Geneva Convention Rights

[Av8r3400]

Do you think the filthy, sub-human, islamo-maggots that are doing this and this are going to give the same geneva Convention rights as the neutered US government is giving, now?

Reuters Article

We're done. Only a matter of time now.

 

[bczoom]

WARNING!

Following the 2nd "this" link provided in the initial post lead to extremely graphic material. The first link is an article but has a link there that too goes to extremely graphic material.

Watch at your own risk. (I saw this video shortly after the incident and honestly don't want to see it again)

 

[Av8r3400]

So, do you think they subscribe to the Geneva Convention, or not? Should we, conserning these maggots?

 

[Melensdad]

Bush is speaking right now. He said NOTHING about treating them under the Geneva Convention, in fact he said they would be treated in accordance with the laws we have in place for military combatants.

I don't see the Gitmo prisoners getting any different treatment than they have been getting, and that is probably a whole lot better than they deserve.

 

[beds]

What did the detainess at Gitmo do, again? I mean, what has been proven that they did?

 

[Av8r3400]

What did the detainess at Gitmo do, again?

Enemy combatants.

c. Additional Classification. In reference to the Global War on Terror there is an additional classification of detainees who, through their own conduct, are not entitled to the privileges and protection of the Geneva Conventions. These personnel, when detained, are classified as enemy combatants.
(1) Enemy Combatant (EC). Although they do not fall under the provisions of the Geneva Convention, they are still entitled to be treated humanely, subject to military necessity, consistent with the principles of GC, and without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria, and afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment; allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention. There is a comprehensive list of terrorists and terrorist groups identified under Executive Order 13224, located at http://www.treas.gov/ofac/. Anyone detained that is affiliated with these organizations will be classified as EC. Furthermore, there are individuals that may not be affiliated with the listed organizations that may be classified as an EC. On these specific individuals, guidance should be obtained from higher headquarters. As defined by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, an EC is defined as:
“Any person that US or allied forces could properly detain under the laws and customs of war. For purposes of the war on terror an enemy combatant includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a member or agent of Al Qaeda, Taliban, or another international terrorist organization against which United States is engaged in an armed conflict. This may include those individuals or entities designated in accordance with references E or G, as identified in applicable Executive Orders approved by the Secretary of Defense.”
Deputy Secretary of Defense global screening criteria, Feb 20, 2004
Reference E – Comprehensive List of Terrorists and Terrorist Groups Identified Under Executive Order 13224 (updates at http://www.treas.gov/ofac)
Reference G Patterns of Global Terrorism. Department of State, 2002 (updates at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/).
(2) Enemy combatants may be identified into the following sub-categories: (a) Low Level Enemy Combatant (LLEC). Detainees who are not a threat beyond the immediate battlefield or that do not have high operational or strategic intelligence or law enforcement value that requires the specialized type of exploitation capability available at a Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center.
(b) High Value Detainee (HVD). A detainee who possesses extensive and/or high level information of value to operational commanders, strategic intelligence or law enforcement agencies and organizations.
(c) Criminal Detainee. A person detained because he is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime against local nationals or their property or a crime not against US or coalition forces. Excludes crimes against humanity or atrocities. (Note: this sub-category may also be applied to CIs).
(d) High Value Criminal (HVC). A detainee who meets the criteria of a HVD and is reasonably suspected of having committed crimes against humanity or committed atrocities, a breach of humanitarian law that is an inhumane act committed against any person.
(e) Security Detainee. A civilian interned during a conflict or occupation for his or her own protection.

​

Source
​

 

[OkeeDon]

Do you think the filthy, sub-human, islamo-maggots that are doing this and this are going to give the same geneva Convention rights as the neutered US government is giving, now?

I've answered this question several times in several different ways, but some folks just don't seem to get it. So, I'll try using real little words and say it real slow.

"See the bad men.

The bad men do bad things.

They cut off heads.

They blow up nice people.

Someone needs to stop the bad men.

Oooh, see the nice people!

They come from the Red, White and Blue.

Maybe they can stop the bad men.

Yes! They're fighting the bad men.

They're cutting off the bad men's heads.

They're blowing up nice people along with the bad men."



"See the bad men.

They come from the Red, White and Blue.

They cut off heads and blow up nice people.

Someone needs to stop the bad men...."

 

[Dargo]

Like you being slow, simple, and concise, the men in the red white and blue are speaking the only language the barbaric bad men seem to understand. The nice men in the red white and blue tried being nice and playing nice, but ended up only being live targets for barbaric bad men. Even so, the nice men and women in the red white and blue still do not hunt down and kill innocent civilians and torture them, burn them and hang them from bridges.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

The US is cutting off heads? Maybe blowing them up from 2000 yards with Sniper Rifles (after verifying that they are enemies) but I doubt the US is chopping them off with knives on video for mass distribution.

Don, this post of yours reeks of loathing for the actions of the US Military. In previous threads you state that you support the men and women in the military but now you are associating their conduct with that of the terrorists.

Even in your own "little words" you're unable to present an argument without insulting someone.

 

[OkeeDon]

Even so, the nice men and women in the red white and blue still do not hunt down and kill innocent civilians and torture them, burn them and hang them from bridges.

Where doesit stop? Once you advocate getting into the gutter with them, and treating them the same as they treat us, you have to do whatever they do.

Let's say you round up some folks who happen to be Muslims and look like the terrorists, torture them, burn them and hang them from bridges because they did that first. You do that without due process of law. Then, it turns out they were innocent civilians. I suppose you say, "Oops", and move on to the next outrage.

I notice that when Jakki suggested that knife-wielding "terrorist" was actually a shopkeeper running for his life, no one had an answer.

It's really simple. We do not do what they do. If we do, we are as bad as they are. End of story.

 

[OkeeDon]

The US is cutting off heads? Maybe blowing them up from 2000 yards with Sniper Rifles (after verifying that they are enemies) but I doubt the US is chopping them off with knives on video for mass distribution.

Don, this post of yours reeks of loathing for the actions of the US Military. In previous threads you state that you support the men and women in the military but now you are associating their conduct with that of the terrorists.

Even in your own "little words" you're unable to present an argument without insulting someone.

Now, you're making me angry. Me, reek with loathing of the military? That's insane! Anyone who would suggest that our soldiers should get down in the gutters with the terrorists and use terrorist methods on them, those are the people that loath the military! I think a lot more of our troops that that. I have a lot of respect for the restraint and rules of engagement they follow, because that is the finest example of what it is to be an American.

The ignorant trolls who suggest we should use the same tactics as the terrorists are nothing but nutcases. I can't imagine anyone claiming to be an American who would suggest such a thing.

Yes, cutting off heads. What I read was that we should treat them as they treat us. What part of that don't you understand? If they cut off heads, the assholes are suggesting we cut off heads. That's what it means to treat them the same way...

Of course, my words are insulting. I'm actually holding back. People get what they deserve.

 

[beds]

Now, you're making me angry.

Don, take heed in PBinWA's signature line...

 

[Dargo]

Where doesit stop? Once you advocate getting into the gutter with them, and treating them the same as they treat us, you have to do whatever they do.

No, I'm not advocating that. I'm saying that we are not stooping to their level as you suggest we are. You know as well as I that the U.S. does not condone suicide bombing, desecrating bodies, intentionally murdering innocent people by design etc.

I agree that we do not stoop to their barbaric level, but we cannot pamper them and pussyfoot around being overly nice and putting a target on the backs of our troops. We can get plenty rough in return without violating any laws or rules. We are trying to run a PC war. That has never worked and never will. War is war. It's ugly and people die. The objective of war is to impose our will on the enemy and at times that means that we kill more of their bad people than they kill of our soldiers. I am very much opposed to being concerned about what the media and "world opinion" is about how a war is fought.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

Now, you're making me angry. Me, reek with loathing of the military? That's insane! Anyone who would suggest that our soldiers should get down in the gutters with the terrorists and use terrorist methods on them, those are the people that loath the military! I think a lot more of our troops that that. I have a lot of respect for the restraint and rules of engagement they follow, because that is the finest example of what it is to be an American.

The ignorant trolls who suggest we should use the same tactics as the terrorists are nothing but nutcases. I can't imagine anyone claiming to be an American who would suggest such a thing.

Yes, cutting off heads. What I read was that we should treat them as they treat us. What part of that don't you understand? If they cut off heads, the assholes are suggesting we cut off heads. That's what it means to treat them the same way...

Of course, my words are insulting. I'm actually holding back. People get what they deserve.

I don't think I can "get you angry" - maybe "angrier".

I have yet to see the Muslim extremists prosecuting their own for decapitation and public hangings. Just this last week the US military sought the death sentence for four of service members that committed heinous crimes against Iraqi civilians.

If you go back and look at your "little words" then you should see that you failed to include the inference you made in your follow-up statements. Your "little words" simply imply that we are currently acting just like the terrorists and need to be stopped. No attempt was made on your part to clarify these simple "little words" until you were challenged on them.

I still believe that your "little words" demonstrate your true contempt for the actions of the people in our military and you are using the standard philosophy "I support the men and women of the military just not the people that sent them over there" as a cover to your true contempt of all things "violent" such as the military.

I for one don't really have a problem with cutting of the heads of enemy combatants. I think it is messy and would prefer to find a way to do it that is quicker and easier. I don't see the need to cut off the heads of innocent civilians or even journalists (well I waiver on Journalists as they are special type of scum). However, if a civilian population continues to harbor and aid enemy combatants and allow them to seek refuge in their homes, churches, mosques, etc then those civilians are now fair targets for blanket bombing in my books.

 

[OkeeDon]

You have totally misunderstood my "little words".

They do NOT reflect how I feel; they reflect the reality if some of the hardnoses on this forum got their way. Dargo, you also have misunderstood. Of course, I know that we don't operate that way. That's the point! There are people on this forum who ARE advocating that we act that way, and I'm trying to show how it would be wrong if we did.

I dunno. I may have to get away from here, again. I don't think there are more than 3 or 4 people here who can think their way out of a paper bag. I sure know that the reading comprehension level is low.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

Don, take heed in PBinWA's signature line...

Are you inferring that I am feeding a troll?

 

[Junkman]

............... I don't see the need to cut off the heads of innocent civilians or even journalists (well I waiver on Journalists as they are special type of scum). ...............

Why are you lumping all the Journalist as one?????? They report it as they see it, or as they are allowed to per the rules of the Military censors... Or were you talking about "their" journalists???????

 

[Dargo]

There are people on this forum who ARE advocating that we act that way, and I'm trying to show how it would be wrong if we did.

Okay I thought we had similar thoughts on that issue.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

Why are you lumping all the Journalist as one?????? They report it as they see it, or as they are allowed to per the rules of the Military censors... Or were you talking about "their" journalists???????

I have a general disdain for all journalists. I have worked with them in the past and have found them to be low in scruples and judgement. The fact is that they work to sell advertising.

 

[Av8r3400]

I don't think there are more than 3 or 4 people here who can think their way out of a paper bag. I sure know that the reading comprehension level is low.

nice... Why such a superiority complex?

Oh, yeah. Left = smart / Right = Forrest Gump.

 

[HGM]

OK, so where do I start?? Apparently, I'm among the

The ignorant trolls who suggest we should use the same tactics as the terrorists are nothing but nutcases. I can't imagine anyone claiming to be an American who would suggest such a thing.

from your statements, and hinting to things I have said previously

That's insane! Anyone who would suggest that our soldiers should get down in the gutters with the terrorists and use terrorist methods on them, those are the people that loath the military!

....

You, Don(I'm not afraid to use your name), what you have stated is pure .... You stated that you support the military on several occasions and would like them to come home..(me too) You then stated

"See the bad men.

They come from the Red, White and Blue.

They cut off heads and blow up nice people.

Someone needs to stop the bad men...."

wich falls right into the typical liberal trash that is getting a large number of our troops(that you claim to support) killed because, if they are disrespected by their own country they certainly cannot be respected by anyone else.. You're hero Gore, made similar accusations in a public speech in Saudi Arabia a while back, remember that?

War is dirty, we dont want it to be, we would prefer it not to be.. However, if you think that these people we are fighting will ever succumb to the pressure were putting on them and fighting them like human beings, you are sadly mistaken.. They do not subscribe to the same humanity we do and have no respect forthe things we do.. We cannot win a war against an enemy with no rules when we have to play by them and our threats do not effect them.. To suggest that we continue playing buy the rules, I will agree that we might as well come home.. If we truely want to get this over with and make a difference, it needs to get nasty.. Sorry if thats too much for you and I must be

The ignorant trolls who suggest we should use the same tactics as the terrorists are nothing but nutcases. I can't imagine anyone claiming to be an American who would suggest such a thing.

..

Either way, I'm not here to make you angry nor am I here to be your friend.. I would prefer we get allong, but it seems like you have much too high of an impression of yourself for that and I am not among your

more than 3 or 4 people here who can think their way out of a paper bag.

I totally dissagree with your point and believe you are part of the reason we are in the situation we are(as I'm sure you do of me).. I'm ok with that and can coexist without resorting to the name calling and constant diggs you so like to apply.. I'll quit replying to yours if you quit talking trash..

 

[Junkman]

I have a general disdain for all journalists.

That is a very broad paintbrush that you use to paint all journalists. Is there any other group of people that you also feel the same about, such as doctors, lawyers, or politicians????

I have worked with them in the past and have found them to be low in scruples and judgement.

Every group of has some that can fall into this type of statement, but to lump them all together is not reasonable.
Their job is to report the news as they see it. Even if you don't see it the way that they do, doesn't make them bad people or bad journalists. They have a job to do and I believe that the majority of them do it to the best of their ability, especially those that are out in the field risking their lives so all the arm chair generals stateside can sit around telling everyone else how they would win the war.

The fact is that they work to sell advertising.

Their employers have a full staff of people that are devoted exclusively to selling the advertising that pays the bulk of the cost of producing the broadcast or publication of the journalists efforts. I have never had a journalist ever try to sell me anything in the way of advertising. I might agree that some journalists see things differently than other journalists, but that is what life is about. No one sees things exactly the way that another does. If they did, then the FF Discussion forum wouldn't exist... Junk...

 

[beds]

However, if you think that these people we are fighting will ever succumb to the pressure were putting on them and fighting them like human beings, you are sadly mistaken.. They do not subscribe to the same humanity we do and have no respect forthe things we do.. We cannot win a war against an enemy with no rules when we have to play by them and our threats do not effect them.. To suggest that we continue playing buy the rules, I will agree that we might as well come home.. If we truely want to get this over with and make a difference, it needs to get nasty..

I guess I'd like to know who "these people we are fighting" are. I'd also like to know what you mean by "nasty".

 

[Dargo]

I will say a couple of very specific things that I would change were I were a field general. First, I would change our response when directly attacked from a mosque (said mosque would no longer exist) and second, I would be much more liberal with the extremely large 20k conventional bunker buster type of bombs in the Afghanistan mountain areas. We currently do not use our most powerful conventional bunker buster type bombs there for fear that the perception would be that we are using too much force. Therefore, we have allowed many of the Taliban fighters and other terrorists safe haven in many known mountain hiding places. We wouldn't have to use any nuke type of weapon to get to most of them. Three or four 20k conventional bombs with penetration heads and delayed fusing would work.

I guess I wouldn't be popular in public opinion, but when a mosque is used to store weapons, used as a place from which U.S. and allied troops are fired upon, and used as 'safe' hiding places where terrorist can flee and our troops will stop, I no longer see said places as religious places. To me, they become no more than a pseudo-military installation and fair game. This fat Sadr character would have been dead after his battle with our forces a couple of years ago. He blatently uses our fear of mosques as a military plan. He and his followers laugh at our "rules" and use them to their military advantage.

But, that's just a couple of my thoughts that would be unpopular in the court of world opinion. I am very much opposed to how our troops are being used at the current time and feel that we are putting loyal, brave, and decent military personnel at an unfair disadvantage that places their lives in more danger than necessary.

 

[OkeeDon]

I'm not going to bother with all the quote stuff, because I consider it almost a lost cause. But, I have to point out -- HGM, are you really that stupid? When I said "see the bad me, they come from the Red, White and Blue", that was an example of what it WOULD be like IF we followed the suggestions to have our soldiers use the methods of the terrorists. It is NOT how I see them now, in fact, it's the exact opposite, and exactly why I think you people are WRONG.

IF you let the soldiers use the same methods as terrorists, THEN they would be the bad men, the same as the terrorists.

My God, I can't believe the level of thinking on this forum. I put it into little words, easily understood, and spread it out nice and slow, so you'd have time to think, and you STILL got it ass-backwards. Incredible!

 

[Melensdad]

Don, honestly, I did not understand your point either. While I do agree that there are a couple guys who have the NUKE 'EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT mentality, I don't think that most people have that mentality. I was simply unsure how to take what you wrote. It was certainly simple to read, but your intent was not clear to me.

 

[OkeeDon]

Dargo, I support you completely onthe mosque situation, as long as you are absolutely certain that the mosque is being used as a fortress of sorts. A good proof would be the Imam of the mosque agreeing that the terrorists have taken over. Further, I think we could contribute to the rebuilding of the mosque once we solved the problems.

We bombed the crap out of Christian churches in Germany.

