Prison inmates committing suicide now an act of warfare on the US

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, June 23, 2006 10:01
VIEWED: 9568
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KHYRON

Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:08 AM

Yes indeed it is, according to the military.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5068606.stm

The article can basically be summed up by: "The camp commander said the two Saudis and a Yemeni were "committed" and had killed themselves in "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us"."

I personally fail to see the logic, but then again I'm not as highly intelligent as the US military. Anybody care to explain?

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:35 AM

People were murdered on a US base by terrorists...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:03 PM

They realized that they couldn't kill anyone else, so to demoralize the sensitive, fluffy peeps at Gitmo, they murdered themselves!

Who knows at this point, could be a 'statement', or maybe some more foul play. Time and loose lips will tell.

Frequent diner at the Gitmo Bistro Chrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:23 PM

I think they just had enough...

They are being held.... indefinately

They may or may not be guilty of anything

The treatment they face is questionable at best

I suppose taking out a guard is impossible... so what else does that leave

I remember the outrage Americans showed over Vietnam POWs ( sorry illegal combatants... depends who you talk to right ? ) and look at this going on ?

I personally feel that those who fought US forces in the process of invading Afganistan and Iraq are not guilty of anything but fighting for their respective countries... funny how the US is casting themselves as the Russians from Red Dawn

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 4:40 PM

I would have liked to write the tabloid headlines:

Three men brutely murdered by terrorists at US base!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

SIMONF

Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:46 PM

It's also a "good PR move to draw attention" according to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. I can't help but think phrases like these will not endear themselves to moderates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5069230.stm

SIMONWHO

Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:35 PM

"an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us" - Rear Admiral Harris.

Well, for the safety of the free world, I hope that the US restores the symmetry by retaliating in kind with the suicide of the Commander in Chief, his deputy and Rear Admiral Harris.

Has there ever been a more heartless reaction to a suicde than this?

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Has there ever been a more heartless reaction to a suicde than this?

I'm sure there has been, but I don't know what it is.

-

In one thing in relation to this Bush said he wanted detainees to be tried in the US (military tribunals though) and I'm all for that, or anything that at least lets them hear why they're being held and a shot, even if not the best one, at justice.

Anyone remember when someone was convicted based on charges in a sealed envelope? It was during the McCarthy era, meaning I wasn’t there for it, and once upon a time I thought that could never happen again. Some people still suffer from that delusion, for example when Good Night, and Good Luck came out some people thought it wasn't current.

There are few things more current.

"We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason."

"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

"And who's fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassus was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

-

And of course the final words of the movie, which came not from an actor but from the President of the United States:
"Why are we proud? We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend—or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it."

KHYRON

Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:58 PM

"good PR move to draw attention"

Assuming it is just a PR move, does that mean that now the military considers PR moves to be acts of warfare?

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:16 PM

I'm afraid to post in this thread. PirateJenny might post some half-coherent rant about my lack of mental acuity.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, June 12, 2006 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm afraid to post in this thread. PirateJenny might post some half-coherent rant about my lack of mental acuity.

So we all have to suffer from not hearing what you have to say?

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 12, 2006 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm afraid to post in this thread. PirateJenny might post some half-coherent rant about my lack of mental acuity.

C'mon, Causal, what is it? For God's sake, SPIT IT OUT!

Sorry, I sounded like the sherriff from First Blood just then...

Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm afraid to post in this thread. PirateJenny might post some half-coherent rant about my lack of mental acuity.

C'mon, Causal, what is it? For God's sake, SPIT IT OUT!

Oh fine. What they mean when they say, "An act of assymetric warfare" is that the prisoners offed themselves (double points for the horrible grammar!) because they knew that it would attract media attention on the "plight" of the detainees at Gitmo--and hey, it worked!

Note: not making any statements about the legitimacy of Guantanamo Bay or anything like that, nor am I making statements about whether I buy the whole "assymetric warfare" thing.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

RHODRI

Monday, June 12, 2006 2:02 PM

Personally, I beleive these inmates had just had enough.

These people have been taken from the Afghanistan area and locked up in a cage in Cuba.

They've been there for 5 years.

There has been no trial for a single detainee.

There is inadequate proof to try a single detainee.

They are unlikely to be released to thier home states.

Is anyone surprised that 3 guys topped themselves? The real miracle is that there haven't been any more reported suicides there!

Let's face it, Camp X-Ray is one bad joke, a mistake from the outset and they don't know how to get out of the mire!

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 12, 2006 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Oh fine. What they mean when they say, "An act of assymetric warfare" is that the prisoners offed themselves (double points for the horrible grammar!) because they knew that it would attract media attention on the "plight" of the detainees at Gitmo--and hey, it worked!

I agree, Causal.
And those Buddhist monks that torched themselves during the Vietnam War started the 'Assymetric Warfare' thing, I blame them!

And the Bush Administration is forcing through it's Oblique Warfare!
And those Terrorists, with their stinking Quantum Warfare!!!

These new ways are making a mockery of the good old Scorched Earth thing, Damn it all!

War should be pure (Purity Of War; aka POW)Chrisisall

KHYRON

Monday, June 12, 2006 3:42 PM

For somebody who's somewhat military-illiterate, what exactly is the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a POW? What is it in a conventional war and what is it in the war on terror (where even somebody's apartment can be seen as part of the battlefield)?

I ask because the Geneva conventions don't seem to care about enemy combatants but take the welfare of POWs very seriously, and to a layperson such as myself the two seem to be the same (assuming the enemy combatant has been caught and is held as a prisoner).

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

TAYEATRA

Monday, June 12, 2006 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
For somebody who's somewhat military-illiterate, what exactly is the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a POW? What is it in a conventional war and what is it in the war on terror (where even somebody's apartment can be seen as part of the battlefield)?

A 'prisoner of war' must be a registered member of the armed forces (i.e. protected by the 'following orders' defence). Thus, terrorists or any who fight against legitimised government are considered enemy combatants.

*****
Taya
*****
I'm going to S3!!!
(*Insert hysterical celebration dance here*)

GEEZER

Monday, June 12, 2006 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
For somebody who's somewhat military-illiterate, what exactly is the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a POW? What is it in a conventional war and what is it in the war on terror (where even somebody's apartment can be seen as part of the battlefield)?

I ask because the Geneva conventions don't seem to care about enemy combatants but take the welfare of POWs very seriously, and to a layperson such as myself the two seem to be the same (assuming the enemy combatant has been caught and is held as a prisoner).

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

It gets even more complicated when you have to determine whether a combatant is a "lawful" or "unlawful" combatant. Lawful combatants get the Geneva convention treatment if captured. Unlawful is not so clear.

In your old-fashioned war between uniformed national armies, it was pretty easy to figure that uniformed enemy soldiers you captured were lawful combatants and entitled to POW treatment. Spies and saboteurs you caught outside their own country were unlawful combatants and could go to the wall. Resistance fighters fighting against occupation of their country were supposed to be treated as lawful, but that was open to interpretation.

If most of the world recognizes the current Afgani or Iraqi governments as legitimate, and those governments declare the insurgents do not represent a valid resistance, are they then unlawful combatants, due no POW rights under the Geneva Convention?

Just to make it more complex, the three Guantanamo suicides were Saudi and Yemeni. One of the Saudis was described as part of a militant Saudi group. Sadly, he was scheduled to be released as soon as it could be decided where he could be released to, but hadn't been told, pending the decision on where he'd go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm

The other Saudi was described as a mid-to-high-level al-Qaeda operative and the Yemeni as a "front-line" Taliban fighter. Would these two be considered legal resistance fighters even though they weren't in their own country, or agents provocateurs who should be treated the same as spies?

Lawyers will be buying Benzes and Yachts for years off the fees that are paid before that is decided.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

CITIZEN

Monday, June 12, 2006 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
For somebody who's somewhat military-illiterate, what exactly is the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a POW? What is it in a conventional war and what is it in the war on terror (where even somebody's apartment can be seen as part of the battlefield)?

Quote:
Source: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/after_911/PDF/Enemy%20Combatant
s.pdf
The largest category of individuals in detention comprises the so-called “enemy
combatants.” These are individuals being treated not as civilians (as in INS and criminal
cases), but as members of a military force, either al Qaeda or the Taliban, and as
participants in an armed conflict pitting those forces against the United States. The
administration has designated these men as “unlawful combatants,” or “enemy
combatants,”1 rather than as “prisoners of war,” for the express purpose of denying them
the rights that combatants normally receive. At the same time, by considering these
detainees as “combatants,” the administration in effect asserts the right to detain them
indefinitely and without trial. Under international humanitarian law, combatants in
armed conflict who are captured by the enemy may be held in detention until the
“cessation of active hostilities.” 2 In this instance, the administration construes this term
to mean the end of the “war against terrorism.”

People protected under the Geneva Convention are outlined in Articles 3 - 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 12, 2006 7:46 PM

What's the difference between an illegal combatant and an innocent detainee?

The Pentagon's say-so.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SIMONWHO

Monday, June 12, 2006 10:09 PM

What's the difference between an illegal combatant and an innocent detainee?

Well, according to Pentagon officials asked this question, you better hope never to find out. And stop being unpatriotic, asking questions about the way they do things. If you're not for us, you're against us. Bring them on. Mission accomplished. Help, vision impaired, I can not see. Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate...

... said the Pentagon spokesman.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, June 12, 2006 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
And of course the final words of the movie, which came not from an actor but from the President of the United States:
"Why are we proud? We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend—or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it."

I thought that was such a great quote, right from Ike, but no one else liked it I guess.

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:01 AM

Or it was retaliation from the guards for the prisoners staging an attack last month. Guards go psycho just as much as the prisoners. Homicidal "hangings" are the most popular method of faking suicides in US prisons.

Caught on Tape - US Copsters Torture US Citizen to Sign Consent Form in USA:
http://wms.scripps.com/knoxville/siler/siler.mp3
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/9797.php
http://piratenews.org/KnoxNews-com-torture-archive.html
http://piratenews.org/tortured-by-copsters-in-tn.html
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/247

Note that these 5 copsters punched him, kicked him, beat him with a baseball bat, burned him with cigarettes, threatened to rape his wife, put a loaded gun to his head and threatened to shoot him dead, and if that weren't enough they hooked a battery charger to his genitals. This guy was tortured in his own home, no arrest, no trial, no appeal. The copsters said they were going to kill him, plant a gun on him, and testilie that they shot him trying to escape.

What they do in Gitmo is far worse, with dozens of deaths of people with no criminal charges filed against them, no lawyers, no trials, no appeals. Citizens from over 50 nations are in Gitmo.

And Islam forbids suicide. Just because the Pentagon says something you automatically believe it's true?

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

KHYRON

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:47 AM

Thanks for the helpful answers. The difference between the two in a conventional war is now clear to me, but when it comes to the so-called war on terror, aren't terrorists the enemy? So if somebody is accused of being a terrorist, then that makes him a (lawful) enemy combatant, one targetted by the war and thereby upon capture he's a POW. Right? Unless the war on terror is against not people but the idea of terror, in which case, wtf?

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If most of the world recognizes the current Afgani or Iraqi governments as legitimate, and those governments declare the insurgents do not represent a valid resistance, are they then unlawful combatants, due no POW rights under the Geneva Convention?

This seems to be a pretty big loophole in the Geneva Conventions. So all a country has to do to be able to do with the combatants it captures as it wishes is to declare war on an idea or an act (such as terrorism), and not on the carnal manifestation of that idea (i.e. terrorists)? And who defines a valid resistance? In the eyes of the invader, no resistance is valid. Or do the Conventions expect the leader of the invading forces to respond along the lines of "Oh well, they do have a good point for resisting. After all, we did murder their mothers and rape their children, so what the hell, we'll be nice and let the Geneva Conventions apply by acknowledging their resistance as being valid".

You're absolutely right, Geezer, lawyers will be loving this.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:20 AM

Khyron wrote:

Quote:
So all a country has to do to be able to do with the combatants it captures as it wishes is to declare war on an idea or an act (such as terrorism), and not on the carnal manifestation of that idea (i.e. terrorists)?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. And now, because you're so astute, you've actually become a threat to the war effort, and will be thusly treated as an enemy combatant. Please turn yourself in at the nearest "guest camp". :)

The problem with declaring war on an *idea* or concept is that it pretty much does away with all the established rules of warfare. Of course, that's only a problem if you're not on the "right" side, right?

"Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right."
- Laurens van der Post

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Thanks for the helpful answers. The difference between the two in a conventional war is now clear to me, but when it comes to the so-called war on terror, aren't terrorists the enemy? So if somebody is accused of being a terrorist, then that makes him a (lawful) enemy combatant, one targetted by the war and thereby upon capture he's a POW. Right? Unless the war on terror is against not people but the idea of terror, in which case, wtf?

The Bush Administration likes to cherry pick. They take the 'enemy Combatant' thing as if they were fighting a conventional war but then excuse their own actions that break the Geneva Convention because those actions don't really break the convention because they aren't fighting a conventional war.

When it suits them the war on terror is conventional, with the enemy being some undefined nations regular military, uniforms and all. When it doesn't suit them, it isn't.

Of course when these Unlawful Combatants capture American Soldiers and mistreat them it's a terrible thing, but since they are unlawful combatants and they are not protected by the Geneva Convention, they aren't bound by it either. So surely it's okay for them to mistreat American Soldiers for the same reasons its okay for American Soldiers to mistreat unlawful combatants?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Thanks for the helpful answers. The difference between the two in a conventional war is now clear to me, but when it comes to the so-called war on terror, aren't terrorists the enemy? So if somebody is accused of being a terrorist, then that makes him a (lawful) enemy combatant, one targetted by the war and thereby upon capture he's a POW. Right? Unless the war on terror is against not people but the idea of terror, in which case, wtf?...This seems to be a pretty big loophole in the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva conventions apply to war between nations and in some cases intra-national civil war. They weren't written considering war against a stateless, violent, multi-branched organization attempting to impose its political ideas by terror.

The Geneva conventions were also written (I believe) with the implied understanding that everyone would at least pay lip-service to the rules. I'm not sure that when they were created, that anyone would have considered the possibility of al-Qieda as a major world-wide player.

Quote:
So all a country has to do to be able to do with the combatants it captures as it wishes is to declare war on an idea or an act (such as terrorism), and not on the carnal manifestation of that idea (i.e. terrorists)?

Oh, a lot more complex than that.

Lets say Ali is a ben-Laden lieutenant who taught the 9/11 hijackers how to cut throats with box-cutters and sent them off to die. When the US invades Afghanistan, he picks up his AK, goes to kill the infidel, and gets captured. Right next to him is Jalil, a simple farmer who also picked up his AK and went to fight the infidel.

We know that the area where they were captured is rife with al-Qieda terrorists, so it's a good chance they are. When questioned, they both respond "I'm a simple farmer, infidel dog." If no more evidence is available, what do we do - charge them both with terrorism, let them both go, or hold them until we can develop more info? Considering the number of Afghan and Iraqi combatants we captured, the 800 or so sent to Guantanamo because we either knew they were terrorists or needed to make sure doesn't seem that excessive.

Quote:
And who defines a valid resistance?

In the current situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's the duly elected governments of those countries.

Quote:
In the eyes of the invader, no resistance is valid.

Possibly, but they could still consider the resistance to be lawful combatants, as Jalil, above, would be. Iraqi regular army forces were treated as lawful combatants, even though they sometimes broke the Geneva rules by such acts as using civilians as human shields.

Quote:
Or do the Conventions expect the leader of the invading forces to respond along the lines of "Oh well, they do have a good point for resisting. After all, we did murder their mothers and rape their children, so what the hell, we'll be nice and let the Geneva Conventions apply by acknowledging their resistance as being valid".

That would be a pretty unlikely statement for anyone to actually make (unless they were just trying to start an argument), but as to the Conventions expectations, I doubt it.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Of course when these Unlawful Combatants capture American Soldiers and mistreat them it's a terrible thing, but since they are unlawful combatants and they are not protected by the Geneva Convention, they aren't bound by it either. So surely it's okay for them to mistreat American Soldiers for the same reasons its okay for American Soldiers to mistreat unlawful combatants?

Tell you what. You let your big dog bark at me, and then I'll cut your head off with a dull knife, and then we'll talk equivalancies.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:31 PM

Tell you what- I'll roll you around and sit on you while you're stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag until you suffocate. That will end the discussion nicely.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

AMITON

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Thanks for the helpful answers. The difference between the two in a conventional war is now clear to me, but when it comes to the so-called war on terror, aren't terrorists the enemy? So if somebody is accused of being a terrorist, then that makes him a (lawful) enemy combatant, one targetted by the war and thereby upon capture he's a POW. Right? Unless the war on terror is against not people but the idea of terror, in which case, wtf?

