4 US Soldiers killed in Karbala were first abducted

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
I believe that Iranian agents had a hand at least indirectly in the murder fo these 4 US soldiers.

Based on what?

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps his belief is based upon the coldness and precision with which the attack was executed. It screams of training well beyond that of your average Iraqi insurgents. So believing that Iranians may be involved is one of several logical conclusions that an analyst would come up with.

Simply because you may believe otherwise does not make the analyst wrong. You may both be wrong... or correct... or partially wrong or correct... or...

Yeah, those former Ba'athists never got any training during those decades under Saddam.

Or those CIA-trained Shiite leaders, never got any advanced training either.



:roll:

Then put up an argument that you stand behind and will defend that refutes mine. I may be wrong. You are simply being inane.

Why would I do that? I was commenting on Dr. Counterstrike's post, not yours. Had I wanted to comment on your baseless opinion, I'd have quoted your useless rhetoric solely.

Do you have something against video games, or those who play them? I'm quite sure that I'm not the only poster here at anandTECH who enjoys gaming.

you, my delusional friend, are obsessed.

I take note you completely avoided the point I raised, Dr. Counterstrike.

Your silence on the matter is quiet telling.

Now, back to your little video game.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
I believe that Iranian agents had a hand at least indirectly in the murder fo these 4 US soldiers.

Based on what?

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps his belief is based upon the coldness and precision with which the attack was executed. It screams of training well beyond that of your average Iraqi insurgents. So believing that Iranians may be involved is one of several logical conclusions that an analyst would come up with.

Simply because you may believe otherwise does not make the analyst wrong. You may both be wrong... or correct... or partially wrong or correct... or...

Yeah, those former Ba'athists never got any training during those decades under Saddam.

Or those CIA-trained Shiite leaders, never got any advanced training either.



:roll:

Then put up an argument that you stand behind and will defend that refutes mine. I may be wrong. You are simply being inane.

Why would I do that? I was commenting on Dr. Counterstrike's post, not yours. Had I wanted to comment on your baseless opinion, I'd have quoted your useless rhetoric solely.

Do you have something against video games, or those who play them? I'm quite sure that I'm not the only poster here at anandTECH who enjoys gaming.

you, my delusional friend, are obsessed.

I take note you completely avoided the point I raised, Dr. Counterstrike.

Your silence on the matter is quiet telling.

Now, back to your little video game.

They may have been ex-Ba'athist soldiers or Shia militia, but I won't be surprised to find out that Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or Iran itself were directly involved in the training and mission planning.

The fact is that we do not yet know who participated in the attack. All we can do, at least here at P&N, is take educational guesses and state our own theories... right or wrong.

wtf is your problem anyway? Why do you insist on posting personal insults every damn day around here?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What is known?

1) Well-planned and executed attack.
2) US military lied about it.
3) 4 more US soldiers not coming home and sadly they won't be the last US troops to die for a fatally flawed policy.

 

[ProfJohn]

So we have captured four of the people who we believed to have carried out the execution of American soldiers.

We start asking them question and they refuse to answer. Would this be a case where something along the lines of water boarding would be acceptable to most Americans?

I would say that a vast majority of Americans would respond with a ?yes? to that question.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we have captured four of the people who we believed to have carried out the execution of American soldiers.

We start asking them question and they refuse to answer. Would this be a case where something along the lines of water boarding would be acceptable to most Americans?

I would say that a vast majority of Americans would respond with a ?yes? to that question.

Actually no because common sense would tell us that that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.


Thinking twice before you say or do something goes a long way...Think about it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we have captured four of the people who we believed to have carried out the execution of American soldiers.

We start asking them question and they refuse to answer. Would this be a case where something along the lines of water boarding would be acceptable to most Americans?

I would say that a vast majority of Americans would respond with a ?yes? to that question.

Actually no because common sense would tell us that that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.

Thinking twice before you say or do something goes a long way...Think about it.

ummm HELLO!!! They aren't torturing our soldiers, they are just shoting them in the head.
In fact having them just tortured would be an improvement of bullets in the back of the head.

I think what happened here just blew the whole treat them nice so they will treat us nice arguement out of the water.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

ummm HELLO!!! They aren't torturing our soldiers, they are just shoting them in the head.
In fact having them just tortured would be an improvement of bullets in the back of the head.

I think what happened here just blew the whole treat them nice so they will treat us nice arguement out of the water.

Don't you worry Prof. those 4 guys will be water boarded, electrically drilled, a few cig burns and then they will get the bullet in the back of the head or hanged

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we have captured four of the people who we believed to have carried out the execution of American soldiers.

We start asking them question and they refuse to answer. Would this be a case where something along the lines of water boarding would be acceptable to most Americans?

I would say that a vast majority of Americans would respond with a ?yes? to that question.

Actually no because common sense would tell us that that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.

While I agree that this wouldn't be an ideal case to explore harsher interrogation techniques, I must object to the rest of your post... Our enemies (past, present, or future) will never hesitate to torture our soldiers, regardless of our own practices...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

ummm HELLO!!! They aren't torturing our soldiers, they are just shoting them in the head.
In fact having them just tortured would be an improvement of bullets in the back of the head.

I think what happened here just blew the whole treat them nice so they will treat us nice arguement out of the water.

Don't you worry Prof. those 4 guys will be water boarded, electrically drilled, a few cig burns and then they will get the bullet in the back of the head or hanged

umm, no they won't. That statement is 100% bullsh1t.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

umm, no they won't. That statement is 100% bullsh1t.

No, it's 100% true
You'll just have to take my word on that
lol

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we have captured four of the people who we believed to have carried out the execution of American soldiers.

We start asking them question and they refuse to answer. Would this be a case where something along the lines of water boarding would be acceptable to most Americans?

I would say that a vast majority of Americans would respond with a ?yes? to that question.

Actually no because common sense would tell us that that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.

Thinking twice before you say or do something goes a long way...Think about it.

ummm HELLO!!! They aren't torturing our soldiers, they are just shoting them in the head.
In fact having them just tortured would be an improvement of bullets in the back of the head.

I think what happened here just blew the whole treat them nice so they will treat us nice arguement out of the water.

I'm not talking about terrorists. In fact, George Bush doesn't recognize terrorists as soldiers, just enemy combatents. Nevertheless, if we have to face a traditional army in the future, they will see our past actions and conclude that since we felt ok to disregard the law, they have a free pass as well. Hell, they simply have to label us as enemy combatents and commence with the tortures.

This slippery slope will have tremendous consequences for future wars. Besides, this whole "war on terror" is a joke considering that we're fighting an ideology with traditional means. This kind of war is supposed to be fought via diplomacy and propoganda. These terrorists are doing what they are described as, terrorizing. If I got up out of my chair, went to a local fertilizer farm, packaged it up, and blew something up, I may be automatically labelled a terrorist, then the whole US Military will come after me. Do you understand how stupid that is? I could be anyone, anywhere, but entire resources are wasted on me because George Bush says that I'm part of a war.

Save your money, save your soldier's lives (for more important future battles) and try to clearly understand what we are fighting against and what started it all.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
I take note you completely avoided the point I raised, Dr. Counterstrike.

Your silence on the matter is quiet telling.

Now, back to your little video game.

They may have been ex-Ba'athist soldiers or Shia militia, but I won't be surprised to find out that Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or Iran itself were directly involved in the training and mission planning.

Al Qaeda??

:laugh:

Christ. You believe in the boogeyman, don't you?

The fact is that we do not yet know who participated in the attack. All we can do, at least here at P&N, is take educational guesses and state our own theories... right or wrong.

wtf is your problem anyway? Why do you insist on posting personal insults every damn day around here?

Because I can't stand charlatans such as yourself.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we have captured four of the people who we believed to have carried out the execution of American soldiers.

We start asking them question and they refuse to answer. Would this be a case where something along the lines of water boarding would be acceptable to most Americans?

I would say that a vast majority of Americans would respond with a ?yes? to that question.

Actually no because common sense would tell us that that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.

While I agree that this wouldn't be an ideal case to explore harsher interrogation techniques, I must object to the rest of your post... Our enemies (past, present, or future) will never hesitate to torture our soldiers, regardless of our own practices...

So, that means we just toss aside decades of support of the Geneva Conventions and stoop to their level? That means we toss aside every thing every soldier that's lost his or her life has fought for?

Get a fcking clue.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we have captured four of the people who we believed to have carried out the execution of American soldiers.

We start asking them question and they refuse to answer. Would this be a case where something along the lines of water boarding would be acceptable to most Americans?

I would say that a vast majority of Americans would respond with a ?yes? to that question.

Actually no because common sense would tell us that that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.

While I agree that this wouldn't be an ideal case to explore harsher interrogation techniques, I must object to the rest of your post... Our enemies (past, present, or future) will never hesitate to torture our soldiers, regardless of our own practices...

So, that means we just toss aside decades of support of the Geneva Conventions and stoop to their level? That means we toss aside every thing every soldier that's lost his or her life has fought for?

Get a fcking clue.

That's basically what he's saying. The funny thing about characters such as Palehorse is that they haven't a clue what they're fighting for. They don't realize or fail to understand that there is power, deep power, in the moral fabric of a nation which is seein through her laws. To cast them aside as mere annoyance or to undermine them because your enemy does as well makes you lose the essence of what you're really fighting for.

 

[ProfJohn]

Orignal Earl, Narmer, conjur and anyone else making the POW argument
You guys do realize that the ONLY enemy to treat our POWs in a manner approaching the proper treatment of POWs in the past century was Germany during WW 2.

In every other war our POWs have been mistreated. This whole if we torture them they will torture us argument is total crap. They are already torturing our troops. Or in this case just outright killing them.

I am not advocating that we go around torturing POWs. What I am saying is that your whole argument is built on a false premise. If you want to argue that we should not water board based on moral reasons fine, just don?t try the whole ?that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.? crap. Because they are already doing it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Orignal Earl, Narmer, conjur and anyone else making the POW argument
You guys do realize that the ONLY enemy to treat our POWs in a manner approaching the proper treatment of POWs in the past century was Germany during WW 2.

In every other war our POWs have been mistreated. This whole if we torture them they will torture us argument is total crap. They are already torturing our troops. Or in this case just outright killing them.

I am not advocating that we go around torturing POWs. What I am saying is that your whole argument is built on a false premise. If you want to argue that we should not water board based on moral reasons fine, just don?t try the whole ?that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.? crap. Because they are already doing it.

OK, how about we don't do it because it lowers ourselves to their level and we lose all moral high ground which makes us just like them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Orignal Earl, Narmer, conjur and anyone else making the POW argument
You guys do realize that the ONLY enemy to treat our POWs in a manner approaching the proper treatment of POWs in the past century was Germany during WW 2.

In every other war our POWs have been mistreated. This whole if we torture them they will torture us argument is total crap. They are already torturing our troops. Or in this case just outright killing them.

I am not advocating that we go around torturing POWs. What I am saying is that your whole argument is built on a false premise. If you want to argue that we should not water board based on moral reasons fine, just don?t try the whole ?that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.? crap. Because they are already doing it.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502062.html">Senate Supports Interrogation Limits
90-9 Vote on the Treatment of Detainees Is a Bipartisan Rebuff of the White House</a>

Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops may use against terrorism suspects, the latest sign that alarm over treatment of prisoners in the Middle East and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is widespread in both parties....

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript324_full.html

JOHN ASHCROFT: You know, I condemn torture. I think it...

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE): So it's not justified, then?

JOHN ASHCROFT: I don't think it's productive, let alone justified.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE): Well, I don't either. And by the way, there's a reason -- I'll conclude by saying -- there's a reason why we sign these treaties: to protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured, they are not tortured. That's the reason, in case anybody forgets it.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/">Torture's Terrible Toll
Abusive interrogation tactics produce bad intel, and undermine the values we hold dear. Why we must, as a nation, do better.</a>

By Sen. John McCain
Newsweek

We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear?whether it is true or false?if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Orignal Earl, Narmer, conjur and anyone else making the POW argument
You guys do realize that the ONLY enemy to treat our POWs in a manner approaching the proper treatment of POWs in the past century was Germany during WW 2.

