Bush said it doesn't apply to the enemy, so it's OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
Printable View
Bush said it doesn't apply to the enemy, so it's OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
Well, the original version of the Geneva Convention also outlawed the use of 16-in naval guns-- did you see anyone really paying attention to that one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
But seriously, as wonderful and great as the Geneva Convention is, and as closely as it should be followed in all applicable circumstances, the jihadists that we are fighting in the Near East are not signatories to said convention and therefore neither they nor we are bound by its tenets.
The convention was drafted way back in 19-whenever-it-was, and was intended to bring civility to conflicts between major, civilized powers. Do you really think that the authors would have ever imagined a war in which one side would follow it strictly even though the other side had never signed nor even read it and had no regard whatsoever for its rules? Of course not! The idea would have seemed preposterous to them-- indeed it would only NOT seem preposterous to the fatalistic masochistic suicidal Human Rights whiners of the modern day.
..
But even assuming that the Geneva Convention was applicable, I would still ask a few questions. Can terrorists, intent on attacking soft targets and causing massed civilian casualties, really ever be said to be taking no active part in hostilities? As a matter of fact, were they ever really taking part in "hostilities" at all, within the definition of a "real" war, in which you stand up and fight your military enemy on a battlefield?
If they wear civilian garb and do not claim to be a member of one army or another, then in reality they are not soldiers but mere criminals, fully worthy of whatever treatment their crimes deserve.
Now, I have not addressed the issue of accidental mistreatment of innocents here, but only because it is an issue irrelevant to the establishment of a principle.
DA
Quote:
Originally Posted by geneva convention
every creature, animal, human, ,plants, even fungus, strive for life, this is one thing that makes them alive, to reproduce, to want life and cherish it. these jihadists, they are unlike all other things in the universe, something that seeks death when it is not more pleasurable than life can not be considered on the same level. its unnatural, all of humanity wants there life, anyone who wishes to end it for such foolish reasons is very troubled (emo/depressed) or less than human (jihadist). these are not human, do them a little honor if you must and call them avenging angles or whatever but do not call them human, they are not worthy of that honor. and so if you know there crimes, then deliver unto them a pain, the same pain that they gave to there victims, let it not be to get information, or in anger, do it for the manes, slain by those people who cry out for justice. CAUSE THEY DESERVE IT (once again only in sure cases while the crimew is undeniable, never do it on a doubt).
also, there is this radio station in new jersey, (New Jersey 101.5) who actually interviewed a couple of ex-terrorists, i missed it but the people who heard it claimed they were enthraled and that it was very informative, i can't find a copy but its bound to be out there, mabey someone more skilled at internet browsing could scrounge it up if they would be so kind.
DA, so if American soldiers are captured and tortured or when dead dragged through the streets then the world should take no notice, because that is how the war is fought?
That is nonsense. There are countless examples of deliberate attacks on civilians made by western countries. Pushing a button or placing a bomb on a train does not make the crime any different.Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
Umm, I'm sorry, but have you heard anyone in Fallujah apologizing? I know I haven't, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention... :san_huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
Oh the dehumanising effect of war works so quickly these days! You invade a foreign country and they turn on you for no reason whatsoever. They must be subhuman and so are fair game for anything we want to do, besides which they are sooooo nasty to us. Our President said we could and we have the power to so it must be the right thing to do.
exactly:san_grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Umm, I'm sorry, but have you heard anyone in Fallujah apologizing? I know I haven't, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention...
Clearly you have not been paying attention then , since at the time of the murders of the mercenaries the behaviour was pubicly condemned by religeous , tribal and community leaders in Fallujah , and you will find many interviews with ordinary people in the city condemning it as well .
So perhaps it might be an idea to pay more attention .
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ia/torture.jpg
(Mods, please let me know if I've finally gone too far.)
Well, the original version of the Geneva Convention also outlawed the use of 16-in naval guns-- did you see anyone really paying attention to that one?
Are you getting your documnts mixed up there del ? perhaps you could ask your drill sergeants for some more information ?
the jihadists that we are fighting in the Near East are not signatories to said convention and therefore neither they nor we are bound by its tenets.
Would you like to read the documents and its stipulations ? I am sure your instructors will have a copy .
