Guantanamo Inmates / Geneva Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
Diplomacy stops terrorism…really. How quaint and idealistic.

So you favor negotiating with terrorists?

Does “spending time” with the Marines mean you were one or you hung around with them?

I loved that you didn’t address any of the main points in what I wrote and went straight for the cheap shots.

For a country that spent most of the last century funding terrorism elsewhere in the world, rather than facing it themselves, forgive me if I don’t take your views on diplomacy as a valuable tool in the fight against terrorism as being particularly erudite.

As for the last comment: I spent time making a documentary about the Royal Marine Commandos, if that clears things up for you.
[/quote]

Yet you dodge the question skillfully.

Is asking for you to clarify your position a “cheap shot”?

My comment was a summary of your position. You went on about talking to the terrorists but stopped short of saying you favor direct negotiation. Do you favor negotiation with terrorists and with whom would you negotiate? I found that incredibly idealistic and impractical given the stated goals of the opposition.

No put away the anti-americanism, if you can, for a moment and stick to the point. Your actually somwhat interesting when you stay out of the gutter.

Making a documentary about the Royal Marines…thanks that does clear things up. The Royal Marines I met in GW1 had somewhat more of a head on approach in dealing with issues, requiring a different skill set.

82

[quote]hedo wrote:
Yet you dodge the question skillfully.

Is asking for you to clarify your position a “cheap shot”?

My comment was a summary of your position. You went on about talking to the terrorists but stopped short of saying you favor direct negotiation. Do you favor negotiation with terrorists and with whom would you negotiate? I found that incredibly idealistic and impractical given the stated goals of the opposition.

No put away the anti-americanism, if you can, for a moment and stick to the point. Your actually somwhat interesting when you stay out of the gutter.

Making a documentary about the Royal Marines…thanks that does clear things up. The Royal Marines I met in GW1 had somewhat more of a head on approach in dealing with issues, requiring a different skill set.

[/quote]

One more time - I’m not Anti-American. I just think this whole situation has been handled incredibly badly, by us as well as you.

Okay, let’s go back to the conversation. :wink:

It’s a thorny issue, because to negotiate with them you immediately lend them some sort of legitamacy, which many people would have an issue with. But at the same time, at some point the scaremongering, the spin and the war fought in the press has to be thrown to one side and someone needs to have a sit down and find out realistically what it would take to sort this out.

In an ideal world the answer would be ‘well you sod off back to your part of the world and we’ll stay in ours’ but modern commerce and the resources out there are so integral to the economy of the US (and the UK I guess) that we must have some sort of relationship with those parts of the middle-east and in particular the regions we find causing so much conflict.

I think part of that process would be honesty all on sides and acceptance from us that they didn’t start hating the west out of the blue, but rather (in their opinion) for a series of actions, betrayals and continued interference in their affairs.

Now not everyone that feels that way has taken up arms of declared jihad, but every action like Fallujah, or the witholding of human rights (wow, I finally got back to the forum topic) at Gitmo, adds fuel to that fire and causes more people to join their holy war. We cannot give these people that ammunition, which is why our actions must take the high moral ground along with our words.

Yep agreed the marines would have a different approach. Amazing people though they are, thank God they don’t make the big decisions!!! This is a fight we will never win with a bullet.

I don’t have all the answers, and I will give your ‘negotiating with terrorists’ question (which in honesty I thought was a cheap jibe, but now I can see was maybe a valid question - sorry)this some more thought, but answer this hypothetical question for me. It just came off the top of my head and I’m not trying to score points here or anything.

If the muslim fighters universally swore to end jihad on the day allied forces ended their occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, returned their captured fighters/terrorists/mistakenly arrested farmers etc, and declared an amnesty on them if they never took up arms against the US again, would you take it?

83

[quote]makkun wrote:

That’s a poor statement - it would justify any atrocity by whoever holds the key. Totaler Krieg anyone?

“Western civilisation” left that kind of thinking behind 60 years ago.