Well, kind of. I can't claim to be up on all of the GC legalities, and honestly that can be a problem some day since I'm responsible for acting in accordance with them. That could be part of the problem on a small scale, but I'll promise you that the White House legal team isn't as underinformed as I am.

If I understand the scenario correctly, however, the terrorists are not lawful combatants because of the nature of the application of "assymetric" warfare techniques by and large. They are staying in civilian homes and running operations disguised as civilians. It's absolutely critical to the success of their objectives. As such, they are pursuing the "war" from an unlawful standpoint.

Somebody made mention of spies and espionage earlier in the thread, and their activities strip them from the protections of the GC and they become unlawful combatants if memory serves. Similiar situation.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If most of the world recognizes the current Afgani or Iraqi governments as legitimate, and those governments declare the insurgents do not represent a valid resistance, are they then unlawful combatants, due no POW rights under the Geneva Convention?

This seems to be a pretty big loophole in the Geneva Conventions. So all a country has to do to be able to do with the combatants it captures as it wishes is to declare war on an idea or an act (such as terrorism), and not on the carnal manifestation of that idea (i.e. terrorists)? And who defines a valid resistance? In the eyes of the invader, no resistance is valid. Or do the Conventions expect the leader of the invading forces to respond along the lines of "Oh well, they do have a good point for resisting. After all, we did murder their mothers and rape their children, so what the hell, we'll be nice and let the Geneva Conventions apply by acknowledging their resistance as being valid".

You're absolutely right, Geezer, lawyers will be loving this.

The international legal system is a political game from the get-go. It's all about power and popular opinion. I can assure you that the Nazis would not have been tried for War Crimes if they had won, and I don't think Melsovic would have been either if he hadn't pissed so many people off. Of course they deserved it, and yes those were bad people. If they ran in the right circles and kept their noses clean, however, we never would have heard about the things that had been done, even though I will assure you that state governments and intelligence agencies would have known all about them.

Kind of a parallel scenario. Israel and Taiwan are both States that aren't officially recognized by their neighbors. If wars broke out involving them then I'm sure the court of popular opinion would rule that they had to be treated as normalized and lawful opposition regardless of what the rest of the middle east or China had to say about it respectively. Palestine just recently jumped into that category in the last couple of decades as well. The US confederacy established a government and drafted formal notifications of succession and all the political stuff that goes over my head most of the time. Hell, the American Revolution was pretty much the same thing for that matter.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the difference is contextual, and not as fluidly subjective as is being illustrated. It is subjective to a degree, and it's definitely a slippery slope to be on. There's definitely enough room for the lawyers to argue about the semantics of it all,

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tell you what- I'll roll you around and sit on you while you're stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag until you suffocate. That will end the discussion nicely.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

Hmm. I thought I was discussing this with Citizen. Let me check... Yep.

But anyway. Let's step back a bit and look at the large scale picture.

Almost all lawful combatants in both Afghanistan and Iraq captured by coalition forces (that would be uniformed regular forces and resistance fighters engaged in regular combat) have been released and are back home. Some who are suspected or identified terrorists are being held. In cases where captives were mistreated, folks have gone to jail.

Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.

Do you see any difference at all between these two scenarios? A simple Yes or No will do.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:51 PM

No.

Please explain the difference.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed.

Like you said Mal tortured and killed the henchman when he kicked him through the engine on the other thread, huh?
That guy was going to kill Mal & crew as soon as he could, by his own free admission!

Defense does not equal torture.
Um...unless you defend yourself, then torture...then you're torturing.

You make it so complicated, Geezer! Chrisisall

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No.

Please explain the difference.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

Sure. Scenario one is...We don't agree and I take you prisoner. 999 times out of 1000 I then let you go. If I don't release you my forces are required to treat you in a relatively humane manner. If they don't they go to jail.

Scenario two is...We don't agree and I take you prisoner. 999 times out of 1000 I torture you and cut your head off with a dull knife. My boss says "Good job. Keep it up." I do.

Any clearer now?

I'm afraid that if you can't differentiate between these two scenarios, I can do nothing but suggest that you seek medical attention, 'cause you're one sick puppy.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tell you what. You let your big dog bark at me, and then I'll cut your head off with a dull knife, and then we'll talk equivalancies.

How about I kill your entire family in a bombing raid first?

Quote:
Hmm. I thought I was discussing this with Citizen. Let me check... Yep.

Yeah Signy, this IS NOT a public forum and YOU have no rights to speak in it, so shut the hell up.

.

Quote:
Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.

So you want the 'unlawful combatants' to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it?

If someone is bound by the Geneva Convention they're also protected by it, so I'd of thought that's the last thing the Bush administration wants.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.
So you want the 'unlawful combatants' to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it?

If someone is bound by the Geneva Convention they're also protected by it, so I'd of thought that's the last thing the Bush administration wants.

No. My remark, which you took out of context, was not meant to propose anything relating to the Geneva convention, as you know very well. It was part of a "compare and contrast" set of scenarios reflecting Coalition and insurgent tactics and policies.

Since that's come up, do you see any difference between scenarios One and Two that I described above?

BTW. I'm having trouble linking with FFF.net (maybe you are too?) so I'm gonna drop out for a while and pick this up later.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:55 PM

Trouble here too. But I'm patient.

First of all, I question your scenario. Just out of curiosity Geezer: Have we ever taken "lawful combatants" prisoner in our war on terrorists? Considering that the Taliban was not recognized as the lawful government of Afghanistan (except by the UAE, to which we almost entrusted our port security... but that's another story) by definition I don't think there were any lawful combatants in that war. And while I suppose that Saddam's army consisted of lawful combatants, I'm not aware that we took any of them prisoner. It seems to me that all of our prisoners in Gitmo and most of them in Abu Ghraib are either "unlawful combatants", innocent bystanders (oops), and petty criminals. So feel free to let me know how we treated that minor percentage (if any) of our lawful combatant prisoners.

As far as I know, according to you the rest are fair game.

www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Considering the number of Afghan and Iraqi combatants we captured, the 800 or so sent to Guantanamo because we either knew they were terrorists or needed to make sure doesn't seem that excessive.

Ok, so here's what I'm reading, tell me if I'm wrong:

These people were picked up and according to the US government (which you can call liars if you'd like) in the five years since then they have not even been told why.

So they're being held without trial, as we all know, but they are not, however, guilty by suspicion since that would imply that they are suspected of something, which as far as we know isn't true. They have not been accused of being terrorists, they have not been accused of being ANYTHING, they have not been accused of acting against this counrty or breaking any law, they have not been accused, charged, or even given subtle hints as to why they are there.

As far as they or the American people know they are not even suspected of doing anything, because then they would have been charged with that thing, they are instead suspected of being the kind of person who might have done something or might do something.

-

You say that we knew they were terrorists or needed to make sure, if we knew why won’t we tell how we knew, and if we needed to make sure exactly how long does that take?

Will we be sure when they die of old age perhaps, because if we make as much progress in the next five as we have in the last five those who don't kill themselves will still be there, and by that point there probably won't be to much evidence to convict or exonerate them left around.

If we don't have enough evidence to even charge them with anything after five years of searching for it how long do we wait before we stop looking?

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tell you what. You let your big dog bark at me, and then I'll cut your head off with a dull knife, and then we'll talk equivalancies.
How about I kill your entire family in a bombing raid first?

You know what the defense lawyers said about the US soldiers who killed unarmed civilians? They said that the soldiers did not know they were killing civilians because they simply went door to door throwing grenades in houses, since they didn't bother to find out who was in the houses, the defense argues, they can't be blamed for the fact that the people living in the houses, whom they killed, were unarmed civilians.

I wonder if the terrorists should be let off every time they didn't know who was in the building they bombed.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
the soldiers did not know they were killing civilians because they simply went door to door throwing grenades in houses, since they didn't bother to find out who was in the houses, the defense argues, they can't be blamed for the fact that the people living in the houses, whom they killed, were unarmed civilians.

We're back to: What we do-good.
What they do-bad.

War is so simple.

Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
No. My remark, which you took out of context, was not meant to propose anything relating to the Geneva convention, as you know very well. It was part of a "compare and contrast" set of scenarios reflecting Coalition and insurgent tactics and policies.

Erm since my original comment which you replied to was essentially “people who are not protected by the Geneva Convention aren't bound by it” I knew nothing of the sort. So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it? Why are you surprised they don't respect the rights of our soldiers when we don't respect their rights? Why's it okay for us to break the GC but not them?

Quote:
Since that's come up, do you see any difference between scenarios One and Two that I described above?

Erm I see you taking specific scenarios at two extremes.

What's the difference between these two?

An American Marine shooting an unarmed civilian at point blank range.

An insurgent shooting an armed Marine in a conflict.

I don't expect an answer because we're both taking extreme specific examples of what's really happening to paint the picture we want to paint and hoping to get a concession from the other side.

Like a line of questioning in a court case:
"What fits the defendant better: A psychotic manic murderer or a Small Venezuelan potted plant?"
"Well the murderer, but the other one isn't even a person..."
"Thank you that's all I needed to know."

Quote:
BTW. I'm having trouble linking with FFF.net (maybe you are too?) so I'm gonna drop out for a while and pick this up later.

Yeah me to, it's happening every now and again.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
War is so simple.

Mark Twain had a whole thing on it. It was very accurate if I remember correctly.

It never changes you know, the weapons change, the nations change, the people change, but the thing remains the same.

We are good and they are bad, god is with us, they are the infidel, we protect freedom they fight it, we create safety they create death. So on and so forth, all while the other side says the exact same thing.

Nothing is new really, this whole semantic battle over who has what rights reminds me of Cicero, he couldn't change the laws so he tried to change what the words meant.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Nothing is new really, this whole semantic battle over who has what rights reminds me of Cicero, he couldn't change the laws so he tried to change what the words meant.

War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:28 PM

Now this is not an endorsment for Gitmo or any other 'secret' U.S. prison camps. In all fairness, if a case has not been made in several years, perhaps there is no case to be made. But it is really hard to prosecute intent.
With the exception of the three gentlemen from the above article, the remaining prisoners are alive. This can not be said about the victims of 9/11. This brings into question the rights of an enemy combatant or alledged terrorist as opposed to the rights of the average citizen to remain breathing.
Do not mistake me, I am not advocating rounding up persons of interest and locking them away. But people get sent to jail all the time for crimes they did not commit. Until us humans remove ourselves from the equation, all things are tempered with human fallacy. Besides, if the current residents of Gitmo can hold out, they will probably hire a lawyer, sue for wrongful imprisonment, win, then buy an island and try to make up for the lost years.
My point is if, god forbid, there was another terror attack on U.S. soil, would the same people who are now speaking out about Gitmo et al change their tune? Would these same people begin to chastise the Government for not doing enough to ensure the security of the people?

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

My point is if, god forbid, there was another terror attack on U.S. soil, would the same people who are now speaking out about Gitmo et al change their tune? Would these same people begin to chastise the Government for not doing enough to ensure the security of the people?

No.

Because it's NOT that they weren't doing enough before, they were doing TOO MUCH- of the wrong ass things. Our Government is a corporation now, and corporate style management is great for the short term, and terrible for the long. Keep your boss happy, that's all it is, now more than ever.

Look left, look right, look up, look down.
JAFB.

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:41 PM

The answer to your question is... no.

And it's not because I'm a naive happy camper. I was probably one of the few people who wasn't shocked by 9-11. Even before the Cole and the US Emnbassies I was waiting for the oterh shoe to drop. I was just glad it wasn't worse because the scenarios in my head were much, much more horrific.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:00 PM

People get thrown into jail for crimes they do not commit all the time, and those people get a trial which is as fair as we can manage with the world we have to work with in a timely fashion.

They get to hear the accusations against them and they get to challenge those things and try to prove their innocence.

Also their loved ones know where they are right from day one.

-

As for would I change my mind? No. If I wanted to live in a safe world I would go to work on a way to kill off every single person who has the potential to maybe dislike me at some point in their lives, for one thing it would be a hell of a lot more polite than the way we're doing things now, and for another it would actually stand a slim chance of working.

However,

There is a reason that Habeas Corpus is in the constitution, and not the bill of rights. Before the people who founded this country even thought about religion, search and seizure, or anything else mentioned in the Bill of Rights they thought about how pissed off we were that some bastards from overseas were throwing them in jail and not even telling them why.

I mean President Bush said it, this would be so much easier if it were a dictatorship, it would also work so much better if we stopped caring about morality, a camera in every bathroom and an electric prod in every cell and soon enough things will start to be safer. If we were to start executing people for anything equal to or worse than litter we'd probably have a safer nation then too.

Of course the people there are foreigners. (As far as I know they only ever had one American held there, for two years I believe, after investigating for all of that time they finally turned up one piece of information on him: he was an American, so on the agreement that he would not press charges they released him.)

But if individual rights really mean so little that we'd take them away from others just so we're a little bit safer there's no reason we should give them to ourselves. They simply don't matter that much. We certainly shouldn't go on about inalienable rights because that would be total bullshit.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was just glad it wasn't worse because the scenarios in my head were much, much more horrific.

That's what surprised me. People had been saying that terrorists would crash planes into the World Trade Center since they upped the security on their basement in response to the bombing.

What amazed me was that that is all that happened. Two planes in New York, one we think was meant for the White House, one at The Pentagon, and possibly one more target unknown that never lifted off that day.

Five planes out of something like 4,000 over the US. It's a blessing really, I wasn't expecting anything less than ten, and really I thought that was such a low estimate.

September 11th was sloppy, and for that I am grateful. Considering the state of our air security at the time it was incredibly minor, and for that I am grateful.

It was also preventable and what's more it could have been stopped without throwing people in jail for years without even telling them why.

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Trouble here too. But I'm patient.

First of all, I question your scenario.

Or, first of all you dodge the question.

Quote:
Just out of curiosity Geezer: Have we ever taken "lawful combatants" prisoner in our war on terrorists? Considering that the Taliban was not recognized as the lawful government of Afghanistan (except by the UAE, to which we almost entrusted our port security... but that's another story) by definition I don't think there were any lawful combatants in that war. And while I suppose that Saddam's army consisted of lawful combatants, I'm not aware that we took any of them prisoner.

Sorry you're so uninformed about an issue you argue so passionately.

30 days into the Iraq war we had captured around 7,500 POWS, had released 1000 Iraqi soldiers that had been taken prisoner, and were releasing prisoners at a rate of 200 to 300 a day.

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive_Index/leaders_captured.html

Quote:
It seems to me that all of our prisoners in Gitmo and most of them in Abu Ghraib are either "unlawful combatants", innocent bystanders (oops), and petty criminals.

Hey. we're about to release 120 or so of them, as soon as we find some place that will take them.

Quote:
Feel free to let me know how we treated that minor percentage (if any) of our lawful combatant prisoners.

As noted above, we were letting them go.

Quote:
As far as I know, according to you the rest are fair game.

Oh, come on. You must know that I have applauded the convictions of US forces who exceeded priosner treatment guidelines (unless you conviently forgot.)

So come on. Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:49 PM

Ah, becasue WE are "lawful combatants" (who just happened to unlawfully invade a nation) and therefore deserve GC treatment.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What's the difference between these two?

An American Marine shooting an unarmed civilian at point blank range.

An insurgent shooting an armed Marine in a conflict.

I don't expect an answer because we're both taking extreme specific examples of what's really happening to paint the picture we want to paint and hoping to get a concession from the other side.

Hell. I can answer that easily, assuming you mean a Marine shooting an unarmed civilian with no justification. The Marine should go to jail. The insurgent is, although on the wrong side, IMHO, performing a legitimate military action. Now, if he set off an IED in a marketplace...that's another matter.

OK, your turn.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, becasue WE are "lawful combatants" (who just happened to unlawfully invade a nation) and therefore deserve GC treatment.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

Yech. Patooey. Somebody's putting words in my mouth again.

The question is just what it says. "Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Hell. I can answer that easily, assuming you mean a Marine shooting an unarmed civilian with no justification. The Marine should go to jail. The insurgent is, although on the wrong side, IMHO, performing a legitimate military action. Now, if he set off an IED in a marketplace...that's another matter.

Geezer, I told you I wasn't going to play by your rules, at least not until you play by mine first (hey I got in there first, first in first out):

So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it?

Why are you surprised they don't respect the rights of our soldiers when we don't respect their rights?

Why's it okay for us to break the GC but not them?

Why's it okay for America to be 'not as bad as the terrorists'?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:59 PM

Quote:
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"

That's not what's happening. That's why I challenge your scenario. But let's deconstruct your statment by first figuring out who is the "POW". That means we first have to figure out who is the "legal combatant". Once we figure out who the POWs are then we can figure out if "we" let "most of them go" and of "they" kill "most of them".

---------------------------------
I'm with Citizen.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
People had been saying that terrorists would crash planes into the World Trade Center since they upped the security on their basement in response to the bombing.

