Recommended course of action

[pegwinn]

This is far different from bombing vital civilian infrastructure for twelve years and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi non-combatants. This is called an assertion without proof. Then yet AGAIN invading Iraq under premeditated false pretences, and killing hundreds of thouands more these sub-human Hajjis, as the easiest beat whipping boy for America's bargain basement Holocaust on 9/11. This is again called an assertion without proof. Focus on the word premeditated in this instance. By using that word you are assuming that the intelligence was correct, but that the worlds largest disinformation campaign succeeded and only you know the truth.

Why, to compare the two is high treason! Not at all. Treason is clearly defined by the constitution and subsequent law and precedent. I demonstrated tha JFKerry could have been investigated for Treason in another thread. This isn't even close. What it is, is noting historical fact. Nothing more.No, its much more than that, it's...it's.... saying naughty things about our unfuckingbelievablybrave troops!!



The Logical Song

Here you go, Peggy dear. "Dear"? Why Chips ol boy, I didn't know you cared. Shhh, don't tell anyone you like me. It'll ruin your reputation.This sums up what terrorism is quite succinctly! I briefly looked at your link. It appears to be nothing more than the run of the mill blame bush site. Was there something original in there to support the contention that we are the terrorists? Perhaps I missed it.

Not a bad definition. Certainly much better than rsr's. However you are incorrect about protections of the GC. No, I am not.The "reason" that is being given to deny some of the insurgents and terrorists their GC rights is that they don't wear uniforms and are not "legal" combatants. A study of the GC demonstrates that terrorists fall into the "spies and sabatuers" category. Thus they are not protected.This has nothing to do with which atrocities they commit or do not commit. Of course it does. Let me help you out. We use language to label/identify people/places/things. With me so far? Examples abound. Labels for Tajikistan range from "ME Nation" all the way to "The armpit of the asshole of the world". The terrorist label has been colloquially applied to mean exactly who I specified. Another label for example is "Murtha=Idiot", "Clinton=Liar", "Kerry=Traitor", etc etc etc.



And it happened, like shit is gonna happen. I'm not being dismissive of it, I'm saying that RSG's "recommendations" are wayyyyy over the top.

Better to be over the top than under the ground. At least by being over the top you are prepared. Another fine Marine Corps Saying concerning preparedness is "Better to have and not need than to need and not have."

 

[Larkinn]

A study of the GC demonstrates that terrorists fall into the "spies and sabatuers" category. Thus they are not protected.

Please quote the relevant text, because I am unsure what you are talking about.

Of course it does. Let me help you out. We use language to label/identify people/places/things. With me so far? Examples abound. Labels for Tajikistan range from "ME Nation" all the way to "The armpit of the asshole of the world". The terrorist label has been colloquially applied to mean exactly who I specified. Another label for example is "Murtha=Idiot", "Clinton=Liar", "Kerry=Traitor", etc etc etc.

Colloquial names for things have nothing to do with what a legal and binding document refers too. Thats how the vernacular works, that is NOT how it works when one is writing or interpreting laws.

Better to be over the top than under the ground. At least by being over the top you are prepared. Another fine Marine Corps Saying concerning preparedness is "Better to have and not need than to need and not have."

I disagree. I am willing to risk death to live my life how I want to live it. Seriously...would you move out to the country side if there was nothing there for you, just to decrease your chance of death by a faction of a percentage point? Besides that, I made this decision a while ago when I bought a motorcycle. Many more Americans die in bike crashed than terrorism every year. But yet I willingly chose to ride one because for me it was worth the risk.

 

[trobinett]

For some, until they see their sister or daughter laying on the ground with their head blown off, they just won't "get it", sad really.

They think playing the "large hearted" liberal is a good thing, they can show the world how "understanding" they are, how the "feel" for the underprivileged, the down trodden. Well, HELLO, if we weren't ever vigilant, we will become what they feel so sorry for.

WHAT THE FUCK is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Bullypulpit]

I recommend the following before we pull out of Iraq.

If you live in a major city, MOVE. If you can not, buy a shotgun and a rifle and possible a hand gun, I suggest 3 to 5 hundred rounds of ammo for each. If your in a city that doesn't allow weapons I remind you, MOVE.

If you live near any military bases do as above.

If you live near any power plants, stations, facilities, etc, do as above.

If your near any major tourist attractions do as above.

If you have money I suggest redoing your house with hardened concrete from the ground up to at least 6 feet.

I suggest you spend some time on a range relearning or learning to shoot.

You may want to buy a portable generator capable of powering your house. Not sure how safe it will be storing fuel for it but you may want some anyway.

Make good friends with your neighbors and get to know everyone in your general area, know who belongs and who doesn't. Advice them to arm themselves.

You should consider having at a minimum a months supply of food that doesn't depend on refrigeration. As well as a stock of clean water for drinking. Do NOT advertise you have extra food or water.

I would suggest you keep your car full of gas all the time.

When we abandon Iraq you can count on serious attacks to commence inside the US within 2 to 3 years or less.

Vote anything other than a straight Republican ticket and the terrorists will kill you.

 

[pegwinn]

A study of the GC demonstrates that terrorists fall into the "spies and sabatuers" category. Thus they are not protected.

Please quote the relevant text, because I am unsure what you are talking about.

Happy to help.

The prisoners taken in the war on terror are mentioned in the 1st Geneva Convention, Article 44:

"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openlya) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate."

"A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a Prisoner of War"

Or, if you prefer......

ARTICLE 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Of course it does. Let me help you out. We use language to label/identify people/places/things. With me so far? Examples abound. Labels for Tajikistan range from "ME Nation" all the way to "The armpit of the asshole of the world". The terrorist label has been colloquially applied to mean exactly who I specified. Another label for example is "Murtha=Idiot", "Clinton=Liar", "Kerry=Traitor", etc etc etc.

Colloquial names for things have nothing to do with what a legal and binding document refers too. Thats how the vernacular works, that is NOT how it works when one is writing or interpreting laws.

I would say that you are attempting what the French call "Le Dodge". The reason you are dodging is that you said I was wrong. And after I clarified exactly why I was right you are attempting to reframe that portion of the discussion. For anyone keeping score your comment that "This has nothing to do with which atrocities they commit or do not commit" is what needs reinforcing. If you wish to use legal vernacular then say so up front.

Better to be over the top than under the ground. At least by being over the top you are prepared. Another fine Marine Corps Saying concerning preparedness is "Better to have and not need than to need and not have."

I disagree. I am willing to risk death to live my life how I want to live it. Seriously...would you move out to the country side if there was nothing there for you, just to decrease your chance of death by a faction of a percentage point? Besides that, I made this decision a while ago when I bought a motorcycle. Many more Americans die in bike crashed than terrorism every year. But yet I willingly chose to ride one because for me it was worth the risk.

That's a personal decision on your part and you are welcome to it. What you apparently haven't figured out about me is that I support virtually any decision you make under your own power. If you wish to smoke like a fire, drink like a fish, and fuck like a three balled bunny wabbit..... Who am I to tell you no? But, when you get cancer, cirrhosis, and malayCrotchrot..... don't ask me or the taxpayer to foot your medical bill. RGS gave advice freely and y'all are just as free to not take it. Me, I will err on the side of caution when it comes to my families security.

 

[maineman]

Your bullshit attempts to equate "collateral" damage by our military as the same as terrorist attacks is totally ignorant and unbecoming of a former Naval Officer.

maybe if I had actually made such an "equation", you might have some sort of a point. Your nearly elementary school level of understanding of the english language is totally unbecoming of a seaman apprentice without his GED, let alone a retired gunnery sergeant.

I ask you again, if your parents had been killed while sitting in a restaurant that had been attacked with a cruise missile because the people who shot the missile THOUGHT some bad person MIGHT BE in the restaurant at that time, but, in fact, was nowhere near, would YOU be inclined to take up arms if that same country invaded YOUR country and occupied it?

And tell me this: just how many innocent civilians do you think we would have thought were an acceptable number of "collateral" casualties in our attempt to kill Saddam? What if we thought he was in a crowded movie theater? Would you suggest that we launch a cruise missile strike at THAT target because we thought Saddam might be there watching a movie? What about a crowded stadium where we thought Saddam MIGHT be watching a soccer game?

And if we had, would you expect the families of those innocent civilians that you impersonally and euphemistically refer to as "collateral damage" to welcome us with open arms as liberators?

Again.... there is a HUGE difference between WANTING to kill innocent civilians (like terrorists to) and not being overly concerned about a few dozen dead innocent civilian bodies as "collateral damage" (like we did).

[I mean, in the final analysis, they are ALL just dirty brown skinned muslim ragheads whose very religion tells them that we all should die, so what really is the big deal...right?]*

[*italicized to denote sarcasm]

 

[Larkinn]

Happy to help.

The prisoners taken in the war on terror are mentioned in the 1st Geneva Convention, Article 44:

"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openlya) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate."

"A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a Prisoner of War"

That is a protocol to the GC. Specifically its one that the US has not signed . And by the way its not part of the 1st Geneva Convention.

ARTICLE 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

You seemed to miss this part In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention.

I would say that you are attempting what the French call "Le Dodge". The reason you are dodging is that you said I was wrong. And after I clarified exactly why I was right you are attempting to reframe that portion of the discussion. For anyone keeping score your comment that "This has nothing to do with which atrocities they commit or do not commit" is what needs reinforcing. If you wish to use legal vernacular then say so up front.

Considering the GC are legal documents, to look at them in a non-legal way seems foolish. I am not dodging anything, you went on some rant about how we use language to label things. In legal terms, that is not applicable, and since the GC is a legal document which is interpreted in a legal way, it is not applicable to it.

That's a personal decision on your part and you are welcome to it. What you apparently haven't figured out about me is that I support virtually any decision you make under your own power. If you wish to smoke like a fire, drink like a fish, and fuck like a three balled bunny wabbit..... Who am I to tell you no? But, when you get cancer, cirrhosis, and malayCrotchrot..... don't ask me or the taxpayer to foot your medical bill. RGS gave advice freely and y'all are just as free to not take it. Me, I will err on the side of caution when it comes to my families security.

[/quote]

*shrug* feel free to live in your little box if you want. But attempt to convince me to join me, or advise me that I should, and I will tell you the reasons why I think its stupid.

 

[pegwinn]

*shrug* feel free to live in your little box if you want. But attempt to convince me to join me, or advise me that I should, and I will tell you the reasons why I think its stupid.

What little box are you assuming I live in? I personally have not told you or anyone else what I do and don't do in this regard. That would be mistake number one.

Mistake number two is trying to pass off the idea that I have attempted to convince you to "join" me or anyone else.

So, since I didn't advocate anything at all to you; How is it you think you are telling me that anything is stupid. Perhaps those three lines of quote would be better applied elsewhere eh?

 

[pegwinn]

That is a protocol to the GC. Specifically its one that the US has not signed . And by the way its not part of the 1st Geneva Convention. I see. Perhaps you can then link to the official copy that we are signed onto?

You seemed to miss this part In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. It's not relevant to the discussion. And, unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary, we are doing just that.

Considering the GC are legal documents, to look at them in a non-legal way seems foolish. I am not dodging anything, you went on some rant about how we use language to label things. A rant? My boy, you have no idea what a rant is if that is what you call my post. In legal terms, that is not applicable, and since the GC is a legal document which is interpreted in a legal way, it is not applicable to it. Very well. Logically one would expect you to post the stuff demonstrating my error. Batter Up.

Sorry for the second post. My computer hiccuped.

 

[Larkinn]

What little box are you assuming I live in? I personally have not told you or anyone else what I do and don't do in this regard. That would be mistake number one.

You seemed to be endorsing RGS's suggestions. Which, if you do, I would assert means that you live in a rather over protected wussified state. Which is fine if thats your deal.

Mistake number two is trying to pass off the idea that I have attempted to convince you to "join" me or anyone else.

When I say "attempt to do x and I will do y" that is using the future tense, and hence saying this WILL happen, not that it HAS happened.

I see. Perhaps you can then link to the official copy that we are signed onto?

Which one? There are 4, and several protocols. The procotols, like any treaty, are signed by some countries and not others.

It's not relevant to the discussion. And, unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary, we are doing just that.

Yes, actually it is relevant to the discussion. You claimed certain things said that terrorists were not under the protection of the GC. I bolded a part that says otherwise.

And do you really need evidence that we are not allowing people to have a fair and regular trial?

Very well. Logically one would expect you to post the stuff demonstrating my error. Batter Up.

Your error was to use colloqialisms and cite them as an example when referring to a legal document.

 

[pegwinn]

You seemed to be endorsing RGS's suggestions. Which, if you do, I would assert means that you live in a rather over protected wussified state. Which is fine if thats your deal.

"Seemed"? "If you do"? Lots of dodging behind semantics there. Again. What little box are you assuming I live in? Better back up before you stretch too far and fall over.

When I say "attempt to do x and I will do y" that is using the future tense, and hence saying this WILL happen, not that it HAS happened.

Actually, when you said "feel free to......." you made an assumption and your use of the future tense was simply poor communication. Your meaning was clear.

Which one? There are 4, and several protocols. The procotols, like any treaty, are signed by some countries and not others.

I see. Here is your chance to demonstrate integrity by simply admitting that you cannot prove your statement. Whatever will you do with it?

Yes, actually it is relevant to the discussion. You claimed certain things said that terrorists were not under the protection of the GC. I bolded a part that says otherwise.

By your own statement we are not a signatory there. So, if I am wrong, you are as well. Here's another chance to link to the pertinent documents so the discussion becomes more focused.

And do you really need evidence that we are not allowing people to have a fair and regular trial?

Yep. Even by the biased standard of today's media court decisions both for and against are commonly reported. Note that the quoted section stated the time hack involved.

Your error was to use colloqialisms and cite them as an example when referring to a legal document.

Within the context of this discussion the colloquialisms are accurate. But, if the term "Terrorist" frightens you, we can use "Unlawful Enemy Combatant".

I will check back after work tomorrow to see if you are able to dredge up a credible source for your assertions. Hasta la c'ya.

 

[Larkinn]

"Seemed"? "If you do"? Lots of dodging behind semantics there. Again. What little box are you assuming I live in? Better back up before you stretch too far and fall over.

Semantics? No, actually I was just giving you a way out because this particular argument is asinine.

Actually, when you said "feel free to......." you made an assumption and your use of the future tense was simply poor communication. Your meaning was clear.

Excuse me? Please do not assume you know more than I do what I meant. You do not. To state what I meant is speaking about things that you don't know anything about. But then again, that seems to be a bit of a pattern with you.

I see. Here is your chance to demonstrate integrity by simply admitting that you cannot prove your statement. Whatever will you do with it?

Actually YOU made an incorrect statement about the GC and US responsibilities under it. You then quoted a document that the US is not a signatory too as evidence. So, if you wish to back up your statement feel free to attempt to find applicable evidence. The responsibility of proof is yours, not mine. You made the original, incorrect, assertion.

By your own statement we are not a signatory there. So, if I am wrong, you are as well. Here's another chance to link to the pertinent documents so the discussion becomes more focused.

You made a claim about something. I asked you to provide evidence. The evidence you provided was not applicable. How you jump from there to the idea that I need to provide evidence I'm not quite sure.

Yep. Even by the biased standard of today's media court decisions both for and against are commonly reported. Note that the quoted section stated the time hack involved.

Umm they've been held for 4 years without a trial. That violates that clause.

Within the context of this discussion the colloquialisms are accurate. But, if the term "Terrorist" frightens you, we can use "Unlawful Enemy Combatant".

No, they aren't. Colloquialisms are NOT accurate when interpreting a legal document.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The following is a quote from Larkinn...

Excuse me? Please do not assume you know more than I do what I meant. You do not. To state what I meant is speaking about things that you don't know anything about. But then again, that seems to be a bit of a pattern with you.

I find this exceedingly funny as Larkinn does what he is admonishing this fellow NOT to do, ALL the time. He plays word games and tries to twist and spin what others have said to mean what he has decided they mean and when corrected he claims his view is correct and that the person that MADE the post doesn't know what they are talking about.

There is of course a word to describe this....

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Happy to help.

The prisoners taken in the war on terror are mentioned in the 1st Geneva Convention, Article 44:

"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openlya) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate."

"A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a Prisoner of War"

Or, if you prefer......

ARTICLE 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.



I would say that you are attempting what the French call "Le Dodge". The reason you are dodging is that you said I was wrong. And after I clarified exactly why I was right you are attempting to reframe that portion of the discussion. For anyone keeping score your comment that "This has nothing to do with which atrocities they commit or do not commit" is what needs reinforcing. If you wish to use legal vernacular then say so up front.



That's a personal decision on your part and you are welcome to it. What you apparently haven't figured out about me is that I support virtually any decision you make under your own power. If you wish to smoke like a fire, drink like a fish, and fuck like a three balled bunny wabbit..... Who am I to tell you no? But, when you get cancer, cirrhosis, and malayCrotchrot..... don't ask me or the taxpayer to foot your medical bill. RGS gave advice freely and y'all are just as free to not take it. Me, I will err on the side of caution when it comes to my families security.

When did Congress declare war?

Oh that's right. I forgot. Like Japan, America hardly ever DECLARES war....

 

[red states rule]

Vote anything other than a straight Republican ticket and the terrorists will kill you.

True

Dems are the best friends the terrorists have in the US

 

[Rosotar]

True

Dems are the best friends the terrorists have in the US

You are little more than the proverbial "broken record" RSR.

Actually George Bush is the best friend the terrorists have in the U.S.

 

[Larkinn]

The following is a quote from Larkinn...

I find this exceedingly funny as Larkinn does what he is admonishing this fellow NOT to do, ALL the time. He plays word games and tries to twist and spin what others have said to mean what he has decided they mean and when corrected he claims his view is correct and that the person that MADE the post doesn't know what they are talking about.

There is of course a word to describe this....

No surprise you would fail to realize the difference between what I do and what Peg is doing.

 

[Vintij]

Im a bit of a skeptic. RGS using arbitrary scenarios as parapsycological prediction, sounds ridiculous.

Thats like saying, you guys better move away from california because if we let gays get married, you will all contract aids.

Does anyone else have any historical evidence at all, that an attack on US soil came just after a US withdraw? Anything at all?

 

[maineman]

Your bullshit attempts to equate "collateral" damage by our military as the same as terrorist attacks is totally ignorant and unbecoming of a former Naval Officer.

maybe if I had actually made such an "equation", you might have some sort of a point. Your nearly elementary school level of understanding of the english language is totally unbecoming of a seaman apprentice without his GED, let alone a retired gunnery sergeant.

I ask you again, if your parents had been killed while sitting in a restaurant that had been attacked with a cruise missile because the people who shot the missile THOUGHT some bad person MIGHT BE in the restaurant at that time, but, in fact, was nowhere near, would YOU be inclined to take up arms if that same country invaded YOUR country and occupied it?

And tell me this: just how many innocent civilians do you think we would have thought were an acceptable number of "collateral" casualties in our attempt to kill Saddam? What if we thought he was in a crowded movie theater? Would you suggest that we launch a cruise missile strike at THAT target because we thought Saddam might be there watching a movie? What about a crowded stadium where we thought Saddam MIGHT be watching a soccer game?

And if we had, would you expect the families of those innocent civilians that you impersonally and euphemistically refer to as "collateral damage" to welcome us with open arms as liberators?

Again.... there is a HUGE difference between WANTING to kill innocent civilians (like terrorists do) and not being overly concerned about a few dozen dead innocent civilian bodies as "collateral damage" (like we did).

[I mean, in the final analysis, they are ALL just dirty brown skinned muslim ragheads whose very religion tells them that we all should die, so what really is the big deal...right?]*

[*italicized to denote sarcasm]

It really is a fairly simple question, RGS:

How many dead innocent Iraqis would you consider to be an acceptable level of "collateral damage" in a failed attempt on Saddam's life?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It really is a fairly simple question, RGS:

How many dead innocent Iraqis would you consider to be an acceptable level of "collateral damage" in a failed attempt on Saddam's life?

Another of your Strawman arguments. It is anything BUT a fair question, since we did NOT bomb any civilian facilities ON PURPOSE to get ANY Iraqi military or political leader. BUT you already know that. Your a disgrace to the Naval Service and your Uniform.