"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com...
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at the
same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
But that concerns once they are in custody of course.
So, you're saying that even if these 'illegal combatants' did follow the
conventions, they're not protected by them, because they're "illegal"?
Thats what I don't get... how can you expect them to follow the conventions
if they can't be assured the US will act in the same way? It's a slippery
slope... and since insurgents are "illegal", and the US army is a fully
fledged military outfit, shouldn't the US lead by example in this? If they
don't, they're committing war crimes...
There should be no killing of disarmed wounded terrorists, even if they
are illegal combatants, that is a rule of the Geneva convention.
Yet we see US soldiers doing this very thing on broadcast news...
They are not protected by it, but the rule of war protect everyone, even
if hey don't abide by it themselves, which they should.
Ahhh, the "rules of war" are part of the first geneva convention... so this
statement makes no sense...
It is because they don't abide by the rules of war that they are illegal
combatants.
and this somehow justifies the US not following the conventions? No, the US
have an obligation to follow the conventions, regardless of whether the
enemy is following them... this *is* a war, and the US agreed to abide by
these rules. They are violating their own signatures by not doing so...
The incentive is that if they abided by it, they would be protected by it.
Isn't that obvious?
They should follow it, but being the nutters they are, they disregard
them... The US on the other hand know that there are rules to be adhered to
and signed on to do so, yet the situation seem to be "we know about these
rules, but they're not playing by them, so neither will we...".
That's a cop out... taking the moral high ground, and then stoopping to the
enemy's level is the *weasel* way of doing things... yes, the *weasel* way.
Bla bla bla, as usual.
Read the Geneva convention and get a clue.
I don't see anything in there saying that it's OK to disregard them when
engaging "illegal combatants"... what's up with that?
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
17 Nov 2004 09:48:21 PM |
|
|
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com...
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at the
same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
But that concerns once they are in custody of course.
So, you're saying that even if these 'illegal combatants' did follow the
conventions, they're not protected by them, because they're "illegal"?
Thats what I don't get... how can you expect them to follow the conventions
if they can't be assured the US will act in the same way? It's a slippery
slope... and since insurgents are "illegal", and the US army is a fully
fledged military outfit, shouldn't the US lead by example in this? If they
don't, they're committing war crimes...
No, I am saying that the US is accountable to the law of engagement. And
that the insurgents never comply with them.
[snip blablabla]
(I will save you, well, me, on myself in fact, the repetitions)
First it is the FOURTH Geneva convention that is in effect now, the
Geneva convention always applies in combat even to these illegal
combatants who do not respect them, but once they are taken out, they
are not protected by it, that is their rights and privileges are not the
same, but they still HAVE to be treated humanely.
This is part of the Geneva convention, that even if they have NO
protection under it, they still have to have the minimum basic human
rights applied.
Indeed we see here, in a combat zone, that this DIDN'T happen that one
time, well, apparently a couple more times elsewhere not under the eyes
of a camera; THESE are violation of the military code.
The insurgents have no military code, they kill innocents civilians, but
that doesn't excuse these 2-3 individuals on the coalition side who do
have to abide by that code. If it is understandable that they would want
to do to them the same rules that the pieces of ***** terrorists abide
by, barbarism, it is not justifiable. They can't. They will be
investigated and court marshaled if found in violation.
The terrorists are still doing ten times worst (in term of the Geneva
convention) would be, are, cheered by these losers, they are not
punished, it is their modus operandi to violate the geneva convention.
Bottom line, even if they are not afforded any protection under the
Geneva convention, the geneva convention still mention that under these
circumstances they have to be treated humanely, with basic human needs.
This was indeed APPARENTLY (pending investigation) not the case. And the
two others reported as well. These guys were relieved of duty. These
couple of individuals (if found guilty) are indeed no better than EACH
and ALL of the local terrorists / foreign fighters, who never abide by
it and would never be punished by their peers.
Big difference.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
17 Nov 2004 11:04:22 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:9YUmd.4691332$ic1.447601@news.easynews.com...
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com...
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at
the same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
But that concerns once they are in custody of course.
So, you're saying that even if these 'illegal combatants' did follow the
conventions, they're not protected by them, because they're "illegal"?
Thats what I don't get... how can you expect them to follow the
conventions if they can't be assured the US will act in the same way?
It's a slippery slope... and since insurgents are "illegal", and the US
army is a fully fledged military outfit, shouldn't the US lead by example
in this? If they don't, they're committing war crimes...
No, I am saying that the US is accountable to the law of engagement. And
that the insurgents never comply with them.
[snip blablabla]
(I will save you, well, me, on myself in fact, the repetitions)
First it is the FOURTH Geneva convention that is in effect now, the Geneva
convention always applies in combat even to these illegal combatants who
do not respect them, but once they are taken out, they are not protected
by it, that is their rights and privileges are not the same, but they
still HAVE to be treated humanely.
This is part of the Geneva convention, that even if they have NO
protection under it, they still have to have the minimum basic human
rights applied.
Indeed we see here, in a combat zone, that this DIDN'T happen that one
time, well, apparently a couple more times elsewhere not under the eyes of
a camera; THESE are violation of the military code.
The insurgents have no military code, they kill innocents civilians, but
that doesn't excuse these 2-3 individuals on the coalition side who do
have to abide by that code. If it is understandable that they would want
to do to them the same rules that the pieces of ***** terrorists abide by,
barbarism, it is not justifiable. They can't. They will be investigated
and court marshaled if found in violation.
The terrorists are still doing ten times worst (in term of the Geneva
convention) would be, are, cheered by these losers, they are not punished,
it is their modus operandi to violate the geneva convention.
Bottom line, even if they are not afforded any protection under the Geneva
convention, the geneva convention still mention that under these
circumstances they have to be treated humanely, with basic human needs.
This was indeed APPARENTLY (pending investigation) not the case. And the
two others reported as well. These guys were relieved of duty. These
couple of individuals (if found guilty) are indeed no better than EACH and
ALL of the local terrorists / foreign fighters, who never abide by it and
would never be punished by their peers.
Good answer... So why no investigation into the Pentagon, as to why
pictures of the bodies of Saddam's sons were released to the media? And
what about the *inhumane* (are you going to argue that sensory deprivation,
or a cell the size of a mattress is humane?) conditions at Guantanamo?
They're cut and dry violations of the conventions...
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that it's hypocritical of you to complain
about Iraqi insurgents not following the conventions, while defending the US
for their (completely public) violations of them.
Oh, and by the way, it's refreshing to be able to hear(read) you communicate
without refering to someones ***** in some way... Thank you
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
17 Nov 2004 11:49:21 PM |
|
|
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:9YUmd.4691332$ic1.447601@news.easynews.com...
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com...
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at
the same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
But that concerns once they are in custody of course.
So, you're saying that even if these 'illegal combatants' did follow the
conventions, they're not protected by them, because they're "illegal"?
Thats what I don't get... how can you expect them to follow the
conventions if they can't be assured the US will act in the same way?
It's a slippery slope... and since insurgents are "illegal", and the US
army is a fully fledged military outfit, shouldn't the US lead by example
in this? If they don't, they're committing war crimes...
No, I am saying that the US is accountable to the law of engagement. And
that the insurgents never comply with them.
[snip blablabla]
(I will save you, well, me, on myself in fact, the repetitions)
First it is the FOURTH Geneva convention that is in effect now, the Geneva
convention always applies in combat even to these illegal combatants who
do not respect them, but once they are taken out, they are not protected
by it, that is their rights and privileges are not the same, but they
still HAVE to be treated humanely.
This is part of the Geneva convention, that even if they have NO
protection under it, they still have to have the minimum basic human
rights applied.
Indeed we see here, in a combat zone, that this DIDN'T happen that one
time, well, apparently a couple more times elsewhere not under the eyes of
a camera; THESE are violation of the military code.
The insurgents have no military code, they kill innocents civilians, but
that doesn't excuse these 2-3 individuals on the coalition side who do
have to abide by that code. If it is understandable that they would want
to do to them the same rules that the pieces of ***** terrorists abide by,
barbarism, it is not justifiable. They can't. They will be investigated
and court marshaled if found in violation.
The terrorists are still doing ten times worst (in term of the Geneva
convention) would be, are, cheered by these losers, they are not punished,
it is their modus operandi to violate the geneva convention.
Bottom line, even if they are not afforded any protection under the Geneva
convention, the geneva convention still mention that under these
circumstances they have to be treated humanely, with basic human needs.
This was indeed APPARENTLY (pending investigation) not the case. And the
two others reported as well. These guys were relieved of duty. These
couple of individuals (if found guilty) are indeed no better than EACH and
ALL of the local terrorists / foreign fighters, who never abide by it and
would never be punished by their peers.
Good answer... So why no investigation into the Pentagon, as to why
pictures of the bodies of Saddam's sons were released to the media?
no need to.
And
what about the *inhumane* (are you going to argue that sensory deprivation,
or a cell the size of a mattress is humane?) conditions at Guantanamo?
They're cut and dry violations of the conventions...
Not inhumane by the geneva convention standards for illegal combatants.
So you lie. to kiss up to your fellow terrorists. Big deal.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that it's hypocritical of you to complain
about Iraqi insurgents not following the conventions, while defending the US
for their (completely public) violations of them.
Yes, that is another one of your lies.
Oh, and by the way, it's refreshing to be able to hear(read) you communicate
without refering to someones ***** in some way... Thank you
Bah, when I do, it is because it is all they deserve, deal with it.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 04:15:02 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon wrote:
....
No, I am saying that the US is accountable to the law of engagement.
And that the insurgents never comply with them.
[snip blablabla]
(I will save you, well, me, on myself in fact, the repetitions)
First it is the FOURTH Geneva convention that is in effect now, the
Geneva convention always applies in combat even to these illegal
combatants who do not respect them, but once they are taken out,
they are not protected by it, that is their rights and privileges
are not the same, but they still HAVE to be treated humanely.
This is part of the Geneva convention, that even if they have NO
protection under it, they still have to have the minimum basic human
rights applied.
Indeed we see here, in a combat zone, that this DIDN'T happen that
one time, well, apparently a couple more times elsewhere not under
the eyes of a camera; THESE are violation of the military code.
The insurgents have no military code, they kill innocents civilians,
but that doesn't excuse these 2-3 individuals on the coalition side
who do have to abide by that code. If it is understandable that they
would want to do to them the same rules that the pieces of *****
terrorists abide by, barbarism, it is not justifiable. They can't.
They will be investigated and court marshaled if found in violation.
The terrorists are still doing ten times worst (in term of the
Geneva convention) would be, are, cheered by these losers, they are
not punished, it is their modus operandi to violate the geneva
convention.
Bottom line, even if they are not afforded any protection under the
Geneva convention, the geneva convention still mention that under
these circumstances they have to be treated humanely, with basic
human needs. This was indeed APPARENTLY (pending investigation) not
the case. And the two others reported as well. These guys were
relieved of duty. These couple of individuals (if found guilty) are
indeed no better than EACH and ALL of the local terrorists / foreign
fighters, who never abide by it and would never be punished by their
peers.
Good answer... So why no investigation into the Pentagon, as to why
pictures of the bodies of Saddam's sons were released to the media?
no need to.
So the US is above the conventions? That was clearly a violation... you
didn't even try to deny it, yet it's all OK because it was Bush's people
who did it. Hypocrisy
And what about the *inhumane* (are you going to argue that sensory
deprivation, or a cell the size of a mattress is humane?) conditions
at Guantanamo? They're cut and dry violations of the conventions...
Not inhumane by the geneva convention standards for illegal combatants.
So you lie. to kiss up to your fellow terrorists. Big deal.
You fool! You just said that even if they are not covered by the Geneva
convention, they are still expected to be treated humanely... Are you
trying to say that these conditions are humane?
And yet again, since you can't argue my arguments with facts, you label
me as a terrorist supporter, because that makes it easier for you to
deal with having your beliefs challenged. You think you just dismiss
whatever I say, simply because you accuse me of being a 'terrorist
supporter'... it's akin to a 3 year old sticking his fingers in his ears
and yelling "LALALALALALA, I can't hear you!".
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that it's hypocritical of you to
complain about Iraqi insurgents not following the conventions, while
defending the US for their (completely public) violations of them.
Yes, that is another one of your lies.
How is that a lie? It's an opinion, and it's still supported by your 2
faced approach to the Geneva conventions. Hypocrisy
Oh, and by the way, it's refreshing to be able to hear(read) you
communicate without refering to someones ***** in some way... Thank you
Bah, when I do, it is because it is all they deserve, deal with it.
