218 replies to this topic

[theparanoid]

According to the geneva convention WICH THE US signed, they also agreed that The International Comitee of the Red Cross should have access to all POW's. A terrorist organisation is not a state and can by that NOT sign the geneva conventions...



DUDE, SERIOUSLY WHATS WRONG WITH YOU?! POSTING PICS OF DEAD PEOPLE?! RESPECT THE DEAD MAN!!!!!!


And also, i believe that EVERYONE should be treated equally

What POW?

As I state the Geneva protection is for states not for terrsiot who want blow civilan up. That means the Terriost have no rights under it other then get medical treat and such which I posted. Were in that pervious post did it say that terrirost get the right for visit form the ICRC. Beside which maybe the reason the been refused was the Terriost in question did not want a visit from a christian Organization?


Begin treat equally is a good goal. But when some is a harm to themself or others they need to be netural in way that harms the least amount of people.

As for equal rights what about all the people that died to terrorist? Where are there rights? I guess that do not deserve any. At least according to you.

Say like the young man that lived below me at eglin Air Force base. I Fight plane mechanic. Single. No wife, no kids. Never had a change to get married. Because some terriost decide to blow up the building he was current living in.

He was there because a few years early Iraq invade Kuwait. So what about his rights!!!!!! You know the right to Live. A right to be married and happy!

[usmc123]

They were not all fascists. Many of them were against Hitler and the German resistance people tried to kill this madman many times... I'm not an expert I just know some things but never said that they are correct. I'm open to new things(as I did when I turned from Nationalist to Left-wing politics supporter) and information. As for the indoctrination: Yes I am a bit familiar to this definition.

No you generalized the former German Army as an army of Nazis and called them Fascist assholes. Don't worry, I can read English just fine.

[joachimnor]

What POW?

As I state the Geneva protection is for states not for terrsiot who want blow civilan up. That means the Terriost have no rights under it other then get medical treat and such which I posted. Were in that pervious post did it say that terrirost get the right for visit form the ICRC. Beside which maybe the reason the been refused was the Terriost in question did not want a visit from a christian Organization?


Begin treat equally is a good goal. But when some is a harm to themself or others they need to be netural in way that harms the least amount of people.

As for equal rights what about all the people that died to terrorist? Where are there rights? I guess that do not deserve any. At least according to you.

Say like the young man that lived below me at eglin Air Force base. I Fight plane mechanic. Single. No wife, no kids. Never had a change to get married. Because some terriost decide to blow up the building he was current living in.

He was there because a few years early Iraq invade Kuwait. So what about his rights!!!!!! You know the right to Live. A right to be married and happy!

WRONG!!! They are to be concidered as POW's because they are captured in a country where the US have NO jurisdiction in... America seems to belive they are the worlds police or something

[jab16]

Uh here comes the fourms longest post: This is from the united nations

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present

seems to me that terrists are none of the above, unless you can prove me wrong

[theparanoid]

But you said it not a war. So how can they be POW?

Beside that jab16 points tells me they not. What evidence do you have that are? I mean all you do is make claims I seen no facts to back your claims.

Beside you never answer my question. What about the right of the young american that died in Saudi Arabia terriost attack. What about his rights?

By the way he and other were there because the government of Saudi Arabia ask the US military to help defend there country form a Hitler like dictator who invade the county call Kuwait on there border.



So what about that Airman's Right and his 18 Fallen Brothers? Or the ones that died on Sept 11, 2001.

[usmc123]

WRONG!!! They are to be concidered as POW's because they are captured in a country where the US have NO jurisdiction in... America seems to belive they are the worlds police or something

We are the world's police? I had no idea that we are the only ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess we are also the only ones that take the Taliban prisoner, we are also the only ones that have set foot in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are the only one who have ever killed a civilian in either country. Jesus Christ. Open your goddamn eyes, ignorance is fucking bliss.


Oh and what happened to being done with the thread.

