Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 17

 

2006-03-08 12:16:46
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6948

ghettoperson wrote:

I didn't say I wanted that did I? Merely that if you say the US is wrong you instantly get jumped on by everyone.
Apart from the times when you don't [get jumped on by everyone], of course.

ghettoperson wrote:

You could try listening to the other side of the conversation.
That's how I get to know if I am right; by seeing both sides.

ghettoperson wrote:

And since I'd like a decent debate, rather than just the constant flaming of everyone, do you actually know personally any muslim people?
This has already been covered in this thread.

ghettoperson wrote:

I know a large amount of muslims and I can safely say that muslims do not want the destruction of all non muslims, only the extremists.
This has already been covered in this thread.

ghettoperson wrote:

However, I do think that Islam has a large amount of extremists in it. That why people get these opinions.
This has already been covered in this thread.

ghettoperson wrote:

EDIT: Incidently, just curiose. If you do not like Señor Bush, why do you support his foreign policy?
I don't. Bits of it pass the test. Others do not.
2006-03-08 12:24:33
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6948

LaidBackNinja wrote:

So now that you've actually read it, and not just some individual passages, do you see how you were wrong?
I've read the entire Qur'an end to end three times and exerpts of many more times. I learned about Islam from an Islamic perspective. I even went to the Mosque to learn. I am 100% correct about the intent of Islam and am proven correct every single day by the actions of Muslims themselves.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Check out the section on common misconceptions as well, the link I posted earlier.
Believing what the enemy writes about their religion [when aimed at new converts/ infidels] is not such a clever thing to do.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

It explains the whole Jihad thing, like I tried to do here, but it's a bit more succesful. I recommend you read it and you'll finally understand the truth.
I already do understand the truth. Jihad will always be with us until we submit to Islam. That's what it's there for.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

I think I'll even find it in my heart to forgive your earlier ignorance.
Oh I'll be so honoured, you crazy person.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Actually, I won't. You'll still be a tool. Good night.
Hahahaha. You've just found out that your final stab at proving me wrong was totally and utterly squashed flat by me, hence your edit. If that makes me a tool, then I am happy to be one. Sweet dreams.
2006-03-08 12:35:22
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6937|Charlie One Alpha
The edit was because of a typo, but whatever.
If you really did read all of it, and still believe what you say here, then there is clearly no point in arguing with you. You must be some kind of paranoid freak for fearing the Islam like that. If you truly choose to interpret the Qur'an that way, then hell, go right ahead. Just seems mighty stupid to me. Enjoy misunderstanding / being afraid of / hating muslims. I'll just be over here, being friends with them, understanding them, and having fun with them. Cheers!
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2006-03-08 12:53:44
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|6992|Dallas
They fed them pork and had sex in front of them!!!??

Those BASTARDS!!!!!
2006-03-08 12:54:24
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7005

LaidBackNinja wrote:

The edit was because of a typo, but whatever.
If you really did read all of it, and still believe what you say here, then there is clearly no point in arguing with you. You must be some kind of paranoid freak for fearing the Islam like that. If you truly choose to interpret the Qur'an that way, then hell, go right ahead. Just seems mighty stupid to me. Enjoy misunderstanding / being afraid of / hating muslims. I'll just be over here, being friends with them, understanding them, and having fun with them. Cheers!
Discuss your beliefs of the peaceful religion of Islam with the cartoonist in Europe.  See if they agree with you.
2006-03-08 12:59:23
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6877

xanthpi wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

I didn't say I wanted that did I? Merely that if you say the US is wrong you instantly get jumped on by everyone.
Apart from the times when you don't [get jumped on by everyone], of course.

ghettoperson wrote:

You could try listening to the other side of the conversation.
That's how I get to know if I am right; by seeing both sides.

ghettoperson wrote:

And since I'd like a decent debate, rather than just the constant flaming of everyone, do you actually know personally any muslim people?
This has already been covered in this thread.

ghettoperson wrote:

I know a large amount of muslims and I can safely say that muslims do not want the destruction of all non muslims, only the extremists.
This has already been covered in this thread.

ghettoperson wrote:

However, I do think that Islam has a large amount of extremists in it. That why people get these opinions.
This has already been covered in this thread.

ghettoperson wrote:

EDIT: Incidently, just curiose. If you do not like Señor Bush, why do you support his foreign policy?
I don't. Bits of it pass the test. Others do not.
Just humour me here and reply to my questions would you? Thanks.
2006-03-08 13:26:51
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7065
I must find a good translation into English of the  koran [ Sp ] anyone know where to get one ??
2006-03-08 13:31:13
motherdear
Member
+25|6879|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)
well here in denmark we had a guy that had been caught at a terrorist camp in an african country, well he was sentenced to death down there and he begs denmark to help him since he got state citizenship and therefore we gotta do it. now the interresting thing comes when he get's back after being helped by denmark and has gotten money from denmark to rebuild a proper life, he stands up in a tv program and has a discution with the guys that run the program, after a little while he begins to insult denmark althrough we helped him, later in the program they ask him if he would be ready to attack and kill civil persons with a suircide bomb if he could get hands on it, guess what he says he would be more than happy to bomb the danes without any thought of guild, we just saved his life and gave him money to make a proper life and he want's to bomb us. you can't trust muslims that are raised in muslim countries except for maybe 1/10 of them
2006-03-08 13:33:54
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6881

jonnykill wrote:

All I have to say is that toutrue is wrong and it's embarrasing to hear my country is practicing it to be honest . I fell really bad for the poor bastards who just got cuaght up in the mix if you will . I just red in the paper today how we released like 150 inmates because they really weren't a threat and didn't have any information at all . Well if that IS the case then it's just plain wrong . Although I do feel things like breaking a person down mentally and limited physical pain such as " stress positions " and sleep deprivation are all fair game . If we keep this up it will just end up hurting us in the end . We can't stoop down to the level of a terrorist .
Have you read the geneva convention?  Name, Rank and Number.  Nothing else. Do you really think that a U.S. soldier should be deprived of sleep and subjected to physical pain if caught by the enemy because they want infomation from them, because that's what your saying.  The geneva convention works both ways.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
2006-03-08 14:02:27
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6871

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

jonnykill wrote:

All I have to say is that toutrue is wrong and it's embarrasing to hear my country is practicing it to be honest . I fell really bad for the poor bastards who just got cuaght up in the mix if you will . I just red in the paper today how we released like 150 inmates because they really weren't a threat and didn't have any information at all . Well if that IS the case then it's just plain wrong . Although I do feel things like breaking a person down mentally and limited physical pain such as " stress positions " and sleep deprivation are all fair game . If we keep this up it will just end up hurting us in the end . We can't stoop down to the level of a terrorist .
Have you read the geneva convention?  Name, Rank and Number.  Nothing else. Do you really think that a U.S. soldier should be deprived of sleep and subjected to physical pain if caught by the enemy because they want infomation from them, because that's what your saying.  The geneva convention works both ways.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Terrorist do not abide the geneva conventions.  Terrorists are not prisoners of war.  How many times I gotta repeat this.

But ill tell you this from my own personal experience. 

We were on patrol when an IED was detonated and missed us by a long margin, but as sop dictates, we go and search the area for insurgents.  We find two shady nationals walking around very close to the IED sight so we detain them and bring them back to the FOB.  Once they are there,  they get questioned and we weight in any evidence that might go against them.  Once that is done we determine whether or not to release them ( and when we release them, we take them exactly to where we picked them up) and if not then we send off to one of the detention camps throughout the country, where the local Iraqi police deal with them there.  Well these two cats we found were near the IED sight but we found no incriminatin evidence until we did a test on their hands (i forgot whats its called) which would tell us if within the last 24 hours those hands have dealt with any kind of military grade explosives.  When they put their palm on the tester an ink will show up on on their hands determining this fact and guess what, hell yeah these fuckers were playing with bombs.  There would be no other reason why this residue would be on their hands unless they set up this IED (the test recognizes the difference between Gun powder and artillery munitions).  But since that was not enough to send them to the IP's we took these faggots back home for them to fight another day.  My point is, if you end up in Gitmo, there were a huge amount of steps that led you, the most important being the guilt.  Even when they do get convicted of IED's or RPG attacks or what not, jail times is at a minimum since so many people do it.
2006-03-08 14:09:18
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6881
btw, that last post refers to any legal combatants from the Iraq/Afganistan war.  People who have attended training camps and were engaged in combat without uniform or card would in my mind would be more likely to be considered guerilla combatants, so the lack of uniform, rank, card etc., doesn't eliminate their rights as P.O.Ws.  The few who may have been directly involved in terrorist action against civilian targets should be tried under civilian law and all the rights to a fair trial that go along with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

wikipedia wrote:

"Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration in particular has suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." It is opined that by this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law, because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems designed to put detainees beyond the reach of any law.
You're either a civilian or a combatant.  The whole concept of treating terrorists as neither is flawed.
2006-03-08 14:15:38
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7005

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

btw, that last post refers to any legal combatants from the Iraq/Afganistan war.  People who have attended training camps and were engaged in combat without uniform or card would in my mind would be more likely to be considered guerilla combatants, so the lack of uniform, rank, card etc., doesn't eliminate their rights as P.O.Ws.  The few who may have been directly involved in terrorist action against civilian targets should be tried under civilian law and all the rights to a fair trial that go along with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

wikipedia wrote:

"Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration in particular has suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." It is opined that by this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law, because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems designed to put detainees beyond the reach of any law.
You're either a civilian or a combatant.  The whole concept of treating terrorists as neither is flawed.
The whole concept of wikipedia is flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

wikipedia wrote:

Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold
2006-03-08 14:20:53
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6881

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Terrorist do not abide the geneva conventions.  Terrorists are not prisoners of war.  How many times I gotta repeat this.

But ill tell you this from my own personal experience. 

We were on patrol when an IED was detonated and missed us by a long margin, but as sop dictates, we go and search the area for insurgents.  We find two shady nationals walking around very close to the IED sight so we detain them and bring them back to the FOB.  Once they are there,  they get questioned and we weight in any evidence that might go against them.  Once that is done we determine whether or not to release them ( and when we release them, we take them exactly to where we picked them up) and if not then we send off to one of the detention camps throughout the country, where the local Iraqi police deal with them there.  Well these two cats we found were near the IED sight but we found no incriminatin evidence until we did a test on their hands (i forgot whats its called) which would tell us if within the last 24 hours those hands have dealt with any kind of military grade explosives.  When they put their palm on the tester an ink will show up on on their hands determining this fact and guess what, hell yeah these fuckers were playing with bombs.  There would be no other reason why this residue would be on their hands unless they set up this IED (the test recognizes the difference between Gun powder and artillery munitions).  But since that was not enough to send them to the IP's we took these faggots back home for them to fight another day.  My point is, if you end up in Gitmo, there were a huge amount of steps that led you, the most important being the guilt.  Even when they do get convicted of IED's or RPG attacks or what not, jail times is at a minimum since so many people do it.
Well, if they were involved in an attack on a military target with any weapon, improvised or otherwise, then that would be guerilla warfare would it not?  In which case when caught they would automatically be afforded the protection of the Geneva convention. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

wikipedia wrote:

Guerrillas are often characterized as terrorists by their opponents, as part of psychological warfare. Guerrillas are in danger of not being recognized as lawful combatants because they may not wear a uniform, (to mingle with the local population), or their uniform and distinctive emblems may not be recognised as such by their opponents. Article 44, sections 3 and 4 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts", does recognise combatants who, due to the nature of the conflict, do not wear uniforms as long as they carry their weapons openly during military operations. This gives non-uniformed guerrillas lawful combatant status against countries that have ratified this convention. However the same protocol states in Article 37.1.c that "the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status" shall constitute perfidy and is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
2006-03-08 14:29:37
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6881

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

btw, that last post refers to any legal combatants from the Iraq/Afganistan war.  People who have attended training camps and were engaged in combat without uniform or card would in my mind would be more likely to be considered guerilla combatants, so the lack of uniform, rank, card etc., doesn't eliminate their rights as P.O.Ws.  The few who may have been directly involved in terrorist action against civilian targets should be tried under civilian law and all the rights to a fair trial that go along with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

wikipedia wrote:

"Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration in particular has suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." It is opined that by this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law, because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems designed to put detainees beyond the reach of any law.
You're either a civilian or a combatant.  The whole concept of treating terrorists as neither is flawed.
The whole concept of wikipedia is flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

wikipedia wrote:

Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold
I agree there are sometimes disputes over the accuracy of content.  Take this page for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank .  There can then be a discussion of the article on a separate thread and both views can be put forward.  If you can provide legitimate arguments to dispute the neutrality of any of the articles I've posted then do so, and I won't quote them as references in future.  But as a means of consolidating facts and sources into a impartial, easy to use site, you got any better ideas?
2006-03-08 14:35:17
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6871
not in the case of iraq...These people are more closer to mercenaries.  they get paid for evey tank destroyed or officer gets killed or if there attack makes the headlines.  Say an IED took out a brad, $5000 AMERICAN yes AMERICAN, say a tank got tooken out theyll get 10g's.  if they miss, they get shit and starve along with there family.  And since your bringing up geneva conventions, the IED, the enemies #1 weapon, are against geneva conventions.  The willfull and knowledgeble attacks on religious buildings without provocation is against the geneva conventions.  attacking civilian populations when there is no viable military target is against the geneva conventions yada yada yada yada yada.  Mercenaries have no rules, the terrorists who pay them have no rules
2006-03-08 14:35:56
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7005
@UnOriginalNuttah

Since people want them to be POWs then you must read the Geneva Convention.  That describes POWs and how to treat them.
2006-03-08 14:53:54
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6881

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

The edit was because of a typo, but whatever.
If you really did read all of it, and still believe what you say here, then there is clearly no point in arguing with you. You must be some kind of paranoid freak for fearing the Islam like that. If you truly choose to interpret the Qur'an that way, then hell, go right ahead. Just seems mighty stupid to me. Enjoy misunderstanding / being afraid of / hating muslims. I'll just be over here, being friends with them, understanding them, and having fun with them. Cheers!
Discuss your beliefs of the peaceful religion of Islam with the cartoonist in Europe.  See if they agree with you.
So, by your definition Christianity and all it's many variations cannot be a peaceful religion because there are people who do violence in it's name.  I suggest wikipedia as a free source of information on the subject

@wannabe_tank_whore

I have read the geneva convention, I posted a link to the relevant part (third) in this very thread.  Offering a muslim p.o.w. a plate or pork or letting them starve would not be within the limits of the geneva convention, neither would any method of torture (psych or otherwise) to extract information on enemy military activity.  FYI.
2006-03-08 15:22:16
Friluftshund
I cnat slpel!!!
+54|6941|Norway

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

not in the case of iraq...These people are more closer to mercenaries.  they get paid for evey tank destroyed or officer gets killed or if there attack makes the headlines.  Say an IED took out a brad, $5000 AMERICAN yes AMERICAN, say a tank got tooken out theyll get 10g's.  if they miss, they get shit and starve along with there family.  And since your bringing up geneva conventions, the IED, the enemies #1 weapon, are against geneva conventions.  The willfull and knowledgeble attacks on religious buildings without provocation is against the geneva conventions.  attacking civilian populations when there is no viable military target is against the geneva conventions yada yada yada yada yada.  Mercenaries have no rules, the terrorists who pay them have no rules
Who exactly are you pointing your finger at here? At first it seems your anti-terrorist for using IDE's. Then you bring up attacking religious buildings and hurting civilians ---> is that an attack against coalition forces?

If so you have a nice post which at least tries to give a balanced view that no one side is doing all the bad stuff... As previously mentioned herein - there's two sides to every coin.
2006-03-08 15:24:48
Friluftshund
I cnat slpel!!!
+54|6941|Norway
I'l use my favourite example on the Wikipedia-thing:

"Nothing wrong with Wikipedia, just the people who edits it"

Humans will always try to make what they'r saying look the best - why bother saying it if not? Such is the way of Wikipedia, such is the way in here.. What's the point of saying something if it doesn't convince anyone?
2006-03-08 15:26:19
jonnykill
The Microwave Man
+235|6907
Guys most  of the prisioners in Gitmo were from Afghanistan . The high high high level mofo's are being held in secret prision camps in Germany wich was made not so secret not too long ago . Anyhow if you read my link it clearly says most of these guys were just caught up in the mix . I mean we took guy that was Taxi cab driver . We tourtured them to get info out of them . They were held there for 2 years . Then they were sent home with scars and vengence . Now they have to return home , if it's still there , and deal with a different country . Poor smuck is going to be in a rough situation to say the least . If you think we can't make mistakes and every single person held at Gitmo is a true terrorist then why did we let hundreds of them go ? OMG teh Army let all teh terroism go !
2006-03-08 15:26:28
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6881

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

not in the case of iraq...These people are more closer to mercenaries.  they get paid for evey tank destroyed or officer gets killed or if there attack makes the headlines.  Say an IED took out a brad, $5000 AMERICAN yes AMERICAN, say a tank got tooken out theyll get 10g's.  if they miss, they get shit and starve along with there family.  And since your bringing up geneva conventions, the IED, the enemies #1 weapon, are against geneva conventions.  The willfull and knowledgeble attacks on religious buildings without provocation is against the geneva conventions.  attacking civilian populations when there is no viable military target is against the geneva conventions yada yada yada yada yada.  Mercenaries have no rules, the terrorists who pay them have no rules
Exactly which part of the Geneva convention says that improvising an explosive device from whatever materials are available when engaged in guerilla warfare with a military target is prohibited? Aren't their effects usually pretty much identical to a land mine or claymore?  You probably know more about this than me, having been trained in detecting and avoiding them, but would an grenade with the pin tied to a trip wire be any different to a concealed claymore a floor level?  The only difference is the grenade was designed to be thrown, but a mechanism was improvised to cause it to explode when someone triggered it, therefore making it an IED.  The difference between an act of war and a crime / act of terrorism is whether or not the person who accidentally triggers that device is military or civilian.

The problem that I see is that, unlike battlefield, there are acts of terror against civilians occurring while there is an active military conflict in the same regions and distingishing between the two becomes very tricky.  In the case where a person or group engaging in acts of terrorism -and- acts of combat, I believe they should be tried fairly tried as a civilian for those acts of terror and complete their sentence before becoming a POW.  They were civilians before they were soldiers, and so should be tried for civilian crimes before any treatment as a combatant.   

GunSlinger, do mercs give up their human rights when they agree to fight?  Better keep that one schtum, cos the U.S. Army might have a hard time finding more to hire once the mercs find out.  Give me your best shot, and I'll be back to defend myself tomorrow.
2006-03-08 15:27:46
Friluftshund
I cnat slpel!!!
+54|6941|Norway
xanthpi:

I'm still looking forward to the post where you don't pull everything out of context, but try to answer with a respectful tone...

You seem to think you own someone (or pwn), but as you pass youself of as a scholar - you must know that's not how it works...
2006-03-08 15:34:38
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6948

LaidBackNinja wrote:

The edit was because of a typo, but whatever.
Of course it was

LaidBackNinja wrote:

If you really did read all of it, and still believe what you say here, then there is clearly no point in arguing with you.
....because you'll lose every single time. See previous posts in this thread for proof.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

You must be some kind of paranoid freak for fearing the Islam like that.
Because only paranoid freaks fear entities which will either kill or convert them, given half the chance.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

If you truly choose to interpret the Qur'an that way, then hell, go right ahead.
Can't you fucking read? I've already said before in this thread that I haven't interpreted the Qur'an.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Just seems mighty stupid to me. Enjoy misunderstanding / being afraid of / hating muslims.
As already proven, I do not misunderstand Islam. I freely admit to being afraid of Islam and to hating true Muslims. And why not? Allah commands them to do all they can to subvert my society (as they are) and to wage war against my society (which they are). Seems logical to me to be opposed to them.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

I'll just be over here, being friends with them, understanding them, and having fun with them. Cheers!
No you won't! It is illegal for a Muslim to be friends with a Christian or a Jew and they are commanded to utterly hate Buddhists, Hindus and atheists. So you won't be friends with them, regardless of whether you think you will be or not.

And what happened to you not responding to me from now on, after I utterly wiped the floor with you earier on? More lies from StressedOutNinja.
2006-03-08 15:40:53
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6948

Cougar wrote:

They fed them pork and had sex in front of them!!!??

Those BASTARDS!!!!!
No, no, no! They allegedly did those things. Since Muslim terrorists know how to play the system and are instructed to lie about their experiences in detention [see link to al Qaeda handbook earlier in thread], no-one will ever know what goes on in those prisons.
2006-03-08 15:43:13
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6948

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

The edit was because of a typo, but whatever.
If you really did read all of it, and still believe what you say here, then there is clearly no point in arguing with you. You must be some kind of paranoid freak for fearing the Islam like that. If you truly choose to interpret the Qur'an that way, then hell, go right ahead. Just seems mighty stupid to me. Enjoy misunderstanding / being afraid of / hating muslims. I'll just be over here, being friends with them, understanding them, and having fun with them. Cheers!
Discuss your beliefs of the peaceful religion of Islam with the cartoonist in Europe.  See if they agree with you.
That's right. And a recent study into Islam (can't remember where I saw it so no link at the mo) showed that 50% of the sample supported terrorist acts against infidels. That's a hell of alot of 'misunderstanders' of their own peaceful religion

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 17

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard