Al-Baghdadi Dies "Whimpering, Crying, Screaming"

[The4thEstate]

THE problem is tgat we want to fight a war with rules of engagement.

Whereas the enemy we fight has no rules and fights with no honor, morals or even partially considers the rules we are hog tied with.

When your opponent does not fight by the rules
It's time to throw the rule book away.

Captured soldiers are tortured and beheaded by the muzzo DEATH CULT.

We should do the same, without COMPASSION, without consideration and without conscience.
Only in this way are we fighting a war on level ground.
Give them exactly what they do to us
Let them see we are not weak or willing to compromise

You poke me, I poke you
You hit me, I hit you harder

Then watch the cowards run and hide.

Yep. I have my own opinion on what to do with the 12,000 or so ISIS prisoners who are currently incarcerated in Syria.

And my plan wouldn't conform to the Geneva Convention. But then, ISIS doesn't conform to Geneva anyway, so why should we play by the rules?

We'd be doing the civilized world a favor.

[Bogan]

4E wrote

Yep. I have my own opinion on what to do with the 12,000 or so ISIS prisoners who are currently incarcerated in Syria.

And my plan wouldn't conform to the Geneva Convention. But then, ISIS doesn't conform to Geneva anyway, so why should we play by the rules?

We'd be doing the civilized world a favor.

I concur completely with one proviso. Keep some of them for hostages for when they grab another aid worker or journalist and they threaten to cut their throats. Then say that if they do, we will execute ten of their men for every innocent they kill. As a matter of fact, you could do the same for when they set a bomb and kill scores of innocents. Execute ten for every victim.

When the Confederacy declared it would execute every African US soldier they captured, President Lincoln declared that the Union would execute five confederates for every captured US African soldier the Confederacy murdered. Worked like a charm. The Confederacy did not carry out it's threat.

The Geneva Convention does not protect terrorists.
I am sure that Brian would disagree and I expect him to reply to this proposal with his usual high moral round default position. But his main objection is that these terrorists are trying to destroy white, western civilisation and Brian agrees with them on that objective. So he has to defend his heroes.

ANother thing, if the west started executing significant numbers of Muslim terrorists you can bet that the whole Muslim world would be jumping up and down about it. After all, these Jihadis and Gazis are their most esteemed heroes. The Muslim world's reaction might even wake up the morons who think that Islamic immigration into western communities is just wonderful. Especially brain dead idiots like these.

f54.png

Makes you wonder what they use for brains?

[brian ross]

Yep. I have my own opinion on what to do with the 12,000 or so ISIS prisoners who are currently incarcerated in Syria.

And my plan wouldn't conform to the Geneva Convention. But then, ISIS doesn't conform to Geneva anyway, so why should we play by the rules?

We'd be doing the civilized world a favor.

In your opinion and in the opinion of bogan, perhaps.

However a race to the bottom invariably ends up with everybody in the gutter. All you've done is forfeit any claim to being morally superior to your enemy. Unless you actually demonstrate that you are morally superior, any such claim is fruitless.

If you look at the last century, the reason why the Allies were able to claim they were morally superior to first the Central Powers and then later the Axis was because they could prove it. They didn't massacre prisoners willy-nilly. They didn't organise extermination camps. The Central Powers and the Axis did.

All I can say is that I am glad that you are not in charge of military strategy, 4E. You would get more of your own men killed than you would the enemy.

[Bobby]

Yep. I have my own opinion on what to do with the 12,000 or so ISIS prisoners who are currently incarcerated in Syria.

And my plan wouldn't conform to the Geneva Convention. But then, ISIS doesn't conform to Geneva anyway, so why should we play by the rules?

We'd be doing the civilized world a favor.

In your opinion and in the opinion of bogan, perhaps.

However a race to the bottom invariably ends up with everybody in the gutter. All you've done is forfeit any claim to being morally superior to your enemy. Unless you actually demonstrate that you are morally superior, any such claim is fruitless.

If you look at the last century, the reason why the Allies were able to claim they were morally superior to first the Central Powers and then later the Axis was because they could prove it. They didn't massacre prisoners willy-nilly. They didn't organise extermination camps. The Central Powers and the Axis did.

All I can say is that I am glad that you are not in charge of military strategy, 4E. You would get more of your own men killed than you would the enemy.

Brian - you need a history lesson -
The Allies in WW2 weren't angels -
they were responsible for the indiscriminate bombing of civilians
and wiped out - leveled - dozens of entire German cities - from the bombing campaign.
Then the Yanks used nuclear weapons on 2 Japanese cities full of civilians.
Many POWs were murdered by the Allies.
War is evil and no side can ever be blameless.

forgiven for ignorance

namaste

[Black Orchid]

Brian thinks that during a WAR you should just hand out hugs and balloons and wave pom poms and all will be well. The best of delusional intentions aside WAR is WAR and people on both sides are subjected to extremes and react accordingly.

