Why I love rags

freako104 said:
If it were condensed Gato then If you do noting you are part of the problem. the old adage comes to mind
Click to expand...


Accurate, but not exactly. I mean that if you choose no side, you hinder both sides.
 
Oz said:
"Rag" is the nickname given to any paper that the reader doesn't agree with :)
Click to expand...

Thanks OZ.... I'm getting itchy fingers, and the idea that Gonz would use a racial term threw me off. I may not agree with what he says, but I respect him enough to ask first before jumping on him.

Do carry on with your arguement folx...it's not like I havn't heard it all before...there won't be any trouble with me catching up in a day or so.
 
Ya'll are funny.

The only thing that needs clarifying/responsding to is;

a rag is a paper with a less than reputable history (tabloids like the Mirror or our Nat'l Enquirer)...the story is bullshit & the Times are fools for even looking twice at it.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Okay...back to square one and the Geneva Convention...

If I'm taking fire from an unknown source, and have a chance to capture anybody in the area, that's what I'm going to do. The Geneva convention is clear on this...

1. Uniforms. Any person captured who may have been shooting must be in uniform to get POW treatment. If they aren't, and we can 'prove' they were shooting, then we can shoot them out of hand. Unfortunately, if there are'nt proper controls, you can end up shooting a whole village to get one, or two, gunmen. The proof? A bullet whizzing by your head is proof enough that there is hostile intent. If nobody tries to help you, or run away, then you have a situation where you might as well surround the place and take everyone prisoner. You can let some go out of hand because they are either too old, too young, or too infirmed to shoot. You do not release foreign nationals unless they are members of the press, the peace corps, or any charitable group. At this point, everyone else is suspect. Perhaps you folks would feel better if we just lined them up in front of a wall and executed the lot of them? :shrug:
Click to expand...

You think that the Geneva Convention allows for you to randomly shoot people who may possibly have been in a position to shoot at you? I'm not surprised you think it's ok to lock up innocent people.

Now how about this
you again said:
The whole premise is that nobody knows who is innocent, and who is guilty, Oz.

Most were captured in Afghanistan ...
Click to expand...
But even though you admit some of them weren't captured in Afghanistan and you have no idea whether they are guilty you think it is justified to lock them up indefinitely with no form of legal redress.

Let's put it another way, if you were at war with the Taliban then supporting them is not a crime, simply the other side of the war right? How about if you were in a Taliban jail and the US take you prisoner for being in Afghanistan? Is that justified?
 
freako104 said:
I have already said on here as well:


I stand by waht I said before. what the fuck is so damn hard to understand about that. read what I fucking post. thank you
Click to expand...

Will you stop over-reacting.

I simply want you to expand on your reasons, all you have done so far is swear at me and tell me that you said it before.

The whole idea of a debate such as this is that you post your thoughts and ideas and opinions, if you are neither willing nor able to do so, then it's probably best that you stay out of the debate.
 
Gotnolegs said:
You think that the Geneva Convention allows for you to randomly shoot people who may possibly have been in a position to shoot at you? I'm not surprised you think it's ok to lock up innocent people.
Click to expand...

Nope. I said that, if you're taking fire from somebody not in uniform, you can shoot them, and anybody with them(who is obviously not a hostage), out-of-hand. ;) You know this as well as I do.

GNL said:
Now how about this But even though you admit some of them weren't captured in Afghanistan and you have no idea whether they are guilty you think it is justified to lock them up indefinitely with no form of legal redress.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Once you move from the realm of civilian law into the realm of military law, that's what happens. If someone is captured in a military action, that's what happens...You know that as well as I do, too.

GNL said:
Let's put it another way, if you were at war with the Taliban then supporting them is not a crime, simply the other side of the war right? How about if you were in a Taliban jail and the US take you prisoner for being in Afghanistan? Is that justified?
Click to expand...

Depends upon why you were in jail in the first place.
 
Gaot, let's just admit it. The gig is up & GNL has been the one to see the truth. It's embarassing but once admitted it can continue in open.

Yes GNL, we, the USA, have decided we're locking up everyone we don't like. Just throwing them into prison cells & mistreating them out of spite. Kind of like a video game where we're writing the rules as we go along. Some of our citizenry are also disappearing. Watch your back...we're also on to you.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Nope. I said that, if you're taking fire from somebody not in uniform, you can shoot them, and anybody with them(who is obviously not a hostage), out-of-hand. ;) You know this as well as I do.
Click to expand...

And if they're not shooting at you?

Pretty much. Once you move from the realm of civilian law into the realm of military law, that's what happens. If someone is captured in a military action, that's what happens...You know that as well as I do, too.
Click to expand...
and if they are captured by the military when not involved inmilitary action?

Depends upon why you were in jail in the first place.
Click to expand...
how about if you were supposed to be a spy for the invading forces?
 
Gonz said:
Yes GNL, we, the USA, have decided we're locking up everyone we don't like. Just throwing them into prison cells & mistreating them out of spite. Kind of like a video game where we're writing the rules as we go along. Some of our citizenry are also disappearing. Watch your back...we're also on to you.
Click to expand...

Frighteningly that is one of the most accurate things I've seen you say.
 
Gotnolegs said:
Frighteningly that is one of the most accurate things I've seen you say.
Click to expand...

Don't blame him. You're the one who gave your real name and the hospital you are staying at over the net... :grinyes:
 
Gato_Solo said:
Look out your window and wave... :D
Click to expand...

The second you log onto the net you can be traced, giving you a name and location only makes it easier.

So how does your (I assume humourous) attempt to imply the US government would track someone down from another country simply because they vocally disagree with their illegal practices justify those very same illegal practices?
 
Gotnolegs said:
The second you log onto the net you can be traced, giving you a name and location only makes it easier.

So how does your (I assume humourous) attempt to imply the US government would track someone down from another country simply because they vocally disagree with their illegal practices justify those very same illegal practices?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. That's why it's funny. The practices, BTW, are not illegal. They may be a bit unethical, but not illegal. Just FYI...
 
Gotnolegs said:
Will you stop over-reacting.

I simply want you to expand on your reasons, all you have done so far is swear at me and tell me that you said it before.

The whole idea of a debate such as this is that you post your thoughts and ideas and opinions, if you are neither willing nor able to do so, then it's probably best that you stay out of the debate.
Click to expand...



I had made it clear exactly where I stood. thats why I said to read my posts.
 
The whole story seems a little absurd to me. I understand that the guys probably a bit bitter at the US for holding him there for that long, but his story is pretty weak.

Although I would certainly say that that sort of treatment never occurs at the camps in Guantanamo Bay, I really don't have any thing to prove that. Other parts of this guys story can be picked apart pretty easilly though.

Medical treatment was sparse and brutal and amputations of limbs were more drastic than required, claimed Jamal.
Click to expand...

As if this guy know more about amputations than army doctors.

A diet of foul water and food up to 10 years out-of-date left inmates malnourished.
Click to expand...

10 years out of date!?! If any perishable food is 10 years out of date, there is nothing left of it; it would have decomposed long before. If the stuff was canned or freeze dried, then who cares; it remains fit for eating well past 10 years.

The website designer, a convert to Islam, had gone to Pakistan in October 2001, a few weeks after September 11, to study Muslim culture.
Click to expand...

Oh that's brilliant! Let's take a trip to the part of the world that is about to go war. (And it was quite obvious a few weeks after 9/11 that things were going to heat up over there pretty quickly.)

He accidentally strayed into Afghanistan - believing he was being driven to Turkey - and was arrested as a spy, perhaps because of his British passport.
Click to expand...

That's actually pretty funny. He got in a car going to the wrong country? It's quite obvious that he's really making this up. Turkey doesn't even border pakistan. It's around 1000 km across the full length of Iran.

HE added: "The man in the cell next to me had frostbite in two fingers and two toes. He also had it in his big toe, but they didn't treat that for a year by which time they had to cut off much more than was needed.
Click to expand...

A year of untreated frostbite? I've seen frostbite victims that haven't been treated for up to a week; it's not pretty. The guy would been dead after a year, no question about it. Septicaemia, systamatic infections; heck, after a month his entire leg would have been gangrene.
 
The U.S. military said yesterday that it released 23 Afghan and three Pakistani citizens from the U.S. Navy prison for terrorism suspects in Cuba, leaving about 610 still in detention.
They were flown back to Afghanistan and Pakistan on U.S. aircraft, officials said.
In a brief statement, the Pentagon did not say specifically why the 26 were let go but said each case is reviewed separately to determine whether a prisoner is of further intelligence value to the United States and whether he is believed to pose a threat to this country.
Click to expand...

Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top