What Ive been saying all along. More killing less re-building. Democratization is for suckers.
EE-Aw!!
KILL, DON'T CAPTURE
HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM
Ralph Peters
July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
cont'd
55 comments:
"I say we hang 'em, then we tattoo them, then we kill 'em!"
"I say we let 'em go!"
Shut Up Pee Wee!
Well, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo were not captured on the field of battle but turned over to us. Also the Supreme Court just ruled that they are covered by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which they clearly are, if you bother to read it.
If youre trying to impress us by implying that you had actually read the entire Geneva Convention. Mission accomplished.
You are obviously a very talented man to be able to read with your head firmly ensconed up your ass.
Your flawed anti-American logic is the EXACT reason I linked this article. Its just a shame that Bush is too much of a pussy to follow Mr Peters excellent advice.
Im sorry that your guilty conscience prohibits our government from "being mean" to terrorists, but as you quote the Geneva Convention now to ensure vegetarian meals, floor mats,and three hours of must see tv a night to those that would do us harm.
...but Im curious if you would be so quick to reference the GC if and when we decide (as Pres. Jackson* and FDR to name a couple) did to execute non-uniformed combatants on sight as dictated by your exhalted international law geneva convention.
Where is the outrage from you and your pussy hippie ilk when our soldiers are beheaded and tortured. Oh thats right its directed at Bush, because you hate him and hate your country and its really just as simple as that.
* Yeah no shiite dip shit. I know thw GC wasnt around during Stonewall's time, but that just goes to show you that the rules of combat have always allowed for the execution of NON UNIFORMED COMBATANTS as spies and saboteurs.
It all beginning to make sense now. Terrorists are pussies for not wearing Al-Gaeda camel uniforms as they board our planes and plant roadside IEDs bomb discos and trains because they know they would get the shit smacked out of them by your average citizen. You support terrorists because like them, you as well are a pussy.
Here's the problem, or problems really.
1. the court decided that we should apply the part of the GC that is good for the enemy, while totally disregarding the part that says if they don't play by the rules they don't get any consideration. So basically it was a decision in favor of the enemy. (as the donkey has already said)
2. we are rewarding the terrorists! So what do you get when you encourage something? you get more of it! Basically we're encouraging terrorism and because of that more people, more Americans will be killed by terrorists.
Bush should have shut these mofo's down. There should be appeals like if we were on death row! we should shop around for a judge that will side with America, just like the ACLU does when they go to the 9th circuit all the time.
Here's the thing, we are in a major WORLD WAR. and the only branch of government that's trying to win it is the executive! congress is barely on board, and the judiciary is obviously not even taking this shit seriously.
i have to admit to not following the fine points of this argument to the extent that i should and to the point where i feel i have a leg to stand on regarding either side of the issue ... perhaps it's kind of like i wish it would all just go away, meaning this whole terrorism thing, this whole war thing, this whole religious hatred thing ... all of it ... but when stuff like what happened in india yesterday, and stuff like the alleged plots to take down the holland tunnel, brooklyn bridge, golden gate bridge, etc., come down, it's really, really scary.
my point being that i respect the points you guys are making and think it's important that there be some reasoned, rational, and yes, self-interested (i.e., the interests of the united states) middle ground on the whole anti-terrorism thing ...
that's it. for now.
...and I wish Jennifer Garner was chained to my bed post and Saranac Summer Ale miraculously restocked itself in my fridge.
However I do appreciate your sentiment. Contrary to a recent publication claiming conservatives lack a conscience, I think its safe to say that 99% of all non-terrorists prefer peace time over war.
Unfortunately its necessary. It was before Bush and it will be after Bush. Democrats cant seem to understand that the war isnt about Bush, its about a sect of people hell bent on killing Americans.
Sometimes you have to take sides, and it seems liberals continually opt for the side of our enemy. Its one thing to be anti-war, but I fear, and have been proven right in many discussions with the other side who romanticize non Bush wars yet condemn the current war on terror because, well, its Bush's war on terror and that there is no viable anti-war movement in this country. They blame America for the most minor of transgressions, yet get on their knees defending and apologizing for the terrorists, or should I say freedom fighters?
The majority of "peace" rallies held in this country are sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R., aka "Act Now To Stop War and End Racism". Well that all sounds well and good if not for the fact that they are a front group for the World Workers Party, and you dont suppose they have an agendga do ya?
Its unfortunate that our misguided patchouli wearing hippie youuth are being used as pawns in an anti-American anti-Capitalism, anti-Democracy crusade (as for as the adults its just pathetic)
But it is clear that the head in the sand approach is the liberal way, as to face the cold hard reality of the fact that we are at war, that the war was brought to us, and that we must do EVERYTHING possible to win would get in the way of their brilliant anti-Bush platform of saying "War is Bad"
i think jennifer garner is (currently) chained to ben affleck's bed post ... but, come to think of it ... jennifer may be the person who wears the pants in that family so it's quite possible that it's ben the wearing shackles and restraints ...
but seriously, i understand what you are saying. for whatever it's worth (meaning, for whatever my opinion is worth) ...
Donkey, I have not read all the Geneva Conventions but I did read Common Article 3. Perhaps you should read it--it is very short. As for treating the detainees as spies, let's take at look at the Fourth Geneva Convention:
"' Article 29 '. -- A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.
"' Article 30 '. -- A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial."
The detainees are also covered by the Convention Against Torture, which applies to "all persons."
For the record, I do not hate Bush (although I admit to disliking him) and I love my country. You are but one example of rightwingers using the language of treason toward people you disagree with. I say rightwinger rather than conservative, as I respect principled conservatives. Remember limited government, checks and balances, rule of law, seperation of church and state? We are inching toward fascism in my opinion.
And Gary you are but one of the leftwingers, which means liberals, who i do not respect because they have no principals by the way.
WE ARE AT WAR. I have not read the entire GC, however i do know that these prisoners at guantanamo currently are NOT entitled to the considerations of the convention according to the convention itself.
The fact that justice kennedy and his ilk have only decided to consider part of the convention while disregarding the other parts speaks to their extremism, and you're right, we are slipping towards fascism. But it is not the president who is the fascist, it is the leftist judiciary that we must fear at this point. Never before in our history has the judiciary interfered like this during a time of war on behalf of the enemy. In fact, they didn't even interfere on behalf of CITIZENS during the internment of ww2! It is not their place, and they have overstepped their bounds. They are activists and it's disgusting!
Also gary let me remind you that there is no such thing as "seperation of church and state", and if you are truly against torture "for all persons" then you should be happy that we removed saddam and his state sponsored torture and rape and killing of tens of thousands of iraqi people.
The US doesn't torture people, these people are enemy combatants, and are held until the end of the war. Or we could just kill them, which is what the donkey is advocating.
Rhino,of all, its "principles," and mine are doing just fine, thank you.
"WE ARE AT WAR. I have not read the entire GC, however i do know that these prisoners at guantanamo currently are NOT entitled to the considerations of the convention according to the convention itself."
Of course we are at war. The Geneval Conventions do not apply to a picnic in the park. And they do CLEARLY apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo.
I did say, "shut up Pee Wee."
Gary lets start with the fact that they are not uniformed, not a member of any armed forces of any country, target civilians specifically, and we haven't declared war on their country since many of them are not citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Therefore the GC does NOT apply to the terrorists.
The GC applies to these prisoners NOW, because the activists on the court have decided to give them rights. Just like they somehow found a right to stab babies in the head with a fork, and they invented a right to not be offended by the sight of a ten commandments memorial. Just because THEY say it is, doesn't mean it's RIGHT!
Actually Gary you are wrong, you do in fact hate your country. The hippie argument that they arent treasonous traitors just because "rightwingers" say they are is bunk.
You arent traitors because we say so, we say so because you are in fact traitors.
If you and your hippie ilk had the same audience as you do now for every war weve ever fought... Starbucks would be selling tea and at last nights All-Star game David Wright would have hit his homerun with a flat square bat on a circular field.
You tories make me sick.
Actually Donkey I am defending my country against the like of you.
And Rhino, why don't you actually read Common Article 3?
