Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (86775)	11/17/2004 3:33:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793725

I know you were joking, but this should be explored. This is the third go-'round we've had now on the conflict between the official "rules of war" and the way things really worked. We never got to the bottom of it during the Gitmo prisoner of war debate or with Abu Graib. Probably won't this time either. IMO we need some straight talk about what's reasonable and what isn't. I guess no one wants to acknowledge the gap between that and the supposed standards. There are risks in acknowledging the discrepancy but there are also risks of the press operating off one standard and the military and the administration operating off another.

To: LindyBill who wrote (86775)	11/17/2004 4:08:17 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 793725

There is the clincher <<"supposed unarmed combantant in a situation where they have been using that pose to kill our troops.">> How many US troops are to die before the enemy are just taken out? If it were me or my kid I'd say "job well done". Is just one more being killed worth the chance they may or may not be armed or strung with TNT? Let allah sort them out, but smear pork grease on their forehead 1st.