Al Qaeda Chief urges westerners kidnapped

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Sitting on the fence... Worthless POS

That's the "I-was-going-to-before-I-decided-not-to" Syndrome....

AKA .. "Kerry-itis".....

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Me and my fellow Liars of the World call it the "I-was-going-to-before-I-decided-not-to" Syndrome....

AKA .. "Kerry-itis".....

Fixed it!

The rest of the world calls it the "WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE" SYNDROME....

AKA .. "Shrubya-itis".....

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, he isn't joking. This is one of the reasons that I think we should kill jihadis when found. Quick and dirty and blame them for resisting. Whether they were or not.

I also think this is one of the major reasons Obama wanted Bin Laden killed not captured. The other major reason was to avoid the fiasco of a trial. I'm sure there are other lesser reasons, but I think those were the big two.

Holding jihadis has had major problems.

First, once we reported them captured, we could no longer kill them. We had to either try them (with sketchy evidence), hold them without trial (bad), or release them if we had little or no evidence. More than a few of the ones we released went back to being jihadis.

We KNEW who and what they were simply due to the fact that they were in AQ training camps or were participating in an attack. But there is a difference between what you know and what you can prove in a court beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, that is true. But if we can't prove it in court, we cannot justify killing them, raghead or not.

This is why simply wiping them out when we found them is the better choice.

Second, we began the stupid and disgraceful policy of torture once we had all those prisoners. I guess we had to do something with them, right? All the good intelligence we ever got came without torture. The storyline in Zero Dark Thirty that torture helped get evidence to find Bin Laden has been debunked.

But the damage to our reputation has been indelible. We have no moral grounds for criticizing Putin or Assad over human rights violations after all the waterboarding stories came out.

If AG starts water boarding captured Westerners to get information from them, what exactly do we say?

And third, obviously, is the kidnapping strategy to exchanges prisoners. If there are no prisoners, there is no reason to kidnap innocents.

If we eventually find Al Zawahiri, let's hope he gets a bullet like Bin Laden.

In a military operation to capture OBL, if he was killed while resisting, I think we can justify it, if a reasonable person believed he was resisting, and evidence existed that would justify his arrest for serious felony charges - which existed in his case.
However, if we are going to kidnap and kill people just to avoid the inconvenience of proving their guilt, we aren't much of a country anymore.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Notice the stupidity and desperation of your argument.

I said I would never "vote" for Hillary because of nepotism (not to mention politics). So you switched "vote" to "put into public office" so you could pretend to score a point. That is the only way you can.

But not even THAT part is right. In 2008, I voted Libertarian (Bob Barr). Hillary was ALREADY in public office when I voted for Obama in 2012.

Also, I moved to Texas in the early 1990s. So, in 2000, when Hillary got elected, I wasn't even eligible to vote in NY.

So basically, you got nothing right in your post. But that is typical, isn't it? And now you will swear all those inaccuracies are FACTS, won't you IBLying?

You already admitted that you are congenitally stupid when you admitted you voted for Odumbo, et al, you stupid Yankee prick.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

In a military operation to capture OBL, if he was killed while resisting, I think we can justify it, if a reasonable person believed he was resisting, and evidence existed that would justify his arrest for serious felony charges - which existed in his case.
However, if we are going to kidnap and kill people just to avoid the inconvenience of proving their guilt, we aren't much of a country anymore.

You wrote:

"Yes, that is true. But if we can't prove it in court, we cannot justify killing them, raghead or not."

Do you really believe that? Because we killed a shit load of Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Iraqis and others without trials.

Regarding AQ, I did not say "kidnap and kill". I said "kill". So, when you find AQ, you drone them or shoot them before they even have a chance to raise their hands. Or even after.

It is very easy to make a case that a terrorist was resisting. It is your word against a dead man's. Do you really think OBL was resisting against dozens of SEALS?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You already admitted that you are congenitally stupid when you admitted you voted for Odumbo, et al, you stupid Yankee prick.

You've got nothing.

Except bitterness.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You wrote:

"Yes, that is true. But if we can't prove it in court, we cannot justify killing them, raghead or not."

Do you really believe that? Because we killed a shit load of Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Iraqis and others without trials.

Regarding AQ, I did not say "kidnap and kill". I said "kill". So, when you find AQ, you drone them or shoot them before they even have a chance to raise their hands. Or even after.

It is very easy to make a case that a terrorist was resisting. It is your word against a dead man's. Do you really think OBL was resisting against dozens of SEALS?

In a declared war on the battlefield, the other guys are trying to kill you, by all means kill them. It wouldn't be a war crime. But, if you take them prisoner, you can't arbitrarily execute them. Geneva convention agreements prohibit that. The "war on terror" rules are being stretched out to cover droning, I suppose, and it is messy and problematic. Since I don't trust what our government is up to, I tend towards restraint. It is probably only a matter of time before racists like Sterling get drone striked in their Beverly Hills mansions the way things are going.
If the bad guys actually start kidnapping Americans, and ransoming them for prisoners, I'd be inclined to ratchet up the pressure.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

In a declared war on the battlefield, the other guys are trying to kill you, by all means kill them. It wouldn't be a war crime. But, if you take them prisoner, you can't arbitrarily execute them. Geneva convention agreements prohibit that. The "war on terror" rules are being stretched out to cover droning, I suppose, and it is messy and problematic. Since I don't trust what our government is up to, I tend towards restraint. It is probably only a matter of time before racists like Sterling get drone striked in their Beverly Hills mansions the way things are going.
If the bad guys actually start kidnapping Americans, and ransoming them for prisoners, I'd be inclined to ratchet up the pressure.

and that's exactly why Dilberts like you are reduced to taking out the trash for their wife, and not much more

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by CJ7

and that's exactly why Dilberts like you are reduced to taking out the trash for their wife, and not much more

Don't you have some more assets to transfer to your daughter to avoid losing in bankruptcy...carry on...
Also, at least I have a wife .. go back to your boyfriend

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Don't you have some more assets to transfer to your daughter to avoid losing in bankruptcy...carry on...
Also, at least I have a wife .. go back to your boyfriend

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

In a declared war on the battlefield, the other guys are trying to kill you, by all means kill them. It wouldn't be a war crime. But, if you take them prisoner, you can't arbitrarily execute them.

Yes. And that is WHY you should not take them prisoner in the first place.

Geneva convention agreements prohibit that. The "war on terror" rules are being stretched out to cover droning, I suppose, and it is messy and problematic. Since I don't trust what our government is up to, I tend towards restraint. It is probably only a matter of time before racists like Sterling get drone striked in their Beverly Hills mansions the way things are going.

If the bad guys actually start kidnapping Americans, and ransoming them for prisoners, I'd be inclined to ratchet up the pressure.

If we locate Ayman Al-Zawahiri, blow him up with drones.

If we can't use drones, then send in a special operations force and shoot him and his guards before they can raise their hands.

If they somehow raise their hands, shoot them anyway and claim they were resisting later.

No will will ever take hostages to trade for Al-Zawahiri in that situation.

[CJ7]

kill them all, let Allah sort it out later.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You've got nothing.

Except bitterness.

You ignorantly imagine so because you're an unprincipled, moronic Yankee prick that never knew or understood the meaning of words like "dignity" and "principles": and you proved you have neither when you voted for Odumbo and company.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CJ7

kill them all, let Allah sort it out later.

Drone 'em cruise 'em fuck 'em.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You ignorantly imagine so because you're an unprincipled, moronic Yankee prick that never knew or understood the meaning of words like "dignity" and "principles": and you proved you have neither when you voted for Odumbo and company.

Dignity? Principles? Says the Confederate sympathizer.