Sorry but ignorance like this should not be forgiven it should be pitied.

[Valkie]

Honestly, that has to be a joke

LGBT AGAINST ISLAMOPHOBIA

They do know that Islam murders pooftahs, lezzos and sex outside muzzo marriage don't They?

I'll believe that they have a point if....
Muzzos March in the gay parade representing their mosque
Muzzos welcome SSM in Islam
Muzzos agree to embrace homosexuality in their mosque.

Yeah, that's gonna happen ........riiiiiiiiight

It just goes to show, the LGBTIQSELFISH are morons and mentally ill.

[Bobby]

Brian thinks that during a WAR you should just hand out hugs and balloons and wave pom poms and all will be well. The best of delusional intentions aside WAR is WAR and people on both sides are subjected to extremes and react accordingly.

Sorry but ignorance like this should not be forgiven it should be pitied.

Hugs?
as long as they're not gay hugs.

[brian ross]

Brian thinks that during a WAR you should just hand out hugs and balloons and wave pom poms and all will be well. The best of delusional intentions aside WAR is WAR and people on both sides are subjected to extremes and react accordingly.

Sorry but ignorance like this should not be forgiven it should be pitied.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. Your military experience consists of what, again, Black Orchid? Bugger all. You make assertions which are not supported by any evidence. War is war however, there are limits on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in war. Today, civilised war makers are ruled by the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Now, you appear to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to kill prisoners, as 4E and Bogan have suggested. Fine, you can surrender any pretension to moral superiority that you appear to believe the West possesses compared to ISIS and other Terrorist organisations. I don't.

This all harks back to Guantanamo Bay and the use of Torture by the Americans to interrogate prisoners. We all saw what damage that did to the West's cause when it was revealed to the world. The majority of Americans recoiled from that, as did civilised people in the world. Nothing was gained from it, it was not warranted, it achieved nothing except to satisfy the barbarians who were in charge at that point in time.

[Black Orchid]

I have no sympathy for terrorists. None nada zippo zilch. Were you upset when Baghdadi blew himself and 2 kids up, Brian? Did you blame Trump?

[The4thEstate]

Yep. I have my own opinion on what to do with the 12,000 or so ISIS prisoners who are currently incarcerated in Syria.

And my plan wouldn't conform to the Geneva Convention. But then, ISIS doesn't conform to Geneva anyway, so why should we play by the rules?

We'd be doing the civilized world a favor.

In your opinion and in the opinion of bogan, perhaps.

However a race to the bottom invariably ends up with everybody in the gutter. All you've done is forfeit any claim to being morally superior to your enemy. Unless you actually demonstrate that you are morally superior, any such claim is fruitless.

So who's keeping score ... the U.N.? The International Court of Justice? As if either of them has any claim to moral superiority.

I'm more interested in preserving freedom in Western nations, which can't happen when people are afraid to get on airplanes, attend large public gatherings, etc. And that's exactly what we'll have more of if we turn loose thousands of savages whose greatest goal in life is to massacre men, woman and children who don't happen to share their religious views.

Heck, even one of those subhumans can cause plenty of needless death and destruction. It didn't take many to slaughter 3,000 people in the WTC.

So y'know, we put down rabid dogs for the good of society, and I can't see much difference here.

If you look at the last century, the reason why the Allies were able to claim they were morally superior to first the Central Powers and then later the Axis was because they could prove it. They didn't massacre prisoners willy-nilly. They didn't organise extermination camps. The Central Powers and the Axis did.

Nahhh ... of course the Allies didn't kill large numbers of civilians!

Every casualty in the bombing of Dresden, and Tokyo, and especially Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was an enemy soldier ... and every obliterated building was a military target. You heard it here first!

All I can say is that I am glad that you are not in charge of military strategy, 4E. You would get more of your own men killed than you would the enemy.

How so? The goal in any war is to kill people and break things. And the goal in any peace is to ensure that your own homeland isn't overrun by the enemies you supposedly vanquished.

Unlike you, I don't spend large quantities of my free time fretting over the treatment of soulless zealots who want to kill me, my family, my friends, my neighbors and my dog ... simply to serve their twisted version of a deity.

What exactly do you think 12,000 ISIS prisoners are going to do if they manage to get free -- go back to tending their goat herds?

And how many billions of your own nation's dollars do you want to spend keeping them incarcerated and full of hummus?

Not me. I'd show them all the mercy they showed their own prisoners. Hey, they're big on martyrdom, so how could it be anything but a win-win?