Discussion in 'History' started by S.A.M., Aug 2, 2008.
Sorry I don't live to die, that is a Moslem psychiatric problem, encouraged by Islam.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
When you eventually learn to speak English try and learn another language, so you'll realise that not everyone is defined by Christian American definitions of their words. Shaheed Bhagat Singh was an atheist Hindu.
You mean the Murderer of a Police Officer?
Yeah, a British police officer. Like the Americans today, the British were at one time under the illusion that God had appointed them world police. You killed plenty of them in the US.
Don't recall any police officers in the Colonies?
British Red Coats yes, Military targets, yes, Police No.
And what does the out right assassination of a Officer doing his duty have to do with 232 years ago?
Now how about all of the Hindu, and Sikhs that Moslems killed in the Rape of India.
Moral Relativism doesn't cover that many years, except in the blood law of Islam, Never Forget, Never Forgive, Blood must be Paid in Blood.
You already got owned on that issue, partly because SAM is simply dealing the plain facts here: most people don't like to be occupied by foreigners at gunpoint, and they resist, and part of that resistance involves terroristic vengeance against collaborators.
The other part of the scene is that the "Muslims killing Muslims" category includes the collaborators killing their neighbors in cooperation with the invading military overlords.
So neither the perps nor the victims are "innocent civilians", necessarily, say in Iraq. You have to show that, and specifically exclude the non-innocent civilians, the organized criminals, the collaborators, and so forth.
The accounts I have run across from Iraq almost always involve police recruits, militia centers, etc - except for the death squads, which seem to involve collaborators and ethnic cleansing on all sides, organized crime, and the usual targeting of journalists, labor organizers, and the like that follows the US all over the planet.
I'm afraid that I haven't been owned, although I know liberals like yourself would like to think otherwise.
Nope, sorry, she's not. She's being obtuse.
They don't like being blown to pieces by suicide bombers, either. They don't like being collateral damage when insurgents fire at the occupier from within densely populated areas. They don't like being targeted by extremists for not conforming with extremists views of a 'true' Muslim.
So the insurgents in Afghanistan don't target innocent civilians, they target collaborators. Yeah, right. If you believe that, you're beyond help. It's clear you are attempting to rationalise away terrorist acts.
You're evading again, S.A.M. Do you acknowledge that there are indeed methods one can use to resist an occupier apart from terrorism? Or didn't Gandhi and the moderates exist?
In case you've forgotten, you claimed that the occupied have no choice but to engage in terrorism. I'm responding with the observation that there have been resistance movements which did not employ terrorism, insurgents which did not use terroristic tactics.
I can't access the link, and I don't give a shit. It's not relevant, and you're completely ignorant of Polish-Jewish relations. The fact of the matter is that the Polish Home Army fought honourably, and defended Polish citizens (including Polish-Jewish citizens) against Nazi atrocities. Yes, one of their many tactics was to assassinate individuals who actively collaborated with the Nazis to kill Poles, but they certainly didn't target civilians. The spies, police officers and bureacrats targeted weren't operating at a civilian capacity, but as belligerents.
If the Polish army did indeed kill civilians, then that's unacceptable. There was no need to kill innocents who are just minding their own business, no matter the situation.
You seem to have a strange view of occupation. Do you know that in an occupation, foreign troops "hide" among your civilians? That they do not isolate themselves in open abandoned fields as an easy to hit target?
Here, Poles and Jews:
Thats the link you cannot access.
SAM, you have taken the words from my mouth. I have heard with my own ears the horrors inflicted on refugees from Afghanistan telling people their sad and depressing stories of their recent lives.
Frankly, I have nothing but respect and admiration for those people living in Afghanistan under these conditions. These are people who have lived a life of pain and suffering, inflicted on them by a foreign power's misguided anger.
Indeed SAM, every Afghani person I have ever met has told me the same thing. Any normal human beings would have only one recourse, that is to resist.
But they will put up with those things to be free of the tyranny of foreign military occupation, which is committing similar crimes and without similar justification.
Lesser of two evils.
Only in the Liberal Mind.
Show the similarity of actions.
The Geneva Convention clearly defines the difference, and allows for the use of tribunial to judge the facts.
Article 3 talks about the illegality of taking hostages, sawing off their heads with a dull knife also falls under this.
Using mosques, hospitals, or schools as arms depots or locations to launch attacks is also included.
In short, almost the entire battery of tactics used by Al Qaeda or the so-called insurgents in Iraq is illegal under international law.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal
Separate names with a comma.