BF2S Forums Nancy Pelosi is a 2 faced female sexual organ!!

Shocking.

Or not.

Her and the rest of the self-righteous dickheads who've been spouting off about those interrogation techniques were briefed and approved them. That's how it works. Congress had to approve the appropriations used to pay for that program.

She's not a two faced cunt, shes a walking cunt with two assholes; one in her bottom, and the other one where words fall out of her mouth like feces.

I never had anything against the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, because I don't give a rat's ass what we do to those dirtbags @ GITMO. They could have been executed on the battlefield if it weren't for our need to obtain information. They are terrorists, and as such, do not deserve rights even close to those of an American or other non-terrorist person.


Pelosi is an idiot, as are the majority of the Administration from what I see.

nickb64 wrote:

I never had anything against the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, because I don't give a rat's ass what we do to those dirtbags @ GITMO. They could have been executed on the battlefield if it weren't for our need to obtain information. They are terrorists, and as such, do not deserve rights even close to those of an American or other non-terrorist person.


Pelosi is an idiot, as are the majority of the Administration from what I see.

Once you have someone in custody, you can't just do as you please.  You have to follow the due process of law.  Otherwise, your law system isn't worth anything.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

I never had anything against the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, because I don't give a rat's ass what we do to those dirtbags @ GITMO. They could have been executed on the battlefield if it weren't for our need to obtain information. They are terrorists, and as such, do not deserve rights even close to those of an American or other non-terrorist person.


Pelosi is an idiot, as are the majority of the Administration from what I see.

Once you have someone in custody, you can't just do as you please.  You have to follow the due process of law.  Otherwise, your law system isn't worth anything.

These people were property of the military, not US citizens.  Military law says they can shoot them if they want.  These terrorists didn't wear a uniform, they fought under no flag, and they have no rights.

I hope you get pick up by the taliban, thrown into jail and tortured as a terrorist with no rights because it's obviously what you want.

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

These people were property of the military, not US citizens.  Military law says they can shoot them if they want.  These terrorists didn't wear a uniform, they fought under no flag, and they have no rights.

I hope you get pick up by the taliban, thrown into jail and tortured as a terrorist with no rights because it's obviously what you want.

If nothing else, if we follow Lotta's advice, there is a certain moral equivalence between us and the Taliban.

That's not exactly a good thing, but apparently, some people don't care.

Only a retard would compare US soldiers to the Taliban.  If you don't know the difference fuck you and your stupid fucking opinion on anything because you are a god-damn moron with no fucking sense of right vs wrong.

FatherTed wrote:

He's comparing on a human level, not what uniform/group/whatever they are.

Well on a " human " level the US troops are not killing and torturing people because they belong to a different religion.  Go living in a Taliban controlled town vs the US on a " human " level and let me know what the difference is between the US waterboarding a Terrorist to gain info to defeat evil vs the Taliban torturing and killing a US soldier to continue to carry out their evil?

Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2009-05-09 11:34:26)

FatherTed wrote:

i know what im trying to say but i cant get the words clear in my head

something like if you drop your standards to torture without definate reason, how does that (in a sense) make you any better than your enemy?

something like that

Well it is war.  You can say killing is bad and we kill so how are we any better than our enemy?  Obviously we will lose if we fight lead bullets with neft darts.

Torture is the same way.  If your enemy is employing tactics that will allow them to win and you are not willing too do the same you will lose.  It all comes down to WHY you do what you do.

There are not two equal sides fighting this war.  Either the US is good and the Terrorist are bad and you support killing and torturing the bad guys to save the good guys or you feel the Terrorists are good and the US bad and it is ok for the terrorist to torture and kill people to win.  The US isn't randomly torturing people or doing it for the hell of it.  It is a Nessesity to protect civilians and soldiers lives and thus win the war on terrorism.  This US bad and Terrorist bad idea the liberals would have you believe is B.S. otherwise you would see more people choosing to move to terrorist controlled parts of the world vs the USA.

Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2009-05-09 11:47:28)

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Well it is war.  You can say killing is bad and we kill so how are we any better than our enemy?  Obviously we will lose if we fight lead bullets with neft darts.

Torture is the same way.  If your enemy is employing tactics that will allow them to win and you are not willing too do the same you will lose.  It all comes down to WHY you do what you do.

There are not two equal sides fighting this war.  Either the US is good and the Terrorist are bad and you support killing and torturing the bad guys to save the good guys or you feel the Terrorists are good and the US bad and it is ok for the terrorist to torture and kill people to win.  The US isn't randomly torturing people or doing it for the hell of it.  It is a Nessesity to protect civilians and soldiers lives and thus win the war on terrorism.  This US bad and Terrorist bad idea the liberals would have you believe is B.S. otherwise you would see more people choosing to move to terrorist controlled parts of the world vs the USA.

And the main assumption you're making here is that everyone detained at Gitmo is guilty.  That's already proven to be untrue.  If you start torturing innocent people, you are a terrorist yourself.

liberal pussies

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Well it is war.  You can say killing is bad and we kill so how are we any better than our enemy?  Obviously we will lose if we fight lead bullets with neft darts.

Torture is the same way.  If your enemy is employing tactics that will allow them to win and you are not willing too do the same you will lose.  It all comes down to WHY you do what you do.

There are not two equal sides fighting this war.  Either the US is good and the Terrorist are bad and you support killing and torturing the bad guys to save the good guys or you feel the Terrorists are good and the US bad and it is ok for the terrorist to torture and kill people to win.  The US isn't randomly torturing people or doing it for the hell of it.  It is a Nessesity to protect civilians and soldiers lives and thus win the war on terrorism.  This US bad and Terrorist bad idea the liberals would have you believe is B.S. otherwise you would see more people choosing to move to terrorist controlled parts of the world vs the USA.

And the main assumption you're making here is that everyone detained at Gitmo is guilty.  That's already proven to be untrue.  If you start torturing innocent people, you are a terrorist yourself.

if there are innocent guys there... than why wont any country take them back... not even their own country?
It's going to be a hoot when they try to release them in the US... you wanna see some nimby action then...lol

Hey, I agree that the situation is pretty fucked up.  I think the refusal of these countries taking back these people has more to do with their own problems than of actual guilt.

Think about this.  Let's say the U.K. was detaining a bunch of Americans for some alleged terrorist activity involving the IRA.  They had some Gitmo-style camp where these Americans were being tortured, and after a year or two, some of them were declared innocent.  If, at that point, America still didn't take the innocent ones back, that would imply that America really didn't give a shit about their people abroad.

That's generally my take on this.  It's not a flaw on the part of these detainees that their home countries won't take them back -- it's a flaw on the part of these foreign governments.  Many of these people are coming from countries with very shady governments that don't really give a shit about human rights, so they'd rather refuse entry of these people than take them back even if the chances of finding them guilty of something is usually pretty slim.

In short, they'd rather deny the rights of their own people than risk letting in an alleged terrorist.

nickb64 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

I never had anything against the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, because I don't give a rat's ass what we do to those dirtbags @ GITMO. They could have been executed on the battlefield if it weren't for our need to obtain information. They are terrorists, and as such, do not deserve rights even close to those of an American or other non-terrorist person.


Pelosi is an idiot, as are the majority of the Administration from what I see.

Once you have someone in custody, you can't just do as you please.  You have to follow the due process of law.  Otherwise, your law system isn't worth anything.

Laws of War say we can shoot them, they wear no uniform to blend with civvies, un-uniformed bad guys  can be shot.

EDIT: WE do not cut people's heads off for no apparent reason. Waterboarding/anything we did is weak compared to that kind of shit. We do not murder our prisoners, but we could have shot them while on the battlefield, and we would have legally been in the right.

I think we're talking about different things now.

On the one hand, we do have some people caught during war.

On the other hand, we have people we've apprehended with alleged terror ties.

Most of the people I'm talking about are of the latter group.  It's one thing to be captured during a conflict; it's quite another to be picked up by the CIA in a foreign country.

If you were captured outside of a conflict and haven't been fighting our troops on the battlefield, you are entitled to certain rights.  You still need to be tried in a court of law before any torture can commence.