• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

Thunder said:
of course not.

that's why we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.

we are decent, moral, and just. while they are sadistic, cruel, and evil.
Click to expand...

How do you beat people that act with such a mentality by "being nice to them"?
 
Marshall said:
How do you beat people that act with such a mentality by "being nice to them"?
Click to expand...

terrorists in the battlefield of course have to be killed if they can't be taken prisoner.

but terrorists in the USA, need to be caught and put on trial.

.....or should we just shoot anyone suspected of terrorism and ask questions later?
 
Thunder said:
terrorists in the battlefield of course have to be killed if they can't be taken prisoner.

but terrorists in the USA, need to be caught and put on trial.

.....or should we just shoot anyone suspected of terrorism and ask questions later?
Click to expand...

Who is calling for that? I didnt notice a single mention of that in my post. Of course, if they are United States citizens, they are entitled to the due process of law.
 
Marshall said:
Who is calling for that? I didnt notice a single mention of that in my post. Of course, if they are United States citizens, they are entitled to the due process of law.
Click to expand...

actually, if they are caught in pretty much all states, they get some form of due process.

the only time we can just kill a supposed terrorist, is on a battlefield.
 
Thunder said:
of course not.

that's why we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.

we are decent, moral, and just. while they are sadistic, cruel, and evil.
Click to expand...



So you put these soldiers in the same category of "sadistic, cruel, and, evil", for the "crime" of snapping a picture?
 
ric27 said:
Hmmm....conspiracy? Thats what happens when one sees terrorism as a crime instead of an act of war. They truly believe that terrorism is a crime and trial and punishment is the way. They still don't understand that 9-11 was an act of war. They are still trying to figure out what we did to *cause* it.
Click to expand...

There was no declaration of war and the ALQ is not a nation state.

Clinton himself said it, "We didn't have enough on him." I personally believe we still don't (Bin Laden was not a shooter or even a planner. His death is important only symbolically. Only)
Click to expand...

I disagree completely.

Point is...you don't try and convict terrorists, you shoot them in their ****ing faces. You negotiate with their replacements before they murder women and children.
Click to expand...

I can't argue against the sentiment, but even war criminals get a trial...if they live long enough.
 
mac said:
Yes....yes, he does.

:shock:
Click to expand...

:2bigcry: stop lying about his posts. :2bigcry:

Just thought I'd save him the trouble of posting it. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. I actually think you're confusing arguments, and making connections not really there.
Click to expand...

The only connection that matters is that the Taliban protected the Al-Queda organization. They chose to be our enemy and stood with Al-Queda. Since getting to Al-Queda meant going through the Taliban, this was a military issue. The confusion people have is that they want their military to be cops. We are not cops. We kill. They arrest. Of course, whatever terrorist is captured by the military is a prisoner and is handed over to the justice system. But the best thing any "soldier" can do when he has one in his sights is to pull the trigger and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
The only connection that matters is that the Taliban protected the Al-Queda organization. They chose to be our enemy and stood with Al-Queda. Since getting to Al-Queda meant going through the Taliban, this was a military issue. The confusion people have is that they want their military to be cops. We are not cops. We kill. They arrest. Of course, whatever terrorist is captured by the military is a prisoner and is handed over to the justice system. But the best thing any "soldier" can do when he has one in his sights is to pull the trigger and be done with it.
Click to expand...

But then we'd have to deal with him. This administration prefers you just kill them.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think there is nothing more "immoral" than those who are unwilling to fight, who critisize those who would to protect them. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sign up, stand a watch or shut the **** up
 
Manc Skipper said:
He does better at it than your grasp of morality.
Click to expand...

:doh


Manc, you may want to pick up on the fact that every individual with actual experience in war here thinks that Thunder is being a moron. You are too smart to make yourself look stupid by trying to defend him.
 
MSgt said:
The only connection that matters is that the Taliban protected the Al-Queda organization. They chose to be our enemy and stood with Al-Queda. Since getting to Al-Queda meant going through the Taliban, this was a military issue. The confusion people have is that they want their military to be cops. We are not cops. We kill. They arrest. Of course, whatever terrorist is captured by the military is a prisoner and is handed over to the justice system. But the best thing any "soldier" can do when he has one in his sights is to pull the trigger and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Protected? They were doing a decent job of that in Pakistan. Seems I recall money for 9/11 came from Pakistan as well. But hey, let's nto quibble. The fact si getting him would be one thing. Nation building another.

And no, prisoners have gone to some pretty damn poor places, and some were innocent. Dead, but innocent.
 
cpwill said:
:doh


Manc, you may want to pick up on the fact that every individual with actual experience in war here thinks that Thunder is being a moron.
Click to expand...

I'll add...Gross ass clowning contributing to deviation from serious topics, criminal trespassing of a great forum and I think aggravated ignorance should be added to the other charges
 
Boo Radley said:
Protected? They were doing a decent job of that in Pakistan. Seems I recall money for 9/11 came from Pakistan as well. But hey, let's nto quibble. The fact si getting him would be one thing. Nation building another.

And no, prisoners have gone to some pretty damn poor places, and some were innocent. Dead, but innocent.
Click to expand...

The Taliban provided safe haven for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plan, finance, prepare, and train for terrorist attacks throughout the world, including 9/11. They protected Bin Laden and AQ and sheltered them. The Taliban permitted terrorist training camps throughout the country. We absolutely needed to come there.

The Northern Alliance could have taken Kabul much sooner but the US was concerned about the stability of any future Afghan government. In order to promote stability and prevent a long civil war we supported a Pashtun leadership at the expense of the Tajiks. We can speculate about what could have happened all day long. We can't deny what did happen.
 
ric27 said:
The Taliban provided safe haven for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plan, finance, prepare, and train for terrorist attacks throughout the world, including 9/11. They protected Bin Laden and AQ and sheltered them. The Taliban permitted terrorist training camps throughout the country. We absolutely needed to come there.

The Northern Alliance could have taken Kabul much sooner but the US was concerned about the stability of any future Afghan government. In order to promote stability and prevent a long civil war we supported a Pashtun leadership at the expense of the Tajiks. We can speculate about what could have happened all day long. We can't deny what did happen.
Click to expand...

You could have stopped that without occupying the country, and the Taliban really wasn't protecting. They just weren't picking up. There was no need to create a new government.
 
Ah yes. :doh we should have hit the Easy Button!!!


images




why didn't we think of this sooner!?!
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
You could have stopped that without occupying the country, and the Taliban really wasn't protecting. They just weren't picking up. There was no need to create a new government.
Click to expand...

The mission in A-stan was to get the ones that did 9-11, not nation build. We didn't go to A-stan to get the Taliban. We went for AQ, but something along the way....
 
ric27 said:
The mission in A-stan was to get the ones that did 9-11, not nation build. We didn't go to A-stan to get the Taliban. We went for AQ, but something along the way....
Click to expand...

You might want to recheck.
 
Boo Radley said:
Protected? They were doing a decent job of that in Pakistan. Seems I recall money for 9/11 came from Pakistan as well. But hey, let's nto quibble. The fact si getting him would be one thing. Nation building another.

And no, prisoners have gone to some pretty damn poor places, and some were innocent. Dead, but innocent.
Click to expand...

The IRA gets a lot of it's funding from private Americans....does that make the United States of America a supporter of the IRA?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom