For people who don't like the way we treat prisoners, this is how they treat ours! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

jcookc6 · 07-09-2005, 05:57 AM

Taliban says it killed 'captured' U.S. commando
Sat Jul 9, 2005 4:03 AM ET

KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban guerrillas said on Saturday they had killed a missing American commando they claimed to have captured in eastern Afghanistan last month. The U.S. military said it had no information to support the claim.

"We killed him at 11 o'clock today; we killed him using a knife and chopped off his head," Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi said from an undisclosed location. He said that the body had been dumped on a mountain in the eastern province of Kunar.

The U.S. military has said it has no information to suggest the Navy SEAL commando, part of a four-man team that went missing during a clash with militants in mountainous Kunar on June 28, has been captured.

Asked about the Taliban claim that the man had been killed, U.S. military spokeswoman Lieutenant Cindy Moore said: "I don't have any information on that."

Hakimi, whose information has often proved unreliable in the past, said the body of the soldier had been left on the top of a mountain in Kunar's Shegal district.

"He is wearing red clothes," he said. "We got the information we wanted from him during the interrogation."

Hakimi said earlier on Saturday that the man the guerrillas claimed to be holding was a commando officer and would be killed in two or three days following his interrogation.

The Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency also quoted a guerrilla commander in Kunar, Mohammad Ismail, as saying that the commando had been killed.

AIP quoted Hakimi as saying the killing followed a decision by the Taliban's council of religious leaders.

The U.S. military has said two of its missing commandos were found dead on Monday, having been "killed in action," while another had been rescued and one was missing.

A U.S. helicopter sent to aid the team was shot down the same day the team went missing during a battle with insurgents, with the loss of all 16 troops aboard. These were the U.S. forces' heaviest losses in a single combat operation since they overthrew the Taliban in late 2001.

Hundreds of U.S. soldiers, backed by Afghan troops and helicopters, have been searching for the missing commando in Kunar for the past 12 days.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...TALIBAN-DC.XML

Mantus · 07-09-2005, 07:08 AM

Thus one distasteful act justifies another?

jimbob · 07-09-2005, 07:55 AM

it's not all that way of course
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...956255,00.html

have the afghan fighters signed up to the geneva conventions? do they have any way of keeping prisoners secure for the duration of the occupation?

this has to be borne in mind before invading a country and whatever the enemy's actions the US cannot relax their own regard for human life in a world where they are claiming the moral high ground. it doesn't matter how badly the enemy act, the criticisms of the conditions in guantanamo and movements of prisoners to foreign countries for torture are still valid. necessary even.

jcookc6 · 07-09-2005, 09:56 AM

No the Taliban has not signed the Geneva accords. That is the point people don't seem to understand. The Geneva conventions only is for people fighting in UNIFORM. This war does not fall under Geneva. But the LEFT in this country wants us to fight it under those rules, even though the terrorists don't.
I think maybe it is time we started treating terrorists like they treat us, this situation would get over alot quicker. Fight fire with fire, it is the only thing these people underdstand. Forget the Political correctness that the left wants us live. Shoot first and ask questions later.

Mantus · 07-09-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

I think maybe it is time we started treating terrorists like they treat us, this situation would get over alot quicker. Fight fire with fire, it is the only thing these people underdstand. Forget the Political correctness that the left wants us live. Shoot first and ask questions later.

So you want us to start targeting civilians as a terror tactic to get the terrorists to stop doing what they do?

feelgood · 07-09-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

I think maybe it is time we started treating terrorists like they treat us, this situation would get over alot quicker. Fight fire with fire, it is the only thing these people underdstand. Forget the Political correctness that the left wants us live. Shoot first and ask questions later.

If we start doing that, we'll be just as low as the terrorist.

martinguerre · 07-09-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

So you want us to start targeting civilians as a terror tactic to get the terrorists to stop doing what they do?

/nods

There's no prize for winning the race to the bottom. The point is not to fight by Marquis Of Queensbury Rules just because. The point is retain the rule of law, to not lose ourselves.

connyosis · 07-09-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

/nods

There's no prize for winning the race to the bottom. The point is not to fight by Marquis Of Queensbury Rules just because. The point is retain the rule of law, to not lose ourselves.

Could not have said it better myself.

snowy · 07-09-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

No the Taliban has not signed the Geneva accords. That is the point people don't seem to understand. The Geneva conventions only is for people fighting in UNIFORM. This war does not fall under Geneva. But the LEFT in this country wants us to fight it under those rules, even though the terrorists don't.
I think maybe it is time we started treating terrorists like they treat us, this situation would get over alot quicker. Fight fire with fire, it is the only thing these people underdstand. Forget the Political correctness that the left wants us live. Shoot first and ask questions later.