Are you determined to end up as a smiling face , as a representative of the rotten apple club for the media Del ?
It would certainly seem that way , whats up , hasn't Benning been teaching you properly ?:san_shocked:
Did you ever feel like a God watching how the ordinary human beings fall onto each other despite the fact that you tried to teach something about "the end of all days" ?
I just feel like a Greek God watching from Mt. Olympus -though I didn't ever try to teach anyone anything- with a grin on my face and seeing things happen the way I had predicted in the book called "fate"..Oh! Look at who's with me here.. Welcome Slyspy, you see what's going on below ? AdrianII and I were watching it for quite some time. AdrianII retried preaching...Well, I'm sick of this game..It just happens again and again..
triple post
another post
yes indeed
A technique such as "water-boarding" a leader of a terrorist organization is legit as far as I'm concerned. As international law is basically decided by consensus of nations, I would back a decision by my nation to make this technique legal in certain situations. Artificial (or real) fear of death is a good thing for people to have when they are involved in mass murder.
Also, quarter in general is practical and logical in wartime only for the sake of potential information gathering. if it wasn't for this, immediate execution of prisoners is A-OK in my book. If you are going to fight a war, rules apply only when they are beneficial to your cause.
Everyone dies and we live in a secular and ammoral nation. Ethics apply in this country only because we have come to a representative consensus. Everyone outside of this sphere has zero rights guaranteed by us unless they are beneficial to us. Get on board or drown.
*wondering what artificial fear means...:questiong: * Allowing it on any person will lead to the legallization for political causes, such as destroying your personal enemies, the enemies of the state or the enemies of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Torture doesn't serve for information gathering except on isolated cases...There we go with execution again...:blankg: Well I'll not enter there... :rolleyes:Quote:
Also, quarter in general is practical and logical in wartime only for the sake of potential information gathering. if it wasn't for this, immediate execution of prisoners is A-OK in my book. If you are going to fight a war, rules apply only when they are beneficial to your cause.
No the rights are representative of the level of civilization of your country, by failing to them you're failing to everybody. Those are human rights also, that at least in my country have Constitutional level.Quote:
Everyone dies and we live in a secular and ammoral nation. Ethics apply in this country only because we have come to a representative consensus. Everyone outside of this sphere has zero rights guaranteed by us unless they are beneficial to us. Get on board or drown.
Maybe you're assuming abit too much on that one? Suppose a state does not imprison convicted felons, and a politician wanted it changed so major crimes will earn you a large prison sentence. Does that mean that in a few years he will put as many new candidates for his office is jails as he can?
"Bush said it doesn't apply to the enemy, so it's OK."
It doesn’t apply to them because they don't follow "Rules of war. There are no "Rules of war". Only rules that both parties agree to use in order to keep the conflict from becoming more unpleasant and harmful to civilians then it needs to be.
If he can get "confesions" then yes...Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
"If he can get "confesions" then yes..."
It's very hard to do that... unless you had your new Secret police unit brake into their home, tie them down, and start cutting off their limbs with a butter knifes until they talk. And when a country has as many lawyers and reporters as the united states, it's not easy to get way with things like that...
I'm not so sure about that...but I'll not speak of things that I don't know and seem like a conspiracy theorist...Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
The point is that any kind of punishment or means that threaten the human being are forever abolished.
Are you a great fan of Imperial Japan? My Grandfather's generation wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire after hearing opinions like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Your grandfather's generation is, for the most part, entirely dead. They probably wouldn't like hearing about gay or inter-racial marriage, legalized abortion, or cultural relativism either. My opinions are my own in this matter - tradition has nothing to do with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
(1) You are correct. 16-in Naval Guns were outlawed by the Washington Naval Conference of 1922. http://www.militarymuseum.org/BtyDavis.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
(2) Why don't you give it a read yourself?
http://www.genevaconventions.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneva Convention I, Chapter 1
..
So finally, Tribesman, you only end up looking kind of dumb. Seeing as it's you, that somehow doesn't really surprise me.
