Hey GNL

Gotnolegs said:
Why are you so clear on the fact that all of them were combatants despite all of the conflicting evidence?

I never said ALL of them were combatants. I said the most of them were combatants. ;)
 
Gotnolegs said:
Please tell me I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick because that looks like you are saying you've been in the same situation?

Sorry, I missed it you saying that. Was it in a different thread? I can't find it here.

How do they violate international law btw?




the attacks they made on us were not in time of war. that violates international law. who they have targeted(both sides). and yes I have mentioned it in numerous places on here. I have defended my side too mcuh have a nice fukcing day
 
freako104 said:
the attacks they made on us were not in time of war. that violates international law. who they have targeted(both sides). and yes I have mentioned it in numerous places on here. I have defended my side too mcuh have a nice fukcing day

I can only assume you mean that these people are being held because of the attacks on the US. The people in custody were all captured in and around Afghanistan, they have not been proven to be linked to the 9/11 attacks in any way.

Show me where you mentioned it in this thread and I will happily apologise, it was in fact a serious question.

Also if this has in fact happened to you then I apologise unreservedly. If it hasn't and that wasn't what you mean then explain to me what you did mean and I'll apologise again.
 
Gotnolegs said:
Why are you so clear on the fact that all of them were combatants despite all of the conflicting evidence?

Maybe because they were found with the enemy & they weren't wearing red crosses. I find it very unlikely we went to Melbourbne or Manchester & kidnapped them from their places of employment.
 
Gonz said:
Maybe because they were found with the enemy & they weren't wearing red crosses. I find it very unlikely we went to Melbourbne or Manchester & kidnapped them from their places of employment.

So we can take it as read that because these people were in and around Afghanistan/Iraq they are terrorists.

Maybe they all had WMDs too...
 
If they were playing with the terrorists, then yes, you may assume that.
 
Gonz said:
If they were playing with the terrorists, then yes, you may assume that.

Most of those "playing with the terrorists" weren't even Afghanis. The Afghani's openly distrusted most of the Taliban government even as they followed those laws. They called most of them "Arabs".

One important question, though. If those people captured in Afghanistan from foreign countries were there peacefully, what were they doing supporting the Taliban? If they were not supporting the Taliban, then why didn't they do something to help the US out?
 
Gato_Solo said:
One important question, though. If those people captured in Afghanistan from foreign countries were there peacefully, what were they doing supporting the Taliban? If they were not supporting the Taliban, then why didn't they do something to help the US out?

So they are guilty because they were there?

They deserve to be locked up without trial for an indefinite length of time because they didn't help the US?

Like I have tried to say before, try them for whatever crimes they have commited or let them go. It really is that simple.
 
Gotnolegs said:
So they are guilty because they were there?

They deserve to be locked up without trial for an indefinite length of time because they didn't help the US?

Like I have tried to say before, try them for whatever crimes they have commited or let them go. It really is that simple.

Not exactly. They are not guilty because they were there, but they are guilty of giving aid and/or comfort to our enemy. That is why they are locked up (although not indefinitely...just til we've waded through this 'war').
 
Gotnolegs said:
I can only assume you mean that these people are being held because of the attacks on the US. The people in custody were all captured in and around Afghanistan, they have not been proven to be linked to the 9/11 attacks in any way.

Show me where you mentioned it in this thread and I will happily apologise, it was in fact a serious question.

Also if this has in fact happened to you then I apologise unreservedly. If it hasn't and that wasn't what you mean then explain to me what you did mean and I'll apologise again.



i said there are reasons they are imprisoned. where did i say i wasnt taking it seriously? I was sick of apologising for my views on this. thats why I said i defended it too much. you know where I stand most of the time. Is it a problem if I take a different view on something else?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Not exactly. They are not guilty because they were there, but they are guilty of giving aid and/or comfort to our enemy. That is why they are locked up (although not indefinitely...just til we've waded through this 'war').

Does the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?

Until it is proven otherwise they are guilty of NOTHING at all. If they are guilty why the hell is your government so unwilling to put them on trial?

Also who are you at war with?
 
freako104 said:
i said there are reasons they are imprisoned. where did i say i wasnt taking it seriously? I was sick of apologising for my views on this. thats why I said i defended it too much. you know where I stand most of the time. Is it a problem if I take a different view on something else?

It is no problem at all, no-one is asking you to defend your views, just explain them in more detail, sorry if you took my comments personally, they weren't mean that way.
 
Gotnolegs said:
Does the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?

Until it is proven otherwise they are guilty of NOTHING at all. If they are guilty why the hell is your government so unwilling to put them on trial?

Also who are you at war with?

Innocent until proven guilty is a peace-time thing. The fact is that they were captured in enmy territory, and as such there really is no need to put them on trial at all. It's been like that in every war since time began. Get over it. ;) I'm sorry some of your countrymen got caught up in this, but that's just too bad at this point. Once this is over, and we have time to sift through the rubble, we can be magnanimous and let people go, but, until then, people out of uniform who shoot at US soldiers, or give aid and comfort to the enemies of the US will be treated just as those folks in Guantanamo Bay.
 
I didn't think you were technically at war with anyone? Plus the fact that that only applies to POWs which these people are quite blatantly not.
 
Gotnolegs said:
I didn't think you were technically at war with anyone? Plus the fact that that only applies to POWs which these people are quite blatantly not.

I think you should look up some more things about civilians, enemy combatants, and uniformed soldiers before you start using the POW line. Uniformed enemy soldiers are POW's when they surrender or are captured. The uniform can be as little as a scarf tied around one arm, provided that everyone in that group wears the same color scarf on the same arm. Hence the term uniform, and the inherant rights under the Geneva Convention for uniformed soldiers. Un-uniformed soldiers are not accorded the same rights as uniformed because there is no way of telling them apart from the civilian population. If the US would have arrested and detained everyone in Afghanistan, you'd have an extremely good argument, but, since most Afghani's are still running around loose in their own country, your argument starts to fray at the edges. The soldiers who are in Afghanistan are not police. They take fire from house A, they have 2 choices. Level house A, or turn and run. If house A is being led by house B, then they have a third option. Take everyone in house B prisoner, then house A can be taken without destroying their real-estate. War isn't nice, and the situation that the US is in isn't nice, either. We are fighting an enemy that doesn't follow the rules of engagement, or the Laws of Armed Conflict. We do, so to minimize the deaths of thousands, we take a few hundred prisoner. Law, lawyers, and testimony comes later. Always has. The US has treated every prisoner, if not perfectly, at least better than they had lived before in Afghanistan where they were captured. Get off your high horse, and take a good look at the world around you. It's ugly right now, to be sure, but when the dust settles, it'll still be here, spinning it's way through time and space, and people like me, who've actually seen some of the things you only read about, will still be here, too. Shout until you're blue in the face, but it won't change anything. Until you're willing to do something, then jobs like mine, and people like me, will always be here.
 
Gato_Solo said:
I think you should look up some more things about civilians, enemy combatants, and uniformed soldiers before you start using the POW line. Uniformed enemy soldiers are POW's when they surrender or are captured. The uniform can be as little as a scarf tied around one arm, provided that everyone in that group wears the same color scarf on the same arm. Hence the term uniform, and the inherant rights under the Geneva Convention for uniformed soldiers. Un-uniformed soldiers are not accorded the same rights as uniformed because there is no way of telling them apart from the civilian population. If the US would have arrested and detained everyone in Afghanistan, you'd have an extremely good argument, but, since most Afghani's are still running around loose in their own country, your argument starts to fray at the edges. The soldiers who are in Afghanistan are not police. They take fire from house A, they have 2 choices. Level house A, or turn and run. If house A is being led by house B, then they have a third option. Take everyone in house B prisoner, then house A can be taken without destroying their real-estate. War isn't nice, and the situation that the US is in isn't nice, either. We are fighting an enemy that doesn't follow the rules of engagement, or the Laws of Armed Conflict. We do, so to minimize the deaths of thousands, we take a few hundred prisoner. Law, lawyers, and testimony comes later. Always has. The US has treated every prisoner, if not perfectly, at least better than they had lived before in Afghanistan where they were captured. Get off your high horse, and take a good look at the world around you. It's ugly right now, to be sure, but when the dust settles, it'll still be here, spinning it's way through time and space, and people like me, who've actually seen some of the things you only read about, will still be here, too. Shout until you're blue in the face, but it won't change anything. Until you're willing to do something, then jobs like mine, and people like me, will always be here.

Two points, firstly we have no evidence that these people were in any way combatants however much you tell me they are, even you yourself have said that you don't think they all were.

Secondly I'd say I'm not the only person who needs to check out all their facts before they speak.

25112462 Private Austwick - 212 West Yorkshire Field Hospital
 
Gotnolegs said:
Two points, firstly we have no evidence that these people were in any way combatants however much you tell me they are, even you yourself have said that you don't think they all were.

Secondly I'd say I'm not the only person who needs to check out all their facts before they speak.

25112462 Private Austwick - 212 West Yorkshire Field Hospital

Did I say you weren't military? I stated a fact. That's all. Since you are military, I'm going to give you even less slack. You can question orders, you can question motives, and you can question results, but when it all comes down to the bitter end, you can't question reactions. They are either good, or bad. No middle ground, no grey area, and no political statements. At this moment, the US is reacting to a real and dangerous enemy. We don't know exactly who, and who is not, our enemy, nor do we know who is actually 100% for us in this world. In this, though, you can be certain. This action won't take forever, and, once it is over, there may be no clear winner, but the innocent will be compensated and released, and the guilty, no matter how they may hide, will be punished. You may not like the way the 'war' is going, and you may not like the hand that life has dealt you, but you've got to play it just the same, and make the best of it. Your personal sacrifice for your country and Queen is admirable, but my service to my country is just as admirable. I don't know what you did in the service of the crown, but I do know this...the only side anybody is ever on is their own.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Did I say you weren't military? I stated a fact. That's all. Since you are military, I'm going to give you even less slack. You can question orders, you can question motives, and you can question results, but when it all comes down to the bitter end, you can't question reactions. They are either good, or bad. No middle ground, no grey area, and no political statements. At this moment, the US is reacting to a real and dangerous enemy. We don't know exactly who, and who is not, our enemy, nor do we know who is actually 100% for us in this world. In this, though, you can be certain. This action won't take forever, and, once it is over, there may be no clear winner, but the innocent will be compensated and released, and the guilty, no matter how they may hide, will be punished. You may not like the way the 'war' is going, and you may not like the hand that life has dealt you, but you've got to play it just the same, and make the best of it. Your personal sacrifice for your country and Queen is admirable, but my service to my country is just as admirable. I don't know what you did in the service of the crown, but I do know this...the only side anybody is ever on is their own.

You never actually told me who you are at war with.
 
Back
Top