War Crimes.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle

Did you know that:

- the largest export of heroin comes from Afghanistan?
- after US bombed Afghanistan the prices of Heroin went ballistic in Europe?

Did you know that the Taliban banned poppy growth which was one of the reasons they were most hated?

Did you know that as soon as they lost power farmers all over the country started planting poppies again? and noone has enough power to stop them.

Did you know that quite soon that excess opium is going to flood the european market?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Mong
In what way do your "reasons" justify holding human beings in cages that they can't stand up in, in the OUTDOORS, chained up, blindfolded and gagged?

I don't need to. Beeing blindfolded and gagged is sunday school for these guy's.

I have no moral or ethic problem with the way Taliban soldiers are threated. They are dealth with as they deserve.

For me; an eye for an eye. Justice served.

Pussy!

[Mong]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
I don't need to. Beeing blindfolded and gagged is sunday school for these guy's.

Huh? You say they are used to this and find it not at all uncomfortable?

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
I have no moral or ethic problem with the way Taliban soldiers are threated. They are dealth with as they deserve.

For me; an eye for an eye. Justice served.

Are you from Texas?

Anyway, they were defending their OWN country from an INVASION.

Clearly Texan, or thereabouts...

M.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
I don't need to. Beeing blindfolded and gagged is sunday school for these guy's.

I have no moral or ethic problem with the way Taliban soldiers are threated. They are dealth with as they deserve.

For me; an eye for an eye. Justice served.

Pussy!

"ace"

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Mong
Huh? You say they are used to this and find it not at all uncomfortable?

Are you from Texas?

Anyway, they were defending their OWN country from an INVASION.

Clearly Texan, or thereabouts...

Invasion my ass. As I previously described, this is no more a defensive army than IRA 'defending' Northern Irland by doing terrorist acts throughout the island. Offcourse they don't find it comfortable when it's done towards them, but they have more than often done this towards defensless victims without any remorse what so ever.

I'm not American and your still a pussy.

[Mong]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Invasion my ass. As I previously described, this is no more a defensive army than IRA 'defending' Northern Irland by doing terrorist acts throughout the island.

I'm not American and your still a pussy.

I'm beginning to think this account is a gimmick, trolling by the process of infuration - by infuriating people who quote hard facts and logic by denying these said facts with no valid reasoning.

The Taleban was/is not a terrorist organisation. It was the legitamate government of Afghanistan. This is a fact. It is indefatiguable and indeniable, indelible (and probably inedible). Some parts of the Taleban were openly supportive of Al Queda. But then, some parts of the Pakistan government are supportive too, as is Libya, Syria, Lebanon. By this logic, the US must now attack these countries too.

Got it? The TALEBAN was defending its own country. It's really not that hard to understand.

You'll find, btw, that inane gibberings of "your[sic] a pussy" are beneath contempt. Thus, you don't even have mine.

M.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Mong
I'm beginning to think this account is a gimmick, trolling by the process of infuration - by infuriating people who quote hard facts and logic by denying these said facts with no valid reasoning.

The Taleban was/is not a terrorist organisation. It was the legitamate government of Afghanistan. This is a fact. It is indefatiguable and indeniable, indelible (and probably inedible). Some parts of the Taleban were openly supportive of Al Queda. But then, some parts of the Pakistan government are supportive too, as is Libya, Syria, Lebanon. By this logic, the US must now attack these countries too.

Got it? The TALEBAN was defending its own country. It's really not that hard to understand.

You'll find, btw, that inane gibberings of "your[sic] a pussy" are beneath contempt. Thus, you don't even have mine.

M.

I'll surender before we are to far off topic, but firstly let me point this out to you:

Your probably one of those guys who thinks George W. Bush is an illegitamate President of the US, but Taleban (wich isn't American) can be a legitamate power in Afghanistan.

Anti-American pussy! You disgust me.

[Ste]

isnt it Taliban?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
I'll surender before we are to far off topic, but firstly let me point this out to you:

Your probably one of those guys who thinks George W. Bush is an illegitamate President of the US, but Taleban (wich isn't American) can be a legitamate power in Afghanistan.

Anti-American pussy! You disgust me.

your argument has decended into total dribble now hasn't it? and you still haven't answered my point.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Ste
isnt it Taliban?

It is (n)either... it should be <funny squiggle> but I don't type in arabic.

[Mong]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
It is (n)either... it should be <funny squiggle> but I don't type in arabic.

I never thought I'd ever say pld , but that deserves it

[Mong]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
I'll surender before we are to far off topic

We weren't off-topic. We were establishing whether or not the US are commiting war crimes by their imprisonment, and ensuing disgraceful treatment, of Tal[i/e]ban fighters.

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Your probably one of those guys who thinks George W. Bush is an illegitamate President of the US, but Taleban (wich isn't American) can be a legitamate power in Afghanistan.

Bush won the election in accordance with the rules of the USA. I had noticed that the Taleban were not American, ta In fact, what's your point here?

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Anti-American pussy! You disgust me.

So by - in this case - arguing against the USA, I'm somehow "wrong"? Nationalism/Patriotism is a worrying thing. Thankfully I'm mentally equipped to be more objective. Btw...

Originally posted by Mong
I'm not anti-US, ...

M.

[Cynical Oracle]

Firstly:

From http://www.afghan-info.com/TALIBAN.HTM
The Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996 from Mujaheedin regime. The government of Burhan-ul Din Rabani ousted. The Taliban government in Kabul has been recognized only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Republic.

Taliban is not a legitimate force in Afghanistan.

Secondly:

From http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 4

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.

They are not fighting lawfully. They are in breach of part 2 c&d of article 4. Arguably offcourse.

[Mong]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Taliban is not a legitimate force in Afghanistan.

Who is to decide that? Israel is not recognised by many, many countries. Pakistan is effectively a military dictatorship. The Taleban was an enormouse political/military power, with a hell of a lot of popular support - and a lot of support from... the US That's right kids! The US and UK supported the Taleban in taking power from the incumbent government!

I'd forgotten about that, and I'm so glad you reminded me!

I feel the urge to dance a little jig of victory, thus; :e_chick:

M.

[Radical Edward]

the first article does not in any way support your argument. they were in control, however that came to be, especially when considering the situation in Afghanistan before they came into power. In fact the Taleban were actually doing alot of good for the country, including stopping opium production, and their early poicy of disarmament.

Furthermore I have seen nothing suggesting that the taleban didn't follow part 2 c&d either. remember they were defending their country.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Mong

I feel the urge to dance a little jig of victory, thus; :e_chick:

M.

pld

[Mong]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
In fact the Taleban were actually doing alot of good for the country, including stopping opium production, and their early poicy of disarmament.

Indeedy. Of course, it would be lunacy to suggest that the Taleban was a Good Thing (oppresive fanatics for the most part) but they certainly weren't the origin of all evil, as they've been portrayed!

M.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Mong
Who is to decide that? Israel is not recognised by many, many countries. Pakistan is effectively a military dictatorship. The Taleban was an enormouse political/military power, with a hell of a lot of popular support - and a lot of support from... the US That's right kids! The US and UK supported the Taleban in taking power from the incumbent government!

I'd forgotten about that, and I'm so glad you reminded me!

I feel the urge to dance a little jig of victory, thus; :e_chick:

M.

Israel has been recognised by the UN as a state. Afghanistan hasn't. I don't know how many has to recognise a state for it to be one, but I can assure you that 3 islamic states is not enough.

Secondly, The Americans didn't support the Taliban to power. If you read upp you would know that they grew from beeing bodyguards into beeing a fundamentalistic political party.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Israel has been recognised by the UN as a state. Afghanistan hasn't. I don't know how many has to recognise a state for it to be one, but I can assure you that 3 islamic states is not enough.

Ok. http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
Following is the list of the 191 Member States of the United Nations with dates on which they joined the Organization.

Member -- (Date of Admission)

Afghanistan -- (19 Nov. 1946)

ooh it's top of the list!

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Ste

Ok. http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
Following is the list of the 191 Member States of the United Nations with dates on which they joined the Organization.

Member -- (Date of Admission)

Afghanistan -- (19 Nov. 1946)

ooh it's top of the list! [/b]

Piss off wankenstein

[menth0l]

Oh god someone just delete this fool. It so obvious he's just trolling.

[Cynical Oracle]

Delete me for what? Having an opinion?

[menth0l]

For being a useless ****e who can't be bothered to provide any sort of support for your claims and completely ignores any counterpoints while posting something unrelated and/or insults.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle

They are not fighting lawfully. They are in breach of part 2 c&d of article 4. Arguably offcourse.

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

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by menth0l
For being a useless ****e who can't be bothered to provide any sort of support for your claims and completely ignores any counterpoints while posting something unrelated and/or insults.

Are you blind?

Personally I think your sheit to, but I don't really care enough to point it out at every occasion.

[menth0l]

I've pointed this out once. "Every occasion" is what will follow if you don't stop debating this using the "Shut up you **** i know i'm right" -method (tm). The DF3 people have that one down much better.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Emperorn

I was merly picking out a few. I could have done alot more.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Piss off wankenstein

he is still right. Afghanistan was recognised as a state, however the Taleban wasn't recognised as the legitimate government by the UN.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Firstly:


Taliban is not a legitimate force in Afghanistan.

Secondly:



They are not fighting lawfully. They are in breach of part 2 c&d of article 4. Arguably offcourse.

Originally posted by Radical Edward
he is still right. Afghanistan was recognised as a state, however the Taleban wasn't recognised as the legitimate government by the UN.

Where exactly is this right?

Originally posted by Mong
1. So, the Taleban is a fundamentalist religion-based political party? So what? The Taleban was/is not inherently terrorist, it was merely associated with Al Queda. But then, huge chunks of the US are directly funding the IRA. The Taleban was actually fairly representative of a lot of Afghans - i.e. it was the legitimate Afghan government.

Originally posted by Mong
Who is to decide that? Israel is not recognised by many, many countries. Pakistan is effectively a military dictatorship. The Taleban was an enormouse political/military power, with a hell of a lot of popular support - and a lot of support from... the US That's right kids! The US and UK supported the Taleban in taking power from the incumbent government!

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Where exactly is this right?

legitimacy depends on the various states/organisations. this can be seen from the fact that the UN did not recognise the Taleban as the rulers of Afghanistan, but say, Pakistan did. Just because the UN or US does not think that the taleban is the legitimate government does not mean that those people should not have been prisoners of war when they were captured.

[Judge]

Did you know?

That I was the original creator of this thread, and had attempted to delete it?

All I suceeded in doing was removing all my own posts within the Thread, very odd really considering it should all have vanished into the ether?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Judge
Did you know?

That I was the original creator of this thread, and had attempted to delete it?

All I suceeded in doing was removing all my own posts within the Thread, very odd really considering it should all have vanished into the ether?

how come tacitus is the thread creator then?

and it is rude removing active or semi active threads :P

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
legitimacy depends on the various states/organisations. this can be seen from the fact that the UN did not recognise the Taleban as the rulers of Afghanistan, but say, Pakistan did. Just because the UN or US does not think that the taleban is the legitimate government does not mean that those people should not have been prisoners of war when they were captured.

I'm well aware of this, and I'm also a supporter of freedom without boundaries. However, this is not the debated issue.

The Taleban ruling of Afghanistan was not a legit rule according to the UN. Now, as someone previsouly stated, every country bar 2 are members of the UN. This should possibly count for something regarding their authority?

(Also, a helping hand for you anti american people: The previous rulers of Afghanistan was supported by the US, and once they where overthrown by the Taleban, the UN put sanctions on Afghanistan untill the Taleban issue was cleard.)

[Judge]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
how come tacitus is the thread creator then?

and it is rude removing active or semi active threads :P

No idea, I think the Forum database must have screwed up?

As for deleting active threads, at the time it had become static.

Edit:

If you look at the first post by Deffeh on page 1 you will see he has quoted me yet there is no appearance of that quote above.

That was part of the original thread, which i deleted.

Nm: It has taken a life of it's own now......

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
how come tacitus is the thread creator then?

and it is rude removing active or semi active threads :P

Because Tacticus probably made the second post and as Judge's post was removed Tacticus became new 'owner'.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Because Tacticus probably made the second post and as Judge's post was removed Tacticus became new 'owner'.

Strange tho, usually if the original post is deleted all the thread is usually deleted with it?

As I said the Forum DB must have had a wobbly......?

[Cynical Oracle]

You have to check the 'delete thread' option for the thread to be deleted..

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
The Taleban ruling of Afghanistan was not a legit rule according to the UN. Now, as someone previsouly stated, every country bar 2 are members of the UN. This should possibly count for something regarding their authority?

their legitimacy isn't the real issue here, a country was invaded, and as part of that conflict, people were taken prisoner, and hence should be prisoners of war. looking at the Convention again, that seems pretty clear.

incidentally, iirc, on the whole the taleban were treated as prisoners of war, it was the Al Qaeda, and non afghans that were shipped off without POW status.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
You have to check the 'delete thread' option for the thread to be deleted..

I did.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Judge
Strange tho, usually if the original post is deleted all the thread is usually deleted with it?

As I said the Forum DB must have had a wobbly......?

it did go a bit crazy yesterday. I ended up being the first poster to a thread created by Dead_Meat .... I posted even before he did. so did several other people.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
their legitimacy isn't the real issue here, a country was invaded, and as part of that conflict, people were taken prisoner, and hence should be prisoners of war. looking at the Convention again, that seems pretty clear.

incidentally, iirc, on the whole the taleban were treated as prisoners of war, it was the Al Qaeda, and non afghans that were shipped off without POW status.

They are not POW's as long as they are going to 'war' without proper uniforms or insignia as Tacticus so dearly pointed out. Wheter this is Al Queda or Taleban, right should be right.

They are protecting their own country yes, but not any more legit than any other seperatist organisation. Just ask Spanish/English about their problems with ETA and IRA.

I rather enjoy discussing with you.

[Radical Edward]

that is under section 2, section 1 also applies. (the taleban were party to the conflict) and Al Qaeda were volunteers to that group also.

regarding seperatist organisations: If the UK deals with the IRA it is a criminal issue.

<removed a bit that was wrong on second thought>

[Cynical Oracle]

Depending on wich side you take. I'm quite sure the ETA Bask seperatists and the IRA feel invaded by an external party.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Depending on wich side you take. I'm quite sure the ETA Bask seperatists and the IRA feel invaded by an external party.

indeed, and many of the IRA consider themselves POWs, but the UK is a sovereign country exerting a force within it's own boundries when it imprisons them, it's not like we send the military (overtly) into Ireland to get them. the cases of ETA and the IRA do not really compare, as again, the US is blatantly a foreign power invading a soverign nation (Afghansitan)

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
indeed, and many of the IRA consider themselves POWs, but the UK is a sovereign country exerting a force within it's own boundries when it imprisons them, it's not like we send the military (overtly) into Ireland to get them. the cases of ETA and the IRA do not really compare, as again, the US is blatantly a foreign power invading a soverign nation (Afghansitan)

A sovering nation held captive by terrorists or non legit forces. It's our duty to help freeing the Afghan people, as it is to help the Iraq. And yes, I do believe British troops where stationed in North Irland to fight off the IRA.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
A sovering nation held captive by terrorists or non legit forces. It's our duty to help freeing the Afghan people, as it is to help the Iraq. And yes, I do believe British troops where stationed in North Irland to fight off the IRA.

indeed it can, and to a degree it was. However they should still be POWs until you can determine the facts of the matter, and whether they have commited any criminal acts.

to some degree, though I wouldn't like to make any comment since I don't know enough about the IRA and conflict in NI to really be able to judge, since alot goes on inside the region that I didn't hear over on the mainland.

[Eddie]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
A sovering nation held captive by terrorists or non legit forces. It's our duty to help freeing the Afghan people, as it is to help the Iraq.

How about the Palestinians then? The Saudi Arabians? The Kuwaiti's? etc etc.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
indeed it can, and to a degree it was. However they should still be POWs until you can determine the facts of the matter, and whether they have commited any criminal acts.

to some degree, though I wouldn't like to make any comment since I don't know enough about the IRA and conflict in NI to really be able to judge, since alot goes on inside the region that I didn't hear over on the mainland.

Okies. I think we have a good closure to this argument here.

[Kumnaa]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Yes, they could declare that; but on what basis? Are we deliberately targeting Iraqi civilians? Are we mistreating Iraqi prisoners? Or maybe they just think they shouldn't apply to Americans?

If they don't consider themselves bound by the geneva conventions (which they signed), for whatever reason(s), that's their choice. But they should also know that, if/when they lose, we will hold those responsible accountable for their actions and judge them accordingly. If they have a compelling reason why they should be exempt from the rules of war, I'm sure the Tribunal would be happy to hear it.

rules for war, that makes me laugh

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Okies. I think we have a good closure to this argument here.

yeap, it's been interesting, thanks