Why must we show restraint to our enemies.

[Justin24]

In a recent (today) video Al-Qaida of Iraq released a video showing two dead soldiers they killed in retalliation for the supposed Rape of an Iraqi woman. In the video, which I saw it shows one soldier who was decapitated. A few seconds later a foot comes into view where the videographer is stepping on the head of the other US soldier.

Why must we show restraint against them and not be allowed to torture or disrepect there bodies, such as cremate them, which is not allowed in the Muslim religion. This would only affect the insurgent fighters and not civilians. Is it because we have to many morals and are to good for that. Is there a line that is drawn that says enough is enough?


The video can be found here. *It is very Graphic* mods can remove the link if they want to. This was my though after watching the Video.


http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2006/july/ogrish-dot-com-us_soldiers_shown_dead_in_video.wmv


Remember the video is graphic!!!

 

[Axver]

Why must we show restraint against them and not be allowed to torture or disrepect there bodies, such as cremate them, which is not allowed in the Muslim religion.

Because that would be stooping to their level and further perpetuate the cycle of violence and revenge.

 

[Justin24]

One of the reasons I posted that link is because we have seen videos of what our bombs and soldiers have done to the iraqis. Now we must see what the iraqi insurgents do to our men and woman of the armed forces.

 

[Justin24]

Does that mean we should allow them to continue as long as we dont stoop to there level?

 

[deep]

Originally posted by Justin24
Is it because we have to many morals and are to good for that.

gang raping a 14 or 15 year old girl

murdering her family including a 5 year old girl

currently there are at least 4 creditable cases where U. S. troops did heinous crimes that were made to look like insurgent deaths and covered up for months

do you think these are the only four?

the Iraqis know better


As for us, we do not have anything to lose. The swimmer in the sea does not fear rain. You have occupied our land, defiled our honour, violated our dignity, shed our blood, ransacked our money, demolished our houses, rendered us homeless, raped our children, and tampered with our security. We will treat you in the same way.

 

[BVS]

Why must we show restraint against them and not be allowed to torture or disrepect there bodies, such as cremate them, which is not allowed in the Muslim religion.

What would be gained from torturing or cremating their bodies?

Revenge? Make us feel better?

 

[Justin24]

What about the heinous crimes insurgent fighters from other countries have done to iraqi civilians. I am sure they have raped and pillaged too. What about the sectorial battles between Sunnis and Shiites? The murders the commit upon them selves is not due to US military internvention but that of terrorist groups who want to get rid of one race of people.

 

[Justin24]

Re: Re: Why must we show restraint to our enemies.

What would be gained from torturing or cremating their bodies?

Revenge? Make us feel better?

Obviously by that video it makes them feel better since it's 100% God Approved.

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Why must we show restraint to our enemies.

Obviously by that video it makes them feel better since it's 100% God Approved.

So it will make our soldiers feel better if we allow them to torture?

Seems like a pretty weak argument.

 

[Justin24]

If we allowed to do there "job" then these insurgents groups might back off. We shouls follow a lite version of the rules of engagement.

 

[BVS]

If we allowed to do there "job" then these insurgents groups might back off. We shouls follow a lite version of the rules of engagement.

I didn't realize the job of the soldiers were to torture.

 

[Axver]

Does that mean we should allow them to continue as long as we dont stoop to there level?

It means that if you treat people with respect and mercy, you will win goodwill and have a better time stopping those who commit atrocities; if you treat them disrespectfully and torture them, it will only turn more against you and end up worse in the long run.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It means that if you treat people with respect and mercy, you will win goodwill and have a better time stopping those who commit atrocities; if you treat them disrespectfully and torture them, it will only turn more against you and end up worse in the long run.

The way we treat the terrorists, whether humanely or inhumanely, has no effect whatsoever on them. Their goal is to kill as many as they can.

 

[Justin24]

It means that if you treat people with respect and mercy, you will win goodwill and have a better time stopping those who commit atrocities; if you treat them disrespectfully and torture them, it will only turn more against you and end up worse in the long run.

The insurgents don't care. They obviously show no restraint again civilian populations. Look at this past week 41 dead from being shot in the heads and mosque bombings. Where is Allah to punish the wicked.

And to answer your Question BVS. We have soldiers in the military (intelligence) to do that, like they have men in there armies to do such things. But our goal is to destroy them first. With out the uncessesary civilian bloodshed.

 

[maycocksean]

Does that mean we should allow them to continue as long as we dont stoop to there level?

Justin, I think we touched on this same topic a few threads back and I understand your sentiments. I didn't watch the video but I'm sure if I did it would arouse in me the same natural desire to "hit back" so to speak. To make these guys pay for what they did etc, to show them how it feels. It seems, again, you are arguing for action based on heated emotion--grief and rage.

However "right" it might feel to do that, I think we have a responsiblity to what our country stands for to stick to a higher standard. The reality is that we should not "do the same" to them for one simple reason. It's wrong. In fact your very horror at what they did argues that it is wrong. And you know the old saying, "two wrongs don't make a right."

Your above statement implies something that no one is actually supporting. You're asking"should we allow them to continue." Where is ANYone suggesting that we "allow them to continue" beheading? Is this a policy anyone is suggesting? "Let's let the terrorist behead and torture people, because we're not going to do it." This makes no sense at all! There is nothing to be gained by us using their tactics (and I'd grant probably not much to be lost either, since I don't think that will stop them) other than that it will feel "good". That "good feeling" of making them suffer like they did our guys comes at high cost--the cost of our humanity.

 

[BVS]

And to answer your Question BVS. We have soldiers in the military (intelligence) to do that,

We do not have men in our military that are employed to break the laws of war, as much as Rumsfeld and so many on the right may find that hard to believe.

 

[BVS]

The way we treat the terrorists, whether humanely or inhumanely, has no effect whatsoever on them.

I'd like to live under the notion that all men CAN be redeemed, if they will is another story, but without that notion we might as well just kill them all.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I've got a better question, Justin 24: why must I show restraint toward you?

 

[AchtungBono]

There is no greater joy in my heart than seeing an arch-terrorist get exactly what he deserved . I shed no tears for Zarqawi or for any of the terrorists that we've killed in our strikes in Gaza - they live by the sword and they'll die by the sword.

However, I don't believe that it is right to mutilate bodies. That is already OVERKILL (no pun intended). To me, it is satisfying enough to know that their blight has been removed from the earth. I don't need to satisfy any blood lust by having their bodies mutilated.

..........with the exception of Osama Bin Laden of course.....when he's captured I'd like him to be skinned alive, boiled in oil, torn limb from limb, dipped in sulphuric acid, his fingernails torn out with a rusty plier, buried alive in a box with venemous snakes and then killed.......maybe.

 

[BVS]

There is no greater joy in my heart than seeing an arch-terrorist get exactly what he deserved . I shed no tears for Zarqawi or for any of the terrorists that we've killed in our strikes in Gaza - they live by the sword and they'll die by the sword.

However, I don't believe that it is right to mutilate bodies. That is already OVERKILL (no pun intended). To me, it is satisfying enough to know that their blight has been removed from the earth. I don't need to satisfy any blood lust by having their bodies mutilated.

..........with the exception of Osama Bin Laden of course.....when he's captured I'd like him to be skinned alive, boiled in oil, torn limb from limb, dipped in sulphuric acid, his fingernails torn out with a rusty plier, buried alive in a box with venemous snakes and then killed.......maybe.

Yes, my faith in humanity is restored.

 

[silja]

Yes, my faith in humanity is restored.

Funny, reading the posts in this thread has more or less made me lose mine.

I cannot rejoice in the death of a fellow human being and it chills me to the core to read that some people here apparently condone or advocate cruelty, torture and barbarism.

 

[Axver]

The way we treat the terrorists, whether humanely or inhumanely, has no effect whatsoever on them. Their goal is to kill as many as they can.

I completely disagree with this notion. Maybe the hardcore, bloodthirsty terrorists aren't going to be swayed by humane treatment, but the less devoted? For sure. Let's do a simple comparison. If a country has been occupied by a foreign army, I think it is pretty safe to assume that if that foreign army is seen to commit atrocities and treat the people (even the criminals) of the occupied country with contempt and disrespect, that will sway more people towards the cause of the "resistance", while if the foreign army treats the people with compassion and mercy, they will create goodwill within the society and violent elements will become an isolated, insignificant minority.

And at the end of the day, no matter what crimes a person has committed, they are nonetheless a human, worthy of being treated as a human. Just because their wrongs are more heinous to you than the wrongs of another (and we've all done wrong in our lives) does not justify treating them in a heinous manner.

 

[BVS]

Funny, reading the posts in this thread has more or less made me lose mine.

I'm not sure if you noticted the , usually means my comment comes with sarcasm.

 

[silja]

I did and I didn't try to target you I was refering to earlier posts.

I just don't feel like being sarcastic about this myself.

 

[JMScoopy]

im sure if the military said from now on if you are a terrorist, insurgent, etc and we capture you, we are going to torture and murder you and then find all your family members and then torture and kill them. that would be a better deterrent from terrorism then say, "humane treatment."

that is the true solution to terrorism, but that wouldnt be politically correct. the problem is the US is afraid to do what needs done. In WWII there was no restraint, no hesitation to achieve total surrender. and the sad thing is back then the people supported the government and military, they didnt bitch and moan about every little incident that happened like they do today.

 

[BVS]

im sure if the military said from now on if you are a terrorist, insurgent, etc and we capture you, we are going to torture and murder you and then find all your family members and then torture and kill them. that would be a better deterrent from terrorism, probably more so than "humane treatment."

that is the true solution to terrorism, but that wouldnt be politically correct.

It would be great for recruitment...that's for sure.

Tracking down innocents, what a truly worthless post.

 

[JMScoopy]

Tracking down innocents, what a truly worthless post.

what was 9/11?

i say fight fire with fire. do to them what they do to us, and then some. you cant beat an enemy of this type by humane treatment and worrying about what other countries think.

 

[BVS]

what was 9/11?

i say fight fire with fire. do to them what they do to us, and then some. you cant beat an enemy of this type by humane treatment and worrying about what other countries think.

Why not just nuke the whole Middle East?

Your hatred is sickening.

 

[JMScoopy]

Why not just nuke the whole Middle East?

well, that would work too i guess, but we'd have to go in and take all the oil first.

my hatred? i dont remember saying anything about hating anything. i just presented an idea from the opposite side. i just think that is what needs done to defeat terrorism, not humane treatment, not worrying about the terrorist's feelings, not worrying about what anyone thinks about it. you cant beat terrorism by being nice to them.

if we started kicking ass and say you mess with us, we're gonna mess with you. you wanna cut peoples heads off, we're gonna cut some. you wanna be a terrorist? ok, we'll exterminate you and your entire family. then maybe they wouldnt be so quick to do 9/11 again.

 

[BVS]

my hatred? i just presented an idea from the opposite side. i just think that is what needs done to defeat terrorism, not humane treatment, not worrying about the terrorist's feelings, not worrying about what anyone thinks about it. you cant beat terrorism by being nice to them.

Yes hatred. When you start talking about "and then some" and killing their children, it's just pure hate.

You're basically just feeding the monster so it's get bigger. Because then they can say, "See the West is the horrible monster we've been telling you about." Then it won't be just the Middle East we have to worry about. And you'll never have the man power to chase every new recruit.