Warning: Graphic & Disturbing Content

on Jan 05, 2005

This only shows your ignorance of our military. Try the Special Forces(Green Berets), Force Recon, Delta and Seals for starters..They *already* have the knowledge and the required willpower to be effective. I say turn em loose.

December 21, 2004

SAN DIEGO — A Navy SEAL has been acquitted of charges of beating a handcuffed and hooded terrorist suspect who died a short while later at the Abu Ghraib prison, while a second commando received probation for assaulting another prisoner suspected of supplying weapons to terrorists, attorneys for both men said Monday.
(Full Story)

Back to top

class54

Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:04 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEAR NAVY TIMES, THE STORY ABOUT THE SEALS ABUSING PRISONERS MAKES ME 1ST. ) LAUGH OUT LOUD AT THE ABSURD CHICKEN SHIT ! ..THESE BOOGER EATERS WERE TRYING TO KILL THE MEN WHO CAPTURED THEM. HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THEM IF THEY JUST MISSSED KILLING YOU OR A CLOSE FRIEND ?
2ND.) IT MAKES ME VERY ANGRY THAT OUR TROOPS ARE TREATED THIS WAY....THEY ARE HEROES ....TREAT THEM AS SUCH.
3RD ) WAR IS NOT CLEAN AND NEAT ! IT IS DIRTY,,,THERE ARE NO RULES....SEALS ARE TRAINED TO " DEFEAT THE ENEMY ...ANYWAY THEY CAN ".THESE PRISONERS WERE TREATED BETTER THAN ANY AMERICAN EVER CAPTURED IN ANY WAR. WE SURE AS HELL DIDN'T TREAT THEM LIKE NICE GUYS WHEN WE GOT A HOLD OF THEM IN VIETNAM. OPEN YOUR EYES TO REALITY.
PK BARNES
USN ( SEAL TEAM ONE ) RETIRED

Back to top

rduke

Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 1

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: Isn't anybody paying attention?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is going on? These seals need our support. Just as the Marine who shot a BAD GUY needs( now more then ever)!!!! The Seal teams should all get an award for what thay are excepted to do for our county. As should any Man or woman risking there life, for our freedom.... I can't beleave what I'm reading or seeing on the news anymore. What the USA turning into? I wish I could take ( seal teams) out for a beer! Thank you for all you do for us.

Father of a NAvy Serviceman!

17

hitparade

on Jan 05, 2005

If Hitler invaded Hell, I would do my best to find something good to say about the Devil."---Winston Churchill

Churchill was indeed a man's man.

18

hitparade

on Jan 05, 2005

Moderateman and Hitparade, I can definitely appreciate your frustrations, but I fail to see sinking to the level of these extremists as sound intervention. Yes, let us bring them to global justice, but let us not take away the kind of justice that God may have saved for them. You could just as well have a video of a woman being raped in New Orleans or an elderly man being beaten to death in Harlem, but finding a few gang bangers and tourturing them is not going to stop these attrocities from happening. The people who commit these haneous crimes don't make a rational cost benefit analysis. We might feel better about it, but what you propose is not really a solution at all.-Suspeckted

The following moral question, while not new, seems fitting for this discussion: You know that by the year 1945, Adolf Hitler is responsible for the murder of millions, and you somehow find yourself in a position to kill him in the year 1915, what do you do?

19

cactoblasta

on Jan 05, 2005

To the person who said a horror movie would frighten our average terrorist makes me wonder what world they live in

I feel that perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension skills before you make a foolish post like that. I was using the horror movie as a form of analogy - brutality on that level and far beyond would be necessary to intimidate something. Rivers of blood might be successful; mountains of skulls might be; but having their entire family for three generations stalked by bloodthirsty savages and then slowly tortured to death over the period of several days is almost certain to make a potential terrorist think twice. That's what I mean by horror movie-style violence. Not forcing them to watch movies.

20

latour999

on Jan 05, 2005

You know, your intiteled to your opinion and entitled to voice the same. However I don't come on here and bad mouth your PM, so don't you come on here and bad mouth my president!
There will be no pain for us in the sense your talking.

First, Paul Martin is a corrupt do-nothing with his hands in the taxpayers cookie jar, and I did not vote for him and have no intention to. But he looks good when you put him next to Stephen Harper, who would set us back at least 20 years if elected. I much prefer Jack Layton. Second, I didn't realize that criticizing an inept President was not politically correct, but I will do it anyway, because it is necessary. Third, I criticized politicians on both sides, but focused on Bush because he seems to be one of the worst and the most prominent. Fourth, by pain I meant more terrorist attacks against troops in the Middle East and possibly at home if sound bites continue to pass for fighting the war on terror in an intelligent manner.

21

drmiler

on Jan 05, 2005

Reply #18 By: hitparade - 1/5/2005 10:03:29 AM
Moderateman and Hitparade, I can definitely appreciate your frustrations, but I fail to see sinking to the level of these extremists as sound intervention. Yes, let us bring them to global justice, but let us not take away the kind of justice that God may have saved for them. You could just as well have a video of a woman being raped in New Orleans or an elderly man being beaten to death in Harlem, but finding a few gang bangers and tourturing them is not going to stop these attrocities from happening. The people who commit these haneous crimes don't make a rational cost benefit analysis. We might feel better about it, but what you propose is not really a solution at all.-Suspeckted

The following moral question, while not new, seems fitting for this discussion: You know that by the year 1945, Adolf Hitler is responsible for the murder of millions, and you somehow find yourself in a position to kill him in the year 1915, what do you do?

I rip him limb from limb very slowly!

22

drmiler

on Jan 05, 2005

Reply #20 By: latour999 - 1/5/2005 12:58:51 PM

You know, your intiteled to your opinion and entitled to voice the same. However I don't come on here and bad mouth your PM, so don't you come on here and bad mouth my president!
There will be no pain for us in the sense your talking.

First, Paul Martin is a corrupt do-nothing with his hands in the taxpayers cookie jar, and I did not vote for him and have no intention to. But he looks good when you put him next to Stephen Harper, who would set us back at least 20 years if elected. I much prefer Jack Layton. Second, I didn't realize that criticizing an inept President was not politically correct, but I will do it anyway, because it is necessary. Third, I criticized politicians on both sides, but focused on Bush because he seems to be one of the worst and the most prominent. Fourth, by pain I meant more terrorist attacks against troops in the Middle East and possibly at home if sound bites continue to pass for fighting the war on terror in an intelligent manner.

Like playing with semantics do ya? You didn't just criticize. What you said can be called an outright personal attack! *The Big Shining Lie* I believe is what you used. You want to criticize go for it. But maybe you should find out just what the word means first. Other than that, shut your piehole bud.

23

Rightwinger

on Jan 05, 2005

The following moral question, while not new, seems fitting for this discussion: You know that by the year 1945, Adolf Hitler is responsible for the murder of millions, and you somehow find yourself in a position to kill him in the year 1915, what do you do?

--hitparade

If you want to get technical, there's nothing you could do....you couldn't go back in time with an avowed purpose to alter history.
Let's go back even farther....let's say you went back to the year 1887 or '88 and killed his parents before he was born, thereby preventing his existence altogether. All the years would pass, the decades would turn, and none of the horrors he produced would have happened. WW2 as we know it would not have happened; the Holocaust, in all probability, would not have occurred. Now, the decades continue to turn, bringing us to the present, January 2005, with you making your decision to go back and kill Hitler.
If none of the terrible things that made you decide to go back and prevent him from ever even existing happened, what reason would you have to go back at all? Why would you need to go into the past and kill a man who never existed? See the paradox?
I once wrote a time travel story, and did a lot of research on time travel theory and things of that nature. It's weird stuff; hard to wrap your brain around.

But, just to play the game, of course I would kill him....but then, there would be 20 or more million more people in the world, for good or bad. They would then reproduce, bringing us that much closer to overpopulation. Who knows, maybe someone killed during the war would have been, or would have sired someone, even worse than Hitler, given time. Things happen for a reason, I believe, including wars, and not just the short-term reasons we can see.

24

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 05, 2005

You DO realize that even if we DID "get medieval" on these folks, we'd still be engaging in a form of warfare far more modern and civilized than what is being used against us?

Just a point to be made (glibly).

25

Rightwinger

on Jan 05, 2005

freedom fighter

---cactoblasta

This is one of those PC terms that really urks me.....what "freedom" are they fighting for? To take the territory of those who have the greater claim to it? The Hebrews were there long before anyone else.
How about the Freedom to degrade and enslave women? The freedom to lop off the hands of a starving beggar who steals a piece of bread? To kidnap and behead the unarmed women and old men who have only come to help them? To arrest the social, intellectual, technological and political development of their peoples?
Why do the more "compassionate" (read: liberals) of the world continue to view these savages as noble soldiers raging against the machine? They commit acts that the "sensitive" Left would protest as horrible acts of brutality hailing the decline of Western Civilization in their own nations. It seems to support them when committed by "freedom fighters", however.

They're terrorists. They're cowards who posture so threateningly with their machine guns while at the same time hiding their faces behind scarves as they thumb their noses at those who seek to stop them. They kill the innocent noncombatant with as much nonchalance as they kill the combatant.
They're nothing but savages and murderers deserving of a quick, bloody and most satisfyingly brutal death, just like they'd give to any of us.

Gee, do I sound bitter?

26

Rightwinger

on Jan 05, 2005

I feel that perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension skills before you make a foolish post like that. I was using the horror movie as a form of analogy - brutality on that level and far beyond would be necessary to intimidate something. Rivers of blood might be successful; mountains of skulls might be; but having their entire family for three generations stalked by bloodthirsty savages and then slowly tortured to death over the period of several days is almost certain to make a potential terrorist think twice. That's what I mean by horror movie-style violence. Not forcing them to watch movies.

---cactoblasta

For the record, cacto.....I understood where you were coming from with your original post.

27

Welcome to The Machine

on Jan 05, 2005

That's what I mean by horror movie-style violence.

They blow them selvs up! Nothing scares them.

Rivers of blood might be successful; mountains of skulls might be; but having their entire family for three generations stalked by bloodthirsty savages and then slowly tortured to death over the period of several days is almost certain to make a potential terrorist think twice.

You still don't understand. They don't think past their actions. That kind of crap won't make them think twice before they blow up a bus. They are told and deeply believe when they die they will live in a life of luxury. Thats why so many people including women offer to do so. So you seriously think that a river of blood or mountains of skills will make them think twice? Their beliefs and hatred for Americans goes too deep for that kind of crap. Give me a break. The only way they know how to communicate is by killing people and causing fear. Let me know when you pull your head out of your ass and get a flash of common sense.

And the analogy you used was piss poor.

28

cactoblasta

on Jan 05, 2005

Rightwinger - it's just one of those ironies that almost but not really amuses me. In the 80s they were freedom fighters, but now they're terrorists. Perhaps in the future they'll be called waste disposal agents. Who knows? But the newspeak of international relations is always worth pointing out if it gets a response like yours. Fight the power!

29

Rightwinger

on Jan 06, 2005

Rightwinger - it's just one of those ironies that almost but not really amuses me. In the 80s they were freedom fighters, but now they're terrorists. Perhaps in the future they'll be called waste disposal agents. Who knows? But the newspeak of international relations is always worth pointing out if it gets a response like yours. Fight the power!

----cactoblasta

If I'm reading this correctly, I take it as a compliment? If so, thank you, cacto.

Funny, but being a teenager in the 80s, I seem to remember it as being the other way around; in the 80s they were "terrorists", but more recently, they've been "freedom fighters".

30

Daiwa

on Jan 06, 2005

Yes, but the very act of killing a terrorist/freedom fighter creates new advocates for the cause because others can see that the terrorist's foe is brutal, violent and must be stopped.

1. We're not talking about "freedom fighters."

2. The fantasy that killing them helps their recruiting is just that. We are a convenient scapegoat because we won and are currently in control. Wouldn't matter to them if it was the UN, the Russians, whatever. The al Zarqawi's over there have an agenda, and it ain't to "let my people go."

3. So allowing them to kill innocents without fear of retribution will convince them that killing doesn't pay? How many of our innocents should we offer up? How many would it take to convince them that we no longer "must be stopped?" What's the magic number? You want to go over there and offer yourself up as sacrifice for our perceived sins, go right ahead - won't change their minds a bit.

Cheers,
Daiwa