I'm not as certain about the bunker busters; I don't know enough about them, or the terrain. If the only reason why we're not using them is out of fear that the opposing coach will accuse us of "piling on", then I say, "The heck with that, run up the score." But, if the problem is that the indiscriminate use of these bombs would increase collateral damage, then we have to gove it some more thought. My understanding is that they haven't been all that effective in the mountains, anyway.

It is important to remember that the percentage of terrorists is very small compared to the general population. It's also worth remembering that the Muslims have been brainwashed to believe that we are evil. It's also my observation that a great number of Muslims suffer from an enormous inferiority complex. It probably comes from the fact that they are taught one thing, but can observe another, and they have no mechanism to reconcile the differences. In other words, they know that someone is lying to them, and they find it hard to believe that it's their own leaders.

The point of that paragraph is that it doesn't take much to swing their opinions one way or the other. The recent action in Lebanon was a good example. As the situation started, Muslims were actually angry at Hezbollah and thought they had gone too far. As Israel continued to pound them, however, their perception quickly changed so that Israel was now at fault. They began to rally behind, and support, Hezbollah.

In other words, we might be able to win the battle, but it wouldn't take much for us to lose the war. We can defeat the present terrorists militarily, but in the process we will have created 4 or 5 new terrorists for every one we stopped. We can never win by pounding them unless we are prepared to pound them all.

That breeding ground for terrorists is what was predicted for Iraq before we ever went there, and, of course, it's exactly what has happened.

 

[beds]

I will say a couple of very specific things that I would change were I were a field general. First, I would change our response when directly attacked from a mosque (said mosque would no longer exist) and second, I would be much more liberal with the extremely large 20k conventional bunker buster type of bombs in the Afghanistan mountain areas.

I completely agree on the bombing of Taliban in Afghanistan. These are desolate mountain areas and the use of near-maximum force would result in few civilian casualties. Concerning the mosques, I think the bombing of mosques would galvanize the moderate muslims and make the "west" more of an enemy among the muslim population worldwide. And I think they know that and it is very frustrating to try to wage war and win peace.

 

[OkeeDon]

I'll post it again, with annotations to explain it.

"See the bad men.
the bad men are the terrorists.

The bad men do bad things.
this is the reason why they are bad.

They cut off heads.
this is one of the reasons we don't like them.

They blow up nice people.
this is another reason we don't like them.

Someone needs to stop the bad men.
this is our war against terrorism

Oooh, see the nice people!
the nice people are the Goog Guys, come to fix the problems.

They come from the Red, White and Blue.
they're Americans.

Maybe they can stop the bad men.
at least, they're going to try.

Yes! They're fighting the bad men.
they're doing what we sent them to do.

They're cutting off the bad men's heads.
oh,wait! they're doing the same things that the bad men do! is that what we really want?
this is not they way they used to fight...

They're blowing up nice people along with the bad men."
yes, I guess it is what we want, because they got their orders from people who think we should treat the terrorists the same way the terrorists treat us.

(an interval of time passes)
(the original bad men are gone)
(the people who said we should treat them the same are feeling cocky)
(now, we can get on with promoting democracy.)
(But, wait, what's this, the rest of the world is coming after us!)
(Why is that?)


"See the bad men.
they used to be the nice men.

They come from the Red, White and Blue.
they're Americans.

They cut off heads and blow up nice people.
they're now the same as the former bad men.

Someone needs to stop the bad men...."
the former bad men are gone, but the nice people have become bad.

 

[HGM]

I guess I'd like to know who "these people we are fighting" are. I'd also like to know what you mean by "nasty".

beds,
First off, I believe we are fighting musslim extremists..
Secondly, I tend to get a little carried away sometimes when I portray my opinion on this.. It is probably closer to what Dargo just described rather than some of the radical ideas I have mentioned in the past.. My main point is that if they are cutting off the heads of innocent civilians and hiding in mosq's all the while they are fighting in the name of allah expecting that they will be rewarded upon death, they actually look forward to being killed by our conventional ways.. So, how could you beat someone who wants you to kill them(simply put)? My suggestion is to get closer to their hearts and hit them where it matters(to them).. It may be by discracing them, it may be by beheading them, it may be by soaking them in pigs blood(extreme, I know), but they would be much less willing to die if they knew they would face this type of death and that allah would not reward them.. Thats what I call "nasty".. Some will say that we dont, and should not fight like that.. I wish I could agree, but if someone bites me of kicks me in the nuts durring a fight, I cannot promise that I wont retaliate with whatever it takes to win, I certainly wont continue to let them do it like some would suggest..