So we should ignore human rights and exploit every loophole in the Geneva accords. Great idea. That will REALLY help our position in the Middle East.

/sarcasm

Seriously though, we have a moral obligation as Americans to be an example to the rest of the world (white man's burden and all that). Ignoring human rights is not setting a positive example, and if we do so, it makes us look like hypocrites in the end. I already disagree with the disregard the current administration has for human rights in the United States (both at Guantanamo and in various political issues such as gay marriage). Lowering ourselves to their level in treatment of prisoners undermines our authority, and if it is our goal to establish ourselves in a position of authority in the Middle East, treating others how we want to be treated is the first step.

Golden Rule and all that, you know

jcookc6 · 07-09-2005, 12:48 PM

It seems to me that the last time we were the clear cut winner in a war was WW2. What did we do in that war? We bombed the crap out of the enemy, made parking lots out of thier cities. Yes, a lot of innocent people were killed or hurt, but whoever said war was nice. But, we won the war. After the war, we rebuilt the 2 countries, and they seem to have survived. If the politically correct left would allow us to do it now, maybe we wouldnt have terrorists killing innocent people, just to kill people.
These people hate you, and would kill you in a second, no matter how much compassion you have them. You can't practice diplomacy with them, for they will just laugh at you and kill you. They did fire the first shot.

djtestudo · 07-09-2005, 01:20 PM

War is Hell.

And for the record, how many have died at Guantanimo Bay?

connyosis · 07-09-2005, 01:23 PM

Yeah you're right. Just bomb them all. Kill every single towelhead, that way there would be no more terrorists ever. While you're at it, bomb the french, the stuck up bastards. Then go after the germans, once a nazi always a nazi right?

highthief · 07-09-2005, 02:37 PM

I really don't much care what happens to terrorists. Beat the crap out of them.

However, I don't agree with holding prisoners without trial or due process and the government - any government - saying "just trust us, they're all bad guys".

Mantus · 07-09-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

/nods

There's no prize for winning the race to the bottom. The point is not to fight by Marquis Of Queensbury Rules just because. The point is retain the rule of law, to not lose ourselves.

Yet that's where you will be racing, the bottom. What is the point of fighting to defend one law when if one is bending laws, agreements and moral codes to achieve one's aim? We may not lose the war, but we will lose ourseves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

It seems to me that the last time we were the clear cut winner in a war was WW2. What did we do in that war? We bombed the crap out of the enemy, made parking lots out of thier cities. Yes, a lot of innocent people were killed or hurt, but whoever said war was nice. But, we won the war. After the war, we rebuilt the 2 countries, and they seem to have survived.

There are very few if any parallels between millitary warfare and counter terrorism. For starters terrorist are not all united. They are not all part of an "axis". If one destroys a cell or captures their leaders terrorism wont stop. On can whipe out every terrorist in the world and more will be spawned the next day. There are no borders when it comes to terrorism. Terrorist can and will spawn anywhere. They can be of any nationality or religion.

Then there is counter insurgency, which is a whole other ballgame that is once again very differnt from a standard engagement between two armies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

If the politically correct left would allow us to do it now, maybe we wouldnt have terrorists killing innocent people, just to kill people.

This statement shows that you really should educate yourself and give this mater a little more thought.

If you are a concervative, you should be looking for the most effective way to achieve your aims. The fastest, cheapest and most effective way is though politics and economics. Look at the the success of the Orange of Rose revolutions in Eastern Europe. These are projects that took less then a half a decade to complete and cost a faraction of what a war would. War is the most expencive solution possible. Even if one does resort to war, politics and economics are required to stabalize the situation otherwise one will need to go to war again and again as the same threat re-emerges.

There is also a fine line between political corectness and moral principles. Are you stating that republicans are amoral or as barbaric as religious fundamentalists?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

They did fire the first shot.

Only from our perspective.

tecoyah · 07-09-2005, 03:37 PM

I am trying so damn hard to see what thw point of this is......I am failing

If indeed the point is to explain the extent of the tactics terrorism takes.....damn....well done.

somehow....I dont think that is what this is about.

Lets try to keep it civil

boatin · 07-09-2005, 04:08 PM

just for the record, Mantus, martinguerre didn't post what you attribute to him. Post #10 was jcookc6.

Some type of editing snafu, undoubtably.

edit: now i see how it happened! He did say the first thing you quote, but all the others were from #10. So a copy/paste issue

Mantus · 07-09-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

just for the record, Mantus, martinguerre didn't post what you attribute to him. Post #10 was jcookc6.

Some type of editing snafu, undoubtably.

edit: now i see how it happened! He did say the first thing you quote, but all the others were from #10. So a copy/paste issue

Thanks boatin

, yep I cut and paste the code tags.

07-09-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

I think maybe it is time we started treating terrorists like they treat us, this situation would get over alot quicker. Fight fire with fire, it is the only thing these people underdstand.

This is almost funny, I don't mean to be rude, but I'd suggest that fighting fire with fire is the only thing you understand.

You really would have to kill a lot of people in order to achieve your aims, and it would be difficult to maintain a workable coalition that went along with your ideas. It wouldn't take long before an opposing force mobilised itself and started making life a whole lot harder. The interactions between people that we call politics are not complicated as part of a leftist, PC plot, rather, politics are complicated, because the world is complicated. A "kill them all" strategy has never worked in the past, and I don't see it working in the future. Especially since you don't actually know who "they" are...

matthew330 · 07-09-2005, 06:51 PM

the only good thing i could see with fighting fire with fire is the libs in this country might say "hey, why's America acting like this...what's motivating they're behavior. We need to make sure the world has the sense to not treat all american's based on the actions of an irrational few in their government."

That being the case, it's just not a good enough reason

filtherton · 07-09-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

the only good thing i could see with fighting fire with fire is the libs in this country might say "hey, why's America acting like this...what's motivating they're behavior. We need to make sure the world has the sense to not treat all american's based on the actions of an irrational few in their government."

That being the case, it's just not a good enough reason

On the flipside, i guess that means that all the conservatives who support fighting fire with fire would have to hunt down and kill themselves in an effort to rid the world of terrorism.

Rdr4evr · 07-09-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

It seems to me that the last time we were the clear cut winner in a war was WW2. What did we do in that war? We bombed the crap out of the enemy, made parking lots out of thier cities. Yes, a lot of innocent people were killed or hurt, but whoever said war was nice. But, we won the war. After the war, we rebuilt the 2 countries, and they seem to have survived. If the politically correct left would allow us to do it now, maybe we wouldnt have terrorists killing innocent people, just to kill people.
These people hate you, and would kill you in a second, no matter how much compassion you have them. You can't practice diplomacy with them, for they will just laugh at you and kill you. They did fire the first shot.

you talk about nuking entire cities killing thousands of civilians, followed by "we wouldn't have terrorists killing innocent people". we're using the word "terrorists" to describe all the wrong groups/individuals these days, no? nuking any middle eastern country would be global suicide, and besides, whom would you prefer to bomb? the big bad "terrorists" are all over the map, from the americas, africa, asia to european nations, they don't all gather in specific spot waiting to be dealt with. you may nuke anything you wish, but this will not end their mission but rather fuel them further to obliterate your western ways, all while crushing your own hope of strong international relations. whether the leaders are around or destroyed is irrelevant.

quite frankly, they had good reason to kill the foreign invader, whether in uniform or otherwise. If America was invaded and constituted of only guerilla fighters, they would surely kill the enemy in uniform as well, as would any country. people never view both perspectives, and not only is this dangerous, but it can make you no different than your “enemy”.

Dbass · 07-10-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

It seems to me that the last time we were the clear cut winner in a war was WW2. What did we do in that war? We bombed the crap out of the enemy, made parking lots out of thier cities. Yes, a lot of innocent people were killed or hurt, but whoever said war was nice. But, we won the war. After the war, we rebuilt the 2 countries, and they seem to have survived.

What you may not remember is that even in World Wars I and II we obeyed common conventions with our sworn enemies. Many war weapons both sides devised were felt to be much to brutal, and both sides stopped using them. We had standards then, and we need them now. It might feel morally justified to go into a terrorist camp and start cutting off heads and limbs, but we are (supposedly) the most civilized nation in the world, and we have a more enlightened viewpoint on human suffering than people who have grown up indoctrinated in hatred and guerilla tactics.

It's not like it wouldn't feel great and like the perfect revenge, but it's not what anybody deserves. If that guy deserved it, we wouldn't be as mad, but he didn't, and nobody does.

OFKU0 · 07-11-2005, 07:19 AM

Here is a follow up to the original post.

Quote:

July 11, 2005
Missing U.S. commando's body found in Afghanistan; apparently died in firefight

By DANIEL COONEY

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The body of a missing U.S. commando has been located in eastern Afghanistan, the military said Monday, bringing an end to the desperate search for the last member of an ill-fated, four-man special forces unit that disappeared last month.

One of the four men was rescued July 3; the other two were found dead the next day.

The body of the fourth U.S. navy SEAL was found Sunday in Kunar province by a search and rescue team, the military said in a statement. It said all indications are that he died fighting, despite a claim by Mullah Latif Hakimi, a purported Taliban spokesman, that he had been captured alive and beheaded.

"The location and disposition of the service member's remains indicate he died while fighting off enemy terrorists on or about June 28," the statement said.

U.S. military spokesman Col. James Yonts repeatedly denied Hakimi's claims.

