There Are No Rules In War?

[musterion]

Not a secular humanist just someone who believes that Christians should not be hateful, foul mouthed and vile as a standard position.

So you are open to it being optional, like bucket seats?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Not a secular humanist just someone who believes that Christians should not be hateful, foul mouthed and vile as a standard position.

Yet another fake Christian who thinks that righteous laws are legislated out of hate, not love for your fellow human beings (and I use that term loosely when referring to people like you CM).

 

[This Charming Manc]

I prefer not to go there, but there are times when strong word are needed.

It just shouldn't really be what people expect to come out of your mouth.

So you are open to it being optional, like bucket seats?

 

[This Charming Manc]

No I just know that you and me and not Gods authority to legislate law.

I'm called to extend the grace that was extended to me.

I have no idea what your think your called to do

Yet another fake Christian who thinks that righteous laws are legislated out of hate, not love for your fellow human beings (and I use that term loosely when referring to people like you CM).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'm tempted to believe you want your rules in war, which means we can be vile and barbaric to 'evil rag heads' as you call them. Which says something about the vileness in your heart more than anything else.

While I understand in the liberal world that waterboarding mass murdering terrorists to get information from them so that thousands of innocent lives can be saved is 'barbaric', but it's not. If you would like to see the real face of barbarianism and evil, I have plenty of websites that will show you what these filthy rag heads that you and Libertarians like WizardofOz defend, do to innocent people whose only crime is that they didn't bow down to the false god Allah.

 

[rocketman]

I just don't understand how anyone can defend torture, much less someone who considers themselves a moral absolutist like Nick. And the hypocrisy of Rep. Gowdy was pretty stunning given his willingness to pontificate on the rule of law regarding immigration. And then Rocketman closing the thread because it was "off-topic", despite it essentially being a Tray Gowdy admiration thread...apparently without any willingness to hear a contrary view.

Not the case at all Rex, I posted the thread to laud Gowdy's speech as it was concise & to the point, non-partisan, actually attacked Boehner about the law & his inaction to hold Obama to a standard, and our presidents willingness to break the law at will. That thread has really shown me much more in that liberals like yourself have no respect for the law as long as it is your man breaking it, you are all onboard for his lawless immigration action, a blind eye for using the IRS as a weapon against the citizenry, etc.
Now, you are free to personally impugn those in the CIA (a totally different subject I might add) who did their job with legal authorization from all three branches of government including the very liberals (and though they deny it) who are attempting to condemn it 10 years after authorizing it. You are also free to define torture by your own standard, I personally don't see it here, obviously the world court doesn't see it that way either being there will probably be no charges levied by the ICC in this matter.

The Senate report will almost certainly be assessed by the international criminal court as part of a preliminary examination of US treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. However, it is seen as unlikely that the ICC’s inquiry will lead to charges against the US officials involved in the torture programme, for both legal and political reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/10/cia-report-prosecutions-international-law-icc

Seems you all are the minority voice in this discussion, the recent Washington Post poll to Americans concerning the use of advanced interrogation techniques was a 2 to 1 margin for the techniques used 59% to 31%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

 

[This Charming Manc]

Stop arguing against strawmen, no one is defending jihadists.

Get to the key point do you believe there a rules to war or not?

I do, I believe we are better than jihadists and live by higher moral standard would you agree with that?

I don't think rape as a weapon, sex slavery, child soldiers or torture have a place in a civilized or christian society, do you agree?

i don't think we should defeat the enemy by embracing there barbarism, what do you think?

While I understand in the liberal world that waterboarding mass murdering terrorists to get information from them so that thousands of innocent lives can be saved is 'barbaric', but it's not. If you would like to see the real face of barbarianism and evil, I have plenty of websites that will show you what these filthy rag heads that you and Libertarians like WizardofOz defend, do to innocent people whose only crime is that they didn't bow down to the false god Allah.

 

[annabenedetti]

While I understand in the liberal world that waterboarding mass murdering terrorists to get information from them so that thousands of innocent lives can be saved is 'barbaric', but it's not. If you would like to see the real face of barbarianism and evil, I have plenty of websites that will show you what these filthy rag heads that you and Libertarians like WizardofOz defend, do to innocent people whose only crime is that they didn't bow down to the false god Allah.

That's rich, coming from the guy who thinks the Shah of Iran was a "great man," although aCW was disappointed that the secret police force the Shah headed, SAVAK, wasn't better at torture.

 

[musterion]

How is torture being defined, anyway?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

That's rich, coming from the guy who thinks the Shah of Iran was a "great man," although aCW was disappointed that the secret police force the Shah headed, SAVAK, wasn't better at torture.

If you thought that the Shah of Iran (who amongst other things gave Iranian women rights that they never had before) was an evil man, then obviously you (like every other liberal) think that the Ayatollah's that replaced him are good.

Tell us the good things about mass murdering innocent people solely because they don't bow down to the false god Allah or to his fake prophet (who was a pedophile and homosexual) Muhammad.

 

[This Charming Manc]

That's a much fairer question that the statement that 'there are no rules in war'.

I would suggest how we would expect our troops taken prisoner to be treated, would define how we should treat those in our custody?

Would be legitimate interrogation is american troops were water boarded?

How is torture being defined, anyway?

 

[musterion]

I prefer not to go there, but there are times when strong word are needed.

And taking that bus back to (what I think was) the point of this thread: sometimes "torture" is right and necessary to extract information from MURDERERS who whose goal in life is to harm innocents...innocents who will be harmed if we don't get that info. Of all the leftists on this thread, I suspect you are the only one here reasonable enough to allow at least the possibility of that sometimes being necessary.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

How is torture being defined, anyway?

Holding a mass murdering terrorist's head under water (rag on head removed prior to doing so) and then asking him what his evil intentions are.

 

[rocketman]

How is torture being defined, anyway?

Ask Wiz he was using the webster definition:

tor·ture/ˈtôrCHər/
noun
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.

I am unclear how sleep depravation, humiliation, or taking a person to the point of drowning (inflicting fear for ones life) qualifies as "the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone" but hey! he is free to define these things as he wishes.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Would be legitimate interrogation is american troops were water boarded?

And here the secular humanist compares American soldiers to mass murdering muzzie terrorists.

 

[This Charming Manc]

If you thought that the Shah of Iran (who amongst other things gave Iranian women rights that they never had before) was an evil man,

she didn't say that your lying again

then obviously you (like every other liberal) think that the Ayatollah's that replaced him are good.

she didn't say that either, oh your lying again

Tell us the good things about mass murdering innocent people solely because they don't bow down to the false god Allah or to his fake prophet (who was a pedophile and homosexual) Muhammad.

no ones advocating that, your not lying , but you are being deliberately misleading suggesting that we do.

Thinking your a grade A jerk and agreeing with Islam are two very different things.

 

[This Charming Manc]

No im suggesting standards are standards, whats torture for one is torture for the other.

Guess what you lying about what other people have said and who they are again, can you type without typing a lie?

And here the secular humanist compares American soldiers to mass murdering muzzie terrorists.

 

[musterion]

That's a much fairer question that the statement that 'there are no rules in war'.

I would suggest how we would expect our troops taken prisoner to be treated, would define how we should treat those in our custody?

Would be legitimate interrogation is american troops were water boarded?

Rules only work if all sides recognize and truly obey them. Otherwise they're useless and may as well not exist. Worse, they'll hinder or destroy the side that does try to observe them.

I think the larger point, which I've yet to see anyone on your side admit to, is that once we entered the modern era of "asymmetrical warfare," the writing was on the wall. The old gentleman's rules of engagement became as obsolete as the Brit's infantry square was in the face of colonists shooting from the trees.

If we make that the starting point of the discussion, it'll go in a whole other direction than the current conversational bog it's stuck in.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

she didn't say that your lying again

she didn't say that either, oh your lying again

no ones advocating that, your not lying , but you are being deliberately misleading suggesting that we do.

Thinking your a grade A jerk and agreeing with Islam are two very different things.

Since you think so much like the pagan annadennebettti, tell us what she really meant.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I can see that it is tempting, and possible to justify in you own mind.

It may be beneficial (but studies suggest not)

I just don't think its moral.

And taking that bus back to (what I think was) the point of this thread: sometimes "torture" is right and necessary to extract information from MURDERERS who whose goal in life is to harm innocents...innocents who will be harmed if we don't get that info. Of all the leftists on this thread, I suspect you are the only one here reasonable enough to allow at least the possibility of that sometimes being necessary.