A question for all republicans?

Question

This is a question for all republican half wits.

Why is it ok for the USA to torture people captured on a battle field and not ok for others who capture our soldiers on a battle field?

Also..why do republican traitors love to call others traitors...when they are the ones who are trying to change our country to a fascist state and roll back our freedoms and rights??

Answer 1

Its a classic double standard.

and as for the traitor thing, thats what republicans do best is smear attacks.

Answer 2

I don't think keeping someone awake for 72hr, playing loud music, changing the temperature from 100 to 50 degrees is torture. Even waterboarding isn't torture. There is no physical injury done. All one has to do to see what real torture was/is is to look at John McCain or the admiral that ran for VP with Ross Perot (I can't think of his name). Look what the terrorists have done to their enemies: beheadings, dragged through the streets, hung from overpasses. Why is there nothing being said from the extreme left condemning these practices that continue to happen, and we're still deluged with accusations about Guantanamo and Abu Grahib, and "secret prisons". How many "enemy combatants" are killed in our custody every year? How many innocent civilians are killed on a near daily basis by the terrorists/insurgents?

If we can get information from the enemy that stops an attack, or results in the capture of enemy leaders by making someone think they're drowning when they're not, more power to them. How dare you compare our methods of interogation with their methods of torture and murder. Maybe if we treated them the same way they treat their captives/hostages this thing would be over by now.

Answer 3

Well, this "Republican half wit" could answer this question with half my brain severed in the frontal cortex.

It almost seems funny to see movies depicting war during our Revolutionary period. Men would stand in a line and wait their turn to fire a shot. Opposing generals would have elegant lunches with one another and discuss the fine points of how the battle should be waged in a civilized manner, and at what time they should begin.

War has always had a military code of behavior. For example, if you surrender, you are supposed to be guaranteed medical attention to treat your wounds, food, and treatment that befits a person of your rank in the army. If you surrender, the enemy is bound by internationally recognized military codes of ethics. They cannot say, "Oh, it's too much bother to imprison you. We'll just shoot you now and get it over with".

When you hear about insurgents killing women and children, this is a severe breach in the rules of military engagement. Soldiers are only supposed to fight one another. Civilians are off limits. Wars are fought to make it impossible for the enemy to continue fighting. The general population of a country is not part of the fighting force. As long as they do not fight, they cannot be charged with war crimes.

What you consider "torture" is light treatment compared to the hell hole conditions these people would receive in their own countries. We have engaged in water boarding, but this leaves no lasting damage. Some of what has been referred to as "torture" is no different than a frat house hazing (I know, I've been there). We are treating these prisoners as one must necessarily treat terrorists. If they don't fight on behalf of a recognizable government, they should not qualify for Geneva Convention protection.

In stark contrast, our soldiers are fighting as if they had one hand tied behind their backs. Terrorists can kill at will. Soldiers are often instructed not to fire at all. They are like sitting ducks. Soldiers can't bomb an apartment building in the hopes of killing a few people they want to target on the third floor. Our soldiers are fighting honorably, taking great personal risk to avoid injuring civilians. The insurgents and the terrorists feel no compulsion to protect the non-combatents. Women, children, the elderly, the wounded... they're all fair targets for the insurgents. Hence, they do not deserve the rights a regular soldier would receive, who was fighting on behalf of his country.

See the difference?

It may sound funny to you, but if there was no exercise of self-restraint in war, it would be complete chaos and barbarism. If everyone participated in the fighting, how could one side offer a truce, or surrender? How could one army lay down its arms if there was no assurance they would not be slaughtered once they gave up their weapons?

Do you know why we can't negotiate with terrorists? Because they do not owe their allegiance to any single government. If we wanted to make a deal with the terrorists, who could enforce the terms of the deal? Who would be authorized to speak on behalf of the terrorists? It just doesn't work this way in the real world.

Answer 4

What our military does is not torture by any stretch of the imagination, outside of the media.

I think our marines are treated worse in training than the terrorists in Gitmo.

Answer 5

Your question is fallacious to start with...not to mention traitorous...IMHO

Answer 6

Because we are Americans!!!!!!!!!