Members Thumper Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 The reason they do that is because you don't really have faith in some of those things until they drop you to the deck. It also helps to be exposed in case someone gets ahold of one or the other and you get it used on you. When I was pepper sprayed I was sprayed and then attacked by two people and I had to draw my weapon and get them to the ground. Better for that stuff to happen during training than in real life. Dan Word. Everyone in the Army is exposed to tear gas (CS riot control agent) in Basic. It serves two purposes: 1) you learn to trust and value your protective mask, and 2) doing push-ups is a gas chamber full of CS and retching your guts out builds character. No, really. It does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 In other news, I was a member of the Pershing Rifles ROTC fraternity in college. Some Delta Kappa Epsilon @ssholes crashed one of our keggers. They had their own kegger a week later. I stopped by my National Guard Armory earlier in the day and asked the supply sergeant for a couple DM vomiting agent smoke grenades. Supply Sergeant: Corporal Hennick, why on earth do you need Puke Gas canisters? Me: Ah, we're doing field training with the MS-1 (ROTC freshman) class, Sergeant. I want to introduce some realism to the training. Supply Sergeant: Yeah. Right. (winks). Here, have three. One might be a dud... I waited until the Deke kegger was up and roaring. About one am, I checked the wind direction, put on my protective mask, and popped all three grenades in a nice down-wind cross pattern. Their house was on the edge of an open field, and the gas blew out into the open with no collateral damage o the neighbors. The results were epic. I retrieved all three expended cans before the De Pere Police Department responded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny_Crab Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 We stopped following the rules against the Japanese when we found our beheaded soldiers with their hacked off genitalia stuffed in the their mouths. As for terrorist, they don't represent any country, they don't distiguish between their enemies or the innocents and they don't wear uniforms. They should not be afforded "Geneva Convention" rights. Works fine until some rule or DOCUMENT comes out that labels JeffBass a domestic terrorist right and therefore not afforded "rights"? ........................................................................................................Now that this is all published and official, WAIT and see what kind of "advanced techniques" our military gets in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted April 21, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Perfessor Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 so what were the other hundred times for Just trying to clean up that scumbag was a major effort......duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 Hahaha. Maybe we should move to beer-boarding instead. No drowning. Just drinking. "Sooooo, ya shee, the weaponsh are.. in my pantsh! HIC" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 By your reply, I'm gathering you imply that we only used the humane torture technique and nothing like what they did... Torture is torture. We executed a man, killed him, for torturing. Semantics be damned, it's not a matter of if it was a kindler or gentler torture. We've just got a government of hypocrites. I think you've gathered way to much from my reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted April 21, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 21, 2009 So if he gave up everything he knew in 35 seconds, the other 100+ times were just to torture the guy?!? Seriously, if he gave it up after the first time, then why do it 100+ more times? I was of the mindset from the outset to go with "by any means necessary" relative to getting info from suspected terrorists; however, this reeks.Dick Cheney is petitioning the CIA to release the other memos. The ones that answer your question. According to what he said in an interview last night, he personally saw memos which laid out what info they received and that translated to how lives were saved, etc. You're basing your stance on recicinv only a part of the information. When we have the rest, we can make a better decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 Here we go again...My two cents: Torture usually doesn't work. The subject will get to the point when they'll say what they think the interrogator wants to hear, just to end the torture.We lose the moral high ground when we resort to the same methods used by our enemies.I served as a human intelligence officer in the Balkans in the late '90s. You can often get good, reliable intel through more humane means.I'm not saying coddle the bastards---far from it. Just that there are better ways to collect intel. You and I have had a strong disagreements about this, so let's just agree to disagree. I don't think we should take this tool out of our tool box but it's too late for that. Even if it was just the appearance that we might use it again. And now the pigs in Congress (headed by that ingrate pig D. Feinstein, CA) are still looking at prosecutions for those who took part in these 'tortures'. Do you think your brethren in the intel community should be prosecuted? Treated the same or worse than the terrorists we captured? They may happen if the leftist afunctional idiots in Congress have their way. The whole thing is upside down but I do agree with Dick Cheney on this issue. Let the rest of the classified documents out that addressed the effectiveness of such practices on these scum bags. Let's examine the results so we can have a REAL discussion instead of more lies, half truths and obfiscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 Dick Cheney is petitioning the CIA to release the other memos. The ones that answer your question. According to what he said in an interview last night, he personally saw memos which laid out what info they received and that translated to how lives were saved, etc. You're basing your stance on recicinv only a part of the information. When we have the rest, we can make a better decision. True, releasing the half that damn's the actions w/o releasing the results does smack a bit of "team" playing. There obviously could be overriding security concerns but if that is the case, it should have all stayed classified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 True, releasing the half that damn's the actions w/o releasing the results does smack a bit of "team" playing. There obviously could be overriding security concerns but if that is the case, it should have all stayed classified. I didn't get that impression