• 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!

Pentagon Identifies Soldier in Video

In regards to this missing soldier may I suggest a name to research? Garwood.

The Marines here will know of what I am referring.

What about Robert Garwood?
 
Where the fvck did I say that? Are you like a coin, with only two sides to choose from?

You said it right here:

Originally Posted by WillRockwell
Dude, Afghan detainees are the fathers, the brothers, sons and cousins of the guys holding this soldier hostage. How they were treated determines how he is treated.
 
Exactually!

What about him?

You brought him up. Obviously you had a point to make. I hope you're trying to insinuate that I'm suggesting that Bowe Bergdahl is guilty of some kind of misconduct.
 
You brought him up. Obviously you had a point to make. I hope you're trying to insinuate that I'm suggesting that Bowe Bergdahl is guilty of some kind of misconduct.


NO! I am saying that the rumor has it that this soldier got up and walked away much as Garwood did. It would not surprise me in the least that next month we start seeing propaganda videos of this "soldier" making statements against the USA and the US military.
 
NO! I am saying that the rumor has it that this soldier got up and walked away much as Garwood did. It would not surprise me in the least that next month we start seeing propaganda videos of this "soldier" making statements against the USA and the US military.

I thought he made propaganda statements in this first video.

Also, one of Garwood's fellow POW's testified tht Garwood told him he was captured in a brothel. I don't think the accepted story is that garwood just walked off. Army Sargeant Willie Watkins testified to that in 1969.

But, no, it wouldn't surprise me to see him making anti-American statements on video, either. No doubt he'll be tortured into doing so.
 
Since when is killing the enemy, "terrorism"?

When you agree with the tactics of threatening the Afghan people till you get what you want. That is the definition of terrorism. You're purposely using fear and force over a people to get a desired outcome.
 
So, you think that if we treat Afghan prisoners good, they'll treat him good?

I don't think that was necessarily the point. I think the point was that if we start engaging in very violent and questionable behavior that the likelihood of that being returned to our captured soldiers will be higher. But on that level, would you be pissed off if this soldier was treated as we have already treated "terrorist" suspects?
 
Where the fvck did I say that? Are you like a coin, with only two sides to choose from?
Rule number 7a in the forum rules:
Bypassing the Word Censor - In the interest of maintaining civility, profanity is strongly discouraged here at Debate Politics. As such, certain words are censored by our software. When censored words are entered into a post, they will show as *asterisks*. Attempts to Bypass the Word Censor including but not limited to: letter substitutions, inserting extra letters, using special characters or symbols, using BBCode, or using HTML formatting. If you bypass the word censor - warnings are ensued. If you continue to ignore the word censor you will be rewarded with an infraction. Basically there are two viable choices available. Either choose an innocuous word, or use the intended word and allow the software to auto-mask. If a word is not censored and you feel that it should be, please PM a member of the Moderation Team and we will consider your suggestion.
:2razz:
 
When you agree with the tactics of threatening the Afghan people till you get what you want. That is the definition of terrorism. You're purposely using fear and force over a people to get a desired outcome.

Ok, I see your point. Still a good idea, since it's one of our guys out there in the mountains that needs to be found. The locals have to learn that they can't just sit the fence, while our people are kidnapped and tortured.


I don't think that was necessarily the point. I think the point was that if we start engaging in very violent and questionable behavior that the likelihood of that being returned to our captured soldiers will be higher. But on that level, would you be pissed off if this soldier was treated as we have already treated "terrorist" suspects?


So, you think that if we treat Afghan prisoners good, they'll treat him good? :rofl
 
Ok, I see your point. Still a good idea, since it's one of our guys out there in the mountains that needs to be found. The locals have to learn that they can't just sit the fence, while our people are kidnapped and tortured.

I just find it ironic that you propose to fight terrorism with terrorism. Doesn't really seem in line with the War on Terror. Less it's the War on Other People Using Terror Against Us, but We Retain the Right to Use Terror on Other People as We See Fit. But that's a rather long name.

So, you think that if we treat Afghan prisoners good, they'll treat him good? :rofl

Again, you missed the point. Try reading. It said not that if we treat them well, our prisoners will be treated well. But if we engage in violent and questionable behavior against their people, you will increase the probability that they will retort with higher levels of violence as well. Try to understand those words.
 
I just find it ironic that you propose to fight terrorism with terrorism. Doesn't really seem in line with the War on Terror. Less it's the War on Other People Using Terror Against Us, but We Retain the Right to Use Terror on Other People as We See Fit. But that's a rather long name.

You fight a war by killing more of the enemy than he can kill of you. How did we respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor?



Again, you missed the point. Try reading. It said not that if we treat them well, our prisoners will be treated well. But if we engage in violent and questionable behavior against their people, you will increase the probability that they will retort with higher levels of violence as well. Try to understand those words.

You're saying the same thing, two different ways. Same meaning, either way, though.
 
You fight a war by killing more of the enemy than he can kill of you. How did we respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

By officially declaring war. And it was the last time we did so. You're endorsing the use of terrorism to fight terrorism; if you don't get the irony in that well...don't really know what to say.

You're saying the same thing, two different ways. Same meaning, either way, though.

Indeed I did, and it does have the same meaning. Just not the one you think it is. Try reading slowly this time. Seriously, this isn't tough and it's not a trick.
 
By officially declaring war. And it was the last time we did so. You're endorsing the use of terrorism to fight terrorism; if you don't get the irony in that well...don't really know what to say.

Fire-bombing Tokyo and killing a million people was...?



Indeed I did, and it does have the same meaning. Just not the one you think it is. Try reading slowly this time. Seriously, this isn't tough and it's not a trick.


Why don't you just give up with the word game?
 
You said it right here:

Are you unaware of any methods of treatment between torture and "treating them good"? If Afghan detainees received the same treatment as the Unibomber or Eric Rudolph, our troops would not be in danger of reprisals.
 
Are you unaware of any methods of treatment between torture and "treating them good"? If Afghan detainees received the same treatment as the Unibomber or Eric Rudolph, our troops would not be in danger of reprisals.

See, there ya go! He said it again!

IOW, if we treat their guys good, they'll treat our guys good. End of story.
 
Obviously, I'm not the one with the language barrier.

Obviously you are because you can't seem to comprehend what the statement is. Saying that treating the enemy better will cause them to treat us better and saying that public and grotesque acts of violence against the people will increase the likelihood of them treating our soldiers worse are two very different statements. If you have enough command of the English language, you will see the difference.
 
See, there ya go! He said it again!

IOW, if we treat their guys good, they'll treat our guys good. End of story.

Is English not your first language? Is Eric Rudolph being treated "good"? Is it unreasonable to treat foreign detainees the same as a domestic terrorist? Please cite what I "said again", I did not even follow your response.
 
We need to start executing all captured Tallies, until he's returned. Burn the bodies. That'll send a clear message.

Yes, because they will return him if we do this :roll:
 
Yes, because they will return him if we do this :roll:

They just might. People in that part of the world are scared to freakin death of being burned. They're so afraid of the prospect, that they won't even explain why.

Ya'll gotta stop thinking like American Liberals/Moderates There are no American Liberals/Moderates in the Taliban. They think differently than you. It's not rocket science.
 
They just might. People in that part of the world are scared to freakin death of being burned. They're so afraid of the prospect, that they won't even explain why.

Ya'll gotta stop thinking like American Liberals/Moderates There are no American Liberals/Moderates in the Taliban. They think differently than you. It's not rocket science.

Umm, why wouldn't they just kill him.

I would.

Your method is stupid.

It has nothing to do with Liberals and Moderates. Im a right leaning centrist who has went to Iraq two times on combat deployments in the Army. I think I know that they think differently than us. But I'll tell you that they would just kill the guy or torture him. They wouldn't allow us turning into terrorists to make them suddenly decide to stop. Thats just ignorant.
 
Im a right leaning centrist who has went to Iraq two times on combat deployments in the Army. I think I know that they think differently than us.

Then you should know exactly what I'm talking about. Ever see'em get all freaked out at the idea of being burned? I mean, it's weird, dude!

Personally, I think we've been playing patty cake with these ****ers for far too long. We have some fine body counts, so far, but not nearly what they should be, IMO.

Umm, why wouldn't they just kill him.

We'll just ramp up the killing. They might kill him, but they'll damn sure think twice before killing the next one.
 
Back
Top Bottom