- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
In regards to this missing soldier may I suggest a name to research? Garwood.
The Marines here will know of what I am referring.
Where the fvck did I say that? Are you like a coin, with only two sides to choose from?
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.
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.
Since when is killing the enemy, "terrorism"?
So, you think that if we treat Afghan prisoners good, they'll treat him good?
Rule number 7a in the forum rules:Where the fvck did I say that? Are you like a coin, with only two sides to choose from?
:2razz: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.
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.
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?
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.
So, you think that if we treat Afghan prisoners good, they'll treat him good? :rofl
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.
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 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?
You're saying the same thing, two different ways. Same meaning, either way, though.
Rule number 7a in the forum rules:
:2razz:
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.
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.
You said it right here:
Fire-bombing Tokyo and killing a million people was...?
Why don't you just give up with the word game?
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.
When you learn English, I shall.
Obviously, I'm not the one with the language barrier.
See, there ya go! He said it again!
IOW, if we treat their guys good, they'll treat our guys good. End of story.
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:
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.
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.
Umm, why wouldn't they just kill him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?