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 6 of 11

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

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.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE