A Friendly Warning

Since there was no formal declaration of war, they are not considered POW's, as there is no official war. However, this also frees the US from the contstraints of the Geneva Convention, as it were.

Ah, but the US is justifying these actions as part of "The War Against Terror" and are saying, as a result that they operate under wartime rules, which is why they can use military tribunals and hold people indefinately without charge, trial, or access to any legal representation whatsoever. Unfortunately, the US seems to want to have it both ways, and takes whichever laws from wartime or peacetime it deems appropriate. Besides, article 2 of the Geneva Convention says (link in my previous post):

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

So, it doesn't matter what the US calls it, it was war, and the GC applies.

EXACTLY what law is the US breaking?

Well, here is one article of many about the situation.

This is an altogether new kind of war.

And yet just a couple of paragraphs ago you said that it wasn't a war. I feel that a more definate definition is required.

The only rules we abide by, for now, are our own self imposed codes of honor, integrity, and morality.

In other words, the US should be entirely entitled to do whatever it wants without fear of retaliation adn the rest of the world should just shut up, stand by and let it happen? Why don't I find that argument a particularly convincing one?

Perhaps it's time to revisit the whole Geneva Convention in theory.

Perhaps a look at international law isn't a bad idea. However, new laws or adaptations of old ones would have to be done with the consensus of the international community, they could not be dictated by the US. And, until such a time as this happens, and new laws are created to replace the old ones, the old ones are still binding. You cannot just arbitraritly decide that laws are out of date and don't apply to you.

Often the way to look at things like this is to imagine them not within the framework of countrys interacting with each other and international law, rather think of individuals and national law. If somone decided that the way of US law was outdated, and that every person should be master of their own justice and to that end kidnapped and tortured someone that he considered had done him wrong, then do you think the police should just stand back and say "well, he thinks the old 'due process' law is outdated and shouldn't apply to him, let's just leave him alone with his lawbreaking activities"? Or should that man be subject to the same laws as everybody else, and have to campaign and gain support for his proposed changes to the law?

The United States is righteous.

bin Laden believes that he is righteous, too. Unfortunately, it's not the opinoin of the US that matters here, it's the opinion of the rest of the world.

Where is Europe's outrage?

If you've not heard it, you've simply not been paying attention.

Just because the citizens of Europe will speak up when they see wrongdoing by the US doesn't mean that they didn't stand up when they saw wrongdoing by those the US opposes. It is possible for both sides in a conflict to be wrong and to commit unspeakable and illegal acts. This is not a film where there are "good guys" and "bad guys" and one side is noble and whiter than white and the other are evil.
 
I've just caught up with the thread, and I had to comment on what Seigmund has said about Islam.

You believe that Islam promotes the killing of others, as long as they are non-Molsem? This is simply untrue. The Koran explicitly condemns the killing of innocents.

Well, does it or does it not advocate the killing of those which are not considered innocents? Well, it does speak of holy wars, but as you correctly say, so does the Bible. One of my favourite quotes from the Bible is "Blessed is he who dashes their infants on the rocks" from Psalm 137. Would you argue that Christianity advocates the killing of children?

Yes, there are Islamic extremists who twist the words of the Koran. In part, they are enabled to do this because they are preaching to people who do not have the luxury of things like being able to read; they have to take what they're told at face value, as they cannot independantly check their facts.

And, yes, you do get Christian terrorists. You know, like those people who think that killing is so wrong that they will blow up doctors who perform abortions?

[Edited to add]And, of course, I have forgotten the most blatant example of recent times. Having grown up in England I've spent most of my life hearing about different parts of my country exploding because of the IRA. What, exactly, are the IRA (and the unionists, come to that) if they are not Christian terrorists?[/Edit]

For the record, none of the Moslem people I know have thought the actions of al Quaeda and other Islamic extremists have been anything other than reprehensible.
 
I am done debating with you on this thread, because you are just as guilty of what you accuse me of in several cases:

1) Sticking to and addressing MY points, namely: Providing solid suggestions for actions, rather than continuous criticisms of actions someone else has taken. You are educated enough to know that it is trivial to criticize, and much more difficult to actually do something that people will find useful.
2) You hide behind excuses of law, without regard for the basic morals which form the foundational intent of said laws. A perfect example is:

I will not call someone a murderer if they have not been convicted of murder.
So you have seen a terrorist cut off the head of a non-combatant in Iraq. Yet you would not call this murder because he has not been convicted? By this strict defintion you have offered (I am not bringing anything in here that YOU did not say) this indicates you cannot make a value judgment on your own, and only via law can a value judgment be assessed. Observation of murder is one of the foundational bases for being able to enforce laws, which convicts murderers. A murderer is a murderer because he commits the act of murder. He is no less a murderer if he can evade the law, and therefore not be convicted. You appear to have problems with "cause and effect" in your definition of a murderer.

3) You invoke words that were not part of my intent to try and twist my meaning. And yet this is exactly what you accuse me of in trying to read your intent (because you don't wish to unequivocally state a position on specific topics). Example: You introduced the word xenophobia, and you applied it with what some feel is an accepted, very specific definition of "dislike for foreigners". However, I feel I must again give you a lesson in English and its roots. Xenophobia comes from the Latin roots Xeno (Different) and Phobos (Fear). Thus, its true definition is "fear of that which is different". That definition hardly applies to what I was talking about. Americans are not Xenophobic of the rest of the world, because if we were we would ban all forms of expression (religious and otherwise) that was "different" from us, because we would be fearful. No, you clearly misrepresented me, because ALL of my posts have been very clear that Americans are disgusted (different from fearful) of many (not all!) other countries because of their lack of will to take action when action is needed.

Now, I am quite sure you will want the last word, so you can feel as though you have "defeated" me. Go right ahead, as I will answer no more. But if you put the kind of energy you put into these postings into proposing and motivating different actions, you might have less to criticize about America. And then we would get the chance to criticize your actions.

RainmanTime
 
You believe that Islam promotes the killing of others, as long as they are non-Molsem? This is simply untrue. The Koran explicitly condemns the killing of innocents.

Well, that may be true, except that infidels (Christians, Jews, etc.) are not considered to be innocent. In fact, the Koran says that they must be destroyed.

Check out Prophet of Doom for more information and the truth about the teachings of the Koran.



Keeb
 
Sticking to and addressing MY points, namely: Providing solid suggestions for actions[...]

I have not only stated my beliefs on the subject on the first page of this thread, but you have replied to them.

So you have seen a terrorist cut off the head of a non-combatant in Iraq. Yet you would not call this murder because he has not been convicted?

Okay, fair play on the semantics there. But I hope you can see a world of difference between calling someone a murderer because you have seen them murder somebody and calling someone a terrorist because they were in Afgahnistan at a certain point in time. While these men are held in illegal captivity with no charges, access to the outside world or legal representation their statuses are at best undetermined. I ask again how you know what the men inside have or have not done? Were those who were released falsely imprisoned or falsely released?

You invoke words that were not part of my intent to try and twist my meaning.

How do you define disgust with all other nations, other than xenophobia? That is not an inferrence, that is what you said. And I still fail to see what the opinions of old people in the US is supposed to prove. Am I supposed to agree with them because they believe it? Is it supposed to validate the opinion somehow? Those who fought for England in WWII say that the American forces are useless, gung-ho and don't care how many people they kill, be they friend or foe, as long as they get to shoot something. Does the fact that many war veterans are of this opinion make it true? If not, then what's the point of you mentioning it?

[...]because you don't wish to unequivocally state a position on specific topics[...]

I have been clear about my views. If you feel that I've been unclear, address the specifics that you find unclear and ask me to clarify. If you utilise strawmen and argue against points of view that I do not hold, then you cannot complain when I do not defend those opinions that I do not hold.

You introduced the word xenophobia, and you applied it with what some feel is an accepted, very specific definition of "dislike for foreigners". However, I feel I must again give you a lesson in English and its roots. Xenophobia comes from the Latin roots Xeno (Different) and Phobos (Fear). Thus, its true definition is "fear of that which is different". That definition hardly applies to what I was talking about. Americans are not Xenophobic of the rest of the world, because if we were we would ban all forms of expression (religious and otherwise) that was "different" from us, because we would be fearful.

See? Now this is the kind of strawman that I was talking about. I know what the etymology of the word "xenophobia" is, thank you. And, as you've indicated, you know precisely which definition of the word I was using. You then proceed to give me an alternate definition of the word, call that definition the "true" definition (to the exclusion of all others, seemingly), in defiance of both conventional wisdom and any dictionary you'd care to pick up, and then say that the new definition that you've provided has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, as if I was the one who had used that definition, and then argue against the new definition that you had provided. Then, having disproved your own definition of my argument to yuor own satisfaction, you behave as if you'd defeated my actual argument.

You haven't. You haven't even addressed it. You've created a classic strawman, and I am not going to argue to defend it.

Well, it's a shame that you don't feel that you can have a mature discussion about this subject, and can address the things that I do say. But, if that's the way you feel, so be it.
 
I'll reply on your comments tomorrow Trollface (It's my drinking night!). I think you misread my comments regarding the state of the war. I'll develop this later.
 
I'll reply on your comments tomorrow Trollface (It's my drinking night!). I think you misread my comments regarding the state of the war. I'll develop this later.

Yes and I think I'll jump on the bandwagon later tonight. I must say I agree with a lot of Trollface's points. And to put it in more popular words: I don't think anyone PWNES anyone yet ;-)
 
I have a ground breaking theory to present but before I do….How do we know we are supposed to be doing this…And furthermore who is to be responsible enough with such power. The danger of such a power would rival that of nuclear technology tenfold. Everything with a use has an abuse. One time terrorist or one perfectly human action prompted by poor judgment could cause devestating repurcussions that we may not have considered with our assumptive theories. Time travel may be the real threat..not nuclear holacost. Perhaps we should be asking God’s permission. God has all the answers. Whether an intellect believes in god or not he must answer to his primary instincts…that of survival. If you know how to do something it doesn’t mean you should. For example, preventing Jesus’s death would be interfering with one of God’s purposes. God would undoubtedly have a concern with such intervention...As well as any other biblical continuum interventions for any faith for that matter….Snatch the apple from Eve and we may never be born…Faith prompted Noah’s heart to listen for instruction for the Ark’s production…it was not built for him. God trusted Noah with the ark…If he didn’t build it would the Human race have survived? Who can god trust with this technology which would rival all others? Consider that all that man discovers points to gods power…only certain things that man discovers..man should use. The below link is to a lamen term theory a 4 year old can grasp that paraphrases the more complex existing knowledge while presenting new perspectives the science communities have yet to realize. There is more to present…please email a request for the remainder of the theory.
http://www.crownj.cjb.net
 
I just watched the video of Nick Berg's execution.


It should have been George W. Bush!!!!

Our sorry ass president has no business apologizing to those animals.

Where's our damn apolgy for 911? Huh?

We had no fscking business going to Iraq in the first place, and now look what a mess we're in.

Those people are savage animals that can't be reasoned with. No wonder Saddam gassed them.

God I'm so PISSED at our government for all the lies and self-serving manipulations of foreign policy.

What's it going to take for the revolution?

We need a good dose of 1776 shoved right up Washington's collective ass.


Keeb
 
i wish i could sit down and have a conversation with some of you guys...

i just finished reading the last installment of the celestine prophecy series, anyone else?


completely off topic but what the hell
 
Still think I'm a jackass?

Read this:

From LibertyThink


Check out this zipped copy of the five minute video and you see, cribbing from yesterday's infowars.com analysis: :

3) Berg's last known whereabouts was in U.S. custody.

4) Berg shown in video wearing orange jumpsuit known to be of U.S. issue
(compare with pictures at Guantanamo).

