Parmenion
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 7
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
cnredd said:Referring to Parmenion's rant on Gitmo, I ask...
IF everything written was indeed true, why are you critical of the whole USA, or at least the militry aspect of it(Over 1.2 million troops), when Gitmo(and Abu Gharib) represent no more than a few dozen soldiers?
When Scott Peterson was convicted of murder, do we cry that "This is what Californians do?"
I am not taking sides here, I am simply pointing out that two wrongs hardly make a right and that while you accuse certain groups of breaching certain documents - you may also wish to look at the international rules and documents which America is in turn breaching...You are equating procedures, right or wrong, to to terrorist who indesciminately kill civilians with impunity...
Terrorists - Wrong 100%
USA - Wrong 2%
How novel of you to point out the 2%.
As I've posted in another thread, "terrorist" on this forum is usually referring to "Islamic radicals".Parmenion said:I was being critical of the fact that the poster I replied to used documents to say why Iraq was in the wrong. My question was if two wrongs make a right? I am not criticsiing American troops in "Gitmo" as you call it. I am stating that Iraqi leader is on charges for Human Rights violations under the Geneva Convention, but that USA is similarly guilty of similar violations yet is not being tried for war crimes.
First, I believe that America has had many positive influences on the world as she finds her way in the world as a nouveau Superpower. Like many Superpowers that have gone before her in ages past, she is making mistakes which are highlited in neon lights by the media.
However, I think it folly for you to claim that the acts of "terrorism" as a means for communicating oines message are wrong. Ireland used terrorism against the British to win our indpendence. There was no way in hell we could have taken them toe to toe in a straight fight and they refused to listen to us for centuries in a peaceful manner. Were the actions of ours chlanns wrong or right is debatable but we have our freedom as a direct result of it.
There are two sides to every argument and while I support neither I try to see both for their merits and play Devil's advocate so that the passionate ones on both sides may argue their viewpoints with clarity and intelligence.
Parmenion said:In reposnse to your statistics, you know that 90% of all statistics are made up
Parmenion said:Would you say that by breaking 15 articles of the Geneva Convention that the USA could be consider as much in breach of Human Rights as, say for instance the groups they are fighting?
Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity".
The prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba
vergiss said:Supporting your troops means not sending them off to be slaughtered in an unjustified war.
Stinger said:The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol. If they did then we would have to be paying them and providing them education. Do you really want to pay OBL's driver and finanacier and various men who committed terrorist acts against others?
They are illegal combatants not POW's.
Your assuming that people who post views such as this:Originally Posted by Parmenion:
Article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.
Would you like me to copy/paste article 4 of the Convention here in its entirety so you can see how wrong you are in your point, or would you rather look it up yourself?
...are ethical and objective when they analyze the issues from which they draw their conclusions. This is my subjective impression I get when reading many similar posts in response to (what I think are) pretty common sense facts.The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol
Parmenion said:The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.
Billo_Really said:Your assuming that people who post views such as this: "The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol" ...are ethical and objective when they analyze the issues from which they draw their conclusions.
vergiss said:Supporting your troops means not sending them off to be slaughtered in an unjustified war.
Billo_Really said:What does this mean to you? When you say, "Support the Troops", what exactly does this mean? How does one "Support the Troops"? Prove to me this is nothing more than a slogan on a bumper.
As well as helping turn this country into a third world nation by outsourcing our jobs to the Pacific Rim.Originally Posted by ban.the.electoral.college
In my opinion "Support the Troops" means get the troops the hell out of Iraq ASAP, so they don't their asses killed!
Unfortunately, I think those bumper stickers and buttons people buy just mean that a citizen wants to parade around looking like a patriot, when in fact, they only want the troops to do GWB's mindless profit driven bidding. It's tragic too, because these self-proclaimed patriots are brainlessly supporting an international "trinket manufaturer" which is probably a sweat shop in indonesia.
My unfortunate conclusion: I don't think many posters on this board have any intention of meaningful, honest debate. They can't stop lying to themselves long enough to be honest with anyone.
Tetracide said:Support the troops means not to parade the death count, respect the work they are doing as people doing it, regardless of if you think they should be doing it or not.
Supporting the troops means not calling them murdered, savages, or portray them as such.
Supporting the troops is hoping they are safe and will finish what they have gotten into so they return safely home, not hopeing we fail just so you get bragging rights.
This isn't directed at any one person.
Aryan Imperium said:"Supporting the troops" is code for SUPPORT THE ZOG LED AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ATTEMPT TO EXTEND ITS IMPERIALISM AND GLOBAL CAPITALISM TO THE REST OF THE WORLD BY FORCE OF ARMS.
Pub31321 said:Yeah Aryan you seem to know what youre talking about :roll: Actually sit down and learn about the war and the reasons for it then come and talk to us. Imperialism...what a joke
Stinger said:The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol. If they did then we would have to be paying them and providing them education. Do you really want to pay OBL's driver and finanacier and various men who committed terrorist acts against others?
They are illegal combatants not POW's.
This is so true, I couldn't agree with you more. And sadly, I have to admit I've been guilty of everything you stated from time to time. What this board has done for me, whether I liked it or not, has helped me be more tolerant of others, whether some recognize that or not. I used to be a lot worse when I was younger and knew everything.Originally Posted by oldreliable67:
True, Billo, how very true. It is important, I think, that we recognize that this truth applies to some -- but thankfully not all -- posters of all persuasions, from the left and the right alike.
And, you know, all too often, this forum is not really about debate. It is about facilitating a gripe session, or just plain trying to get the last word on something, or boosting an ego by showing the stupid world how smart you are, or by deliberately baiting those of an opposing viewpoint (right or left, equal opportunity baiters), or some other ego-gratification stunt.
The good things about this forum:
> loosely moderated, but so far, effectively (IMO) moderated. Tolerance for most motivations, but mod intervention when the name calling gets too personal.
> two-way street: allows for presentation of all points of view, unlike some of the others, where if you post something that is not 'party line', you risk get tossed or shouted down with no exchange of anything.
> technically, it works pretty well too. phpBB in the hands of folks with lesser experience sometimes presents a problem.
Just my opinions -- your mileage may vary!
Lots of motivations, so little time!
PS: Billo, nit-picky I know but isn't it 'ad hominem'? Attacking the messenger instead of the message?
How can they be there defending us when Iraq didn't do anything too us!? Supporting the troops in Iraq is supporting the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. This is an illegal war.Originally Posted by Pub31321:
Canuck you are so stupid! The troops are there and they arent coming home until it's finished, deal with it! So support that they are there defending us, stop saying "oh supporting them is bringing them home." Supporting them is supporting that they are choosing to give their life to defend freedom, so stop downgrading their cause and support them!
And Bush and Cheney aren't in this war for money...that statement and every other damn piece of crap you've said on this website is just a show of your stupidity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?