The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How can Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi (the two brits in Guantanamo Bay) confess to a war crime when America is denying that the conflict in Afghanistan was ever a war?
There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal non-combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners?
And if they are saying that it is for the conflict between the Taliban and Northern Alliance prior to Sept 11th, then will anyone in the US government be held accountable for the millions in military aid given to the Taliban?
There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal non-combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners?
And if they are saying that it is for the conflict between the Taliban and Northern Alliance prior to Sept 11th, then will anyone in the US government be held accountable for the millions in military aid given to the Taliban?
Page:
I'd like to see what kind of firepower America's big brother has!
You're not allowed to fight back when America attacks you... everyone knows that.
It's like the little git at school that can punch you in the face but you can't fight back or he'll get his brother to you.
It's like the little git at school that can punch you in the face but you can't fight back or he'll get his brother to you.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Bascailly, personally, I don't care what America does with them. They
> were captured, all of them, in situations where they had been
> fighting against coalition troops,
...one more point; these would be the coalition troops that invaded the country? What the hell kind of soldier (I'll use that term seeing as illegal non-combatant is a mouthful...) wouldn't fight an invading army?! Again, using your logic then that makes any captured American or British troops fair game to an opposing force, no?
>
> Bascailly, personally, I don't care what America does with them. They
> were captured, all of them, in situations where they had been
> fighting against coalition troops,
...one more point; these would be the coalition troops that invaded the country? What the hell kind of soldier (I'll use that term seeing as illegal non-combatant is a mouthful...) wouldn't fight an invading army?! Again, using your logic then that makes any captured American or British troops fair game to an opposing force, no?
Kyoto agreement I think Bush pulled out of. And the US are one of the few countries in the world that puts children on death row.
...or so Michael Moore told me.
...or so Michael Moore told me.
I also seem to rememeber that some new Human Rights legislation was signed by almost every country apart from Iraq, Iran, Libia and dum dum you guessed it America.
My facts are vague though but many things irritate me about America's hypocrisy. And then there's all the Geneva plans to stop pollution... America pulled out of that as well. But God loves America, so there.
My facts are vague though but many things irritate me about America's hypocrisy. And then there's all the Geneva plans to stop pollution... America pulled out of that as well. But God loves America, so there.
SHEEPY wrote:
> Who remembers America complaining about how American soliders were
> being paraded on Iraq television. They seemed to have forgotten
> about Guantanamo Bay then.
Exactly. America and it's supporters are complaining about having done to them what they do to others. It requires some serious doublethink to say that America are on the side of the angels when it comes to human rights when this sort of flagrent disregard for international laws set up specifically to protect human rights.
> Who remembers America complaining about how American soliders were
> being paraded on Iraq television. They seemed to have forgotten
> about Guantanamo Bay then.
Exactly. America and it's supporters are complaining about having done to them what they do to others. It requires some serious doublethink to say that America are on the side of the angels when it comes to human rights when this sort of flagrent disregard for international laws set up specifically to protect human rights.
Belldandy wrote:
> Yep, but apart from a few NGO's no one in Afghanistan fels like
> helping terrorists...
>
> Bascailly, personally, I don't care what America does with them. They
> were captured, all of them, in situations where they had been
> fighting against coalition troops, and seeing as not everyone who did
> this was carted off to Guantanamo then they have obviously done
> something more.
...and yet America complains bitterly about any other nation not following the rules of war? Right...
Here's the thing; America are currently depending on the Moral High Ground to justify their land grab. How can anyone take their claims about how Iraq's previous regime 'ignored human rights' when America are doing exactly the same?
If you don't care about them, then fair enough. But your reasoning behind their detention is remarkably lacking. They must have done something? Using that logic, the westerners arrested by the Taliban before the war 'must have done something' because other western aid workers were allowed to continue their work.
As I say; I'm not disputing your right not to care what happens to the people in Guantanamo Bay. What I am saying is that if you don't, it pretty much invalidates every claim you've made that the US have the moral high ground in both the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts. You seem to be saying that it is alright for America to break international law and cause suffering to people whenever it suits them, but anyone else who does it has to suffer America's wrath.
> Yep, but apart from a few NGO's no one in Afghanistan fels like
> helping terrorists...
>
> Bascailly, personally, I don't care what America does with them. They
> were captured, all of them, in situations where they had been
> fighting against coalition troops, and seeing as not everyone who did
> this was carted off to Guantanamo then they have obviously done
> something more.
...and yet America complains bitterly about any other nation not following the rules of war? Right...
Here's the thing; America are currently depending on the Moral High Ground to justify their land grab. How can anyone take their claims about how Iraq's previous regime 'ignored human rights' when America are doing exactly the same?
If you don't care about them, then fair enough. But your reasoning behind their detention is remarkably lacking. They must have done something? Using that logic, the westerners arrested by the Taliban before the war 'must have done something' because other western aid workers were allowed to continue their work.
As I say; I'm not disputing your right not to care what happens to the people in Guantanamo Bay. What I am saying is that if you don't, it pretty much invalidates every claim you've made that the US have the moral high ground in both the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts. You seem to be saying that it is alright for America to break international law and cause suffering to people whenever it suits them, but anyone else who does it has to suffer America's wrath.
Who remembers America complaining about how American soliders were being paraded on Iraq television. They seemed to have forgotten about Guantanamo Bay then.
Yep, but apart from a few NGO's no one in Afghanistan fels like helping terrorists...
Bascailly, personally, I don't care what America does with them. They were captured, all of them, in situations where they had been fighting against coalition troops, and seeing as not everyone who did this was carted off to Guantanamo then they have obviously done something more.
Bascailly, personally, I don't care what America does with them. They were captured, all of them, in situations where they had been fighting against coalition troops, and seeing as not everyone who did this was carted off to Guantanamo then they have obviously done something more.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Bah, it's all a mess.
Understatement....
But the thing is, reading what you've posted there, couldn't it just as easily be applied to America's "Illegal Non-combatant" definition, and the Non-Geneva compliant Guantanamo Bay?
>
> Bah, it's all a mess.
Understatement....
But the thing is, reading what you've posted there, couldn't it just as easily be applied to America's "Illegal Non-combatant" definition, and the Non-Geneva compliant Guantanamo Bay?
Page: