• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

and who gets to declare someone as an unlawful combatant and therefore undeserving of any human rights?


you?

Heard of the Geneva Convention? google it....
 
Heard of the Geneva Convention? google it....

oh, and a soldier in the field carries a copy of the Geneva Convention at all times, and uses it to decide which enemy gets to surrender and be held as a POW, and which one should have his head blown off?

the fact is that it takes a bit of homework to declare someone a true unlawful combatent.
 
The justification is that these individuals are a danger to civilization, and that danger needs to be removed. This is not that complicated, ya know.

Is it lawful to kill unlawful combatants? Well, yes, since they are not protected by the Geneva conventions.

And BTW, these people hardly qualify as human beings after what they've done. They're ****ing animals, and if you don't see that, then there's pretty much no hope for you.

My mother in law would gladly double tap one of the ****ers in front of a TV crew. Doubt she'll ever get the chance, but you never know. I'm sure people like you would be scrambling to bring her up on UCMJ and throw her ass to the dogs of the world court, but she wouldn't give a **** - that would be one less ****head who will go around lopping innocent people's heads off.

Just who is included in this category of people who hardly qualify as human beings and who, therefore, we need to hunt down and kill? Is it all Iraqis? Afgans? All people in the ME? Anyone who doesn't like what the US has done in the ME? Does it include women and children as well? Is it anyone who is a devout Muslim? Just how broad is this "people who hardly qualify as human" category? Just wondering.
 
So, you beleive then that the Afghans are responsible for the actions of the Taliban and share in the repsonsibility for the attacks on 9/11?

The Taliban weren't responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Afghanistan didn't attack us at all. Just to make sure you know, those who attacked us came from mostly SA. Money for it came from SA and Pakistan. It's a large leap to link Afghanistan to 9/11.
 
The Taliban weren't responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Afghanistan didn't attack us at all. Just to make sure you know, those who attacked us came from mostly SA. Money for it came from SA and Pakistan. It's a large leap to link Afghanistan to 9/11.



You are kidding right? Taliban harbored and gave safe sanctuary to al qaeda, protected them to the point of war. You are being serious? no..... way...
 
You are kidding right? Taliban harbored and gave safe sanctuary to al qaeda, protected them to the point of war. You are being serious? no..... way...

Isn't that a different issue? The Taliban did not plan or execute the attack. This is just a fact.
 
Isn't that a different issue? The Taliban did not plan or execute the attack. This is just a fact.

It is only a different issue for those looking desperately for any specious excuse to not hold them accountable.

This seems to be a common tactic among the more reactive elements of the hard left who do not rely on anything even remotely resembling liberalism as their guiding principle.
 
Again with the irrelevant points I see.

It's not irrelevant. You cannot hold Afghanistan responsible for what others did. If you or he wants to argue it was correct to invade because OBL was there, make that argument. But don't claim Afghanistan or the Taliban was responsible for 9/11. They simply were not.
 
It is only a different issue for those looking desperately for any specious excuse to not hold them accountable.

This seems to be a common tactic among the more reactive elements of the hard left who do not rely on anything even remotely resembling liberalism as their guiding principle.


Accountable for what? They did not attack us, period. If you really want to hold those responsible accountable, you'd look at Pakistan. They didn't attack us either, but the link is far stronger.
 
Accountable for what? They did not attack us, period. If you really want to hold those responsible accountable, you'd look at Pakistan. They didn't attack us either, but the link is far stronger.

Accountable for harboring the terrorist organization that attacked us and providing them material aid .

Duh!


You certainly do go to extreme lengths to avoid processing the world through a liberal perspective, don't you?
 
Accountable for harboring the terrorist organization that attacked us and providing them material aid .

Duh!


You certainly do go to extreme lengths to avoid processing the world through a liberal perspective, don't you?

Then argue that. And realize, by that standard, we have a lot of countries to invade. But don't say Afghanistan attacked us or was responsible for 9/11. That argument is factually incorrect.
 
It's not irrelevant. You cannot hold Afghanistan responsible for what others did. If you or he wants to argue it was correct to invade because OBL was there, make that argument. But don't claim Afghanistan or the Taliban was responsible for 9/11. They simply were not.


We held the taliban responsible for allowing al qaeda to fester, and for them to harbor and protect AQ. again, you are being irrelevant, in an attempt to split hairs.
 
oh, and a soldier in the field carries a copy of the Geneva Convention at all times, and uses it to decide which enemy gets to surrender and be held as a POW, and which one should have his head blown off?

the fact is that it takes a bit of homework to declare someone a true unlawful combatent.

The average soldier in the field has a far greater understanding of the contents of the Geneva convention than you do, apparently. Are you under the impression that the average soldier is scooped off the street, given a gun and sent to Afghanistan the next day?
 
oh, and a soldier in the field carries a copy of the Geneva Convention at all times, and uses it to decide which enemy gets to surrender and be held as a POW, and which one should have his head blown off?

the fact is that it takes a bit of homework to declare someone a true unlawful combatent.



No, but he is trained on it, in Basic and afterwords.
 
The Taliban weren't responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Afghanistan didn't attack us at all. Just to make sure you know, those who attacked us came from mostly SA. Money for it came from SA and Pakistan. It's a large leap to link Afghanistan to 9/11.

The Taliban enabled those that were by harboring them. That, in the least is conspiracy...of course they are responsible. If you think it's a large leap to link Afghanistan to 9/11 then you should recuse yourself from this discussion. And any other regarding foreign affairs/policy...and perhaps anything relying on logic.
 
We held the taliban responsible for allowing al qaeda to fester, and for them to harbor and protect AQ. again, you are being irrelevant, in an attempt to split hairs.

Again, argue that. And realize that a standard like that means a whole lot of invading.

You interrupted a discussion about facts. You don't dispute the facts, but go to another issue. You then call a factual point irrelevant. Do you really think you're contributing much here?
 
Again, argue that. And realize that a standard like that means a whole lot of invading.

except the taliban enabled a group that killed 3000 people on 911, then protected them.... So, you would be wrong.


You interrupted a discussion about facts. You don't dispute the facts, but go to another issue. You then call a factual point irrelevant. Do you really think you're contributing much here?


More so than you, kid. Perhaps you can tell us how the military is full of criminals and dumbasses again, brother.
 
The Taliban enabled those that were by harboring them. That, in the least is conspiracy...of course they are responsible. If you think it's a large leap to link Afghanistan to 9/11 then you should recuse yourself from this discussion. And any other regarding foreign affairs/policy...and perhaps anything relying on logic.

For other things, maybe. But they had no hand in 9/11. No one who attacked us was from Afghanistan. No money for it came from Afghanistan. So, there isn't even any conspiracy. The Taliban only dealt with things on a local level with no outward concerns at all. And now that we've invaded, look at the cost. Can you show gain?

However, that's another issue. The simple point is, the Taliban did not attack us.
 
except the taliban enabled a group that killed 3000 people on 911, then protected them.... So, you would be wrong.


No, they did not. They had no connection to that at all. None. They neither planed it nor had the power to stop it. There is no connection.


More so than you, kid. Perhaps you can tell us how the military is full of criminals and dumbasses again, brother.

Now you throw in something I never said? Like your friend, you make too many leaps. Is it so hard to address what was actually said?
 
The Taliban enabled those that were by harboring them. That, in the least is conspiracy...of course they are responsible. If you think it's a large leap to link Afghanistan to 9/11 then you should recuse yourself from this discussion. And any other regarding foreign affairs/policy...and perhaps anything relying on logic.

Just as there are right wing fundamentalists who rely on religious dogma for their points of view, so too are there leftist fundamentalists who adhere to dogma every bit as rigid and unquestioned. This dogma may not have been written down in a book, but its practitioners are just as mindlessly conformist as their religious counterparts.

The formation of rational belief systems has no place in either.
 
No, they did not. They had no connection to that at all. None. They neither planed it nor had the power to stop it. There is no connection.


/facepalm


"After the Sudanese made it clear, in May 1996, that bin Laden would never be welcome to return,[clarification needed] Taliban-controlled Afghanistan—with previously established connections between the groups, administered with a shared militancy,[107] and largely isolated from American political influence and military power—provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to relocate its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
While in Afghanistan, the Taliban government tasked al-Qaeda with the training of Brigade 055, an elite part of the Taliban's army from 1997–2001. The Brigade was made up of mostly foreign fighters, many veterans from the Soviet Invasion, and all under the same basic ideology of the mujahideen. In November 2001, as Operation Enduring Freedom had toppled the Taliban government, many Brigade 055 fighters were captured or killed, and those that survived were thought to head into Pakistan along with bin Laden.[108]"

al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But you keep making excuses for them.


Now you throw in something I never said? Like your friend, you make too many leaps. Is it so hard to address what was actually said?


Right, you made a stupid statement about how we are bringing more soldiers in on waivers..... which unless you can prove that the soldiers in this instance were enlisted via waiver, serves no purpose other than to disparage those who serve. despicable.
 
Back
Top Bottom