"Guelfo" <pippopoppo1@libero.it> wrote in message
news:408e3185@212.67.96.135...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:c6l3p3$n9i$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Guelfo" <pippopoppo1@libero.it> wrote in message
news:408d5c9b@212.67.96.135...
"cesar" <cesar@no.email> wrote in message
news:Qabjc.9$83q1.5@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"Guelfo" <pippopoppo1@libero.it> wrote in message
news:408d2ebf@212.67.96.135...
"cesar" <cesar@no.email> wrote in message
news:0cZic.10162$swh.4733@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
How many soldiers have you asked if they expect to die in combat?
Interviews I have seen on soldiers suggest that they expect to
kill
and
are
willing to put their lives on the line for their country.
But not to be killed.
There is a big difference between accepting that death is a risk
of
the
job
than expecting to be killed.
Yes, I suppose no one really 'expects' to be killed as opposed to
being
ready to die. It's a matter of semantics. When you're on the
battleground,
it's either kill or be killed, sometimes even by friendly fire. So,
if
you
go in there, to say that you expect to come out alive is just as
unrealistic
as expecting to die.
Not true. The American soldiers have an excellent chance of surviving
battles. All precautions against the enemy are taken by American
forces.
It seems it is their fellow soldiers they have to watch out for most.
THey
managed to kill more British troops than the Iraqis this time round as
well..
What are you talking about?
The US forces accidentally killing British troops, Guido.
There is no guarantee in a theatre of war, especially
when you're not a professional. It's been reported that those
Blackwater
'pros' charge $1,000 a day for the hazardous job and yet 4 of them
got
killed (and mutilated.)
You're outnumbered in a hostile territory.
Those Blackwater 'pros' as you called them didn't participate in
combat
activities. They act as security guards as protectors and bodyguards
for
foreign workers in Iraq.
How are they going to do that without participating or potentially
participating in combat activities you loose-brained imbecile? By
throwing
mud at the enemy? Shouting at them?
I didn't explain myself properly. I mean that they don't take soldier like
actions.
BWAHAHAHA! No, they just act as "protectors and bodyguards" eh? What's the
difference?
They don't do street patrols,
I bet they do..
they don't work in checkpoints, they don't
hunt the enemy in his lair.
Neither do all soldiers.
2. "They" in a context of war against their own country
cannot
be
called
"terrorists".
They are illegal combatants exactly like the ones held in
Guantanamo
bay.
The term terrorists describes them perfectly.
How do you know that?
These militia don't belong to the Iraqi forces or the Republican
guards.
Those were all dismissed by their respective officers.
We don't know who those 'militias' are.
But they seem pretty savage, even
killing their own policemen to intimidate and make sure there won't
be
any
law and order. The Fedayeen didn't surrender. They simply melded
into
the
crowd and no one really knows who they are. There must be hundred
of
thousands of them.
We know exactly who these militias are. Some of them are Islamic
fundamentalists, others are AL-qaeda members.
Others still are as you said Fedayeen who wont surrender. All of them
are
terrorists.
Actually, no. Militias are legitimate fighters according to eth Geneva
convention. See article 4.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/addm/gen3.htm
They have to fulfil the following conditions:
Nope, not if they fall under the first paragraph they don't.
(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.
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
These people have no right to fight.
Also they use means of combat that are contrary to Geneva
Conventions.
Which means what? They must wear military fatigues and identfiy
themselves
as combatants? Don't make me laugh. It's their turf.
They are fighting with illegal means.
How? What illegal means? Please be specific or shut the ***** up.
They do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs
of war.
Neither did the French reistance or the Italian partisans..
They can fight any
way they want. In fact, civvies were deemed enemy combatants in
Afghanistan
and are sitting in Guanatanmo Bay because the way they dress is
supposedly
their 'uniform'.
If you take part in hostilities you lose your status as a civilian.
Indeed, and you become, de facto , a legal combatant until *proven*
otherwise. See article 5
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/addm/gen3.htm
*****!!
Not at all. Do you have difficulty reading English, Guido?
Among other things article 5 says:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any
of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the
protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has
been determined by a competent tribunal.
So if a doubt arises that person is entitled to POW status untill a
competent tribunal has determined his/her fate.
Exactly. Which is not what is happening in Guantanamo by the way.
If there are NO doubts then that person is an illegal combatant and he or
she is not entitled to Geneva Convenctions.
Who decided there is no doubt? If there is no doubt then how come so many
have been released from Guantanamo already?
That is why they are not granting POW status to Taliban fighters.
How is the issue of doubt different with them? They were a legitimate armed
force of the Afghani government!
Speaking of Geneva Convention, since when are you allowed to use
Apache
missiles on a mosque, killing innocent people just because gunmen
allegedly
ran inside for coverage?
It the mosque is used to launch attacks then it loses its status as a
safe
heaven.
Was it used to launch attacks?
That mosque was used as cover to fire against the US forces.
Cite?
if volunteer combatants including suicide bombers did come into
Iraq
to
fight the Americans.
They have and they are called terrorists.
So, that's why it's called the War against Terror, right?
Why you are pretty smart.
What's the difference if they are the so-called
"terrorists", soldiers, freedom fighters, whatever.
A big difference. They do not take prisoners and take hostages.
All Geneva convention violations.
Maybe they should kill them instead? They did release them didn't
they?
They released some of them. Others are still held captive and one of
the
Italians and a danish were assasinated.
These are all hideous crimes!
Please. This whole approach is wrong. You create so much hate adn
animosity on those people and they you say they don't fight fair?
You
pick
a fight with people tradionally known for brutality amongst
themselves,
people who settle disputes by stabbing each other in the back with
knives,
people who stone 'sinners' do death. What did they expect?
I expected them to surrender which they did.
They are an angry mob out of control and out to kill and maim. Get
outta
there! Like the bible says: Babylon has fallen and has become a
habitation
of devils!
There is no way the West can bowl over to the threats of terrorists!
They are enemy
warriors, just like the coalition forces and their hired
mercenaries
are
their enemies. You are wrong that that the prisoners in
Guantanamo
Bay
are
terrorists.
They are.
So why aren't they either executed or released? What is their
"sentence"?
They will be judged by a specially made military tribunal which will
judge
their crimes.
They are Talibans, even if that's what they are.
Exactly. The Talibans were not a recognised government apart from
Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan.
Iraq was. That is why Saddam is granted POW status.
So they are permanent visitors without status? I hope they have
access
to
the beach at least.
Don't try and be funny it is a serious subject we are dealing with.
They are
simply men rounded up from Afghanistan transported there without
hearing,
trial or access to the outside world. People simply branded as
"terrorists'. The few lucky ones who have been identified as
non-Afghans
were released through intervention by their governments.
We will see what the US supreme court says about that.
That will be interesting. It won't be till after the scheduled
election.
I heard we will hear the verdict late June of this year.
How do you know this? There was an uprising. Why would it be
business
as
usual in the town?
This happened in Baghdad. And there was no uprising in Baghdad.
Schools
were
open as usual.
Are you saying those kids got what they deserved because they
weren't
at
school like they were supposed to?
You sound like Rumsfeld?
I didn't say that cesar. I am saying that had they stayed at school
instead
of skiving they wouldn't be dead now.
Same thing. YOU imply they were complicit in their own deaths by not
attending school. This is a very poor argument. I thought you were a
student
of logic, Guido?
I only made an observation tw. It wasn't part of an argument.
It was an illogical observation then. Whatever.
Do you need to be "indocrinated" when your country is made in to
a
mess?
You need to be indoctrinated to take part in suicide attacks.
The only way it can be done is by someone applying some form of
mental
torture.
Nonsense. Who was "mentally torturing" the kamikaze?
Tell me tw do you think it is normal to attach an explosive belt around
you
and kill yourself in order to have access to 72 virgins in heaven?
Anyone who believes that ***** is obviously fucked up!
Why don't you answer the question Guido?
OK, you;re right. They were so "mentally tortured" to a point where
they'd
rather kill themselves and take down as many of their tormentors as
possible
than to go on living in hell.
I am glad you agree with me on this point.
YOu don't get it do you Guido?
I am Guelfo! Why can't you learn?
Calm down Guido. You'll hose your shorts..
When your freinds and relatives are being killed by American
soldiers?
Now, what about the classmates, brothers and sisters, parents,
uncles,
relatives of those 4 kids? Are they now "indoctrinated" to hate
the
Americans too? You bet they are. Guess who indocrinated
them?
Saddam Hussein's press. Their religeous leaders such as Muqtada
Al-Sadr.
Al Sadr's father was killed by Saddam. He is Shiite, enemy of
Saddams's
Sunnis.
And instead of being grateful to the Americans for getting rid of
Saddam
he
is opposing them.
He is opposing having his country invaded. Politics seems to be a little
bit
too complicated for you to get your childish little head around, dosn't
it
Guido?
Stop calling me Guido goddamit!
Yep, much too complicated for your little head, Guido.
It is madness!
See above..
I think Moqtada Al-Sadr is crazy!
Osama Bin Laden.
You name them.
So, Bin Laden is now active in Iraq recruiting "terrorists" is he
now?
Maybe they should be going after Bin Laden as a first priority,
don't
you
think?
That is what is going on in Afghanistan. With the help of the
Pakistanis.
BWAHAHAHA! Not gong AWFULLY well is it?
Because it isn't a simple task. Afghanistan is a huge, barren and rocky
country.
Yes, those poor soldiers. How many are siging up now for
military
service,
eh? How many National Guard reservists are looking to get off
the
list,
eh?
Why do you think they've resorted to hire professional contract
guards
at
$1,000 a day. Maybe a lot of those soldiers don't have it in
them
t
o
be
shooting at women and children. Why do you think they
especially
tortured
and mutlilated those professionals at the Euphrates?
I don't know what you're talking about.
I guess the anti-American propaganda has got to you.
It's in the press. Do some research. Do you think Blackwater
security
force works for free because they're such patriots?
When did they shoot women and children
It appears ignorance IS your problem. Iraq had nothing to do
with
911.
Saddam said 911 was a gift from Allah you fool!!
What do you think that means?
According to you, it means he did it?
It means he was happy with what happened. Which makes him an enemy of
the
US.
..which also means Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911. Typical Guido red
herring..
I don't think so. He was the legitimate president of Iraq and he shouldn't
have made such foolish comments.
Why don't you just admit Hussein had NOTHING to do with 11/9?
It gave the US excellent propaganda material.
You mean opportunity to lie?
No body knows for sure who were the real perpetrators of 911.
All
the
evidence have been wiped out. All you have is the videotaped
claim
of
a
former CIA operative by the name of Usama bin Laden.
I hope you aren't feeling nostalgia for Saddam Hussein's regime
are
you?
I think Americans might be nostalgic for those days. How would you
like
being called to defend your "freedom" and to prove your patriotism
by
being
shipped off to Iraq?
I would be honoured.
Join up then. You get automatic citizenship too. But you proved how much
of
a ***** you were when you backed down from me before..
I have never backed down from you punk!
Yep you did, you hid like a *****.
It is you who failed to turn up in Varese after having insulted me in the
cosyness of your home.
Nope, you failed to provide an address where I could contact you, after YOU
threatened me, your pencil necked weakling! Provide contact details or shut
the ***** up, Guido!
You are the one who backed down from me!
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Or would you rather vote for all the troops to come home and then
WHAM!
Nuke them all to Kingdom Come?
Of course not. Lets remember we are freeing these people from tyranny.
Freeing them from one, I wonder what new one they'll end up under?
It will be a democracy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Considering the leading secular party in Iraq is
teh communists, and I can't see them being allowed into power, I very much
doubt it.
Guess what the Prophecy of Armageddon says?
I don't know and I don't care.
At least we agree on something.
.