"There have been claims of being dropped on a mountain wearing red clothes, there have been claims of being beheaded," he said. But "there was no indication supporting the claims. . . . This individual was never in custody, he was never defamed or disgraced."

He said the injuries on the commando's body were consistent with "a firefight, a combat operation with smalls arms fire, RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) rounds."

Hakimi never offered proof to back up his claim that the rebels were holding the commando, or that they had killed him. Information from Hakimi in the past has sometimes proven exaggerated or untrue, and his connection with the Taliban leadership cannot be verified.

The navy SEAL team went missing after a special forces helicopter carrying reinforcements to a mountainous area in eastern Kunar province was shot down on June 28, killing all 16 Americans on board, the deadliest single attack on the U.S. military since the U.S. invasion in 2001.

Yonts said the commando's body was found near the chopper crash site in an area "that we had looked over before, but where his body was located was hard to find."

U.S. and Afghan officials have warned that the violence is likely to worsen in the lead-up to legislative elections in September - the country's next key step toward democracy after a quarter century of war.

Yonts said the U.S. military was preparing to deploy an airborne infantry battalion based in Fort Bragg, N.C., to provide additional troops for the 20,000-strong U.S.-led coalition. He gave no other details about the deployment.

Kunar province has long been a hotbed of insurgent activity and a haven for fighters loyal to former premier Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is wanted by the United States after a falling out with Washington. U.S. officials said al-Qaida fighters also were in the region.

The region's wooded mountains are popular with the insurgents because they are easy to infiltrate from neighbouring Pakistan and have plenty of places to hide.

Meanwhile, suspected Taliban rebels ambushed a border patrol in the desert near the frontier with Pakistan, killing and beheading 10 Afghan soldiers, a provincial governor said Sunday. Violence elsewhere left 15 rebels and soldiers dead.

The 25-member patrol was attacked Saturday in southern Helmand province by insurgents driving four four-wheel-drive pickups, said provincial Gov. Sher Mohammed Aghunzada.

The insurgents killed 10 soldiers; 15 fled the ambush, Aghunzada said.

"The Taliban cut the heads off all the soldiers who were killed," he said. Aghunzada said the dead soldiers' bodies had been recovered.

He said the assailants launched the assault after driving across the border from Pakistan and returned across the frontier. The border is unguarded in that remote area.

Twelve other Afghan soldiers were killed Sunday when a landmine blew up under their vehicle in Paktika province, also near the border with Pakistan, provincial deputy police chief Ghulam Nabi said.

He said it wasn't clear if the mine was one of hundreds of thousands of old mines left over from a quarter century of fighting, or had been newly planted.

http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeClassic/home.html

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 07:31 AM

It comes as no surprise that the Taliban spokes-person was lying, as has been the case in the past.

It also comes as no surprise that certain sections of the US react, just as the Taliban would want them to react, with ill-judged reactionary comments about targeting civilians, Biblical nonensense like "an eye for an eye" and calls that the US should sink to the depths of depravity shown by these pathetic human beings.

Mr Mephisto

stevo · 07-11-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

No the Taliban has not signed the Geneva accords. That is the point people don't seem to understand. The Geneva conventions only is for people fighting in UNIFORM. This war does not fall under Geneva. But the LEFT in this country wants us to fight it under those rules, even though the terrorists don't.

We're fighting a war with both hands tied behind our collective backs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dbass

What you may not remember is that even in World Wars I and II we obeyed common conventions with our sworn enemies. Many war weapons both sides devised were felt to be much to brutal, and both sides stopped using them. We had standards then, and we need them now. It might feel morally justified to go into a terrorist camp and start cutting off heads and limbs, but we are (supposedly) the most civilized nation in the world, and we have a more enlightened viewpoint on human suffering than people who have grown up indoctrinated in hatred and guerilla tactics.

Just being the more enlightened and civilized side in a conflict will not garuntee your victory. Often it is the most brutal side that wins. Should we sacrifice victory to maintain our "enlightened/civilized" status, or should we put enlightened and civilized on the back-burner for a moment and focus on the brutality of our enemy.

What good is enlightenment and civility if you're dead?

alansmithee · 07-11-2005, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dbass

What you may not remember is that even in World Wars I and II we obeyed common conventions with our sworn enemies. Many war weapons both sides devised were felt to be much to brutal, and both sides stopped using them.

This is true, but in this instance there is only one side following conventions. There is no unified front to make any kind of agreements (even if the opposition was willing to do so, which they're probably not)

This is one of the reasons that the Geneva conventions are made to apply only to uniformed and/or easily identifiable armies. It helps ensure that BOTH sides adhere to established rules of war.

It's unfortunate, but in war the side who sinks the lowest is usually the most efficient and/or effective. This doesn't mean that you should sink as low as possilbe, but to be effective you should at least remain in the same ballpark. And anyone who doesn't see the terrorists as vastly lower in their actions and tactics honestly isn't living in the real world.

