Chopper down

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 06 2002,18:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have not compared him to anything. But if you class the people you fight as one thing and determine that they are not lawful combatants, how the hell do you expect them to treat you in return? According to the Geneva convention? Get real.

I am not saying that had a right to shoot him. I am not saying that hit is good e did. What I AM saying is that it is not so strange that they did. See the difference?<span id='postcolor'>

The thing is the seal is a Proffesional soldier and the Afghans that killed him ain't the difference is that the Al Queda members attack civilians while the Proffesianal soldier does not, therefore the Al Queda is not covered under the Geneva convention but the Navy seal is so therefore What Al Queda have done is commit war crimes.

[Longinius 1]

"I really think that is untrue,because if it was true it would be on every european tv,newspaper,other."

Not necesserily. I remember this to. It was about the same time accusations of brutality came up. And it was proven that US soldiers had attacked wrongful targets, beat up civilians and even shot a couple (during uncertain conditions). Whenever something like this happens an investigation is started. Usually in order for the media to speculate during these investigations (if they are even allowed to) it must be something extreme and fairly certain. Funny thing is many incidents have been covered up this way (not only US, governments in general are great at this). If the investigation takes long enough, people lose interest.

[Longinius 1]

"The thing is the seal is a Proffesional soldier and the Afghans that killed him ain't the difference is that the Al Queda members attack civilians while the Proffesianal soldier does not, therefore the Al Queda is not covered under the Geneva convention but the Navy seal is so therefore What Al Queda have done is commit war crimes."

Wrong. Do you know those particular Al Queda men ever raised a weapon against a civilian? No, you don't. Just because some Al Queda do does not mean all are the same. Any way, if the US can motivate civilian deaths as "colleteral damage" why can't they? The door does swing both ways.

I find it mildly amusing that just because I go out and make a statement where I say: "if you treat someone one way you better expect to get the same treatment back", people get upset. This is one of the basic principles of our society for gods sake. And just because I say it I am anti american and whatever. Yeah, great. You guys have really got your act together.

A small tip, might want to get envolved in a discussion and do some talking before you actually pass sentence on someone. It helps.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2002,06:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find it mildly amusing that just because I go out and make a statement where I say: "if you treat someone one way you better expect to get the same treatment back", people get upset. This is one of the basic principles of our society for gods sake. And just because I say it I am anti american and whatever. Yeah, great. You guys have really got your act together.<span id='postcolor'>

You know, whichever faction it was that shot the SEAL, probably would have shot him whether there had been the Guantamo incident or not. There has been enough unilateral shitting on foreigners from the U.S. to incite that kind of behaviour long before the "unlawful combatant" hassle. But I must admit I am 100% with you when you point out: "Maybe they just classified the SEAL as an unlawful combatant and shot him." I wish I was the first to say that, but you beat me to it.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2002,06:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The thing is the seal is a Proffesional soldier and the Afghans that killed him ain't the difference is that the Al Queda members attack civilians while the Proffesianal soldier does not, therefore the Al Queda is not covered under the Geneva convention but the Navy seal is so therefore What Al Queda  have done is commit war crimes."

Wrong. Do you know those particular Al Queda men ever raised a weapon against a civilian? No, you don't. Just because some Al Queda do does not mean all are the same. Any way, if the US can motivate civilian deaths as "colleteral damage" why can't they? The door does swing both ways.

I find it mildly amusing that just because I go out and make a statement where I say: "if you treat someone one way you better expect to get the same treatment back", people get upset. This is one of the basic principles of our society for gods sake. And just because I say it I am anti american and whatever. Yeah, great. You guys have really got your act together.

A small tip, might want to get envolved in a discussion and do some talking before you actually pass sentence on someone. It helps.<span id='postcolor'>

Then you are a hypocrite,Where are all the human right groups at now ? Where are they bitching about his death ? They can only bitch when america does something ? Which just proves my point,If america does something It's wrong,if someone else does something It's ok.

[Longinius 1]

"Then you are a hypocrite,Where are all the human right groups at now ? Where are they bitching about his death ? They can only bitch when america does something ? Which just proves my point,If america does something It's wrong,if someone else does something It's ok."

When did I say it was OK? And being hypocritical is my exact point.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 07 2002,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then you are a hypocrite,Where are all the human right groups at now ? Where are they bitching about his death ? They can only bitch when america does something ? Which just proves my point,If america does something  It's wrong,if someone else does something It's ok.<span id='postcolor'>

How do you suppose the human right groups should bitch about the SEAL issue? Call the cell phones of the Al Qaeda in the middle of the fighting and say: "You bad Al Qaeda you. You are evil, since you executed this wounded SEAL"? Nobody is bitching, since U.S. armed forces will kill those Al Qaeda dupes who wasted the SEAL pretty soonish, if they didn't already, so there isn't really much point in bitching. They'll have what's coming. But the human rights groups bitch to U.S. because U.S. is going to be on this planet tomorrow also, so that's why they have to try to point to U.S. the error of their ways to make them better (as if). Simple really.

U.S. matters, promptly dead "terrorists" don't.

[rpc007 0]

dumbasses, the prisoners are being treated fine at Camp Xray, the red cross and other have inspected it and said it was fine, they even get first class medical treatment, most of the people at Camp Xray have better living conditions than before they were captured, the Taliban or Al Qaeda would never treat an American as good as we treat their prisoners! And we havent shot any civilians on purpose or executed them, the only incident where civs were killed by gunfire is on a raid where they were supposedly "innocent" when they shot at the US troops raiding the compound, what do u expect the Us to do? They shot back of course and killed the gunmen.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok..let's sort some confusions out:

1.SEAL was executed

2.it's against Geneva convention

so here's the question for you human rights ppl.

why are you NOT criticising those who executed that SEAL guy?

[Guest Scooby]

Only source from where we get news are from US media. Ofcourse they are reporting mostly and perphaps only violations against US soldiers.

Every country does that in war and its called propaganda.

[Longinius 1]

"dumbasses, the prisoners are being treated fine at Camp Xray, the red cross and other have inspected it and said it was fine, they even get first class medical treatment, most of the people at Camp Xray have better living conditions than before they were captured, the Taliban or Al Qaeda would never treat an American as good as we treat their prisoners!"

1. We are not discussing how the prisoners of Xray are treated.

2. No, its kind of hard to give good treatment while daisy cutters fall outside your doorway. Or cavemouth, as it is.

"And we havent shot any civilians on purpose or executed them, the only incident where civs were killed by gunfire is on a raid where they were supposedly "innocent" when they shot at the US troops raiding the compound, what do u expect the Us to do? They shot back of course and killed the gunmen."

How the hell would YOU know?

[Pete 1]

human rights are for all....seals (not the animals) and al-quedas...both sides (us and bin ladens gang) break human rights...as for those who say the "pows" are treated nice...i quess you never did bother to check how they were living there....

alone in a box, under the strong sun...when they get "fresh air" at a yard they have glasses painted over so they cant see anything, they have masks so they cant "spit on the guards"...they are handcuffed, they have ear-protection so they cant hear anything at all...

humane?...i wouldnt treat a dog like that.

about al-queda....we cant really expect them to follow any rules of war, i am sorry for the family of the dead seal(s), but the seal himself must have known that it was not expected that he would be given any medical care by anyone....

longinus did have a good point, but most missed the point...."we" cant expect THEM to follow the rules when we dont either.

(of course, they still would not follow the rules..do they even know them, did they even sign the geneva convention? ((i think not)))

[Wobble 1]

alone in a box, under the strong sun...when they get "fresh air" at a yard they have glasses painted over so they cant see anything, they have masks so they cant "spit on the guards"...they are handcuffed, they have ear-protection so they cant hear anything at all...

humane?...i wouldnt treat a dog like that

they have shelter, air condtioning, and are allowed to worship, as far as I know the only thing they are deprived of is talking to eachother, which is reasonable.. they only time they were hancuffed and made to wear blinders and that shit was when the first got there and that was because they had lots of them in one area at one time, now that they are separated they are not like that..

and since the red cross, and every other orginization that has checked it out says its ok. quit crying..

I personally couldent give less of a shit about how they are treated.. I was hoping they would put them on an old surplus plane and shoot them into a cliff.. oh well.. cant always be fair,.

[Longinius 1]

"they have shelter, air condtioning"

Funny way of describing a cage with no solid walls....air conditioning...lol

"they only time they were hancuffed and made to wear blinders and that shit was when the first got there and that was because they had lots of them in one area at one time, now that they are separated they are not like that.."

Well, they still wear handcuffs and fotcuffs as soon as they leave the cage. They are also gaged. Some blindfolded.

"and since the red cross, and every other orginization that has checked it out says its ok. quit crying.."'

They said it was not so bad, not that it was OK.

[rpc007 0]

they said it was in accordance with the geneva convention and to quit bitching

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rpc007 @ Mar. 07 2002,19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">they said it was in accordance with the geneva convention and to quit bitching<span id='postcolor'>

did they say that?....would it matter?..usa doesnt see them as pows anyways, so geneva convention is not appliable, according to usa.

either way...the geneva convention is a treaty usa DID sign on, same as my country..and most countries in the world, that means that the goverment and its leaders should do there best to make sure the treaty is followed, if individual soldiers do something wrong its a crime of war...and they should be punished.

but when a goverment (pres bush) ignores the geneva convention that he is supposed to follow.....it kinda makes the treaty completely useless, doesnt it?

speaking of hipcrazy...it goes many ways here, i have some of it...but so do those who think that alquadans who shot (or didnt) the fallen seal break the convention....and then support there nation when it breaks the convention also.

if you call al-quedans illegal combatans...then they dont have to give shit to follow any rules, to fly a jet into a building or to park a car with explosives near a disco is not to break geneva convention.....nor is to kill a wounded seal.

they arent forced to fight by any rules at all....chem weapons, nukes..what ever...

in the end its just a peace of paper, rules with no value in real life.

mmmm.....but as someone said, we hope the best from usa, the best kind of behavior....from lesser nations as afganistan where few can even read, we dont expect anything at all.

[foxer 0]

Blah.I bet the seal would rather be in cuba somewhere ,other then 6 feet under.Does it matter though? Both sides are hypocrites,in a way.

[Wobble 1]

The detainees, who have been moved from Afghanistan to "Camp X-Ray" at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, are being housed in individual 8-by-8-foot outdoor cells with concrete floors and wooden roofs surrounded by chain-link fencing.

Inside the cells, where they will be kept until a permanent detention center can be built, prisoners each have a foam-rubber mat to lie on and two towels, one for bathing, another for a prayer mat

they have a roof over their heads, solid ground under their feet, and rubber mat for a bed.. better than most the population of afghanistan..

Detainees get daily showers and are issued a bar of soap, a bottle of shampoo, a toothbrush and toothpaste, and flip-flop sandals

either way...the geneva convention is a treaty usa DID sign on, same as my country..and most countries in the world, that means that the goverment and its leaders should do there best to make sure the treaty is followed, if individual soldiers do something wrong its a crime of war...and they should be punished.

the convention has been followed...

but when a goverment (pres bush) ignores the geneva convention that he is supposed to follow.....it kinda makes the treaty completely useless, doesnt it?

again.,. it has been followed and nobody who has gone and checked the place out has said otherwise..

[Pete 1]

followed?....sure, NOW..after a long time of ignoring it.

name, rank and id number?..wasnt it something like that?....while use didnt follow the convention i quess more questions were asked, and now when they were done with that they start to follow the rules.....

kinda funny....break them when it suits you, follow them when international protests are too high and you dont profit anymore by breaking the rules.....

perhaps we all should do that.....rob a bank and when you got the money from it you start living a normal life again.....untill your out of money again....nothing wrong done?

[foxer 0]

What rule did they break ? One ? two ? your acting like we are beating the shit outta of them,sticking pipes up their ass to see how many times they say ALLAH.

[ralphwiggum 6]

well. let's see. Al Qaeda action does not get covered by Geneva convention, so US can feock them around as they wish. Yet they get air conditioning, Quran, and towels.

so wtf is inhumane about it? you can bitch all you want, but you ain gonna convince anybody who has common sense that US deserves death of navy SEAL becuase of Camp Xray.

If you have brains to claim US is f-ed up and it's wrong, how about claiming that those Al-Qaeda soldiers are wrong too?

[Longinius 1]

"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."

This means any Taliban soldiers is in fact a POW and not a detainee, no question about it.

Al Queda however is a terrorist network. I have no problem with them being classed as detainees as they do not fill the criteria for lawful combatant (mainly carrying weapons in the open and wearing distinct markings).

"Art 20. The evacuation of prisoners of war shall always be effected humanely and in conditions similar to those for the forces of the Detaining Power in their changes of station."

Since when are American troops in transit gagged, cuffed, hooded and drugged? Another breach of the convention right there.

"If prisoners of war must, during evacuation, pass through transit camps, their stay in such camps shall be as brief as possible."

Open for enterpritation but I am quite sure that if the US built real buildings instead of more cages a finished camp would be done a bit quicker.

"Art 25. Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health."

I don't see those marines living in cages.

and it goes on and on. So no, it is NOT in accordance with the Geneva convention.

[foxer 0]

God,you guys are stupid.OK there is rules true,but who always following them ? America and europe,Who is not always following them ? That's right everyone else.Iraq took europeans,americans,others pow in the gulf war and gave them a beating,and rape female pilots.But yet you think that everyone follow this Geneva convention thing.Well hate to tell you ,but only the us and europe does,maybe it should be called " Europe and America Geneva convention" because hardly anyone else follows them.

[foxer 0]

Since when are American troops in transit gagged, cuffed, hooded and drugged? Another breach of the convention right there.

You seen one picture of them like that and you think their like that all the time.Go look at other pictures,they are not.True USA pows don't get that ,they get shot in the back of the head.

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 07 2002,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What rule did they break ? One ? two ? your acting like we are beating the shit outta of them,sticking pipes up their ass to see how many times they say ALLAH.<span id='postcolor'>

only the rules they (usa) saw fit to break..they didnt give them POW status so that they could interogate and possibly get some information of them i quess.....who here thinks usa dont see them as POWs becouse they dont have proper set of uniforms, or that afganistan doesnt have a legal goverment? lol

in that case the NA is just as illegal, if not more so...there never was a legal goverment in afganistan i think...

geneva convention...the thing is, once you sign the treaty...you are supposed to do the best you can to follow them.

but...usa does as usa does, treaties are there to be broken when needed i quess......why we have laws at all?

what was the topic now?..chopper down, aaah...i bet that there will be more casualties in afganistan...sooner or later those caves has to be entered, and perhaps when everything has settled down, the bombings have lessened and all, perhaps then we get a occasional sniper shooting at un/us soldiers?..bombs in cars/camels parked near bases or something?

well, personally i think threre will alsways be a danger left...even tho the major organiced army is crushed.