B5C
-
Posts
120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by B5C
-
-
No Terrorists are like coyotes. You shoot them at sight.
And so easily recognisable because of the black hats they wear.
What if it turns out that it wasn't a terrorist?
Oops.
J/K
If I see any of these:
-
Forum gods believe that their own home made avatars should be big. All other avatars should be 70x70.
-
Do you plan to start eating terrorist as well? That would be scary.
No Terrorists are like coyotes. You shoot them at sight.
-
You should try some other even more extreme example in hoping of fueling a flame war since animals have rights.
Yes, animals do have rights. They have the right to be in my stomach.
-
On September 11 2001 I was living in Viet Nam. I didn't have a television, so although I saw photos in newspapers, I didn't see the television pictures of the events until nearly two years later when I returned to the UK. I wonder sometimes if not sharing in the trauma of those days, in the whole media spectacle, has affected my views.
What I most remember about the events was how unsympathetic my Vietnamese friends were. They felt sorry for the people who died and for their families, but they didn't feel sorry for 'America'. In fact, they hoped that America would finally understand the horror that America inflicted upon that Viet Nam - everyone I knew had lost a relative, usually an uncle or grandfather, in the war. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out like that.
What part of Nam were you in? The Old South or Old North. If you stayed in the North. I can see that, but in the South. I felt like we abandon them. The people of the South were slaughtered by the Charlie and Northern Communists.
-
That sounds very similar (not as open or explicit, but built on similar grounds), to how a certain group of people were treated by the nazis during the second world war <_<
Hey I support the Jews. Dont call me a racist. Heck I am a Zionist. Israel will only belong to the Jews. Even the West Bank and Gaza. Since the Palaestinans have to homeland. West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt.
Also, it's interesting how americans tend to "forget" how several problems with dictators and terrorists were at first supported by them, like Saddam, bin Laden, Pinochet, there's more...Simple: The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend.
Saddam- Iran was our enemy.
UBL- We need him to kick the damn soviets butts.
Pinochet- We needed him to kick the communist government out and replace it with a capitalist state. Which he did and the nation prospered.
Also note that Monroe Doctrine is still in affect. So North and South America is our control.
-
So what about me is making you sick? That I want terrorists punished under law, or that I don't think the best way to get the murderers of innocent people is to kill many, many more innocent people?
Yes they can have a trial, but they should have no rights as a POW. Remember terrorists are animals.
Invading Afghanistan after the USS Cole would have been even more of an obscene overreaction, but of course it was Clinton's fault. I'm sure conservatives are still scrambling to find some way to blame World Wars 1&2, the Korean War, and Vietnam on Bill Clinton.World War I- Alliances and the Serbs
World War II- Appesement from the British and French. Germay and the Japs.
Korean War- Communists
Vietnam- Communists
It also scares the hell out of me as a non-citizen of the US that I would have no rights, which of course means that if I ever jaywalk there I could face the death chamber. That of course is crap, because even non-citizens have rights in criminal court, which is why terrorists have been given a new designation.No we would just put you on a plane and kick you out.
As for it being an attack outside of the US, I have to assume you're no longer talking about Sept. 11 but now going on about, what, Afghanis fighting against foreign invaders?No, the 9/11 attacks was a foriegn operation. They are funed outside the US but trained in the US and used our planes as weapons.
-
You know what makes me sick? The fact that you think non US citizens have no rights and your signature.
They should not. They should have limted rights. Like no free eduction, driving, or any government programs. Unless they are here for school or work (Which should be monitored) or they prove them selves that they are getting their US Citizenship. Citizenship should be somthing that is a privlege and you should repect it.
-
Silly me, thinking only nations could commit to war. How about Tim McVeigh? Previous to September 11, he committed the biggest act of terrorism on US soil. How was it treated? He was tried in criminal court. Alabama wasn't bombed because they harbour white supremists. New York wasn't invaded because he was born there. The only difference other than sheer number of dead was that McVeigh was an American citizen. He killed more Americans than likely anyone in Guantanamo, yet was afforded more rights after his capture. And. He. Was. A. Terrorist.
I find it interesting all the stuff you think I never saw. I was glued to my television all day watching everything that happened. So unless you were in New York watching it all in person, you didn't see any more than I did. The only reason I can think of that would bring about such a bizarre assumption is that you must think that everyone who watched the events that day must want to turn the desert into glass, but wrong. I watched the criminal act play out and wanted those who were responsible hunted down and brought to justice. Instead I've watched the United States slaughter many more innocents than were murdered that horrible day.
You make me sick. Also note thats before 9/11 days. So under Clinton, acts of terrorism was a crime and not a war. Which was a mistake. Also note why we didnt crack down on American terrorists are 2 reasons:
1. Ruby Ridge
2. Waco
Also they are US citizens cause the attacks. So they have rights because they are a citizen of the United States.
The terrorists who attacked us on that day are foreigners with no US citizenship. It was a attack out side of the US. That is war. I hated Clinton's anti-terror tactics. We should have invaded Afganistian after the USS Cole.
-
Hmmm... How to deal with criminal acts... Hmmm... Let's see now, I'm not an American citizen, and so if I were to commit a crime in the United States, not only would I have no rights, neither would anyone in my home country who knows me. Sounds about right. And hey, if my crime was big enough, bomb my country! Bomb Canada! And you know what? I once spent a week in Spain, so for good measure bomb them too!
Terrorism is a criminal act, and the proper response is to treat it as one and to try suspect in criminal court. That said, I have few issues with going into Afghanistan because the government at the time had strong connections to Al Quaeda and was likely hiding bin Laden. However, the US government then essentially abandoned the country to the warlords by leaving a very small force behind to then go into Iraq, which had a government with no ties to Al Quaeda and was no threat to American security. Never mind the fact that most of the Sept. 11 highjackers were Saudis, a country that is America's ally.
But that's wandering off the subject of Guantanamo and terrorists. No matter how many people they kill, terrorists are murderers. A criminal offense. By giving them a different status, you are making them more than just criminals.
Another thing... Nice appeal to emotion with that picture of the WTC being hit. Out of curiosity, how many people in Guantanamo were involved with that? When Afghanistan was invaded, how many of the "enemy combatants" were just Afghanis fighting back as best they could against a much stronger force?
The 9/11 attacks was an ACT OF WAR and not a crime. You never saw the planes live on TV hit the towers. You never saw people jumping off buildings. You never saw the fires burning the Pentagon and WTC. You never saw the tower fall.
WTC attack was a act of war and not a crime. Killing three thousand people for allah is not a crime, but a war crime.
The invasion of Afganistian was justifed. Because wanted Osama's head! We told them give Osama to us or die. Well they chose to die.
-
Yes, finland has an army. They fought against russia three times and succeeded in keeping our borders and independency.
Really? You got your arse kicked during the Winter War and you had to join the Nazis in 41 to regaign all the land you lost from the Winter War.
-
Cool it down guys.
To be fair to BS5, terrorism is a terrible crime but let's not forget that a quasi-war had already existed between Western US and Islam for a long time now.
Yes, I remember those quasi-war years. They bomb us and we do nothing.
-
Did you all get your taxes done?
Im still waiting for my tax refund.
-
I guess this man is a freedom fighter right?
and this was a legal attack agaist a enemy?
-
Im sorry, but I guess you havent read the Geneva Convention.
It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages......
Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant. Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.
from Wikipedia
Nice Opinion Ed:
Terrorists Have No Geneva RightsDon't blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
BY JOHN YOO
Saturday, May 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
In light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, critics are arguing that abuses of Iraqi prisoners are being produced by a climate of disregard for the laws of war. Human-rights advocates, for example, claim that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is of a piece with President Bush's 2002 decision to deny al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Critics, no doubt, will soon demand that reforms include an extension of Geneva standards to interrogations at Guantanamo Bay.
The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda. It ignores the unique demands of the war on terrorism and the advantages that a facility such as Guantanamo can provide. It urges policy makers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks. Punishing abuse in Iraq should not return the U.S. to Sept. 10, 2001, in the way it fights al Qaeda, while Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants remain at large and continue to plan attacks.
It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq. President Bush and his commanders announced early in the conflict that the Conventions applied. Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention, which applies to prisoners of war, clearly states: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." This provision would prohibit some interrogation methods that could be used in American police stations.
One thing should remain clear. Physical abuse violates the conventions. The armed forces have long operated a system designed to investigate violations of the laws of war, and ultimately to try and punish the offenders. And it is important to let the military justice system run its course. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." To be sure, Article 31 of the Fourth Convention prohibits any "physical or moral coercion" of civilians "to obtain information from them," and there is a clear prohibition of torture, physical abuse, and denial of medical care, food, and shelter. Nonetheless, Article 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.
A response to criminal action by individual soldiers should begin with the military justice system, rather than efforts to impose a one-size-fits-all policy to cover both Iraqi saboteurs and al Qaeda operatives. That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction. While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.
As a result, interrogations of detainees captured in the war on terrorism are not regulated under Geneva. This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law. Nonetheless, Congress's definition of torture in those laws--the infliction of severe mental or physical pain--leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation. Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating.