Ah, there's the rub. I am sure the powers that be have dreamed up all the bad scenarios (and looked to Hollywood for the rest). But how do you prevent the unlimited scenarios from coming about with limited resources? How do you pick and choose where to best utilize your limited resources? Say airline security was tightened up before 9/11. Does that mean instead of what happened, a ship carrying a 'dirty bomb' docks at N.Y. Harbour instead? I do not mean to hijack this thread but it seems to be a little too easy to say this tragedy or others could have been prevented.

Quote:

What amazed me was that that is all that happened. Two planes in New York, one we think was meant for the White House, one at The Pentagon, and possibly one more target unknown that never lifted off that day.

Five planes out of something like 4,000 over the US. It's a blessing really, I wasn't expecting anything less than ten, and really I thought that was such a low estimate.

Some would say, myself included, that one plane was too many.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"
That's not what's happening.

Prove me wrong. Provide some evidence that either: 1. The Coalition forces are executing most prisoners they take, or 2. The Iraqi insurgency is letting most of their prisoners go free. You can't. I await your next session of bobbing and weaving.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Geezer, I told you I wasn't going to play by your rules, at least not until you play by mine first (hey I got in there first, first in first out):

Hey, I answered your question, and only expect you to do the same. But anyway...

Quote:
So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it?

If the insurgents treated Iraqi forces the same as we treat prisoners at Guantanamo, that would be a valid comparison. They don't. They kill them all.

Quote:
Why are you surprised they don't respect the rights of our soldiers when we don't respect their rights?

I would be surprised if they respectd the rights of our soldiers, or the new Iraqi army soldiers, regardless of what we do to their prisoners. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?

Quote:
Why's it okay for us to break the GC but not them??

That assumes we are breaking the GC. That determination will have to wait until some body decides if Taliban and al-Qieda operatives are lawful combatants or not. In the opinion of our government, they are not. Note that we still treat our prisoners better than they do theirs. Ours are still alive.

Quote:
Why's it okay for America to be 'not as bad as the terrorists'?

More like "...not nearly as bad as the terrorists". I would never claim that US forces havn't committed questionable acts. But even the worst pale in comparison to the everyday operations of the Iraqi insurgency.

So, is there, in your opinion, just as a theoretical excercise, any difference between an organization that releases most of its prisoners, and one that executes most of its prisoners? Although I have answered your questions, I expect that you once again will avoid answering mine.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
People had been saying that terrorists would crash planes into the World Trade Center since they upped the security on their basement in response to the bombing.
Ah, there's the rub. I am sure the powers that be have dreamed up all the bad scenarios (and looked to Hollywood for the rest).

Well it was the same people who warned the owners of the center ahead of time that there would be a vehicle bomb in the basement, and were ignored then too obviously.

They only ever made two predictions.

First they said there would be a vehicle bomb in the basement, there was, then they said hijacked airplanes would be crashed into the towers, then their leader died saving people on September 11th when hijacked airplanes crashed into the towers.

Quote:
But how do you prevent the unlimited scenarios from coming about with limited resources? How do you pick and choose where to best utilize your limited resources? Say airline security was tightened up before 9/11. Does that mean instead of what happened, a ship carrying a 'dirty bomb' docks at N.Y. Harbour instead? I do not mean to hijack this thread but it seems to be a little too easy to say this tragedy or others could have been prevented.

However the reason it could have been prevented has nothing to do with the fact we knew the Trade Center would be taken out that way ahead of time, that's just why it shouldn't have come as too much of a surprise to anyone who paid attention.

Why it was preventable is that we have, for a long time, known that passenger planes are a very real threat if they end up in the wrong hands, giant firebombs that can rain out of the sky, and we knew that terrorists were training to fly those planes.

So what if airline security was tightened? Well the time and effort that went into training pilots was wasted, they need to come up with a new plan, and they'd need to get weapons if they wanted to park a bomb in the harbor. It would have bought us time if nothing else.

I think your being unrealistic here, if you want to stop an attack from happening then you're lost, you can't do it. If you want to stop this attack from happening you can.

One thing at a time, we knew they were training, we knew where they were, we knew what they were training for (flying planes) that's enough to stop what was being planned then, after that you move onto what's next.

Quote:
Some would say, myself included, that one plane was too many.

I agree that one is too many, but think about it the other way around for a moment.

The Poseidon Adventure with Adam Baldwin was on the other day and at the end everyone was cheering because nine survivors got out just in a nick of time (sorry if I ruined it all for you) and one person in the room where the rescue operation was run from didn't get it.

Nine out of a large number, 1100 I think, she was thinking about the ones that died, and not the ones that lived, and for that reason she didn't understand the celebration. Yet I bet if you put it to her the other way, "Here's nine people, if would it be worth it to save them," no doubt she'd say yes, and if she only knew about the nine people she'd look at it as worthy of celebration when they were saved.

She couldn't see what was right in front of her: life.

You're looking at it through her eyes.

It would have been easy for them to wipe the Pentagon off the map, killed everyone in it in the process. If they knew about buildings at all they could have made the first tower fall as quickly as the second did, think of how much less time there would be to evacuate.

Think about other buildings that could have been hit.

Think about every single life that could have been lost that wasn't. Each one is a gift, a blessing if you're religious and a happy accident if you aren't, but a gift none the less.

-

It could have been worse, and considering how shitily we were looking after this country it probabl

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:

They only ever made two predictions.

First they said there would be a vehicle bomb in the basement, there was, then they said hijacked airplanes would be crashed into the towers, then their leader died saving people on September 11th when hijacked airplanes crashed into the towers.

Well put Chris. They should have covered the two towers in bubble wrap.

I see your point but I was speaking in more general terms. I'm going to guess that most if not all federal buildings have had a bomb threat in their historys. How about the Anthrax campaign or the dirty bomb campaign. I believe a few cities water supplies were threatened with contamination. It was examples like these that I was talking about. Could these things happen, not likely. But they are definently all possible. Perhaps the reason no one can find bin Laden is because he is presently tunneling under the ocean in a bid to dig up underneath the White House in order to give Bush a good tounge lashing. Oh no, I can hear the Pirates already.

Quote:

Think about every single life that could have been lost that wasn't. Each one is a gift, a blessing if you're religious and a happy accident if you aren't, but a gift none the less.

Well put sir.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:23 AM

Quote:
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?

But we haven't figured out who the POW's are yet, so how can I answer your question? More specifically- if "our" guys are captured, are they POWs?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:53 AM

I went looking for the answer. According to Geezer "our guys" are "lawful combatants" altho engaged in an unlawful action.

I wonder how many of "our guys" were captured? The Pentagram doesn't say.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?
But we haven't figured out who the POW's are yet, so how can I answer your question? More specifically- if "our" guys are captured, are they POWs?

Yep. Here's the bob.

As noted above, we held up to 7,500 Iraqis during the first 30 days of Iraqi Freedom, had released 1000, and were releasing more at a rate of 200-300 a day. Plans are in place to release around 120 Guantanamo detainees as soon as we can find some place that'll take them.

And if "our" guys, Coalition or new Iraqi Army, are captured and then executed, it doesn't really matter much to them whether the Geneve Conventions would define them as POWs, now does it? They're still dead.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I went looking for the answer. According to Geezer "our guys" are "lawful combatants" altho engaged in an unlawful action.

I wonder how many of "our guys" were captured? The Pentagram doesn't say.

And the weave.

Actually, the American "our guys" are lawful combatants according to the Geneva Conventions. Again, as noted above, this is the same as German soldiers in WWII being lawful combatants. Nine Americans were reported as captured and interned by Saddam's regular forces early in the war. Eight were eventually returned.

The Iraqi "our guys" are uniformed forces of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and so should be considered lawful combatants engaged in quelling insurrection*. I don't have exact numbers, but anyone who watches the news should be familiar with multiple reports of Iraqi soldiers (as well as police and government employees) captured, bound, and executed.

Now back to the original question. Consider it hypothetical, not applying to any particular situation, just in general: "Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"

*As an aside, the insurrectionists who fight according to the rules of war are also lawful combatants. Mass execution of prisoners would move them into the "unlawful combatants" column.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:19 PM

So according to Geezer, "they" treat our lawful combatants well. End of discussion.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So according to Geezer, "they" treat our lawful combatants well. End of discussion.

Oh, come on.

But I guess the discussion is over. You can't honestly answer my question without undermining your dogma, so it's pretty obvious that you'll just continue to protest ignorance of facts that have been all over the news, play word games, take statements so far out of context they end up in the next state, and otherwise avoid the real issue. Since you can't actually provide any information that supports your assertions, you retreat to cheap word tricks and intellectual dishonesty. Strange how it always ends this way - me answering your questions to the best of my ability, and you playing dodgeball.

Now, just take a few bits from the above out of context, put a few more words in my mouth, and pretend you're actually making a point.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Now back to the original question. Consider it hypothetical, not applying to any particular situation, just in general: "Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"

I see a difference. The side letting them go can be considered to be, on the whole, more humane.
Is that what you were looking for, Geezer?
Yeah, we definitly are the 'gooder' guys when you look at our official actions.

But I don't want us to be just 'better' than them, I want us to set the example of nobility, which The U.S. is far from doing right now.

Sorry, I sometimes ask for too much...

Patriot Chrisisall

AMITON

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, we definitly are the 'gooder' guys when you look at our official actions.

But I don't want us to be just 'better' than them, I want us to set the example of nobility, which The U.S. is far from doing right now.

Sorry, I sometimes ask for too much...

Patriot Chrisisall

I think we would all love to be the model example of nobility, CiA. It's not terribly realistic given the circumstances, though.

There is a litany of reasons no participant state in a war of any scale is going to make that criteria. The most glaring one to me is that if you're playing war and trying to be nice at the same time then you're going to lose, and you're going to lose ugly. Unfortunately, once we make a decision on that either way, we'll never know how taking the other option would have ended up.

Another reason we're not going to come out of this situation pristinely is because laws and policies are confusing. I'll freely admit that the entrance requirements to be in the military don't require an overabundance of schooling. When the "boots on the ground" get confused about something and need an answer right now, as is often the situation in conflicts involving weapons, then they're going to go with whatever sounds best to them at the time. Unfortunately, that's not always the best option.

Beyond that, there are some genuinely bad people involved (on both sides and at all levels), and there are a lot of good people seeing a lot of bad things that cause really nasty emotions. Seeing friends die, wanting vengence, mixed messages in the war for public opinion, good plans gone bad, feeling like the policymakers are tying your hands and setting you up for failure (whether true or not) - all of these very emotional issues and more have a very real impact on every soldier (on both sides) at every level. Emotional issues usually equal blurry decisions, and while just about everyone wants to stay on the moral high road and do good works and stuff - and many, even most, manage to from start to finish - so many break down and succumb to the pressure after a while.

And one last point about it...anybody who has been around the military can summon to mind an image of what happens in the tremendous game of telephone that goes on from the top of the military decision making chain as it goes through the various iterations down to the field commander. How much of that has to do with some general, SES-3, or senior CIA officer saying something like "I wonder what would happen if we just shot anyone driving up to a checkpoint that we didn't recognize" or "I wish we could still use the old methods to get answers out of the prisoners that we have" as an offhand comment that was overheard by a zealot that wanted to make his boss happy.

It's a messy business, this fighting thing. Truth be told, it's always better if we can realistically avoid it, but here we are chest-deep in it.

Amiton.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:

It's a messy business, this fighting thing. Truth be told, it's always better if we can realistically avoid it, but here we are chest-deep in it.

Nicely put, A.

It's just that , for instance, torture being allowed (OR encouraged) is a decision from the top. The peeps at the bottom can be excused much by the pressures, violent circumstances, etc., but when you start with a mean, near-inhuman attitude high up, well, that just makes it so much worse for the boys ang girls on the ground, not to mention the conflict in general.

Chrisisall

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I see a difference. The side letting them go can be considered to be, on the whole, more humane.
Is that what you were looking for, Geezer?
Yeah, we definitly are the 'gooder' guys when you look at our official actions.

But I don't want us to be just 'better' than them, I want us to set the example of nobility, which The U.S. is far from doing right now.

I don't disagree. There's stuff going on I'm not happy with either, both foreign and domestic. So, starting from now, since the past is pretty much fixed, what do you see the US as needing to do to set an example of nobility?

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

RHODRI

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:21 PM

Hey guys, if our respective leaders can't figure it out even with the expert advisers, what hope do we have.
The war on terror is a vague knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. It is unfocused, unachievable and unwise.
While some terror groups can be targetted and dealt with by conventional methods (i.e. special forces tactics)to declare war on an ideology is insane!
But here's the rub folks, to the Muslim world it looks as if the USA has declared war not just on Al Quaeda, but on Muslims in general. And we Brits have also been dragged into the mire with you.
Anybody remember Vietnam?
The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend! When will we ever learn?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:24 PM

Actually, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you intend to restrict the topic to how "lawful combatants" are treated. And as far as that goes, the USA and Iraq are about on par in terms of how they treat each other's lawful combatants. The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated. Since you're avoiding that topic in your scenario, I'm avoiding your scenario.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rhodri:
And we Brits have also been dragged into the mire with you.

On behalf of my country, sorry mate.
Be a bit different were I in charge...

Vote for Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So, starting from now, since the past is pretty much fixed, what do you see the US as needing to do to set an example of nobility?

Nothing we can do in that direction, till the bush is uprooted.

Then I'd say we, as a country, should admit our past government's mistakes, appologize and attempt to make amends. Show the Muslim world that we respect their true religion...I dunno, be nice, y'know?

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way."

Chrisisall from Krypton

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated.

Signy, Maybe Geezer considers your 'combative' arguments 'unlawful', and therefore he has the right to treat them any way he wants, no matter what the Haken Convention says.

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:14 PM

The problem is as Citizen put it: Geezer wants unlawful combatants to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it. And by avoiding the issue of unlawful combatants, Geezer seeks to paint "us good- them bad".

If we DON'T deliberately turn a blind eye to a large part of the picture, we should look at:

how lawful combatants treat each other
how lawful combatants treat unlawful combatants
how unlawful combatants treat lawful combatants

"Asymmetric warfare" indeed!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

KHYRON

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:36 PM

Quality post as usual, Amiton. Just one point of contention for me:

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
The most glaring one to me is that if you're playing war and trying to be nice at the same time then you're going to lose, and you're going to lose ugly.

In a conventional war, I agree, unless the 'nice' participant state is also vastly superior (we'll leave aside the question for now of whether the US is vastly superior). However, this isn't a conventional war, it's been made into a war of principles and ideals, at least by the propaganda machine after it turned out there were no WMDs, maybe even a bit before that. It's a war of 'freedom, peace and respect for human life' vs 'terror, evil and disregard for human life'. In this case, one of the sides has to play nice, otherwise it has a real danger of being seen as becoming what it's fighting.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originaly posted by Geezer:
Hey, I answered your question, and only expect you to do the same. But anyway...

Well not really, but we'll get to that.

Quote:
If the insurgents treated Iraqi forces the same as we treat prisoners at Guantanamo, that would be a valid comparison. They don't. They kill them all.

That doesn't answer my question, that's you wriggling out of answering it.

Maybe the answer would 'undermine' your 'dogma'?

Quote:
I would be surprised if they respectd the rights of our soldiers, or the new Iraqi army soldiers, regardless of what we do to their prisoners. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?

I would be surprised if the current US administration respected their rights regardless of how they treated the coalition soldiers. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?

Quote:
That assumes we are breaking the GC. That determination will have to wait until some body decides if Taliban and al-Qieda operatives are lawful combatants or not. In the opinion of our government, they are not. Note that we still treat our prisoners better than they do theirs. Ours are still alive.

So they aren't breaking the GC either? I'm just not sure, since they aren't protected they are not bound either so for the same reasons it's okay to treat detainees in a way that would brake the GC if the Admin hadn't decided it didn't apply, it's surely okay for the insurgents to do the same? You know strictly speaking brake the GC because they aren't really breaking it?

Maybe the Insurgents have decided they can treat the coalition soldiers how ever they wish, just like Bush has?

Quote:
More like "...not nearly as bad as the terrorists". I would never claim that US forces havn't committed questionable acts. But even the worst pale in comparison to the everyday operations of the Iraqi insurgency.

Yeah the insurgency blow up a car to kill civilians, or a strike Helicopter swoops in to launch a rocket into the middle of them.

Quote:
Although I have answered your questions, I expect that you once again will avoid answering mine.

You haven't answered any of my questions, did a good job of pretending to though.

Quote:
So, is there, in your opinion, just as a theoretical excercise, any difference between an organization that releases most of its prisoners, and one that executes most of its prisoners?

Well it depends doesn't it: Death Row to Kindergarten maybe? Or all American detainees compared to the strict few extreme groups you wish to consider? I mean this question doesn't have all that much to do with the topic so how it could undermine my 'dogma'? I have no idea.

