Pages: 1 2

 

2008-06-14 17:16:29
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7179|Argentina

PureFodder wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Even these piece of shit terrorists deserve a fair trial, and after that, of course, a shot in the head.  The Middle East is a fucked up place already and now those assholes are running free to commit more violent crimes.  How come they were held in such a shitty place with such a shitty security?
I'm fairly surprised they managed to find a building with four intact walls to put them in to begin with. Between fighting the Soviets, the coalition forces and inter-warlord fighting, Afghanistan has been pretty much in a state of perma-war for decades now.
Therefore my question.  They should have been imprisoned in another location outside Afghanistan.

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-06-14 17:17:45)

2008-06-14 17:19:06
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7097|Canberra, AUS

sergeriver wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Even these piece of shit terrorists deserve a fair trial, and after that, of course, a shot in the head.  The Middle East is a fucked up place already and now those assholes are running free to commit more violent crimes.  How come they were held in such a shitty place with such a shitty security?
I'm fairly surprised they managed to find a building with four intact walls to put them in to begin with. Between fighting the Soviets, the coalition forces and inter-warlord fighting, Afghanistan has been pretty much in a state of perma-war for decades now.
Therefore my question.  They should have been imprisoned in another location outside Afghanistan.
You know, the best such facility happens to be in Cuba...

No, seriously. Doing that would be a logistical nightmare.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-06-14 20:05:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6827|North Carolina

Braddock wrote:

The dictionary definition of genocide doesn't specify that it be only people of a certain ethnic group. It's quite simple really...if you pursued a policy of 'kill em all' there would be a situation with no checks and balances and thousands would die, even the people who weren't guilty and you'd end up being no better than the butchers of Yugoslavia or Darfur.

It's all very well being tough and brave in front of a computer screen and saying they should all be killed but the reality of killing every person that is even suspected of being an enemy fighter is just plain horrific and deeply unsound. You'd go down in history as being right up there with the Nazis.
Kill them after you've verified, and/or kill them when they fight us.

It's not genocide, it's practical.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-06-14 20:06:56)

2008-06-14 20:16:07
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6867|The Land of Scott Walker

m3thod wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Genocide...let's call a spade a spade.
Genocide, my ass.  How is this genocide?  A militant can be any ethnicity or relgion. 

You want to call a spade a spade, how about militant=militant=dead.
How about militant = prove it = guilty = jail?
No, you've still got it wrong.  Militant=armed=threat=dead.  Kill them when they fight, like Turq said.  Even if our military could safely just arrest these guys, someone in the US and/or Europe who is against the war will howl they're being held without cause.  Then the militants will end up getting out to fight again.  Hence, a battlefield solution would expedite things.
2008-06-15 00:06:40
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6528|eXtreme to the maX

Gunslingerthequeen wrote:

this is good news isnt it dilbert!
Of course its bad news, the Afghan job was barely started before Iraq got under way.
Still, mission accomplished eh?
Fuck Israel
2008-06-15 00:10:05
PureFodder
Member
+225|6708

Stingray24 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

LividBovine wrote:


Genocide, my ass.  How is this genocide?  A militant can be any ethnicity or relgion. 

You want to call a spade a spade, how about militant=militant=dead.
How about militant = prove it = guilty = jail?
No, you've still got it wrong.  Militant=armed=threat=dead.  Kill them when they fight, like Turq said.  Even if our military could safely just arrest these guys, someone in the US and/or Europe who is against the war will howl they're being held without cause.  Then the militants will end up getting out to fight again.  Hence, a battlefield solution would expedite things.
And if they are wounded/surrender/caught unarmed?
2008-06-15 01:01:29
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6784|Vancouver
The Canadians are the primary ISAF battle group in Kandahar.

Quite an amazing story. Eventually, a prison escape movie, perhaps?
2008-06-15 06:45:35
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6712|Éire

Turquoise wrote:

Braddock wrote:

The dictionary definition of genocide doesn't specify that it be only people of a certain ethnic group. It's quite simple really...if you pursued a policy of 'kill em all' there would be a situation with no checks and balances and thousands would die, even the people who weren't guilty and you'd end up being no better than the butchers of Yugoslavia or Darfur.

It's all very well being tough and brave in front of a computer screen and saying they should all be killed but the reality of killing every person that is even suspected of being an enemy fighter is just plain horrific and deeply unsound. You'd go down in history as being right up there with the Nazis.
Kill them after you've verified, and/or kill them when they fight us.

It's not genocide, it's practical.
I'm sure Hitler thought the final solution was quite practical too. What you're suggesting borders on what was done with the Muslim forces in Yugoslavia, and the Serbs didn't stop with militant Muslims, they started wiping out Muslims en masse. A policy of kill em all opens the door for mass killings on a genocidal level.
2008-06-15 07:28:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6827|North Carolina

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Braddock wrote:

The dictionary definition of genocide doesn't specify that it be only people of a certain ethnic group. It's quite simple really...if you pursued a policy of 'kill em all' there would be a situation with no checks and balances and thousands would die, even the people who weren't guilty and you'd end up being no better than the butchers of Yugoslavia or Darfur.

It's all very well being tough and brave in front of a computer screen and saying they should all be killed but the reality of killing every person that is even suspected of being an enemy fighter is just plain horrific and deeply unsound. You'd go down in history as being right up there with the Nazis.
Kill them after you've verified, and/or kill them when they fight us.

It's not genocide, it's practical.
I'm sure Hitler thought the final solution was quite practical too. What you're suggesting borders on what was done with the Muslim forces in Yugoslavia, and the Serbs didn't stop with militant Muslims, they started wiping out Muslims en masse. A policy of kill em all opens the door for mass killings on a genocidal level.
It is a slippery slope, but it's one I'm willing to go down.  Anyone who chooses to fight us should be prepared for death.  I think it would be possible to get our forces to kill only militants, since we're fighting alongside Afghanis.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard