US detainees to get Geneva rights

[nonconformist]

I'm sure there are other people who qualify as terrorists, who aren't Al Qaeda.

The soldiers?

Try God. I'd suggest you have your evidence in order, before suing, though, He doesn't like it when people exaggerate their case.

Nah, he's about as powerdul as the UN.

But wait - if Americans are the evil oppressors invading poor, helpless Iraq, why don't these freedom fighters actually, you know, fight for freedom instead of just killing civilians?

By killing civilians, they just show themselves for the monsters that they are.

Like I said, most Insurgents condemn attacks on civilians.
The majority are concentrated on American and Coalition forces (who they are grinding down).
Anyway, what difference is there betwen a monster who blows people up with a truckbomb, and one who does so with an Abrahams?
Well, one of them's dying, I suppose.

 

[FredLC]

Not quite. I would say that there is a difference between "murdering" someone and "killing" someone - don't laugh - murdering someone is always killing them, but killing them is not always murder. This is actually the dictionary definition:

I actually do not laught at this, nor am I surprised with this response - the usual one with which religious folk will usually make sense of their support of the death penalty and the ten commandments.

Still, what some - you too, apparently - feels to be an convincing argument (or at least useful rethoric) is, IMHO, nothing to but a way to dodge the fact that you too give life relative value (even liking absolute credit, like portraying as "pro-lifers"), and feel in a certain circunstances it can be lifted.

Murder is murder, killing is killing. I consider both the same when the dying one is a human being (this being the only real difference of the terms), but even if i didn't, both would still be wrong.

Regards .

 

[malclave]

No, you invaded their, country, you're the agressor, tey have the right, and the duty to fight.

Even though the Coalition is present in Iraq at the Iraqi government's request and U.N. approval?

 

[Elrohir]

The soldiers?

Nice job slandering the honorable men and women who keep you safe.

Nah, he's about as powerdul as the UN.

The UN must have gained omnipotence in the past few minutes. Or maybe that statement was just plain wrong.

Like I said, most Insurgents condemn attacks on civilians.
The majority are concentrated on American and Coalition forces (who they are grinding down).
Anyway, what difference is there betwen a monster who blows people up with a truckbomb, and one who does so with an Abrahams?
Well, one of them's dying, I suppose.

First, do you have evidence that the majority of the insurgents in Iraq are opposed to attacks on civilians? Second, the difference is the guy who blows people up with a truckbomb is a terrorist targeting civilians, while the guy in the Abraham's is a soldier targeting terrorists, not civilians. Is the difference that hard to comprehend?

I actually do not laught at this, nor am I surprised with this response - the usual one with which religious folk will usually make sense of their support of the death penalty and the ten commandments.

Still, what some - you too, apparently - feels to be an convincing argument (or at least useful rethoric) is, IMHO, nothing to but a way to dodge the fact that you too give life relative value (even liking absolute credit, like portraying as "pro-lifers"), and feel in a certain circunstances it can be lifted.

Murder is murder, killing is killing. I consider both the same when the dying one is a human being (this being the only real difference of the terms), but even if i didn't, both would still be wrong.

Regards .

So all killing is wrong? If a man lunges at you with a knife, and you shoot him dead, is that the moral equivalent of the man who shoots another dead in the street for his watch? Do you really believe that?

The first is a justified killing. The second is murder. Do you seriously pretend that there is no difference between them?

 

[Tulkas12]

Even though the Coalition is present in Iraq at the Iraqi government's request and U.N. approval?

This is a damn good point, not only that there are all sorts of flaws with your arguments non-conformist. You sited a 10% of civilian stat that you never properly supported. It is not required that you put a legit news link, but its going to be ignored if you don't. Your logic that they have a duty to kill americans is absurd as well. 2000 Americans have died vs. what 30,000 iraqis? Whose killing all of the Iraqis? Us? They are so busy killing each other (the real reason all of these people are dying), they barely have time for us. So much for duty.

I'm assuming you never supported the war, and that you can't ever possiby see any beneficial effects from this war.

FredLC: You never sited me a law, still waiting. Also the bible is pretty clear about murder/killing, so there isn't a hypocrisy there. You may percieve it as such but nevertheless you'd be wrong. Finally, life does have a value, this is just a fact. You can't even begin to say that nothing is worth fighting for, we must fight sometimes.

A correction to one of my earlier posts: Siting a law that misleading the UN in a cause to support the war is irrelevant as their is no evidence of that anyways. I'm trying to stick closely to facts only.

 

[warpus]

CITED

with a c

//carry on
//was driving me insane

 

[malclave]

(I know what you mean, warpus... though I also agree with the point about citing sites so we can read them with our own sight)

 

[nonconformist]

Nice job slandering the honorable men and women who keep you safe.

Keep us safe?
They're not keeping us safe, they're making us targets

'Till we invaded Iraq, Britain hadn't been attacked in 10 years.....and back then, it war the Irish

The UN must have gained omnipotence in the past few minutes. Or maybe that statement was just plain wrong.

You're right....the UN actually exists.

First, do you have evidence that the majority of the insurgents in Iraq are opposed to attacks on civilians? Second, the difference is the guy who blows people up with a truckbomb is a terrorist targeting civilians, while the guy in the Abraham's is a soldier targeting terrorists, not civilians. Is the difference that hard to comprehend?

The major factions (Baathists, Shia Army, Kurds, Communists) have all gone on record condemning civilian attacks.

Themamjority of attack in Iraq don't target civilians, they result in civilian deaths.
The US army's complete and utter recklessness and lack of respect for the civilian population is the result of just as many deaths.
What's the standard tactics?
Well, you fire off some Abrahams rounds into any buildings. If they're civlians, well tough, if they're insurgents GO USA!
Then, that's followed up by LAV fire. LAV uses 20mm autocannon fire, which tears everything apart.
Then, you fire LAWs and MUTTs into buildings.

This is after the whole place's been completely artilleried and bombed to **** by airplanes.

So all killing is wrong? If a man lunges at you with a knife, and you shoot him dead, is that the moral equivalent of the man who shoots another dead in the street for his watch? Do you really believe that?

The first is a justified killing. The second is murder. Do you seriously pretend that there is no difference between them?

If a man steps into my country to invade, I will kill him. That's justified.
If I walk into another man's country and killl him, I'm a murderer.

 

[nonconformist]

This is a damn good point, not only that there are all sorts of flaws with your arguments non-conformist. You sited a 10% of civilian stat that you never properly supported. It is not required that you put a legit news link, but its going to be ignored if you don't. Your logic that they have a duty to kill americans is absurd as well. 2000 Americans have died vs. what 30,000 iraqis? Whose killing all of the Iraqis? Us? They are so busy killing each other (the real reason all of these people are dying), they barely have time for us. So much for duty.

I gave you a source, from the US Department of State, which clearly said 80% of attacks on Iraq are on the Coalition.

 

[FredLC]

So all killing is wrong? If a man lunges at you with a knife, and you shoot him dead, is that the moral equivalent of the man who shoots another dead in the street for his watch? Do you really believe that?

The first is a justified killing. The second is murder. Do you seriously pretend that there is no difference between them?

Of course I do. remember, it is you, not me, who have taken a general position of "murder is murder and that is it". But I do think all killing of human beings is wrong - only that sometimes it may be the smaller evil.

That, right there, is the single, only and unique circunstance in which I accept killing - legitimate defense from an unjust assalt, done in immediate response to an immediate threat. No preemptive killings, no "killings as punishment" arguments, fly with me - either it is a live-or-die situation, or there can be no killing.

Regards .

 

[nonconformist]

Even though the Coalition is present in Iraq at the Iraqi government's request and U.N. approval?

Well, I'm sure the Nazis were in France, protecting from the Communist and Jews at Vichy's request

 

[Elrohir]

Keep us safe?
They're not keeping us safe, they're making us targets

'Till we invaded Iraq, Britain hadn't been attacked in 10 years.....and back then, it war the Irish


You're right....the UN actually exists.


The major factions (Baathists, Shia Army, Kurds, Communists) have all gone on record condemning civilian attacks.

Themamjority of attack in Iraq don't target civilians, they result in civilian deaths.
The US army's complete and utter recklessness and lack of respect for the civilian population is the result of just as many deaths.
What's the standard tactics?
Well, you fire off some Abrahams rounds into any buildings. If they're civlians, well tough, if they're insurgents GO USA!
Then, that's followed up by LAV fire. LAV uses 20mm autocannon fire, which tears everything apart.
Then, you fire LAWs and MUTTs into buildings.

This is after the whole place's been completely artilleried and bombed to **** by airplanes.


If a man steps into my country to invade, I will kill him. That's justified.
If I walk into another man's country and killl him, I'm a murderer.

When you decide that you want to talk rationally, PM me. Right now you're just babbling.

Of course I do. remember, it is you, not me, who have taken a general position of "murder is murder and that is it". But I do think all killing of human beings is wrong - only that sometimes it may be the smaller evil.

That, right there, is the single, only and unique circunstance in which I accept killing - legitimate defense from an unjust assalt, done in immediate response to an immediate threat. No preemptive killings, no "killings as punishment" arguments, fly with me - either it is a live-or-die situation, or there can be no killing.

Regards .

That's where we differ. I would say that the death of any human being is tragic, certainly. It is sad when someone is killed. (Especially if they're an innocent bystander) However, I would not say that killing someone in self-defense is an immoral act; it's self-defense, and justified.

You say you don't believe in killings for "punishment" or "preemptive killings". Well, let's say you were in Dallas, in the year 1963. You find a journal entry by Lee Harvey Oswald talking of his plan to shoot President Kennedy. Horrified, you rush to the scene of the parade, and see Oswald setting up his gun on a neighboring roof. You have a gun, and he won't respond when you yell at him. What do you do? Shoot him, and save the life of another? (Even though he hasn't actually done anything illegal yet?) Or sit there and watch as the President of the US is shot dead when you could have stopped it?

 

[FredLC]

FredLC: You never sited me a law, still waiting. Also the bible is pretty clear about murder/killing, so there isn't a hypocrisy there. You may percieve it as such but nevertheless you'd be wrong. Finally, life does have a value, this is just a fact. You can't even begin to say that nothing is worth fighting for, we must fight sometimes.

A correction to one of my earlier posts: Siting a law that misleading the UN in a cause to support the war is irrelevant as their is no evidence of that anyways. I'm trying to stick closely to facts only.

Nor I will, probably, not at least as a polished "legal article". There is not international congress, and, as I said, international law is based on custons and treaties, not laws "per se" - which does not mean they lack legality (obviously, you can challenge that - but the price for this would be to deny the existence of criminal acts, not only of you, but also of your enemies).

As I said before, you'll have to wait a bit until I have the time and drive for a little research. It will eventually come.

As for the bibles thing, well, I know only one "ten commandments", and it uses only one word. Either it is murder or killing, but either way, there is no elaboration at one being forbidden and the other, permited. Of course, bible is open to interpretation, what allows me to judge you wrong as much as you judge me. Not that it matters, though - I don't recognize any authority in it - I just mentioned it as it is where I heard that argument being used before.

Nonetheless, I doubt that there is any legal article or treaty saying that "misleading the UN is illegal". There probably will be some stating principles of chivalry and good relations between international entities, what rules out acceptance of intentional misinformation, but I know you honestly think these people truly believed in WMD and were shocked when they were not found. A judge/jury has the authority to weight how likely an argument of that is to being true, but none is at that position regarding this case, so I won't waste time debating someone else's intentions.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

That's where we differ. I would say that the death of any human being is tragic, certainly. It is sad when someone is killed. (Especially if they're an innocent bystander) However, I would not say that killing someone in self-defense is an immoral act; it's self-defense, and justified.

Well, my friend, the killing "per se" is wrong (notice that I use "rong", not "immoral"), but it can be excused by circunstances. Welcome to the wonderful world of moral relativity - which is, by the way, the stance I defend.

You say you don't believe in killings for "punishment" or "preemptive killings". Well, let's say you were in Dallas, in the year 1963. You find a journal entry by Lee Harvey Oswald talking of his plan to shoot President Kennedy. Horrified, you rush to the scene of the parade, and see Oswald setting up his gun on a neighboring roof. You have a gun, and he won't respond when you yell at him. What do you do? Shoot him, and save the life of another? (Even though he hasn't actually done anything illegal yet?) Or sit there and watch as the President of the US is shot dead when you could have stopped it?

Careful here. Legitimate defense is not an institute applicable exclusivelly to your own self, but also to others unfairly endangered in your surrounds. My regular reaction would be to warn the authorities of the murder attempt that I knew. If you but me in time pressure so that I don't have means to warn authorities, and have to act on my own, than I'm already covered by "legitimate defense" - and, still, I'd try using non-lethal force - a good hit in the head to render him unconscious, a shot in the leg. Killing him would be my absolute last resource.

Regards .

 

[warpus]

You say you don't believe in killings for "punishment" or "preemptive killings". Well, let's say you were in Dallas, in the year 1963. You find a journal entry by Lee Harvey Oswald talking of his plan to shoot President Kennedy. Horrified, you rush to the scene of the parade, and see Oswald setting up his gun on a neighboring roof. You have a gun, and he won't respond when you yell at him. What do you do? Shoot him, and save the life of another? (Even though he hasn't actually done anything illegal yet?) Or sit there and watch as the President of the US is shot dead when you could have stopped it?

Shooting to kill is not necessary in this situation. Firing a couple shots into the air would do the trick - the secret service would move in to protect the president.

At worst, you could shoot him in the arm, to rattle him and prevent him from being able to aim.

No need to kill.

 

[classical_hero]

This would have been so much easier had they not attacked first.

 

[malclave]

Well, I'm sure the Nazis were in France, protecting from the Communist and Jews at Vichy's request

So, you're no saying that the U.N. is equivalent tot he Vichy regime?

 

[Gladi]

So, you're no saying that the U.N. is equivalent tot he Vichy regime?

Bright day
No, he is saying that certain parties may view Iraqi government as collaboratists.

 

[nonconformist]

So, you're no saying that the U.N. is equivalent tot he Vichy regime?

I'm saying that the new Iraqi government has as much legitimacy as the Vichy regime.

 

[El_Machinae]

Murder is murder, killing is killing. I consider both the same when the dying one is a human being (this being the only real difference of the terms), but even if i didn't, both would still be wrong.

I believe that people have an actual right to self-defense, and thus are allowed to defend themselves using the minimally-needed force. IF the minimally-needed force results in someone dying, I don't consider it murder.

If my only resource that's sufficient to stop a home invasion is a pistol, then I may use it (assuming alternatives are insufficient). However, if I could choose the shoot the leg instead of the chest, I would have to shoot the leg; shooting the chest would be murder. However, if I have no option to shoot except lethaly, then it would not be murder.

I set the standard around the minimum force required to protect oneself.