DA
Hogwash! Your grandfather's generation fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo and put thousands of native-born American citizens in concentration camps. Get off your high horse and start reading history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
DA
two wrongs dont make a right I beilive we were all tuaght that wernt we? Anyway torture is a tricky lil fellar to figure out. All humans have rights which should never be violated but on the other hand a few minutes of testicle ping pong could save allot of lives or it could turn up nothing. In the end torture is usually self defeating and will do more harm than good in the WOTQuote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Gah wrong one
Many people, including me, will be appalled by this. I strongly doubt whether there is any "consensus" for this view in the US or amongst their armed forces. Quite apart from moral arguments, quarter is both practical and logical for the following reasons:Quote:
Also, quarter in general is practical and logical in wartime only for the sake of potential information gathering. if it wasn't for this, immediate execution of prisoners is A-OK in my book. If you are going to fight a war, rules apply only when they are beneficial to your cause.
1. Unless you want to continue a war forever and end up dominating (or killing) everyone, quarter makes it easier to settle things once the war has finish. Your prisoners won't haved been killed by the enemy so they can return to their original ocupations, or if professional soldiers, you don't need to retrain new people to replace the ones you have lost. The prisoners that you have treated well and whose bravery you have honoured return to their homes and dispell any myths of how barbaric you are and you can work together to establish peace.
2. If your outnumbered or defeated enemy know that they will be slaughtered, they will fight to the last soldier standing. They may well kill many of your troops before you kill all of them.
3. Your own soldiers will become brutalised by killing those who pose no threat to them. You end up with a group of brutalised people with guns, tanks etc. Scary thought!
4. Today's enemy might be tomorrow's ally, but not if they are all dead.
Very dangerous morality - we are special; they are worthless. Be careful, because if this becomes accepted, someone in power may decide that you are not "we" but "they"; then you are in trouble.Quote:
Everyone dies and we live in a secular and ammoral nation. Ethics apply in this country only because we have come to a representative consensus. Everyone outside of this sphere has zero rights guaranteed by us unless they are beneficial to us. Get on board or drown.
So finally, Tribesman, you only end up looking kind of dumb.
Really ? then perhaps you could exlpain exacly what this power is you are at war with , what is its territory and who are its representatives .
Since you cannot then perhaps you could explain how operations in territory that is belonging to other powers are not covered ?
So before you make silly claims about people looking dumb you might want to examine some cases from those territories where servicemen have been punished for breaking the conventions which you foolishly think do not apply , hey there is even a recent one involving Psy-ops soldiers out of Fort Benning , perhaps your instuctors could enlighten you on that little case .~;)
Pray that your country will always be the top dog, because if "they" is in the lead, they might decide :rtwno: for you, when playing with the same rules as you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
When it comes to torture, US has already shown that in Iraq, practices that some might consider ok on bad guys gets applied on more or less random people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
As for applying torture on the terrorists because the "Genova conventions doesn't apply to them".
Why?
Why do you need to apply it?
Except for my Grandad and his brother, obviously. And another old man I known who was crippled by his treatment in a camp run by people who thought in the same way as you. And all the others who suffered because, at that time, the "morality" in which you believe was the creed of a nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Frankly your views disgust me.
There are others who believe the rubbish you spout here. They send suicide bombers into Israeli cafes, or fly planes into famous landmarks. They don't care who they kill or how they do it because the end justifies the means and the enemy is barely human. Why do you not praise them as heroes?
As for you Del Arroyo I seriously hope that your instructors can turn you around, or we'll no doubt end up seeing your face in the papers. My Grandfather's generation did indeed do those terrible things, but it was not systematic. However wrong those deeds were they all had one specific problem to solve and were not used as a matter of course, of routine. This does not make them right, but at least there is the knowledge that they were known to be terrible, not everyday. I cannot speak on the internment, not being American I know little about it. The atom bombs? Always a tricky moral issue as no doubt you understand. My gut feeling is that it was wrong. As for Dresden, well. Dresden is Britain's shame. Utterly unecessary, pointless terrorism on a grand scale. Few veterans to whom I have spoken talk about it with pride. They reflect on the deeds and do not always like what they see. One man I know was on the raid. He said that at the time the young men we excited by the thought of causing carnage, by the size of the attack, by thoughts of revenge and of the Germans getting their just desserts. But after the war, when the human cost of what had been done came home there was sadness and shame. That is right and proper, how it should be.