Gitmo compared to any insurgent group, not really much difference to be honest.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you intend to restrict the topic to how "lawful combatants" are treated. And as far as that goes, the USA and Iraq are about on par in terms of how they treat each other's lawful combatants. The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated. Since you're avoiding that topic in your scenario, I'm avoiding your scenario.

Nah. Discussion over. You're still making unjustified statements and putting words in my mouth which I never said, or even hinted at. No point in me enabling your problem with honest discussion.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Nothing we can do in that direction, till the bush is uprooted.

2.5 years and he's gone. You working on a replacement more to your liking?

Quote:
Then I'd say we, as a country, should admit our past government's mistakes, appologize and attempt to make amends. Show the Muslim world that we respect their true religion...I dunno, be nice, y'know?

I generally agree, although the Muslims who consider the Burqa and Honor Killings their true religion probably won't get my respect.

Any suggestions about Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghaistan, the war on terror, etc?

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That doesn't answer my question, that's you wriggling out of answering it...Maybe the answer would 'undermine' your 'dogma'?

Fair enough. Here's your question:

"So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it?"

I don't expect them to be bound by it. However, that does not make mass executions of bound prisoners any less a crime, if not under the Geneva Conventions, then under other rules of war, and also under civil law. Coalition forces executing Iraqi prisoners would also be a crime, and in the few instances proved, have been treated as such.

You seem to be suggesting that just because the US does not consider some prisoners as covered under the Geneva Conventions, there are no restrictions at all on their treatment. This is, of course, not so, and you probably know that, even if you don't admit it. Rules for treatment of prisoners at Gitmo have been in the media several times.

Quote:
I would be surprised if the current US administration respected their rights regardless of how they treated the coalition soldiers. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?

Now, now. I did, after all, ask first.

Quote:
So they aren't breaking the GC either? I'm just not sure, since they aren't protected they are not bound either so for the same reasons it's okay to treat detainees in a way that would brake the GC if the Admin hadn't decided it didn't apply, it's surely okay for the insurgents to do the same? You know strictly speaking brake the GC because they aren't really breaking it?

Maybe the Insurgents have decided they can treat the coalition soldiers how ever they wish, just like Bush has?

And once again...if the Iraqi insurgents were treating their prisoners like we treat the ones at Gitmo, that would be a fair comparison. They don't. You know this. You seem to have no problem with it. Why is that?

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Any suggestions about Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghaistan, the war on terror, etc?

Iraq is such a mess, I'd honestly need a lot more first-hand knowledge to make that kind of determination on what to do...I'm generally a tidy chap, not good at cleaning up other's spills.

Close Gitmo permanently, get off Cuban soil, & lift embargo, btw.
Put POW's in a real camp on U.S. soil.

Call off so-called 'War on Terror', it's silly and jingoistic and trite. Maintain armoured presence at the request of local leaders, and kill anyone w/a SAM or rocket launcher.

Put money into intel on possible terrorist plots, and take away money from the 'War on Psuedophederine', and other non-issue BS in this country. Who cares if a H.S. student has a buzz from cold medicine, if people are DYING for real because our assets are misplaced?

Fire everybody in government at any level that dismissed the theories on crashing planes into buildings, and make them work at Wendy's!!

Chrisisall

RUE

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:59 PM

Those committing asymmetric warfare will be dealt with severely !

Damn their cleverness - they escaped punishment.

GEEZER

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Those committing asymmetric warfare will be dealt with severely !

Damn their cleverness - they escaped punishment.

Sigh. So the whole "Nacho Liberal" tag-team is back together again.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

RUE

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:05 PM

Now I resent this, the administration being constantly misquoted. Don't you know by now - it's "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!"

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
If you're not for us, you're against us. Bring them on. Mission accomplished.

RUE

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:07 PM

Should I have put a smiley face just so you would know IT'S A JOKE ! ?

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Those committing asymmetric warfare will be dealt with severely !

Damn their cleverness - they escaped punishment.

Sigh. So the whole "Nacho Liberal" tag-team is back together again.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

Dude, get over yourself.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You seem to be suggesting that just because the US does not consider some prisoners as covered under the Geneva Conventions, there are no restrictions at all on their treatment. This is, of course, not so, and you probably know that, even if you don't admit it. Rules for treatment of prisoners at Gitmo have been in the media several times.

Torture and camps where bad people are 'concentrated' are okay, because we don't chop their heads off or gas them in the showers? Please.

You seem to be suggesting that it's okay because the US isn't as bad as a bunch of Terrorists. This is, of course, not so.

Quote:
Now, now. I did, after all, ask first.

*rolls eyes*
Nope, I'm sure they still would, they just wouldn't be able to say look at what the Americans do. You wouldn't have Muslims around the world looking at America, which on the one hand says "we're your friend" and on the other locks in many cases civilians up without trial or evidence and has a tendency to be a might trigger happy around the same unarmed civilians.

Basically the coalition is the one talking about belief in life freedom and justice, and denying those things on a whim. Yeah the Terrorist are doing the same thing but their talking about killing the infidels. Basically they're living up to what they say are they're goals and ideals, we are not.

Quote:
And once again...if the Iraqi insurgents were treating their prisoners like we treat the ones at Gitmo, that would be a fair comparison. They don't. You know this. You seem to have no problem with it. Why is that?

Please. The difference is they kill their prisoners, Gitmo leaves the prisoners to do it to themselves.

My problem is that the "land of the free" is perfectly happy to deny freedom and justice on a whim. But hey it's okay because it only done to the baddies.

How come you don't have problem with torture (as long as it's Americans doing the torturing)?

Quote:
Sigh. So the whole "Nacho Liberal" tag-team is back together again.

Yeah, dirty Liberals. Anyone would think they were real people who deserve an opinion.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Sigh. So the whole "Nacho Liberal" tag-team is back together again.

"Now you're abusing sarcasm."

Chrisisall Summers

AMITON

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quality post as usual, Amiton. Just one point of contention for me:
Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
The most glaring one to me is that if you're playing war and trying to be nice at the same time then you're going to lose, and you're going to lose ugly.

In a conventional war, I agree, unless the 'nice' participant state is also vastly superior (we'll leave aside the question for now of whether the US is vastly superior). However, this isn't a conventional war, it's been made into a war of principles and ideals, at least by the propaganda machine after it turned out there were no WMDs, maybe even a bit before that. It's a war of 'freedom, peace and respect for human life' vs 'terror, evil and disregard for human life'. In this case, one of the sides has to play nice, otherwise it has a real danger of being seen as becoming what it's fighting.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

Duly noted. And while the concept behind the war is thoroughly retarded in terms of fighting an ideal, it is still real people using real munitions to inflict harm with malice on another group of people. That's the war I was talking about.

We're in a bigger pile of crap than just throwing money into the appeasement pit of fighting an ideal, however. For one, while we're not actually stepping up on the entire Muslim world, there is an appearance that we are, and until somebody figures out how to fix that then we are truly pissing into the wind so to speak.

There's a parallel problem in that we can't *freaking tell* who our enemy is. That equates to not only having everyone on edge because "the good guys" don't know who we're supposed to be ready to shoot if necessary, but they also easily infiltrate the army and police forces. I'm going to ignore the rehiring of oppositiion forces into those groups on purpose.

There's a lot of grass roots support for the insurgency as well. It can be as small as the talking heads say it is, but that's still big enough to house, hide, misdirect, and offer alibis for the people we're after. Bad business, that.

Oh yeah, and about that grassroots support...we have no way to get a hold of them. Even if we had access to their homes and information networks, it would be propaganda wars. It's like someone that wholeheartedly believes what PirateNews spews...there's a conspiracy in every shadow, and if you're looking for it that hard then it becomes impossible to not see it. We're either never going to get around that little snag, or there *will* be war crimes tribunals over that, because they would have to be summarily put to genocide for that idea to go away entirely. What's that? Circular logic and a self-feeding cycle? Oh yeah.

I just wish I had some way to get a clear picture. Sadly, though, I just don't think that there is a clear picture to see. This whole war on terror business is a cluster, and we're the ones that are going to end up humped at the end of the day.

Amiton.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:05 PM

Let me get back to the original point of the thread. The Pentagram considers suicide an act of asymmetric warfare. After that kind of statement, can you believe ANYTHING they say??? I mean, that's worthy of Kafka and "Memoirs Found in a Bathtub". But not to worry! I'm sure Geezer will find a way to defend-misdirect-trivialize-ignore the whole issue!