07-11-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

What good is enlightenment and civility if you're dead?

Are you seriously so worried about these "terrorists" that you think they pose a direct threat to you, and the world in general? I might have misunderstood something about the level of fear some of you guys are experiencing - it would make many of your knee-jerk reactions make a lot more sense.

On a personal note, the actions of the "terrorists" don't make me afraid for my life, or my family, or anything - I see them as a very small, fringe group, no different from the very small fringe groups that have existed for as long as large-centrist groups have existed.

You are still more likely to be hurt by a drunk driver, or trip on a paving stone than you are to experience a terrorist attack. I am not about to suggest we decpitate drunk-drivers, or amputate the limbs of those who lay uneven paving stones, but it would probably have more effect improving people's lives, than some of the suggestions being offered against the "terrorists"

Do people *really* think we are at war?? I know that word was used by George Bush, but he is also at *war* on drugs, and as soon as anything else crops up, no doubt he will be at *war* with that too.

Yes, he has sent soldiers into combat missions, but weren't those missions primarily one of keeping the peace? The actual warfare part in both Afganistan and Iraq was pretty swift - now it's a matter of maintaining order. It isn't warefare, it is police work.

[edit] I've added a poll here, that I'd be interested to have other TFP Politics people vote on describing the level of threat they feel from the terrorists.

stevo · 07-11-2005, 10:38 AM

Yes we're at war. War was declared on the United States and her allies by OBL himself, read: Jihad. That war brought attacks on American soil. We have troops fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. There is a group of people determined to see us die. Yes we are at war.

07-11-2005, 10:54 AM

So you bear the might of the American millitary machine on any crackpot who wants to declare Jihad and has access to explosives? Good luck! There are a lot of them out there. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+...e+jihad%22+USA

Like I said, this is a job for police officers, not machine guns. I know the events of the last few years have been unpleasant, but I honestly wish some people would stop being so melodramatic about it.

In balance, far more upset and hurt has been perpetrated by the US on foreign civillians than OBL and all the other "terrorists" put together. Can someone look at the numbers?

Mantus · 07-11-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Yes we're at war. War was declared on the United States and her allies by OBL himself, read: Jihad. That war brought attacks on American soil. We have troops fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. There is a group of people determined to see us die. Yes we are at war.

Please don't make the mistake of grouping the seperate conflicts together. There is very little common ground between the various parties we are fighting.

stevo · 07-11-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Please don't make the mistake of grouping the seperate conflicts together. There is very little common ground between the various parties we are fighting.

I don't see it that way. Many people don't see it that way. There's not really much of a need to get into it right here, I've said why before, there are many posts on this board why the fighting in iraq is related to the war on terror, why its part of the 'big picture'.

07-11-2005, 11:09 AM

Could you point me in the direction of one of those posts please stevo?

I'd like to learn how they are linked.
Thanks in advance,
Tom

stevo · 07-11-2005, 11:36 AM

I did a quick look over the last couple hundred posts I made. I know I overlooked some, and didn't have time to keep going, but here are two that hopefully sum up my thoughts/feelings about iraq.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...01#post1824301

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...69#post1638369

StanT · 07-11-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

IIf the politically correct left would allow us to do it now, maybe we wouldnt have terrorists killing innocent people, just to kill people.

Let's see, Bush has been in office 4 1/2 years, the Republican Party controls both houses of congress, and 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans.

So how exactly can you blame the "politically correct left" for anything?
And when exactly will the politically incorrect right take responsibility for the results of their actions?

filtherton · 07-11-2005, 01:07 PM

I just want to echo mr. mephisto's point that, though conservatives often accuse lefties of being in cahoots with the terrorists, it was conservatives, who were their tool in this thread.

I think that if there is any war the terrorists have a chance of winning, it will be the one that ends with america becoming a repressive, freedomless state. Part of that process will be our abandonment of any sort of self restraint in the ways we wage war. Aid and comfort indeed.

SirLance · 07-11-2005, 01:41 PM

As a former soldier (5th Special Forces), I would have to say that I could not serve with a band of murderers. We have killed to protect our nation, our allies, and ourselves. We should not commit murder. Non-combatants should not be targeted.

It is an unfortunate fact of war that non-combatants do get killed. I don't see how that can be avoided.

We do not, nor should we, target civilians. Military targets are fair game: terrrorist ecampments, ammo dumps, airfields, etc.

It is my opinion that if we are to succeed, we must stand united against these terrorists. It is also my opinion that the strategy most likely to be successful is to find a way to cut off the money, supplies, and training terrorists get from the wealthy fanatics and fanatical regimes that support them.

If we want to fight terrorists, we have to also be prepared to take on those countries and individuals that provide them with aid and comfort.

moosenose · 07-11-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

/nods

There's no prize for winning the race to the bottom. The point is not to fight by Marquis Of Queensbury Rules just because. The point is retain the rule of law, to not lose ourselves.

And if our unwillingness to do what is necessary to win leads to our defeat and death, what then?

Have you heard why some muslims are condemning the attacks in London? They say that London shouldn't have been attacked, because the number of muslims there is growing without violence.

Islam is a religion which has as one of it's five pillars "Jihad"...holy war to exterminate all who do not believe in Islam. If Christianity had as one of it's tenets the idea that Christians have to slaughter all non-Christians, the World would be both having kittens and calling for hte UN to invade the Vatican.

I'm not even remotely Christian. But I believe that a religion that promotes as a core principle the idea that people like me must be exterminated because we don't believe in a God, ANY God, is not a religion, it's a criminal organization.

moosenose · 07-11-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I really don't much care what happens to terrorists. Beat the crap out of them.

However, I don't agree with holding prisoners without trial or due process and the government - any government - saying "just trust us, they're all bad guys".

Would you prefer we just summarily executed them instead of capturing them?

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Have you heard why some muslims are condemning the attacks in London? They say that London shouldn't have been attacked, because the number of muslims there is growing without violence.

You're either lying, misinformed or quoting some off-the-wall whacko.

The vast majority of Muslims in London are condeming the attacks because they are wrong.

I'm so happy that the people of Great Britain are so much above the hatred and bile you are spewing in your post above.

Quote:

Muslim leaders are writing to hundreds of mosques appealing for help in finding the London bombers.

Warning Muslim neighbourhoods could face a backlash, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said police were patrolling near places of worship.

There have been reports of attacks to mosques in London, the Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire and Bristol.

Church leaders have pledged to stand by Muslim colleagues, saying terrorism affects all communities.

In the letter to mosques, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the MCB, said unscrupulous elements of society, including in the media, were already using the London attacks as a means to undermine the position of Muslims in British society.

SUSPECTED MOSQUE ATTACKS
Birkenhead, Merseyside
Leeds
Bristol, two incidents
Telford
Tower Hamlets, East London
Merton, South London
Pakistani Consulate, Bradford, also attacked

"There have already been several arson attacks and criminal damage reported on mosques in various parts of the country, including Leeds, Tower Hamlets [east London], Merton [south London] Telford and Birkenhead," he said.

"We have been in touch with the police and have been informed that the police service have put into effect patrols and consultations to reassure and protect all people of the country."

Home Secretary Charles Clarke met Sir Iqbal and other faith leaders after the blasts to devise a plan to protect Muslims or other minorities in the wake of a bomb attack. That plan involves close co-operation between Muslims and other faiths, principally churches and Jewish communities.

But Sir Iqbal said: "Regrettably, it appears that some prominent media commentators well-known for their hostility to Islam and Muslims have also decided to take part in this mischievous campaign.

"There is no need however to be daunted or intimidated by their Islamophobic propaganda. We should continue to lead our daily lives normally and in accordance with the tenets of Islam. We have raised our concerns about their provocative behaviour with the Home Secretary Charles Clarke."

The MCB received approximately 30,000 hate e-mails immediately after the bombs. An analysis of the mail has led the organisation to believe it could be the work of just a small number of people who launched a "denial of service" computer program designed to crash the MCB's website.

While police say community relations are reassuringly calm, anecdotal reports from racism-monitoring organisations suggests there may have been an increase in random acts of verbal abuse of Muslims, or people who appear to be so.

Muslim organisations had reported a number of vandalism or criminal damage incidents at mosques around England.

On Monday afternoon Bristol police appealed for calm after two mosques in the city were targeted, one on Friday night and the second on Sunday.

Archbishop warning

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has already warned against the temptation to scapegoat Muslims for the attacks, widely believed to be the work of Al-Qaeda- inspired group.

FAITHS UNITE AFTER BOMBS
Whenever something like this happens, I know we're going to get targeted. Last time [Madrid train bombings] I got pointed at in the street
London Muslim woman

The day after the bomb key faith figures from the East End of London, including Christians, Jews and Muslims, gathered near the Aldgate bomb site in a show of unity, a move then repeated on Sunday by national leaders of the three faiths.

Speaking at the Church of England General Synod in York, Dr Williams said he had heard of the blasts while visiting local Muslims in Batley, West Yorkshire.

"Routine friendship and co-operation remains the best hope we have in any conflict of finding ways forward," said Dr Williams.

"Nothing really can substitute for face-to-face encounter when even the sharpest differences of conviction, and no-one in Batley was out to deny these, can be held with respect."

Sir Iqbal said that Muslims should do all they can to counter claims that the London attacks were carried out by "Islamic terrorists", saying that such wording suggested that Islam as a faith was responsible for the bombings.

"Equally reprehensible are offensive statements by politicians of other countries seeking to demonise Muslims in Britain," said Sir Iqbal, referring to comments attributed to a number of Israeli politicians. Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, is reported by agencies to have told ministers not to comment on the attacks, other than to offer sympathy. Two ministers are said to have equated the attacks with Palestinian bombings in Jerusalem.

"Let us be absolutely clear: those who planned and carried out these heartless attacks - whoever they are and whatever faith they may claim to profess - are surely the enemies of all of us, Muslims and non-Muslims," said Sir Iqbal.

"It is the duty of all of us to help bring the perpetrators of this tragedy to justice speedily. It is quite possible that if they are not caught soon, these criminals may attempt to carry out yet more atrocities in the near future. They must be stopped."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4671775.stm

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Islam is a religion which has as one of it's five pillars "Jihad"...holy war to exterminate all who do not believe in Islam.

I also neglected to call you out on this blatant lie.

The five pillars of Islam are:

Shahadataan (declaration of faith)
Salaah (formal prayer)
Zakaah (charity)
Sawm (fasting in the month of Ramadaan)
Hajj (pilgrimage to the Ka'bah)

Or, in easier to understand terms,

- Faith or belief in the Oneness of God
- Establishment of the daily prayers;
- Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
- Self-purification through fasting; and
- The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

Get your facts right before posting your bigotry.

Mr Mephisto

07-09-2005, 05:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	For people who don't like the way we treat prisoners, this is how they treat ours! Taliban says it killed 'captured' U.S. commando Sat Jul 9, 2005 4:03 AM ET KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban guerrillas said on Saturday they had killed a missing American commando they claimed to have captured in eastern Afghanistan last month. The U.S. military said it had no information to support the claim. "We killed him at 11 o'clock today; we killed him using a knife and chopped off his head," Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi said from an undisclosed location. He said that the body had been dumped on a mountain in the eastern province of Kunar. The U.S. military has said it has no information to suggest the Navy SEAL commando, part of a four-man team that went missing during a clash with militants in mountainous Kunar on June 28, has been captured. Asked about the Taliban claim that the man had been killed, U.S. military spokeswoman Lieutenant Cindy Moore said: "I don't have any information on that." Hakimi, whose information has often proved unreliable in the past, said the body of the soldier had been left on the top of a mountain in Kunar's Shegal district. "He is wearing red clothes," he said. "We got the information we wanted from him during the interrogation." Hakimi said earlier on Saturday that the man the guerrillas claimed to be holding was a commando officer and would be killed in two or three days following his interrogation. The Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency also quoted a guerrilla commander in Kunar, Mohammad Ismail, as saying that the commando had been killed. AIP quoted Hakimi as saying the killing followed a decision by the Taliban's council of religious leaders. The U.S. military has said two of its missing commandos were found dead on Monday, having been "killed in action," while another had been rescued and one was missing. A U.S. helicopter sent to aid the team was shot down the same day the team went missing during a battle with insurgents, with the loss of all 16 troops aboard. These were the U.S. forces' heaviest losses in a single combat operation since they overthrew the Taliban in late 2001. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers, backed by Afghan troops and helicopters, have been searching for the missing commando in Kunar for the past 12 days. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...TALIBAN-DC.XML

07-09-2005, 07:55 AM	#3 (permalink)
jimbob Crazy Location: Liverpool UK	it's not all that way of course http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...956255,00.html have the afghan fighters signed up to the geneva conventions? do they have any way of keeping prisoners secure for the duration of the occupation? this has to be borne in mind before invading a country and whatever the enemy's actions the US cannot relax their own regard for human life in a world where they are claiming the moral high ground. it doesn't matter how badly the enemy act, the criticisms of the conditions in guantanamo and movements of prisoners to foreign countries for torture are still valid. necessary even. Last edited by jimbob; 07-09-2005 at 09:33 AM..

07-09-2005, 01:20 PM	#11 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	War is Hell. And for the record, how many have died at Guantanimo Bay? __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

07-09-2005, 01:23 PM	#12 (permalink)
connyosis Psycho Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned	Yeah you're right. Just bomb them all. Kill every single towelhead, that way there would be no more terrorists ever. While you're at it, bomb the french, the stuck up bastards. Then go after the germans, once a nazi always a nazi right? __________________ If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

07-09-2005, 02:37 PM	#13 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I really don't much care what happens to terrorists. Beat the crap out of them. However, I don't agree with holding prisoners without trial or due process and the government - any government - saying "just trust us, they're all bad guys". __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

07-09-2005, 07:08 AM	#2 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Thus one distasteful act justifies another?

