Inquiry

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Oct. 18 2002,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, you are saying that the terrorists that kidnapped this journalist can be compared to the American government? Wow, thats a stretch even I wasnt going for <span id='postcolor'>

nah. more like "US is alot more benevolent thatn how you think."

[eatmyshorts 0]

Would someone please explain to me exactly what an "unlawfull combatant" really is?

Is it perhaps someone who fights without belonging to a military force recognised by his enemies?

Is it someone who fights without the approval of his enemies?

Is it a soldier with a criminalrecord?

Or will it just be the standard term for prisoner of war, used by the USA from now on forward?(Quite convenient actually!

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

They have got it way to good, they should put them all in one large cell, and make em watch the mods polka dance.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (eatmyshorts @ Oct. 19 2002,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Would someone please explain to me exactly what an "unlawfull combatant" really is?

Is it perhaps someone who fights without belonging to a military force recognised by his enemies?

Is it someone who fights without the approval of his enemies?

Is it a soldier with a criminalrecord?

Or will it just be the standard term for prisoner of war, used by the USA from now on forward?(Quite convenient actually!<span id='postcolor'>

"Unlawful combatant" is a term first used by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942. It's equivalent to "detainee," the term used for a captured combatant who does not meet the requirements to be treated as a prisoner of war. "Irregular" troops such as volunteers or militia members (e.g. Taliban) must be treated as prisoners of war under the Convention if:

-- They have a responsible commander.

-- They openly carry arms.

-- They have a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance.

-- They must be conducting military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

"Prisoner of war" will continue to be used when applicable. On a related note, you do realize that if the detainees were classified as POW's they could be held until hostilities end? How would you like to be a prisoner until the war on terror was over?

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Oct. 18 2002,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt any of the men detained have actually comitted acts of Terror against the US.<span id='postcolor'>

I've got to believe you're referring to the Taliban detainees (unless you're saying that we should've waited for the AQ detainees to carry out attacks before rolling them up?). Even if they didn't directly commit the acts, they were fighting alongside those who did. Considering how they terrorized the Afghani population I find it very difficult to give a damn either way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Oct. 18 2002,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They certainly arent the ones that hijacked the planes...<span id='postcolor'>

It wasn't for lack of trying, assuming that Binalshibh is now gracing Gitmo with his presence.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Oct. 18 2002,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even terrorists have rights though; right to a trial. Besides, they are innocent until proven guilty.<span id='postcolor'>

You're absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see these foreign national Talibans escorted directly back to their nations of origin and released. One or two might be prosecuted, although I doubt it. The majority would then be free to resume their religious activities (i.e. killing infidels, subjugating women, blah blah blah).

Best of all, we could sleep well knowing that even though the savage, brainwashed bastards would gladly slit our collective throat if they could, we didn't bruise our delicate sensibilities by daring to prioritize whose rights should take precedence.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Oct. 19 2002,085)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The majority would then be free to resume their religious activities (i.e. killing infidels, subjugating women, blah blah blah).

Best of all, we could sleep well knowing that even though the savage, brainwashed bastards would gladly slit our collective throat if they could, we didn't bruise our delicate sensibilities by daring to prioritize whose rights should take precedence.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

It has gone over six months without the US being able to produce any evidence. Or are you trying to say that muslims/Afgani are all religious fanatics?

Or is it just your view on enemy soldiers. If it is then I know what to do with captured US Marines if I ever find myself in a war against the US. A quick execution by a shot through the back of the head will prevent them from continuing their murderous actitivies. Besides, fair is fair, if I was captured they would put me in one of their concentration camps.

One thing also that you seem to miss: you attacked them, you were the agressor. They were only defending their country and government. The Taliban never did anything against the US. Just because Bush thinks that guilt by association (with the enemy of the US) is a valid excuse for attacking a country doesn't make it right in any way.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Taliban never did anything against the US<span id='postcolor'>

how about allowing AQ to train?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Oct. 19 2002,08:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Taliban never did anything against the US<span id='postcolor'>

how about allowing AQ to train?<span id='postcolor'>

What about the US training anti Castro Cubans. Would that give Cuba the right to bomb the US?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,08:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Oct. 19 2002,08:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how about allowing AQ to train?<span id='postcolor'>

What about the US training anti Castro Cubans. Would that give Cuba the right to bomb the US?<span id='postcolor'>

they are as sterile as ... uhmm...sterile gauze.

and cuban americans has not attacked cuba since pay of pigs.

[KingBeast 0]

E6Hotel, you assume that every one of those prisoners has terrorised the Afghani population? Like I said before, i doubt they have actually committed any crime that they could be detained for. unless they were for instance firing weapons at US soldiers before they ran out of weapon and were captured. But then, they have the right to fire upon soldiers invading their country.

Do I sympathise with the ones that are proven to have terrorised the Afghani population and have made plans to kill innocent Americans? No I dont. But how many of them have been proven to have done such things?

Seems to me like they just rounded up as many detainees as they could and flew them to Cuba.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Of course I agree with the necessity to expose those people to an ordianry trial. Most of all so they see how a female american lawyer is defending them...a trial is longer than 30 seconds...the judge is not allah...and the victim will not be killed immediately...they will die in confusion.

But on the other hand we should not forget that those people comitted terrible crimes (in our interpretation) on their own nation. I am sure they thought that what they do is legalised by Allah, but still....the Talebans were a bunch of Rapist and opressors and I dont think that the Mohammed would have supported that. So let them get a trial in the name of the western world, let them get a punishment in the style of god, and let them die in the way of Mohammed.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Oct. 19 2002,11:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But on the other hand we should not forget that those people comitted terrible crimes (in our interpretation) on their own nation.  I am sure they thought that what they do is legalised by Allah, but still....the Talebans were a bunch of Rapist and opressors and I dont think that the Mohammed would have supported that. So let them get a trial in the name of the western world, let them get a punishment in the style of god, and let them die in the way of Mohammed.  <span id='postcolor'>

No matter what the Taliban did to their country it didn't give Bush the right to invade it. "Freeing" oppressed people from their government hasn't been acceptable since WW2 when Hitler used the same argument to "free" the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslokvakia.

So what were the net effects of operation "Infinite Justice":

[*] Osama bin Laden is still alive

[*] Mullah Omar is still alive

[*] AQ is still alive and kicking

[*] Large number of civilians were killed

[*] The Afgani landscape was poisened even more with unexploded ordnance

[*] A very unstable government was appointed in Afganistan

Yey, with these brilliant results, not strange that Bush wants to continue this success story in Iraq

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

hell you are a pessimist person!

What about this one:

Al quaida has been weakend

Afghans are allowed to listen to music again and women to work, learn and divorce

The stadium in Kabul has no more executions on Sunday before the soccer match

Afghanistan now gets 10times the amount of funds for development than the Sudan (the mother of misery).

They now have german police cars

But seriously Denoir, you have to take into consideration that Afghanistan once was a very progressive country with highly advanced social rules including emanicipation and religious science. In fact it was the Taliban who once hijacked the nation, especially since the Taliban moved in and were never actually originating from the area around Kabul. (dont ask me from where they actually stem, North or South, some cave, or directly from Allah). Whether the attack was justified or not remains in doubt. But it is also true that the Taliban were sheltering and supporting the Al Quaida and in an ordinary trial they would be considered as "guilty" too.

[Longinius 1]

Its interesting to see so many people belonging to the land of the free actually advocate very oppressive and unjust treatment of people. We will see if you still support it when its your brother or best friend that is sitting caged someplace, without a chance to a trial, without being accused, without contact with his family and without any rights what so ever.

[Longinius 1]

"But it is also true that the Taliban were sheltering and supporting the Al Quaida and in an ordinary trial they would be considered as "guilty" too."

Shouldnt there atleast be a trial though?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Oct. 19 2002,12:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Al quaida has been weakend<span id='postcolor'>

Have they? Did you know anything about AQ before the US started shouting "wolf" at anything. The measure of success for a terrorist organization is in the amount of publicity they get and the amount of fear (terror) they manage to induce in their target. Before the WTC attacks AQ was a little known terrorist organization. Now US senators are afraid of playing golf because of potential AQ snipers. Now you tell me if AQ has been weakened.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Afghans are allowed to listen to music again and women to work, learn and divorce<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, yes, we have tried our hardest to force-feed them western culture and to deny them their religious traditions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The stadium in Kabul has no more executions on Sunday before the soccer match<span id='postcolor'>

I guess they will have to watch broadcasts of executions from Texas on TV instead.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Afghanistan now gets 10times the amount of funds for development than the Sudan (the mother of misery).<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, more money so that they can buy Coca Cola and German cars.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They now have german police cars<span id='postcolor'>

How good for German industry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But seriously Denoir, you have to take into consideration that Afghanistan once was a very progressive country with highly advanced social rules including emanicipation and religious science.

<span id='postcolor'>

Afganistan was progressive before British colonialism screwed them, then Soviet colonialism screwed them again and now US colonialism is screwing them right now. The government that we (the west) have forced on them is so weak that the current president of the coallition is having US only bodyguards because he doesn't trust his own people.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I basically agree with all you say. But one little detail I must insist on. There is just no way you can tell me that women rights is some sort of "western culture" that we force on them. You are taking the "safe the cultures" a bit too far. Saving a culture is important but which culture do you mean. The state of the Taliban doesnt really fullfill any criteria that is WORLDWIDE considered as a "culture", in fact it was an anti-culture since most components that make up a culture were forbidden: arts, music, sports (e.g they invented polo) and communication.

Denoir, you might take the role of an advocat here, but I think the one of the devils advocat.

[Guest]

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Oct. 19 2002,138)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I basically agree with all you say. But one little detail I must insist on. There is just no way you can tell me that women rights is some sort of "western culture" that we force on them. You are taking the "safe the cultures" a bit too far. Saving a culture is important but which culture do you mean. The state of the Taliban doesnt really fullfill any criteria that is WORLDWIDE considered as a "culture", in fact it was an anti-culture since most components that make up a culture were forbidden: arts, music, sports (e.g they invented polo) and communication.<span id='postcolor'>

I am not defending the Taliban regime; they were violent, intolerant extremist thugs. I am just questioning how much improvement we have done by our neocolonial interventions in the country. I'm not sad a bit for the Taliban, but the price to remove them was high and the situation that we have left there is not good.

As for womens rights: While I am not a feminist I am very for womens rights. There is something else that has to be considered: the difference of culture. What we see as oppression they see social benifits. Say for instance the work thing. We are arguing for that men and women should have equal opportunity to work - they will argue that the cost of that is the deterioration of the family unit. How can you raise children in a good way when both parents are working?

We must not take our point of view for granted since there are really some considerable differences in culture.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you might take the role of an advocat here, but I think the one of the devils advocat. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate here, but it is not because I am defending the Taliban, but because I want to emphasise the faults of the Bush doctrine and the whole concept of "War on Terror".

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,12:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Oct. 19 2002,12:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Al quaida has been weakend<span id='postcolor'>

Have they? Did you know anything about AQ before the US started shouting "wolf" at anything. The measure of success for a terrorist organization is in the amount of publicity they get and the amount of fear (terror) they manage to induce in their target. Before the WTC attacks AQ was a little known terrorist organization.<span id='postcolor'>

have you ever heard of a country signing off some land/execuated head of state/stopped war to release hostages???

Would someone plz enlighten me if this has ever happened.

If you didn't see al queda/taliban/osam mentioned in any of your local daily papers after september 11, then we may somewhat blocked the terrorists

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (second_draw @ Oct. 19 2002,13:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">have you ever heard of a country signing off some land/execuated head of state/stopped war to release hostages???

Would someone plz enlighten me if this has ever happened.<span id='postcolor'>

Ireland got its independence from the UK through the terrorist actions of the IRA.

Edit: Also let's not forget that the USA got its independence by using paramilitary force against the British. They didn't use the word 'terrorism' then, but if it happened today it sure would be labeled as such.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,21:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They didn't use the word 'terrorism' then, but if it happened today it sure would be labeled as such.<span id='postcolor'>

Terrorism is a waord used only when its wanted to be used. Just like the Bush doctrine rules.

"If you house or fund terrorists, you might as well be terrorists yuorseflf"

Some countries(not pointing any fingers) can remember the past mighty quickly when it suits them.

Al Queda terrorists, but of course the Mujihoudin(bad spelling) where little angels.

[Sam Samson 0]

col kurtz sports the special forces pine in his avatar...?

...how far are you with your book? got published yet?

anyway.

you might want to see the detention of those gentlefolks down in cuba as a kind of life insurance for them. because when they are released they will be deported to their countries of origin. and there they will summarily be executed.

how does that strike your bleeding hearts?

why?

remember that al quaida is also the sworn enemy of the royal house of saud and the other corrupt (in aq's eyes) elites in the region.

the saudis don't mess with detention, in comfy cages, for people questioning their rule.

you might want to consider that they sport a sword in their green flag for a reason.

but I'm sure that those oppressed "irregular combatants" will find asylum in northern europe before too long.

and why not? the population of those countries is aging rapidly.

they can stand the influx of some energetic young men, entrepreneurial, decisive in their approach to problem solving.

better get ready for the muezzin's call.

(in speer's biography I read that hitler wondered why the germans fell for sissy christianity in the first place. he found islam to be a much more appropriate religion for the nordic race. what do you think?)

[KingBeast 0]

Christianity has never been and never will be a sissy religion. Those Christians are darned violent characters

Back to the topic at hand... Perhaps some of the detainees will get executed if they are sent back to their home countries. But its quite laughable for you to think along the lines of "Hey Prisoners, we are doing you a favour by imprisoning you in fairly poor conditions!"

Yes they feed them and give them water and shelter. From the kindness of their hearts? lol dont be silly! Dead or seriously dehydrated/malnourished prisoners arent very good interrogation subjects

[edc 0]

During the revolutionary war did we target civilians? NO.