Join us, it’s nicer here. :wink:

Makkun[/quote]

Just because you think ‘Western Civilization’ gave up that kind of thinking 60 yrs. ago doesn’t make it so.

And I’m not quite sure what your definition is, but between NYC, Madrid, London, Mumbai, Jakarta, Bali, and Dahab, among many others, at what point does this become totaler krieg?

84

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
Yet you dodge the question skillfully.

Is asking for you to clarify your position a “cheap shot”?

My comment was a summary of your position. You went on about talking to the terrorists but stopped short of saying you favor direct negotiation. Do you favor negotiation with terrorists and with whom would you negotiate? I found that incredibly idealistic and impractical given the stated goals of the opposition.

No put away the anti-americanism, if you can, for a moment and stick to the point. Your actually somwhat interesting when you stay out of the gutter.

Making a documentary about the Royal Marines…thanks that does clear things up. The Royal Marines I met in GW1 had somewhat more of a head on approach in dealing with issues, requiring a different skill set.

One more time - I’m not Anti-American. I just think this whole situation has been handled incredibly badly, by us as well as you.

Okay, let’s go back to the conversation. :wink:

It’s a thorny issue, because to negotiate with them you immediately lend them some sort of legitamacy, which many people would have an issue with. But at the same time, at some point the scaremongering, the spin and the war fought in the press has to be thrown to one side and someone needs to have a sit down and find out realistically what it would take to sort this out.

In an ideal world the answer would be ‘well you sod off back to your part of the world and we’ll stay in ours’ but modern commerce and the resources out there are so integral to the economy of the US (and the UK I guess) that we must have some sort of relationship with those parts of the middle-east and in particular the regions we find causing so much conflict.

I think part of that process would be honesty all on sides and acceptance from us that they didn’t start hating the west out of the blue, but rather (in their opinion) for a series of actions, betrayals and continued interference in their affairs.

Now not everyone that feels that way has taken up arms of declared jihad, but every action like Fallujah, or the witholding of human rights (wow, I finally got back to the forum topic) at Gitmo, adds fuel to that fire and causes more people to join their holy war. We cannot give these people that ammunition, which is why our actions must take the high moral ground along with our words.

Yep agreed the marines would have a different approach. Amazing people though they are, thank God they don’t make the big decisions!!! This is a fight we will never win with a bullet.

I don’t have all the answers, and I will give your ‘negotiating with terrorists’ question (which in honesty I thought was a cheap jibe, but now I can see was maybe a valid question - sorry)this some more thought, but answer this hypothetical question for me. It just came off the top of my head and I’m not trying to score points here or anything.

If the muslim fighters universally swore to end jihad on the day allied forces ended their occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, returned their captured fighters/terrorists/mistakenly arrested farmers etc, and declared an amnesty on them if they never took up arms against the US again, would you take it?

[/quote]

It’s kind of a hypothetical question that really can’t come to pass.

I don’t believe they are fighting for the reasons you mentioned. What they consider occupation we consider destruction of terrorist infrastructure and safe harbors. Terrorists must be dealt with locally to a great degree while also wiping out the vast networks to make them ineffective. The West is good at taking out networks and needs to get better working on the locals.

I personally don’t trust them enough to stand by an agreement so I wouldn’t take that deal. Islam specifically allows Muslim’s to break treaties with Infidel’s and counsels them to do so. It’s not a great starting point.

My deal would be more along the lines of: renounce terrorism, turn in the fundamentalists who practice it and give up your weapons and nuclear ambitions. If they can do that for a certain period of time then we’ll talk about more.

I just don’t see that they have the legitimacy to negotiate at this point and we shouldn’t validate their previous acts by doing so. If you do then terrorism will be seen as a legitimate method to settle grievances.

85

[quote]hedo wrote:
It’s kind of a hypothetical question that really can’t come to pass.

