for example?

How does that differ from the guided bomb droped from an F16 to a AAA position sitting on top of an appartment building? Both are collateral damage. Both are planned, both know well that civillians will die.

So when you look at it from the side that suffers, they make no difference.

There is a huge difference between targeting civilians with a car bomb and targeting a legitimate military targets were civilians might be colateral damage.  One is intended to cause as much death and destruction as possible while the later makes vast efforts to reduce civlian casualties.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

That is true gunslinger. But let's say a IED is placed next to a busy road and a tank passes by. Explosion happens and 3-4 civillian cars are destroyed in the process.

How does that differ from doing the same from a F-117? Furthermore so, if Iraqi rebels managed to get a Mig-29 up and deliver the payload through air to the same road, would it be any different?

We all remember the images from Kosovo where a railroad bridge was bombed just as a passenger train went over it. The half destroyed train was then hit again by a guided bomb. Did Nato commit an act of terror there? Surely they knew after the initial impact that a train got caught in between.

Still they hit it again.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
That is true gunslinger. But let's say a IED is placed next to a busy road and a tank passes by. Explosion happens and 3-4 civillian cars are destroyed in the process.

How does that differ from doing the same from a F-117? Furthermore so, if Iraqi rebels managed to get a Mig-29 up and deliver the payload through air to the same road, would it be any different?

We all remember the images from Kosovo where a railroad bridge was bombed just as a passenger train went over it. The half destroyed train was then hit again by a guided bomb. Did Nato commit an act of terror there? Surely they knew after the initial impact that a train got caught in between.

Still they hit it again.

yes as far as I've seen with the battle/news reports the people we are fighting want to cause as much damage and death as possible were as I know the US military, especially the air assets, go to great pains to minimize colateral damage.  

Mostly I'd have to say it is a matter of intent.  I honestly beleive the US military cares about who get's killed were as the opfor does not.

But when it is all said and done collateral damage is mostly woman children and civilians killed wich in any case is tragic.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Mostly I'd have to say it is a matter of intent.  I honestly beleive the US military cares about who get's killed were as the opfor does not.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Bear with me, I'm thinking this through as I type.  

Habib has plants and IED and triggers it when a hummer goes by, some civilians die in the resulting explosion.  They are collateral casualties in his attack on a valid military target.  So, no different than if an F-15 blows up a valid target and kills some civilians in the process.

Remember, your insurgent may vary.

Your Sunni insurgent that targets the coallition's military forces and Iraqi National Guard forces, isn't you Al Qaeda terrorist that blows up anyone to try and breed chaos in Iraq.


I'm not sure this whole "targeting", "caring" and "intent" thing pays off anyway.  Dead civilians are dead civilians.  In a massive overstatement to make my point...Party A launches a nuke at a city where there is known to be a valid military target of Party B.  Tens of thousands of civilians die.

Party A:  "Well, we were targeting a valid military target."

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Gunslinger


I do not see any evidence of a systematic policy concerning torture.

Originally posted by -tronski-
You've never heard of Extraordinary Rendition?
 
 Tronsky

Extraordinary Rendition
Sydney Morning Herald  
The New Yorker
Washington Post
Guardian
 
 Tronsky

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by -tronski-
You've never heard of Extraordinary Rendition?
 
 Tronsky

It appears that it came into presidential approval during Clinton's term...nice guy