[Daver]

War on Tarrorism?

http://www.granma.cu...ar3/14ache.html
http://www.csmonitor...07s01-wome.html
http://www.cnn.com/2...ness/index.html

I think not.

[Moridin]

So... we're supporting communist rebels now?

[Daver]

Moridin, on Oct 6 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

So... we're supporting communist rebels now?

Oh yes. And anti-communist ones too.

[Alonick]

First link, yes..that's wrong if the link is accurate, but judging from the site it's most likely not.

In response to that second link, they wear uniforms and have a clear chain of command.

Wear uniforms=get GC protection, don't wear uniforms (or atleast distinguishing clothing)=don't get GC protection

Have a clear chain of command=get GC protection, don't have a clear chain of command=don't get GC protection.

Weird, I know, but thems be the rules.

Third link, those guys are jerks and I hope they all go to a jail for a long time. Too bad it's taking the Iraqi Government 2 years to write a law that lifts the protection on those idiots.

[Daver]

Alonick, on Oct 6 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

First link, yes..that's wrong if the link is accurate, but judging from the site it's most likely not.

In response to that second link, they wear uniforms and have a clear chain of command.

Wear uniforms=get GC protection, don't wear uniforms (or atleast distinguishing clothing)=don't get GC protection

Have a clear chain of command=get GC protection, don't have a clear chain of command=don't get GC protection.

Weird, I know, but thems be the rules.

Third link, those guys are jerks and I hope they all go to a jail for a long time. Too bad it's taking the Iraqi Government 2 years to write a law that lifts the protection on those idiots.

Wait, you agreed with me on 2 out of 3?

Have the planets alined or something?

[Sigmund Sauer]

Alonick, on Oct 6 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

First link, yes..that's wrong if the link is accurate, but judging from the site it's most likely not.

I wouldn't trust any of those sources.

[Esau of Isaac]

Moridin, on Oct 6 2007, 06:34 PM, said:

So... we're supporting communist rebels now?

Silly Moridin, America has always been a supporter of communism.

[Alonick]

First one I do because well, it's the only info I have on it and if that info is correct, then yes..I agree.

Second one, I don't because they follow the Geneva Conventions which means they are protected by it. While Al Qaeda and other terrorists don't follow it...so they are not protected by it.

Third one, from experience...those jackasses cause a lot of problems for us. They have no regard for the law and they have no one to answer to, pretty much just like the terrorists. I can't see why that law to repeal their protection is taking so damn long.

EDIT: A few of you guys are confusing Geneva Convention protections, with outright protection or even support. Though, this is the boiler room, and I should expect that from some people.

EDIT: A mistype

This post has been edited by Alonick: 06 October 2007 - 08:08 PM

[Moridin]

Esau of Isaac, on Oct 6 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

Silly Moridin, America has always been a supporter of communism.

Love those atheist commies!

[Kenadian_2006]

Nothing new really. Remember those little Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries called Contras? Yea, they fall in the category of terrorists.

[Azaghul]

The Geneva Conventions don't provide the same protections for those who don't follow the laws of war, but they still provide some basic protections:

Quote

Mr Bush claims that, under international law, parties to an armed conflict may hold enemy combatants “for the duration of active hostilities�. This is correct. Nor is “unlawful enemy combatant� a term he invented. In the Geneva Conventions, it describes a foe who is not a member of official armed forces or an organised resistance movement, does not carry arms openly, wears no uniform or other distinctive sign, and refuses to heed the laws of war. As such, he fails to qualify for the rights of a prisoner of war. But, contrary to what the administration first claimed, he is entitled to some protections, including humane treatment and, if charged, to a fair trial by a “regularly constituted court�.

http://www.economist...tory_id=9909351

[Keiichi Maebara]

America does not support terrorism. America supports the use of alternative political methods with the intent of altering state policy for the good of America that country.

It is a known fact that only when the intent is unfavorable to America that country that it is terrorism. Happiness is mandatory, citizen.

[Smallfrog]

America has funded terrorists from Ireland to Afghanistan. This is nothing new.

[King Comm]

Moridin, on Oct 7 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

So... we're supporting communist rebels now?

==Well, you did support Khmer Rouge for awhile during the eighties.

[Alonick]

We also cause Earthquakes and Tsunamis. Not to mention our night vision devices can see through women's clothing.

Oh, we cause cavities too!

[Smallfrog]

Alonick, on Oct 7 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

We also cause Earthquakes and Tsunamis. Not to mention our night vision devices can see through women's clothing.

Oh, we cause cavities too!

Whats your point?

I have never held a grudge against the U.S for its secret explosives it placed under the Indian ocean to cause an earthquake, or its perverted attitude to night vision.

Just Providing arms for the enemies of your so called allies annoys me a bit.

[King Comm]

Alonick, on Oct 7 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

We also cause Earthquakes and Tsunamis.

==You might have actually, nuclear testings can trigger earth quakes...

[Daver]

Sigmund Sauer, on Oct 6 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

I wouldn't trust any of those sources.

Says the man who thinks Fox is a valid source.

[Kenadian_2006]

Daver, on Oct 7 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

Says the man who thinks Fox is a valid source.

They're leftist propaganda, if you didn't know.

[Daver]

Kenadian_2006, on Oct 7 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

They're leftist propaganda, if you didn't know.

Ah. Right.

Still while CNN has a bias, there not known as a glorified tabloid, unlike Fox News