BF2S Forums American Soldier Abducted Tortured Killed

usmarine2005 wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

I dunno about you but if China invaded my country and i would manage to capture one of them.. trust me he would not make it back to his base.  I would not torture him but for sure i would never let him go.. Im pretty sure you would do the same thing if some foreign nations decided to invade your country.

You are assuming the Al-Q who did this are Iraqi.  I can tell you from experience that maybe 50% of them are.

Nationality is an innovation of the white man and as such these people are not bound by imaginary lines drawn around their tribal homelands.

usmarine2005 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

You are assuming the Al-Q who did this are Iraqi.  I can tell you from experience that maybe 50% of them are.

Nationality is an innovation of the white man and as such these people are not bound by imaginary lines drawn around their tribal homelands.

lol.......go hemp.

Now what did say about someone who is scared to post more than 5 words.....chick chick chick chicken lay a little egg for me....

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

I dunno about you but if China invaded my country and i would manage to capture one of them.. trust me he would not make it back to his base.  I would not torture him but for sure i would never let him go.. Im pretty sure you would do the same thing if some foreign nations decided to invade your country.

You are assuming the Al-Q who did this are Iraqi.  I can tell you from experience that maybe 50% of them are.

But I thought you stopped serving well before the proper emergence of Al Qaeda, certainly before their emergence in Iraq. When did you last tour?

Last one was only 3 months in the beginning of '05.

usmarine2005 wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

I dunno about you but if China invaded my country and i would manage to capture one of them.. trust me he would not make it back to his base.  I would not torture him but for sure i would never let him go.. Im pretty sure you would do the same thing if some foreign nations decided to invade your country.

You are assuming the Al-Q who did this are Iraqi.  I can tell you from experience that maybe 50% of them are.

You have a point, those al-qaida guys are crazy and are even killing iraqi citizens. I'm just saying that if its an iraqi citizen who did this, i can understand his feelings.. but to torture a guy you know you will kill later its just sick.

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Now what did say about someone who is scared to post more than 5 words.....chick chick chick chicken lay a little egg for me....

hemp

It's against my beautiful, tolerant and peace embracing faith.

So insular, tis sad to see.

I would rather give five words then go on about some white man bollocks.

usmarine2005 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

hemp

It's against my beautiful, tolerant and peace embracing faith.

So insular, tis sad to see.

I would rather give five words then go on about some white man bollocks.

Any idea who created national borders in the ME.............................

Bubbalo wrote:

I wouldn't support torture, because that would defeat the purpose of winning.  That is to say: if you have become as bad as Stalin to win against Stalin, admit defeat.  Plus, the terrorist could (and probably would) just send me on a wild goose chase.

bub, my friend,  life is not a video game.  the only other option in the scenario is death.  im not supporting torture but thats a REAL naive way to look at it.

Bubbalo wrote:

NEVAR!

Oh, just picked this one up:

ATG wrote:

Perhaps.

So Bubs, let's say you are Prime Minister of Australia and your SAS has captured two members of a cell that has a nuclear bomb planted in Sydney. The clock is set for 24 hours and they know where it's at.

Would you support torture to get the info or order an evacuation of Sydney, or both?

I wouldn't support torture, because that would defeat the purpose of winning.  That is to say: if you have become as bad as Stalin to win against Stalin, admit defeat.  Plus, the terrorist could (and probably would) just send me on a wild goose chase.

CannonFodder11b wrote:

No Bubs lacks the intestinal fortitude to do anything in person, he would rather rant and derail threads on the internet then get his hands dirty.

Even if we assume that's true, why should I be ashamed of the fact that I can't cause serious pain to a man who can't fight back?  What, is the measure of a man how much pain he can inflict when the other guy is strapped to a table?

So you claim you'd try to take the moral high ground and let 10's of 1000's of your countrymen die so that you could say to yourself " at least I didn't waterboard them ".


Lizzard, you are born to politics because those are lies, and you let them flow so effortlessly.

Faced with the reality your attitude would change. Accept this truth, and be a better person because you will be wiser for it.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

m3thod wrote:

{USMC}Louis wrote:

No im saying I would do anything to find out who did and that whole region is full of terrorists and they are more than likley involved

You really are misinformed.

There were little or no terrorist in Iraqis prior to the war. The failure to properly occupy the country and secure its borders after the fall of Baghdad provided the many terrorists the adventure playground to take your forces on in an environment where they have the upper hand.

Any idea how to differentiate between a Saudi, Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi or Iranian?

Shoot them and then find out.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

dc_involved wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

bub, my friend,  life is not a video game.  the only other option in the scenario is death.  im not supporting torture but thats a REAL naive way to look at it.

You talk about naivity and how old are you?

Bubbalo makes a very valid point. Heres America invading countries blowing the freedom trumpet shouting "Attention savages, we are here to show you the ways of civilisation and freedom". Then in certain cases acting no better than the people you claim to despise, "because they do it". You say you don't support torture but i think going on your general posts you'd be quite happy to dish a bit out.

True power is having the chance and the reason to kill/torture somebody and rising above it.

lol...yeah, because torturing is going to defeat the purpose of winning, in this case losing will mean millions of dead people and winning would be to allow those people to die.  im attacking the logic behind the "defeat the purpose of winning", you dont like my post's thats fine but you are assuming you know my stand point even though i said otherwise.  i dont.  i dont speak for america, the army or any political point of view.  I speak for myself.  im sorry but the world isnt as polarized as you or some other people with simple minds think it is.  again i dont support torture, i was merely playing devils advocate.   have a nice day munchkin.



I TOO wish everyone in the world could own a puppy.

LOL. Its a known fact that people will say anything to get torture to stop, it negates the value of the information. Plus you're assuming you've got the person that knows where the bomb is, which judging by the standard of "army intelligence" (oxymoron anyone?) these days is highly unlikely.

You do support torture in this case though right? "To save lives?" So you support torture.

So lets throw back the scenario. You torture this guy, he knows or says nothing. The bomb does/doesn't go off. You tortured someone for no reason. And again you have become that which you despise. Mass uproar in home nation of the tortured man, a new generation of terrorists is born. They attack you, you cry savage, bomb another few countries into the ground, a new generation of terrorists grow up etc etc

You see the viscious circle?

You are either for or against something. There is no exception.

You can use that bullshit scenario to excuse anything otherwise. Press release "A man was tortured today blah blah blah". Top General "Yeah we had to do it because we believe he knows the whereabouts of WMD's"

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

dc_involved wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

lol...yeah, because torturing is going to defeat the purpose of winning, in this case losing will mean millions of dead people and winning would be to allow those people to die.  im attacking the logic behind the "defeat the purpose of winning", you dont like my post's thats fine but you are assuming you know my stand point even though i said otherwise.  i dont.  i dont speak for america, the army or any political point of view.  I speak for myself.  im sorry but the world isnt as polarized as you or some other people with simple minds think it is.  again i dont support torture, i was merely playing devils advocate.   have a nice day munchkin.



I TOO wish everyone in the world could own a puppy.

LOL. Its a known fact that people will say anything to get torture to stop, it negates the value of the information. Plus you're assuming you've got the person that knows where the bomb is, which judging by the standard of "army intelligence" (oxymoron anyone?) these days is highly unlikely.

You do support torture in this case though right? "To save lives?" So you support torture.

So lets throw back the scenario. You torture this guy, he knows or says nothing. The bomb does/doesn't go off. You tortured someone for no reason. And again you have become that which you despise. Mass uproar in home nation of the tortured man, a new generation of terrorists is born. They attack you, you cry savage, bomb another few countries into the ground, a new generation of terrorists grow up etc etc

You see the viscious circle?

You are either for or against something. There is no exception.

You can use that bullshit scenario to excuse anything otherwise. Press release "A man was tortured today blah blah blah". Top General "Yeah we had to do it because we believe he knows the whereabouts of WMD's"

i never said i supported it for that scenario.  i was disagreeing with bubbalo view on "winning".  selective reading anyone.

put it this way.  if i was abducted, tied and blind folded and my image paraded across the internet for the entire world to see...I wouldnt lose any more sleep if I knew some guy was getting his nails pulled out as a resort to get information.  when you could understand that, then maybe you could get what the fuck i was saying in the first place. got nothing to do with torture,  its got to do with bub's black and white outlook on life.  whatever, think what you want.  I eat babies with bar b que sauce too.

So you wouldn't torture that guy to stop the bomb?

I don't think you get what bub was saying. He wasn't defining not torturing as winning. He was saying what is the point of winning (a war) if you have to stoop to the level of the people you are trying to defeat. i.e. If you are removing a mass murderer and torturer, you don't remove him with mass murder and torture. otherwise what is the point? You have lost, you have become that which you despised. /fail

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ok.  but the scenario, if im not mistaken was not a war, but a terrorist nuclear threat.  weigh which one is more important.  survival or morals?

The war on terror! You didn't answer my question, do you support it in this situation?

I have made my position clear.