You don't say.

Personally, I would say water-boarding is torture, but, since pretty much every army uses similar techniques when necessary, if it saves a lot of innocent lives, it is not too difficult to ignore it.

I'd prefer to see all the troops pulled out of Afghanistan but if this technique saves one life then as it leaves no lasting physical damage I can see its worth unpalatable as it seems from here.

The above quoted part of you post is all you had to say.

The rest is more of your superfluous verbiage. Thank you.

Thats rich considering your whole post I was replying to was a waste of space

if it saves a lot of innocent lives, it is not too difficult to ignore it.

Just dont cry when other countries/armies throw out any rules

Also if this is true the USA owes a debt since they sentenced that one Japanese soldier previously mentioned for performing waterboarding to 15 years hard labor.

Good for the goose good for the gander....It is not a 1 way street called USA

Whether we admit it, or not, most armies (and police departments and prisons) practice some kind of torture on a regular basis - often on their own members. War is an ugly thing, but sometimes necessary.

if it saves a lot of innocent lives, it is not too difficult to ignore it.

Just dont cry when other countries/armies throw out any rules

Are you aware of any 'countries/armies' against whom the U.S. has been engaged that have any 'rules', much less follow them?

if it saves a lot of innocent lives, it is not too difficult to ignore it.

Just dont cry when other countries/armies throw out any rules

Also if this is true the USA owes a debt since they sentenced that one Japanese soldier previously mentioned for performing waterboarding to 15 years hard labor.

Good for the goose good for the gander....It is not a 1 way street called USA

Other countries and armies have thrown out the rules before.

I wonder what the final death count of POWs held by the Japanese was during WWII. Does anybody have a count and if so does the horror of that exceed the one Japanese soldier that was sent to prison for water boarding POWs?

Shall we bring up the North Vietnamese handling of POWs during their war as well?

We won't even address the few incidents during the war on terror when US soldiers have been caught and taken away by Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Survival rate isn't very high for those soldiers. The survival rate certainly isn't as high for them as for the terrorists being held at Guantanamo.

I'm simply curious if we really owe a "debt" to the Japanese or not. If not them, do we owe a "debt" to anybody except our soldiers who have willingly gone to war on our behalf and risked everything for an often ungrateful citizenry?

I think we are indebted to only the latter.

if it saves a lot of innocent lives, it is not too difficult to ignore it.

Just dont cry when other countries/armies throw out any rules

Are you aware of any 'countries/armies' against whom the U.S. has been engaged that have any 'rules', much less follow them?

This is it in a nutshell!

As usual they strive to be equal to the lowest common denominator

Keep up the bad work X-pats

I rarely post here for this reason. Let's stick to the subject matter and try to give an opinion and a reasoned reply. If someone can manage an 'Outside the Box' replyonce in a while so much the better but for me the regular posters here...well at least some of them don't really encourage it.

Not an attack on anyone just an observation.

Meaning do you feel this is the way it should be done by all countries on all suspects? Or just the way the US should do it?

If you dont want to answer just say so.

Do you realise that you are replying to your own statement?

What surprises me...(well given your history not really).... Is the fact that you can only dwell on the fact that 18 or even more may return to the fight but never once notice that perhaps hundreds of innocents had a good portion their life wasted in a prison.

Whatever gives you the idea they are innocent?

Then the cherry on the top for you & the other is........Kill them all...basically less to think about eh?

Capture this enemy on the field of battle, shoot them and move on. Capturing them does no good. Locking them up is a public relations nightmare. If they are released, they were either terrorists in the first place or so upset about being sent to Cuba that they become terrorists. Either way, they go on to kill truly innocent people. You're fine with that, I'm not.

I'll leave you with one more thing, no matter HOW they got to Gitmo, you admit in more than one post that they are dangerous at time of release. Like I said, you make a great arguement for just killing them. Who cares if they have a good reason or not for wanting to go blow up people at the local mosque or throw acid in the face of school girls? Kill them.

yada... yada... yada... Guantanamo inmates are guilty of blowing up people in mosques and throwing acid in the faces of schoolgirls respectively they will commit these crimes after being released?

tell us one more story. if possible a more interesting one. did your ethiopian driver talk to you lately? or did a masri colleague justify the existence of Guantanamo? tell, tell... don't torture us by letting us wait too long.

and NO! the questions are not directed at Odysseus ben-G., Chuck al-D and of course not at Venturing-a-Law.

Remind me again how many of the 9/11 hijackers were coddled in Germany prior to coming to the US?

More meaningless drivel.

Also if this is true the USA owes a debt since they sentenced that one Japanese soldier previously mentioned for performing waterboarding to 15 years hard labor.

Why don't you admit that the Japanese used a different method of waterboarding? You either don't know it, or do but are purposely trying to mislead.

More meaningless drivel.

I'm just replying to it with more of the same.

More meaningless drivel.

I'm just replying to it with more of the same.

I appreciate that but it doesn't help with trying to have a discussion based around the original topic. Just frustrates me in this forum really.

I'll leave you with one more thing, no matter HOW they got to Gitmo, you admit in more than one post that they are dangerous at time of release. Like I said, you make a great arguement for just killing them. Who cares if they have a good reason or not for wanting to go blow up people at the local mosque or throw acid in the face of school girls? Kill them.

yada... yada... yada... Guantanamo inmates are guilty of blowing up people in mosques and throwing acid in the faces of schoolgirls respectively they will commit these crimes after being released?

tell us one more story. if possible a more interesting one. did your ethiopian driver talk to you lately? or did a masri colleague justify the existence of Guantanamo? tell, tell... don't torture us by letting us wait too long.

and NO! the questions are not directed at Odysseus ben-G., Chuck al-D and of course not at Venturing-a-Law.

Remind me again how many of the 9/11 hijackers were coddled in Germany prior to coming to the US?

you found out that i provided accomodation and food for them besides being personally responsible for Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Treblinka? is that your opinion or did you consult your ethiopian taxi driver?

He probably just read your posts.

Meaning do you feel this is the way it should be done by all countries on all suspects? Or just the way the US should do it?

If you dont want to answer just say so.

Do you realise that you are replying to your own statement?

It was not my reply I was asking for but I did yet again bold it above in red for you.....

Forget it though......I see your answer in the rest of your post

Thanks

Capture this enemy on the field of battle, shoot them and move on. Capturing them does no good. Locking them up is a public relations nightmare. If they are released, they were either terrorists in the first place or so upset about being sent to Cuba that they become terrorists. Either way, they go on to kill truly innocent people. You're fine with that, I'm not.

...None was speaking to you or asking your stance on detainees. The question was posed to Koheesti.

Mr. Flying:

I always have operated under the presumption that a post made on an open forum was available for comment by any posting member of that forum.

Are you now claiming that only those to whom a question is directed may provide a response?

Interesting,indeed.

Mr chucky,

Recently you chided me and said I was rude for doing exactly what you are defending, AND doing yourself.

Are you doing a flip flop?

Interesting indeed.

I am awaiting koheesti's (and anyone else's) response to Flying's very pertinant question about whether or not it is only the USA that should kill suspects out of hand.

The 3 US "hikers" caught by Iran should have been shot as spies? No trial?

(On a side note...they should have been shot for idiocy. Who in their right minds goes "hiking" in a war wracked country, let alone on the border of another country that is somewhat hostile to their own nation?)

I am awaiting koheesti's (and anyone else's) response to Flying's very pertinant question about whether or not it is only the USA that should kill suspects out of hand.

The 3 US "hikers" caught by Iran should have been shot as spies? No trial?

(On a side note...they should have been shot for idiocy. Who in their right minds goes "hiking" in a war wracked country, let alone on the border of another country that is somewhat hostile to their own nation?)

Is it your position that the 3 U.S. hikers posed a potential threat to Iran?

They were not in Iran, so that case does not apply to the "conversation".

I am awaiting koheesti's (and anyone else's) response to Flying's very pertinant question about whether or not it is only the USA that should kill suspects out of hand.

The 3 US "hikers" caught by Iran should have been shot as spies? No trial?

(On a side note...they should have been shot for idiocy. Who in their right minds goes "hiking" in a war wracked country, let alone on the border of another country that is somewhat hostile to their own nation?)

Is it your position that the 3 U.S. hikers posed a potential threat to Iran?

It is my position that Iran had as much cause to believe they were potential spies as the US had of "believing" that all Gitmo detainees were potential terrorists.

But that is beside the point....the point is that koheesti holds the position that all terror suspects should be shot on sight because detaining them is a PR nightmare, and killing just one real terrorist out of many innocent victims, may save US lives.

They were not in Iran, so that case does not apply to the "conversation".

The Gitmo detainees were not in the US when captured, nor in Cuba.

What was your point?

...None was speaking to you or asking your stance on detainees. The question was posed to Koheesti.

Mr. Flying:

I always have operated under the presumption that a post made on an open forum was available for comment by any posting member of that forum.

Are you now claiming that only those to whom a question is directed may provide a response?

Interesting,indeed.

Mr chucky,

Recently you chided me and said I was rude for doing exactly what you are defending, AND doing yourself.

Are you doing a flip flop?

Interesting indeed.

Neither. Most of your posts are rude. :jap:

I'll leave you with one more thing, no matter HOW they got to Gitmo, you admit in more than one post that they are dangerous at time of release. Like I said, you make a great arguement for just killing them. Who cares if they have a good reason or not for wanting to go blow up people at the local mosque or throw acid in the face of school girls? Kill them.

and NO! the questions are not directed at Odysseus ben-G., Chuck al-D and of course not at Venturing-a-Law.

What is it that you are attempting to convey by changing our names?

The Gitmo detainees were not in the US when captured, nor in Cuba.

What was your point?

That they were innocent hikers in a country where they had every right to be.

I am awaiting koheesti's (and anyone else's) response to Flying's very pertinant question about whether or not it is only the USA that should kill suspects out of hand.

The 3 US "hikers" caught by Iran should have been shot as spies? No trial?

(On a side note...they should have been shot for idiocy. Who in their right minds goes "hiking" in a war wracked country, let alone on the border of another country that is somewhat hostile to their own nation?)

Is it your position that the 3 U.S. hikers posed a potential threat to Iran?

It is my position that Iran had as much cause to believe they were potential spies as the US had of "believing" that all Gitmo detainees were potential terrorists.

But that is beside the point....the point is that koheesti holds the position that all terror suspects should be shot on sight because detaining them is a PR nightmare, and killing just one real terrorist out of many innocent victims, may save US lives.

Killing one 'real terrorist' may very will save U.S. lives given that terrorists are determined to wipe out U.S., as well as other countries, citizenry. Or do you believe that 'real' terrorists are not killers but perhaps just merely misunderstood?

and NO! the questions are not directed at Odysseus ben-G., Chuck al-D and of course not at Venturing-a-Law.

What is it that you are attempting to convey by changing our names?

"Jewish" sounding names again. Think die Kristallnacht.

The Gitmo detainees were not in the US when captured, nor in Cuba.

What was your point?

That they were innocent hikers in a country where they had every right to be.

Odd.............

So those dang innocent Pakistani's & Afghan's who were all turned in/sold in to Gitmo for bounty/cash because they resembled someone (aka:had a beard) Did they have a right to be in their country?

If being in a country they have every right to be in is the your criteria you use above well.....