In every other war our POWs have been mistreated. This whole if we torture them they will torture us argument is total crap. They are already torturing our troops. Or in this case just outright killing them.

I am not advocating that we go around torturing POWs. What I am saying is that your whole argument is built on a false premise. If you want to argue that we should not water board based on moral reasons fine, just don?t try the whole ?that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.? crap. Because they are already doing it.

Here's a question for you: Does the end justifies the means?

We are a superpower because we've have very high standards for ourselves. The day we start becoming hypocritical is the day we lose our moral authority. That will seriously impede the strength of our criticism of others. In fact, it was bin Laden himself that noticed this hypocritical behaviour of ours in regards to SA and the Middle East in general when he started his jihad against America. He question how America can claim the moral high ground when we support dictatorships across the Earth, especially in his home country. When he attacked us because of it, instead of asking the hard questions, Americans suddenly got amnesia and got all patriotic. Now, we're in an ideological battle BECAUSE we lowered the bar for so long. Guess what, we're lowering ourselves even further if we continue down this slippery slope.

This "war on terror" will never be won on a battlefield. In other words, we're fighting the wrong way. It will only be won when we regain the moral high ground and let others see America from the pedestal she once stood. No more hyporcisy; no more double standards.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
I take note you completely avoided the point I raised, Dr. Counterstrike.

Your silence on the matter is quiet telling.

Now, back to your little video game.

They may have been ex-Ba'athist soldiers or Shia militia, but I won't be surprised to find out that Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or Iran itself were directly involved in the training and mission planning.

Al Qaeda??

:laugh:

Christ. You believe in the boogeyman, don't you?

umm, have you lived under a rock for three years? Al Qaeda has been in Iraq for at least that long... Do you deny their presence in Iraq? Do you dismiss the thousands of reports of Al Qaeda's active role in the hostilities there?

Wow...

The fact is that we do not yet know who participated in the attack. All we can do, at least here at P&N, is take educational guesses and state our own theories... right or wrong.

wtf is your problem anyway? Why do you insist on posting personal insults every damn day around here?

Because I can't stand charlatans such as yourself.

more personal insults FTW! brilliant!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we have captured four of the people who we believed to have carried out the execution of American soldiers.

We start asking them question and they refuse to answer. Would this be a case where something along the lines of water boarding would be acceptable to most Americans?

I would say that a vast majority of Americans would respond with a ?yes? to that question.

Actually no because common sense would tell us that that would give our future enemies the excuse to torture our soldiers.

While I agree that this wouldn't be an ideal case to explore harsher interrogation techniques, I must object to the rest of your post... Our enemies (past, present, or future) will never hesitate to torture our soldiers, regardless of our own practices...

So, that means we just toss aside decades of support of the Geneva Conventions and stoop to their level? That means we toss aside every thing every soldier that's lost his or her life has fought for?

Get a fcking clue.

We've done nothing of the sort. Our new laws simply clarify and define the legal limits on out interrogation methods; versus the old system wherein every individual interrogator had to interpret the GC's themselves. That problem has thankfully been fixed.

Between the two of us, I'm certainly not the one who needs a clue...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
I take note you completely avoided the point I raised, Dr. Counterstrike.

Your silence on the matter is quiet telling.

Now, back to your little video game.

They may have been ex-Ba'athist soldiers or Shia militia, but I won't be surprised to find out that Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or Iran itself were directly involved in the training and mission planning.

Al Qaeda??

:laugh:

Christ. You believe in the boogeyman, don't you?

umm, have you lived under a rock for three years? Al Qaeda has been in Iraq for at least that long... Do you deny their presence in Iraq? Do you dismiss the thousands of reports of Al Aqaeda's active role in the hostilities there?

Wow...

Yes, I emphatically deny any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Just because the WH and the M$M says Al Qaeda is there doesn't mean it is. Al Qaeda has become a catch-all term for any militant Islamist group. Al Qaeda, that associated with bin Laden/Zawahiri, number in the hundreds and many were killed in Afghanistan or are holed up in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Surely you with your VAST intel knowledge would know this.



Oh wait....

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Because I can't stand charlatans such as yourself.

more personal insults FTW! brilliant!

Uh, merely stating a fact is not an insult. Again, get a fcking clue,

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
So, that means we just toss aside decades of support of the Geneva Conventions and stoop to their level? That means we toss aside every thing every soldier that's lost his or her life has fought for?

Get a fcking clue.

We've done nothing of the sort. Our new laws simply clarify and define the legal limits on out interrogation methods; versus the old system wherein every individual interrogator had to interpret the GC's themselves. That problem has thankfully been fixed.

Between the two of us, I'm certainly not the one who needs a clue...

Hope you're stocked up on your antivert prescription but with that much spin, you're going to need it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
I take note you completely avoided the point I raised, Dr. Counterstrike.

Your silence on the matter is quiet telling.

Now, back to your little video game.

They may have been ex-Ba'athist soldiers or Shia militia, but I won't be surprised to find out that Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or Iran itself were directly involved in the training and mission planning.

Al Qaeda??

:laugh:

Christ. You believe in the boogeyman, don't you?

umm, have you lived under a rock for three years? Al Qaeda has been in Iraq for at least that long... Do you deny their presence in Iraq? Do you dismiss the thousands of reports of Al Aqaeda's active role in the hostilities there?

Wow...

Yes, I emphatically deny any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Just because the WH and the M$M says Al Qaeda is there doesn't mean it is. Al Qaeda has become a catch-all term for any militant Islamist group. Al Qaeda, that associated with bin Laden/Zawahiri, number in the hundreds and many were killed in Afghanistan or are holed up in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Surely you with your VAST intel knowledge would know this.

you are absolutely wrong. There is a terrorist organization in Iraq known, quite simply, as "Al Qaeda in Iraq"... they even made their name dummy proof for you.

They are very real.

ps: you know absolutely nothing about terrorism or the Middle East beyond what you've read at moveon.org.

GG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, I emphatically deny any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Just because the WH and the M$M says Al Qaeda is there doesn't mean it is. Al Qaeda has become a catch-all term for any militant Islamist group. Al Qaeda, that associated with bin Laden/Zawahiri, number in the hundreds and many were killed in Afghanistan or are holed up in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Surely you with your VAST intel knowledge would know this.

you are absolutely wrong. There is a terrorist organization in Iraq known, quite simply, as "Al Qaeda in Iraq"... they even made their name dummy proof for you.

They are very real.

ps: you know absolutely nothing about terrorism or the Middle East beyond what you've read at moveon.org.

GG

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

OMG! Now I know for SURE you are full of ****. Nothing but a right-wing parrot.

Al Qaeda in Iraq.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Even your beloved neocon heroes know that Zarqawi being linked to Al Qaeda and, hence, "Al Qaeda in Iraq", is an unfounded claim:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/18/opinion/main618114.shtml

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, I emphatically deny any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Just because the WH and the M$M says Al Qaeda is there doesn't mean it is. Al Qaeda has become a catch-all term for any militant Islamist group. Al Qaeda, that associated with bin Laden/Zawahiri, number in the hundreds and many were killed in Afghanistan or are holed up in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Surely you with your VAST intel knowledge would know this.

you are absolutely wrong. There is a terrorist organization in Iraq known, quite simply, as "Al Qaeda in Iraq"... they even made their name dummy proof for you.

They are very real.

ps: you know absolutely nothing about terrorism or the Middle East beyond what you've read at moveon.org.

GG

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

OMG! Now I know for SURE you are full of ****. Nothing but a right-wing parrot.

Al Qaeda in Iraq.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Even your beloved neocon heroes know that Zarqawi being linked to Al Qaeda and, hence, "Al Qaeda in Iraq", is an unfounded claim:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/18/opinion/main618114.shtml

I thought Dave was the only one who used that childish laugh... I guess he has an apprentice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq