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 ✨
Options

US bombs Somalian village!

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    US government admits Somalia strikes failed to kill any of the targets

    However an undertemined number of innocent villagers, their herds and their homes were destroyed.



    Well done Uncle Sam! Another decisive victory in the war against terror! :thumb:
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Aladdin wrote:
    US government admits Somalia strikes failed to kill any of the targets

    However an undertemined number of innocent villagers, their herds and their homes were destroyed.



    Well done Uncle Sam! Another decisive victory in the war against terror! :thumb:

    What a supprise.

    As for my Double Post before, I didn't think the first one worked. Ghey.

    Gah. Gunship manages to wreak havoc and no good affect. Those planes are cool, but this is significantly uncool. The thing is, this isn't a supprise anymore. :(
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Flashman's Ghost wrote:
    Shall we start on the non-existent Geneva Convention of Human Rights? Its got nothing to do with Human Rights its about regulating the laws of war - the right to life et al have no place in it.
    I disagree, I think the Conventions were about human rights. One dealt with the treatment of Prisoners of War for example. I think another was about civilians and one about the wounded and one about something else (can't remember, eek!). If you believe that we all have universal natural rights, then you will believe that the conventions are set up to protect these rights.

    If the Geneva Conventions were set up for the sole function of reguating the laws of war, then you could argue that nothing has ever been set up for the sake of human rights, it is all about regulating states.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Yes I can see how breaking the rules has really helped the US win its 'war on terror' and make the world a safer place.

    Is the fight over then?

    Oh how I love 24-hour new media. I don't agree with much of what GWB says, but he was right when he said that this will last a generation. To expect results in six years is naive too.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Man Of Kent wrote:
    Is the fight over then?

    Oh how I love 24-hour new media. I don't agree with much of what GWB says, but he was right when he said that this will last a generation. To expect results in six years is naive too.

    Yes, the war will last a generation.

    But I like how the USA has made no real effort to even think about resolving it, or as far as can be seen, even combat terrorism. More combating foreign people.

    Infact, it was stupid to even start a war. This's isn't a war of soldiers nad machines. This should be a war of covert hits and sabotage. This should be special forces enacting a guerilla war on the guerillas. With devestating effects. Instead we send soldiers, to die.

    Nobody is more confused than to be ordered into a war to die.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    -[MoonRat]- wrote:
    I disagree, I think the Conventions were about human rights. One dealt with the treatment of Prisoners of War for example. I think another was about civilians and one about the wounded and one about something else (can't remember, eek!). If you believe that we all have universal natural rights, then you will believe that the conventions are set up to protect these rights.

    If the Geneva Conventions were set up for the sole function of reguating the laws of war, then you could argue that nothing has ever been set up for the sake of human rights, it is all about regulating states.

    No - its about the rules of war. Many of these rules were in existence way before any concept of universal human rights had been thought off. they have nothing to do with universal human rights - they make mention of how a state treats it own people nor others in times of peacetime. It is only concerned with the war.

    And the Geneva convention is all about regulating states - they're the signatories, not the individual soldiers. The state then has the responsibility of ensuring that the Geneva convention is covered through its only discplinary procedures.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man Of Kent wrote:
    Is the fight over then?

    Oh how I love 24-hour new media. I don't agree with much of what GWB says, but he was right when he said that this will last a generation. To expect results in six years is naive too.
    To expect to win a so-called 'war on terror' by bombing the fuck out of even more people than they used to bomb before 2001 is even more naive.

    You might as well try to put out a fire by throwing buckets of petrol on it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't completely disagree, but you need a mixture of both. Talking alone will not solve this.

    However, to expect instant results is possibly more dangerous.

    It's like believing that the Germans were beaten in 1918.
Sign In or Register to comment.