The reasons to deny Geneva status to terrorists extend beyond pure legal obligation. The primary enforcer of the laws of war has been reciprocal treatment: We obey the Geneva Conventions because our opponent does the same with American POWs. That is impossible with al Qaeda. It has never demonstrated any desire to provide humane treatment to captured Americans. If anything, the murders of Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl declare al Qaeda's intentions to kill even innocent civilian prisoners. Without territory, it does not even have the resources to provide detention facilities for prisoners, even if it were interested in holding captured POWs.
It is also worth asking whether the strict limitations of Geneva make sense in a war against terrorists. Al Qaeda operates by launching surprise attacks on civilian targets with the goal of massive casualties. Our only means for preventing future attacks, which could use WMDs, is by acquiring information that allows for pre-emptive action. Once the attacks occur, as we learned on Sept. 11, it is too late. It makes little sense to deprive ourselves of an important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks while we are still in the middle of a fight to the death with al Qaeda. Applying different standards to al Qaeda does not abandon Geneva, but only recognizes that the U.S. faces a stateless enemy never contemplated by the Conventions.
This means that the U.S. can pursue different interrogation policies in each location. In fact, Abu Ghraib highlights the benefits of Guantanamo. We can guess that the unacceptable conduct of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib resulted in part from the dangerous state of affairs on the ground in a theater of war. American soldiers had to guard prisoners on the inside while receiving mortar and weapons fire from the outside. By contrast, Guantanamo is distant from any battlefield, making it far more secure. The naval station's location means the military can base more personnel there and devote more resources to training and supervision.
A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages. The Justices are currently considering a case, argued last month, which seeks to extend the writ of habeas corpus to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo. If the Court were to extend its reach to the base, judges could begin managing conditions of confinement, interrogation methods, and the use of information. Not only would this call on the courts to make judgments and develop policies for which they have no expertise, but the government will be encouraged to keep its detention facilities in the theater of conflict. Judicial over-confidence in intruding into war decisions could produce more Abu Ghraibs in dangerous combat zones, and remove our most effective means of preventing future terrorist attacks.
-
Except it's not a POW camp in that POW's are afforded certain rights, and the detainees at Guantanamo aren't being afforded, and the US government has denied them POW status, instead referring to the detainees as "enemy combatants."
However, I'm sure it's pretty comfortable as far as concentration camps go. Probably not by much though.
Thats because terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention. Terrorists violate every freaking rule in that convention. So they cant have legal POW rights.
-
I guess the SS Death's Head Formations said the same thing when asked about the camps...
The differense that SS squards know that they are whiping a entire race of people. American flyboy dont know what kind of people are down there so they bomb them. Look in WWII when US, British, Germans are bombing entire cities. Do you believe that they didnt want to do that? No. They had a job to do. They do what they order to do.
God If you been or lived in military life. You would know what were talking about.
-
Speaking of Bush Sr, what he said about invading Iraq:To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.
How right he was.
Have a source of the quote?
If invading Iraq was wrong. Why did Bush Sr. support his son?
-
How do you know you're killing 'your enemies'? In a war you're being controlled by a higher authority, and you're killing very abstract 'enemies'. How do you know for sure, that the people you're bombing 5000 feet below are your enemies?
They tell you to bomb that area. You bomb that area.
If someone becomes an enemy in your own hometown, is it still ok to kill him?No, we shun him or run him out of town. :D
-
USA didn't have a need to go to war. Bush had a need to go to war because it was election time (and a war president has never lost an election).
WRONGO!
Bush Sr. was a War pres and lost a 2nd term and a few other Presidents.
-
You cannot be proud american with out putting your life in danger or killing other people?
Whats wrong defending your country's needs and killing your enemies?
-
What the US needs to do, is recall the draft and make sure that everyone does his/hers job serving their country. It also abolishes the situation where ordinary civilians might be treated as a second-hand citizens.
Worst idea ever. No-one should be forced into situation where they might die(or kill) simply because they live in certain country.
Well I like the idea. Joining the military proves that your are loyal to the United States of America and it will also make you proud to be a American.
-
I am for "No Choice" on the matter of abortion. Let me explain. I am a man. Abortion is a woman's issue. As a man, I have no right to dictate what a woman does with her body. I have "No Choice" in the matter. Let the Women deal with it.
What if it was your kid?
-
Yes, citizenship before you die, not conditional upon you dying.
Acullay a Mexcian citizen who joined the US Army and died in Iraq gave his life for freedom. Gained US citizenship.
Your view on Politics
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
We are. Saddam supports enemies of the United States and even praised attack agaist us. His government is a terrorist supporting state.
We didnt officaly trained him. We gave money and weapons.
Also alot of weapons in Afagisitan are old Soviet weapons that dont even work.
But their not a threat agaist us. Shure I want the communist rebels killed, but their not a threat to our intrests. The only threat in South America is Castro and Chavez.