I know you are and thats the problem. My country is America, which side are you on?
In my America people can disagree without being accused of treason. You support policies that I consider disastrous but I have not called you a traitor. We are moving closer to fascism every day.
And Rhino the phrase "seperation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution, but is in a letter of Thomas Jefferson. Shouldn't that be relevant to ascertaining the intent of the Founders?
Listen Gary you miss my point, and if you had half the sense of half witted hummingird youd see that.
Oppossing this war or admins policies does not make you a traitor, as Patrick Buchanan (conserv) or Charles Pena (lib) have demonstrated. Blaming America first and coddling our enemy does.
You cry Geneva Convention when gitmos are exposed to the horrors of a womans menstration, but say nothing when an american soldier is raped, sodomized, tortured and beheaded.
You are an enemy apologist with no grasp on reality. You see what you want to see and that is tragic, for in your world the USA is the bad guy and warts and all that couldnt be further from the truth.
The Horrors of a Women's Menstration (C)
This has to be my new band's name...
I am opposed to american soldiers being raped, sodomized, tortured and beheaded. I didn't think I had to say it.
Yes Gary, i'm sure we should use one obscure passage in one of thousands of letters that Jefferson wrote to decide that the 10 commandments are against the law. Forgetting of course that he participated in prayers EVERY day before the start of the sessions of congress, and was ONE of the founding fathers that started the tradition of putting his hand on a BIBLE to get sworn in.
But i'm sure he meant that there should be a WALL. that no one should ever have to see a monument on any public grounds anywhere! that no public school should be allowed to mention creationism or anything regarding the bible or else get sued by the aclu.
You're probably right gary, of course that would mean that i'm wrong....... so i guess that means NO, that little passage in one of the 20 thousand letters that ONE of the founding fathers wrote shouldn't mean shit!
Rhino, do you actually believe that Creationism should be taught in the public schools?
I don't care what people believe--just don't shove it down my throat or my children's throats.
Creationism and Basket Weaving...no child left behind.
why not teach creationism?
I don't care what people believe either but evolution is shoved down my throat, or my childrens throat!
It is not possible to teach Biology without the theory of evolution. I assume you do not object to Mathematics or History being shoved down children's throats. It's called education.
Creationism is properly taught in churches.
As is jihad taught in Mosques...doesn't make it right.
I see no problem with teaching both Cretionism and Evolution together. If your kids can't distinguish between the two then they probably aren't that smart and so they should just drop out and go to work for a Atheistic crucifix wholesaler.
This whole argument is stupid because both are just theories and they should be taught as that or neither should be taught. I think children can make up their own minds and find out that the truth is probably somewhere between the two.
I suppose they are both theories, in a sense, but one is a scientific theory and one is a religous theory. Perhaps children should be taught both Astronomy and Astrology, and let them make up their own minds.
Many creationist believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. They are mistaken.
gary, it is not possible to teach biology without evolution????
How do you figure that? Evolution is BULLSHIT. It's not true, it's not even science! There is absolutely NO proof of evolution! It is all based on faith! There are NO facts to back up the theory at all, so thats as much a religion as creationism. Why do we have YOUR religion shoved down our throats but mine can't even be mentioned without fear of a lawsuit? How can we send children to school, claim we're educating them about the world, and not ever mention anything about the christian religion which is practiced by 90+% of the citizens of our country????
oh and your analogy is also bullshit. Astronomy is science, astrology is bullshit.
creationism and evolution are both unproved theory that must be accepted on faith.
Creation Science is bullshit and it is not science. Non-science should not be taught in science class. Evolution is a scientific theory, it is as central to modern biology and genetics as the theory of relativity is to physics.
I have my own religious beliefs but I do not think they should be taught in science classes.
I have no objection to children learning about the Christian religion but not in a science class. History perhaps, or sociology. Indoctrination into Christian theology, however, should be left to homes and churches.
Gary again you use the wrong analogy.
either way you miss the point. evolution is central to modern biology because YOU and your ilk have accepted it. It is NOT science. it is not proven. there is NO proof. so you in fact accept it on FAITH!
