Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 11:23 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45AB91C2.CF5D0E83(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not >>>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >> >>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be >>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). > > > This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. His stupidity keeps boiling to the surface.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 11:25 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eofvp0$8qk_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45AB8208.A7E339E2(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are > soldiers >>> >> >in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. >>> >> >When > you >>> >> >stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other >>> >> >governments > can >>> >> >arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful > idea. >>> >> > >>> >> But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >>> > >>> >We are now. >>> >>> And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. >> >>Not at all. >>A big terrorism trial starts to day. >> >>Six men planned "murderous suicide bombings" on public transport in London >>on > 21 >>July 2005, a court has heard. >> >>The prosecution alleges they were involved in an "extremist Muslim plot" >>targeting the capital - 14 days after the "carnage" of the 7 July >>bombings. >> >>Muktar Ibrahim, Manfo Asiedu, Hussein Osman, Yassin Omar, Ramzi Mohammed >>and > Adel >>Yahya all deny conspiracy to murder and cause explosions. >> >>The trial at Woolwich Crown Court in London could last up to four months. >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261899.stm > > England Do Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not count? Or do you mean Great Britain? (Or the more common United Kingdom) > was a little bit more realistic than Europe. But not by > much; the political pressure in England is aping Europe's at the > moment. Nonsense.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 11:25 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45AB9242.557FE4A7(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >> >> >> >>We are now. >> > >> > And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. This >> > is utter nonsense. >> >> Damn the law. Let us arrest everyone suspected of terrorism and detain >> them >> for at least 20 years. > > Like they can be detained without trial now in the USA ? :-) Exactly. If the law stops you "winning" then change the law and to [insert religious punishment place of choice] with the consequences.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 11:27 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:2c02e$45aba54a$49ecfc6$17552(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eofssu$8u0_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <eodof8$gus$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <eodeen$8qk_004(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>> >>>>>Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. To treat >>>>>their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. >>>>>This implies that the arresting officiers have jurisdiction wherever >>>>>and whenever these extremists reside. This approach requires a >>>>>global police force that is not answerable to any single nation. >>>> >>>>No, you have it wrong. You don't need a global police force to do it. >>>>Criminals who have crossed borders are dealt with all the time. If >>>>someone commits a murder in the US and then runs to England, he is not >>>>safe. This is how it would be for the terrorists if they were called >>>>the >>>>criminals they are. >>>> >>>>When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are soldiers >>>>in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. When >>>>you >>>>stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other governments >>>>can >>>>arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful >>>>idea. >>>> >>> >>>But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >> >> >> Yes they were. Terrorists have been getting arrested (or shot if they go >> to Gibraltar) in Europe for decades. There are more terrorist >> organisations than the Al Qaeda bogey monster you know. >> >> Currently, if as you say the fight against terrorism is a "war" then >> there is no requirement for _any_ nation to arrest terrorists. Nations >> not explicitly allied to the US should actively _not_ impede the passage >> of the Terrorist Soldiers. > > Wrong. Any military force crossing neutral territory must have > permission from that country to transit, otherwise they are > violating that country's neutrality and territory. Check out > German ships entering neutral ports during WW2. Only if the countries are declared "neutral." I said not allied to the US. If the country does not recognise the declaration of war then it is not treated as "neutral" under the Geneva accords (which were written in 1948 following the problems of WW2).
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 11:36
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45AB91C2.CF5D0E83(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not >> "soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. > > Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be > treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). There is a small loophole which sort of justifies Guantanamo. If an "illegal combatant" is detained by a war power, then they have no protection under the rules of war. Illegal combatants can include nationals of nations not declared in the conflict (which was a worry about Gurkhas) or opposing forces soldiers who are not wearing a recognisable uniform which declares their allegiance. In this context, it _could_ be argued that (for example) a Belgian man, in normal clothes, fighting for the Taliban _could_ be detained as an illegal combatant. However as there was no proper declaration of war to identify who the opposing powers are, I suspect it would be a short argument. :-) Still, I suppose carrying out war crimes to beat the war criminals makes sense to some. |