Bush and the Geneva Convention

[bradclark1]

Did you miss my 2nd post, where I already stated:

[i]"Wise up again. Terror nations are on the arise. They will have uniforms and regular armies[ but they won't give a damn about the GC."

We will deal with that if and when it arises. What about fighting a civilized nation?

Quote:
I wonder if your line of thought would change if you were on the recieving end?
That goes for both of us. How many terrorist attacks have you been on the receiving end of?

What don't you understand AL? The Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists. It is not meant to cover terrorists. The GC is for the treatment of uniformed combatants. What is so hard for you to understand about that? So, I am saying the GC cannot and should not be modified to cover tactics for extracting information from terrorist.
You want to shoot fingers and toes off? Fine. Want to beat them nearly to death? Fine. Want to put them on the rack? Fine. They don't have rights. I couldn't care less what is done to them. What I'm saying and saying is the GC is for uniformed combatants to be treated humanely. Don't try and lump terrorists treatment under a convention they are not meant to be under.
Do you understand now?
Terrorist under the GC = Bad
Terrorist not under GC = Good
I can't put it any simpler then that. I am not defending terrorist. Kill them all! I am defending a convention that was and is meant for uniformed combatants.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

We will deal with that if and when it arises. What about fighting a civilized nation?

To which I also stated in my 2nd post:

Yes, there are lines to be drawn but they shouldn't be drawn at the "your pants are way down" line.

Quote:
I wonder if your line of thought would change if you were on the recieving end?
That goes for both of us. How many terrorist attacks have you been on the receiving end of?

What don't you understand AL? The Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists. It is not meant to cover terrorists. The GC is for the treatment of uniformed combatants. What is so hard for you to understand about that?[/quote]
What is so hard for you to understand that terrorists can be uniformed?

What is so hard for you to understand that the world will laugh at you when the time comes and proclaim that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"?

Just look at what the world had done to Israel any and every time it lifts a finger to defend itself. Why learn the hard way when someone else has already been through it.

So, I am saying the GC cannot and should not be modified to cover tactics for extracting information from terrorist.

And I'm saying that you should keep in mind that it's 2006 and the UN still has not defined what constitutes terrorism. Hint. Hint. Nudge. Nudge.

You want to shoot fingers and toes off? Fine. Want to beat them nearly to death? Fine. Want to put them on the rack? Fine. They don't have rights. I couldn't care less what is done to them. What I'm saying and saying is the GC is for uniformed combatants to be treated humanely. Don't try and lump terrorists treatment under a convention they are not meant to be under.
Do you understand now?
Terrorist under the GC = Bad
Terrorist not under GC = Good
I can't put it any simpler then that. I am not defending terrorist. Kill them all! I am defending a convention that was and is meant for uniformed combatants.

And all I'm saying is the GC as it stands, along with the world's anti-Americanism, along with today's terrorist conivences, along with much of the world's upsidedown moral logic today, will have US forces' hands tied behind their backs on day 1 of the next relevant conflict.

[Oberon]

Yes, I don't know what worries me more...the fact that these people from the dark ages are trying to kill us, or the fact that we're chasing them back into the dark ages....