Politics: Politics of War And Torture Of Terrorists: Responding With Force and Enemies That Have No Rules

If you want me to weep for someone who does not wear a uniform and plays soldier and gets caught, you have the wrong person. I met many of those people years ago. If you ask what happens when one is captured by the other side, I know that too. War is not pretty. Never was and never will be. Partisan warfare is the worst sort.

In the US Civil War, the initial policy was to treat captured Confederates as traitors. A large group of people believe in hanging or shooting every single captured rebel. Some were indeed hanged formally or "informally". That slowed considerably when the Confederates responded in kind. The prospect were simply too alarming to bear.

Responding to force with force does work, provided the force is sufficient and consistent. Torture can and often does result in obtaining valid information that would be unavailable otherwise. I am not advocating the use of torture as I abhor it but explaining that:1. There is a great difference between muslim soldiers in the uniform of their country who fire on military positions and muslim civilians who fly planes into buildings. The first are patriots and deserve to be treated as POWs if captured, the second, criminals. 2. There is a difference between an armed force that attacks another armed force according to the few rules that warfare truly has and a suicide bomber who kills civilians along with military personnel. 3. While it may be possible that US forces are "subcontracting" interrogation to people in other nations, it totally discredits the accusers to include Syria of all countries in that group. 4. US forces found to be involved in torture are frequently exposed and prosecuted. The forces of the terrorists who conduct beheadings are applauded by their friends and Amnesty International makes no big deal of it. 5. Any US personnel who are found to be involved in torture, regardless of rank are subject to prosecution and should be so prosecuted.6. The killing of civilians during combat or "collateral damage" as it is referred to should be investigated in every case. Some is unavoidable, some is not. For reasons of humanity, there must be an explanation and charges must be filed and prosecuted if it was due to intent or negligence.

Perhaps the whole world loved the US prior to 2001. I am an older person and don't recall it that way. I recall the French loving us until about 1960. They were real happy we came along a couple of times when they were in trouble but have hated us since the 1790s when we almost went to war with them under President Adams. Of course, the Germans, Russians and Brits have always loved the US. Maybe there were a few lapses in that prior to 2001? The fact of the matter is that countries do what they think is in their best interests.

There is one underlying fact. This is that Islam has been at war with the rest of the world since its inception. The policy of Islam is: convert, pay tribute or die. Read the Koran for yourself. I am not a Christian but I never saw anything worse in Christianity than to damn unbelievers into a hell at the hands of god after they died. When Paul was faced with a city that didn't accept his belief, he said, Shake the dust off our shoes and go to the next town or something of that nature. Paul never advocated creating an army to convert the infidel. Mohammad did. Mohammad personally led such armies both on highway robbery expeditions and expeditions for purposes of conversion. He advised his followers to do the same.You can read it all in the Koran, not outside propaganda. I would have not believed it had I not found it in the Koran in words supposedly uttered by the Prophet.

I hope you never personally participate in a war. It is truly terrible.Perhaps a study of history from many points of view would explain to you that none of this is new. I have no idea how old you are but you seem a bit naive. If you are young, time and experience will help explain reality to you. Reality is not always pleasant. I am advocating measures that I believe are appropriate and fair. For your part, you must understand that the world looks a great deal different if you are taken prisoner by an enemy that has no rules. The world is even different when you realize that the bullets flying near you are intended to kill you. It is nothing personal but what is an appropriate response? I recall a couple guys talking about artiller and mortar shells. One said, "When the one comes by that has my name on it, then it is my time to go." The other fellow said, "I am not worried about those that have my name on them but those marked, "to whom it may concern". With much of the muslim world, they are marked "death to the infidel". Perhaps you can advise me.