5) Berg mysteriously captured by Al-Quaeda (still wearing jumpsuit). Either
he escaped from U.S. captors or U.S. let him out -- with orange suit and
all -- to be immediately apprehended by Al-Quaeda (before he had a chance to
change).

6) Tape obviously spliced together and heavily edited. Goes from a) Berg
sitting in chair talking about family, to b) Berg sitting on floor with
hooded "militants" behind, to c) blurry camera movement, to d) almost
motionless Berg on floor as head cut off.

7) Audio clearly dubbed in.

8) "Arab" reader flips through pages of "statement" and keeps ending up on
the same page. Perhaps doesn't even known enough Arabic to recognize what
page he's on?

9) "Arabs" have lily-white hands and (other exposed) skin.

10) "Arabs" have Western-style body posture and mannerisms.

11) When Berg decapitated, there was almost no blood. If Berg were still
alive at this point, with the cut starting at front of throat, blood would
have been spraying everywhere. Berg's severed head, the floor, Berg's
clothes, and even the hand of the "Arab" who decapitated Berg had no visible
blood on it.

12) Berg's body didn't move while on the ground. Although held down, Berg
would have tried to instinctively wiggle and writhe away from captor's grip.

13) Camera angle made it impossible to see if Berg's eyes were even open.

14) Alleged "scream" from Berg sounded to be that of a woman and was clearly
dubbed in.
[...]
I believe that Berg (or this lookalike character) was first killed (perhaps
by lethal injection, poisoning, etc.), then decapitated after dead (explains
lack of blood spraying everywhere). Berg was killed by Al-Quaeda (known to
be a CIA - Mossad joint venture). Berg video released at height of furor
over U.S. torture of Iraqis and just before Bush was to decide whether to
release additional torture videos. Now torture videos will be witheld from
public for reasons of national security. Now "patriots" everywhere will
laud the virtues of U.S. torture of "enemies". Sensitivity level of public
gets heightened in terms of what's acceptable treatment of prisoners.
Juxtaposed with decapitation, piling naked men into pyramid is nothing.
Such treatment will be considered more and more acceptable even in domestic
situations.

After the US military denied they had custody of Berg, his family prodiced emails indicating otherwise: AP May 13, 2004:

The [Berg] family showed The Associated Press an April 1 e-mail from Beth A. Payne, the U.S. consular officer in Iraq.

"I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the U.S. military in Mosul. He is safe. He was picked up approximately one week ago. We will try to obtain additional information regarding his detention and a contact person you can communicate with directly," the e-mail said.

In another e-mail four hours later, Payne wrote "I have been able to confirm that your son is being detained by the U.S. military. I am attempting to identify a person with the U.S. military or FBI here in Iraq who you can contact directly with your questions."

In a third e-mail later that day, Payne wrote she was still trying to find a local contact for the family.

CNN May 12, 2004:

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Interesting. All right, now one final thought here. You did a very careful translation of your own, of the statement. And in it, you see no reference to al Qaeda. And yet the official U.S. government translation does. Explain how that happened.

OCTAVIA NASR, CNN SR. EDITOR FOR ARAB AFFAIRS: Oh, I find it very interesting, because out of the blue, there is a mention of al Qaeda on the U.S. government translation. It says: "Does al Qaeda need any further excuses?" Any speaker of the Arabic language is going to notice a difference between the word al Qaeda, which means "the base," and al qaed, which means "the one sitting, doing nothing."

My translation says: "Is there any excuse for the one who sits down and does nothing?" Basically they're telling people, you have no excuse for not doing anything, for not acting and defending Islam and so forth. Whereas the U.S. government translation has this factual error... but basically it sort of adds al Qaeda to the statement, which is not on the statement.

Sherman Skolnick points out:

Early reports, after Berg's disappearance---reports that themselves disappeared---contended that in Iraq , FBI Counter-Intelligence had him at one time either in custody or under arrest. Hey, did anyone ask WHAT is FBI Counter-Intelligence doing in Iraq? With what, if anything, was Berg charged? Not divulged. He thereafter reportedly was turned over to Iraq police---were these FOR or AGAINST the U.S. Military occupiers of Iraq? Not divulged. THEY, in turn, reportedly put Berg on the street where he supposedly was snatched by unidentified persons.

Like in the Danny Pearl matter, some contended that Berg was an informant if not actual operative of Israeli intelligence, apparently seeking to uncover data useful to The Mossad for blackmailing military support money out of the crime-riddled, treasonous Bush White House.


But Skolnick's CIA-kills-Mossad scenario may be undermined byt what appears to be Russian dialogue, perhaps indicating one or more Russian Jews behind the hoods . . . see Portland IndyMedia:

Russian accent?
By Starroute, DU

"...The terrorists in Berg's beheading video are communicating to each other in Russian ! One of them tells to the executioner who was cutting Berg's head: "Davay pozhivee !" meaning "Do it quicker !", or "Hurry up !" in pure unaccented Russian. Initially, I thought I was the only one who noticed it, but other Russian speakers confirmed it as well independently from me. So, who actually killed Berg ? BTW, "Allah o Akbar" they pronounce not with Arabic, but with a Russian-like accent. Also, their demeanor was not Arabic at all, but resembles that of people from the North Caucasus. Those were not Arabs !"


Cross referenced links available in the original article at LibertyThink.

The US Govermnet could not give a flying fsck about its citizens as long as the money keeps flowing into the the Great Whore of Washington, D.C.

I, for one, hope that Titor was for real and that his predictions DO come true. The world needs to wake up. Consumerism and greed have taken over people's value system to the point where everyone only cares about themselves.

Before I get flamed, I know that there are many people who are caring and selfless. I am talking about the masses. The people who would rather trade freedom for security.

I would like nothing better than to see a regression to smaller tighter-knit agro-technical communities, where the freedom of the inividual is respected.

According to ecological growth curves, human population follows what is know as a J-shaped curved, meaning that it will grow exponentially until resources are depleted. Usually at that point in populations, some catastophic event will cause massive death to reduce the population. It is not unheard of for extinction events to occur at that point for a species.

While 3 billion or so deaths would certainly be tragic, I think that Titor is right in saying that the world is better off for it.

You all may disagree, but war is coming.
Too many others hate our corrupt, sorry excuse for a government. We are pissing off too much of the world.

For now,

Keeb


Siegmond: I'm sorry you are so easily bothered by another person's opinion. There is no need to insult me, even though we may not agree. These boards are for discussion, right?
 
its really the same thing as the first and second with more infasis on the story.

i only really found the first one interesting. i enjoy the ideas discussed in the book but i cant say im a fan of its views. im more of a hardcore christian with the understanding of bhuddest physics and mind body relationships hah...flame on if you wish but from everything ive come to study and experience, the truths of religion is the only thing that makes a whole lot of sence to me.
 
the truths of religion is the only thing that makes a whole lot of sence to me.
And those truths are?????

Wouldn't you think that, if anything having to do with spirituality would be considered a "truth", that it could, at some point, be validateable by science?

Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame,religion without science is blind." Given the evidence in our universe for how things are balances of opposing elements, I'd say he got it spot-on. And if you keep your eye on advances in theoretical physics these days, we are coming close to validating some "truths" that many religions seem to share in common (even if they have dressed-down the science with non-technical prose).

RainmanTime
 
keeb, you're lucky I haven't invented a way to beat the living [censored] out of someone OVER the internet, cuz you'd be swallowing your teeth right now. Why don't you go troll at the democratic underground. Are you seriously trying to say that berg *wasn't* decapitated? No... wait... I dont' even want to know your idiot opinion.

I'm completely [censored] done with this thread.
 
dude, you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that he was already dead when his head was cut off, and that it was NOT Arabs that did it. Clearly the US is behind this, released as propaganda to take the heat off their own disgusting treatment of the Iraqis.

chill out.

keeb
 
Friends

First of let us try and get along. No more of that swallowing theeth things, okay.

Now Keebs do has a point. It is very, very coincidental the time these supposed terrormongers decide to execute this person.

Until later becomes now
 
Back
Top