Prisoners of War, War Criminals or Terrorist???

[TheRo0sTer]

Kewl loads of new post for me to debate on... But since you 3 put up some good facts I willl just reply to the few things that did stick out.

Beaker said "Well, pardon my ignorance but surely the Kenyan embassy bombing, that ship bombing (forgotten the name) and Bin Laden's REPEATED public denouncements of the US including several statements years prior to 11/09/01 saying he and Al Quieda were at war with the US means it shouldn't have come as such a suprise."

Well as I think Goose put it Beaker what made the whole Sept 11th thing so alarming was it was on US soil.

goose said "After sending him back - with his nutz stuffed in his mouth - the terrorist cell promptly released their hostage. "

Now I tell you what if that did not make a statement I don't know what would! goose you are the **** brother!

And for Buddha he should be a politician! His answers are so politcally correct I doubt they draw any other post on this topic.

When I stated "An Eye for an Eye." I was merley stirring the pot! Especially on that large of a scale. Maybe in legal cases back in the US I would totaly be for it. Such as You rape a woman you get sent to prison with Bubba and let him rape you! Or you kill someone well you should loose your life. The Eye for an Eye theory is only the way I feel when "That is exactly what the US is doing, they are not summirarily executing every Al Queda member they find - thay are actually willing to give them a fair trial to determine their involvement. They will then - if found guilty and not given the death sentance - be sent to a (no doubt) special prison and live a lot better than they would have in their homeland - and at the expense of the US gov't. " The same damn thing happens with *******s that kill and commit serious offenses in the US. Why should I pay to keep the Killers of thousands fed 3 squares and given free health care, a chance to learn something while in prison? Oh well I will never understand the irony of my fine country!

 

[Beaker]

Rooster,

I am not aguing against you, more making a point (I like having opinions all my own ) but surely when the WTC was bombed the first time (and members of Al Quieda blamed and tried and found guilty) then that would have been the first warning sign.

Can you tell me, because I honestly don't know so I'm not trying to take the piss, how Americans percieved that first bombing, was it not important enough for you guys to get too worked up about? and then the Kenyan bombing and the Ship bombing.

 

[TheRo0sTer]

Maybe it was the lack of casualties in that bombing... Here is a quote right off the Deplomatic Security Service US Department of State web site!

"At approximately 12 noon on February 26, 1993, a massive explosion rocked the World Trade Center in New York City, causing millions of dollars in damage. The terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center murdered six innocent people, injured over 1,000 others, and left terrified school children trapped for hours in a smoke-filled elevator. "

Maybe the fact that so few were killed it did not send that wave of terror the acts of Sept 11th did. I also think that our eyes were opened at that time but measures to prevent it weren't carried out to the extent they are being now. Hows that for an anwser? I can't honestly speak for everyone but I probably anwsered for a lot of people!

 

[Buddha 3]

Originally posted by TheRo0sTer

And for Buddha he should be a politician! His answers are so politcally correct I doubt they draw any other post on this topic.

Dude!
You would not like me as a politician!
Trust me when I say that I am far from politically correct. What I am though, is able to analyse the goings on the world that we live in, because I have studied modern history a lot. That way I am able to see things a few steps ahead. Meaning that I realise what the consequenses of responding to provocations a certain way are.
But all that is just theory, and just points for a conversation. As for me being PC, no way. I played defensive tackle, not because I like the strategic and tactical insights american football needs, or because I think it is poetry in motion (which some sad people call it), but simply because I love to beat the crap out of people, particularly if they are small and weedy, and have inflated egoes (running backs/quarterbacks). At an individual level I respond to things on a very basic level, meaning if people annoy me, I'll snarl. If they keep it up, I'll clubber them. I shout profanity through a microphone, I make music that incites to riot, and I laugh at fart jokes.
Only in a controlled environment like this, without any 'outside threats' am I able to use that analising bit of my mind. I don't have to make snap decisions.
calling me PC, pfah!

 

[Buddha 3]

Originally posted by TheRo0sTer
Maybe it was the lack of casualties in that bombing... Here is a quote right off the Deplomatic Security Service US Department of State web site!

"At approximately 12 noon on February 26, 1993, a massive explosion rocked the World Trade Center in New York City, causing millions of dollars in damage. The terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center murdered six innocent people, injured over 1,000 others, and left terrified school children trapped for hours in a smoke-filled elevator. "

Maybe the fact that so few were killed it did not send that wave of terror the acts of Sept 11th did. I also think that our eyes were opened at that time but measures to prevent it weren't carried out to the extent they are being now. Hows that for an anwser? I can't honestly speak for everyone but I probably anwsered for a lot of people!

Could it also be that people were lulled into a false sense of security? A few cruise missiles were launched, a couple of terrorist were blown up, and hey, life goes on.
I can imagine it happening again though. A country got bombed, an army got defeated, et voila, we win!
It didn't take long for the panic after the Pearl Harbour attack to die down either, or how many people are still worried about the gun toting rednecks of the extreme right wingers (the Timothy McVeigh posse)?

 

[TheRo0sTer]

Where's my bolt? LOL

Originally posted by Buddha 3
I played defensive tackle, not because I like the strategic and tactical insights american football needs, or because I think it is poetry in motion (which some sad people call it), but simply because I love to beat the crap out of people, particularly if they are small and weedy, and have inflated egoes (running backs/quarterbacks). calling me PC, pfah!

Buddha what's wrong you can't beat people up on the football field and be politcally correct off? Common brother can't you see I was pulling your chain or pushing your buttons?

 

[cjohns]

Originally posted by Buddha 3


Dude!
You would not like me as a politician!
Trust me when I say that I am far from politically correct. What I am though, is able to analyse the goings on the world that we live in, because I have studied modern history a lot. That way I am able to see things a few steps ahead. Meaning that I realise what the consequenses of responding to provocations a certain way are.
But all that is just theory, and just points for a conversation. As for me being PC, no way. I played defensive tackle, not because I like the strategic and tactical insights american football needs, or because I think it is poetry in motion (which some sad people call it), but simply because I love to beat the crap out of people, particularly if they are small and weedy, and have inflated egoes (running backs/quarterbacks). At an individual level I respond to things on a very basic level, meaning if people annoy me, I'll snarl. If they keep it up, I'll clubber them. I shout profanity through a microphone, I make music that incites to riot, and I laugh at fart jokes.
Only in a controlled environment like this, without any 'outside threats' am I able to use that analising bit of my mind. I don't have to make snap decisions.
calling me PC, pfah!

What?

 

[TheRo0sTer]

Chip you at work already?

 

[Buddha 3]

Where's my bolt? LOL

Originally posted by TheRo0sTer


Buddha what's wrong you can't beat people up on the football field and be politcally correct off? Common brother can't you see I was pulling your chain or pushing your buttons?

Did you spot the smiley face at the end of my post?



Wise assed git.......



Buddha 'Gung Ho' 3

 

[HERMITT]

Well here goes! I might as well throw my two pence in!

Firstly, on the subject of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Marine Installation:

The prisoners that where captured fighting for the Taliban regime are NOT illegal combatants as stated by the US Government. They were fighting under orders, in a uniform (of sorts), whether or not the government they were fighting for is recognised by the international community is irrelevent since this is not an issue that needs to be taken into account, from a legal standpoint. This means that they MUST under international law be treated as prisoners of war, this entitles them (like it or not, and i don't) to the safety net known as the Geneva convention. The prisoners caught fighting for the Al'Queda terrorist organisation fall under a slightly different category, and one that is open to a much broader interpretation. In my opinion, because the US Government stated before it launched its campaign in Afghanistan that this was "A War Against Terrorism" they effectively made their bed as far as the treatment of prisoners was concerned. They themselves stated it was a WAR. This therefore means that any and all opposition prisoners are entitled to be treated under the guidelines of the Geneva convention.

It is VITAL that people realise that there is NO SUCH THING as an illegal combatant. If there was then the US and Allied forces (UK, Isreali, French etc) fighting inside Afghanistan would be more likely to fall under that term since they are forced by international law to abide by the UN. And since no such UN resolution was forthcoming that would allow them to carry out their military operations, they were breaking the law (for good or bad). This makestheir operations ILLEGAL.

Secondly, on the issue of terrorism:

It is important that people are not blinded into seeing all forms of terrorism as that of religious extremists, especially Muslims. There are as many forms of terrorism as there are people who have a grudge to bare. From ETA and the IRA fighting for, what they call freedom, to the Budhists campaigning for a free Tibet (coined as terrorists by China). However, religion seems to provide the catalyst and certainly acts to feed the already burning fires of hate. Terrorism is therefore wholly objective.

You cannot fight it with guns and bombs. These only create martyrs, and they make the stituation worse. Just look at the current situation in the middle east. Isreal kills a well known bomb maker (fine, good plan he probably deserved it) but instead of solving a situation one of his loyal followers walks into a party and starts shooting. Not a good thing. Terrorism will Never be destroyed. But we can make a start by making sure that there is a destinct lack of funding for such organisations, freeze their account stop donations (thats specifically aimed at all you Irish Americans who weep at the loss of your country after September 11th but continue to give money to buy weapons for the Real IRA) and make sure overall less money reaches them. Also, encourage your governments, ie, the US and UK to think before training these people in how to shoot down planes and blow up buildings. Otherwise we only have ourselves to blame.

In no way am i cindoning any form of terrorism. Howver, before we go blasting a **** heap of a country back to the stone age, maybe we should look a bit closer to home for the causes and roots of terrorism?