I don’t believe they are fighting for the reasons you mentioned. What they consider occupation we consider destruction of terrorist infrastructure and safe harbors. Terrorists must be dealt with locally to a great degree while also wiping out the vast networks to make them ineffective. The West is good at taking out networks and needs to get better working on the locals.

I personally don’t trust them enough to stand by an agreement so I wouldn’t take that deal. Islam specifically allows Muslim’s to break treaties with Infidel’s and counsels them to do so. It’s not a great starting point.

My deal would be more along the lines of: renounce terrorism, turn in the fundamentalists who practice it and give up your weapons and nuclear ambitions. If they can do that for a certain period of time then we’ll talk about more.

I just don’t see that they have the legitimacy to negotiate at this point and we shouldn’t validate their previous acts by doing so. If you do then terrorism will be seen as a legitimate method to settle grievances.

[/quote]

But throughout all the requisites you put in place for my hypothetical question, you spoke nothing of their grievances, which go back far farther that 2001. Their attacks were not out of the blue, but in response to western actions in the middle-east over the last 20 years or so. Whilst it will take us back to the sacking of Jerulselum if we begin the ‘they started it’ argument, it is imperative that in order to understand our foes we need to cease bandying around words like ‘insane’ or ‘radical’ or ‘fundamentalist’ etc, and not brush our past under the carpet.

Terrorism is a difficult thing. As has often been mentioned, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Most of their acts are deplorable by any standard. However, many of our acts are have been as well. And if we hope to conduct ourselves well, we must first accept that the people of the middle-east have genuine grievances because in the past we have betrayed them.

Of course in the real-world terrorism is a terrible thing but I do know that if I’m some weedy little kid and the big school bully is picking on me, if I go toe-to-toe with him I’ll be annihilated, and so my only choice is to kick him in the nuts when he is not looking. I think that is their feeling on the subject too.

86

[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t believe they are fighting for the reasons you mentioned. What they consider occupation we consider destruction of terrorist infrastructure and safe harbors. [/quote]

I forgot to mention that it is commonly accepted that there were not terrorist training camps in Iraq until we invaded it. At which point it became a focal point. So we, in effect, let that happen.

87

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
…

One more time - I’m not Anti-American. …[/quote]

You cannot admit this simple truth.

It is no wonder your views are so skewed.

88

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

  1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

  2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

With the following information, do they all fit into the Geneva Convention?

Me Solomon GRundy

89

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
I don’t believe they are fighting for the reasons you mentioned. What they consider occupation we consider destruction of terrorist infrastructure and safe harbors.

I forgot to mention that it is commonly accepted that there were not terrorist training camps in Iraq until we invaded it. At which point it became a focal point. So we, in effect, let that happen. [/quote]

Commonly accepted by those that do not know what they are talking about.

Iraq sponsored terrorism.

Iraq had terrorist training camps.

Iraq had a jumbo jet on which the terrorists practiced hijackings.

Saddam paid suicide bomber’s families ~ $ 30,000 in televised ceremonies.

It is amazing you have all these opinions yet you don’t know the simple facts.

Learn the facts and your opinions will change.

Ignore the facts and you will continue to be on the wrong side.

90

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

One more time - I’m not Anti-American. …

You cannot admit this simple truth.

It is no wonder your views are so skewed.[/quote]

But it’s bullshit. Stop being such a dick. Do you think I’d have a problem admitting it were it true?

My brother in-law is American, as is my niece and God-daughter. My sister has lived in the US for about 13 years now.

I have spent tons of time in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs and consider it one of my favourite places on Earth, one of the only other places I would consider living apart from London.

I’ve also fallen in love with Santa Barbara where I spent some time working last year.

Zap, you appear to be under the illusion that to criticise aspects of the actions of a government is to declare hate for a nation. If you truly feel that then there is probably no hope for dialogue between us because it’s just plain wrong.

I’m one of the few people on this side of the pond that I know DOESN’T hate your country and yet comments likes yours make it so very easy…

I’m patriotic. However I am British. I don’t owe you or your country any sort of allegiance. So in fact my love for so many things about America comes from personal choice and not an accident of birth…

Whether that means I am freer than you to call it as I see it I don’t know. But stop telling me I’m something I am not. Embrace what is good about yor nation but strive to be honest about its faults and its past.

Then hopefully we can move on and discuss various sides of a fascinating topic without it descending into pettyness.

Unless HH opens his mouth again in which case all bets are off. lol

91

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
I don’t believe they are fighting for the reasons you mentioned. What they consider occupation we consider destruction of terrorist infrastructure and safe harbors.

I forgot to mention that it is commonly accepted that there were not terrorist training camps in Iraq until we invaded it. At which point it became a focal point. So we, in effect, let that happen.

Commonly accepted by those that do not know what they are talking about.

Iraq sponsored terrorism.

Iraq had terrorist training camps.

Iraq had a jumbo jet on which the terrorists practiced hijackings.

Saddam paid suicide bomber’s families ~ $ 30,000 in televised ceremonies.

It is amazing you have all these opinions yet you don’t know the simple facts.

Learn the facts and your opinions will change.

Ignore the facts and you will continue to be on the wrong side.[/quote]

Ok so I oversimplified. You knew what I meant. The war in Iraq paved the way for what we face now in terms of terrorism.

How many Iraqi-sponsored terrorist attacks were there on US targets?

92

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

  1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

  2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

With the following information, do they all fit into the Geneva Convention?

Me Solomon GRundy[/quote]

I think the point was made earlier that considering that article is around 100 years old and this is in no way a traditional war, they are most certainly in need of being updated. Hence the argument in the interim for obeying the ‘spirit’ of the convention if the allied forces are to maintain the moral high ground throughout this conflict.

Because I can look at what you posted and say well some of them were A, some of them were B and some of them were none. And some of them were farmers with nothing to do with anything who had their human rights witheld, were tortured and then dumped back in the middle-east without any charge.

93

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
london: Let’s say we sit down with Al-Qaeda and ask them what they want, realistically. What are they going to demand? Is it going to be even remotely realistic or doable?

The complete eradication of Israel, and the deaths or conversions of all Jews, Christians, and other infidels… ring a bell?

This is why there is no talking to them. It’s not because I’m bloodthirsty… it’s because THEY are.[/quote]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a cee-gar, preferably one NOT owned by our former President Clinton.

HH

94

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

No. They were murdering bastards, intent on causing as much damage and devastation to English civilians as possible. They also went to Libya and the Middle-East and trained other terrorists. But for some reason they weren’t seen as such bad guys by the US, who provided something like over 90% of their funding. Strange how now you’ve had a terrorist attack of your own, you don’t hear so much about that…

[/quote]

Hmmm…England raped Ireland for 600 years. I think the IRA response was rather tame. Part of my family, Irish Catholic, comes from a town called Armagh. One member of my family escaped with his life; the others were all killed by the Protestants, backed by the Brits. I bear no animosity; it was 160 years ago and didn’t happen to me. But I understand how hatred can run deep.

All the USA did was develop Mideast oilfields and help give the Jews a tiny frickin’ strip of Palestine. Wow, sounds like a reason for a jihad to me!!

HH

95

A 727 fusealage was discovered and photographed via satellite in Southern Iraq. It was burned out and was part of a terrorist training camp. I believe the area was called Salman-Pak.

Documents discovered after the invasion clearly linked Iraq to Al-Queada.

The terrorists in Lebanon, right now, are firing Iranian made and supplied rockets into Israel. The links are pretty clear. The Lebeanese don’t want the terrorists there anymore then the Israeli’s do. They are being supplied by others. Proxies doing the dirty work are pretty common in the ME

96

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

Unless HH opens his mouth again in which case all bets are off. lol

[/quote]

Agreement or not, if you say things like ‘America has funded more terrorism than anyone’ or ‘you’d (Americans) like to engulf Canada’, then you are saying vile things about us and I will rip into you.

I was happily reading this thread until you started talking shit.

HH

97

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

Unless HH opens his mouth again in which case all bets are off. lol

Agreement or not, if you say things like ‘America has funded more terrorism than anyone’ or ‘you’d (Americans) like to engulf Canada’, then you are saying vile things about us and I will rip into you.

I was happily reading this thread until you started talking shit.

HH

[/quote]

Not what I said. In either instance. Still ever the tubby cretin HH.

98

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

No. They were murdering bastards, intent on causing as much damage and devastation to English civilians as possible. They also went to Libya and the Middle-East and trained other terrorists. But for some reason they weren’t seen as such bad guys by the US, who provided something like over 90% of their funding. Strange how now you’ve had a terrorist attack of your own, you don’t hear so much about that…

Hmmm…England raped Ireland for 600 years. I think the IRA response was rather tame. Part of my family, Irish Catholic, comes from a town called Armagh. One member of my family escaped with his life; the others were all killed by the Protestants, backed by the Brits. I bear no animosity; it was 160 years ago and didn’t happen to me. But I understand how hatred can run deep.

All the USA did was develop Mideast oilfields and help give the Jews a tiny frickin’ strip of Palestine. Wow, sounds like a reason for a jihad to me!!

HH

[/quote]

Wow… So you’re supporting IRA terrorism now?

This IS a new nadir for you, my big gay kickboxing friend.

99

[quote]hedo wrote:
A 727 fusealage was discovered and photographed via satellite in Southern Iraq. It was burned out and was part of a terrorist training camp. I beleive it was called Al-Kut.

Documents discovered after the invasion clearly linked Iraq to Al-Queada.

The terrorists in Lebanon, right now, are firing Iranian made and supplied rockets into Israel. The links are pretty clear. The Lebeanese don’t want the terrorists there anymore then the Israeli’s do. They are being supplied by others. Proxies doing the dirty work are pretty common in the ME[/quote]

I didn’t know about the 727, but pre-invasion they did not have the foothold they have now or the hundreds/thousand crossing into Iraq to train for jihad, agreed?

I think there’s a hell of a lot of people around the world putting UK and US-made weapons to equally terrible uses. Africa anyone?

So what’s the answer? Kill all the arabs? Sorry if that sounded glib, but I was a little unsure of the point you were making at the end there.

100

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
A 727 fusealage was discovered and photographed via satellite in Southern Iraq. It was burned out and was part of a terrorist training camp. I beleive it was called Al-Kut.

Documents discovered after the invasion clearly linked Iraq to Al-Queada.

The terrorists in Lebanon, right now, are firing Iranian made and supplied rockets into Israel. The links are pretty clear. The Lebeanese don’t want the terrorists there anymore then the Israeli’s do. They are being supplied by others. Proxies doing the dirty work are pretty common in the ME

I didn’t know about the 727, but pre-invasion they did not have the foothold they have now or the hundreds/thousand crossing into Iraq to train for jihad, agreed?

I think there’s a hell of a lot of people around the world putting UK and US-made weapons to equally terrible uses. Africa anyone?

So what’s the answer? Kill all the arabs? Sorry if that sounded glib, but I was a little unsure of the point you were making at the end there.

[/quote]

The main point is that Iraq was a supporter of terrorism and previously provided a safe location for them to train and arm themselves. Salman Pak not only provided visual evidence but documents and testimony by it’s previous commander and some of the training seargents.

I don’t think killing all the Arabs is the solution but there can be no tolerance for this behavior by the rest of the world. We can’t treat the Middle Eastern nations like infants. They need to be help accountable. Hesbollah is paying the price for their actions and the outcry from Europe that usally saves them isn’t happening.

Iran and Iraq can’t support terrorism by proxy and not accept responsibilty for their actions. Iran’s brinkmanship is a dangerous game and the world is losing it’s tolerance for it.