You know what, im done with this... It seems like you are a totally ignorant person, who blames all muslims for your buds death... And i do not care who you are or what you have done or are dooing, everyone should be treated with respect no matter what... They are still humans.

[Newfoundking]

Hi, Everyone tone it the hell down, or I'm gonna have to start warning people and this topic will be closed. It's fine debate, but don't dare start picking personal wars, or else it's over. Sound good?

I'm not letting people start fighting with eachother.

Just a nice little reminder from the moderator...

You can all consider this the verbal warning, if it gets out of hand there will be none others from me, just a real warning

[Ami89E1234]

lol but werent there "personal wars" before and no one cared?

[Hoppah]

America seems to belive they are the worlds police or something

No, wrong again. It's 9 out of 10 times when the UN approves to solve a conflict in another country by sending a peacekeepers force for example. Bringing arrested terrorists to camps is a direct result of that. Lets try to understand an example about one of the most destabilized countries in the world:

http://allafrica.com...0912040756.html

Somalia, where a civil war is going on since 1991. Definately caused by rebels and a government who can't control the situation. What would be YOUR solution to the conflict? Sending another UN peacekeepers force? In your opinion they'd only kill innocent victims and torture terrorists. Or do you actually expect that any of the (neighbouring) Muslim countries will try to ever stablize the situation in that country by sending a force (again)? You and your Geneva Convention, it's all theoritical. Maybe you should try to read in in some of the recent conflicts in the world. There is NO country who can obey these treaties in a war. War is total chaos. War is never the best solution, it only costs human lives and alot of money. The Geneva Convention is great in theory, but it never works out like that in reality. That's something you don't seem to understand yet. Yes, it might be true that the US is violating human rights, I do not approve it either. But the situation in countries like Somalia is at least 10 times as worse compared to that. But you don't seem to care about that AT ALL. Your view regarding these subjects is very limited, based on nothing and sometimes even incorrect. Blaming the US is easy, because 'everyone' does that you do it too, but you don't have any knowledge about the impact of (civil) wars at all. Like usmc123 said, open your eyes and look beyond the hate. The world isn't a pretty place.

[joachimnor]

Well, UN never approved it...

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
© that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

[theparanoid]

Well, UN never approved it...

Ok I take by highlighting C you indcated which of the condition the terriost meet.


See the problems is those not say they need to meet one of them. They need to meet all of them.

fulfill the following conditions. That means for them to be covered they have to meet A, B, C and D.
A. It possible. But I doubt it.
b. They do not meet this one.
C. Do you now for the fact they they always carry opens openely? I mean they people held might have had hidden weapons they draw and attack as the troops passed them. So How do you know that they always carry there weapons in the open. ie that they on can tell they are armed. See the stories I heard from war veterans tell me this this one is not true.
D. I pretty sure they fail this one. Hijack planes and crashing them into buildings I believe removes this off the plate. Bomb bus/subway and train stations also removes this one from the field.




Seems to me they might follow 1/4 or maybe 1/2 of the condition. Problem is what you quote states they must fullfil ALL of them. A, B, C, and D.

[joachimnor]

Well, still there is 1 and 6... and thats just in article 4

[Hoppah]

Well, UN never approved it...

Never approved what? I didn't say the UN approved torturing or killing innocent civilians. It's funny that you keep hiding behind that convention and ignore the rest of my post.

[jab16]

C. Do you now for the fact they they always carry opens openely? I mean they people held might have had hidden weapons they draw and attack as the troops passed them. So How do you know that they always carry there weapons in the open. ie that they on can tell they are armed. See the stories I heard from war veterans tell me this this one is not true.

This is extremly true. Being myself, and knowing people in the armed forces as well as working with them I agree with this post. Take for example the special opperations teams opperating in the hindu kush mountain range. When your up there doing recon on movment and you see a man with a wagon full of explosives walking around, can you shoot??? No, anyone know why??? because goverment figures around the world say that, well mabie the guy just wants to walk around at night with expolsives on him. Can you shoot??? No you cant, and if you do shoot extremists will find out and the media will get wind. The media is 10 times worse then you can possibly imagine in that kind of situation. Even if it means that you are going to possibly save the lives of 15 helpless people in a marked hundreds of miles away.

@joachimnor: so you are saying that even thought troops cant do anything, and people may die, they still deserve the same rights as everyone else??? think, 27 people from europe died in 9/11 that wern't even american citizans of the 334 people from other countrys besides the intended U.S. do they really deserve the same rights as other people??

[theparanoid]

Well, still there is 1 and 6... and thats just in article 4

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

There not armed forces there terrriost. That a proven fact. Sorry there not cover by that one.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


umm Nato is currently occupied Afganistan and remove the taliban from power because they sponser, support and allow 9/11/2001 to happen. So this also those not count.


As for no un approve. I have yet to see one un sancation aganist NATO, US, UK, Germany, or other country involde in Afghanistan.

In case you where sleep on Sept 11, 2001. The US was attack and 2,973 died, mostly civilians and not all us citizens. That attack was carried out by Al'quida with the support of the Taliban.

So Know that we proven with your own post that there not POW. I mean they barely meet one of the 4 requirement to be a POW by your own post.

Again we already established that they do not conduct them self according to customs of war and that they attack civilians. Nor do they carry armos in the open.

Nothing you posted applies to the terrorist.

Edit post to correct the number killed by terriost on 9/11/2001

[hunter42]

In case you where sleep on Sept 11, 2001. The US was attack and over 4,000 Civilian, not all us citizens died. That attack was carried out by Al'quida with the support of the Taliban.

Man this is rather disrespectful!
6000 + people died on that day, and you make fun of it!

A US woman has been added to the list of those killed in the attack on the World Trade Center, after dying from dust generated by the towers' collapse.

---

The ruling that she was the tragedy's 2,750th victim may have implications in the cases of dozens of other deaths.

---

The 9/11 death toll, not including the hijackers, also includes 184 killed when a plane flew into the Pentagon and 40 killed in a hijacked plane that crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania

If either of you two are going to argue about a terrorist attack, try and get your figures right. The highest the official figure ever was was at just more than 6500 but that was soon after the attacks and that number dropped as duplicated names were found and residents assumed missing returned to their homes.

By the looks of things, the current figure sits at 2572

[Hoppah]

If either of you two are going to argue about a terrorist attack, try and get your figures right. The highest the official figure ever was was at just more than 6500 but that was soon after the attacks and that number dropped as duplicated names were found and residents assumed missing returned to their homes.

By the looks of things, the current figure sits at 2572

Yes, that's what I meant with incorrect statements. 6000, I wonder where he got that from.

[Ami89E1234]

This is extremly true. Being myself, and knowing people in the armed forces as well as working with them I agree with this post. Take for example the special opperations teams opperating in the hindu kush mountain range. When your up there doing recon on movment and you see a man with a wagon full of explosives walking around, can you shoot??? No, anyone know why??? because goverment figures around the world say that, well mabie the guy just wants to walk around at night with expolsives on him. Can you shoot??? No you cant, and if you do shoot extremists will find out and the media will get wind. The media is 10 times worse then you can possibly imagine in that kind of situation. Even if it means that you are going to possibly save the lives of 15 helpless people in a marked hundreds of miles away.

easy solution: shoot the press.

more of a danger to society than any terrorist

[theparanoid]

If either of you two are going to argue about a terrorist attack, try and get your figures right. The highest the official figure ever was was at just more than 6500 but that was soon after the attacks and that number dropped as duplicated names were found and residents assumed missing returned to their homes.

By the looks of things, the current figure sits at 2572

2,973 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the attacks

According to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia....mber_11_attacks

I was using the numbers form the news after the attacks. Never bother to check if they were lowered.

[Fuzzyface]

Do we know who tried to hack him yet?

I think a mod should change the thread title