Also, you have no problem with creationism being taught in other classes, but the fact remains that it's not allowed because people like you get the aclu to sue any school district for any mention of it.
If you teach evolution in science class you can teach creationism in science.
There is rarely if ever FINAL PROOF in science. The theory of evolution is well-supported by EVIDENCE however, including the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence. It is not a matter of faith.Creation Science is disproven by evidence and is not a SCIENTIFIC theory in any case.
I believe there is no conflict between science and religion if science sticks to science and religion sticks to religion. When religion crosses over into science then you get Galileo being put on trial because his unproven Copernican Theory conflicted with some people's interpretations of the Bible.
The Book of Genesis is not a science textbook nor was it ever intended to be.
God-dang-it, I always buy the wrong books and you never get as much back for them as you paid!
I do have to agree with Gary on one point. You shouldn't teach Creationism in science class although I think it is very important to know and therefore it should be taught somewhere along the way. You can't rely on it being taught in the homes or churches. I wish I knew more about Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and other faiths as well...perhaps the solution is to have a standard class that high school students take on modern religion covering all faith even the wacky ones. People tend to be less ignorant about things once they lear a little about them (once again, sheer profundity). For instance, white people who know a varied selection of races tend to be less ignorant and hatefule of them. How many Christians or how much for that matter, do most Islamic Jihadists know about Christianity in general? Just a thought...
Evolution however should not be taught in natural science, biology or any other class pertaining to science...it should probably be taught in a history or cultural class to avoid the misconception that it is proven. You do not need to know that humans might have come from apes to know that a fern produces oxygen...that is just nonsense. Biology can stand on it's own merit while there are a lot of facts that contradict evolution...despite the fact that I tend to see a little bit of the missing link in all of you from time to time.
Just a thought after a thought but if it is so hard for science teachers to separate fact from fiction we have bigger problems then the lesson plan of the day...but if they must teach evolution in science class it should be held totally separate from the rest of the cirriculum and be made perfectly clear that it does not prove or disprove anyone else's belief system...Unfortunately this is probably impossible so it should be in a separate class. You can't look at the periodic table of elements (proven) and put it in the same category as evolution (unproven & controversial). First of all there is no scientific method that proves evolution but scientific method can prove it's not proven. Because of this any science teacher worth his metal (pun intended) shouldn't teach it alongside biology,chemistry,or any other science. Kids are impressionable and they can't discern theory from a fact. It would be reckless to do so and wrong. We aren't talking about Pythagorean theorem here...we are talking about where we come from and why...it shouldn't be taken as light fare when you are talking about education.
Gary, lets go over this one more time. EVOLUTION IS BULLSHIT. there is no proof, and NO evidence. In fact unlike creationism, it has been proven to be UNTRUE. you're wrong.
Gary-
There is more scientific proof for creationism than there is for evolution. The argument that we all derive from one man one womb is more compelling than, contrary to the classic Kinks song that we are Apemen. But if you want to stick to that "belief" than riddle me this...
Why are there still monkeys?
If in fact we "evolved" from primates, by definition that would mean it was for a reason, that they were unable to existin their enviroment, so the need was there to adapt and evolve, into man according to your theory. Lets just say I buy that, then the question still remains...
Why are there still monkeys?
Fly-
For instance, white people who know a varied selection of races tend to be less ignorant and hatefule of them
Stop perpetuating the bullshit belief that only "white" people can be racist...you cracker ass cracka
First, Rhino I must concede defeat since you repeated yourself in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Second, Donkey there are still monkeys because human beings did not evolve from monkeys and no evolutionist scientists have ever said that we did.
Gary, had i known that capital letters was all it took i would have used them sooner, i was just using them for emphasis.
Also, you haven't answered any questions or shown any evidence of evolution. I know it's because there isn't any, but are you willing to finally admit that?
My bad...
...chimpanzees
I will concede there is no absolute proof for evolution but certainly there is evidence. I am not a biologist but I would say two lines of evidence are:
1. genetic evidence--whey do human beings share a high percentage of DNA with primates, a lower percentage with other mammals, and a still lower percentage with, say, petunias?