No, I'm beginning to think you just like to talk about anuses... it
seems to be a past time for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 10:25:26 PM |
|
|
Aidan a écrit:
Jean Guernon wrote:
...
No, I am saying that the US is accountable to the law of engagement.
And that the insurgents never comply with them.
[snip blablabla]
(I will save you, well, me, on myself in fact, the repetitions)
First it is the FOURTH Geneva convention that is in effect now, the
Geneva convention always applies in combat even to these illegal
combatants who do not respect them, but once they are taken out,
they are not protected by it, that is their rights and privileges
are not the same, but they still HAVE to be treated humanely.
This is part of the Geneva convention, that even if they have NO
protection under it, they still have to have the minimum basic human
rights applied.
Indeed we see here, in a combat zone, that this DIDN'T happen that
one time, well, apparently a couple more times elsewhere not under
the eyes of a camera; THESE are violation of the military code.
The insurgents have no military code, they kill innocents civilians,
but that doesn't excuse these 2-3 individuals on the coalition side
who do have to abide by that code. If it is understandable that they
would want to do to them the same rules that the pieces of *****
terrorists abide by, barbarism, it is not justifiable. They can't.
They will be investigated and court marshaled if found in violation.
The terrorists are still doing ten times worst (in term of the
Geneva convention) would be, are, cheered by these losers, they are
not punished, it is their modus operandi to violate the geneva
convention.
Bottom line, even if they are not afforded any protection under the
Geneva convention, the geneva convention still mention that under
these circumstances they have to be treated humanely, with basic
human needs. This was indeed APPARENTLY (pending investigation) not
the case. And the two others reported as well. These guys were
relieved of duty. These couple of individuals (if found guilty) are
indeed no better than EACH and ALL of the local terrorists / foreign
fighters, who never abide by it and would never be punished by their
peers.
Good answer... So why no investigation into the Pentagon, as to why
pictures of the bodies of Saddam's sons were released to the media?
no need to.
So the US is above the conventions? That was clearly a violation... you
didn't even try to deny it, yet it's all OK because it was Bush's people
who did it. Hypocrisy
*****. Parading a prisoner or some mutilated individual by Muslims
murderers have NOTHING to do with proving the death of someone.
You are an IDIOT.
And what about the *inhumane* (are you going to argue that sensory
deprivation, or a cell the size of a mattress is humane?) conditions
at Guantanamo? They're cut and dry violations of the conventions...
Not inhumane by the geneva convention standards for illegal combatants.
So you lie. to kiss up to your fellow terrorists. Big deal.
You fool! You just said that even if they are not covered by the Geneva
convention, they are still expected to be treated humanely... Are you
trying to say that these conditions are humane?
What you call sensory deprivation is them having their minimum
requirements needed plus their religious request, and no right to
communication with each others or a lawyer, which is consistent with
article 5 of the convention given their status.
And yet again, since you can't argue my arguments with facts, you label
me as a terrorist supporter, because that makes it easier for you to
deal with having your beliefs challenged. You think you just dismiss
whatever I say, simply because you accuse me of being a 'terrorist
supporter'... it's akin to a 3 year old sticking his fingers in his ears
and yelling "LALALALALALA, I can't hear you!".
Who care what you ignorant ***** pretend to believe, You either know the
truth and you are a liar, or you are an ignorant *****.
Either way, get a clue. Read the convention if you are sincere, and if
not, know that you can't fool anyone with your propaganda lies here. You
need to go elsewhere for that.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that it's hypocritical of you to
complain about Iraqi insurgents not following the conventions, while
defending the US for their (completely public) violations of them.
Yes, that is another one of your lies.
How is that a lie? It's an opinion, and it's still supported by your 2
faced approach to the Geneva conventions. Hypocrisy
Nah, there is one approach, and the insurgent are NOT protected by the
geneva convention because they don't abide by it. They are lucky
bastards that the US does.
Yes there are 3 incidents under investigation, but it is not their M.O.,
unlike the Muslim, pieces of *****.
Oh, and by the way, it's refreshing to be able to hear(read) you
communicate without refering to someones ***** in some way... Thank you
Bah, when I do, it is because it is all they deserve, deal with it.
No, I'm beginning to think you just like to talk about anuses... it
seems to be a past time for you.
Well, dream on my friend. I wouldn't use that language if there were
anything pleasant about it. Only an idiot cannot see that. And I see you
are one.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