07-09-2005, 09:56 AM	#4 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	No the Taliban has not signed the Geneva accords. That is the point people don't seem to understand. The Geneva conventions only is for people fighting in UNIFORM. This war does not fall under Geneva. But the LEFT in this country wants us to fight it under those rules, even though the terrorists don't. I think maybe it is time we started treating terrorists like they treat us, this situation would get over alot quicker. Fight fire with fire, it is the only thing these people underdstand. Forget the Political correctness that the left wants us live. Shoot first and ask questions later.

07-09-2005, 12:48 PM	#10 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	It seems to me that the last time we were the clear cut winner in a war was WW2. What did we do in that war? We bombed the crap out of the enemy, made parking lots out of thier cities. Yes, a lot of innocent people were killed or hurt, but whoever said war was nice. But, we won the war. After the war, we rebuilt the 2 countries, and they seem to have survived. If the politically correct left would allow us to do it now, maybe we wouldnt have terrorists killing innocent people, just to kill people. These people hate you, and would kill you in a second, no matter how much compassion you have them. You can't practice diplomacy with them, for they will just laugh at you and kill you. They did fire the first shot.

07-09-2005, 03:37 PM	#15 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I am trying so damn hard to see what thw point of this is......I am failing If indeed the point is to explain the extent of the tactics terrorism takes.....damn....well done. somehow....I dont think that is what this is about. Lets try to keep it civil __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

07-09-2005, 04:08 PM	#16 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	just for the record, Mantus, martinguerre didn't post what you attribute to him. Post #10 was jcookc6. Some type of editing snafu, undoubtably. edit: now i see how it happened! He did say the first thing you quote, but all the others were from #10. So a copy/paste issue

07-09-2005, 06:51 PM	#19 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	the only good thing i could see with fighting fire with fire is the libs in this country might say "hey, why's America acting like this...what's motivating they're behavior. We need to make sure the world has the sense to not treat all american's based on the actions of an irrational few in their government." That being the case, it's just not a good enough reason

07-11-2005, 07:31 AM	#24 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	It comes as no surprise that the Taliban spokes-person was lying, as has been the case in the past. It also comes as no surprise that certain sections of the US react, just as the Taliban would want them to react, with ill-judged reactionary comments about targeting civilians, Biblical nonensense like "an eye for an eye" and calls that the US should sink to the depths of depravity shown by these pathetic human beings. Mr Mephisto

07-11-2005, 10:38 AM	#28 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Yes we're at war. War was declared on the United States and her allies by OBL himself, read: Jihad. That war brought attacks on American soil. We have troops fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. There is a group of people determined to see us die. Yes we are at war. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

07-11-2005, 10:54 AM	#29 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	So you bear the might of the American millitary machine on any crackpot who wants to declare Jihad and has access to explosives? Good luck! There are a lot of them out there. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+...e+jihad%22+USA Like I said, this is a job for police officers, not machine guns. I know the events of the last few years have been unpleasant, but I honestly wish some people would stop being so melodramatic about it. In balance, far more upset and hurt has been perpetrated by the US on foreign civillians than OBL and all the other "terrorists" put together. Can someone look at the numbers?

07-11-2005, 11:09 AM	#32 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	Could you point me in the direction of one of those posts please stevo? I'd like to learn how they are linked. Thanks in advance, Tom

07-11-2005, 11:36 AM	#33 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I did a quick look over the last couple hundred posts I made. I know I overlooked some, and didn't have time to keep going, but here are two that hopefully sum up my thoughts/feelings about iraq. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...01#post1824301 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...69#post1638369 __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

07-11-2005, 01:07 PM	#35 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I just want to echo mr. mephisto's point that, though conservatives often accuse lefties of being in cahoots with the terrorists, it was conservatives, who were their tool in this thread. I think that if there is any war the terrorists have a chance of winning, it will be the one that ends with america becoming a repressive, freedomless state. Part of that process will be our abandonment of any sort of self restraint in the ways we wage war. Aid and comfort indeed.

07-11-2005, 01:41 PM	#36 (permalink)
SirLance Junkie Location: In the middle of the desert.	As a former soldier (5th Special Forces), I would have to say that I could not serve with a band of murderers. We have killed to protect our nation, our allies, and ourselves. We should not commit murder. Non-combatants should not be targeted. It is an unfortunate fact of war that non-combatants do get killed. I don't see how that can be avoided. We do not, nor should we, target civilians. Military targets are fair game: terrrorist ecampments, ammo dumps, airfields, etc. It is my opinion that if we are to succeed, we must stand united against these terrorists. It is also my opinion that the strategy most likely to be successful is to find a way to cut off the money, supplies, and training terrorists get from the wealthy fanatics and fanatical regimes that support them. If we want to fight terrorists, we have to also be prepared to take on those countries and individuals that provide them with aid and comfort. __________________ DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.