OK, I stand corrected. You think it would be ok to torture and kill American soldiers if they forced some terrorists to stand in a painful position. I suppose this is an example of what people mean when they say they object to Bush's policies but "support the troops." Me, I'd rather see those who were proved to have violated the UCMJ to get judicial punishment, but then what do you expect from a redneck? I'm sure letting terrorists exact street justice, eg cut their heads off on video, is the more enlightened position.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The media's curious attitude towards pictures
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
OK, I stand corrected. You think it would be ok to torture and kill American soldiers if they forced some terrorists to stand in a painful position. I suppose this is an example of what people mean when they say they object to Bush's policies but "support the troops." Me, I'd rather see those who were proved to have violated the UCMJ to get judicial punishment, but then what do you expect from a redneck? I'm sure letting terrorists exact street justice, eg cut their heads off on video, is the more enlightened position.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
ART, oops I mean "Ginginho", the only person you're convincing is yourself. First, the Geneva Convention does not even apply. Second, you have no evidence that real "torture" took place. All you have is a few photos of naked prisoners. Third, you are being totally disingenuous when you say you didn't mean "US" troops, just any troops. It's perfectly obvious whose troops you meant. Certainly you and your buddies at Moral Equivalency University have never condemned any communist or Islamist forces, only those representing freedom and democracy.
Thank goodness we now have a president with enough good sense not to sacrifice our troops to the "justice" of international socialists, dictators, thugs and communist murderers under the guise of the International Criminal court.
I think you should at least read my other posts before you draw your "conclusion as elementary", Sherlock, instead of succumbing to paranoia if someone answers more than two of your posts in a row.
First point: You should know better, or you have been following news and photos from another planet.
Second point: Totally wrong, unless you - again - hail from another planet, or just won't accept it as "torture" unless your personal pain-threshold was reached.
Third point: Of course my statement includes US soldiers as well - along with whatever other soldiers who torture POWs. Go read it over and over again - use a dictionary for every word if you want.
Your illogical mistake - which you keep repeating ad nauseum - is that you think I have something against US soldiers in particular - and then you try and twist my statements so that you will find some support with other posters.
Your effort is totally lame - and you are dead wrong and will be proven so every time you try. If you try and get out of your definsive cave-dwelling for a moment and see what we're writing you'd understand that people with your opinion are a minute - although loud - minority on earth.
You obviously think less of the world than of yourself or anyone in close geographic proximity to you. This is called having supremacist beliefs. Of course there are degrees of supremacist statements and beliefs - but you make them rather clear here.
Of course you could continue with your beliefs for as long as you care for me - but you can bet on reactions.
To me - anyone killing children, babies, other innocent civilians or using unlawful practices like torture - is a criminal. When it's war - the reality is that people get killed or captured - but when someone start committing unlawful acts according to agreed "rules of combat" - there are many times that consequences follow and should be sought by those who have authority to prosecute war criminals. This has been done in the aftermath of almost all of the latest big conflicts and I think that's the right way to stop unnecessary killing - or letting people with obvious criminal tendencies away with murder, rape, torture etc.
I can't see how you can continue to argue against the legal authority of such international responsibilities. You then also would say that the Guantanamo is wrong and even the upcoming trial of Saddam - or Slobodan Milosevic for that matter - is wrong. That is, unless there is something special with "your US soldiers". Now, can you admit to having blatant supremacist beliefs ? Look it up if you want.
If someone declares war on the US - rapes all the women in your family - including yourself. Then after the war - all that are bygones ?