Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

an old subject awakened

1235

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Well, then you have a problem, since various people throughout the world use different morality standards and different concepts of right and wrong. Do you think you have the right to dictate to them outside of a legal code? What you consider an atrocity may very well be considered normal behaviour in Cambodia.

    That's quite right. My problem is that other people do have different standards of ethics and morality, yourself included. What I do about it is air my views, hear you air yours, and in a democracy, we let the majority opinion preside.

    Sure, the basis of Democracy is always compromise, and we often end up with half-way measures that don't effectively do either one thing or another, except offend neither side.

    My other problem is that certain parties do want to dictate. Not just outside the West either, for the West is increasingly dictating standards to the rest of the world with no mandate to do so except that they are richer, bigger and more arrogant than those they dictate to.

    You don't like fundamentalist regimes? Then don't trade with the devil (or the Taliban) just to try to gain a little support against drugs. The Taliban came to power because the West, most notably Britain and the US, allowed them to do so and turned a blind eye to anything but the fact that the Taliban claimed to be against drugs being produced in Afghanistan.

    You don't like Fundamentalist madmen? Then don't spend millions on training and equipping them to fight your enemies. America made Osama Bin Laden, and 3,000 innocents paid the price when the mad dog inevitably bit the hand that had reared him.
    Actually, they were warned. Broadcasts on radio, TV and airdropped leaflets all were efforts to warn them that those sites were considered military targets. There are a number of reports of the civilians chosing to stay in the targets even when they knew they would be targeted.

    I disagree.

    You see, I believe in human nature. Would you expect anyone you know to be at work on the day their place of employment was about to be bombed? No, me neither. I therefore believe that the warnings were not effectively given. If they had been, the buildings would have been empty. QED.

    Please find me a record of that formal declaration of war and its delivery to an appropriate member of the United States Government.

    Sure, right after you tell me why it is that Osama was already on the list of known terrorists threatening America, when you seem to believe that he and your President could have just sat down for a nice friendly chat over a cup of coffee.

    I can just imagine the scenario that you seem to expect me to provide proof of:

    Terrorist: "Hi, are you the CIA agent in Afghanistan"

    Agent: "I don't know what you mean. The CIA has no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I'm a carpet salesman."

    Terrorist: "But Osama sent me, and he seemed pretty familiar with the CIA here"

    Agent: "I deny all knowledge of anyone called Osama. The CIA have no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I am a carpet salesman."

    Terrorist: "Okay. For the sake of argument, if you were a CIA agent, I'd have told you that Osama is declaring war on America."

    Agent: "Well, if I were a CIA agent I'd have killed or captured you as a known terrorist before you got a chance to speak. Also, since Osama is a terrorist, and a leader of a faction, not a legitimate government, he can't technically declare war. We'd laugh. It's not like some piss-ant terrorist is gonna threaten the US and scare them is it? - However, luckily for you, the CIA have no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I am a carpet salesman."

    :D
    Not warnings. That is the media putting their own spin on the issue. What the Intelligence services had were indications. There is a difference.

    Gosh, you mean they forgot to fill in the right "Intention to bomb the US" application forms in triplicate?

    I'm not arguing that the warnings were correctly given and effective, but they were there, and strong enough to have caused some investigations within the CIA and FBI - especially into the ways they could better share information.

    I refer you to my earlier answer which again applies:

    "You see, I believe in human nature. Would you expect anyone you know to be at work on the day their place of employment was about to be bombed? No, me neither. I therefore believe that the warnings were not effectively given. If they had been, the buildings would have been empty. QED."
    And could you explain what infrastructure is housed in the WTC? Two aircraft targeted that one target. If we are to believe that the infrastructure was the target, that target must have housed a significant component to the infrastructure. Of course, as it happens, the WTC didn't house any key infrastructure.

    I'd be quite surprised if there were not companies in the WTC who did not contribute billions of dollars of taxes to the US economy, of which a direct proportion is allocated to the CIA, the millitary, the FBI, etc.

    America is seen as more of a capitalist society by the terrorist than a democratic one - they hit that capital quite effectively which they see (rightly or wrongly) as the pillar of your whole society.

    In targeting those buildings, they stopped all domestic flights for a considerable time. In targeting the WTC, they caused the evacuation (and abandoning of work) in tall office buildings all across America, Britain and other Western countries.

    As a landmark of the NY skyline, attacking the WTC was like defacing the very image of the US itself. They reached out and gave the US an injury that everyone can and will see, possibly for years to come.
    I suggest spending some time in the Armed Forces. There are things that are best learned from experience.

    Oh. I had no idea that everyone serving in the US forces was given extensive training and also first hand experience of what it is like to be a Palestinian, or a General, or a Terrorist.

    I thought it wold mostly teach me how to polish my boots, clean my uniform, respect authority, be part of a team, never question orders, and have less respect for ordinary civillians, with added training in professional and combat skills.
    As for the attacks being brilliant, I would suggest that the attacks showed a complete failure to know the people who they chose to attack and how those people would react to such an attack (as has been demonstrated in US history multiple times). Rather than brilliant, they were extremely stupid and the step most likely to destroy the terrorists aims, goals and very existence.

    Actually, I think it shows that by-and-large, the Americans were shown their complete failure to know the people who they chose to attack and how those people would react to such an attack.

    You are fighting suicide bombers and expect them to give a shit that you'll kill them? ROFLMAO

    The legacy of the action remains long past the deaths of those who commited or planned it. A tiny group that you thought to use and abuse with total impunity reached out a quarter of the way around the world and made America a victim. A bleeding, and shocked victim.

    Yes, America got up and struck back with fury - got down to the terrorists level, but before it did, everyone with hatred or envy towards the US in their hearts got to see you hurt and battered.

    That in itself was probably something they'd have all willingly cut their own throats to acheive.

    The legacy remains. Terrorist organisations world-wide now know that America is not invulnerable. Perhaps they could do the same again, even if they had to hire private jets in the US, equipped with plenty of fuel for supposed international flights, and do exactly the same trick again, but with smaller jet planes - maybe using three-times as many to acheive the same results.
    However, you want a universal rule? We have worldwide rules. They are listed as the articles of the Geneva convention and the Law of Land Warfare. They are the rules that the majority of the world has agreed to. A little research into the nature of those rules, the specific details of those rules and the actual facts behind incidents that you clearly don't have all the data for would go a long way in helping you see what the differences are.

    A universal rule?

    Hell I just want America to grow up and stop being the swaggering bully of the world who cries when the dirty tactics it employs are turned back upon it.

    If Americans must get up and make speeches then let them make ones that aren't hypocritical. Terrorism is wrong? Fine, stop funding it and inciting it. Targeting non-millitary buildings is wrong? Fine, I agree, lets write it into a convention and enforce it.

    Tell me, how did funding and training Osama to fight against the Russians fit in with the Rules of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention? Oh of course, it wasn't covered. Nor of course was the fact you acted against Russia, without openly declaring your hostile intent.

    Oh perleeeeeeeze!

    The whole point of shadow-warfare, be they spooks or terrorists, is that its fine to break any conventions, (they are supposed to be non-conventional) provided you either: (a) don't get caught, or (b) are on the winning side in the end, so you'll be forgiven/overlooked by the victors, rather than condemned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Black_Knight


    That's quite right. My problem is that other people do have different standards of ethics and morality, yourself included. What I do about it is air my views, hear you air yours, and in a democracy, we let the majority opinion preside.

    Maybe you haven't noticed, but a large portion of the world is not represented by democracies. The world is not a democracy. So, when did you last hear the views of a Burmese or a Chinese on what was and wasn't moral?

    My other problem is that certain parties do want to dictate. Not just outside the West either, for the West is increasingly dictating standards to the rest of the world with no mandate to do so except that they are richer, bigger and more arrogant than those they dictate to.

    Interesting how the easiest way to not accept American standards/influence is simply to turn down business like McDonalds, etc. A little different from the tactics of other countries (Britain included) who forced their legal system, their language, and their morality down the throat of other nations.

    You don't like fundamentalist regimes? Then don't trade with the devil (or the Taliban) just to try to gain a little support against drugs. The Taliban came to power because the West, most notably Britain and the US, allowed them to do so and turned a blind eye to anything but the fact that the Taliban claimed to be against drugs being produced in Afghanistan.


    Lovely twist on history. Not true, but cute.
    You don't like Fundamentalist madmen? Then don't spend millions on training and equipping them to fight your enemies. America made Osama Bin Laden, and 3,000 innocents paid the price when the mad dog inevitably bit the hand that had reared him.

    Again, nice twist. Also not true, but why confuse the issue with facts?
    You see, I believe in human nature. Would you expect anyone you know to be at work on the day their place of employment was about to be bombed? No, me neither. I therefore believe that the warnings were not effectively given. If they had been, the buildings would have been empty. QED.

    If your idea of human nature was accurate, North America would be empty. If your idea of human nature was accurate, London would have been deserted during the blitz. If your idea of human nature was accurate, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been ghost towns before the bombs were dropped. Obviously, your idea of human nature is flawed. QED
    I can just imagine the scenario that you seem to expect me to provide proof of:

    Terrorist: "Hi, are you the CIA agent in Afghanistan"

    Agent: "I don't know what you mean. The CIA has no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I'm a carpet salesman."

    Terrorist: "But Osama sent me, and he seemed pretty familiar with the CIA here"

    Agent: "I deny all knowledge of anyone called Osama. The CIA have no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I am a carpet salesman."

    Terrorist: "Okay. For the sake of argument, if you were a CIA agent, I'd have told you that Osama is declaring war on America."

    Agent: "Well, if I were a CIA agent I'd have killed or captured you as a known terrorist before you got a chance to speak. Also, since Osama is a terrorist, and a leader of a faction, not a legitimate government, he can't technically declare war. We'd laugh. It's not like some piss-ant terrorist is gonna threaten the US and scare them is it? - However, luckily for you, the CIA have no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I am a carpet salesman."

    :D


    Gosh, you mean they forgot to fill in the right "Intention to bomb the US" application forms in triplicate?

    Kind of funny. Adolf Hitler manages to declare war within the guidelines of International Law on December 8, 1941 but a terrorist organization can't manage to declare war within those same guidelines in this day and age? By the way, look up the Barbary Pirates. The USA and UK have gone to war with non-nations before.
    I'd be quite surprised if there were not companies in the WTC who did not contribute billions of dollars of taxes to the US economy, of which a direct proportion is allocated to the CIA, the millitary, the FBI, etc.

    Infrastructure as a military term applies to a nation's ability to wage war. Tax dollars have no meaning when it comes to a nation's ability to wage war. Nor did any major companies fail as a result of that attack.
    America is seen as more of a capitalist society by the terrorist than a democratic one - they hit that capital quite effectively which they see (rightly or wrongly) as the pillar of your whole society.

    In targeting those buildings, they stopped all domestic flights for a considerable time. In targeting the WTC, they caused the evacuation (and abandoning of work) in tall office buildings all across America, Britain and other Western countries.

    As a landmark of the NY skyline, attacking the WTC was like defacing the very image of the US itself. They reached out and gave the US an injury that everyone can and will see, possibly for years to come.

    Never been to NYC, have you?
    Oh. I had no idea that everyone serving in the US forces was given extensive training and also first hand experience of what it is like to be a Palestinian, or a General, or a Terrorist.

    I thought it wold mostly teach me how to polish my boots, clean my uniform, respect authority, be part of a team, never question orders, and have less respect for ordinary civillians, with added training in professional and combat skills.

    Guess you should try it so you'd have a clue.
    Actually, I think it shows that by-and-large, the Americans were shown their complete failure to know the people who they chose to attack and how those people would react to such an attack.

    You are fighting suicide bombers and expect them to give a shit that you'll kill them? ROFLMAO

    It isn't the bombers who give a shit. It's their leaders. You don't see Arafat strapping a bomb across his chest, do you? If they were all suicide bombers, we wouldn't have to worry at all, because they would exterminate themselves in due order.
    The legacy of the action remains long past the deaths of those who commited or planned it. A tiny group that you thought to use and abuse with total impunity reached out a quarter of the way around the world and made America a victim. A bleeding, and shocked victim.

    You need to visit the USA and see for yourself. The bleeding was staunched in the first days. There was little shock.
    Yes, America got up and struck back with fury - got down to the terrorists level, but before it did, everyone with hatred or envy towards the US in their hearts got to see you hurt and battered.

    That in itself was probably something they'd have all willingly cut their own throats to acheive.

    Well, we can only hope.
    The legacy remains. Terrorist organisations world-wide now know that America is not invulnerable. Perhaps they could do the same again, even if they had to hire private jets in the US, equipped with plenty of fuel for supposed international flights, and do exactly the same trick again, but with smaller jet planes - maybe using three-times as many to acheive the same results.

    They also know that they will not achieve their goals, and they will be struck back at effectively and hard.
    Hell I just want America to grow up and stop being the swaggering bully of the world who cries when the dirty tactics it employs are turned back upon it.

    If Americans must get up and make speeches then let them make ones that aren't hypocritical. Terrorism is wrong? Fine, stop funding it and inciting it. Targeting non-millitary buildings is wrong? Fine, I agree, lets write it into a convention and enforce it.

    Tell me, how did funding and training Osama to fight against the Russians fit in with the Rules of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention? Oh of course, it wasn't covered. Nor of course was the fact you acted against Russia, without openly declaring your hostile intent.

    Let's see now.....

    Have you bothered to read the Geneva Convention? The Law of Land Warfare? Anything except your own raving?
    The whole point of shadow-warfare, be they spooks or terrorists, is that its fine to break any conventions, (they are supposed to be non-conventional) provided you either: (a) don't get caught, or (b) are on the winning side in the end, so you'll be forgiven/overlooked by the victors, rather than condemned.

    You really ought to read a bit. Try The Mitrokhin Archive. You might actually have a clue what you are talking about then. I doubt it though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe you haven't noticed, but a large portion of the world is not represented by democracies. The world is not a democracy. So, when did you last hear the views of a Burmese or a Chinese on what was and wasn't moral?

    So because some areas of the world are not democratic, it's okay to abandon morality? I'm not sure how your reasoning is working here. Then again, perhaps it just isn't.

    Just to clarify, the US did train and equip Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden, to fight against the Russians. This is fact, not an "interesting twist on history"; they are responsible for the Taleban.

    To support this, here is a quote from George Galloway:
    The former western protege Osama bin Laden, recruited, armed and initially financed by the US to bleed the Russian bear white with his "mujahedeen", is a much more likely culprit.

    ...

    Today's Taleban, the protectors of Bin Laden, are the sons of those US and UK-supported holy warriors once eulogised for their role in defeating the USSR. They in turn are protected by the military government of General Musharaf, the self-declared president of Pakistan. The Pakistani military have long enjoyed the largesse of the Pentagon and the State Department - the same departments still smouldering from enemy attack.

    If you wish to continue your pathetic fantasy that the US were not involved in creating your number one enemy, please provide some evidence to support this in future, instead of just sneering. It really does make your argument look cheap.
    A little different from the tactics of other countries (Britain included) who forced their legal system, their language, and their morality down the throat of other nations.

    The Monroe Doctrine and the Truman Doctrine both spring to mind. They were both by American presidents, categorically stating that they would force their systems down the throats of others.
    Kind of funny. Adolf Hitler manages to declare war within the guidelines of International Law on December 8, 1941 but a terrorist organization can't manage to declare war within those same guidelines in this day and age? By the way, look up the Barbary Pirates. The USA and UK have gone to war with non-nations before.

    I think we can all agree here that anyone with half a brain cell who knew anything about Osama bin Laden pre-11/9 would have known that it was his clearly stated intention to destroy America. Then again, these are the US "Intelligence" agencies we're talking about, so the half brain cell in itself is a huge assumption to make.

    The US can't seriously expect anyone to believe that the only reason they were totally unprepared for 11/9 is that there had not been a formal declaration of war. Have you any idea how stupid that notion makes you look?

    Lastly, it's quite clear that when you see your argument faltering, you resort to one-line quips or fleeting allusions to international conventions or to sensationalist books you have read. If you believe something contained within these is pertinent, please feel free to quote it in future. It kinda helps the argument.

    I look forward to reading your quotes from the Geneva Convention...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Kind of funny. Adolf Hitler manages to declare war within the guidelines of International Law on December 8, 1941 but a terrorist organization can't manage to declare war within those same guidelines in this day and age? By the way, look up the Barbary Pirates. The USA and UK have gone to war with non-nations before.

    To quote The Times, which brought up the very same comparison between the September 11th terrorists and piracy:

    "Pirates did not merit a declaration of war: they were simply hunted down."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's quite funny how Greenhat brings up the Geneva convention. It's just a total shame that it has nothing to do with this topic. The Geneva convention concentrates solely on the treatement of the wounded, prisoners of war and civilians in OCCUPIED territory.

    (13) Articles 14 to 22 of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949)

    Article 14: In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.

    Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.

    The Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross are invited to lend their good offices in order to facilitate the institution and recognition of these hospital and safety zones and localities.

    Article 15. Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without distinction:

    (a) wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants;
    (b) civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character.

    When the Parties concerned have agreed upon the geographical position, administration, food supply and supervision of the proposed neutralized zone, a written agreement shall be concluded and signed by the representatives of the Parties to the conflict. The agreement shall fix the beginning and the duration of the neutralization of the zone.

    Article 16. The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.

    As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to search for the killed and wounded, to assist the shipwrecked and other persons exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment.

    Article 17. The Parties to the conflict shall endeavor to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas, of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas.

    Article 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

    States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

    Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

    The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

    In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.

    Article 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

    The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.

    Article 20. Persons regularly and solely engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, including the personnel engaged in the search for, removal and transporting of and caring for wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases shall be respected and protected.

    In occupied territory and in zones of military operations, the above personnel shall be recognizable by means of an identity card certifying their status, bearing the photograph of the holder and embossed with the stamp of the responsible authority, and also by means of a stamped, water-resistant armlet which they shall wear on the left arm while carrying out their duties. This armlet shall be issued by the State and shall bear the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949.

    Other personnel who are engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals shall be entitled to respect and protection and to wear the armlet, as provided in and under the conditions prescribed in this Article, while they are employed on such duties. The identity card shall state the duties on which they are employed.

    The management of each hospital shall at all times hold at the disposal of the competent national or occupying authorities an up-to-date list of such personnel.

    Article 21. Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land or specially provided vessels on sea, conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals provided for in Article 18, and shall be marked, with the consent of the State, by the display of the distinctive emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949.

    Article 22. Aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases or for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between all the Parties to the conflict concerned.




    Sorry Greenhat, but apart from that there are no "rules of war".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And here is the part concerning the treatment of civilians in occupied terrirtories:
    (14) Articles 70 to 22 of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949)

    Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.

    Nationals of the occupying Power who, before the outbreak of hostilities, have sought refuge in the territory of the occupied State, shall not be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or deported from the occupied territory, except for offences committed after the outbreak of hostilities, or for offences under common law committed before the outbreak of hostilities which, according to the law of the occupied State, would have justified extradition in time of peace.

    Article 71. No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial.

    Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible. The Protecting Power shall be informed of all proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons in respect of charges involving the death penalty or imprisonment for two years or more; it shall be enabled, at any time, to obtain information regarding the state of such proceedings. Furthermore, the Protecting Power shall be entitled, on request, to be furnished with all particulars of these and of any other proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons.

    The notification to the Protecting Power, as provided for in the second paragraph above, shall be sent immediately, and shall in any case reach the Protecting Power three weeks before the date of the first hearing. Unless, at the opening of the trial, evidence is submitted that the provisions of this Article are fully complied with, the trial shall not proceed. The notification shall include the following particulars:

    (a) description of the accused;
    (b) place of residence or detention;
    (c) specification of the charge or charges (with mention of the penal provisions under which it is brought);
    (d) designation of the court which will hear the case;
    (e) place and date of the first hearing.

    Article 72. Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.

    Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.

    Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court. They shall have the right at any time to object to the interpreter and to ask for his replacement.

    Article 73. A convicted person shall have the right of appeal provided for by the laws applied by the court. He shall be fully informed of his right to appeal or petition and of the time limit within which he may do so.

    The penal procedure provided in the present Section shall apply, as far as it is applicable, to appeals. Where the laws applied by the Court make no provision for appeals, the convicted person shall have the right to petition against the finding and sentence to the competent authority of the Occupying Power.


    Maybe you should have read the Geneva convention first Greenhat, before you made the comments about Black Knight's "ignorance".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Maybe you haven't noticed, but a large portion of the world is not represented by democracies. The world is not a democracy. So, when did you last hear the views of a Burmese or a Chinese on what was and wasn't moral?

    I noticed that, but such are not specific to me as you asked, are they. i.e. they are not part of my problem with my country, and the US which my country has chosen to support.

    I last heard the views of a Chinese chap concerning morality only yesterday. This is London, sir, we are quite open to people of all cultures, races and creeds here.

    When was the last time you were able to listen to the views of a Englishman without feeling a need to belittle them? Let me guess, it was the last time one agreed with you, right?

    A Bit About Facts:
    From theBBC News:
    UN sanctions, which were imposed on Afghanistan in 1999 and boosted in 2001, are intended to force the Taleban to hand over Bin Laden.

    As well as being America's chief suspect in the New York terror attacks, Bin Laden is accused by Washington of plotting the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 250 people.

    The Taleban have all along argued that Bin Laden is a guest in their country, and they will not take action against him.

    Along with many in the Taleban leadership, Bin Laden is a veteran of American-backed Afghani resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

    The close bond between Bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar, the spiritual leader of the Taleban, is said to date back to this period.

    I think that addresses quite clearly both whether the US was aware of Bin Laden's hostile intent, and also whether or not America funded and backed him to oppose the USSR.
    From the CIA:
    Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union in 1979. The USSR was forced to withdraw 10 years later by anti-communist mujahidin forces supplied and trained by the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, but the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban movement has been able to seize most of the country.

    You still think that Bin Laden didn't declare war?
    From ABC News: Bin Laden interviewed in 1998
    If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans, in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque, and the Holy Ka'aba, is considered a crime, let history be a witness that I am a criminal.

    I take it you know that 'jihad' is the term for (roughly) 'holy war' and can understand the implications. Prior to the 9/11 tragedy, Bin Laden had openly declared a holy war upon American to interviewers from ABC News.

    Sure, he may not have filled out the right forms, but I think he'd made the declaration pretty damn clearly. :D

    (this one is just you again Greenhat, not any decent source)
    If your idea of human nature was accurate, London would have been deserted during the blitz.

    So you never heard of the Evacuees?

    Almost all of the children of London were evacuated to the country during the Blitz. This was not just their decision, but a properly organised measure to protect them. Many women and elderly people with relatives in the country also left London while they could.

    Hundreds of Londoners moved completely into the Air Raid shelters throughout the entire duration of the Blitz. In Chislehurst Caves, just south of London, an entire hospital was built within the caves, as well as a post office, police station, and much else that meant people could basically live there day in and day out for months.

    Not been to London outside of the tourist trap I take it? :p
    Article 2, Hague Convention of 1907:
    The provisions contained in the regulations (Rules of Land Warfare) referred to in Article I as well as in the present Convention do not apply except between contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

    I take it you can prove that Bin Laden had contracted to be party to the convention? No? Oh dear. Maybe you should read the documents you mention but don't seem to quote.

    FM 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare (US Military Field Manual version)
    I think this may be a useful link for anyone bored enough to read the rules, and stupid enough to think Bin Laden or any other partisan/terrorist/guerilla fighters will have agreed to the convention (spawning the term Conventional Warfare) when their tactics are unconventional (outside of Conventions).

    Greenhat:
    It isn't the bombers who give a shit. It's their leaders. You don't see Arafat strapping a bomb across his chest, do you? If they were all suicide bombers, we wouldn't have to worry at all, because they would exterminate themselves in due order.

    Osama Bin Laden chose to die opposing the US in the hills rather than surrender himself to life in prison.

    I didn't see Bush toting a gun on the front-lines either? That mean he didn't care about it enough or didn't feel as outraged, commited and duty-bound as the soldiers who did? Or did it just mean that he had another role?


    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm getting rather tired of having to justify my right to have the opinion that I stated in my article. Tell me again how you yanks don't try to ram your own morality and ethics upon others. I could do with a good laugh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree, I find it hard to believe that Osama has read the US army field manual, let alone signed up to it.
    And there are very few things in there that are actually condemned internationally.

    The use of chemical weapons with the exception of riot control gas e.t.c are the only weapons there that are prohibited. I don't recall reading that the use of suicide attacks is prohibited, especially if there is no alternative.

    Technically, because Osama declared war on the USA, he hasn't broken any international law, at least none of the ones you seem to love so much Green hat. Please however prove us wrong, and point us to them, instead of informing us of their existence.



    Edited to add:
    I apologise, I misread the part about bombardment. It is illegal to bombard buildings that have no strategic or military value, and do not contain soldiers, or machinery of war.
    It's just a pity we break that rule everytime we use a guided missile and bomb a tv station or 2.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    The use of chemical weapons with the exception of riot control gas e.t.c are the only weapons there that are prohibited. I don't recall reading that the use of suicide attacks is prohibited, especially if there is no alternative.

    Well, dum-dum bullets (hollow tip, etc) are outlawed, and there's questions over depleted uranium ammo too. However, it is still a convention, and only binds all sides that agree to follow it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Exactly, and how many countries have actually signed up to it.....

    Iraq obviously hasn't, but it still has to abide by our rules.

    Methinks that when Greenhat returns he'll be slightly peeved to find that he should have read these conventions first before trying to argue about them with us

    :rolleyes:

    I'm still curious as to why he brought the Geneva convention up at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere



    Edited to add:
    I apologise, I misread the part about bombardment. It is illegal to bombard buildings that have no strategic or military value, and do not contain soldiers, or machinery of war.
    It's just a pity we break that rule everytime we use a guided missile and bomb a tv station or 2.

    The general mission of any Army: "Shoot, Move and Communicate. Might mean that any communication station is a military target, mightn't it?

    A little more research is in order on your parts. In particular on the specific legal language and the application of legal remedies to countries and combatants as set forth by precedent. That is the way that law works. So read a bit of history, and start paying attention to the details of what you are reading, instead of with the assumptions and inferences that you have picked up. Good start by actually reading both the Geneva Convention and the Law of Land Warfare. Now learn how they are actually applied (and not the media's twisted ideas of how they are applied).

    As a simple example, you might read the post about the famous photograph of a burning child in Vietnam. You might also read about the war crimes trials of the Vietnam war (there is more than just Calley). While you're at it, see how many nations you can find that have actually arrested, tried and convicted one of their own members of the military for warcrimes without any pressure from other nations. It's an awfully low number.

    The Taleban did not exist when the US and UK were supporting the Mujadeen. And the majority of the Mujadeen were not supporters of the Taleban. Anyone familiar with the concept of valid conclusions?
    I last heard the views of a Chinese chap concerning morality only yesterday.

    Chinese ancestry or Chinese citizen? Not exactly the same thing.

    As for Brits, I've heard from quite a few. Most recently a few members of the 22d Regiment. They may not agree with me, but I'd say they definitely disagree with you. Of course, they've actually seen the results, actually experienced the reality of terrorism. It's a bit more than just an exercise in philosophy to them.

    You might do a little more research into the meaning of "jihad". Speak with a few experts in Arabic and on Islam. Ask for subtle detail, not just a quick answer. No point to me explaining, you won't believe it.

    We live in a world that is hostile, and is often enough deadly. You can try to ignore that, you can try to believe it doesn't exist, or you can deal with it. Nothing you say will change it. Nothing at all. So make your choice of which you shall do. I've made mine, made it a long time ago, and chose to take action that supported my choice. Will you do the same? I doubt it, I doubt it very much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat



    As a simple example, you might read the post about the famous photograph of a burning child in Vietnam...

    http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27634

    With all respect to you, Sir... Whowhere prefers to quote from mythology, rather than reality.
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    We live in a world that is hostile, and is often enough deadly. You can try to ignore that, you can try to believe it doesn't exist, or you can deal with it. Nothing you say will change it. Nothing at all. So make your choice of which you shall do. I've made mine, made it a long time ago, and chose to take action that supported my choice. Will you do the same? I doubt it, I doubt it very much.

    Again, Sir, with respect to you... Whowhere claims to be a "warrior in waiting"... ;) :rolleyes: Gonna be commissioned in the Queen's Keyboard Kommandos.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kiawall.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    The general mission of any Army: "Shoot, Move and Communicate. Might mean that any communication station is a military target, mightn't it?

    Yes it might, but if that includes television stations... well many arials and satelite dishes tend to be mounted on tall buildings don't they. So, tell me which ones were mounted on the WTC (perhaps a clue is that CNN went offline?). I suppose the WTC could be classified as a millitary target if anyone in it had a mobile phone as well, after all it could be used to communicate, just like a television station could.

    Sounds like lame justification either way.

    I suppose that there could have been a CIA cover company in the WTC too (be quite surprised if there wasn't come to think of it). It still doesn't justify taking out the WTC and it still doesn't justify targeting civillian power stations, television stations or telecoms buildings to me. But have it your way - anyway to twist a rule so you can kill more people is good right?

    A little more research is in order on your parts. In particular on the specific legal language and the application of legal remedies to countries and combatants as set forth by precedent. That is the way that law works. So read a bit of history, and start paying attention to the details of what you are reading, instead of with the assumptions and inferences that you have picked up. Good start by actually reading both the Geneva Convention and the Law of Land Warfare. Now learn how they are actually applied (and not the media's twisted ideas of how they are applied).

    You know, I tried really hard to find anything of significance there and all I found was someone blowing smoke.

    In answer to whether Bin Laden had agreed to follow the convention? Nothing.

    About the fact that terrorism is automatically outside of war conventions (either it is terrorism which is a crime, or it is warfare and all persons captured have to be treated as POWs not criminals)? Nothing.

    About my disproving your ridiculous claim that Osama Bin Laden was not created, trained and Funded by the US? Nothing.

    About disproving your claim that the US did not know Bin Laden had clearly stated his intention to make war upon America? Nothing but that silly bit later about the the word Jihad having several meanings - well read the ABC News interview, Bin Laden made very clear exactly which meaning - that he saw it as his holy and divine duty to Allah to destroy the infidel Americans.

    About me backing up my example of warned people leaving even an entire city, never mind a single building (London, the Blitz)? Nothing. Hell you even got to chose the examples and still (as we say here) muffed it.

    So what did you say? Nothing. A load of words that do nothing to further your case and just attempt to claim some secret hidden knowledge would disprove everything. Fine - I challenge you to quote it.

    Even so, if it takes "specific legal language and the application of legal remedies to countries and combatants as set forth by precedent" I assume you can prove that Bin Laden had been provided with a proper legal counsel by the US prior to the WTC attack? No? Damn, maybe he didn't know your mythical special legal language and remedies either. Can't be a very good law if it isn't actually known by anyone its supposed to apply to.

    And what the hell is the next bit?
    As a simple example, you might read the post about the famous photograph of a burning child in Vietnam. You might also read about the war crimes trials of the Vietnam war (there is more than just Calley). While you're at it, see how many nations you can find that have actually arrested, tried and convicted one of their own members of the military for warcrimes without any pressure from other nations. It's an awfully low number.

    Hello?!

    Are you saying that Bin Laden bombed the WTC in mistaken revenge for that burning child? If not then what the hell is the relevance of this to 9/11?
    The Taleban did not exist when the US and UK were supporting the Mujadeen. And the majority of the Mujadeen were not supporters of the Taleban. Anyone familiar with the concept of valid conclusions?

    The key players, and their convictions and beliefs were well established before the US and the UK picked the one's they'd support. The US chose the fundamentalist in the belief that they'd be the hardest fighters and the least likely to quit. The British instead supported one of the more moderate Mujadeen leaders, but he failed to maintain any power after the USSR retreated and the Rebel groups turned on each other.

    The Taliban were primarily backed by Pakistan, and acheived much of their drive to take 90% of the country from the fact that they promised law and order, traditional values, and an end to the opium trade. Read the CIA report I linked to in my last post, and consider how much America would have wanted to shut down the drugs trade of the country that is the largest exporter of Opium in the world.

    America (and Britain) not only did not oppose the Taliban, they virtually welcomed them as being the precursor to ending the opium trade from Afghanistan for good. Sure, you can delude yourself otherwise, but you'll not delude others.

    Chinese ancestry or Chinese citizen? Not exactly the same thing.

    Chinese birth and residence until a few years ago. Until then he was a chinese citizen. He naturally has chinese ancestry too.

    You might do a little more research into the meaning of "jihad". Speak with a few experts in Arabic and on Islam. Ask for subtle detail, not just a quick answer. No point to me explaining, you won't believe it.

    Dealt with this one already. It is a word with many subleties and nuances. However its exact use was very specific and detailed in the interview. That's why I provided the link as well as the quote.
    We live in a world that is hostile, and is often enough deadly. You can try to ignore that, you can try to believe it doesn't exist, or you can deal with it. Nothing you say will change it. Nothing at all. So make your choice of which you shall do. I've made mine, made it a long time ago, and chose to take action that supported my choice. Will you do the same? I doubt it, I doubt it very much.

    I'm allowing you your choice. I've already made mine. It's what you have spent the last week attacking remember?

    I will not back down. I will speak out. I will contradict and provide evidence. I will promote reason where it is a viable alternative. I believe in preventative medicine. You want America to keep spawning malignant growths in the hopes you'll always be able to rely on expensive and painful surgery (mllitary action) to remove them. I want America, and Britain, and other nations to stop formenting hatred in the first place.

    No more creating the Osama Bin Ladens of the world, because the next malignancy, the next atrocity, may be far greater than imagined. I believe that on the current path, it is only a matter of time before a nuclear or chemical device is used in a major city. Your millitary action will not bring back a single one of the millions that will die when that happens.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Black_Knight


    I will not back down. I will speak out. I will contradict and provide evidence. I will promote reason where it is a viable alternative. I believe in preventative medicine. You want America to keep spawning malignant growths in the hopes you'll always be able to rely on expensive and painful surgery (mllitary action) to remove them. I want America, and Britain, and other nations to stop formenting hatred in the first place.

    No more creating the Osama Bin Ladens of the world, because the next malignancy, the next atrocity, may be far greater than imagined. I believe that on the current path, it is only a matter of time before a nuclear or chemical device is used in a major city. Your millitary action will not bring back a single one of the millions that will die when that happens.

    But you won't actually DO anything, will you?

    And my military action, and those of many like me, have provided for the survival and liberty of millions of people around the world.

    "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." Theodore Roosevelt (Paris Sorbonne, 1910)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And at the end of the debate, that's all you have for all your claims. That you feel it is better to act wrongly than not to take action.

    It was a nice quote though. Inappropriate and lacking any meaningful content to answer the many points that you could not, but still a great quote.

    Thank you for an interesting debate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hatred?

    Act wrongly?

    As a member of the US military, I have helped to build schools and dig wells. I have helped to teach people to farm more effectively, to take care of their health more effectively, to protect what they have worked hard for in their lives. As a member of the US military, I have helped to resettle and feed refugees, to demine large tracts of land in SE Asia, to protect people from murderous thugs who would prefer to enslave, rape or murder those people. I consider myself fortunate to have made friends in countries around the world who are willing to call me for help.

    And what have you done? Made moral judgements about actions you have no concept of? Criticized that which you neither understand or have experienced?

    You are the critic. The quote is very accurate. Try entering the arena.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    And what have you done? Made moral judgements about actions you have no concept of? Criticized that which you neither understand or have experienced?

    You are the critic. The quote is very accurate. Try entering the arena.

    OO-RAH!!!

    Most apropos, Sir!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Critics
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    And what have you done? Made moral judgements about actions you have no concept of? Criticized that which you neither understand or have experienced?

    You are the critic. The quote is very accurate. Try entering the arena.

    Surely his right to be a critic is what you fight for. Why bother fighting for freedom if you don't want people to use it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Never said he didn't have the right to be a critic. Just pointing out that he is, and so the quotation is very appropriate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Never said he didn't have the right to be a critic. Just pointing out that he is, and so the quotation is very appropriate.

    Actually, I posted an article - you are the critic thereof.

    Do try to keep up.

    It would be nice for you to manage to post something that was both relevant and correct somewhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually, it would be nice if you could have bothered to get EITHER of the examples in your little editorial correct. Hard to take your conclusions seriously when you have so obviously biased your data or failed to do any real research. And what were you doing in your piece of mental masturbation? Criticizing, wasn't it?

    But then again, we can't really expect you to have a clue, can we? You haven't actually DONE anything.

    Enjoy your life and your freedom to express yourself. Just remember that you owe both to crass, uncivilized people like me who are willing to sacrifice for others. Oh, and all the martial arts training in the world won't help you should you face warriors. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Never said he didn't have the right to be a critic. Just pointing out that he is, and so the quotation is very appropriate.

    You condemn him for having the temerity to make moral judgements which don't conform to your views. You seem to think that he should not make moral judgements unless he has experienced the same things that you have.

    There are two areas in which some people here are very much mistaken, being an American or being in the armed forces doesn't automatically make you right. It just adds a different perspective.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    As a member of the US military, I have helped to build schools and dig wells. I have helped to teach people to farm more effectively, to take care of their health more effectively, to protect what they have worked hard for in their lives. As a member of the US military, I have helped to resettle and feed refugees, to demine large tracts of land in SE Asia, to protect people from murderous thugs who would prefer to enslave, rape or murder those people. I consider myself fortunate to have made friends in countries around the world who are willing to call me for help.

    You've also been too arrogant, cowardly or foolish to take any level of interest in whether your country could have prevented 3,000 deaths in the WTC.

    No, far more important to be proud than humble, to be heard rather than to listen, to bully your way rather than seek cooperative benefit to all parties. You represent your country well.

    You'd like to think that you were a noble warrior, a man of honour and bravery. I don't see you that way.

    You remember those UN volunteers killed by American munitions in the early days of the 'vengeance' upon the Taliban? Those were heroes. Armed with nothing more than their courage, humanity, and convictions, they risked their lives daily to disarm and clear the mines that were maiming innocents in Afghanistan.

    In the end it was not the mines that got them, however, but an inaccurate American missile. I curse whoever launched it, the man who ordered the launch and anyone who doesn't feel the intense tragedy, waste and pointlessness of their deaths at American hands.

    If you do not feel any sorrow or guilt for those deaths, if you do not see that those lives were worth a hundred war-mongers, then I simply pity you, and all the falsehoods you stand for.

    Still, I suppose we should at least be greatful that you didn't blow up any British tanks this time around.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh dear BK and you were doing so well.

    Your judgment that the UN workers were truly honourable was a good one, and then you spoilt it with anti-war rhetoric.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Black_Knight


    You've also been too arrogant, cowardly or foolish to take any level of interest in whether your country could have prevented 3,000 deaths in the WTC.

    No, far more important to be proud than humble, to be heard rather than to listen, to bully your way rather than seek cooperative benefit to all parties. You represent your country well.

    You'd like to think that you were a noble warrior, a man of honour and bravery. I don't see you that way.

    You remember those UN volunteers killed by American munitions in the early days of the 'vengeance' upon the Taliban? Those were heroes. Armed with nothing more than their courage, humanity, and convictions, they risked their lives daily to disarm and clear the mines that were maiming innocents in Afghanistan.

    In the end it was not the mines that got them, however, but an inaccurate American missile. I curse whoever launched it, the man who ordered the launch and anyone who doesn't feel the intense tragedy, waste and pointlessness of their deaths at American hands.

    If you do not feel any sorrow or guilt for those deaths, if you do not see that those lives were worth a hundred war-mongers, then I simply pity you, and all the falsehoods you stand for.

    Still, I suppose we should at least be greatful that you didn't blow up any British tanks this time around.

    So, Black Knight. Why don't you join the UN demining operations? They always need people. And there's a good chance I'll be one of the people who teaches you how to remove a mine without blowing yourself up.

    Btw, Man of Kent, I don't condemn him, I just think he's a man without the courage to place his actions behind his morals. Basically, a coward.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    But then again, we can't really expect you to have a clue, can we? You haven't actually DONE anything.

    Enjoy your life and your freedom to express yourself. Just remember that you owe both to crass, uncivilized people like me who are willing to sacrifice for others. Oh, and all the martial arts training in the world won't help you should you face warriors. :rolleyes:

    I'll see your "crass, uncivilised", and raise you "crude, vulgar, obscene and temerarious"... ;) Ready to call? Might remember, Sir, that you are on O, and I am an E... :D

    As for "martial arts vs. warriors", 'tis always easier to play at games, than to toe the line, and stand the post in real time. Why should them lacking in the requisite gonadal qualities risk loss of life or limb, when they can simply claim their glory surreptitiously by playing the role of the critic? Form is more important to him than substance...

    As the thespians would say,"Them that can, act; them that cannot become critics to grant a perspective for those too ignorant to observe and judge for themselves." The black knight has elevated himself to the limits of capability, and has found his niche. Be thankful that but for the grace of God, your upbringing, your ethics, your training, your honor, your commitment, your...

    Oh, shit. Reality intruded, and rectumfied the thought. Sorry, Mr Greenhat, Sir... did not wish to impune your character by comparing you to black night. :( My apologies... ;)
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    So, Black Knight. Why don't you join the UN demining operations? They always need people. And there's a good chance I'll be one of the people who teaches you how to remove a mine without blowing yourself up.

    Btw, Man of Kent, I don't condemn him, I just think he's a man without the courage to place his actions behind his morals. Basically, a coward.

    OO-RAH!!!

    The wordsmith has his words. Isn't that enough? :rolleyes:
    Originally posted by Black_Knight


    You've also been too arrogant, cowardly or foolish to take any level of interest in whether your country could have prevented 3,000 deaths in the WTC.

    No, far more important to be proud than humble, to be heard rather than to listen, to bully your way rather than seek cooperative benefit to all parties. You represent your country well.

    Entertaining, is it not, to witness someone without the heuvos to stand a post, call a decorated warrior "a coward"? ROTFLMFAO!

    You have your words, wordsmith. That is ALL you have... You exist by the commitment and sacrifice of those like Greenhat, and have not even the honor to comprehend that.

    Greenhat has cause to be proud; he earned it. He defines SELF-RESPECT. He has measured himself against the yardstick, and proven himself worthy.

    You, have the "pride devoid of substance", otherwise known as arrogance. You define SELF-ESTEEM. You claim worthiness because you exist, and have only your illusions to support you.

    I would serve with Greenhat, and follow him to the gates of Hell, then secure the AO. It is warriors such as he who build and defend nations.

    You? We would take you to the place, leave you there, and laugh all the way back. It is the depravity of those as you who bring nations down.

    Glory in your delusions, such as they are...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Oh dear BK and you were doing so well.

    Your judgment that the UN workers were truly honourable was a good one, and then you spoilt it with anti-war rhetoric.

    You misunderstand me MoK, I'm not anti-war - I'm anti-waste. If Afghanistan, rather than a small cadre of terrorists hiding within it, and unrepresentative of the people as a whole, had launched the 9/11 attack I'd not be opposed to bombing the country.

    That was not the case however.

    Britain knows that activists and agents of the IRA operate in the US to gain funds, munitions and other support for the IRA. Would it be right for us to bomb America to end it? No, and Afghanistan only got shafted because it is small and weak enough to be bullied and abused.

    I have the utmost respect for those who are true warriors, those who act as they must to protect the weak they are duty-bound to serve. My father was a soldier working in demolitions, he worked in Bomb Disposal whilst being readied for the landings, and again on his return from Dunkirk. He was one of the last off Dunkirk, since naturally it was his job to demolish or wreck the equipment that had to be left behind.

    After the war he served in Palestine, and rose through the ranks of the administrative staff there very rapidly (mainly due to the incredibly high Assassination rate). He served as the Town Clerk, runing Palestine, until finally one of the many assassination attempts got him shipped home with 6 months to live (luckily, he defied expectations in this as in much else).

    He was a man of honour and courage. His courage was shown best by his life-long fondness for both the Arabic and Jewish people. He never judged the people by the actions of the few who'd made so many attempts on him. That took real courage. The courage and honour to resist hatred yet never swerve from his duty to protect.

    Millitary service ended by his health records, he became first a social worker, specialising in prosecutions of those commiting abuse, and spent his spare time training in the fields that interested him. He finished a doctor, still serving the weak and needy.

    He fought for people, both with and without a gun and a uniform. He was a true warrior. Not a swaggering lout with a gun and aggression.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Black_Knight
    You misunderstand me MoK, I'm not anti-war

    Indeed I have and I apologise for it. ALthough that was how your comments scanned...

    I'm anti-waste. If Afghanistan, rather than a small cadre of terrorists hiding within it, and unrepresentative of the people as a whole, had launched the 9/11 attack I'd not be opposed to bombing the country.


    The Terrorists were supported by the Govt of Afghanistan. No Govt is fully representative of the people, but the only way to remove the Taliban was to destroy them militarily.

    Britain knows that activists and agents of the IRA operate in the US to gain funds, munitions and other support for the IRA. Would it be right for us to bomb America to end it? No, and Afghanistan only got shafted because it is small and weak enough to be bullied and abused.

    Or because the US had the ability to strike back effectively.

    And the Govt of the US never openly supported the IRA, that is a major difference, but I would happily have bombed Boston anyway :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do not know Black Knight so cannot possibly comment on whether he is a coward or not. I however do know him and have seen him in action defending those who are being bullied or threatened by others, others who, appear to be bigger and stronger than he is. He is always ready to defend those who he feels need and merit it, just because he doesn't crow about it, doesn't make him a coward. Nor is he a coward because he doesn't desire to carry a gun and kill those who would defend themselves, their families or their country.

    Coward
    One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

    That certainly does not apply to Black Knight.
Sign In or Register to comment.