---------------------------------
Oh, wait.... he already did.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:32 PM

That kind of Pentagram statement just drives the insurgents into more of a frenzy. That's not surprising since it drives me into a frenzy too. Here we have a group of people who have been held for years with no charges. Many of them (as documented by the FBI) were tied in stress positions for 18 hours at a time, and according to some of the released detainees were water-boarded. No wonder we can't release them! The stories they might tell!

When some of them tried a hunger strike, they were forced-fed with (roughly inserted and removed) naso-gastric tubes. Talk about feeling like you have no way out. Suicide starts to look like a reasonable alternative.

So- how do you fight a "War on Terror"? Not by using terrorist tactics, that's for damn sure. And not by invading a nation of essentially uninvolved people either. Think about it- Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and no WMD. Iraqis had no reason to hate us... then. But now... well, that's a different story.

Do we really think we're going to win a "War on Terror" by setting up permanent military bases in Iraq, deconstructing and "privatizing" their economy, and creating a theocracy? Not bloody likely!

We need to separate insurgents from terrorists. Right now, they have a common enemy- us. Split Iraq in three. Let the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites take care of their own security. That way nobody feels that they're at the mercy of anyone. Give them each their own elections. Throw the Sunnis a bone- pay them off with lots of international aid; it's a lot cheaper than war. Give them something to work for instead of fighting against.

Once Iraq is split in three it becomes less of a tempting target. Give each section a different external security guarantor that's NOT US. Iran can handle southern Iraq, Russia might want northern Iraq, and Saudi Arabia can take care of central Iraq.

STOP funding permanent USA military bases in Iraq. Let the Iraqis decide on their own business models- not just a carbon-copy of Bremmer's pillaging. Give them the reins to their own government for crying out loud. They'll be so busy trying to make things work they won't have time to get involved with foreign meddlers!

Once we stop making Iraq a point of contention then we can REALLY focus on the "War on Terror" which in point of fact has nothing to do with Iraq.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

RUE

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:23 AM

I just have to get into the possible puns here.

For example:

Gitmo Prisoners Dying for Media Attention
Gitmo Prisoners Just Hanging Around
Gitmo Prisoners Have a Swinging Time

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonF:
It's also a "good PR move to draw attention" according to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy.

RUE

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:38 AM

I did a little more reading of Slick's answers.

What he doesn't tell you is that ALL prisoners are to be treated humanely. There are just two specific differences between 'protected' prisoners and those who are not : 1) free access to outside communication (but international agencies allowed), and 2) legal representation (equivocal reading).

However, torture, humiliation, threats against family members etc are not allowed whether protected or not. Also, medical personnel are forbidden to participate in torture for all prisoners.

There is a misconception - which Slick is only to happy to foster - that if a prisoner is not protected by the Geneva Convention then anything goes. Or at least, it's vague and ill-defined territory. Nothing could be less true.

to quote from SignyM:

I'm sure Geezer will find a way to defend-misdirect-trivialize-ignore the whole issue!

---------------------------------
Oh, wait.... he already did.

GEEZER

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, becasue WE are "lawful combatants" (who just happened to unlawfully invade a nation) and therefore deserve GC treatment.
---------------------------------
According to Geezer "our guys" are "lawful combatants" altho engaged in an unlawful action.
---------------------------------
So according to Geezer, "they" treat our lawful combatants well. End of discussion.
---------------------------------
Actually, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you intend to restrict the topic to how "lawful combatants" are treated.
---------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
Signy, Maybe Geezer considers your 'combative' arguments 'unlawful', and therefore he has the right to treat them any way he wants, no matter what the Haken Convention says.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem is as Citizen put it: Geezer wants unlawful combatants to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it. And by avoiding the issue of unlawful combatants, Geezer seeks to paint "us good- them bad".
----------------------------------------
But not to worry! I'm sure Geezer will find a way to defend-misdirect-trivialize-ignore the whole issue!

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
There is a misconception - which Slick is only to happy to foster - that if a prisoner is not protected by the Geneva Convention then anything goes. Or at least, it's vague and ill-defined territory. Nothing could be less true.

This is so cool! I don't even have to spend any time actually participating in the discussion to be part of it. Of course, what I actually say or think doesn't get accurately reflected in these little attempts at mind reading, but that would just interfere with your rants anyway.

Here's some stuff to keep you raving. I'll check back in a while to see if you need more.

"America is not perfect, but is far from evil"
"The economy is doing pretty good"
"Iraq will turn out all right"

And one to really hack you off:

Suicide is forbidden by Islam, but not martyrdom. The recent world has plenty of examples of Muslims killing themselves in attacks against their enemies. Suicude belts - Suicide car bombs - Suicide planes into buildings...then off to paradise and your virgins. With no other resources to fight with, dedicated Jihadists might consider coordinated suicide a propaganda strike against the infidels, hence a martyrdom. Asymmetric warfare, if you please.

Enjoy.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

KHYRON

Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"The economy is doing pretty good"

I can't believe you just said this!! That is really pissing me off now!! How can you say that!?!? Slick, it's "The economy is doing pretty WELL", not "good"! You surely must be the anti-Christ! This is war, Slick!!

Seriously though, Geezer, let's assume for argument's sake that it was nothing more than a propaganda move by the inmates.
i) Do you really think propaganda moves are an act of warfare? Propaganda is often associated with warfare, but that doesn't make it an act of war. Otherwise pretty much anything can be seen by the administration as an act of warfare, which is probably what it wants so that it can invade countries "in retaliation" as it pleases.
ii) If the suicides are seen as an anti-American PR move, what do you think that comment that they're an act of asymmetric warfare is? Of course it wasn't intended to be, but it's pissing a lot of Americans off, so you can imagine how pissed the rest of the world is at this. This will just be fuel for the fire, and so if that dude who said it thinks propaganda is an act of warfare, then, well, he just unintentionally committed treason.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

"America is not perfect, but is far from evil"

Geezer, I was just goofing on ya back there, but seriously, this is my entire problem right here.

ONE MAN gets tortured (or neglected- take your pick) to the point that death seems like a good idea, and we've touched that evil.
The more it happens and is not CRUSHED where it is, the more we are embracing evil.

We put these things into place for reasons, reasons that would not sit too well with Christ or Buddha.
We are NOT that far from evil, and your inability to either see or admit it is the real bone of contention for me with you on this thread.

That said, you are a decent fellow, don't take this a a big slam, I have my blind spots as well.

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:04 PM

Quote:
With no other resources to fight with, dedicated Jihadists might consider coordinated suicide a propaganda strike against the infidels, hence a martyrdom. Asymmetric warfare, if you please.

Oh YEAH??? I'll show YOU! (stabs self in eye) SEE? How do you like THIS??? (cuts off own finger) Take THAT! (shoots self in knee) And now - I'll REALLY get you! (stabs self in heart)

---------------------------------
Geezer, the defender of evil, applauds.

KHYRON

Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:18 PM

Looks like SignyM just committed an act of genocide on himself. Take THAT, America!

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

Ahh, you'll just have them kill themselves in your asymmetrical war against France.

Vive, oui, morte, NO!!! Tan pis...Chrisisall

KHYRON

Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:51 PM

Well, I do hate the French...

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

GEEZER

Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
With no other resources to fight with, dedicated Jihadists might consider coordinated suicide a propaganda strike against the infidels, hence a martyrdom. Asymmetric warfare, if you please.
Oh YEAH??? I'll show YOU! (stabs self in eye) SEE? How do you like THIS??? (cuts off own finger) Take THAT! (shoots self in knee) And now - I'll REALLY get you! (stabs self in heart)
---------------------------------
Geezer, the defender of evil, applauds.

Well, you can't improve on the classics.

Quote:
Other stratagems abounded, of course. One of the most effective - and most disturbing - involved an army of the state of Yueh in 496 BCE that fielded three ranks of men armed with very sharp swords in front of their main army. They had to have been very sharp, because according to the histories of the battle, the first thing they did after charging into the field was, er, decapitate themselves.

Yes, you read that right - WHACK, thump thump thump.

The enemy army was so freaked at the sight that they pretty much stood there going 'bwah?', and failed to recover in time to successfully defend against the rest of the army. It sounds counterintuitive to do something like this, but in point of fact this was one of the most eerily effective stratagems of the time. See, those three rows weren't composed of soldiers, per se. The men in the front were convicts who had been dragged out of prison by the government of their home state and given a choice: become suicide troops for us right now, or we start killing your family members.

http://www.megaloceros.net/hist11.htm

And how much more effective with committed jihadists eager to get to paradise.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE