anti americanism fashionable

[downquark1]

Wrong. If everyone refuses to employ you, where are you going to exercise that so called right?

I agree that sounds a bit silly.

I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income - it happened in some communist countries. Capitolists were forbidden from work and therefore starved.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income - it happened in some communist countries. Capitolists were forbidden from work and therefore starved.

Not just capitalists, the educated, the judiciary and vast swathes of the middle classes.
.....but don't get me started

[danielf]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income - it happened in some communist countries. Capitolists were forbidden from work and therefore starved.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Methinks that so much ink has been spilt in this thread so as to make into a little book.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

So kronas, let me get this straight: You will support invasion of Zimbabwe, right?

thats besides the point you didnt answer any of my points so i will assume the truth hurts and i was correct


seeing some of your points and replys you are not the most rational person hurling insults around sparks a great debate

[Jerrek]

The point of the rules for prisoners of war is that they are not punished for the crimes of their country.

These guys are NOT prisoners of war because they are NOT part of the former Afghan military, and they were NOT dressed in military garb.

If you are called to fight and you are captured you were merely doing your bit to defend your country and should be detained in fitting accomadation until the war is over and then returned to your country.

Agreed. And the accomodations are more than good enough. They live better than some bums on the streets of New York.

Please take your point to Saddam though, and the other dictators.

I believe that isn't refering to the death penalty

Then it must surely refer to unborn babies. Then I completely agree with the statement. Innocent children should not be murdered, and they have a right to life. Excellent point.

I don't have a problem with that, but with certain people being detained without being charged, when this is against your own law and treaties the US have ratified. Especially if the Us are going to point the finger and accuse other of human right violations.

The people that are being detained without being charged [i]are not American citizens[i] and they are not on American soil. Hence, American law does not apply to them, unless you want to extend American laws across the world.

It is not a human rights violation, for me, to temporarily hold illegal combatants. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I think that rule is to prevent minorities being banned from workplace and income

Then it should be rephrased. As it stands, I completely disagree with that statement.

i was correct

Of course. Everyone else has to be wrong because only you can be correct.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

These guys are NOT prisoners of war because they are NOT part of the former Afghan military, and they were NOT dressed in military garb.


Agreed. And the accomodations are more than good enough. They live better than some bums on the streets of New York.

Please take your point to Saddam though, and the other dictators.


Then it must surely refer to unborn babies. Then I completely agree with the statement. Innocent children should not be murdered, and they have a right to life. Excellent point.


The people that are being detained without being charged [i]are not American citizens[i] and they are not on American soil. Hence, American law does not apply to them, unless you want to extend American laws across the world.

It is not a human rights violation, for me, to temporarily hold illegal combatants. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree on this point.


Then it should be rephrased. As it stands, I completely disagree with that statement.


Of course. Everyone else has to be wrong because only you can be correct.

sorry - this isn't aimed at just Jerrek, but I find this kind of "reply to selected parts of a post" 'multiquote' approach, a real pain. Just my opinion, but I feel we miss the big picture, when we reply to posts like that.? - especially when the quotes aren't referenced - is =username too hard?

-

[danielf]

Originally Posted by danielf

Since I don't see each other coming any nearer to each other, let's.

Unless of course, you insists on keeping up the cheap rhetoric...

Originally Posted by jerrek

These guys are NOT prisoners of war because they are NOT part of the former Afghan military, and they were NOT dressed in military garb.

Indeed, some of them are under 16:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...941876,00.html

The thing is, nobody knows who is there. It's a black hole, and that in itself is reason to protest.

According to this source (which you will no doubt dismiss as socialist or communist)

http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/us033103.htm

There's 6 people that were arrested in Bosnia. Not captured in war, but it's not clear they are combatants either.

It also states:

Instead, the United States decreed that no member of the Taliban ´s armed forces was entitled to POW status †â€ÂÂÂ� a decision that most independent international law experts found legally untenable. Furthermore, the United States insisted that no members of Al Qaeda deserved Geneva Conventions protection †â€ÂÂÂ� not even those captured while fighting for Taliban armed forces.


So, it looks like being a member of the Taliban's armed forces, pretty much excludes you from being a POW. Garb or not...

Edit: and while looking for less communist sources, there was this interesting article from CNN:

http://us.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/column...tainees.03.11/

Do note, it is a year and a half old (and at the time all GB detainees were captured in Afghanistan), but it places some question marks at whether this illegal combatants thing is lawful or desirable.

The word quagmire comes to mind...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by homealone

sorry - this isn't aimed at just Jerrek, but I find this kind of "reply to selected parts of a post" 'multiquote' approach, a real pain. Just my opinion, but I feel we miss the big picture, when we reply to posts like that.? - especially when the quotes aren't referenced - is =username too hard?

-

Yes, I agree. As an active poster in this thread, I occasionally find myself reading someone's post, and looking for a reply to something I said, because I expect the poster to reply to one of my posts, but it not being clear from the quotes.

At least I know what I'm looking for. For someone who hasn't kept up with the thread, it must be virtually impossible to keep track of who said what. So yes, please include the username when replying (makes note to himself, and adjusted his last post to include a username).

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by danielf

Indeed, some of them are under 16:

And that means what exactly?

Originally Posted by danielf

a decision that most independent international law experts found legally untenable

Read: Which Europe found untenable...

Originally Posted by danielf

So, it looks like being a member of the Taliban's armed forces, pretty much excludes you from being a POW. Garb or not...

Excellent. This is bad, how exactly?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Read: Which Europe found untenable...

Or read: which the international community found untenable.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Excellent. This is bad, how exactly?

Because it shows that the US in this case have no regard for international law/treaties they themselves ratified, and will do as they please. Yet, when the Iraqi television showed footage of captured Americans, the US were very quick to quote the Geneva Convention. I think this attitude is one of the reasons for the bad rep that the US has around the world.

[kronas]

i found something else... this security operation to 'protect' bush is going to cost YOU yes you the taxpayer £5 million pounds

and bush continues to spout his rhetoric

"I understand you don't like war, and neither do I.

"But I would hope you understand that I have learned the lessons of 11 September 2001, and that terrorists declared war on the United States of America and war on people that love freedom."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3275907.stm

And yet another example of the arrogance of the USA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3281225.stm

First they refuse to accept the report from the IAEA, now they are chastising Europe for refusing to dismiss it along with them.

Originally Posted by kronas

i found something else... this security operation to 'protect' bush is going to cost the taxpayer £5 million pounds and bush continues to spout his rhetoric "I understand you don't like war, and neither do I. "But I would hope you understand that I have learned the lessons of 11 September 2001, and that terrorists declared war on the United States of America and war on people that love freedom."

As a Council Tax payer may I suggest that the people involved in the anti-Bush rent a mob contribute some hard cash towards the policing costs for their marches, Big mouth Ken Livingstone can also donate a few thousand pounds, normally he likes giving other peoples' money away.

President Bush is entitled to say what he likes, he and the USA is our ally and loves freedom as we do in the UK.

Originally Posted by Gogogo

President Bush is entitled to say what he likes, he and the USA is our ally and loves freedom as we do in the UK.

I've always considered the concept that there are freedom loving people and those that are not such a trite piece of rhetoric. After all, aren`t the extremists just fighting for the freedom not to have their way of life dictated to them by the West?