posted by Liberal1984
My understanding is that POW’s have more rights than common criminals. Haven’t you ever heard of the IRA’s Dirty Cells Protests? [Edited by Don
Yes to both your statement about rights and the q. about dirty cells. I have always been embarrassed, nay disappointed, by the expressions of
contentment by otherwise good people over the real or perceived ill treatment of prisoners. I wonder to myself, how can anyone expect a person who is
treated poorly - like an animal in some cases - to act civilized when he is released back into the civilian life? Why is it regarded as desirable to
crush a person’s will? I do not understand that.
I respect criminals not because I want to coddle them, but because I want to be able to respect myself. I want to know I did right even if they did
“ . . Margaret Thatcher to publicly retort “we wouldn’t want to interfere with their human rights would we?”
I forget, did they call her the Iron Lady or was it the Iron Maiden?
“ . . It’s a bad idea because treating terrorists as POW’s or political prisoners will give them better rights or at the very least a huge
A “ . . huge psychological victory . . “? Au contraire, maltreatment is a weapon they use to arouse their sympathizers and to gain new recruits.
But again, it misses my point I urged above. It is my conclusion this concept is counter-productive.
“ . . I have more respect for someone who captured risking their life for a sovereign nation than I have for ether a pedophile, mugger, or terrorist
who abandons a bomb in a busy supermarket.”
It’s a new paradigm, L4. Asymmetric warfare. Look at the limit demonstrated by the US - say Coalition Forces since you are a Brit - in Iraq and the
just demo’d again in abbreviated style in Lebanon by the once vaunted IDF.
If terrorist did their up most to avoid civilian deaths then I might think again.
L4, are you Don Quixote in disguise? More than 15,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since March 18, 2003. Not by sandstorms either. More than 700
Lebanese civilians were killed by the IDF in 34 days or a rampage for which a war crimes trial would be held if the Israelis were Serbs and not
working under the umbrella of the US of A. Which puts them beyond justice. So why all this harshness on terrorists who are after all, using the weapon
of last resort, the only weapon available to the poor and dispossessed?
It’s a shame because I think they would be pleasantly surprised by how much public support a less terrifying type of terrorism could - would bring
I think you may have implied what I have said or am about to say. Without the suicide bombings of Israel by Palestinians, there would never be one
conversation anywhere in the world to give the Palestinians a state. Since 1967, Yitzhak Rabin was the only PM willing and capable of delivering
'Land for Peace.' Arafat, because of his own personal limitations and ambitions would not agree. But alas, Rabin was assassinated. How much
different the world would be today if it had been Arafat who died instead.
The Israeli occupation of the Temple Mount. The world flounders over this issue which is the 'Primo' issue for Muslims around the world. Until that
tiny piece of real estate is properly resolved, there will be an endless supply of radical Islamists to deal with.
[edit on 8/17/2006 by donwhite]