2. Fossil evidence: a number of transitional forms have been found between birds and dinosaurs, as well as transitional human forms, such as Lucy in Africa.
There is no evidence for creationism of course, because it is a religious doctrine.
Oh, and Donkey--not chimpanzees either. Or apes. Or baboons. Modern primates, which includes us, are believed to have a common ancestor though.
You just kind of proved Donkey's argument there Gary...Dinosaurs are gone while birds who supposedly evolved from Dinosaurs still exist. As for Lucy, the neanderthal not the Peanuts character I suppose, wasn't necessarily linked to humans...it could have been a creature that existed for a period of time and died out the same way dinosaurs did...The fact that there was neanderthals doesn't mean that they were human. If I could prove with fossils that there were unicorns, it wouldn't mean that we evolved from them either. Being similar to something isn't being the thing. Sometimes Rhino is a jerk...that doesn't make him a jerk. Do you see what I am getting at? Until there is proof Creationism is just as viable an explanation (since there is none) to why we are all here than evolution. And Creationism makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. God loves me because God doesn't make junk.
Oh and Donkey, i wasn't saying that black, white or orange people can't be racist but I was trying to convey that if black, white or purple people eaters seem to get along better when they understand each other...kind of the way that I think you are a bad mammo-jammer because I know you. It's all good.
Just because some dinosaurs evolved into birds doesn't mean that all dinosaurs did. I mean obviously the big dinosaur that fought King Kong weren't going to sprout wings and fly away. They might still be here today if Earth wasn't hit by a big asteroid.
very good fly. i'm glad we're in agreement here.
Gary, there is no evidence.
the whole crux of darwins argument is that some form of animal EVOLVED into another form, meaning there isn't any more of that other form. If we have the same ancestors as monkeys, that would mean we're evolved from monkeys, which means there shouldn't be any more monkeys!
There is NO evidence of evolution. NONE. Sorry about the caps, i'm not yelling, just emphasis.
i don't think the big dino that fought king kong would be here anyway, king kong would have killed him and his whole family by now!
Rhino you don't seem to get it. Humans and monkeys both evolved from an earlier common ancestor that no longer exists. I don't mind the capitals but saying there is NO evidence doesn't negate the fossil or DNA evidence, which is very strong.Why do humans and monkeys share over 99% of the same DNA and humans and dogs less?
Did you guys know that they now say the T-Rex was actualy a vegan. If you think about it, it makes sense. The teeth are fearsome but they aren't really all that good for eating smaller creatures. They would have had to have had those teeth to break apart large trees and alike...also T-Rex has those little arms and sort of mishapen legs for chasing and capturing prey. If they fell over it would be almost impossible to get up. Not a good trait for a fierce predator. That being said, King Kong could wipe the floor with a T-Rex and those little retarded arms. In the movie he did and since everything that comes out of Hollywood is Gospel truth I believe it...anyway, if I have 99% the same DNA as a monkey than how come I can't climb trees anymore. Don't tell me that just because a monkey could do my job, that I am his cousin. I thought we had similar DNA to the dolphin as well. I hate those sea born monkeys.
50 comments about Creationism Vs. Evolution on a post about our right to kill captured suspects of terrorism. How awesom is that? What happens at the Aurora should stay at The Aurora.
Gary i'm no scientist, but if there was any evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Was jesus the son of god? christians say yes, jews say no, they'll be fighting about it forever because both have their own beliefs, and neither can prove it.
same here buddy, except that if i do a little homework i bet i can find some evidence that we COULDNT have evolved from any other species. Of course i'm leaving for mexico in the morning, and i won't be back until next week but i'll try to remember and we can battle it out then.
have a good weekend.
Heading home are we? Well, this gringo hopes you have a good time! Don't drink the water...wait, that only applies to tourists! Have a good time dude and be safe.
Have a good time Rhino. Maybe you should take some of those condom things with you.
I know where you can get an authentic looking green card, and dont forget to keep an eye out for those Minutemen. Have fun spic.
..and one more thing
Theres no good beaches in The United States of America to vacation???
Traitor!
Post a Comment