when he was discussing it last night during his interview. I am quite sure some of the more sensitive information would be redacted but the important points could be made regarding the effectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted April 21, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 21, 2009 I didn't get that impression when he was discussing it last night during his interview.If he didn't discuss having the other info released, what was it he discussed last night? As an FYI, I saw the interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 War is not about human rights. War is precisely when human rights matter most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted April 21, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 War is precisely when human rights matter most. To whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 To whom? When the other side decides that our humans don't have a right to exist such as the attacks on civilians during 9/11, I appreciate an aggressive response from our leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 To whom? Humanity. People on both sides. If we are ever going to raise the bar we have to do it by raising the universal standard of how people are treated, even in warfare. Genocide, rape, torture, and mutilation are not acceptable. Set the bar higher so the world looks up and says, "Hey, that's a good idea - I'd like to be treated that way. Why doesn't my country do that?". The USA didn't get to be what it is by acting like everyone else. It set a higher moral ground based on a rational thesis of liberty, and then followed its own prescription. If the country wishes to lead humanity to a better mode of living, then it better continue to do so by example. Set the bar higher and hold it there, and don't suffer anyone who tries to limbo under it. IMO this is what makes America (and the West) great. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-424792/Blitz-torture-HQ--UK-troops-blow-Iraqi-police-base.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-424792/Blitz-torture-HQ--UK-troops-blow-Iraqi-police-base.html um...I hardly see how that building they blew up could be held accountable for the things bad humans did in it. Until we start respecting the rights of inanimate objects, how can we as animate objects hold out ourselves as "better" than them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 um...I hardly see how that building they blew up could be held accountable for the things bad humans did in it. Until we start respecting the rights of inanimate objects, how can we as animate objects hold out ourselves as "better" than them? Great. Deflect the point to the illustration. You DO suck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 Humanity. People on both sides. If we are ever going to raise the bar we have to do it by raising the universal standard of how people are treated, even in warfare. Genocide, rape, torture, and mutilation are not acceptable. Set the bar higher so the world looks up and says, "Hey, that's a good idea - I'd like to be treated that way. Why doesn't my country do that?".The USA didn't get to be what it is by acting like everyone else. It set a higher moral ground based on a rational thesis of liberty, and then followed its own prescription. If the country wishes to lead humanity to a better mode of living, then it better continue to do so by example. Set the bar higher and hold it there, and don't suffer anyone who tries to limbo under it.IMO this is what makes America (and the West) great.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-424792/Blitz-torture-HQ--UK-troops-blow-Iraqi-police-base.html If the US wanted to lead by example we'd not go to war in the first place. All I'm saying is in war there are few, if any, 'rules'... I guess 'try not to kill civilians' would be about the only one. Not using any tactic necessary to win is like going into the UFC and saying "I'm not going to learn Jiu Jitsu because fighting on the ground is boring." You'd get smoked! Torture is not humane, it's not glamourous, and it's not good... But it may be necessary in some circumstances. That's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 Great. Deflect the point to the illustration. You DO suck! It mattered a great deal to the building. I founding a new movement. Instead of PETA...it's PETB. People for the Ethical Treatment of Buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FreestyleIntruder Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 IMO this is what makes America (and the West) great. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-424792/Blitz-torture-HQ--UK-troops-blow-Iraqi-police-base.html Don't click that link anyone!! You'll contract Fascism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 You and I have had a strong disagreements about this, so let's just agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted April 21, 2009 Members Share Posted April 21, 2009 If the US wanted to lead by example we'd not go to war in the first place.All I'm saying is in war there are few, if any, 'rules'... I guess 'try not to kill civilians' would be about the only one. Not using any tactic necessary to win is like going into the UFC and saying "I'm not going to learn Jiu Jitsu because fighting on the ground is boring." You'd get smoked!Torture is not humane, it's not glamourous, and it's not good... But it may be necessary in some circumstances. That's all I'm saying. I couldn't disagree more. The moral high ground is a very important thing to hold, tactically-speaking. Not to mention that some things are nearly universal in their repugnance to the average human. People who torture for political ends deserve criminal prosecution and swift execution of justice. OTOH, you can lower yourself to the same standards as the governments of Iraq and Myanmar. Your call. In the end you are judged by the company you keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted April 22, 2009 Members Share Posted April 22, 2009 If he didn't discuss having the other info released, what was it he discussed last night? As an FYI, I saw the interview. The specifics. He intimated he requested the CIA release the specifics of all the results so we get outcomes. The rest of the information. Shouldn't we have the outcomes? It was, in fact, effective. It was reported this morning that POTUS security guy, Blair said as much in one of his emails. Bush MUST apologize to all those that didn't die in the LA building non-bombing that zubadeh (sp?) gave up in his waterboarding. Will the BDS ever end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted April 22, 2009 Members Share Posted April 22, 2009 So, will you answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.