U.S. ARMY to Delete Geneva Protocols

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
They don't have to play by our rules. We are in their country. We should be abiding by their rules and adopting their culture and customs. We have no right to go into their home and dictate to them how they are to do things.

Then it is OK to sit by and watch as hundreds of thousands of innocent people are butchered as long as they stay inside their border. Is that not what you are saying?

Jessie Jackson

A man who steals money from his own charity to support his mistress as he cheats on his wife is a reliable source?

Those are the actions of someone who is either a brownshirt or has nothing to backup their argument. I respect the people and their culture and don't lump in the extremeist in with the average person.

What is a brownshirt. Where I grew up that refered to a man who wore work clothes and did real labor and did not wear a suit and tie. I hope thats not what you meant? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Don't you think people who are being terrorized and slaughtered by extremists in their society would welcome help in removing these evil vile thugs from their lives? Is it "moral" to sit by and watch as your neighbors are slaughtered just because they are doing it inside of their own borders? Is it right to let a group of local thugs to rule a society by force and intimidation and justify it by claiming they are acting under the authority of some bastardised religion?



I am unable to get these quotes to work right. I do not know why. I'm not doing anything different. Is this a bug in the new system????????
Hopefully everyone can figure out what was said by who.

I give up. This thing is placing quotes where none exist????????????????
finaly got it sorry

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Blaine91555]

brown shirts were hitlers storm troopers used to terrorize his opponants (and jews) during his rise to power and were destroyed in the night of long knives after they had outlived their usefullness.

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
Again, your ignorance and arrogance is showing. They don't have to play by our rules.

Then why do you make ridiculous statements such as

They have given up "trying" to play by our rules and are striking back in the only way they know.

Your ignorance is showing, your argument is weak, and you cannot defend it.

We are in their country. We should be abiding by their rules and adopting their culture and customs.

Once again, do you mean that we should accept beheading as "culture"?

And it is very disingenuous of you to lump all African-Americans under the same umbrella. Who are you to act as their spokesman?

Yet it's okay for YOU to lump in all of Islam under one umbrella. Nice double standard. Always a bench mark of the uniformed

I challenge you to show where I lumped all of Islam under one umbrella.

On the other hand, I can point out the hypocrisy whereby you lumped all African-Americans under the same umbrella.

And please don't put words in my mouth. Those are the actions of someone who is either a brownshirt or has nothing to backup their argument.

The last refuge of the loser...resort to personal attacks. You are sad.:shk:

Originally posted by jsobecky
The last refuge of the loser...resort to personal attacks. You are sad.:shk:

Then:

Then why do you make ridiculous statements such as....

Also:

Your ignorance is showing, your argument is weak, and you cannot defend it.

Pot/kettle, meet each other. :shk:

You guys should try thinking, it actually produces results and revelations.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Then it is OK to sit by and watch as hundreds of thousands of innocent people are butchered as long as they stay inside their border. Is that not what you are saying?

No, that is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that we do have to respect their cultural standard, even if some of it is distasteful to us. There is a limit to that as you pointed out, but that is an extremely slipperly slope to get involved in. As soon as you stick your nose in one country then you must do the same elsewhere.

Now using your logic, why is the United States not in Somalia and Sudan? There have been more deaths, and the situation there is much more dire, than it has been in Iraq in the past decade. Why Iraq? If indeed the issue is as you suggest, why did Bush41 not take out Hussein when he had the chance in 1991? It is this contradiction that taht annoys me. Why the change in policy? And if there is a change in policy, why not go where the greatest amount of misery and oppression exists?

A man who steals money from his own charity to support his mistress as he cheats on his wife is a reliable source?

On the African American experience, yes, he most certainly is. I do not like Jackson at all, but the work he has done for his race is well respected amongst his people.

What is a brownshirt.

A fascist. Hitler's brownshirts were very skilled at putting words in people's mouths and then dragging them off to be shot.

Don't you think people who are being terrorized and slaughtered by extremists in their society would welcome help in removing these evil vile thugs from their lives?

Certainly, if they ask for our help. You're forgetting that a lot of these "vile thugs" are there because of our presence.

Is it "moral" to sit by and watch as your neighbors are slaughtered just because they are doing it inside of their own borders? Is it right to let a group of local thugs to rule a society by force and intimidation and justify it by claiming they are acting under the authority of some bastardised religion?

Ironic that we are not only NOT helping the people of Somalia but our government is also SUPPORTING the thugs in that country. Why are we not "doing the right thing" there? Consistency is extremely important, and our government has not displayed any of that. What about the hundreds of thousands of people in those two countries being slaughtered?

What does any of that have to do with topic at hand?
This thread is about the removal of the Geneva protocols.

What really needs to be cleared up is the definition of humiliating and degrading practices.

Being interrogated by a women is humiliating and degrading to Muslims. Should this practice be banned?

What about sleep deprivation? I went through Special Forces Assessment and had a dose of sleep deprivation, it was part of the training. If it is good enough for our troops during training, why isn't it good enough for the enemy?

I was never a big fan of the Geneva Convention. A country that plays by the rules is put at a disadvantage going against countries or organizations that don't.

Can someone tell me when Al-Queda signed the Geneva Convention?

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Carseller4]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Carseller4]

I don't know I'm not an interrogator nor have I received special forces training but I'm pretty sure that there is a big difference between training and real life.
Your not a big fan of the Geneva convention? I'm sorry but I'm not a big fan of my country going around using torture, even if it's to protect me.

Why stop there, intrepid? We are not supposed to react to statements such as these?

Again, your ignorance and arrogance is showing.

Those are the actions of someone who is either a brownshirt or has nothing to backup their argument.

Always a bench mark of the uniformed.

If you anticipated it, why make the ignorant statement then?

They all happened prior to the statements you attribute to me. Why didn't you jump in when those statements were initially made?

But hey, thanks for point out my indiscretions. I can always count on you to do that.

Originally posted by Carseller4
What really needs to be cleared up is the definition of humiliating and degrading practices.

Being interrogated by a women is humiliating and degrading to Muslims. Should this practice be banned?

What about sleep deprivation? I went through Special Forces Assessment and had a dose of sleep deprivation, it was part of the training. If it is good enough for our troops during training, why isn't it good enough for the enemy?

There is no accepted definition of what is deemed humiliating. As I pointed out in an earlier response:

Suggesting to a suspected insurgent that he is "not man enough" to have set an improvised explosive device sometimes elicits a full description of how they emplaced the bomb, soldiers say.

The Pentagon worries that if Article 3 were incorporated in the directive, detainees could use it to argue in U.S. courts that such techniques violate their personal dignity.

I can understand why the Pentagon would want to have this clarified, or eliminated. Otherwise, detainees could be offended and humiliated by the color of your shoes, or something as simple.

Sorry, this thread is founded on an obvious misunderstanding of the wording of the GC.

The GC is ONLY applicable to two or more sovereign nations that have declared war.

This is not the case here and the convention does not apply as much as some of you would like for it to, it was never meant to in situations such as this.

So let me see if I understand what your saying. Just because someone is not part of a regular armed forces they are not worthy to have international protection from torture or dehumanization?
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that argument. If two or more groups are taking part in a conflict the prisoners from all groups should have rights no matter how inconvenient it is.
Remember we are at war with an evil force, you don't defeat evil by becoming evil.
peace
Mr Mx

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
So let me see if I understand what your saying. Just because someone is not part of a regular armed forces they are not worthy to have international protection from torture or dehumanization?
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that argument. If two or more groups are taking part in a conflict the prisoners from all groups should have rights no matter how inconvenient it is.
Remember we are at war with an evil force, you don't defeat evil by becoming evil.
peace
Mr Mx

I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Mxyztplk....this notion of picking and choosing who we treat decently as POWs and who we don't is obscene...ALL acts of war are acts of terror and wars are only more or less justified, not right. Every soldier is a terrorist to the terrorized populous caught in the middle. Wars may at sometime or the other be justified but that doesn't mean they are noble or just, that is just propaganda to make the ones doing the killing feel better. I am not a pacifist, I know that there are times you have to fight, but it should always be as a matter of last resort and not a matter of choice, it should NEVER be glorified, but if we have to fight, at least be as decent as the indecency of war will allow.

You are correct in my opinion, with one small adaptation.

If a Terrorist is caught, after he is interrogated, he should be marched out in the square in front of all of his patriots, and shot in the head.

whatever happened to presumed inocent until proven guilty. Like it or not that is not how we do things (or should do) things in this country. The rule of law has to apply to all, even non-citizens and terrorists, if it is to ever be applied equally to all. Kangaroo counts and summery asissnations are the other guys ways of doing things, not ours. Besides all that freedom fighter/terrorist/insurgent/soldier are all interchangeable on one level or the other. Did the people at Mi Lai care what you called those soldiers who were slaughtering them? No they were oo busy being terrorized. All war is evil, even the "good" ones.

The Geneva Convention is very detailed as to who it applies and whom it does not. Articla 4 lays out those requirements, and the Muslim terrorists most definatelt do NOT fit into those requirements. That includes those at Abu Garaib, Guantanamo, etc. Sorry..... the rules are the rules.

".... why did Bush41 not take out Hussein when he had the chance in 1991?

REPLY: Because he mistakenly decided to go along with the wishes of the most corrupt and inept organization in the world; the United Nations. They called for a cease fire, which we went along with. In that light, the war we are now in is not a 'new' war, it is merely the continuation of the first.

Originally posted by zappafan1
".... why did Bush41 not take out Hussein when he had the chance in 1991?

REPLY: Because he mistakenly decided to go along with the wishes of the most corrupt and inept organization in the world; the United Nations. They called for a cease fire, which we went along with. In that light, the war we are now in is not a 'new' war, it is merely the continuation of the first.

Well thank you for coming in and showing that you know nothing about history. Bush I stopped the operation desert storm because the objective had been met, and a little thing called “The High-way of Death”. Not because of a UN decision to halt.
Look into it. Here a page to start.
deoxy.org...

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Originally posted by zappafan1
".... why did Bush41 not take out Hussein when he had the chance in 1991?

REPLY: Because he mistakenly decided to go along with the wishes of the most corrupt and inept organization in the world; the United Nations. They called for a cease fire, which we went along with. In that light, the war we are now in is not a 'new' war, it is merely the continuation of the first.

Well thank you for coming in and showing that you know nothing about history. Bush I stopped the operation desert storm because the objective had been met, and a little thing called “The High-way of Death”. Not because of a UN decision to halt.
Look into it. Here a page to start.
deoxy.org...

YOU are the one who needs to check out the UN decisions; it was a cease fire.

My post, above, relates to this thread because the Geneva Conventions do not apply to certain enemies, as mentioned, so it IS relevant, whether it goes along with your beliefs or not. Sorry.

Ummm. I'm pretty sure that it was an American decision to end the war, with the US stopping the UN went along and wrote up a cease fire, they had little choice the US made up the bulk of the allied army.
And in what way is this relevant to the on going discussion?